Biblical male headship vs male domination

Discussion and debate not related to prophecy.

Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Sonbeam on Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:05 pm

For those who believe that male headship was instituted by God at creation, there is a very good commentary at bible.org that supports/affirms this view.

It is titled “Male-Female - Equality and Male Headship (Genesis 1-3)” written by Pastor Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.

https://bible.org/seriespage/3-male-fem ... enesis-1-3

sonbeam
Sonbeam
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:26 pm

Of course Ortland would compose such a defense of male "headship." He's associated with the very networks and coalitions that promote that error as do Al Mohler, John Piper, Kevin DeYoung, Owen Strachan, Thabiti Anyabwile, John MacArthur, Wayne Grudem and Kevin DeYoung of Together 4 the Gospel, Sovereign Grace Ministries, the Gospel Coalition, etc. Ortland was on the committee that exonerated CJ Mahaney, saying that he was fit to be a pastor at Sovereign Grace Ministries. This was with the full understanding of story after story of the alleged cover up of child sex abuse.

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood promotes the "equal but different" in theory, but in reality, some are more equal than others. At least John Piper doesn't believe one has to be a Complementarian to be saved..... :roll: The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was instrumental in forming the Danvers Statement (1987) which tries to define the "roles" of men and women in an effort to refute the rise of women who saw the error in the Calvinists/Reformed promotion of Patriarchy and hierarchy and evidently curb the frightful dangers of biblical equality.

For those who believe in a "pink and blue" gospel, you will feel right at home with Ortland's writing!
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:52 pm

Abiding in His Word wrote:Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood promotes the "equal but different" in theory, but in reality, some are more equal than others.


:lol:

From Ortland's article...."So, was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals, “suitable for him.” But she was not his equal in that she was his helper. "
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:22 pm

Interesting that Ortland appears to place great importance on the fact that Eve was created "from" Adam...

This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called woman,
because she was taken out of man. (2:23)


The paradox of Genesis 2 is also seen in the fact that the woman was made from the man


and yet, proponents of "headship" and hierarchy refuse to see the man as the source of the woman in 1 Cor. 11. ..."man is the head (source) of a woman,"
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:03 pm

One more....then I'll be quiet for awhile. Just can't help myself when I see all the twisting of scripture.

Ortland says:

The third interesting point is the very fact that God addresses Adam with this introductory statement, “Because you have listened.…” God does not address Eve in this way, but God does issue a formal indictment to Adam before his sentencing. Why? Because Adam was the head, the finally responsible member of the partnership. His disobedience, not Eve’s, was the pivotal factor in the fall. Notice this. God says, “It is because of you, Adam, that the ground is cursed” (verse 17). God does not say, “It is because of you both, Adam and Eve,” as if they shared equal responsibility in an unqualified sense.


He's making a case for male headship based on the fact that God placed the primary blame on Adam and not on Eve. Can you imagine such nonsense? The reason God didn't say to Eve, "because you have...." (done anything) is because being deceived is an unintentional "snare" or being tricked. Adam's sin is referred to several times in scripture as disobedience which is an intentional, deliberate action. God differentiates between the two Himself.

Unintentional

Lev_4:27 (NASB) 'Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty,

Num_15:27 (NASB) 'Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering

Jos_20:3 (NASB) that the manslayer who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood.

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

Intentional

Num 15:29 'You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them.

Num 15:30 'But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.

Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins....


So....In the Comps desperation to give husbands (not all men) some level of "headship", they reason that because Adam intentionally disobeyed, God gives him authority/responsibility to lead the one who was deceived? Does that make any sense at all?
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:21 pm

Sonbeam, thanks for putting up the link, i am not familiar with the author but he does present a very interesting discussion and has some good points about 'Evangelical Feminism' and its problems. He makes an interesting point in that a Christian's worth and authority or role are not equal, the worth of a Christian is in Christ independent of whatever authority or role God places them in. E-Fem equates worth with role or authority, so all must have authority to have worth, or none can have authority over another which would diminish worth, clearly an error. Worth the read.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:43 pm

Abiding, so your position is that Eve did not intentionally sin, she ate of the fruit unintentionally? So when Eve aknowledges that she knows that God did state that that the tree should not be eaten of and she did eat anyway that her act was unintentional? So when Gen 3 states that the 'the woman saw the fruit of the tree...was desirable for gaining wisdom , she took and ate it', her act was unintentional?

Eves' sin was clearly intentional, she desired to 'be like God', knowing good and evil. She was deceived by Satan's statements, 'did God really say, you must not eat'...' you will not surely die...', she may have been deceived about the consequences, but she knew the command God had made and she intentionally chose to disobey it.

And it is clear that God held Adam as the one responsible for the sin, God had commanded Adam before the woman existed, God came looking for the man in the garden, not the woman. And God stated to the man regarding his sin, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you...', God is indicating that Adam was responsible, he was the one that the command was given to, and instead of exercising his authority and responsibility, he listened to his wife, he neglected his responsibility and intentionally sinned.

So yes, God did give authority to man who intentionally sinned, over the woman, who intentionally sinned and was also deceived.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:04 pm

Abiding, i find it interesting that you cannot read 1 Cor 11:3 in a straightforward manner- 'the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.' The meaning of head in this passage is clearly lord or ruler and yet you substitute 'source' which would be a 'twisting' of the use of the word and the meaning of the passage.

The straightforward reading of the passage indicates that Christ is in a position of authority over man, man is in a position of authority (not worth) over woman, and God is in a position of authority over Christ.

While the meaning and interpretation of this passage is straightforward and clear, the meaning of many prophetic passages is much more difficult and not as clear. If one can not read what is stated clearly scripture in a straightforward manner, how can one ever understand the prophetic passages that are more complex and difficult to understand?
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:14 pm

Abiding, the 'pink and blue' gospel is an accusation set up by those who intend to cause division in the body, the real gospel is 'red', we are all under the blood, we are all of the same body, we are all under the authority of the same Lord, and within that body the Lord can choose to delegate authority without diminishing the worth of others in the body.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby shorttribber on Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:52 pm

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, the 'pink and blue' gospel is an accusation set up by those who intend to cause division in the body, the real gospel is 'red', we are all under the blood, we are all of the same body, we are all under the authority of the same Lord, and within that body the Lord can choose to delegate authority without diminishing the worth of others in the body.
:read: :a3: :read:
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:51 am

1whowaits wrote:Eves' sin was clearly intentional, she desired to 'be like God', knowing good and evil. She was deceived by Satan's statements, 'did God really say, you must not eat'...' you will not surely die...', she may have been deceived about the consequences, but she knew the command God had made and she intentionally chose to disobey it.


