• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Good husband defined?

I thought it was probably ba'al, but it could have been 'iysh since we're discussing husband = man, hence why it was unclear. I agree this is a study people should do, starting with 1 Peter 3:6. But we're getting off-track now...

To get back on track, what makes a man a good ba'al? :)
Eyes on YHWH to start with. Wisdom to know how to translate His word into "what should my family do today". Love, to lead his wives lovingly rather than "lord it over them" abusively.

This is interesting to ponder:
Hosea 2:16 said:
It will be in that day,” says Yahweh, “that you will call me ‘my husband,’('iysh, man) and no longer call me ‘my master.’ (ba'al, lord)
Click to expand...
So there is a clear distinction between 'iysh and ba'al, with 'iysh being preferred as that denotes the relationship that YHWH seeks to ultimately have with His people. He is currently our lord, but he seeks to be something other than that - to get us to a point that we don't need the discipline of a lord and can relate to him as a man. In the same way, should a husband be seeking a relationship where he need not be in active control over his wife, but can rather relate to her on a more neutral footing? Obviously YHWH is not proposing to give up his authority, and a husband does not give up his either. But if he need not exercise it, that may be even better.
 
Last edited:
GloryGirl said:
I'm pretty sure that most of Proverbs 31 lays out attributes of an excellent wife, not just an excellent woman, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


It is clear that a married woman is what is in view in Proverbs 31. but even there the term is " 'ishshah " which is the same word as woman.

It is (as far as I can tell) only translated as wife when the context makes it clear that the woman being referenced was married. But I'm no hebrew guy, so I don't know if there is a jot or tittle that clearly separates woman from wife.

Also about ba'al: Crazy, right? Gives a little more insight as to what Paul was on about when he said "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords")"
 
FollowingHim said:
I thought it was probably ba'al, but it could have been 'iysh since we're discussing husband = man, hence why it was unclear. I agree this is a study people should do, starting with 1 Peter 3:6. But we're getting off-track now...

To get back on track, what makes a man a good ba'al? :)
Eyes on YHWH to start with. Wisdom to know how to translate His word into "what should my family do today". Love, to lead his wives lovingly rather than "lord it over them" abusively.

This is interesting to ponder:

So there is a clear distinction between 'iysh and ba'al, with 'iysh being preferred as that denotes the relationship that YHWH seeks to ultimately have with His people. He is currently our lord, but he seeks to be something other than that - to get us to a point that we don't need the discipline of a lord and can relate to him as a man. In the same way, should a husband be seeking a relationship where he need not be in active control over his wife, but can rather relate to her on a more neutral footing? Obviously YHWH is not proposing to give up his authority, and a husband does not give up his either. But if he need not exercise it, that may be even better.
Click to expand...

This. I love this. This is my view of being a husband and leader. I have no desire for a servant. I want to be someone who *inspires* love and devotion, not demands it, not manipulates it. I want my wives to be so full of joy at the thought of being in such intimate relationship with me that no other option could have a foothold in their heart. I could very much see that being what God wants as well. It gets rather tiring to be a supervisor. Performance reviews and constant training and more. Yes there is a satisfaction there, but no real joy. I want God to delight in me, and I in him. That is the relationship I want with my wives as well.
 
Originally I looked up Isaiah 54:5 which brought me to the verb baal:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1166.htm

If you scroll through the other occurrences, it does get interesting. A mixture of marriage and dominance.
Or if you'd rather the noun: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1167.htm

Hosea 2:16 is interesting to ponder. But the baal here is different: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1180.htm I also can't help but notice that "Ishi" comes only after Israel's utter punishment.

Another interesting thing to ponder since you mentioned 1 Pet. 3, check out the word phobos in verse 2: http://biblehub.com/greek/5401.htm

FollowingHim said:
what qualities make a man good at taking care of / shepherding / husbanding a wife?".
Click to expand...
This "ra'ah" that you mentioned is "shepherd," correct? http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7462.htm

I am very glad you mentioned shepherding. And not the "precious moments" pastoral images our minds conjure up, but the ugly, dirty reality which are sheep. It's a fascinating metaphor. Likewise with marriage, I get the notion that we still have some of our modern filters turned on.
 
Last edited:
I think this highlights that there are universal qualities shared by excellent husbands, but once again there is much room for displaying facets of God. I don't believe there is one "perfect husband" collection of traits in a particular measure that would be the perfect leader for every wife. Yes, a good wife will be a good wife regardless of the husband, and visa versa, but it takes the right combination of people and personalities to thrive and reach everyone's full individual and team potential.
 
I think it is important to note that 'iyshi (H376) is by far the most common word, being translated as husband 69x in the KJV (but usually simply as "man"). Ba'al is only translated as husband three times in the entire old testament. So yes, it is a correct rendering, and we should certainly be well aware of this and study it as I have mentioned it earlier. But it should not be the centrepiece of our understanding of "husband". In other words, whenever we read "husband" in scripture we should not assume it means "lord", but rather should assume it means "man", which it generally has been translated from, apart from in a few important cases.

