Authority of the Husband in the Home

November 10, 2015

Lets take this section by section. Gary Chapman most certainly did make a blanket statement about covenants and how they differ from contracts. It was across the board. He never said that in most instances they are this way, but he simply stated covenants have these 5 things that make them distinct from a contract. The word covenant in the New Testament is diatheke, and it means a contract, covenant, testament. A covenant is a contract, so he is not only wrong on 4 of his 5 points, but also in saying a covenant is different from a contract. I have given examples of how covenants don't fit into his mold.

In regard to the marriage covenant, Shiloh is saying that it is eternal in the sight of God. It doesn't make any difference what either party does, the covenant is permanent. Shiloh said, "Butero is correct in that I did say, in fact, that the marriage covenant is forever. I said that because that is how God looks at it." Even if God will overlook someone who is married and divorced because one person cheated on the other, if you accept what Shiloh is saying, God still sees you as forever in a marriage covenant with that first partner. It doesn't matter if he beat you, cheated on you with your best friend or maybe your own sister. It doesn't matter what he did. If you ever said "I do" and got married, you are forever in a covenant with that person. I don't believe that is the case, but in order to hold to his view that the marriage covenant is forever, Shiloh must hold on to that.

I realize Shiloh has changed some opinions over the years. I am not attempting to hold him to old positions if they have changed. I have no way of knowing when he changed his mind on something. To Shiloh, if I do bring up something you said 6 months or even 2 years ago, and you don't believe that way anymore, just say so. I have changed my mind at times too, and that is understandable.

With regard to viewing pornography, the sin is not looking at porn. You could by chance walk into someone's home and see porn if they are viewing it. The sin is lust. I remember one time going out door to door witnessing, and this man was watching soft porn on Cinemax when I was talking to him. I will never forget it because he was making comments about the woman's body and then telling me about his church. He even proceeded to give me a video of a Baptist preacher. His wife came in a time or two while we were talking and he was watching that movie and didn't seem bothered at all. They were eternal security Baptists, not that it makes any difference. I am just telling you what happened. The point I was making is that you are claiming that this is grounds for divorce, and while I disagree, what I am getting at here is that even if it was, the marriage covenant is eternal. So what if he looked at porn? What if he was on the couch actually cheating with another woman? Maybe God would allow his wife to divorce him, but she would always be in a covenant relationship with him. That is all I am saying.

Next, I want to address covenants. Shiloh claimed that some men don't like covenant teaching when it comes to marriage because he says that when two people are in a covenant, they are equals. That is just not true, and I am going to prove it with Bible examples.

And God said, This is the token of the COVENANT WHICH I MAKE BETWEEN ME AND YOU AND EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT IS WITH YOU, FOR PERPETUAL GENERATIONS. I do set my rainbow in the cloud, AND IT SHALL BE FOR A TOKEN OF A COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND THE EARTH. Genesis 9:12,13

This is a covenant between God and man, the animals, the plants and the earth itself, none of which are close to equal with the one they are in covenant relationship with.

The LORD our God MADE A COVENANT WITH US in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Deut. 5:2,3

This was between God and the children of Israel. They were not equal with God, though they were in covenant relationship with him.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH. Heb. 8:8

Again, the house of Israel and Judah are not equal with God. There are way too many examples of such covenants to list them all, but if you get an exhaustive concordance and look up the word covenant, you can easily see for yourself. Shiloh's covenant teachings are wrong, as are Gary Chapman's and much of his reasons for dismissing scripture is because he is mixing it with this false teaching.

The husband is given absolute authority over his wife. The Bible says the husband shall rule over his wife. Shiloh is mixed up in that he is taking scriptures about how the husband should behave and claiming that this limits his power. That is not true, as the wife is told that she is to submit to a husband who isn't obeying God. That means he isn't following Biblical guidelines. He has the authority to tell her how to dress, how to keep house, who to associate with, anything. Now in saying that, I am not suggesting he should micro-manage everything. There are Biblical guidelines for the husband, but I am only saying his power is that strong.

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, BEING IN SUBJECTION UNTO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS: EVEN AS SARAH OBEYED ABRAHAM, CALLING HIM LORD: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 1 Peter 3:5,6

Shiloh likes to claim the word lord only means a term of respect, but that is not true. There are actually 3 words here that all go hand in hand: Subjection, Obeyed, and Lord. It is almost like God knew there would be some like Shiloh who would try to pervert the meaning, so he said it in three different ways so it would be crystal clear.

subjection- (Greek: hupotacso) subordinate, obey, be under, subject self to

obeyed- (Greek: hupakono) listen attentively to, conform to command or authority, obedient to, obey

lord- (Greek: kurios) supreme in authority, controller, God, Lord, Master, sir

Remember how Shiloh was showing us how you can tell the meaning of a word by it's usage, and how he was doing that with the word translated to help-meet to show the woman isn't inferior. I would like to point out that the word kurios is used in reference to Jesus Christ the Lord throughout the New Testament, not just someone you use a casual sign of respect to. Using Shiloh's method of word usage, it is clear this means the husband is lord of his home, and lord over his wife. Three different words were used in these two verses that show this is the case: subjection, obeyed, lord.

November 10, 2015

Lets take this section by section. Gary Chapman most certainly did make a blanket statement about covenants and how they differ from contracts. It was across the board. He never said that in most instances they are this way, but he simply stated covenants have these 5 things that make them distinct from a contract. The word covenant in the New Testament is diatheke, and it means a contract, covenant, testament. A covenant is a contract, so he is not only wrong on 4 of his 5 points, but also in saying a covenant is different from a contract. I have given examples of how covenants don't fit into his mold.

I guess it would be helpful to go back and reference the article because it is clear that Butero is just working from the values that he wants to assign to Chapman and not what was actually posted. From the article:

“Ours is a contract-oriented society. With a contract, you can be more certain that a person or company will live up to their claims. Many Christian couples take this contract mentality into their marriages. Unfortunately, this kind of marriage stimulates resentment, hurt, and anger and eventually leads some couples to divorce.

Basically, a contract is an agreement between two or more persons signifying that all signing parties will do something. Legally, marriage is a contract with certain rights and responsibilities, but we must distinguish between legal marriage and covenant marriage. In a legal marriage, if one party doesn't live up to the contracts, then legal actions force him or her to do so or to end the marriage with an equitable settlement. A society couldn't exist without laws regulating marriage relationships. So in this sense, marriage is a contract. However, for a Christian, marriage is more than this. It's also a covenant.

The problem arises when you view your marriage only as a contract or as a series of contracts. When this happens, you will have become secular in your thinking and have abandoned the biblical view of marriage. The Bible views marriage ultimately as a covenant, although contracts may be an important part of carrying out your covenant.

There are four general characteristics of contracts:”

I want you to note two things in that article. He doesn’t not deny that there is a modern contractual value to marriage. He says so above. But he doesn’t stop there. He says that it is more than that; it is a covenant. He draws a clear distinction between the value of a mere contract and the value of a covenant. The Bible clearly teaches that marriage is a covenant (Mal. 2:14). But even more than that, notice the bolded part. Chapman is making GENERAL statements about the nature of contracts. He then juxtaposes that against the nature of covenants. He is speaking in general, overall terms. He is not saying that every single time the word covenant appears that will look exactly like what he describes in general terms in the article. The same would apply to contracts. He is not saying that every contract is exactly what he describes. He is speaking in general terms.

Your argument against Gary Chapman depends on assigning to him the values that you need his statements to possess so that you have something to knock down because you can’t address the substance of the article. You want to engage the article based on what you have assigned to Chapman. It is an unfair and dishonest debate tactic and you would not allow someone to get away with doing that to you, if you were on the receiving end of that. You cannot argue that he is saying that every covenant that is made in the Bible looks like exactly like what he describes and that he makes no room for exceptions, because that is clearly not the case. But that is what you have to assign to him, in order for you to reject the article. You can’t refute the article if it is admitted that he isn’t making blanket statements from which, there is no variance, or about which, no exceptions are made.

In regard to the marriage covenant, Shiloh is saying that it is eternal in the sight of God. It doesn't make any difference what either party does, the covenant is permanent. Shiloh said, "Butero is correct in that I did say, in fact, that the marriage covenant is forever. I said that because that is how God looks at it." Even if God will overlook someone who is married and divorced because one person cheated on the other, if you accept what Shiloh is saying, God still sees you as forever in a marriage covenant with that first partner. It doesn't matter if he beat you, cheated on you with your best friend or maybe your own sister. It doesn't matter what he did. If you ever said "I do" and got married, you are forever in a covenant with that person. I don't believe that is the case, but in order to hold to his view that the marriage covenant is forever, Shiloh must hold on to that.

What I was initially addressing was the pharisaical practice of frivolous marriages where women were divorced for ridiculous reasons simply because the husbands wanted to marry a younger, girl they thought was prettier and so they had numerous loopholes they had created for themselves to give what they saw as legitimate pretexts for divorce. This ended up leaving their wives destitute in many cases and forced them to either enter into what would, scripturally, be invalid marriages, or they had to likely become beggars or prostitutes. Jesus made the statement that only valid reason for divorce was marital infidelity in Matt. 5:32. The only other valid cause for divorce according to Scripture is if a believer is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever abandons the other person (I. Cor. 7: 15). Those are the only explicit grounds the Bible provides as a legitimate basis for divorce. I made the point that, scripturally, God sees marriages as eternal covenants and you completely ignored the scriptural connection in order to play on the emotions of people who are abused as if I am saying that people who are abused just have to buck up and take it and they have no hope.