Nowhere in scripture is Eve said to have been disobedient. She is mentioned only two times in the NT and both times say she was thoroughly deceived.

1. "but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Tim. 2:14
2. ..."But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness" 2 Cor. 11 :3

God asked Adam, "Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou should not eat?" and He lays no such charge of disobedience at the door of Eve.

1. "Adam was not deceived," 1 Tim. 2:14.
2. "In Adam all die," I Cor. 15:22.
3. "By one man [person] sin entered into the world," Rom. 5:12.
4. "Through the offense of one many be dead," Rom. 5:15.
5. "it was by one that sinned," Rom. 5:16.
6. "The judgment was by one to condemnation," Rom 5:16.
7. "By one man's offense death reigned,-"
8. [death reigned] "by one," Rom. 5:17.
9. "By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," Rom. 5:18.
10. "By one man's disobedience" Rom. 5:19.
11. "Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come."—Rom. 5:14.

So yes, God did give authority to man who intentionally sinned, over the woman, who intentionally sinned and was also deceived.


Death, condemnation, and judgment (not authority) came to the world as the result of one man's sin. Nowhere does scripture say God gave Adam or husbands a command to have authority over their wives. If you know of such a command, please post it. The only way Complementarians can assume authority or headship of Adam is to blame Eve for being deceived, but Adam blamed God and Eve while Eve confessed and exposed Satan as the deceiver.

We are warned many times to be careful lest we be deceived and Rev. refers to the "serpent of old" who is the liar and deceiver.

John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years....
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:02 am

.... and instead of exercising his authority and responsibility


Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Gen 1:26-28
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:08 am

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, the 'pink and blue' gospel is an accusation set up by those who intend to cause division in the body, the real gospel is 'red', we are all under the blood, we are all of the same body, we are all under the authority of the same Lord, and within that body the Lord can choose to delegate authority without diminishing the worth of others in the body.


You must show evidence of delegated authority of husbands over wives if you are claiming such authority. We really don't want to rehash that lack of evidence, but it's obvious the gospel is not divided into male and female (if you prefer) rules. That's what causes the division as opposed to the principles of "one-anothering" which promotes unity and mutual worth, respect, and love.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:41 am

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, i find it interesting that you cannot read 1 Cor 11:3 in a straightforward manner- 'the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.' The meaning of head in this passage is clearly lord or ruler and yet you substitute 'source' which would be a 'twisting' of the use of the word and the meaning of the passage.


The straightforward reading of the passage indicates that Christ is in a position of authority over man, man is in a position of authority (not worth) over woman, and God is in a position of authority over Christ.


We've already been over this passage, 1whowaits. If you read it "in a straightforward manner", then (1) you must deny the fact that Christ is fully God and fully man. He is not eternally subordinate. (2) You must also deny that Christ is the "head" of every woman. (3) Moreover, you must conclude (based on the man/woman designation rather than husband/wife) that every woman as being subordinate to every man which must include single, widowed, divorced, and young. All of these are totally contrary to the message of the gospel.

However, if you understand the word "head" as source or origin, you will arrive at the same conclusion Paul does and no such contradiction exists.
1Cor. 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

The real twisting occurs when origin or source is interpreted as authority. The actual focus of the passage is about the practice of veiling and Paul refutes the practice by stating that a woman's hair is her veil. He is, in no way, implementing nor endorsing a hierarchy or authority which would contradict his own words of mutual authority in 1 Cor. 7. The fact is, Paul was doing just the opposite; breaking down walls and hierarchies built on status, color, ethnicity, and gender and we know the tremendous opposition he received in his efforts to do so when he claimed there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It seems the Jew/Greek and the Slave/Master walls have been torn down....but we still have a ways to go with the male/female wall. :wink:

Straightforward reading does not always lead to the true intent of the speaker nor the way those hearing the words would have understood them.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Spreading Salt on Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:33 am

Abiding stated:

Nowhere in scripture is Eve said to have been disobedient. She is mentioned only two times in the NT and both times say she was thoroughly deceived.


So are you suggesting that Eve was not at fault but only Adam in the FALL OF MANKIND? :faint:

What do you mean she wasn’t disobedient? Mankind was told not to do something and they BOTH did it anyway. She was thoroughly deceived? In a trance maybe? Under some magic spell? :laugh:

You have mastered the art of ignoring the obvious by denying the truth (due to a missing ‘word’ in a passage) and/or changing the meaning of the word to fit your preferred understanding.

Remember learning about context in English class? The passage can be understood by tying in the context of the section read. Nitpicking specific words is poor hermeneutics IMO.

Abiding, you are in denial my dear sister. I think you have been deceived. :eek:
Image
User avatar
Spreading Salt
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 3666
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Washington

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:08 am

Spreading Salt wrote:So are you suggesting that Eve was not at fault but only Adam in the FALL OF MANKIND?

What do you mean she wasn’t disobedient?


1. "but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Tim. 2:14
2. ..."But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness" 2 Cor. 11 :3

1. "Adam was not deceived," 1 Tim. 2:14.
2. "In Adam all die," I Cor. 15:22.
3. "By one man [person] sin entered into the world," Rom. 5:12.
4. "Through the offense of one many be dead," Rom. 5:15.
5. "it was by one that sinned," Rom. 5:16.
6. "The judgment was by one to condemnation," Rom 5:16.
7. "By one man's offense death reigned,-"
8. [death reigned] "by one," Rom. 5:17.
9. "By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," Rom. 5:18.
10. "By one man's disobedience" Rom. 5:19.
11. "Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come."—Rom. 5:14.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:16 am

Gen. 3:13 ......And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle.....

God cursed the serpent for deceiving the woman.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:31 am

Spreading Salt wrote: She was thoroughly deceived? In a trance maybe? Under some magic spell?


2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived (G1818) Eve by his craftiness,(G3834) your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Strong's G1818
exapataō

From G1537 and G538; to seduce wholly: - beguile, deceive.

Strong's G3834
panourgia

From G3835; adroitness, that is, (in a bad sense) trickery or sophistry: - (cunning) craftiness, subtilty.

Would you prefer I said Eve was wholly seduced, tricked or beguiled by the serpent's adroitness? Maybe that wouldn't evoke such sarcasm and laughter.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Spreading Salt on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:39 am

With this view of yours, it actually sheds more light on your denial of man as the authority in marriage thread. :dropjaw: :banned:

You are certainly set in your mind but I do think you have been deceived my friend. :(
Image
User avatar
Spreading Salt
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 3666
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Washington

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:50 am

Spreading Salt wrote:With this view of yours, it actually sheds more light on your denial of man as the authority in marriage thread.

