Jump to content
IGNORED

Authority of the Husband in the Home


Steve_S

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357

I am not trying to move any goal post Shiloh. 

 

Yes, you are.   You have tried to defend bad behavior on the part of the husband by arguing first of all, that “abuse”  should only be limited to a man beating or otherwise physically harming his wife. Embarrassing her in public, shouting at her, putting her down, calling her derogatory names, forcing her to have sex against her will, according to you does not constitute abuse.   Secondly, you have argued on the grounds of absolute authority, that he can be as much of an overbearing jerk as he wants, as long as he doesn’t tell her to sin and that this is completely biblical.

But now that we see that you can’t really defend much of that argument, you want to separate the authority of the husband from the behavior of the husband and that argument isn’t going to fly.   The Bible nowhere sanctions the notion that the husband as a blank check to behave like a jerk on the basis of his authority. 

 

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.

Yes, but I was talking about the Christian husband who thinks, he has biblical permission to be a jerk and is a failure of a husband and is therefore, living in rebellion against God.   The irony here is that for all your canards about “rebellion”  you fail to see that the man who treats his wife poorly and is an overbearing jerk is in a state of rebellion against God because he is abusing the authority God gave him to force his wife to serve him as if the marriage is more like a  slave/master relationship.

 

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.

 

No, you did not show that through the word rule and you never used definition AND usage.  You have consistently, over and over limited your idea about the word “rule” to mean that the husband can be as much of a dictator as he wants.   You have a shallow, and one-dimensional approach to that word to only refer to an iron-fisted dictatorial rule, as if to say the husband is the king, and wife is the subservient vassal to do is bidding, no questions asked.     And it is also false to say that you have not said how he should rule.   You have quoted Scripture in an attempt to show that relationship, in your view, is more like  slave/master or servant/king relationship and not a relationship of equals, made in the image of God.

 

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. 

I get that, but the Bible doesn’t say that, anywhere.   YOU derive that from a shallow interpretation of Scripture and you penciling that view into the Bible by trying to mold the Bible around your beliefs, rather than letting the Bible inform your beliefs.

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. 

 

Again, the Bible doesn’t leave it to  a husband how he uses his authority.  It is not arbitrary.   Obviously, we disagree over what constitutes, “mistreatment.”

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.

 

No, that isn’t the argument I am making or have been making.   I never said the husband’s authority was not absolute.   There is no such thing as “non-absolute” authority.   That would be a contradiction in terms and in logic.   All authority is absolute, otherwise it is not authority.   If someone as authority, the qualifying term “absolute”  is unnecessary.   The problem is that you are confusing “absolute” with “unconditional.”    The way you are using “absolute”  is really to say that the husband as unconditional, unquestionable authority and he can use it has he pleases, and that is not to be found in the Bible.   A husband has absolute  authority within the conditions and parameters given in Scripture.   He does not have a blank check from God use his authority as he pleases.   A husband who is emotionally abusive toward his wife is actually worse than a wife beater because the physical wounds of abuse will heal in a few weeks. But the wounds of emotional abuse often never heal and they last for the rest of her life.   Too many men have abuse their authority on the grounds that they are “kings” of their homes and their wives are their subjects to serve them and do their bidding and they recognize no moral restrictions on how they treat their wives mentally and emotionally.

My argument has never been against a wife’s obligation to be obedient in her wifely duties to her husband.  I have been endeavoring to show that men who abuse their authority are just as much in rebellion as a disobedient wife.    You seem to want to avoid that reality.    My point is that the rebellion issue is not a one-way street where if the woman doesn’t fulfill her wifely duties to her husband, she is in rebellion, but a man who fails to be a godly husband is given a pass in the area of  rebellion.

 

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.

 

My position is that the tyrannical husband is both a sinner and is in rebellion and I was only addressing the believing husband.   I am addressing marriage between believers.  This debate is not about a marriage of believers and unbelievers.   I am specifically limiting my comments to refer to Christian husbands and the fact that if they are overbearing jerks, they are in rebellion against God and are sinning against both God and their wives.  I am saying that her obedience needs to be a witness to her “Christian” husband of what it means to follow the Lord because he is in rebellion against God and is out of step with the biblical prescription of what it means to be a godly husband.

 

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. 

 

Well there are two things here…   You won’t get the men of the church to side with you since they will be the ones voting you out of fellowship and because their wives will side with the wife they feel is abused, and these men will side with their wives, who will also be voting.

Secondly, pastors network.  They know all of the other pastors in the area.  They go out to lunch together, they go to pastors’ conferences together, and they know each other very, very well.   So yeah, they can warn everyone in their sphere of influence.   It doesn’t matter if you are talking about small towns or big cities and no one wants people in their church that are potential trouble makers.

 

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. 

 

Actually, when it comes to abusive relationships, not only should a pastor step in and intervene on moral grounds, but on legal grounds, in most states, the pastor is legally required to report abuse, particularly in families that have children.   Most states have reporting laws that require the pastors to report familial abuse and there are legal penalties for pastors who don’t ,up to and including jail time and serious fines. 

 

I would challenge him to prove that Biblically sin was taking place, and might try to get the Pastor removed. 

And in this kind of case, you would fail.

 

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. 

I am talking about emotional and mental abuse where it is clear that the husband is abusive in his public and private treatment of his wife.   You can easier hide the evidence of physical abuse than you can emotional abuse and  you will not have time to wage a war on a pastor because you will to be busy dealing with the legal battles that you will be handling when the state decides to take over.  You would never split a church over anything like this.   Instances of abuse serve to unite the church against the abuser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time this morning to go as deep into this as I would like, but I do have things I need to address in your latest post.  I have been very clear from the start, not only in this Soap Box debate, but in all other debates on this subject, that I have never been addressing the way a husband, Christian or otherwise, should behave.  I have only been addressing the responsibility of the wife according to scripture, and the fact she is told to obey her husband regardless of how he behaves.  Anyone can go back and read through all of the posts and clearly see that I have never said the husband should do this or do that.  I have said that we should discuss the husband and how he should behave in another thread, because it is a separate topic.  I have been trying to establish the wife's responsibilities before tackling the husband.  I am more than happy to discuss what would be abusive behavior on the part of the husband in another thread, but the only point I am making here is that the wife is supposed to obey her husband regardless. 

