Head "OF" or head "OVER" .....

[firehill]

Party time!

[apothanein kerdos]

The concept of head as "source" is well documented in both classical and Christian antiquity and has been long accepted by scholars. Some evangelicals, however, have shown a reluctance to deal with the data

[OopsMartin]

My desire is to approach this subject of male authority within the marriage (Head OF versus Head Over) with some amount of in depth inspection of the arguments from both sides. I would like to build it around Kevin Giles's three point grid of : "a novel understanding of 'order of creation'; a novel use of the word "role"; and a problematic meaning given to the word 'difference."

In each grid I'm planning on listing the elements within each point that I want to discuss. Thus far we are still dealing with "the order of creation", and are working with 5 points

[Emily~Anne]

You have to look at the whole picture Oops. When I go to a bible study class, and we are studying a certain verse, we always look at what other verses have to say as well on the matter and look at the whole picture.

[apothanein kerdos]

The concept of head as "source" is well documented in both classical and Christian antiquity and has been long accepted by scholars. Some evangelicals, however, have shown a reluctance to deal with the data

[apothanein kerdos]

I am reposting my last post on another forum where it is way off topic. Let's stick to this topic in this thread......

There are those who believe Christian marriage is one of male dominance, the husband being the authority of wife and children in a rank and file arrangement. In such a picture those under are at the mercy of the temerament and character of the authority.

There are those who believe Christian marriage to be a picture of the unity spoken of in Genesis where the first male when presented with the first woman, proclaimed with enthusiasm "this is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh". And then it was said that man should leave parents and cleave to his woman. Thus two shall become as if one.

Here I would like to discuss the differences of the concepts of being "of" one another versus being "over" and "under" one another in marriage.

Everyone keeps arguing that kephale means "source" or "origin." This commits the error of "semantic obsolescence." In Classical Greek, even in Classical Greek lexicons (such as LSJ), kephale DOES mean "source." However, the New Testament was composed quite a few centuries after the Classical period, and was written in Koine Greek, not Classical Greek. By the time the Bible was written in Koine Greek, kephale had changed from "source" to "authority."

Thus, any argument saying that kephale means "origin" is based upon an earlier meaning of the word and not the meaning of the word at that time.

When I have time I will look up some material to refute this statement. In the meantime

[firehill]

You have to look at the whole picture Oops. When I go to a bible study class, and we are studying a certain verse, we always look at what other verses have to say as well on the matter and look at the whole picture.

We are looking at what the accumulative verses have to say reagarding christian marriages just one at a time.

oopsMartin:

There were many more examples of this. What was impressive was that not in even one instance was the word used to indicate subservience, diminuitive assistance, or the kind of help one gives to an authority over.

To aleve the man's aloness God created a helpmeet called woman. Her derivation is THE REASON for the two becoming one. As helpmeet then the wife is not in a subservient, dimimutive role nor AS helpmeet does she provide help or assistance as under or subordinate to her husband.

But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [k] '

for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

[apothanein kerdos]

You have to look at the whole picture Oops. When I go to a bible study class, and we are studying a certain verse, we always look at what other verses have to say as well on the matter and look at the whole picture.

We are looking at what the accumulative verses have to say reagarding christian marriages just one at a time.

oopsMartin:

There were many more examples of this. What was impressive was that not in even one instance was the word used to indicate subservience, diminuitive assistance, or the kind of help one gives to an authority over.

To aleve the man's aloness God created a helpmeet called woman. Her derivation is THE REASON for the two becoming one. As helpmeet then the wife is not in a subservient, dimimutive role nor AS helpmeet does she provide help or assistance as under or subordinate to her husband.

But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [k] '

for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Ever going to respond to the kephale argument Firehill?

[Neopatriarch]

Oops, You rock!

Floatingaxe, I believe namecalling is against the forum rules. While I certainly don't agree with OopsMartin, I wasn't going to call him a rock.

-Neopatriarch

[OopsMartin]

We have seen that the Hebrew word translated helper, ezer, is a strong word relative to God's interventions