You are certainly set in your mind but I do think you have been deceived my friend. :(


I've only posted scripture, Spreading Salt. I've included chapter and verse so you can confirm I've posted them accurately.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:52 pm

Abiding, you make assumptions about 1 Cor 11 that do not follow logically. Jesus can be fully God and still be under the authority Father in a level of authority, the Godhead can do as they wish. The Father can be the administrative head and be fully God and Christ can choose to follow the Father's administrative role and remain fully God, authority does not determine the extent of deity, being a deity determines the extent of deity.

A level of authority does not determine worth or identity, unless one identifies with 'Evangelical Feminism', a further deception of the woman.

And if the term head is interpreted as 'source', then the Father is the source of the Son, how can that be as the Father and the Son are one God? If Christ comes from another source then He is subservient to that source, again there is no logical basis for your interpretation that 'head' refers to source. And 'Head' clearly refers to authority in 1 Cor 11 as a hierarchy is clearly described.

1 Cor 11 describes a hierarchy with descending levels of authority, the Father is over all, Christ is over all below the Father, including man and woman, man is over those below the Father and Christ, woman and children. In 1 Cor 11 Paul refers to man being over woman not as all men over all women but in the husband and wife relationship- a man ought not cover his head since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason..the woman ought to have sign of authority on her head.'

The woman created was Eve, the wife of Adam, over whom Adam had authority. Paul's clear intention is to refer to authority, not 'source', as he indicates, woman ought to have a' sign of authority on her head', something over her, a totally different condition from the man.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:17 pm

Abiding, scripture does not indicate that being deceived in any way eliminates one from being guilty of sin or wrong doing. 2 Thess 2 indicates that Satan will deceive with signs and wonders, and yet God will send strong delusion so that they will believe the lie and will be condemned and perish. Is God unjust? How can God do this to those who are deceived by Satan, wasn't Eve also deceived, and yet she did not sin...or did she? Obviously she did or God would not have punished her. Paul indicates in 2 Thess 2 that those deceived will perish because they did not believe the truth and delighted in wickedness.

Eve knew the truth, that God commanded not to eat, and she still ate, she defied God, she ignored the truth. She then multiplied her sin, she encouraged her husband to participate in her defiance, she delighted in wickedness.

Eve was deceived, and she still sinned, she still defied God's authority, being easily fooled does not eliminate responsibility, especially when it is clear one knows they are in defiance, 'God did say, you must not eat....'.

So if Adam and Eve were equal in authority and responsibility wouldn't scripture indicate that sin came to all through the man and the woman, as it is clear both sinned? But instead it states that sin came through the man 'for since death came through a man....far as in Adam all die..' 1 Cor 15., woman is not mentioned. After the fall God came looking for man, why was He not looking for the woman? And in God's statement of man's sin He includes listening to his wife as a bad thing..'Because you listened to your wife and ate...'

Clearly God holds the man more responsible, if man is held responsible for the sin of both (through a man..), then man would have the authority to go with the responsibility, which he did not exercise when required, 'you listened to your wife..'

Being deceived does get one something, a lower level on the ladder of authority.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 9:22 pm

1whowaits wrote: Jesus can be fully God and still be under the authority Father in a level of authority, the Godhead can do as they wish. The Father can be the administrative head and be fully God and Christ can choose to follow the Father's administrative role and remain fully God, authority does not determine the extent of deity, being a deity determines the extent of deity.


And if the term head is interpreted as 'source', then the Father is the source of the Son, how can that be as the Father and the Son are one God?


1whowaits, I admit my confusion in the two above segments of your post. It seems they contradict one another. The first implies "they" can do as they wish and the second asks "how can that be as the Father and Son are one God?"

If Christ comes from another source then He is subservient to that source, again there is no logical basis for your interpretation that 'head' refers to source. And 'Head' clearly refers to authority in 1 Cor 11 as a hierarchy is clearly described.


It is a common filter through which hierarchalists read the word "head" to see authority. Paul knew the words for authority; rosh, arche, exousia, and used "head" instead as source or origin in his summation of the passage:

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man....1Cor 11:8
and
For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 1Cor. 11:12


As evidence of his knowledge of the words which mean authority, he uses one (exousia) in 1 Cor. 7 to confirm the mutual authority of both the husband and wife.

1Cor. 7:4 The wife does not have authority (exousia) over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority (exousia) over his own body, but the wife does.

1 Cor 11 describes a hierarchy with descending levels of authority, the Father is over all, Christ is over all below the Father, including man and woman, man is over those below the Father and Christ, woman and children. [/quote]

1) Even though Paul doesn't use the word for authority and even though you want head to mean authority, in your understanding of "....Christ is the head of every man, implies Christ is not the head of every woman. Jesus is not women's authority? Jesus is only the authority over every man?

2) That God is the origin or source of the Son of Man is evident throughout the NT; i.e. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law...Gal 4:4 and John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

3) That the man referred to is Adam as the source/origin of Eve does not indicate authority because again, Paul does not use the word authority. He negates that theory by showing that even though the woman originated from the man, now men have their origin through women.

In 1 Cor 11 Paul refers to man being over woman not as all men over all women but in the husband and wife relationship- a man ought not cover his head since he is the image and glory of God;


This is further proof that Paul is correcting some of the errors and causes of dissension in the Corinthian church because Paul new the OT scriptures and knew that both the man and the woman were both made in the image and likeness of God. He addresses contentions, factions, and divisions following this passage in verses 16-19.

the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason..the woman ought to have sign of authority on her head.'


The word "sign or symbol" has been added for clarity, but does just the opposite. The woman has exousia over her own head and Paul refutes the need for a veil because her hair covers her head.

1Cor. 11:10 Therefore the woman ought to have authority (exousia) on her head...

The woman created was Eve, the wife of Adam, over whom Adam had authority.


I know of no scripture that says Adam had authority over Eve. Both were given dominion in Gen. 1:26.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 04, 2016 9:32 pm

1whowaits wrote:So if Adam and Eve were equal in authority and responsibility wouldn't scripture indicate that sin came to all through the man and the woman, as it is clear both sinned? But instead it states that sin came through the man 'for since death came through a man....far as in Adam all die..' 1 Cor 15., woman is not mentioned. After the fall God came looking for man, why was He not looking for the woman? And in God's statement of man's sin He includes listening to his wife as a bad thing..'Because you listened to your wife and ate...'