As far as what is abusive behavior, I don't believe we have ever talked about the husband embarrassing his wife in public, shouting at her, putting her down, and calling her derogatory names in public specifically.   As far as sex goes, what I said is that neither the husband nor the wife have a right to refuse to have sex according to 1 Corinthians.  It is actually a 2 way street, as neither have control of their own body according to scripture when it comes to sex.  That is what I said.  I said that if both parties followed scripture, you cannot have rape in marriage.  But again, this thread and discussion has zero to do with how the husband should behave.  The issue is whether or not the wife must obey if the husband doesn't obey God, and since you agreed she should obey him anyway, it seems to me we have found agreement.  Here is your quote once again.

A man who is a controlling jerk isn't a Biblical husband and he is a failure before the Lord.  She should continue to obey him if for no other reason, than to be a 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 I have been saying.  The wife is still obligated to obey her husband, even if he is a controlling jerk.  We agree.  I don't care what your view of the husband is because this is about the wife.  I would be more than happy to discuss the husband and how he should behave in another thread.  I do plan to come back and take on all the Greek and Hebrew words again, including the word rule, and based on your own method of interpretation, show it does mean rule as a king.  It will be rather easy to do, but I will have to begin with the word translated help-meet, and how you derived it's meaning, and then make my case.  I will try to do that in the next reply.  I will also do the same thing with the word translated to lord in the New Testament.  I will prove it is you "moving the goal post" to twist scripture. 

As for the Pastor and his authority, you are just wrong.  Here is why.  I was a Pastor for about 3 years and I know how it is in the real world.  While I did come in contact with some other Pastors, it isn't like I knew every Pastor in the country.  I only knew a handful of them.  I was in a denomination church, and there was one other church of the same denomination in the country.  All the other churches were other denominations and some were independent churches.  I didn't fellowship with all of them.  I barely knew any of them.  Most of my contact was with a handful of fellow full gospel Pastors.  The same thing would apply to a southern Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian Pastor.  They can surely warn those in the same group, but not all the other denominational churches and independent churches.  It is impossible.  I couldn't have contacted every church if I wanted to.  Some didn't even have contact numbers.  The notion a Pastor has that much power is absurd, and I know that having been in that position. 

You are claiming the person who was dis-fellowshipped was in some kind of legal trouble, but in most cases, that is nonsense.  He would only be in legal trouble if actual physical abuse was taking place.  Nobody would be in any trouble for abuse in the way you have used it, like calling names, or controlling one's time or telling someone how much make-up they can wear.  You have reduced the term abuse to such a low level, not only is it not a crime, but it would be offensive to someone who really suffered abuse.  I know people that were abused, and I mean real abuse.  I know a woman who had to wear make-up to cover where her husband hit her.  I know a man who was in an abusive relationship where his wife would hit him and had him living in fear.  Those people would love to be in what you call abuse if that is all they had to deal with.  I also made a distinction between true abuse and what you call abuse when I said how a church would react.  When I was Pastor of a church, I generally stayed out of the affairs of a husband and wife.  The only way I would get involved in something like abuse is if the wife was physically abused and needed help getting to a shelter.  I stayed out of all other matters unless they wanted counseling.  Had someone showed up at my church because they were dis-fellowshipped by a meddling Pastor from another church because he didn't want his wife braiding her hair or something silly like that, I would gladly take him in.  I would disregard the other Pastor's recommendation.  As I also said Shiloh, there is nothing to stop anyone from starting their own church.  As far as splitting a church goes, it is easier than you think.  It happens all the time.  It is also possible to get a Pastor removed.  I have seen that happen in cases where nobody thought it possible. 

Here is one other thing you failed to consider.  What happens to the wife and children if a church dis-fellowships this "controlling" husband?  If he is really that controlling, he will pull them out and demand they no longer attend.  If I was that kind of person, that is what I would do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

I don't have time this morning to go as deep into this as I would like, but I do have things I need to address in your latest post.  I have been very clear from the start, not only in this Soap Box debate, but in all other debates on this subject, that I have never been addressing the way a husband, Christian or otherwise, should behave.  I have only been addressing the responsibility of the wife according to scripture, and the fact she is told to obey her husband regardless of how he behaves.  Anyone can go back and read through all of the posts and clearly see that I have never said the husband should do this or do that.  I have said that we should discuss the husband and how he should behave in another thread, because it is a separate topic.  I have been trying to establish the wife's responsibilities before tackling the husband.  I am more than happy to discuss what would be abusive behavior on the part of the husband in another thread, but the only point I am making here is that the wife is supposed to obey her husband regardless. 

 

I don’t buy that you have not addressed how a husband should behave.  You have continued to justify controlling tyrannical behavior as allowed.   So you have addressed it whether you admit that or not, and you have clearly given the unmistakable signals that being an overbearing jerk is acceptable under biblical guidelines.  You can try and obfuscate and muddy the waters all you want, but that is what you have said.

I will say that in the case of actual abuse, the wife is not obligated to obey or stay with her husband because that is a safety issue and he has crossed a line and if abuse is taking place, she has no obligation toward him.