I did not say, nor did anything I say come even close to saying that if your spouse is unfaithful to you that you are forever married and it doesn’t matter what he/she did. That was never in my post and you are being dishonest in how you frame my argument. I said that unfaithfulness was a concession that God made and that unfaithfulness is does invalidate the marriage covenant. It is the exception God made. I never said that it doesn’t matter what the other person did. You are accusing me of something that is simply not true. But even if your spouse was unfaithful, divorce should not be the first and only course of action. Biblically, there should be an attempt at restoration and healing, which admittedly, isn’t a short, nor easy process. If people viewed marriage as an eternal covenant for which they are accountable to God, they would probably work much harder at staying faithful in the first place, and if they are the victim of infidelity, they would work harder and pray harder in seeking restoration.

What I also said, which you conveniently ignored is that I said that no one has to remain in an abusive relationship. I said that people can separate and that God’s desire is repentance from the offending spouse. No one has to remain in a home that is unsafe. If you can find a non-emotional, biblically valid reason for divorce beyond what the Bible says, then by all means, provide it. God wants marriages restored because he does see covenants as forever and that includes the marriage covenant. Our “contract” oriented society sees marriage as contract that can be breached and when breached, dissolved. God doesn’t see it that way. God is in the healing and restoration business. God wants, ultimately, to restore marriages and that is because he looks at marriage as an eternal covenant.

And for us, that’s a good thing. What if God didn’t look at covenants as eternal? What if God saw promises as being made to be broken? What if God decided that He no longer wanted to offer salvation and decided to revoke the New Covenant, which he cut in the blood of Jesus? What if God saw this as a contract and nothing more and saw no real reasons to keep his promises anymore? What kind of shape would we be in. The fact that God views the New Covenant as eternal and the fact that God does this in spite of the fact that we have been unfaithful to him on numerous occasions, should be an encouragement to us. If God looked at salvation the way we look at marriage, no one would be saved.

The fact that God sees marriage as an eternal covenant is a good thing, not a bad thing. We want God operating in that value system because if God were to ever change his view on the eternal nature of a covenant, we are all going to hell. So I think it is good that God wants us to be faithful and forgiving to our spouse when they don’t deserve it given how we have been on the receiving his faithfulness and forgiveness when we didn’t deserve it.

With regard to viewing pornography, the sin is not looking at porn. You could by chance walk into someone's home and see porn if they are viewing it. The sin is lust. I remember one time going out door to door witnessing, and this man was watching soft porn on Cinemax when I was talking to him. I will never forget it because he was making comments about the woman's body and then telling me about his church. He even proceeded to give me a video of a Baptist preacher. His wife came in a time or two while we were talking and he was watching that movie and didn't seem bothered at all. They were eternal security Baptists, not that it makes any difference. I am just telling you what happened. The point I was making is that you are claiming that this is grounds for divorce, and while I disagree, what I am getting at here is that even if it was, the marriage covenant is eternal. So what if he looked at porn? What if he was on the couch actually cheating with another woman? Maybe God would allow his wife to divorce him, but she would always be in a covenant relationship with him. That is all I am saying.

With regard to pornography, I think Butero is smart enough to understand that I was not talking about the accidental viewing something pornographic. I think we all know that I was referring to the intentional use of pornography for sexual gratification. I mean, come on… That is so apparent in what I said about it that it is inexcusable and inexplicable why Butero would raise that argument.

Yes, the intentional use of pornography IS grounds for divorce because it is using other women to gain the kind of satisfaction that you should only receive from your wife. If someone is intentionally using pornography, they are essentially saying their wife is not enough and that you must seek out other women to get you to that place. It is fundamentally no different than if the woman was physically in the room with you. It is not only a sin, but a violation of the marital covenant and counts as marital infidelity. Because marital infidelity violates the marital covenant, his infidelity would mean that in God’s eyes, the marriage can be terminated and his wife would no longer be considered his wife, biblically. That is the concession that God has allowed. It is not his perfect will, it is not what he wants, but he will allow it.

Next, I want to address covenants. Shiloh claimed that some men don't like covenant teaching when it comes to marriage because he says that when two people are in a covenant, they are equals. That is just not true, and I am going to prove it with Bible examples.

I addressed this issue already and Butero just brushes over it like I never said anything about this at all. I said that our covenants with God are obviously not between equals. I already acknowledged that and Butero clearly did not read my posts because had read what I wrote, he would have noticed that I clearly stated:

“Number two, we are in relationship with God, but not as equals. That is true. But that is a vertical relationship and cannot be compared to the horizontal marriage covenant. There is no “one-to-one” comparison between our relationship with God and marriage. There are some similarities, there is some imagery that can be drawn on, but it would be foolish for me or anyone to suggest that there is a 100% mirrored identical comparison between marriage and our relationship and fellowship with God.”

That is what said in my previous response and evidently, Butero is just more interested in reacting to what he thinks I said, that he doesn’t take the time to read the response and respond to what was written. Butero is responding to the words he puts in my mouth, and not my actual posting. I spend more time having to go back and reframe my own words because Butero has nothing better to do than twist what I say, and pull my comments out of context.

To say that we are equals with God is like saying, “the grass is green.” Of course we are not equals with God, but neither are we in covenant with God. The marriage covenant is a horizontal covenant that draws on the values of an eternal covenant, which is kind of covenants that God employs. That is why it is entirely different than a mere contract which, by nature is temporal.

The husband is given absolute authority over his wife. The Bible says the husband shall rule over his wife. Shiloh is mixed up in that he is taking scriptures about how the husband should behave and claiming that this limits his power. That is not true, as the wife is told that she is to submit to a husband who isn't obeying God. That means he isn't following Biblical guidelines. He has the authority to tell her how to dress, how to keep house, who to associate with, anything. Now in saying that, I am not suggesting he should micro-manage everything. There are Biblical guidelines for the husband, but I am only saying his power is that strong.

I never said anything about the Bible limiting the power or authority of the husband. I said that it regulates his behavior toward his wife. If you have a wife who is truly submitted to her husband and a husband who fully committed to serving his wife and providing for all he needs, then there is no need for a controlling dictatorial marriage model. The biblical model for marriage laid out in the New Testament lays out the parameters for how people should behave in a marriage and if those parameters are adhered to your silly “absolute authority” garbage is simply just that, garbage.

In a truly godly marriage, the husband would be able to trust his wife to do dress modestly, and to be a godly wife and please her husband because for her, she is actually seeking to please the Lord. It’s only in a marriage where there is no trust, where the husband thinks his wife is too stupid to know how to dress or what time to cook dinner or how to clean house.

Shiloh likes to claim the word lord only means a term of respect, but that is not true.

Yeah, I didn’t say that. I said that it is used in some contexts as a term of respect. I didn’t say that only means a term of respect. It is really getting old having to go back and correct your misrepresentations of my claims.

There are actually 3 words here that all go hand in hand: Subjection, Obeyed, and Lord. It is almost like God knew there would be some like Shiloh who would try to pervert the meaning, so he said it in three different ways so it would be crystal clear.

I haven’t tried to pervert the meaning of anything. I am talking about a word is used, not what it means. You seem to keep confusing that point. You apparently conceive of the difference between a definition and application. I am speaking to how words are used in specific contexts. You want to apply broad definitions because your argument can’t be supported by contexts and applications of words and how that works particularly when comparing Scripture for Scripture. You only want to talk about what words mean, not how they are applied, because it’s in the application phase that your argument completely falls apart.

Remember how Shiloh was showing us how you can tell the meaning of a word by it's usage, and how he was doing that with the word translated to help-meet to show the woman isn't inferior. I would like to point out that the word kurios is used in reference to Jesus Christ the Lord throughout the New Testament, not just someone you use a casual sign of respect to. Using Shiloh's method of word usage, it is clear this means the husband is lord of his home, and lord over his wife. Three different words were used in these two verses that show this is the case: subjection, obeyed, lord.

The problem is that you ignore different usages because you want a word to mean what you need it to mean to make your argument. You ignore when it is used as a sign of respect and you assign a one-dimensional interpretation to it, whenever it suits you. In the example of Sarah, it was used as a terms of respect, but you were using it to support your notion that “Lord” means “master” in order to support the idea that the husband is master of his wife and you and others have tried to compare the obedience of a slave as analogous to the obedience of a wife to husband (lord and master). It’s an example of the sloppy exegesis and sloppy theology I referenced earlier.

You draw from the Strong’s Concordance because you have no skill in the original languages and even the Strong’s concordance lists kurios as “sir.” Strong’s concordance is an exhaustive concordance. That means that when it give you definitions, it gives all of them, exhaustively. It doesn’t mean that all of those meanings apply to a word whenever it is used. It doesn’t supply the contexts for each of those meanings. An analytical dictionary does. There are more Bible dictionaries out there that provide a more detailed discussion of which meanings apply to which passages how the contexts shape the way the word is used. But you rely on Strong’s and it is was never meant to be a stand-alone resource with regard to the original languages. You clearly don’t know how to do genuine word studies.

November 11, 2015

There are so many problems with Shiloh's last post, I could drive a truck through them. The only reason Gary Chapman's article held any weight at all in helping Shiloh's position is if all covenants were as Gary Chapman claimed they were. If we now are to look at it and admit that all covenants don't fit into that neat little box, then the whole thing is null and void. It means nothing. The whole argument Shiloh was making was that since marriage is a covenant, and it is different from a contract in the ways Gary Chapman stated, certain verses cannot mean what they appear to mean, regarding things like a husband ruling over his wife. If there can be exceptions, this is a game changer.

Shiloh was claiming that a marriage covenant was eternal in the sight of God, no exceptions. Now he is claiming that if marital infidelity took place, it is not eternal. This completely makes Shiloh's covenant teaching of no value. He was defending Gary Chapman and how he said covenants were eternal, so Shiloh said the marriage covenant is eternal, but God would still allow for divorce if someone was unfaithful. Allowing the divorce to take place and extending grace doesn't make the covenant null and void if it is eternal. It just means God is letting you slide on being in more than one marriage covenant at a time.