You've confirmed my previous comment that deception is unintentional and disobedience is deliberate.

Clearly God holds the man more responsible, if man is held responsible for the sin of both (through a man..), then man would have the authority to go with the responsibility, which he did not exercise when required, 'you listened to your wife..'


Adam disobeyed God.

Being deceived does get one something, a lower level on the ladder of authority.


Is it your understanding that Adam's disobedience qualifies him to have authority and that that authority is handed down to all husbands for all time because of Adam's disobedience? I'm asking because Romans 5 attributes nothing but death and condemnation on account of Adam's disobedience. No mention of authority.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:54 pm

Abiding, it is obvious from Gen 3 that Eve sinned, and she was punished for it, she would have pain in childbirth, her desire would be for her husband, and her husband would rule over her, not exactly a reward from woman's perspective. 2 Thess 2 demonstrates that deception does not excuse sin, people will be destroyed even though they are deceived.

In 1 Cor 11 Paul is describing head as authority, and he describes differing levels of authority, and as woman is lower in authority the head covering is prescribed. But then Paul transitions to 'in the Lord', and describes that women and men are not independent of each other. Paul is indicating that 'in the Lord' we are all of equal worth even though we may be at different levels of authority,, and our worth is not determined by our level of authority.

In 1 Cor 11 Paul describes differing levels of authority, he describes reasons for the woman being at a lower level of authority, and then indicates that in the Lord we are interdependent, we are of equal worth.

It does appear from your arguement that you do equate authority with worth, is that accurate?
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby shorttribber on Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:05 pm

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, it is obvious from Gen 3 that Eve sinned, and she was punished for it, she would have pain in childbirth, her desire would be for her husband, and her husband would rule over her, not exactly a reward from woman's perspective. 2 Thess 2 demonstrates that deception does not excuse sin, people will be destroyed even though they are deceived.

In 1 Cor 11 Paul is describing head as authority, and he describes differing levels of authority, and as woman is lower in authority the head covering is prescribed. But then Paul transitions to 'in the Lord', and describes that women and men are not independent of each other. Paul is indicating that 'in the Lord' we are all of equal worth even though we may be at different levels of authority,, and our worth is not determined by our level of authority.

In 1 Cor 11 Paul describes differing levels of authority, he describes reasons for the woman being at a lower level of authority, and then indicates that in the Lord we are interdependent, we are of equal worth.

It does appear from your arguement that you do equate authority with worth, is that accurate?
:grin: :a3: :grin:
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:01 am

1whowaits wrote:In 1 Cor 11 Paul is describing head as authority, and he describes differing levels of authority, and as woman is lower in authority the head covering is prescribed.


1whowaits, please respond to my comment here: (rather than a narrative reply, I would appreciate your response in the 1,2,3 format as presented.) I believe this is the 3rd time I've posted this refuting a "straightforward manner" but don't find your reply. If I've overlooked it, it may be because it's buried in a narrative format and not clear for me. Thanks!

We've already been over this passage, 1whowaits. If you read it "in a straightforward manner", then:

(1) God is the head of Christ.
you must deny the fact that Christ is fully God and fully man. He is not eternally subordinate.

(2) Christ is the head of every man
You must also deny that Christ is the "head" of every woman.

(3) man is the head of a woman
Moreover, you must conclude (based on the man/woman designation rather than husband/wife) that every woman as being subordinate to every man which must include single, widowed, divorced, and young.


Do you deny the straightforward reading and interpreting "head" as authority leads to the erroneous 3 conclusions I've stated?

:answerthequestion:
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:45 pm

Abiding, i have answered your points previously, it appears that you may not have realized it. I am having difficulty following your reasoning, you make assumptions that you believe are true when in reality they are not.

Christ can be fully God and fully man and still be under the authority of the Father. Authority is a level of administration, an act or function, it is not a state of being. Existing as a Deity or God is a state of being, one is God or he is not. Within the Godhead the individual personalities can agree to differing levels of authority as an administrative function, for order, and still each be God. A different level of authority does not determine who is God and who is not, being God is not dependent on the authority level.

In like manner our worth as Christians is not determined by our level of authority within the body, we are all equal in worth. Existing in Christ is our state of being, we are part of the body, and whatever part of the body we are, whether at a higher or lower level, we are still part of the body, we are still of the same being and worth.

It is just that the head is the administrative part of the body, it has authority over the function of the body, but it does not lessen the worth of the body because it has authority, the body still has worth and a function to perform. Paul is stating this in 1 Cor 12 that Christ is the head, the main authority of the body, but within the body there are other parts that also have some level of authority - 'you are the body of Christ, and each one of you has a part in it. And in he church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers...', but lower levels of authority do not lessen their worth-'those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable...its parts should have equal concern for each other.'

So level of authority does not determine worth or being, Christ can be fully God and man and submit Himself to the authority of the Father, a lower level of authority does not exclude Christ from being fully God. Your assumption does not follow logically.
Last edited by 1whowaits on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:03 pm

To your second point, Christ is the head of the church, He has authority over the whole church, every level. Jesus is like the president of the organization, the next in line would be the man, the vice president perhaps..or more likely the senior janitor,( not that being a janitor is bad, i myself have been one from time to time). Those below the senior janitor, the junior janitor, lets say the woman, would still be under the authority of the president.

So Christ is head of the man, man is head of the woman, and as Christ has a position of higher authority over the man, it is obvious that He is also in a higher position of authority over anyone under the limited authority of the man (janitor), which would include the woman.

So your assumption does not follow logically, Christ is the head of the woman because He is the head of the one who is in authority over the woman, the man, which would be the logical conclusion.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:22 pm

To your third point, in the context of 1 Cor 11 , is Paul indicating that all men are the heads or in authority of all women, or is he referring to individual men and women in a marriage relationship? 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.'

Did all women come from man, were all women created for man? There was only 1 woman that meets this criteria and that is Eve, she came from Adam and was created for Adam, and they were considered husband and wife. So in the context of 1 Cor 11 Paul is referring to the husband as the head of the wife, as he repeatedly states in other scriptures - 'Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church..' Eph 5.

So your assumption does not fit the context of 1 Cor 11, nor is it consistent with the rest of scripture, and the husband being the head of the wife does not extend to all men and women who are not married to each other.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:34 pm

Abiding, so now i have questions for you.

1) Do you believe that God the Father has a position of authority over God the Son (Jesus)? Is God the Father the head of God the Son?

2) Do you believe that God has set up positions of authority in the church, such as overseers described in 1 Tim 3?