 

As far as what is abusive behavior, I don't believe we have ever talked about the husband embarrassing his wife in public, shouting at her, putting her down, and calling her derogatory names in public specifically.   As far as sex goes, what I said is that neither the husband nor the wife have a right to refuse to have sex according to 1 Corinthians.  It is actually a 2 way street, as neither have control of their own body according to scripture when it comes to sex.  That is what I said.  I said that if both parties followed scripture, you cannot have rape in marriage.  But again, this thread and discussion has zero to do with how the husband should behave.  The issue is whether or not the wife must obey if the husband doesn't obey God, and since you agreed she should obey him anyway, it seems to me we have found agreement.  Here is your quote once again.

 

Mental/emotional and sexual abuse are not allowed in a biblical marriage.  Forcing one’s wife into intercourse is not biblical.   I Corinthians was not  advocating that one or the other can force sexual intercourse on their spouse.   That is completely foreign to the text.   Paul’s point had to do with temporary abstinence during short seasons of fasting and prayer.  And then only by mutual consent.   That doesn’t mean that the husband can force sex on his wife when she isn’t ready or feeling up to it.  He needs to find the self-control and abstain until his wife feels she is ready.   Forcing that on someone is abusive. 

 

That is what I have been saying.  The wife is still obligated to obey her husband, even if he is a controlling jerk.  We agree.  I don't care what your view of the husband is because this is about the wife.  I would be more than happy to discuss the husband and how he should behave in another thread.  I do plan to come back and take on all the Greek and Hebrew words again, including the word rule, and based on your own method of interpretation, show it does mean rule as a king. 

Which would be pointless as I have only ever said that the word rule means, “rule like a king.”    So you would be trying refute an argument I never raised.  The meaning of the word is not in dispute.  It’s application is what I am disputing.   I don’t believe that God, based on EVERYTHING the Bible says about marriage means that the husband’s rulership indicates that marriage is a king/vassal relationship.  That is not the biblical model for marriage and there is nothing you can do to offer up a convincing argument that says otherwise.

 

It will be rather easy to do, but I will have to begin with the word translated help-meet, and how you derived it's meaning, and then make my case.  I will try to do that in the next reply.  I will also do the same thing with the word translated to lord in the New Testament.  I will prove it is you "moving the goal post" to twist scripture. 

LOL, good luck!

 

As for the Pastor and his authority, you are just wrong.  Here is why.  I was a Pastor for about 3 years and I know how it is in the real world.  While I did come in contact with some other Pastors, it isn't like I knew every Pastor in the country.  I only knew a handful of them.  I was in a denomination church, and there was one other church of the same denomination in the country.  All the other churches were other denominations and some were independent churches.  I didn't fellowship with all of them.  I barely knew any of them.  Most of my contact was with a handful of fellow full gospel Pastors.  The same thing would apply to a southern Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian Pastor.  They can surely warn those in the same group, but not all the other denominational churches and independent churches.  It is impossible.  I couldn't have contacted every church if I wanted to.  Some didn't even have contact numbers.  The notion a Pastor has that much power is absurd, and I know that having been in that position. 

 

I live in an area that is known as the Bible belt.  Pastors conferences cover virtually every denomination in town and pastors around here are often involved in joint-church and community activities.   They know each other across denominational lines.   Maybe pastors in outlying small towns around the US, those that have churches in isolated areas, don’t get together with other pastors, but by in large, pastors start networking in seminaries and they know not only the pastors in their area, but around the country and regularly preach in each other’s  churches.    It is far more networked than you apparently realize.   The limited scope of your experience doesn’t really reflect the real world of pastors.  Every October, we have a pastor’s appreciation luncheon and pastors of every denomination from around town and the surrounding areas, up to 50 miles or so away, come every year and it is part of their networking with other ministries. And in this day and age of E-mail, it is easy for pastors to warn other pastors of those who caused trouble and left and are looking for a new church. 

 

You are claiming the person who was dis-fellowshipped was in some kind of legal trouble, but in most cases, that is nonsense.  He would only be in legal trouble if actual physical abuse was taking place. 

 

That is not true.   Many abuse cases in family law surround emotional abuse.  Emotional abusers can be taken to court.  There are often physical effects of emotional abuse. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/emotional-abuse-laws.html  It is not simply emotional distress.   It is even considered part of domestic violence. 

 

Nobody would be in any trouble for abuse in the way you have used it, like calling names, or controlling one's time or telling someone how much make-up they can wear.  You have reduced the term abuse to such a low level, not only is it not a crime, but it would be offensive to someone who really suffered abuse.

No, no…   You have not understood what I mean.  I am talking the verbal/emotional abuse of a wife;  I am not referring to telling what to wear or what makeup to use.  I am talking about the kind of hateful, overbearing attitude of a husband who sees is wife as worthless, tells her she is ugly, and calls by extremely vulgar names, embarrasses her in public around other people and makes her feel like she can do nothing right and that if she divorces him, no one would ever want her.   I am talking about a truly emotionally abusive husband.   It is also abusive to tell her those things and then remind her that she has to take it from him because the Bible says so (when it says no such thing).   I don’t think she is obligated to him at that point, in any shape or form. 

 

I know people that were abused, and I mean real abuse.  I know a woman who had to wear make-up to cover where her husband hit her.  I know a man who was in an abusive relationship where his wife would hit him and had him living in fear.  Those people would love to be in what you call abuse if that is all they had to deal with.  I also made a distinction between true abuse and what you call abuse when I said how a church would react. 

Emotional abuse IS real abuse.  Real abuse is not limited to physically striking someone. 

 

As I also said Shiloh, there is nothing to stop anyone from starting their own church.  As far as splitting a church goes, it is easier than you think.  It happens all the time.  It is also possible to get a Pastor removed.  I have seen that happen in cases where nobody thought it possible. 

Like said, in situations where the pastor is protecting a wife from an abuser, the abuser would never succeed in getting a pastor removed.  If anything, he would be admitting to the abuse and only getting himself in more legal hot water.

