pinklight

Is it a good thing that the father has final say over the mother’s?

This is why I don’t think the situation TL describes (poignantly, from her own experience) applies in your home– for if your wife were “humbled” in that way, the children would know that it’s no use asking the mother anything, because only the father has any say.

Maybe it was the wife who knew better and not the children, because she believes that the father has the final say, so I wouldn’t be so sure of the children’s perspective…

TL:
Mark describes himself as head and leader. He believes his wife defers to him in order to show that “Father” leads the home.

TL was onto something in her comment #182

Thanks Cheryl, I hope he answers them!

We go round and round over words…am trying to get to the bottom of the bottom.

Jesus can give commands, the Father can give commands, the Godhead can give commands, but what can you do?

What authority has God given you over your wife?

Do you really understand the power of authority? I wonder.

Mark,

Maybe the question is can you or can you not command your wife this or that and give her orders because you say that you have authority over her and that you are the head of the house?

Certainly discerning the finer points of truth requires words, but i’m quite certain that truth in its purest form is rather plain.

Absolutely.

There is a certain amount of grace that can be given Christians that cannot comprehend Christ’s ways on these issues. However, we who know better will likely always be running interference for the benefit of the ones who are damaged and wounded by the world’s systems of living. More is required of those with more understanding. It has to be that way.

Yes Mamm. *Pinklight gives salute*

But hierarchalists don’t agree that husbandly or even fatherly submission is honorable in Christ, because it demeans the authority of the man.

This is horrible.

The buzz words of “mutual submission” in ordinary language is simply “treating others the way you want to be treated”

🙂 🙂 And this is why I don’t like “compism”. It is opposed to the second greatest commandment.

I am saying that “comps” really don’t get the golden rule! That’s SAD.

IMO for hierarchalists, the issue is really only about authority, male authority.

This is how I see it too, TL and this is why Mark, I used the words that I did. With authority, if you cannot command your wife or give her orders, then what authority have you? Be real!! If you cannot exercise your authority then it is not legitimate. You either have it (use it) or you don’t. So do you or don’t you??

I would like to see Mark’s example of manly authority over his wife and her submission that he would never stoop to doing for her.

This is what I want to see also.

Mark describes himself as head and leader. He believes his wife defers to him in order to show that “Father” leads the home.

YES!

Cheryl – I agree with you. Mark’s example does not at all show authority of the “head” over the “body”, but instead looks far more like egal mutual submission.

I agree with this, but from his perspective the example he gave is of his wife’s submission to him as head of herand him being head of the home. I wonder what would his wife’s submission to him as head in the marriage look like aside his belief that he is the head of the home? Seems to me that maybe he cannot seperate the two?

So, when Paul says “submit one to another” you take it to mean “some to others” and that would mean (for one) “wives to the head of the home”, right?

Alrighty then ;P

More circles to go around and around and around. Let me put it this way…ive given an example of how my wife chooses to submit to me as her head- deal with that.

Wrong. See my last comment #170

Let me give one small sample of how i believe my wife chooses to submit to me as her head and the leader of our family.

This is the problem with your example given in #152. You gave an example of how you believe your wife chooses to submit to you as her head and the leader of the family. Obviously, in the example you gave you are not basing it on the metaphor of Ehp 5. But I do appreciate that you tried to give an example. Problem was that you combined you wife’s choice of submission to you with the idea that you are the head of the home.

Mark,

In other words, you can’t chop the metaphor up or in two by spltting off the head from the body and and then claim “I’m the head of the home because Eph 5 teaches that I’m the head of the home.” No. That’s is how you destroy the scriptural head/body metaphor by chopping it up like that.

She teaches them that i am the head of our house

So are they taught that they are your body too? The head/body metaphor is a special relationship that can only exist between the husband and wife. If you are the head of the home then your home which includes your children are your body, and that is not scriptural. Ofcourse I assume you get the idea that you are “head of the home” from Eph 5, but you MUST remember that the head is only head in relation to the body, therefore if you distort the metaphor by saying “I’m the head of the home” when scripture only says that you are the head of your wife, then your children are put in the same position as your wife, that is, they are your body. To say that the husband is the head of the home and that this is taught in Eph 5 is to completely distort the head/body metaphor.

Does he talk about about Adam providing for Eve- NO! The only thing that goes back to Gen is the one flesh union- the marriage- not the supposed provisional priority of the male.

Adam’s body provided for Eve’s body. That is how she was created, from Adam’s body and it is why there can even be a one flesh union between the two.