3) Do you believe Christ has a position of authority over husbands? Is Jesus the head of the man?

4) Do you believe God has the authority to set up levels of authority as He pleases?
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:54 am

1whowaits wrote:Christ can be fully God and fully man and still be under the authority of the Father. Authority is a level of administration, an act or function, it is not a state of being. Existing as a Deity or God is a state of being, one is God or he is not. Within the Godhead the individual personalities can agree to differing levels of authority as an administrative function, for order, and still each be God. A different level of authority does not determine who is God and who is not, being God is not dependent on the authority level.


So level of authority does not determine worth or being, Christ can be fully God and man and submit Himself to the authority of the Father, a lower level of authority does not exclude Christ from being fully God. Your assumption does not follow logically.


Scripture does not refer to "levels" of authority within the Godhead. Jesus was subject to His Father in His humanity, not His divinity. He is the Father. ....

He who has seen Me has seen the Father..." John 14:9

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form Col 2:9

And they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."

...mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh... 1 Tim. 3:16

....Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne....Matt. 25:31

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." John 8:58


As Jesus is fully God and fully man confirms His humanity "for a time" and His Deity "for all time."
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:01 am

1whowaits wrote:To your second point, Christ is the head of the church, He has authority over the whole church, every level. Jesus is like the president of the organization, the next in line would be the man, the vice president perhaps..or more likely the senior janitor,( not that being a janitor is bad, i myself have been one from time to time). Those below the senior janitor, the junior janitor, lets say the woman, would still be under the authority of the president.

So Christ is head of the man, man is head of the woman, and as Christ has a position of higher authority over the man, it is obvious that He is also in a higher position of authority over anyone under the limited authority of the man (janitor), which would include the woman.


The topic is "male headship vs. male domination" so I'd rather stay with that rather than discussing headship or domination within the church. But I must admit that your comparison of a woman to a "junior janitor" nearly resulted in the coffee in my mouth ending up on my computer screen. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:18 am

1whowaits wrote:Did all women come from man, were all women created for man? There was only 1 woman that meets this criteria and that is Eve, she came from Adam and was created for Adam, and they were considered husband and wife.


Exactly. The verse is relating to the "origin/source" of the woman. And Paul makes that clear in subsequent statements to clarify that.

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; Cor. 11:8

For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 1Cor. 11:12


The passage is referring to source-of-life relationships; not a hierarchy.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:40 am

We must understand Paul's words in his letters (not only Corinthians) as refuting many of the prejudices toward women among the Jewish converts. Paul was keenly aware of them having been from a Pharisaical background. He was also keenly aware of the restrictions enforced upon women by the Talmud which included their veiling, silence (since their voices were considered seductive) and their exclusion from the temple. Here's one such verse where the silence of women is an issue in the churches of Corinth and Paul knows there is no such law anywhere in scripture, but there is in the Talmud.

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 1 Cor 14:34

That Paul is often refuting such restriction should be obvious to us given we see him advocating, liberty and mutual submission and a whole list of one-anothers where none are exempt. There was also considerable resistance toward the uncircumcised and slaves who were being converted and Paul removes those barriers by saying we are all children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:27-28), both man and woman were created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27) and the privileges previously accorded based on ethnicity, status, and gender do not reflect the kingdom of God.

These verses should clarify the verses that may seem to be commands, but in reality are his attempts to correct their errors, contentions, factions and divisive arguments rather than encouraging or endorsing them.

1Co_7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co_7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
1Co_8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
1Co_8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
1Co_10:30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
1Co_12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.
1Co_16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.
1Co_16:12 But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all his desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm

Abiding, scripture does point to Jesus being God and submitting Himself to the authority of the Father- 'God has raised this Jesus to life...exalted to the right hand of God...the Lord said to my Lord; sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool..' Acts 2.

The King sits on the throne and the one who sits at His right hand is His second in command, the King has greater authority than the one who sits next to Him. At the present time Jesus, the Son King, sits at the right hand of the Father King, signifying differing levels of authority, yet both being God.

Then, at the end of time, after the 1,000 year reign, Jesus, the ruler of all, will make Himself subject, under the authority of, the Father- 'For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.' 1 Cor 1.

Jesus and the Father are one, they both equal members of the Godhead, and yet Paul clearly states that Christ will be subject to the Father, being subject would be a clear reference to deference to, or under, the authority of the Father. Jesus will be subject to the Father while being fully God, not just in the past in human form.

As there are levels of authority in the Godhead, our example, there are levels of authority in the church, the body, and in the husband and wife relationship, a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church.

You get the janitor example, Jesus at the highest level of authority, while we are at the lowest level of authority. Another example might be that we are currently in training for the life to come, the lesson to be learned for all of us is not how to be in authority, but how to submit to authority. The example Jesus sets is that of one at the pinnacle of Lordship, being willing to submit Himself to the authority of the Father. Only One can rule, only One should rule, only One deserves to rule, and that is God and God alone.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Mr Baldy on Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:38 am

Abiding in His Word wrote:Scripture does not refer to "levels" of authority within the Godhead. Jesus was subject to His Father in His humanity, not His divinity. He is the Father.


1whowaits wrote:Jesus and the Father are one, they both equal members of the Godhead, and yet Paul clearly states that Christ will be subject to the Father, being subject would be a clear reference to deference to, or under, the authority of the Father. Jesus will be subject to the Father while being fully God, not just in the past in human form.


1whowaits wrote:Then, at the end of time, after the 1,000 year reign, Jesus, the ruler of all, will make Himself subject, under the authority of, the Father- 'For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.' 1 Cor 1.


The Godhead is TRULY a Mystery. No one can comprehend or understand it. But clearly JESUS is the ONLY God we will ever see.

1whowaits, and Abiding you both have presented some pretty good arguments. What you both have mentioned is a topic that I have pondered in my mind for many, many years. And it begs the question:

"Is the role of the Son temporary?"

Here are some points to consider:

Jesus was not always Flesh. Jesus is the Physical Manifestation of God the Father. Jesus was in the beginning with the Father, and is the ONLY God we will ever see.

So what does it mean when it says "the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him?"
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2010
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:48 am

1whowaits wrote:As there are levels of authority in the Godhead, our example, there are levels of authority in the church, the body, and in the husband and wife relationship, a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church.


The only way to conclude that one deity is equal to the other deity and sub-ordinate at the same time is to double-speak; as in all are equal, but some are more equal than others. Jesus is God in the flesh; fully God and fully man. They are one in power, glory, and authority.