 

Here is one other thing you failed to consider.  What happens to the wife and children if a church dis-fellowships this "controlling" husband?  If he is really that controlling, he will pull them out and demand they no longer attend.  If I was that kind of person, that is what I would do. 

 

I didn’t fail to consider that at all.  Because a pastor is required by the state to report abuse, he reports to social services and law enforcement and they take it from there and not only that, but often family members as well as church members are mobilized to shield the wife and children from an abuser.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots to address, so I will get right to it.  I want to begin with a tale of 3 words in the Bible, 2 Hebrew, and 1 Greek.  As you know, all words have meanings, and a single word can have many different meanings which will be given in a Dictionary.  Trying to decide which meaning is correct can be a challenge at times, and Shiloh claimed he had the answer.  It is based on what he calls "word usage."  He began to explain what the word translated to help-meet means using this method.  Before I begin showing you how this works, I am more than happy to apply this method, so long as this is done in all cases, and not just when it suits Shiloh.  Lets begin. 

ezer (help-meet) Definition:  aid, help.

Shiloh makes the point that we know this is not just speaking of a side-kick or assistant by the way the word is used in other Old Testament scriptures.  I will give you an example of this, and I am happy to allow this point so long as it is consistently applied in all cases. 

...let his hands be sufficient for him; and be thou a help (ezer) to him from his enemies.  Deuteronomy 33:7b

You find this type of usage of the word throughout scripture, and it is typical of how it is used, so point well taken.  I am now going to use this same method in 2 other cases.

mashal (rule) to rule, have dominion, governor, reign, rule, have power.

There is really no definition here that works for Shiloh.  Here is the verse of scripture where it is used.

...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule (mashal) over thee.  Genesis 3:16b

This is very plain, but Shiloh's only argument is that he knows it can't mean what it says because he doesn't believe marriage is that way.  He is completely void of any substance, but even so, I want to use his example of word usage to show how the word mashal is typically used in scripture. 

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule (mashal) thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also.  Judges 8:22a

When this word is used in other passages, it's typical meaning is to rule as a king over subjects.  Using Shiloh's method of word usage to show why the wife is more than a sidekick, we see that the husband is to rule as a king over his wife.  This is Shiloh's method, not mine, and if it doesn't apply to mashal, it doesn't apply to ezer, and his argument there is null and void.  Lets now examine another word, this time from the New Testament.

kurios (lord) Supreme in authority, controller, God, Lord, Master, sir.

This is the verse or scripture I am referring to.  1 Peter 3:5,6

For after this manner in 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 (kurios):  whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 

Shiloh wants to claim that the correct definition of the word kurios here is sir, but using Shiloh's own method of word usage to show us what ezer means, lets see how this word is typically used in scripture.  Here is an example.

The Lord (kurios) knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.  2 Peter 2:9

When this word is used in scripture, it is generally speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that would indicate that the correct definition in 1 Peter 3:6 is not sir, but Supreme in authority, controller.  You see, the Bible says wives are to obey their husbands in the same way the church is to obey the Lord Jesus Christ, so using Shiloh's method of word usage, the true meaning is clear.  Not only that, but look at the way the word is used in the passage.  It is after stating that Sarah was in subjection to Abraham and obeyed him that it mentions her calling him lord.  That is the point this passage is making.  The wives are to be in subjection to and obey their husbands.  Shiloh wished me luck in showing how he was wanting to use this method in one place and ignore it in another.  I feel confident I have made my point clear for any literate reader. 

I want to briefly touch on another point Shiloh made that is utterly false.  A husband that uses his God given authority is not in rebellion against God for exercising it.  The very notion is ludicrous.  What does God say once again in Genesis 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 

The Lord God states that the husband shall rule over his wife.  To do what God says he shall do is not rebellion, even if Shiloh in his wisdom doesn't agree with how he uses his God-given authority.  I want to touch on something briefly.  I didn't really want to because I am trying to limit this discussion to the wife's responsibility to obey her husband's authority, and I wanted to deal with the husband's type of leadership separately, but I feel I must explain something here.  The husband was given authority to rule over his wife, period.  How one individual treats another person when they exercise any authority is not the issue.  A King over a nation has real authority to do as he pleases, but he doesn't have to be tyrannical.  He can be, because his authority is real, but he doesn't have to be.  He can be a King that does what is best for the people, and treat them with respect.  A husband doesn't have to be mean to be in control.  He doesn't have to call his wife names, yell at her, throw things, etc.  He certainly doesn't have to do physical harm to her, and shouldn't ever do so.  Just to explain how I view this, I will give an example.

Lets suppose that you have a husband that believes the Bible calls a wife braiding her hair and wearing jewelry sinful.  He therefore tells her not to braid her hair and not to wear jewelry.  Just for the record, I have no problem with either, but that is neither here nor there.  She is obligated to obey him, even if she doesn't agree with him.  How should he react if she refuses to obey?  There is really nothing he can do.  He can point out she is in rebellion, but if she knows the Bible, she knows that already.  That is it.  He has no right to hit her.  He has no business publically shaming her or calling her bad names.  The matter is now between her and God.  The same thing applies to the husband and how he is to obey his Lord.  God gives us instructions in the Bible, and we are told to obey.  What happens if we don't?  You may not see anything happen then and there, as God can be long suffering if he chooses to be, but we will give an account one day.  I have not in this thread or in any other place suggested a husband should throw temper tantrums, or curse his wife or publically shame her.  I wanted to deal with husbands separately, because it is another matter.  How he behaves has no bearing on the wife's responsibility to obey.