I never once said that Shiloh told anyone to remain in an abusive relationship. He said they can separate, but not re-marry, which would also be my position. I am just limiting abuse to physical abuse, but we both agree that in extreme cases of abuse, separation would make sense. The question is over re-marriage and whether or not you are in a permanent state of adultery if you get re-married if fornication didn't take place. In other words, is the original marriage covenant still in effect? I put it to you Shiloh. Would that person be in a permanent state of adultery if they get re-married? I may agree with you. I would have to see what your position is before stating one way or the other, but it appeared to me you are saying that in the sight of God, they remain in a covenant relationship with the abusive spouse. Am I wrong? Just let me know.

You claimed we were in a relationship with God but not a covenant with God. Big difference, because you claimed that in a covenant, both parties are equal. The moment you admit that both parties aren't necessarily equal, your arguments go down the drain. You claimed that God was not in a covenant with us, but was in a covenant with his Son Jesus Christ. A relationship is not necessarily a covenant so your quote means nothing. I didn't misrepresent anything. Next, you come back and say in your last post, "Of course we are not equals with God, but neither are we in covenant with God." I gave scripture that shows we are in covenant with God, and so are the animals, the plants and the earth itself. You are all over the place.

You have been giving different standards of word usage to fit your agenda. You want to show how the word translated help-meet is widely used to support your claim the wife is equal to her husband, but you want to ignore how the word translated to rule is used as well as how the word translated to Lord is used. In the case of the word Lord, you want to ignore how it is used and revert to the last word in the definition, sir. You want one standard in one place and another standard in another place. You are twisting things any way you can to pervert the true meaning. Anyone can see that. We either are going to pay attention to word usage in all places or no places. I am not letting you get away with that kind of slight of hand. By the way, subjected, obeyed and Lord are three different words from three different Greek words. You conveniently left the individual definitions out. That supports my position as to what the intent was.

You claim there are Dictionaries out there with more detailed word usage. How about providing them as sources? How about giving us the name of those Dictionaries, the same Greek words, and their definitions in those Dictionaries. Then I can get a copy myself and verify what you are saying. I gave my source. What is yours? You knock my Greek Dictionary and you don't give your Dictionaries so we can see if they really show this huge difference. What are the differences Shiloh? Here are some you can look up in those superior Dictionaries, and I will be checking them out myself to confirm what you say and the reliability of them.

hupotasso- to subordinate, to obey, to be under obedience, put under, subdue unto, subject to, unto, be in subjection to, submit self to.

hupakouo- To listen attentively, to heed or conform to a command or authority, hearken, be obedient to, obey.

kurios- Supreme in authority, controller, God, Lord, Master, sir.

Are you going to deny this is the correct meaning of these words or just criticize me for using a stand alone source? What say your Dictionaries, and lets see how different they are, or if they are different? You are great at criticizing sources without telling us what your sources are. In addition, I am not letting you get away with another slight of hand. I want to once again show the way these verses are in context.

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, BEING IN SUBJECTION UNTO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS. EVEN AS SARA OBEYED ABRAHAM, CALLING HIM LORD. 1 Peter 3:5,6

This is the actual text, not the definition. The words subjection, obeyed and Lord all come up in those two verses, making it clear that the meaning of Lord is not sir. Not only that, but the word translated to Lord is the same word that is used to describe Jesus Christ the Lord. Again, here comes that word usage thing that was so important to you in showing the wife was not created to be a sidekick. It doesn't work so good for you here does it Shiloh?

Wives, SUBMIT YOURSELVES UNTO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS, AS UNTO THE LORD. Ephesians 5:22

The word translated to Lord here is the word kurios, the same word referencing Abraham being Sarah's Lord. Again, word usage. I didn't come up with that argument. You did, but I am sure going to use it. The word translated to submit is hupotasso. Again, I can't wait to see how different your Dictionaries are from Strong's, and for you to give the sources.

You said, "I never said anything about the Bible limiting the power or the authority of the husband. I said it regulates his behavior towards his wife."

What I have said is that not all men will obey the Bible, and that doesn't give the wife any excuse for not obeying their disobedient husbands. You just came out and said that you never said anything about the Bible limiting the power or the authority of the husband. That means he can ask anything of his wife because the Bible doesn't limit his power or authority. The question comes in as to how he should rule his wife, which is for another discussion, and clearly not all men will agree on this. I have had supervisors that were great to work under because they were nice to the employees and I have had tyrants. I had to obey them all because they all had the rule over me. Their authority was the same, and the same thing applies in the home. The good and the tyrannical husbands both have the rule over their wives, and while most would prefer to have a husband that is good, they are required to obey their husband regardless, even to the point of submitting to non-believers. If you would ever come out and admit that the wife is required to obey a tyrant of a husband, there would be no serious disagreement, because I have never said the husband should be a tyrant. I am only arguing how much authority he has.

November 11, 2015

There are so many problems with Shiloh's last post, I could drive a truck through them. The only reason Gary Chapman's article held any weight at all in helping Shiloh's position is if all covenants were as Gary Chapman claimed they were. If we now are to look at it and admit that all covenants don't fit into that neat little box, then the whole thing is null and void. It means nothing. The whole argument Shiloh was making was that since marriage is a covenant, and it is different from a contract in the ways Gary Chapman stated, certain verses cannot mean what they appear to mean, regarding things like a husband ruling over his wife. If there can be exceptions, this is a game changer.

All covenants that God made are exactly of the nature that Chapman represents them to be. It’s not the case that everyone who ever made a covenant in the Bible, made it to look like what Gary Chapman demonstrated them to be like. And again, Chapman was making a generalized characterization of the differences between a contract and a covenant. Butero cannot find one of God’s covenants that doesn’t fit what Gary Chapman was describing because it’s God’s covenants that are the model Chapman is using to describe the nature of a marriage covenant.

Shiloh was claiming that a marriage covenant was eternal in the sight of God, no exceptions. Now he is claiming that if marital infidelity took place, it is not eternal. This completely makes Shiloh's covenant teaching of no value. He was defending Gary Chapman and how he said covenants were eternal, so Shiloh said the marriage covenant is eternal, but God would still allow for divorce if someone was unfaithful. Allowing the divorce to take place and extending grace doesn't make the covenant null and void if it is eternal. It just means God is letting you slide on being in more than one marriage covenant at a time.

No, I never said it was eternal, no exceptions. It still is eternal. My position hasn’t changed. What I am speaking to is nature of a covenant. “Eternal” doesn’t mean that it can’t be violated. Violating an eternal covenant doesn’t make the covenant no longer eternal from God’s vantage point. Infidelity was a concession God made for divorce to protect the woman. It doesn’t make the marital covenant something that it wasn’t before. It is precisely because it is an eternal covenant, that God’s plan is about marriage restoration. God’s concession for divorce isn’t necessarily so that you can go out and get remarried to someone else, but that your marriage be restored. God’s perfect will is that divorce never happen at all, but if infidelity takes place, God will allow for a divorce, but even then it is His will that the marriage be restored, that the offending party or parties both repent and seek to restore and re-marry. That’s the issue from God’s covenant perspective.

I never once said that Shiloh told anyone to remain in an abusive relationship. He said they can separate, but not re-marry, which would also be my position. I am just limiting abuse to physical abuse, but we both agree that in extreme cases of abuse, separation would make sense. The question is over re-marriage and whether or not you are in a permanent state of adultery if you get re-married if fornication didn't take place. In other words, is the original marriage covenant still in effect? I put it to you Shiloh. Would that person be in a permanent state of adultery if they get re-married? I may agree with you. I would have to see what your position is before stating one way or the other, but it appeared to me you are saying that in the sight of God, they remain in a covenant relationship with the abusive spouse. Am I wrong? Just let me know.

You are limiting abuse to physical abuse, but that is not correct. Mental and emotional abuse are just as debilitating, and traumatic as physical abuse and the wounds go deeper than physical wounds from being knocked around.

There are two explicit concessions the Bible makes for divorce. One relates to infidelity. The other does not. Matt. 5:32 states that it is only for infidelity that divorce is permissible, but Jesus was speaking to the issue of frivolous divorces. He was not speaking to the issue of spousal abuse, or child molestation, or a myriad of other reasons that people get divorced that are not frivolous at all. The other concession that the Bible makes is if a believer is married to a nonbeliever and the nonbeliever abandons the marriage (I Cor. 7:15). So there is at least one case where divorce is allowed where no fornication took place. In neither case, would a person be an adulterer for getting married to a different person if the marriages are simply irreconcilable. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the marriage is dissolved on God’s end. It simply means that he is not holding it against anyone who re-marries in those situations.

So what about someone who got divorced because of financial reasons, or because of abuse (all kinds) or because one spouse has molested/abused one of the children? This goes back to what I said before about marriage restoration. Obviously a person needs to separate in some conditions when one spouse is just impossible to live with and cannot be tolerated. God does not expect us to be door mats and live in mentally, emotionally, or physically abusive situations and must certainly separate if one spouse’s behavior puts the children at risk. God’s plan is that reconciliation take place, as I have already said. But sadly, sometimes that is not possible. One statistic I read a few years ago from Focus on the Family is that in 70% of the cases, only one spouse wanted the divorce. The other was willing to reconcile, but the other person was unwilling and that is heart breaking.

So if a person is divorced for a reason outside of fornication, are they adulterers if they remarry a different person? Based on Matt. 5:32? The statement Jesus’ made regarding that, was in the context of a discussion about frivolous divorces. Pharisees were divorcing their wives so they could be with other women and Jesus was calling THAT adultery. Jesus was not making a blanket statement about marriage and divorce. He was speaking to a particular issue and so for that reason, my answer would like be no, on the grounds that there are legitimate grounds for divorce that have nothing to do with marital infidelity. The first step should always be reconciliation. That’s God’s perfect will in the matter of divorce.