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. Heb 1:3

Jesus was born of the flesh for a time and purpose:

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels... namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Heb 2:9

You get the janitor example, Jesus at the highest level of authority, while we are at the lowest level of authority.


"We" are at the lowest level of authority? Or do you mean "wives" are at the lowest level of authority? This is another example of double-speak. You said:

Those below the senior janitor, the junior janitor, lets say the woman,


Anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge or experience in the corporate world knows that senior positions are entitled to more authority, responsibility, and salary than those in junior positions.

In order to make the husband/authority - wife/submit to his authority, you must resort to the "equal but different" rhetoric; the "ontological" sameness of females; the authority of the husband rather than the authority of both husband and wife; equating the word "head" with authority; somehow exempting the husband from mutual submission to his wife; and the most egregious agenda of tampering with the Trinity to justify "role" playing within relationships.

Only One can rule, only One should rule, only One deserves to rule, and that is God and God alone.


And God is three entities in One. All have the same love, power, and authority and are in perfect agreement with one another. Both woman and man were created in the image and likeness of God.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:14 am

Holly wrote about the subtle method of deflecting from the topic and that's what I've seen over and over with regard to the marital relationship. Some have resorted to deflect from the topic by comparing that union to examples within a corporation, the church, the difference between "headship and domination", the misuse of the word "head", and the subordination within the Trinity to arrive at an authority of a husband over his wife.

If we stay with the topic of marriage, we find abundant verses that validate mutual treatment of all believers (including marriage), mutual authority, mutual submission, mutual parenting, mutual one-anothering....all of which are ignored by the use of deflections.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:16 pm

Mr B, yes it is interesting to contemplate the mystery of the Godhead. Our knowledge of God is limited so we have to make observations based on what scripture tells us, some of which is difficult to understand.

Each member of the Godhead is fully God but it appears that they choose to differentiate themselves by what they do, God the Father the Almighty with the main administrative function, Jesus the Son the intermediary between the Father and man, and the Spirit that encourages, helps, empowers.

Jesus stated that He and the Father were One, at the same time describing His submission and following of the Father's will, a distinction of function, of what they do, not who they are. So as Jesus and the Father are one, they are both God, why would Jesus need to submit to the will of the Father? They are the same God, would they not have the same will, the same goals? Could they disagree about anything, as they are in perfect agreement and harmony?

Why did Jesus become a man, why did Jesus lead a sinless life, why did Jesus die for us, why did Jesus do anything of what He did and is doing presently? He is doing it for us, to save us, to bring us to Himself, to reveal God to us, to set an example for us, to ultimately live forever with us.

So why does Jesus, after conquering all His enemies and becoming the ultimate ruler, subject Himself to the Father, when He and the Father are one, He and the Father have the same will, He and the Father are in perfect agreement? Why make a demonstration of this when these 2 members of the Godhead have agreed together for all eternity past?

It would appear to be for us, as an example for created beings for all eternity, that all must submit to the will of the Father, there can never again be rebellion as there has been against the will of the Father. There can be no higher example than that of the conquering Son King submitting to the Almighty Father King. It would be an example no one would ever forget.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:43 pm

Abiding, what you infer are deflections are really examples that go against your view, scripture interprets scripture.

It is clear from scripture that there are differing levels of authority among the members of the Godhead, they are all fully God, they are all equal in essence and worth.

It is clear from scripture that there are differing levels of authority and function in the church, in the body. There are overseers, apostles, prophets, teachers, with authority that not all members of the body have. All are equal in worth, all are in Christ, but some are placed in positions of authority.

When Paul states the head of Christ is God, he is referring to a level of authority. When Paul states that the head of man is Christ, he is describing a different level of authority. When Paul describes differing levels of authority in the church he makes clear that God approves of differing levels of authority within the body of Christians, and He is the One who set those levels up.

Different levels of authority exist, God set them up, in the church, between Christians, between God and man, within the Godhead itself.

So based on all the other examples given in scripture, when God says 'the head of every woman is man', your husband will rule over you, younger women..to be subject to their husbands, wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord, He is describing differing levels of authority between the husband and wife. God approves of the different levels of authority, He set them up.
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby shorttribber on Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:14 pm

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, what you infer are deflections are really examples that go against your view, scripture interprets scripture.

It is clear from scripture that there are differing levels of authority among the members of the Godhead, they are all fully God, they are all equal in essence and worth.

It is clear from scripture that there are differing levels of authority and function in the church, in the body. There are overseers, apostles, prophets, teachers, with authority that not all members of the body have. All are equal in worth, all are in Christ, but some are placed in positions of authority.

When Paul states the head of Christ is God, he is referring to a level of authority. When Paul states that the head of man is Christ, he is describing a different level of authority. When Paul describes differing levels of authority in the church he makes clear that God approves of differing levels of authority within the body of Christians, and He is the One who set those levels up.

Different levels of authority exist, God set them up, in the church, between Christians, between God and man, within the Godhead itself.


So based on all the other examples given in scripture, when God says 'the head of every woman is man', your husband will rule over you, younger women..to be subject to their husbands, wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord, He is describing differing levels of authority between the husband and wife. God approves of the different levels of authority, He set them up.
:a3:

And :a3: they Are Not Deflections, they are True and Very Relevant parts of this Debate.

How is it even possible Abiding to suppose these things are not relevant to this discussion?

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Christ and the Church is Pauls Reference and Subject....He had just finished in Eph.4 Regarding the Structure of the Church, and the Differing Members of it.........and has Clearly made the Comparison to Husband and Wife...and Her submission to the Husband (Head).

How can you say these examples are a "Deflection"?

It will be so nice when Eph 4 is Fulfilled...BEFORE Christ returns....and it will be fulfilled Before Christ Returns.
And All of our Mouths will be Stopped! And All of us will be found Liars in greater or Lesser degrees.....and we Will Then Agree....we Will then Know When God Speaks and when He Does Not.

We Will then All Know what Is True, and what Is Not.

The Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death..................
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Now, that little part and the end of my post could be a deflection :mrgreen: yep, I'm very sure that it is....I'm just in such expectation of that time that I could just POP!
Oh well....i'll just go back to Cheerleading :mrgreen: :banana: :mrgreen:
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:17 am

1whowaits wrote:....... scripture interprets scripture.


I agree, 1whowaits. That's why I refuted (in the other thread) the idea that rule over one's wife was a good, positive command, but rather a negative, adverse condition that has proven to be true over the centuries. That's why I posted the 59 one-anothers. It's the reason I posted the mutual authority of the husband and wife in 1 Cor. 7. And it's also the reason I noted there is no command or even a suggestion for husbands to be the authority over their wives. And why I mentioned that neither the list of 59 or the gifts of the Holy Spirit are gender specific.