The ba'al in Hosea 2:16 is only different in that it is "my lord" rather than just "lord", with the "my" being added as extra letters to the end of the word rather than as a separate word as it is in English. It's still the same root word as is used for husband in the three places ba'al is translated that way.

The ra'ah that is translated "husband" is H7453, it's usually translated as "neighbour" or "friend" but is translated "husband" in Jeremiah 3:20. It is derived from H7462, "shepherd".

Phobos is interesting. It's the same word used for the reverent fear we are to have to YHWH. It could certainly be very misunderstood if taken out of context, it needs to be understood very much in the context of love. But within that context it is very interesting.
 
I'm going to start a new thread to move this conversation too. This thread was never intended to be a theological debate and I feel one coming on.

I will compose my thoughts and post it tonight or tomorrow.
 
FollowingHim said:
Ba'al is only translated as husband three times in the entire old testament.
Click to expand...

Brother, with as much love and humility as I can muster, I have to point out that Baal is used for husband or the act of taking a wife at least 14 times in the Old Testament, three of those in Proverbs 31.
 
Minor error on my part, I only added up the instances of H1166, not H1167, with both the count is 14 as you say. My point still stands however, because 14 is much less than 69. Note that I'm not trying to claim that ba'al is "outvoted" or any such nonsense, it's critical to our understanding - I'm just saying we need to put at least as much focus into understanding 'iyshi and not forget it and focus solely on ba'al.
Fully agree a separate thread is better, just wanted to acknowledge my counting error here.
 
ZecAustin said:
Brother, with as much love and humility as I can muster, I have to point out that Baal is used for husband or the act of taking a wife at least 14 times in the Old Testament, three of those in Proverbs 31.
Click to expand...
Dear husband, if you add the instances when baal is used in verb form the total actually jumps to 27 (13 of the 15 occurrences being about marriage).
 
To answer GG question, i look at what the bible says. for example:

Ephesians 5:25-29
1 Corinthians 13: 4-7
1 Peter 3: 6-8

About the word "lord". Yes the man whose woman we are is lord. But think about what that meant. It was a social construction. It was about providing, caring and protecting.

The same for example with "slaves". We hear/read that word and think about the africans who were captured from Africa and forced to live under horrible conditions. But in the times of the isrealites, slaves where more workers or servants. The master had to provide for them, the servants/ workers worked for the master and in return the master would provide. They were not allowed to mistreat the workers. It is our modern idea that this is about some evil form of power and control. But it wasn't. We, in our time, would describe the way the masters had to treat the workers more like a father.

I give the example of the slaves/ workers/ servants to show that in our time we have a very different idea when we hear certain words. There are words that we, in our time, connect to "absolute power", "control" and "dominance" and a "you do what i say cause i'm the boss" mentality. While originaly the words used were about love, care, providing, protecting and guiding.

The same with the husband/lord. Many men take the easy way: a modern marriage based on sameness (they call it equal) or there are those who take the bible and explain in a way that husband can rule with an iron fist. The bible verses i named in this post are clearly not telling men to rule with an iron fist. But also, from other parts not directly dealing with marriage, it is clear i think. The bible theaches us to be humble, and to care for the weaker, to protect and provide.

And we, wives, we submit. that is a word that makes many think about a woman who is mentally broken, no will of her own, who would prostrate for her husband (that last thing would be idolatry; not allowed) But no, that is not biblical. see for example ephesians 5: 27 to present her ... as a radiant church. A radiant church! Bible doesnt teach us to be broken and damaged. that was not what submission would mean. We submit to our husbands, that means, we let him and encourage him to take the biblical role. We accept and trust his care and all his efforts. He may not always be perfect, but we can joyfully accept all he does to provide, to care, to love and protect us.
 
Job 29 is the male analog to the Proverbs 31 female. Except that Job was real and the Proverbs 31 woman doesn't exist, except as a "who can find her" example.

But don't get me wrong, I love women. I accept them with all their quirks and isms and deal with them accordingly. But the Proverbs 31 woman was a singleton. That holds no appeal to me. You want hilarious? Listen to a couple of women trying to decide what kind of woman they want. I probably should not have commented as much as I did. They made me a sandwich and took the discussion elsewhere. Said it was like making sausage, I shouldn't look too closely at how it was done... just enjoy the final product. It was a good sandwich (BLT) so I stopped commenting.
 
Eristhophanes said:
You want hilarious? Listen to a couple of women trying to decide what kind of woman they want. I probably should not have commented as much as I did. They made me a sandwich and took the discussion elsewhere. Said it was like making sausage, I shouldn't look too closely at how it was done... just enjoy the final product. It was a good sandwich (BLT) so I stopped commenting.
Click to expand...

:D:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top