I want to deal briefly with Shiloh's comments on how churches are run.  He hasn't been married, but he thinks he knows more about marriage than I do, and I don't think he has been a Pastor, yet he seems to know more about how that works, even though I served as a Pastor.  I know for a fact that the ministers in my community never got together as Shiloh suggested.  Those in denominational churches had fellowship with others in the same denominations, and there was a little interaction between the First Methodist and First Presbyterian Church.  In my circle, it was primarily with other full gospel Pastors, and that is it.  I knew a few Pastors slightly from 3 Baptist Churches, but we never got together to discuss problems with people that were put out of their church.  The closest thing I ever encountered with another church's member was when one woman I knew dropped by my church to complain that the Pastor at another full gospel church passed a rule that women who wanted to sing had to wear a dress.  She called it a man-made rule, and was looking for my opinion.  I agreed with the Pastor's position and said I didn't believe women should come to church wearing pants, period.  I knew the Pastor of that church.  He was one of the few I did know.  I probably could have taken one of his members by simply taking her side, but I didn't agree with her.  The point is, none of us ever contacted another Pastor to tell them to beware of this fellow or that woman.  It didn't happen ever.  If someone did tell me that, I would simply have taken it under advisement. 

I will close this post with a few additional scriptures.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  1 Corinthians 11:3

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, the Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  1 Timothy 2:12-14

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:  and he is the savior of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.  Colossians 3:18

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God:  the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God:  and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  Romans 13:1-2

While the passage from Romans 13 isn't specifically speaking of the marriage relationship, I included it because the husband's authority is from God, therefore it applies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2015‎ ‎6‎:‎20‎:‎25‎, Butero said:

Lots to address, so I will get right to it.  I want to begin with a tale of 3 words in the Bible, 2 Hebrew, and 1 Greek.  As you know, all words have meanings, and a single word can have many different meanings which will be given in a Dictionary.  Trying to decide which meaning is correct can be a challenge at times, and Shiloh claimed he had the answer.  It is based on what he calls "word usage."  He began to explain what the word translated to help-meet means using this method.  Before I begin showing you how this works, I am more than happy to apply this method, so long as this is done in all cases, and not just when it suits Shiloh.  Lets begin. 

ezer (help-meet) Definition:  aid, help.

Shiloh makes the point that we know this is not just speaking of a side-kick or assistant by the way the word is used in other Old Testament scriptures.  I will give you an example of this, and I am happy to allow this point so long as it is consistently applied in all cases. 

...let his hands be sufficient for him; and be thou a help (ezer) to him from his enemies.  Deuteronomy 33:7b

You find this type of usage of the word throughout scripture, and it is typical of how it is used, so point well taken.  I am now going to use this same method in 2 other cases.

mashal (rule) to rule, have dominion, governor, reign, rule, have power.

There is really no definition here that works for Shiloh.  Here is the verse of scripture where it is used.

...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule (mashal) over thee.  Genesis 3:16b

This is very plain, but Shiloh's only argument is that he knows it can't mean what it says because he doesn't believe marriage is that way.  He is completely void of any substance, but even so, I want to use his example of word usage to show how the word mashal is typically used in scripture. 

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule (mashal) thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also.  Judges 8:22a

When this word is used in other passages, it's typical meaning is to rule as a king over subjects.  Using Shiloh's method of word usage to show why the wife is more than a sidekick, we see that the husband is to rule as a king over his wife.  This is Shiloh's method, not mine, and if it doesn't apply to mashal, it doesn't apply to ezer, and his argument there is null and void.  Lets now examine another word, this time from the New Testament.

kurios (lord) Supreme in authority, controller, God, Lord, Master, sir.

This is the verse or scripture I am referring to.  1 Peter 3:5,6

For after this manner in 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 (kurios):  whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 

Shiloh wants to claim that the correct definition of the word kurios here is sir, but using Shiloh's own method of word usage to show us what ezer means, lets see how this word is typically used in scripture.  Here is an example.

The Lord (kurios) knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.  2 Peter 2:9

When this word is used in scripture, it is generally speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that would indicate that the correct definition in 1 Peter 3:6 is not sir, but Supreme in authority, controller.  You see, the Bible says wives are to obey their husbands in the same way the church is to obey the Lord Jesus Christ, so using Shiloh's method of word usage, the true meaning is clear.  Not only that, but look at the way the word is used in the passage.  It is after stating that Sarah was in subjection to Abraham and obeyed him that it mentions her calling him lord.  That is the point this passage is making.  The wives are to be in subjection to and obey their husbands.  Shiloh wished me luck in showing how he was wanting to use this method in one place and ignore it in another.  I feel confident I have made my point clear for any literate reader. 

Word Usage – refers to how a word is used in a given context.  One of the biggest mistakes that people who have no skill in handling the original languages make, is they try to define a word based on how it is used in other places in the Bible.   Often they will look at the majority of uses and assume that we can determine now a word is used based on how it usually appears much of the time.    That is a big hermeneutic mistake.   I can easily show how that work in the English language if we too that approach and the kind of problems it would create.

The way to understand a word in a given passage of Scripture is to first ascertain the context or line of thought.    A good Bible word to use as an example is the word “justification.”   Paul uses “justification in Romans 3 in regard to our standing before God.   James uses the exact same word but he uses it to explain how our testimony is justified (affirmed) by works in the sight of men.   Paul is employing “justification”  in a context of redemption.   James is employing the word is the context of practical Christian living.   So the same word has at least two separate and completely different usages.    When you are dealing with words, you need to understand the line of thought the author within which the author is operating.

Ezer – This word is unique in that there isn’t context I am aware of where the word is used to make the person being helped superior to the helper.  The helper is always seen as someone who is making up for what the person being help, lacks.   The person being helped is never portrayed as the expert who is simply patronizing his sidekick by allowing him to feel like he is useful when in fact, the expert could get along just fine without him.     The truth is that helper is never pictured that way.  Adam was seen as being in need, and God made woman to fill that need.  Adam had an area of his life in which he needed help and Eve was created to meet that need and provide him aid.  Eve was created to make Adam better.