The Bible doesn’t address every possible scenario that we can find ourselves in. The Bible doesn’t directly address things, like suicide, drug abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse/molestation, and other sins we could possibly commit. If it attempted to anticipate every situation we could be in, the Bible would be either so big we could not carry it, or it would have more volumes than the Encyclopedia Britannica. What the Bible DOES do, is it gives us what I call, a “behavioral paradigm.” It gives us enough information about God’s standard of righteous behavior and His perspective on life in the light of His character, that we can take things the Bible doesn’t address and examine them in the light of what the Bible does address.

I will only comment on this to say that it is my personal conviction based on how I read Scripture that a person who is the victim of spousal abuse, who has tried to bring reconciliation, but to no avail, has done everything they are responsible to the Lord for doing to restore the marriage, that person is not an adulterer for getting remarried to another person based on the intransigence of the offending party to reconcile. I do not believe the offending party (the abuser) has a valid claim for re-marring a different person under any circumstance. I look at the victim different than I do the offender. I would apply that to mental, emotional and physical abuse of a spouse, and the couple’s child or children.

You claimed we were in a relationship with God but not a covenant with God. Big difference, because you claimed that in a covenant, both parties are equal. The moment you admit that both parties aren't necessarily equal, your arguments go down the drain. You claimed that God was not in a covenant with us, but was in a covenant with his Son Jesus Christ. A relationship is not necessarily a covenant so your quote means nothing. I didn't misrepresent anything. Next, you come back and say in your last post, "Of course we are not equals with God, but neither are we in covenant with God." I gave scripture that shows we are in covenant with God, and so are the animals, the plants and the earth itself. You are all over the place.

What I said was that the New Covenant is not a covenant between man and God. It is a covenant between the Father and Jesus and we are the benefactors of that covenant. We receive the blessings of the covenant that is made essentially between God and Himself.

My argument does not “go down the drain” because we are not in a covenant with God and even though we are in relationship with God, I clearly stated that it is not a relationship of equals. We are in a vertical relationship with God where He is clearly superior and we are inferior. But that cannot be applied to horizontal relationships, necessarily and especially not marriage. Both the husband and wife are made in God’s image and his likeness and both share in God’s communicable attributes. There is nothing about the marital covenant that makes a wife inferior to her husband. The Bible teaches no such thing. And no we are not in covenant with God. God is not obligated to us at all.

You have been giving different standards of word usage to fit your agenda. You want to show how the word translated help-meet is widely used to support your claim the wife is equal to her husband, but you want to ignore how the word translated to rule is used as well as how the word translated to Lord is used. In the case of the word Lord, you want to ignore how it is used and revert to the last word in the definition, sir. You want one standard in one place and another standard in another place. You are twisting things any way you can to pervert the true meaning. Anyone can see that. We either are going to pay attention to word usage in all places or no places. I am not letting you get away with that kind of slight of hand. By the way, subjected, obeyed and Lord are three different words from three different Greek words. You conveniently left the individual definitions out. That supports my position as to what the intent was.

I will address each accusation in turn:

I am not offering different standards for word usage from one word to the other. I am applying the same rules for every instance of word usage.
My application of the usage of ezer for helper actually complements and agrees with my application of “rule.” I don’t know how you claim I use a different standard. In fact, I would argue that “ezer” defies “rule” to mean, “iron-fisted governance” the way you interpret that word. In fact, in one sense, “ezer” makes the helper more important than the one being helped.
In the case of the word “Lord” one of the usages is that of sir. That it occurs last in the list in an exhaustive dictionary doesn’t mean anything. It is one of the usages and it has its contextual application and that application cannot be simply brushed off simply because it is the last word in the list. In some contexts, it means “sir.” In other contexts, it means, “master.” The problem is that you want it to mean “master” in the context of marriage just like it is used in the context of slavery.
It’s not a matter of having one standard in one place and different standard elsewhere. It is a matter of recognizing context and that the same word isn’t used to communicate the same idea every time the word is used. You don’t know how context works. Context governs how we look at a given word.
It’s not a slight of hand and you are allergic to word usage. All you have been accusing me of regards the translation, as if I am trying to pervert what words mean, but I have never disputed what words mean, not one time. I am disputing your shabby application of those words.
I didn’t leave anything out. Your point about the meaning of three words is a meaningless point and doesn’t really change anything. None of those words offer any support your slavish view of your wife or anyone else’s wife.

You claim there are Dictionaries out there with more detailed word usage.
How about providing them as sources?

How about giving us the name of those Dictionaries, the same Greek words, and their definitions in those Dictionaries.

Then I can get a copy myself and verify what you are saying.

I gave my source.

What is yours?

You knock my Greek Dictionary and you don't give your Dictionaries so we can see if they really show this huge difference.

What are the differences Shiloh?

Here are some you can look up in those superior Dictionaries, and I will be checking them out myself to confirm what you say and the reliability of them.

hupotasso- to subordinate, to obey, to be under obedience, put under, subdue unto, subject to, unto, be in subjection to, submit self to.

hupakouo- To listen attentively, to heed or conform to a command or authority, hearken, be obedient to, obey.

kurios- Supreme in authority, controller, God, Lord, Master, sir.

Are you going to deny this is the correct meaning of these words or just criticize me for using a stand alone source?

What say your Dictionaries, and lets see how different they are, or if they are different? You are great at criticizing sources without telling us what your sources are. In addition, I am not letting you get away with another slight of hand. I want to once again show the way these verses are in context.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, BEING IN SUBJECTION UNTO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS. EVEN AS SARA OBEYED ABRAHAM, CALLING HIM LORD. 1 Peter 3:5,6
This is the actual text, not the definition. The words subjection, obeyed and Lord all come up in those two verses, making it clear that the meaning of Lord is not sir. Not only that, but the word translated to Lord is the same word that is used to describe Jesus Christ the Lord. Again, here comes that word usage thing that was so important to you in showing the wife was not created to be a sidekick. It doesn't work so good for you here does it Shiloh?
Wives, SUBMIT YOURSELVES UNTO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS, AS UNTO THE LORD. Ephesians 5:22
The word translated to Lord here is the word kurios, the same word referencing Abraham being Sarah's Lord. Again, word usage. I didn't come up with that argument. You did, but I am sure going to use it. The word translated to submit is hupotasso. Again, I can't wait to see how different your Dictionaries are from Strong's, and for you to give the sources.

Okay, let’s take those two verses: In I Tim. 3:5 Spiros Zodihates notes in his Greek New Testament Dictionary the following: “In the relation of a wife to her husband: (1) Eph_5:22; Col_3:18; 1Pe_3:1, 1Pe_3:5; Tit_2:5. In these verses the duty of the wife to submit herself to her own husband is clearly enunciated (Gal_3:28; 1Pe_3:7). Although there is an ontological spiritual equality between men and women, there remain physical, positional and functional differences. There are designated functions for a husband and a wife which man cannot change because God has ordained them. Any endeavor to effect change will bring frustration, vanity, and emptiness (mataiótēs [G3153] in Rom_8:20). God has made one woman to become a wife to one man, and she is so constituted by God Himself. But this is not due to her being inferior to her husband, for they are both equal before God. It is a willing personal subjection demonstrated in Eph_5:21, "submitting yourselves [hupotassómenoi] one to another in the fear of God."

In regard to the word “lord” in I Pet. 3:6 he says, “As the possessor, owner, master, e.g., of property (Mat_20:8; Mat_21:40; Gal_4:1; Sept.: Exo_21:28-29, Exo_21:34); master or head of a house (Mat_15:27; Mar_13:35; Sept.: Exo_22:8); of persons, servants, slaves (Mat_10:24; Mat_24:45-46, Mat_24:48, Mat_24:50; Act_16:16, Act_16:19; Rom_14:4; Eph_6:5, Eph_6:9; Col_3:22; Col_4:1; Sept.: Gen_24:9 f.; Jdg_19:11). Spoken of a husband (1Pe_3:6; Sept.: Gen_18:12).”

Notice that the use of “lord” as master only refers to property, not his wife. In connection to Gen. 18:12 where Peter is making this reference, the word is adon. That’s important because if “Lord” meant supreme master/dictator the way YOU are trying to assert, the Hebrew word, would have been “ba-al.” The word “ba-al” is a word that means master or overlord, in addition to being a proper name for a pagan god. That’s just one dictionary at this point. I don’t have time to comb through everything, but Zodihates is an excellent and very thorough dictionary.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament makes the following point about hupotasso: “hypotasso A. The Greek World. 1. The active form of this verb means "to place under," "to affix," "to subordinate" (passive "to be subject"). 2. The middle form means "to subject oneself," "to be subservient," "to submit voluntarily." B. The LXX. The verb is not common in the LXX and stands for 13 Hebrew words in the usual senses "to place under," "to subordinate," "to subject," passive "to be subject," and middle "to subject oneself," "to submit," especially to God (Ps 37:7).”

None of these words have anything to do with a man being the master and dictator over his wife. No dictionary or set of scholars accept your beggardly approach to the original languages. They don’t deny the submission of the wife to the husband, but they do not agree with your view that the wife is inferior and that she is subject to her husband like a slave. Hupotasso is a willing and voluntary submission, not slavish subjection.

Interestingly, hupokouo is never used in connection to wives, but to children to obey both parents, slaves and to our obedience to Christ and the Father.

You said, "I never said anything about the Bible limiting the power or the authority of the husband. I said it regulates his behavior towards his wife."
What I have said is that not all men will obey the Bible, and that doesn't give the wife any excuse for not obeying their disobedient husbands. You just came out and said that you never said anything about the Bible limiting the power or the authority of the husband. That means he can ask anything of his wife because the Bible doesn't limit his power or authority. The question comes in as to how he should rule his wife, which is for another discussion, and clearly not all men will agree on this. I have had supervisors that were great to work under because they were nice to the employees and I have had tyrants. I had to obey them all because they all had the rule over me. Their authority was the same, and the same thing applies in the home. The good and the tyrannical husbands both have the rule over their wives, and while most would prefer to have a husband that is good, they are required to obey their husband regardless, even to the point of submitting to non-believers. If you would ever come out and admit that the wife is required to obey a tyrant of a husband, there would be no serious disagreement, because I have never said the husband should be a tyrant. I am only arguing how much authority he has.