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies…29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church

Christ’s body put to death is what provides us with life, and part of Adam’s body was what God used to create Eve’s body and this is why “source” is tied into the meaning of the head/body metaphor – a unity.

Sure let’s assume this is correct. How then does this apply to the husband in Ephesus who is the source of his wife? In what way is the Ephesian coming out of her husband? This is the problem, the comparison is between the husband and wife in Ephesus and the Church and Christ, from which Paul draws on the one flesh union of Adam and Eve, not the creational order of Eve.

Paul tells husbands to love their wives as their own bodies and he can tell husbands to do that because Adam’s body was used to make Eve’s body and since she was made from him they become one flesh. It has nothing to do with Eve being created second (creational order), but rather her origin – that she was taken out of the man.

It’s interesting how in the two places Paul argues for a creational order, egals protest, and then they insert it into a place where it is not even in view?

Creation order is mentioned only in 1 Tim 2, it is not in 1 Co 11. Paul talks about origin in 1 Co 11, but he does NOT mention Adam being created first and then Eve. So what’s the second place you had in mind where Paul speaks of Adam being created first then Eve? And in Eph 5, Adam being created first (priority of creation) is not in view. There is a difference between priority of creation (Adam being created first and then Eve) and origin (woman being taken from man or Adam from the ground). They are not the same thing.

Cheryl:
“The husband is the original source of the woman and thus she is from him and equal to him. The husband today is to see his wife as being from him as his very own body so that he is to care for her as if she is his own flesh.”

Mark:
Where does Paul even mention Adam and Eve in this context?

Are you serious, Mark? In Eph 5, Paul had in mind specificaly Genesis 2 when woman was taken from man. That she was taken from man IS the reason why a man leaves father and mother and the two become one.

Genesis 2:
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ 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.

Eph 5:
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies…29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31″For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

It’s obvious from Ephesians 5 that the woman’s creation out of the man foreshadowed the church being made out of Christ.

It is not a side issue but a very important piece of grammar that should not be ignored.

You know I’m all ears when you talk about grammar Cheryl…1 Tim 2…Genesis 1, 2 & 3 🙂 Love paying attention to the GRAMMAR!!

TUAD is a hater.

“authority lovers”
* w e l l *

Could you give an example of what you will not do for your wife that you would see as an example of submitting to her?

Can I take a guess? He will not obey her orders, but she must obey his orders. I think that’s close ;P

What he will not do for his wife is obey her orders and commands cause if he did then he would see that as an example of submitting to her.

Now Kay. Don’t you know that you are too deceived and deceptive to know that what you perceive as a contradiction is actually perfectly logical?

LOL

So in this case, now in Gal 5:13, in being consistent with Mark’s view, the “one another” still means “some to others” but here since it is a perfect example of how the husband serves the wife, as a slave, therefore it is the wife who has the authority.

I really liked the questions you asked Cheryl, and I like this post of yours.

(Kinda sick so am going to be around through this sickness as best as I can)

637

Notice the redefining continues in this exchange:

Mark : “As in relation to culture wars, the egalitarian ‘gift’ based interpretations of scripture and practice may not be so innocent as you seemingly hint at. We are all products of our culture, egalitarianism included and probably more so than any other.”
…and have to be corrected –
by Lydia: “Gifts have nothing to do with egal or comp. They are given by the Holy Spirit to edify the Body.”

Significant, I think, that “gifts” is actually IN the Bible, while “roles” is not – Yet gifts are being called into question and roles are not.

Kay,
Does it ever end?

Mark,

What do you think about Gal 5:13? Do you consider yourself excluded from being a slave to your wife?

The same with female inferiority: they deny that it is the foundation for their theology, although all historical evidence contradicts them.

Ah ha! Thanks for the reminder, Susanna! Isn’t that something!!

What has been the comp reaction to this: they simply ignore all the evidence and keep on insisting that there has never been a female clergy.

For sure.

628

Personally, I prefer the term ‘mutuality’ and ‘mutualist’ over “egal” –

There just seems to be a whole bucket load of redefining.

Kay, yes, redefining is a HUGE problem, but it must be done in order for poor theology to be given a pass.

I use “egal” just cause it’s so common, but I’d prefer to use “hierachalists” for “comps” when I can remember to do so because it is more an accurate term from “complementarians”. And instead of “egalitarian” I like “complementarian” because of all the baggae that’s been attached to “egalitarian” and since it is a more accurate term for egals rather than hierarchalists. (Trying to unwind what’s been redefined)