The word “rule” (mashal) is a sticking point in this thread because Butero doesn’t want to deal with the word outside a shallow one-dimensional understanding of the word.  He wants to act as if that is God’s last word on the way marriage is supposed to work.  The man is king and the wife needs to realize her job is to just shut up and do what’s she’s told.  I suppose if that was all the Bible said about marriage, then he would have a point.   Butero continues making the same mistake that I mentioned earlier and that is he is appealing to how the word “rule” is used elsewhere in the Bible and he applies those meanings to how it is used in Gen. 3:16.   The problem is that Gen. 3:16 is talking about a marriage covenant, and Butero wants to argue the word from the vantage point of a King/vassal relationship and so he ignores and really mixes two completely different contexts which demonstrates a poor understanding of hermeneutics.

Butero over-simplifies my argument and most of my argument in this area has been pretty much ignored.  Butero can’t really offer much of a challenge or refutation to what I actually said because he has no skills in hermeneutics.  His only recourse is to re-frame my argument down  to a level he can address even if it means misrepresenting what I actually said.   My rejection of his handling of the word “mashal”  isn’t simply because I don’t want to believe marriage is that way.   I have made that clear in the past.   

The point I was making is that the word mashal in the context of a marriage covenant needs to be understood differently than how it is used in other types of relationships, namely a political, “king vs. vassal”  relationship.   In the context of the marriage covenant it means “to have authority over.”   But it does not paint that authority in the same manner as we think of a king ruling over his subjects. 

 I have, in the past, pointed out that what we need to do take everything the Bible says about marriage and look at mashal in that context.   Because when we bring in other things that God says about marriage,   we can see that “rule” is tempered by the way Malachi presents marriage as a covenant, and how that Paul presents marriage as a two-way street where there is a mutual submission that in no way eliminates man as being the head of the home and being the one having authority over the home.   He is to use his authority to serve and protect those in his family, not treat them as if he were their king. 

LORD - The word “Lord” (adon)in Hebrew is used a variety of ways.   It is used to refer to God’s Name.  The word “Adonai”  is translated as “Lord” to avoid using the divine Name.   It is used to refer to someone as “master”  such as in a master/slave relationship. Ba’al is translated in places as “lord” even though it is also the name of a pagan deity.   But in a familial sense, the word “adon” was often used in the connotation of “sir” when addressing a human being.   Note that I said, “connotation.”  I am not saying the word “lord” means, “sir.”   This is a cultural thing that is just not something we are familiar with in our day and age.   We don’t call each other “lord”  in our western culture.  It is something really pretty much foreign to us, but even a cursory examination of the text indicates that it is a term of respect.  In Gen. 23:11 is signifies a term of deserved respect.   It does not mean, and we should never ascribe it to mean the same thing, as it is used when applied to God.

Another good example of how this works in Hebrew is the word “elohim.”   “Elohim” is the title of God.   But it is also used to refer to angels and it is used to refer to men, namely human magistrates.  We would never use the word “elohim” in a human context and expect that it means that human magistrates are little gods or little deities. It is used that way to simply denote the source of their authority as coming from God and that they stand as his representatives.   The word “lord”  must be understood the same way in the light of the various contexts in which it appears.

Furthermore, that Sarah called Abraham, “lord”  doesn’t serve as doctrinal passage about marriage.  When we start taking bits and pieces out of narratives and we start building doctrines on them we can end up with very convoluted doctrinal positions.   Sarah called Abraham, “lord,” but that term of respect is just that: It is a term of respect and nothing more.  That passage doesn’t make a husband the lord and master of his home, free to rule like a domineering overlord.

I want to briefly touch on another point Shiloh made that is utterly false.  A husband that uses his God given authority is not in rebellion against God for exercising it.  The very notion is ludicrous.

 

That is not what I said.   I was speaking of those husbands who treat their wives like servants/slaves who see their own role as the “king” of the house and the wife is the inferior vassal.   I said that such a man is abusing his God given authority and as such is in rebellion.   Again, all you seem able to do misrepresent my statements.  You put the lie in my mouth and then argue against it.  It’s either that you don’t really take the time to read my posts and simply react to what you think I said, and to what I actually posted.

The Lord God states that the husband shall rule over his wife.  To do what God says he shall do is not rebellion, even if Shiloh in his wisdom doesn't agree with how he uses his God-given authority.  I want to touch on something briefly.  I didn't really want to because I am trying to limit this discussion to the wife's responsibility to obey her husband's authority, and I wanted to deal with the husband's type of leadership separately, but I feel I must explain something here.  The husband was given authority to rule over his wife, period. 

 

The Bible doesn’t say that the man is to rule over the wife and it is up to him to decide how that “rulership” should look.  Butero appears to be saying that God doesn’t really set any conditions on how a man rules his household so it is completely arbitrary (with the obvious exception of physical abuse).   But the Bible never says that.  That is an assumption that Butero has fabricated.   Butero doesn’t believe in emotional or mental abuse.    I used to know men who beat their wives but denied that doing so constitutes, “abuse.”  The abuser never thinks he is an abuser.    Men who treat their wives, like dirt, who make their wives feel like they are losers who can’t do anything right, who have to walk on eggshells to please their husbands, who have to agree with everything he says, no matter what for fear of setting him off, that is all emotional abuse.  According to Butero, if that’s how he wants to “rule” his home, that’s okay and within his God given authority.   It is basically permission to emotionally abuse his wife.

I want to deal briefly with Shiloh's comments on how churches are run.  He hasn't been married, but he thinks he knows more about marriage than I do, and I don't think he has been a Pastor, yet he seems to know more about how that works, even though I served as a Pastor. 