The Bible doesn’t limit his authority, but the Bible does not sanction him to be a tyrant either. You think “unlimited authority” places no boundaries on the husband and I would strongly disagree. His authority is unlimited within the parameters of the biblical prescription of being a husband. In other words, he is the husband 24/7 and he is the head of the house 24/7. He is not limited in his authority to enforce the will of God for his family and regulate the affairs of his family. That being said, that does NOT give him a blank check to be a dictator and jerk. Even if he isn’t asking his wife to commit a sin, it does not mean that being controlling dictator is within bounds for his behavior. It does not give him the right to approach his wife as his inferior and his servant there to do his bidding and meet his every whim. Any man who does view his wife as his inferior has failed as a biblical husband and is in rebellion against God.

November 12, 2015

Lets start from the beginning. I am not so sure Gary Chapman is the problem. It comes across to me that Shiloh misrepresented Gary Chapman's position in his first post, and made it appear that he was claiming they are all that way, and later added more things Gary Chapman said about the subject that altered that impression. The problem is that when covenants don't have to all fit into this mode, it no longer has as much weight in regard to this discussion. If covenants only fit into his 5 points some of the time, and don't at others, it is irrelevant.

Here is a classic case of double talk. This is an actual quote from Shiloh. "No, I never said it was eternal, no exceptions. It is still eternal." He was speaking of the marriage covenant. I already understand that Shiloh believes God will give grace to someone in a marriage where the husband or wife cheats if they get divorced and re-married. My point is that Shiloh still says the covenant is eternal in the sight of God. That is all I said, and this shows I am correct. That is what he is saying.

I acknowledge the positions Shiloh is taking about how Jesus was addressing people who were treating divorce as ok for any cause, and that it is his position that Jesus wasn't necessarily limiting divorce to an outright case of adultery, but saying it could possibly apply to any serious case of abuse. I am not going to dismiss this, because it is possible, but there is no way to be sure. As such, I wouldn't advise it, but I do understand what he is saying. And no, I don't consider watching porn or verbal abuse grounds for divorce. We just disagree on that. I only see a clear cut case of physical adultery and abandonment as Shiloh described as Biblical grounds, and I do agree with him that reconciliation is always what God would desire in all cases. I have no issues with Shiloh in that regard.

Here is a quote by Shiloh that is flat false. "We are not in a covenant with God. God is not obligated to us at all." I am going to give you an example from scripture of a covenant between God and us, and he is obligated to keep it. I say that because I believe God is honest and I can trust him to keep a covenant.

And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold I ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH YOU AND WITH YOUR SEED AFTER YOU; AND WITH EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT IS WITH YOU, OF THE FOWL, OF THE CATTLE, AND OF EVERY BEAST OF THE EARTH WITH YOU; FROM ALL THAT GO OUT OF THE ARK, TO EVERY BEAST OF THE EARTH. AND I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH YOU; NEITHER SHALL ALL FLESH BE CUT OFF ANYMORE BY THE WATERS OF A FLOOD; NEITHER SHALL THERE ANY MORE BE A FLOOD TO DESTROY THE EARTH. AND GOD SAID, THIS IS THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT WHICH I MAKE BETWEEN ME AND YOU AND EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT IS WITH YOU, FOR PERPETUAL GENERATIONS; I DO SET MY BOW IN THE CLOUD, AND IT SHALL BE FOR A TOKEN OF A COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND THE EARTH. Genesis 9:8-13

God made a covenant with everything on the earth and the earth itself that he would not destroy everything again with a worldwide flood as he did in Noah's day, and even now, when you see a rainbow, it is a reminder God is in a covenant with us. He is obligated to honor that covenant or we cannot trust God on anything else. I believe what he said is true. But again, this is another false statement by Shiloh.

Shiloh made a statement earlier in this thread that some men don't like the fact we are in a covenant with our wives because a covenant means all parties are equal. This covenant I just gave you shows that is not the case. Being in a covenant doesn't make all those involved equal. We are not equal with God.

Shiloh indeed was using a different standard when it comes to word usage to fit his agenda. In the case of the word ezer, he wants to show that in other places where it comes up, it shows the person as someone coming almost to one's rescue. I won't even argue the usage in other places. That is true, but what I am pointing out is that if we use that same method and apply it to the word translated to rule, you will find it being used to refer to a literal king with subjects. Shiloh completely ignores that. In the New Testament, when you see the word translated to lord, kurios, and you look at how it is used throughout the New Testament, you will find it is referring to Jesus Christ the Lord. Again, Shiloh ignores that, so he is using a different standard.

Now we come to Spiro Zodihates, that Shiloh is using as his source to show the meaning of Greek words. Anytime I have used a Dictionary, it simply gave definitions. That is not what this person is doing. This person is doing a running commentary. If that is supposed to be a Dictionary, I would have no use for it as it is completely biased to the doctrine of the person that wrote it. A Dictionary just gives a word and the meaning of the word. A commentary does as Spiro Zodihates did, and from what I have seen written about the author, he does hold very strong opinions on doctrine and has written commentaries. Nothing wrong with that if you keep doctrinal opinions separate from definitions. I will stick with Strong's Dictionary over that. What I may do however is go by the book store when I get home and purchase another Greek and Hebrew Dictionary just to make certain I am being completely fair, but it will be an unbiased source, not a commentary posing as a Dictionary.

Shiloh is incorrect about the word used in Genesis 18:12 which is actually Adonay, and it means "The Lord" used as a name for God, just as the word kurios in the New Testament is used to refer to Jesus Christ the Lord. This same word is used for God in other parts of the Old Testament like Genesis 15:2. This actually works against Shiloh and shows that the husband is indeed Lord as in supreme authority and controller. Anyone interested, please look it up for yourself. He is also wrong about the word hupotasso, as the way his Dictionary describes it would agree with my conclusions. Again, look it up for yourself. Look it up in Strong's Dictionary and his Dictionary. What is this point Shiloh is making here? That it is a willing submission? Of course it is. I would agree with that, just as it is a willing decision when I choose to obey the Lord God. That still doesn't mean he is not Lord as in dictator and controller. If I don't listen to him, I will be chastised, lose rewards and possibly salvation. If the wife doesn't obey her husband, she will also be chastised by God, lose rewards and possibly salvation, but the submission is voluntary in that she can resist. Even Lucifer had the power to resist God. That doesn't show me to be wrong. The definition shows I am correct. It is amazing how many times I am having to point out one false statement after another Shiloh is making, but here is another one. The word hupakono is used in reference to wives. It is the word translated to obeyed where it is said Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord. Again, all interested parties, please look it up for yourself.

The husband is given certain ways he is supposed to behave towards his wife, but his authority is not limited if he fails to behave that way. Wives are told to obey their husbands even if they are unbelievers, and you know they don't follow scriptural guidelines. I would also add that I can turn this around and ask if the husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it if the wives don't submit to their authority? If wives don't have to obey a tyrant of a husband, I don't see why a husband has to love a wife that doesn't obey him. Wives are told to submit to their husbands in the same way as the church is to submit to the Lord God. If I decide in my heart the Lord is requiring something of me that I find too difficult, like perhaps having to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved, I can simply walk away as the multitude did and I should be fine. Who is that tyrant to demand such hard things from us? The bottom line is that the wife is to obey her husband regardless of what he tells her to do short of demanding she commit an act of sin. Just to make it clear, husbands are to love their wives regardless and we are to obey the Lord God even if our wives are in rebellion. We are all responsible to God as individuals.

I want to address one thing that Shiloh said in another post. He said husbands should trust their wives to make their own decisions about how to dress, what to eat, cleaning house, etc. Ultimately, if the husband doesn't agree with how his wife dresses, keeps the house, or what she fixes for dinner, he can demand she do as he says in those areas. He has unlimited authority, with the exception of demanding she sin. Adam trusted Eve to make decisions about what she ate, and even followed her lead, and we see how that turned out. It led to God placing the husband over the wife to rule over her. I am not saying the husband should rule in this manner, but just that he has that much authority.

I will close with another comment Shiloh made that I know he can't prove from scripture. It is just false. It is just the opinion of someone who continues to teach false doctrine. "Any man that does view his wife as his inferior has failed as a Biblical husband and is in rebellion against God." To this point, Shiloh hasn't been able to make the case for that. Of course, it depends on what he means "by his inferior." If he means she is inferior as less important, I agree. If he means inferior as in the place of authority, he is wrong. He is also wrong in how someone views something placing them in rebellion. Rebellion is a conscious act. I can't simply view something one way and that create an act of rebellion. For example, I view the President as totally incompetent and I disagree with virtually everything he has done. I view him as inferior to every other American President that went before him. Looking at him that way isn't an act of rebellion. An act of rebellion would be based on a direct choice to disobey a law of some kind, not seeing him in a bad light. This shows a clear lack of understanding on Shiloh's part concerning what something as simple as the word rebellion means.

November 12, 2015

Lets start from the beginning. I am not so sure Gary Chapman is the problem. It comes across to me that Shiloh misrepresented Gary Chapman's position in his first post, and made it appear that he was claiming they are all that way, and later added more things Gary Chapman said about the subject that altered that impression. The problem is that when covenants don't have to all fit into this mode, it no longer has as much weight in regard to this discussion. If covenants only fit into his 5 points some of the time, and don't at others, it is irrelevant.

No, I simply quoted Gary Chapman to make the point that you can’t argue that covenants are contracts, at least not in the way we understand the concept of contracts in our day where the purpose of a contract is entirely self-centered and rooted in self-interest. You erected a standard wherein if you could find ONE covenant in the Bible that didn’t agree with the model that Chapman was presenting it meant that EVERYTHING Chapman said was 100% wrong and that was refutation of Chapman. But what you failed to understand and what I have been trying to explain, and have had to clarify over and over is that your approach is not fair, nor is it an honest approach because you would not tolerate being held to that standard, and we don’t generally hold anyone to that standard in any other context. The problem is that when you can’t really refute the substance of a claim, it appears that your approach is to simply decree someone is wrong. They are wrong because you say they are wrong, period. That is what I have been responding to, over and over in this debate.

What I have endeavored to clarify is that Gary Chapman didn’t’ say “all covenants are like this, no exceptions.” YOU erected that standard against him in order to have something to knock down. There are people in the Bible who, perhaps did make covenants that don’t look like what Gary Chapman described, but that doesn’t negate what he said, because he is making a general description and said so in the article. The fact that he made a general description means that you cannot hold him to a higher standard than that. You can’t arbitrarily hold up a standard that says he must be 100% correct or everything he says is wrong, when he himself is not claiming that level of accuracy. He made room for covenants to exist as exceptions and that pretty much takes any wind of your attempt to hold him to a unrealistic and unreasonable standard.

Here is a classic case of double talk. This is an actual quote from Shiloh. "No, I never said it was eternal, no exceptions. It is still eternal." He was speaking of the marriage covenant. I already understand that Shiloh believes God will give grace to someone in a marriage where the husband or wife cheats if they get divorced and re-married. My point is that Shiloh still says the covenant is eternal in the sight of God. That is all I said, and this shows I am correct. That is what he is saying.

You, in your usual classic form, took my quote out of the context and didn’t bother to cite what I said and my clarification. I made it clear that the marital covenant by nature is eternal, as that is how God looks at it. I never said the words, you assigned to me about no exceptions, in that it can be violated. There is a difference between saying that a covenant is by nature eternal, and saying that it cannot violated. I think anyone can tell the difference. But what you were doing is taking my statements and using against me in front of people who have been divorced and using that as means of turning them against me claiming, “see Shiloh says you’re still married to that guy who beat you and your kids…” I was speaking to the nature of the covenant, and how God looks at the covenant of marriage. He doesn’t look at it like it’s a contract.

Shiloh made a statement earlier in this thread that some men don't like the fact we are in a covenant with our wives because a covenant means all parties are equal. This covenant I just gave you shows that is not the case. Being in a covenant doesn't make all those involved equal. We are not equal with God.

I have already addressed that issue at least twice, proving that Butero doesn’t read my posts, or perhaps he is hoping no one else will read them either, leaving it him to frame my comments any way he wants. I said, previously that the Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants are vertical covenants which are not made with us as equals with God. In none of those cases were covenants made between parties who had an equal stake or equal participation in the covenants. I made it VERY clear the marriage covenant is horizontal covenant made between two people who both equally made in the image of God and have an equal stake and an equal participation on the marriage covenant. The Bible never says otherwise.

Shiloh indeed was using a different standard when it comes to word usage to fit his agenda. In the case of the word ezer, he wants to show that in other places where it comes up, it shows the person as someone coming almost to one's rescue. I won't even argue the usage in other places. That is true, but what I am pointing out is that if we use that same method and apply it to the word translated to rule, you will find it being used to refer to a literal king with subjects. Shiloh completely ignores that. In the New Testament, when you see the word translated to lord, kurios, and you look at how it is used throughout the New Testament, you will find it is referring to Jesus Christ the Lord. Again, Shiloh ignores that, so he is using a different standard.

I am not ignoring anything, at all. I am simply willing to acknowledge how language works. It is not enough to know what a word means, but how it is used. I mean, it’s the same with people learning English. It’s not enough to know the lexical definition of the word. You have to know how we use a word in normal conversation. How we use a word in the context of a conversation is vital I would point back to my example using the word, “love.” It has a formal definition, but it has a variety of applications on the street. If you were from Poland and all you knew was the romantic aspect of the word, “love,” you might be very confused and perhaps offended if you understood someone to claim that they “loved” their dog. You would be even more confused if they said they “loved” a particular TV show, or particular food. What is obvious to us, is not as obvious to the Polish immigrant who has a far more limited understanding of how we use words.

The same applies to words in the Bible. Context determines how we understand a word and not only context, but how a topic is covered elsewhere in the Bible. The word ezer is a word that in the overwhelming majority of uses refers not to an inferior lackey who is just “helping” the expert who doesn’t need his help, but is merely condescending to him. Rather, it refers to someone coming to the aid of another person who needs him. It is used of God as our helper, coming to our aid, most of the time. It is never a word that refers to an inferior tag-along, or sidekick.

In our modern parlance, a helper is often seen as the apprentice or the inexperienced novice who is allowed to help the master craftsman who simply needs someone to be an extra set of hands, but is an inferior helper. That’s the view that Butero wants to impose on ezer. It’s not about using good exegesis, it is about an agenda to make wives inferior to their husbands as helpers who are not really needed, ultimately, and who, by reason of their inferiority are not the important members of the relationship and really don’t offer all that much.

The word “rule” in Gen. 3:16, if that was the last thing God had to say about marriage, could be interpreted as ruling like a king. The word is often used of the rule of kings. Butero wants that to be only working definition/usage/understanding of the word. He will entertain no other usage because his agenda is to be the absolute ruler in his house and his inferior, slavish wife just needs to sit down and shut up. Once the decree is given, all of the thinking has been done for her and she just needs to do what is said, as an obedient subject. That’s Butero’s take on marriage.

The word “rule” has a much wider connotation than Butero is willing to admit, though and because Gen. 3:16 is not the last word on marriage, it needs to be understood in the light of EVERYTHING else God says about marriage. Butero doesn’t want to do that. He does the opposite. For Butero Gen. 3:16 is the cardinal verse on marriage and everything else in the Bible is judged by Gen. 3:16. That is very bad hermeneutics because it is agenda-driven.

I am not ignoring the use of kurios at all. But it doesn’t apply to mankind the way it applies to Jesus. To try and draw an equivalency there, is foolish at heart. To even suggest that it means that a husband possesses the same level of sovereignty in marriage that Jesus does over the universe is more bad hermeneutics and very bad theology.

Now we come to Spiro Zodihates, that Shiloh is using as his source to show the meaning of Greek words. Anytime I have used a Dictionary, it simply gave definitions. That is not what this person is doing. This person is doing a running commentary. If that is supposed to be a Dictionary, I would have no use for it as it is completely biased to the doctrine of the person that wrote it. A Dictionary just gives a word and the meaning of the word. A commentary does as Spiro Zodihates did, and from what I have seen written about the author, he does hold very strong opinions on doctrine and has written commentaries. Nothing wrong with that if you keep doctrinal opinions separate from definitions. I will stick with Strong's Dictionary over that. What I may do however is go by the book store when I get home and purchase another Greek and Hebrew Dictionary just to make certain I am being completely fair, but it will be an unbiased source, not a commentary posing as a Dictionary.

Dictionaries don’t merely give one-word definitions. Medical dictionaries, historical dictionaries, biographical dictionaries and even theological dictionaries don’t offer simple, one word definitions. They give detailed discussions in regard to concepts and issues and topics. That’s the nature of those dictionaries. The same is true with Spiros Zodihates’ dictionary of biblical words and it is also true of Vine’s dictionary of Bible words. Zodihates dictionary is an analytical dictionary and as such it analyzes biblical words and not only provides you with a definition but it explains in detail, which verses that particular definition is used. If a word has a variety of meanings, then he gives you all of those meanings, which verses they are found and discusses how a person in the original audience would have understood it. He provides the necessary background so that we can correctly understand and present the text. You asked for dictionaries and I gave them to you. Sorry, Butero… But you don’t get to define what is or is not a dictionary, simply because you are not competent to refute the information.

The problem here is, if we are being honest, is that you don’t know Greek and are not in a position to challenge what Zodihates or the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, so your only recourse is to declare that their dictionaries are not dictionaries so that you can dismiss what they claim. You can’t refute them and there is no way you are going to even consider that they may have knowledge on the topic you don’t have, so you just brush them aside, as you do whenever you are confronted with information you can’t handle in a debate.

Shiloh is incorrect about the word used in Genesis 18:12 which is actually Adonay, and it means "The Lord" used as a name for God, just as the word kurios in the New Testament is used to refer to Jesus Christ the Lord. This same word is used for God in other parts of the Old Testament like Genesis 15:2. This actually works against Shiloh and shows that the husband is indeed Lord as in supreme authority and controller. Anyone interested, please look it up for yourself. He is also wrong about the word hupotasso, as the way his Dictionary describes it would agree with my conclusions. Again, look it up for yourself. Look it up in Strong's Dictionary and his Dictionary. What is this point Shiloh is making here? That it is a willing submission? Of course it is. I would agree with that, just as it is a willing decision when I choose to obey the Lord God. That still doesn't mean he is not Lord as in dictator and controller. If I don't listen to him, I will be chastised, lose rewards and possibly salvation. If the wife doesn't obey her husband, she will also be chastised by God, lose rewards and possibly salvation, but the submission is voluntary in that she can resist. Even Lucifer had the power to resist God. That doesn't show me to be wrong. The definition shows I am correct. It is amazing how many times I am having to point out one false statement after another Shiloh is making, but here is another one. The word hupakono is used in reference to wives. It is the word translated to obeyed where it is said Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord. Again, all interested parties, please look it up for yourself.

Simply claiming I am incorrect is not a refutation. Asking others to look it up for themselves is not a refutation. Simply appealing to what a word means is not a refutation when the argument I made applies to usage not meaning. You keep trying attack arguments I never raised, because you can’t actually refute the arguments I am making. The word “adon” in Gen. 18:12 is used in a manner that speaks to respect, not mastery. I never said that a husband did not have supreme authority. What I am disputing is the biblical limitations on how the husband exercises that authority.