It is clear from scripture that there are differing levels of authority among the members of the Godhead, they are all fully God, they are all equal in essence and worth.


I'm going to strongly disagree with both differing levels of authority in the Godhead as well as the eternal subordination of the Son and I stand with Pastor Wade Burleson in this:

The Nicene Creed is the clearest and most accepted statement on the divinity of Christ in the history of the church. The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, believing this to be the biblical and traditional Christian teaching handed down from the Apostles. The Nicaea Council believed that Arianism destroys the unity of the Godhead, and makes the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one" John 10:30). The Council of Nicaea ended with the pastors declaring Arius and his followers heretics.

It’s time for conservative, evangelical Bible-believing Christians who believe in the equality of men and women to realize that the great error in this debate is not a denial of the sufficiency, authority and infallibility of the Word of God by those who hold to gender equality, but rather, the great error in this debate is the promotion of semi-Arianism by those who wish to force their hierachical views of male authority upon the church, the home and society.


I have and do reject the teaching of "levels" of authority in marriage as you said here:

When Paul states the head of Christ is God, he is referring to a level of authority. When Paul states that the head of man is Christ, he is describing a different level of authority. When Paul describes differing levels of authority in the church he makes clear that God approves of differing levels of authority within the body of Christians, and He is the One who set those levels up.


While stating that "scripture interprets scripture," yet it appears you have built a doctrine of authority on one word, "head." This despite the lack of scripture commanding any such authority to husbands. Hierarchalists have resorted to the only option they have left to prove their point, and that is to use the word "head." But glaringly absent is the scripture that mentions equal authority to both husband and wife in marriage in 1 Cor. 7 as well as scripture that calls the husband a leader to his wife.

So based on all the other examples given in scripture, when God says 'the head of every woman is man', your husband will rule over you, younger women..to be subject to their husbands, wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord, He is describing differing levels of authority between the husband and wife. God approves of the different levels of authority, He set them up.


I've already dealt with each of these individually, so unless you are obeying Gen. 3 by sweating in an agricultural field, growing thorns and thistles and eating only plants, you must re-evaluate the prophetic words of God spoken to Adam.

I've already dealt with the command for all believers to be subject to one another in Eph 5:21 with no noted exemptions for males or husbands.

.... when God says 'the head of every woman is man',


Of course, that isn't quite what it says. :wink: I've already dealt with this and you agreed that this could only refer to Adam and Eve. That confirms the passage as a "source-of-life" relationship.

Christ is the head of every man


Of course, Christ is also the head of every woman which you conceded by relegating her to a junior janitor position under the janitor. :wink:

God is the head of Christ.


God was the source of the One who left His "parents" (as in Gen. 2) became flesh and dwelt among us.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:53 am

I've posted this before, but it's a good example of what happens when we lift verses out of their context to create a doctrine and string them along in an effort to show them as evidence on any given topic.

Here's scriptural proof that there are at least 10 Ways to Find a Wife:

Ten Ways to Find a Wife

10. Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. – (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
9. Find a prostitute and marry her. – (Hosea 1:1-3)
8. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock.- Moses (Exodus 2:16-21)
7. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. – Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
6. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. – Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
5. Have God create a wife for you while you sleep.-Adam (Genesis 2:19-24)
4. Kill any husband and take his wife. -David (2 Samuel 11)
3. Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife -David (I Samuel 18:27)
2. Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you’ll definitely find someone. -Cain (Genesis 4:16-17)
1. Don’t be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity. – Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)


:mrgreen:

Unless we see these verses in context, we might arrive at the conclusion that they are God-ordained methods of finding a wife. If we take the examples of polygamy in scripture, we might arrive at the conclusion that polygamy is ok since those who had multiple wives were greatly used of God and held positions of authority over others. If we take God's command for circumcision as a forever command, we must ignore Paul's words that refute that practice in the NT.

Many of the things we read in scripture are descriptive; not prescriptive. Paul says it this way:

1Co 10:6 Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby shorttribber on Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:12 pm

Abiding in His Word wrote:The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, believing this to be the biblical and traditional Christian teaching handed down from the Apostles. The Nicaea Council believed that Arianism destroys the unity of the Godhead, and makes the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one" John 10:30).


Abiding,
The Council of Nicaea declared the Co-Equality of the Father, The Son and the Spirit as One God, and that they are all Indeed God, Divine, Essentially the Same God, but As Three, and having differing functions.
In one of those functions, the submission of Christ to the Fathers Will Existed and Does Exist.

Arianism was the Denial of the Divinity of Christ Entirely.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:05 pm

shorttribber wrote:
Arianism was the Denial of the Divinity of Christ Entirely.


Shorttribber, the post I linked to by Pastor Wade Burleson spoke of the "Growing Semi-Arianism in the SBC..." and links to the wikipedia definition of Arianism and the wiki definition of semi-arianism.

I'm not a fan of Matt Slick, but here's his take on Arianism:

Arianism

by Matt Slick

Arianism developed around 320 in Alexandria Egypt and concerning the person of Christ and is named after Arius of Alexandar. For his doctrinal teaching he was exiled to Illyria in 325 after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea condemned his teaching as heresy. It was the greatest of heresies within the early church that developed a significant following. Some say, it almost took over the church.

Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation and because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.

At Jesus' incarnation, the Arians asserted that the divine quality of the Son, the Logos, took the place of the human and spiritual aspect of Jesus thereby denying the full and complete incarnation of God the Son, second person of the Trinity.

In asserting that Christ the Son, as a created thing, was to be worshipped, the Arians were advocating idolatry.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby 1whowaits on Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:12 pm

Abiding, my comments here are not directed at you or anyone else, i am not seeking a reply, i am just making some observations.

IMO, the error of Wade Burlesons argument and that of the Evangelical feminists is that they equate worth with authority. Differing levels of authority do not change the worth between God the Father vs God the Son, the Overseer in the church vs the congregation in the church, the husband vs the wife.

When the fact that equality of worth exists in the presence of differing levels of authority, this valid point is ignored, because equality of worth is not what is desired. What is desired is not really equality of authority either, the desire of the feminist is to have no male or husband in authority over any woman.

In human societies it is recognized that there will some disagreement between individuals and within groups, so there is some hierarchy of authority given to an individual or group to break the deadlock, someone ultimately has to make the decision, someone has to have the authority to act and move forward whatever decision needs to be made.