I can know objective information about marriage without having been married.  I have a very sound and biblical understanding of marriage.  I don’t know everything about it, but I know enough to know what a bad marriage and a good marriage look like.   Your argument would like telling someone that unless they have actually been addicted to cocaine, they cannot warn anyone about the dangers of cocaine.  

The fact is that I know what a lot of pastors in my area do.  I have served at conferences and other pastoral gatherings in my area.  I know a lot of pastors and how they operate.  I am a seminary student and I have classes with pastors from around the country and I have attended a number of pastoral conferences.  I am intimately familiar with the workings of pastoral ministry.   

Fortunately, I know that your limited 3-year scope of experience isn’t really the norm.   Pastors network around here and in other parts of the country and they know each other, and they minister together, are members of the same teams that go out on mission trips.  They serve together on committees and missions activities and in local community groups.   Maybe your experience wasn’t like that, but your experience isn’t the standard by which most pastors operate in.

And yes, they warn each other about troublemakers that leave their church looking for other churches.  In Southern Baptist circles, people join “by letter”  meaning that a letter is sent from the receiving church to the church the member came from  and often if there is a problem, it will come up in the letter sent to the receiving church affirming that the prospective member was, in fact, a member at the church they left.   Pastors call each other and in some cases they will inform the receiving pastor about the conditions under which the member left if they feel that such information is necessary, particularly if the person was a trouble maker, or was in some kind of other trouble.  In this part of the country, there is a lot more fellowship between pastors of various denominations.  They are able to put aside doctrinal differences in order to work together for common goals.

The scriptures you present have been covered ad nauseum and no one is disputing the husband’s authority in the home.  That has been made abundantly clear to you.  The issue is how that authority is applied in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to begin by dealing with word usage.  Once again, the method I gave an example of is Shiloh's method of word usage.  It is not mine.  I never thought of such a thing.  In his response to me on October 23, which can easily be verified, he gave examples from the Bible where the word ezer is used, and said this shows the meaning is not someone inferior.  Shiloh said after giving a list of scriptures, "In all of those places the word ezer is used and in NONE of those references is it ever used of someone who is inferior."  Now, to use Shiloh's past analogy, he has moved the goal post and changed things.  Look what he says now about a person who does what he did.  "One of the biggest mistakes that people who have no skill in handling the original language make is they try to define a word based on how it is used in other places in the Bible."  That is what Shiloh did.  Check it out for yourself.  That means that according to his new standard, Shiloh has "no skill in handling the original language."   I already could tell that was the case, but I am glad he admitted it.  Until he came up with that crazy method of defining a word, I never used that method, not once, to determine it's meaning.  That is 100 percent Shiloh's doing because he has no skill in handling the original language. 

There are two things going on in this debate.  While I am saying the husband has authority to rule his home, period, based on the fact God says so in Genesis, and God also states that this authority applies even if the husband is a non-believer, Shiloh is debating bad behavior on the part of the husband and saying God never said he should behave badly.  I never said the husband should behave badly, but only said his authority is still in effect even if he does.  It must, since this applies even in the case of non-believers.   I have made it clear that how any person should behave, husband or wife, is different than whether or not someone has authority to rule.  Just as you can go back and see Shiloh mishandling words and using a method that shows he has no skill with the original language, you can see how consistent I have been in making this distinction. 

Finally, three years of being a Pastor is three years more experience than Shiloh has, so if my limited experience means little to him, his having zero experience should show he doesn't know what he is talking about.  The closest thing we had to what he describes is a country Ministerial Association, that few ministers belonged to.  Most churches don't have applications for members.  My church didn't.  I took in members and never asked anything about their past, and frankly didn't care.  I just wanted to know if they were saved.  If they are good enough for God, they are good enough for me.  I wouldn't have honored the decision of another church who thinks they have the right to blackball people from joining other churches.  Talk about control freaks!  One church I know of doesn't even have a membership roll.  You just go there.  It is open to anyone, and the Pastor has full control.  There will always be a church home for someone put out of one church.  Probably half the people at WB don't even go to church, so this isn't really much of a punishment anyway.  Most don't go of their own free will.  Times have changed.  There are other methods of fellowship.  Of course, any Tom, Dick and Harry off the street can rent a store front and start a church. 

ADDED COMMENT BY ME:  I just went back and looked at that post where you came up with that word usage method on October 23.  You got 6 reputation points making that argument, so I would have to assume many people agreed with what you said, even if it was showing you have no skill in handling the original language.  When you contradict your own self to such a degree, it discredits you across the board.  Do you think people will just forget?  Why should they believe you now when you claim I am using a flawed method which is supposed to show I have no skill in handling the original language, when I simply referred to how you used the word ezer?   Do you not even realize what you are doing?  I can't wait to see how you try to turn this around and claim you didn't do what you obviously did do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

I want to begin by dealing with word usage.  Once again, the method I gave an example of is Shiloh's method of word usage.  It is not mine.  I never thought of such a thing.  In his response to me on October 23, which can easily be verified, he gave examples from the Bible where the word ezer is used, and said this shows the meaning is not someone inferior.  Shiloh said after giving a list of scriptures, "In all of those places the word ezer is used and in NONE of those references is it ever used of someone who is inferior."  Now, to use Shiloh's past analogy, he has moved the goal post and changed things.  Look what he says now about a person who does what he did.  "One of the biggest mistakes that people who have no skill in handling the original language make is they try to define a word based on how it is used in other places in the Bible."  That is what Shiloh did.  Check it out for yourself.  That means that according to his new standard, Shiloh has "no skill in handling the original language."   I already could tell that was the case, but I am glad he admitted it.  Until he came up with that crazy method of defining a word, I never used that method, not once, to determine it's meaning.  That is 100 percent Shiloh's doing because he has no skill in handling the original language. 

 

I am not moving the goal posts at all.   The first thing I did was establish that ezer doesn’t mean in the context of Genesis 2 that Eve was inferior to Adam.   I did not base that simply on looking at every other usage.   My point was that there was no case in Scripture where “ezer” was ever used to mean that the helper was not much more than just a sidekick.  And so far, you have not been able to refute that point.   

What I am NOT doing is what I accused others of doing, namely grabbing their favorite one of many possible rendering of the word and employ that meaning on the grounds that it can mean that in other places in the Bible in order to justify picking the meaning that I felt supported my position, as opposed to letting the context decide that for me.

 

There are two things going on in this debate.  While I am saying the husband has authority to rule his home, period, based on the fact God says so in Genesis, and God also states that this authority applies even if the husband is a non-believer, Shiloh is debating bad behavior on the part of the husband and saying God never said he should behave badly.  I never said the husband should behave badly, but only said his authority is still in effect even if he does.  It must, since this applies even in the case of non-believers.   I have made it clear that how any person should behave, husband or wife, is different than whether or not someone has authority to rule.  Just as you can go back and see Shiloh mishandling words and using a method that shows he has no skill with the original language, you can see how consistent I have been in making this distinction. 

 

The problem is that you entered this debate thinking that I was saying that a woman can be rebellious, which is never a case I made.   You came into this saying that bad behavior was not really an issue and that a husband can be unreasonable and domineering and manipulative if he wants to.   It was something you felt was his business and should not be interfered with.   My point was the husband’s authority doesn’t give him the unconditional license to emotionally abuse his wife.

 

Finally, three years of being a Pastor is three years more experience than Shiloh has, so if my limited experience means little to him, his having zero experience should show he doesn't know what he is talking about.  The closest thing we had to what he describes is a country Ministerial Association, that few ministers belonged to.  Most churches don't have applications for members.  My church didn't.  I took in members and never asked anything about their past, and frankly didn't care.  I just wanted to know if they were saved.  If they are good enough for God, they are good enough for me.  I wouldn't have honored the decision of another church who thinks they have the right to blackball people from joining other churches.  Talk about control freaks!  One church I know of doesn't even have a membership roll.  You just go there.  It is open to anyone, and the Pastor has full control.  There will always be a church home for someone put out of one church.  Probably half the people at WB don't even go to church, so this isn't really much of a punishment anyway.  Most don't go of their own free will.  Times have changed.  There are other methods of fellowship.  Of course, any Tom, Dick and Harry off the street can rent a store front and start a church. 

 

This has nothing to do with your whopping three years as a pastor.  Your experience doesn’t really tell the whole story about how pastors operate.  I know exactly what I am talking about because I am around pastors and have been taught by pastors who were pastors for 25, 30, 40 and even 50 years.   Your limited scope of three years is pretty much meaningless.   Lots of evangelical churches have church membership rolls and some even keep track of how much you tithe.    Maybe your rural neck of the woods they are less formal, but where I live, larger churches and their pastors operate in a completely different environment than you did. 

 

I just went back and looked at that post where you came up with that word usage method on October 23.  You got 6 reputation points making that argument, so I would have to assume many people agreed with what you said, even if it was showing you have no skill in handling the original language.  When you contradict your own self to such a degree, it discredits you across the board.  Do you think people will just forget?  Why should they believe you now when you claim I am using a flawed method which is supposed to show I have no skill in handling the original language, when I simply referred to how you used the word ezer?   Do you not even realize what you are doing?  I can't wait to see how you try to turn this around and claim you didn't do what you obviously did do. 

I didn’t’ contradict anything.  You simply don’t understand the point I was making.  I have been consistent in my exegesis the whole time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest shiloh357

 

Quote

Here is what you said in that other post.  If your point is to show that the word ezer, which becomes help-meet in English, does not mean someone inferior based on how the word is used in other places in the Old Testament, you have done exactly what you later said shows you have no understanding of the original language.  I don't have to show you are wrong, because you did that yourself.  You completely attacked your own method of determining how this word should be used. 

No, I did not.  I am showing a consistent use of the word, “ezer” throughout the Bible.  My point is that based on its consistent use, it never refers to an inferior person.   You are applying the word in a way that suits your argument, not how the Bible applies it.   When used of God, for example, it never refers to an inferior.  The Bible consistently uses the word that way and so far you have not been able to contradict it.  You complain out and deny what I say, but up to this point, you have not been able to mount an exegetical argument against it.   When the Bible uses the word “ezer,”  it is consistently used to denote someone who makes up for what the person being helped, lacks.  That is consistent in Genesis 2.

 

Quote

SHILOH'S QUOTE:  "One of the biggest mistakes that people who have no skill in handling the original language make is they try to define a word based on how it is used in other places in the Bible."

That is what you did, so why should anyone think you know better how the word should be used than I do, when I simply consult a Dictionary?

No, that is not what I did.   What I am referring to is when  a word is used in  verse “A,” but is used differently in verse “B” and people think that they can plug what the word means in verse “B” into verse “A.”    I see that on the boards all of the time.   People grab the meaning of a word from a list of meanings in Strong’s concordance, to plug into a particular verse in order to justify their position, claiming that the word “can mean”  thus and so.   That’s the kind of arbitrary handling of the original languages I am referring to and that is not what I did. 

I can refer to other verses where the word is used exactly the same way it is used in Genesis 2 to make my point because the usages are parallel and identical.  I am not picking from a list and then plugging in the meaning I prefer.

The churches probably should spend more time on teaching husbands and wives what the Bible teaches about their role in the marriage, and how they should behave.  I strongly believe that there should be at least some marriage classes for anyone desiring to get married. 

I agree with that, completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...