When kurios is applied to Jesus, it is applied in the sense of a sovereign ruler. That is never applied to the role of a husband to marriage. I think it is worth pointing out is that your platform for declaring the husband as the lord and master of the home doesn’t come from the New Testament. Nothing doctrinally about marriage makes any kind of declaration about man being the lord and master in the sense of absolute dictator of the home. Not even the I Peter. 3:5-6 makes that case. What is happening is that you are letting your theology and preconceived notions drive how you interpret the Bible. You are approach the text with what you want the text to support and are using your views as the filter through which you read the Bible.

Hupokouo, the original word you wanted me to comment on, is never used in connection to marriage or wives, as a doctrine. It is used in I Peter 3: 6 in the sense of a woman showing respect as Sarah did. But, in no way is it used to indicate that Sarah was a slave to Abraham and that Abraham was an absolute dictator. It is never used in any of the passages directed to wives in any formal doctrinal matter regarding marriage and is never used to portray marriage relationships as being akin to the relationship of a slave to a master.

I would also point to I Pet. 3:7 where the man is commanded to show honor to his wife. That means that there is a mutual respect, not a dictatorship in what Paul is saying. That he is to show honor to her means that her obedience is not to a master, but to an equal who is also commanded to show honor to her.

I also find it troubling that the husband, according to you, is to be obeyed as a dictator is to be obeyed upon penalty of the wife losing her salvation if she doesn’t capitulate to that kind of abusive treatment. That’s rather disturbing and cultic.

The husband is given certain ways he is supposed to behave towards his wife, but his authority is not limited if he fails to behave that way. Wives are told to obey their husbands even if they are unbelievers, and you know they don't follow scriptural guidelines. I would also add that I can turn this around and ask if the husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it if the wives don't submit to their authority? If wives don't have to obey a tyrant of a husband, I don't see why a husband has to love a wife that doesn't obey him. Wives are told to submit to their husbands in the same way as the church is to submit to the Lord God. If I decide in my heart the Lord is requiring something of me that I find too difficult, like perhaps having to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved, I can simply walk away as the multitude did and I should be fine. Who is that tyrant to demand such hard things from us? The bottom line is that the wife is to obey her husband regardless of what he tells her to do short of demanding she commit an act of sin. Just to make it clear, husbands are to love their wives regardless and we are to obey the Lord God even if our wives are in rebellion. We are all responsible to God as individuals.

Again, this isn’t about a limitation of authority. It is a limitation regarding the application of that authority. You keep confusing those two things. There is nothing in the Bible that limits man’s authority, but there is a lot that limits and regulates how that authority is to be administered and none of it is as a dictator. A husband is limited in Scripture with regard to how he can treat his wife.

What I am saying has nothing to do with a woman having the freedom to disobey her husband. What I am addressing is right of the husband to be controlling, unreasonable, and tyrannical. You are saying that those are permissible as long as he doesn’t command her to sin, and if I don’t think a man has the right to be controlling and tyrannical, I am giving the wife the right to disobey. That’s not what I am saying. The wife is still obligated to obey her husband even if he is a stupid jerk of a man who needs the men of the church to take him out “behind the woodshed,” so to speak. A man who is a selfish, controlling jerk of a husband should be shamed in every way he can be shamed by the men of the church until he learns to become a real man treat his wife in a biblical manner. A man who is a controlling jerk to his wife isn’t a biblical husband and he is a failure of a husband before the Lord. She should continue to obey him if no other reason, than to be the godly example to her controlling, ungodly sinning husband and to the children so they can see what a godly parent looks like, as opposed to her sinful, rebellious husband. Maybe her obedience will bring him to repentance.

I want to address one thing that Shiloh said in another post. He said husbands should trust their wives to make their own decisions about how to dress, what to eat, cleaning house, etc. Ultimately, if the husband doesn't agree with how his wife dresses, keeps the house, or what she fixes for dinner, he can demand she do as he says in those areas. He has unlimited authority, with the exception of demanding she sin. Adam trusted Eve to make decisions about what she ate, and even followed her lead, and we see how that turned out. It led to God placing the husband over the wife to rule over her. I am not saying the husband should rule in this manner, but just that he has that much authority.

That is a poor example regarding Eve. The Bible seems to indicate that Eve was deceived, but Adam did what he did with both eyes open. Adam was half way across the garden out of earshot of the conversation. In fact, most scholars tend to agree that Adam was by her side when she committed this sin. He was tempted as much as she was. And he was the one who committed open rebellion against God, which is why the Bible holds Adam responsible for bring sin into the world.

A husband should not let his wife dress immodestly, but that doesn’t give him unfettered control over what she wears. At least, he should not view it in that way. If he is the right kind of husband, she will have no desire to wear anything that would embarrass him. He would not need to dictate what she wears, because she would seek to please him, instead of dressing a certain way in order to avoid being yelled at or having to walk on eggshells around her jerk of a husband.

I will close with another comment Shiloh made that I know he can't prove from scripture. It is just false. It is just the opinion of someone who continues to teach false doctrine. "Any man that does view his wife as his inferior has failed as a Biblical husband and is in rebellion against God." To this point, Shiloh hasn't been able to make the case for that.

Sure I have. The husband who sees his wife as the side-kick in the marriage, who is the inferior helper who is not his equal partner in the marriage is a failure as a husband because he is in violation of what is arguably the NT’s cardinal passage on marriage, namely Eph. 5:21-25. That is the primary NT passage on the doctrine of marriage and it never gives any permission for a man to see his wife as inferior. She is the weaker vessel, but not an inferior one. She is made in the image of God just like her husband. And she is given to the husband to make him better than could be by himself. The man who sees his wife as inferior, is a failure as a husband, plain and simple and he is in rebellion against God.

November 16, 2015

Shiloh, I went out and bought a Vine's Dictionary, as well as additional sources to back up my position, and was and am still prepared to break them out, but before I do, I am not sure it is necessary. When I read your posts, there is this disconnect between the point I am making and what you are saying. I am not saying how the husband should behave. That is for a different discussion on husbands and how they should treat their wives. We clearly have a difference of opinion in that regard, but it is something I would be happy to discuss elsewhere to try to come to better understanding on the topic. We have had a lot of discussions on wives, but few on husbands, unless it is in the same thread as a discussion on wives. It should be a stand alone topic. There is a lot of things you said in your last post I could refute, but you wrote one paragraph that seems to actually agree, at least in principle, with what I have been saying all along, except for all the editorial commentary on your part about your feelings about how the husband should behave or shouldn't behave. Here is what you said:

SHILOH's QUOTE: What I am saying has nothing to do with a woman having the freedom to disobey her husband. What I am addressing is the right of the husband to be controlling, unreasonable, and tyrannical. You are saying that those are permissible as long as he doesn't command her to sin, and if I don't think a man has the right to be controlling and tyrannical, I am giving the wife the right to disobey. That's not what I am saying. The wife is still obligated to obey her husband even if he is a stupid jerk of a man who needs the men of the church to take him out "behind the woodshed," so to speak. A man who is a selfish, controlling jerk of a husband should be shamed in every way he can be shamed by the men of the church until he learns to become a real man treat his wife in a biblical manner. A man who is a controlling jerk isn't a biblical husband and he is a failure of a husband before the Lord. She should continue to obey him if no other reason, than to be the godly example to her controlling, ungodly sinning husband and to the children so they can see what a godly parent looks like, as opposed to her sinful, rebellious husband. Maybe her obedience will bring him to repentance.

I found myself laughing because of the number of times you used certain words like tyrannical, jerk, stupid, etc. Here is the problem with all of that Shiloh. You aren't the one that sets the standard for what constitutes being unreasonable in someone else's home. Another problem is that no church has any real leverage because if you don't agree with the leadership at one church, you can always go to another church. It isn't like in day when there was one synagogue or a single church and you had to put up with people sticking their nose in things that are none of their business. You can just find a church that believes as you do, and frankly Shiloh, I know for a fact I would never go to a church where the leadership would interfere in my marriage or anyone else's marriage. I would seek out a church where the people believe as I do, as most people do. I would start my own church or maybe my own "cult" before I would put up with that. That is neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter is, the Bible does give guidelines about how a husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church, and the wife is told to obey her husband. I get that. When I am saying the husband has "the right" to tell his wife to do anything short of sin, I am not saying he should tell her to do anything in particular. I am only speaking of the authority given to the husband. Parents can be jerks towards their children and provoke them to wrath, but they are still the parents and have the rule over their kids. It would be much better if they were good and loving parents, but we know that isn't always the case. Still, children are told to honor their Father and Mother regardless. A supervisor on the job is better to work for if he is nice and respectful, but we have to obey him even if he is a controlling jerk. The Bible even makes it clear that servants are to obey their masters if they happen to be in slavery. I am only speaking in terms of the amount of authority given to the husband. I am not suggesting he behave in any particular manner. In that paragraph, you said, "the wife is still obligated to obey her husband." That is all I have been saying from the start. I have only said that Biblically, she is told to obey her husband, even if he is a sinner that doesn't follow Biblical guidelines. If we agree on that point, there is really no significant area of disagreement, except perhaps over the meaning of various Greek and Hebrew words, which I have more sources to use to make my point.

November 16, 2015

Shiloh, I went out and bought a Vine's Dictionary, as well as additional sources to back up my position, and was and am still prepared to break them out, but before I do, I am not sure it is necessary. When I read your posts, there is this disconnect between the point I am making and what you are saying. I am not saying how the husband should behave. That is for a different discussion on husbands and how they should treat their wives. We clearly have a difference of opinion in that regard, but it is something I would be happy to discuss elsewhere to try to come to better understanding on the topic.