As feminists do not accept equality of worth, as feminists do not want any male authority over them, as it is known that there will be some disagreement in decisions so that someone in a 2 person group must have authority to break the deadlock and make the decision, the conclusion would be that feminists do not seek equality of authority, but superiority of authority.

This is the weakness of humans, all want to be in authority, all want to rule, all want to be 'like God'. I believe this is the issue God is dealing with, the rebellion of humans and fallen angels against His will and authority, and He will let the rebellion play out to its eventual end, during the 70th week.

So if God has set up levels of authority and we choose to ignore or revise what He has setup, will we be part of the rebellion He has to deal with?
1whowaits
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby shorttribber on Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:41 pm

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, my comments here are not directed at you or anyone else, i am not seeking a reply, i am just making some observations.

IMO, the error of Wade Burlesons argument and that of the Evangelical feminists is that they equate worth with authority. Differing levels of authority do not change the worth between God the Father vs God the Son, the Overseer in the church vs the congregation in the church, the husband vs the wife.

When the fact that equality of worth exists in the presence of differing levels of authority, this valid point is ignored, because equality of worth is not what is desired. What is desired is not really equality of authority either, the desire of the feminist is to have no male or husband in authority over any woman.

In human societies it is recognized that there will some disagreement between individuals and within groups, so there is some hierarchy of authority given to an individual or group to break the deadlock, someone ultimately has to make the decision, someone has to have the authority to act and move forward whatever decision needs to be made.

As feminists do not accept equality of worth, as feminists do not want any male authority over them, as it is known that there will be some disagreement in decisions so that someone in a 2 person group must have authority to break the deadlock and make the decision, the conclusion would be that feminists do not seek equality of authority, but superiority of authority.

This is the weakness of humans, all want to be in authority, all want to rule, all want to be 'like God'. I believe this is the issue God is dealing with, the rebellion of humans and fallen angels against His will and authority, and He will let the rebellion play out to its eventual end, during the 70th week.

So if God has set up levels of authority and we choose to ignore or revise what He has setup, will we be part of the rebellion He has to deal with?

:a3: Absolutely :a3:

" I believe this is the issue God is dealing with, the rebellion of humans and fallen angels against His will and authority, and He will let the rebellion play out to its eventual end, during the 70th week."
So Exactly Right!
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby Abiding in His Word on Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:59 am

1whowaits wrote:Abiding, my comments here are not directed at you or anyone else, i am not seeking a reply, i am just making some observations.


Thank you for your observations, 1whowaits. I trust you won't mind if I make some observations which may challenge some of yours. :wink:

..... the conclusion would be that feminists do not seek equality of authority, but superiority of authority.


I don't find the word feminist in scripture, but I am aware that it is one of what's called the "clobber words" that are routinely among complementarians to instill a fear of being labeled rebellious, a "Jezebel", insubordinate, "roles", precursor to homosexuality, lovers of abortion, "usurper", "out-of-order", etc. ?

As feminists do not accept equality of worth, as feminists do not want any male authority over them,

.... the conclusion would be that feminists do not seek equality of authority, but superiority of authority.


As I mentioned, I'm not aware of the word feminist in scripture nor in the body of Christ, but I am aware of many who are challenging the image of women being promoted by those who could be considered misogynists. You can search for any of these and find they are actual perceptions put forth by those who see women as being of less "worth."

1) Mark Driscoll's statement on Queen Esther: (with the closing of Mars Hill, the link is no longer available, but searches will reveal the contents of his teaching in 2012)

Esther grows up in a very lukewarm religious home as an orphan raised by her uncle. Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions. Her behavior is sinful and she spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women. She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite. Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor and wows with an amazing night in bed.

2) Owen Strachan maps the "competition" between men and women after Genesis to the rise of homosexuality and transgender movements. He has also implied that Bruce Jenner's transition is the result of male inferiority.

3) Al Mohler suggests that celebrating Mother's Day is a bad idea because some feminists with the wrong motives started Mother’s Day. He says there is nothing wrong with the sentiment expressed on that day, but "there is something pornographic about the bathos of sentimentalism that this observance produces..."

4) Bill Gothard's teachings were so authoritative that one "survivor" said he went so far as to say "“Females who enjoy horseback riding have a problem with rebellion.” Gothard was big on authority and threatened that those who refused to come under that "Umbrella of Protection" would bring God's judgment on them. And yet Gothard has been accused by some 5-10 young women for sexual assault and harassment. So much for the "protection" of the perceived "umbrella."

5) Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary counseled a battered woman to wait until her abusive husband fell asleep and get down next to the bed and pray for God to intervene. When she showed up at church with black eyes, Patterson said he was happy because her husband had come to church that morning. link

I could go on and on with many more examples of misogynist statements, but you get the message.

While Christian women are often referred to in a pejorative manner as "feminists," the truth is that secular feminists did a great deal to improve the lives of many, not just women, but men and underprivileged, mentally ill, and racially oppressed as well.

Lucretia Mott was a Quaker who fought against the degradation of women. She was denied a seat at the 1840 Anti-Slavery Convention in London because of her gender.

Margaret Sanger worked to alleviate the almost continual state of pregnancy of women by advocating female contraception as an alternative to the women receiving abortions at the neighborhood "five-dollar" abortionist.

Dorothea Dix was a social reformer who was tireless in her work against the practice of "warehousing" the mentally ill in prisons. Her efforts resulted in the establishment of state hospitals for the mentally ill. She also served as superintendent of army nurses during the Civil War.

Carry Nation whose husband was a hopeless drunk, campaigned against alcohol and lectured for temperance. She co-founded the Women's Christian Temperance Union that was instrumental in closing many illicit saloons.

Sojourner Truth was a feminist born into slavery who worked tirelessly for an abolitionist movement as did Harriet Tubman.

There were many other feminists (both secular and Christian) who challenged the world where injustice was prevalent in the lives of men, women, children, and African Americans. The word should not be used as a negative, insulting, disparaging manner for those who have the courage to speak against abuse and injustice.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28705
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Biblical male headship vs male domination

Postby shorttribber on Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:55 am

Abiding,
It is very clear that you are unable to see the Difference between Headship and Domination.

It is equally clear that you Lump all that appose your view with Very Unsavory and Unbalanced Teaching.

It would be best also to have a better understanding of Arianism beyond Wikipedia and the Opinions of a few teachers.

So as not to drift from the topic...that is all i'll recommend to you regarding Arianism.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.
User avatar
shorttribber
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:42 pm
Location: Not in San Antonio!

Next

Return to General Bible Study & Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest