I meant corporately, not individually. I'm glad you take biblical roles as seriously as I do in my household.
But if you want to whip all the women in your community into shape...have at it. Let me know how it goes.
-
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.
Male Headship
- Thread starter DeathIsNotTheEnd
- Start date
But if you want to whip all the women in your community into shape...have at it. Let me know how it goes.
In the corporate environment it is all the more important to preach the whole council of God. The magnification and creation of men's sins coupled with the excusal or outright elimination of women's sins that goes on in the church is chief among the problems facing Christianity today and why it is falling before the advance of feminism.
I don't expect that preaching the commands of scripture to both men and women would be very popular in the church today. But that is that task given.
I don't expect that preaching the commands of scripture to both men and women would be very popular in the church today. But that is that task given.
We more or less agree. I just think that the RESPONSIBILITY to change is on the individual level. If the women of the church, and even individual wives want to sow their seeds of perdition despite a corporate or household warning, then the recourse is for individual men to continue to perfect themselves in the roles and expectations God has given them regardless. I am responsible to be the best me I can be. If my best me is sincere and consistent, then it may/should induce others to either be curious about it and possibly even follow.
I reject such passivity; that is essentially telling them they should obey "if they want to" and a recipe for sin to run rampant.
If men are truly head of the family then they have more recourse than to sit idly by; otherwise they are mere figurehead and not head at all. And likewise at the corporate level, if the church practices disfellowship as it should, there is an argument to be made that disobedient women should be brought to account over TITUS 2:3-5 matters lest the word of God be blasphemed.
Agree on corporate, but only after sufficient long suffering, grace, teaching, encouraging, admonishing...not one strike and you're out.
What's your active recourse at home? You haven't given a list of examples or biblical precedent. Spill it.
Matthew 18 set's a due process for this and it isn't 1 strike and you're out.
Enact consequences for disobedience. This is definitional to being the head. If you can't do this you're not the head but the figurehead.
Carrot and stick. Discipline and chastise.
The options are many and varied and what is appropriate will depend on the situation, the personalities of the parties involved, the expectations set and their history as a couple.
@rockfox,
I'm not trying to one up or debate in poor spirit, I just want you to lay out about three scenarios that have occurred in your marriage life and how you dealt with them with consequences, carrot/stick, and so forth. Theory is great, but without practice, it means nothing. Many of us who have strong, patriarchal homes use our position differently, and that's awesome. Show and tell how you do it so others with your leadership style can benefit.
I'm not trying to one up or debate in poor spirit, I just want you to lay out about three scenarios that have occurred in your marriage life and how you dealt with them with consequences, carrot/stick, and so forth. Theory is great, but without practice, it means nothing. Many of us who have strong, patriarchal homes use our position differently, and that's awesome. Show and tell how you do it so others with your leadership style can benefit.
It may be semantics based on our modern understanding of the definition of respect but I don’t believe that we should respect our wives. We are never instructed to in scripture. We are instructed to honor (value) them. I believe respect is reserved for those in authority...
Technically true but practically speaking I don't know the difference between honor and respect. These things aren't well conceptualized in our culture.
In the scripture, it tells the men to love their wives and women to respect their husbands. I believe these are minimums. We can do more, but these should be the least that we do.
@JustUs said ‘if I disrespect my wife is that showing love?’ Nope. You pegged it with that question.
But, in most cases, respect is easy for guys and love is easy for women. In my opinion, that’s why men are told to love their wives and wives are told to respect their husbands. Just the opposite of what comes easy.
Sometimes I wish God would have made it easier for us, but He didn’t ask me my opinion. Then again, there’s that whole Grandpa Adam got his butt kicked out of a perfectly good garden. So, it would seem God did make it easier for us.
Ehh. I challenge you to point out where a woman is instructed to respect her husband? I know some translations water down the word phobeō in Ephesians 5:33 but respect isn’t even part of the definition. Reverence is a much more accurate translation.
This is important for the very reason I’m pointing out. The modern church has watered down these terms so much in order to cater to and promote feminism and egalitarian ideas. So we are now even on this forum discussing this as if it’s legitimate for a husband to have the same attitude towards his women as she is supposed to have towards him. It’s not legitimate. It’s watering down scripture and it’s dangerous. That’s why I’m pointing it out...
Thayer's Definition
- to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)
- to put to flight, to flee
- to fear, be afraid
- to be struck with fear, to be seized with alarm
- of those startled by strange sights or occurrences
- of those struck with amazement
- of those startled by strange sights or occurrences
- to fear, be afraid of one
- to fear (i.e. hesitate) to do something (for fear of harm)
- to be struck with fear, to be seized with alarm
- to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience
- to put to flight, to flee
Thought provoking in the least. But I’d like to point out, using the scripture you used,
Ephesians 5:33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (NIV). I’m not a fan of the NIV, but I used it anyway.
With the word respect/reverence, if we go to the Greek, there are two words used. The verb form (action) is ‘fobeomai’ which is translated into English as “respect”. In the noun form, it is translated as “reverence”.
As I see it, in verse 33, it is an action, a verb. If you go to verse 21 of the same chapter, you’ll see the noun version. It is ‘Fobos’.
In your text, you seem quite certain this is a noun to be translated. As for me, I respectfully disagree. I see it as an action.
I'm not a fan either and it's one of the translations I'm saying is watered down...
Not at all. I definitely view it as a verb.
Again this is reverence instead of fear in the NIV did I mention that I am not a fan??
The NIV also adds a heading in an incorrect location and claims that vs. 21 is part of the instructions for marriage. It's not it goes with the previous part of the chapter.
Not sure why you say that reverence is only a noun? I pulled the strongs and Thayers for the word in vs33 here it is: notice the parts of speach? Also notice the word respect isn't even part of the definition?
Strong's Number
G5399
Original Word
φοβέω
Transliterated Word
phobeō
Phonetic Spelling
fob-eh'-o
Parts of Speech
Verb
Strong's Definition
From G5401; to frighten that is (passively) to be alarmed; by analogy to be in awe of that is revere: - be (+ sore) afraid fear (exceedingly) reverence.
Thayer's Definition
to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)
to put to flight, to flee
to fear, be afraid
to be struck with fear, to be seized with alarm
of those startled by strange sights or occurrences
of those struck with amazement
to fear, be afraid of one
to fear (i.e. hesitate) to do something (for fear of harm)
to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience
Last edited:
Lol, the only reason I used the NIV, it was the first one I came to that I could copy and paste. I started using the NET a few months back. So far, I like it.
Looks like a ‘agree to disagree’ type of discussion. I’ve used the phrase ‘agree that you are wrong’ with family at times. I found out, the latter phrase gets me no where, but it’s sometimes fun to see the response.
In this case, I see your point, but stand by my conclusion.
One thing I taught our children and required consistently is that they "respect" each other! It wasn't an option. They had to learn how to respect the other siblings space, possessions, and person! In this training process, the individual child learns to respect themselves. They learn they have value, learn how to set safe boundaries, and can identify when someone violates their personal boundaries. IMHO--this is Basic Humanity 101. It absolutely boggles my mind that as believers we're quipping over whether a brother or sister should be 1.) loved OR 2.) respected. REALLY?!? This conversation ususally erodes into the same rut--"You can have ONE or the OTHER, but how dare any human being, especially the wife/woman, even think she should be BOTH loved and respected?!? Then of course the man wants and needs BOTH! I totally reject the idea that the woman needs one or the other, OR that the man/husband needs one or the other. We happen to be talking about humans--not robots or AI. I submit to you that both the husband and the wife need love and respect!
I also know the value and importance of respecting a God-given position of authority. I also taught that to my children. They might disagree with a decision, but they were taught to approach discussion on the subject in question with an attitude of respect. That applies to mother, father, teacher, pastor, government authorities--it goes straight across the board!