I don’t see how there is any disconnect here, as the authority of a husband in his home is directly connected to how he is to behave. His behavior is controlled by how he perceives his level of authority. If he thinks that he has the authority to be a dictator, then his behavior will reflect that. In fact, your core argument has been that if he wants to be a dictator, he has the authority to behave in that manner. According to you, his authority is absolute and as long as he doesn’t tell his wife to commit a sin, there is no limit to how dictatorial or tyrannical he can be. It’s too late in the debate to try and move the goal posts to skirt around having to justify a husband’s bad behavior as being within the realm of God-given authority.

We have had a lot of discussions on wives, but few on husbands, unless it is in the same thread as a discussion on wives. It should be a stand alone topic. There is a lot of things you said in your last post I could refute, but you wrote one paragraph that seems to actually agree, at least in principle, with what I have been saying all along, except for all the editorial commentary on your part about your feelings about how the husband should behave or shouldn't behave. Here is what you said:

SHILOH's QUOTE: What I am saying has nothing to do with a woman having the freedom to disobey her husband. What I am addressing is the right of the husband to be controlling, unreasonable, and tyrannical. You are saying that those are permissible as long as he doesn't command her to sin, and if I don't think a man has the right to be controlling and tyrannical, I am giving the wife the right to disobey. That's not what I am saying. The wife is still obligated to obey her husband even if he is a stupid jerk of a man who needs the men of the church to take him out "behind the woodshed," so to speak. A man who is a selfish, controlling jerk of a husband should be shamed in every way he can be shamed by the men of the church until he learns to become a real man treat his wife in a biblical manner. A man who is a controlling jerk isn't a biblical husband and he is a failure of a husband before the Lord. She should continue to obey him if no other reason, than to be the godly example to her controlling, ungodly sinning husband and to the children so they can see what a godly parent looks like, as opposed to her sinful, rebellious husband. Maybe her obedience will bring him to repentance.

I found myself laughing because of the number of times you used certain words like tyrannical, jerk, stupid, etc. Here is the problem with all of that Shiloh. You aren't the one that sets the standard for what constitutes being unreasonable in someone else's home. Another problem is that no church has any real leverage because if you don't agree with the leadership at one church, you can always go to another church. It isn't like in day when there was one synagogue or a single church and you had to put up with people sticking their nose in things that are none of their business. You can just find a church that believes as you do, and frankly Shiloh, I know for a fact I would never go to a church where the leadership would interfere in my marriage or anyone else's marriage. I would seek out a church where the people believe as I do, as most people do. I would start my own church or maybe my own "cult" before I would put up with that. That is neither here nor there.

I am not attempting to set the standard for what it means to be unreasonable in someone’s home. In fact, you have, up to THIS point, knew exactly what I meant and argued that it didn’t matter how unreasonable the husband was as long as he didn’t ask his wife to commit sin. Outside of that, you have been arguing for the last two to three weeks, on this thread and others, that his authority was absolute that regardless of how controlling, manipulative and tyrannical he is, she must obey him unless sin is involved.

There is no reason for you to start muddying the water now, about the meanings of terms you had no problem understanding just a week or so ago. I have made my point perfectly clear. But for some reason, you are now trying to make it appear that there is some confusion over what certain terms I have used actually mean.

In a church setting, if I were a pastor of church where a man was clearly mistreating his wife and emotionally and mentally abusing her, the church discipline instructions given by Jesus would definitely apply and if the husband refused to change, then he would, according to Jesus need to be disfellowshipped because treating his wife like his emotional slave is unacceptable and is not part of God’s prescription or his permissive will for a godly husband. And as a pastor, I would be duty bound to warn other pastors of other churches not to accept that man into their fellowship on the basis of what we had witnessed of him.

The fact of the matter is, the Bible does give guidelines about how a husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church, and the wife is told to obey her husband. I get that. When I am saying the husband has "the right" to tell his wife to do anything short of sin, I am not saying he should tell her to do anything in particular. I am only speaking of the authority given to the husband. Parents can be jerks towards their children and provoke them to wrath, but they are still the parents and have the rule over their kids. It would be much better if they were good and loving parents, but we know that isn't always the case. Still, children are told to honor their Father and Mother regardless. A supervisor on the job is better to work for if he is nice and respectful, but we have to obey him even if he is a controlling jerk. The Bible even makes it clear that servants are to obey their masters if they happen to be in slavery. I am only speaking in terms of the amount of authority given to the husband. I am not suggesting he behave in any particular manner. In that paragraph, you said, "the wife is still obligated to obey her husband." That is all I have been saying from the start. I have only said that Biblically, she is told to obey her husband, even if he is a sinner that doesn't follow Biblical guidelines. If we agree on that point, there is really no significant area of disagreement, except perhaps over the meaning of various Greek and Hebrew words, which I have more sources to use to make my point.

The problem is that the Bible doesn’t give the husband the “right” to do tell his wife to do anything except sin. That is something you claim, but haven’t proven from the Bible. The husband’s authority is absolute, but that doesn’t mean it is unlimited. And the limitations are for more restrictive than you are willing to accept.

A boss at work has absolute authority to follow the guidelines within his particular job description. He has a limited scope of authority and behavior. But his authority is absolute. And before I forget, “absolute authority” is almost redundant. There is no such thing as “non-absolute” authority. That would be an internal contradiction. To argue that a husband as “absolute authority” isn’t really saying anything. Authority is already absolute by nature. It appears to me that you are using that phrase to mean that it is unrestricted, unfettered and that is not really the case in the Bible.

Going strictly by biblical standards, the husband does not have any God-given right to as unreasonable and tyrannical as he wants to be (with the exception of causing his wife to sin). Nowhere in the Bible, and especially nowhere in the NT does God ever establish that for a husband. If we go by biblical guidelines, a godly husband would love his wife in a way that there would be nothing in her heart except to please her husband. But it is the husband’s behavior that will, in part, determine her response. She is to obey him, but he is to be the kind of husband she wants to obey and is worth obeying.

November 17, 2015

I am going to be brief in this reply and check back Lord willing this weekend since I will be tied up for a few days.

I am not trying to move any goal post Shiloh. I was surprised by some things you said in that one paragraph. I was in agreement with them, like when you said that the wife is still obligated to obey her husband even if he is a stupid jerk. You also stated she should obey him in the hope that he will get right with God and for the sake of the children. I have shown that the husband does have the Biblical authority to tell his wife to do anything short of outright sin. I showed that with the word rule in Genesis. I showed it with the definition and word usage. I was never saying how the husband should rule. That is for another debate. I was only stating that the husband has the authority to rule as he sees fit, so long as he doesn't tell his wife to sin. When I say that, I am not claiming that God would approve of any bad treatment he may give her. I am just saying that God delegated authority to the husband, and what he does with that authority is up to him. Of course, he will have to give account to God for any mistreatment. That goes without being said, as the wife will have to give account for any acts of rebellion. That also goes without being said. We are all accountable for our actions. How the husband behaves has no bearing on the wife's requirement to obey him, as she is told to obey an unbelieving husband.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 1 Peter 3:1,2

You have been arguing that the husband's authority is not absolute because if he doesn't follow Biblical guidelines to love his wife as Christ loved the church, his authority doesn't have to be obeyed, but that is clearly not the case. Your position has been that this tyrannical husband is a sinner, but the problem is, 1 Peter 3:1,2 specifically tells wives to obey their husbands, even if "any obey not the word." According to you, these men who are very controlling aren't obeying the word. Still, wives are told to obey them, meaning their authority is most certainly absolute. Of course, you say almost exactly that in that paragraph of yours that I quoted. Here is what you said:

SHILOH's QUOTE: A man who is a controlling jerk isn't a Biblical husband and he is a failure of a husband before the Lord. She should continue to obey him if no other reason, than to be the godly example to her controlling, ungodly sinning husband and to the children so they can see what a godly parent looks like, as opposed to her sinful, rebellious husband. Maybe her obedience will bring him to repentance.

That is what the Bible teaches. Even if the husband is a sinner and not obeying the Word, the wife is supposed to obey him with the hope he will be won over as a result of her good example. In this, we find agreement. Areas of disagreement only apply to what constitutes being a "jerk," "ungodly," "sinning," and "rebellious" husband, and those are all things that would make for a good discussion in another thread.

As far as the church goes, with regard to meddling in the affairs of married couples, they have no God-given mandate. They also have no real power. So what if they dis-fellowship someone? Churches are a dime a dozen. Do you really think the Pastor can warn everyone, and that every church will agree with the Pastor's actions? I know they won't. There are churches that will take anyone in that promises to pay tithes to the church. If a church did that to me, I would consider it an act of war, and would go to the men of the church and warn them that if the Pastor gets away with this, it could be them next. I would also warn people about the Pastor that meddles in the private affairs of it's members, and warn people to stay away from that sinning, rebellious, ungodly jerk of a Pastor. I would fire back at him. The Pastor's authority doesn't extend to the home of the members of the congregation. I would challenge him to prove that Biblically sin was taking place, and might try to get the Pastor removed. If it was a denominational church, I would take the case to their headquarters, and use scripture to show he was out of line. If it is a clear cut case of spousal abuse, like beating her, the Pastor will be cleared, but if it is a matter of something like controlling her use of make-up or wearing of jewelry, I doubt this rises to the level headquarters would call abuse, and I believe I could turn the tables on the meddling, controlling, abusive, sinning Pastor. Some people would do nothing, but if someone wants a war with me, and I feel I was dealt an injustice, they will get a war. I might even try to split the church and start a new church with those who leave.

November 22, 2015

Not ignoring you, Butero. Will respond this week, hopefully tomorrow.

Sign In

Join Worthy Christian Forums today!

Authority of the Husband in the Home

Recommended Posts

Guest Butero

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Steve_S

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Butero

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Butero

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Butero

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Butero

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity