On a lighter note...
Been a very long time since I saw that.. lol Example of abuse of authority..On a lighter note...
Well, and it has to do with corporate/community judicial punishment, so is not a model for husbandly discipline of the adults in his home.Leviticus 19:20
[20] And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
Clearly some specific circumstances here which hopefully doesn’t apply to any of us but this is the only example that I’m aware of...
You sell yourself short, friend. That was very well explained.I know this is an extremely disjointed, rabbit-running post, but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
I'm sorry ma'am but your Bible does indeed command wives to fear their husband.It's truly amazing to me @rockfox how you're always the expert on the women's do's and don't's but can't seem to pull it together to put the shoe on the other foot! IF @Slumberfreeze's Biblical solution and @Joleneakamama's Biblical assessment is an overly simplistic and ideal view of life and female psychology, then WHAT do you call your "rule with fear and coercion method"?!? Trying to write your own bible?!? Cuz it ain't in my Bible!!!! Guess THAT would be humanism to the core--uhumm--idolatry
Damn this woman is something else. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee doggey!Glad you mentioned crucifixion here. 'Cause that's exactly what the Husband told his Bride to do.
The fact that we are told to discipline sons does not, in itself, mean we should not discipline daughters. This is an argument from silence. In the absence of any verse to state there is a distinction between the sexes on a matter, I would usually presume that both sexes are to be treated equally and the male was referred to simply by way of illustration.I realized that in spanking my daughters, I had no Biblical basis in doing so
I agree this is our command. I can see very few situations where corporal punishment of a wife would be needed or justified, and would fit within "love their wives as their own bodies". And, as stated before, I don't do it myself. However, this is not a blanket prohibition of corporal punishment, and can be interpreted in different ways.So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies
That is a beautiful picture.I think you are right as far as authority being a big issue, trust and understanding each other is too.
Communication is making sure that the message intended is the message received....also important.
Perspective is an interesting thing too.
I remember hearing a horse trainer ask his audience while explaining his training philosophy "When you're riding and you ask your horse to stop, why does it obey?" Many said "Because you pull on the reins." That may well be the rider's perspective but this trainer was helping people understand their horses better. The correct answer according to John Lyons was "The horse stops so you will STOP pulling on the reins!"
It is often said by horse trainers that it is the giving not the taking that gets results.... it was certainly the giving of YHWH's Son that changes people internally in ways that external forces might not.....but knowledge of His righteous judgements and His definitions of sin helps us value the gift that was given.
No one wants to ride a horse that is willful and not submitted. It is a dangerous fight all the way. But if they trust and respect you they will go anywhere you ask.
Just my after a short night and a busy morning but before coffee thoughts.
@Joleneakamama point is well made, external forces do not change the internal attitude. It create obedience, not submission.it was certainly the giving of YHWH's Son that changes people internally in ways that external forces might not.....
I remember hearing a horse trainer ask his audience while explaining his training philosophy "When you're riding and you ask your horse to stop, why does it obey?" Many said "Because you pull on the reins." That may well be the rider's perspective but this trainer was helping people understand their horses better. The correct answer according to John Lyons was "The horse stops so you will STOP pulling on the reins!"
It is often said by horse trainers that it is the giving not the taking that gets results.... it was certainly the giving of YHWH's Son that changes people internally in ways that external forces might not.....but knowledge of His righteous judgements and His definitions of sin helps us value the gift that was given.
No one wants to ride a horse that is willful and not submitted. It is a dangerous fight all the way. But if they trust and respect you they will go anywhere you ask.
As someone who has trained animals including horses and other livestock it is clear to me that the difference in
abuse and training is that in training the animal being conditioned to a desired response needs to
a. Understand what behavior is causing the negative consequence and
b. Be capable of avoiding it.
If they don't know why the consequence is happening it isn't training, its abuse and will make the animal neurotic. If the behavioral goal expected is unreasonable
(not enough response time allowed for example before the consequence is encountered) it will also make an animal neurotic.
Reasonable and consistent expectations make calm and reasoning animals. I'm not kidding either. Animals are SMART.
Firm fair and friendly works.
In my experience use of a whip does not make a whip shy horse....misuse of a whip does.
I had dairy goats growing up. I understand very well how deliberately ornery some can be. Most of ours would go straight to the milk stand. One doe was perfect unless she was in season, then she went straight to the buck pen. LolThe interesting part is, not only can animals learn rules, sometimes they'll willfully and knowingly disregard them and then act chagrin when caught. I can even yell their name from across the field and they'll quickly stop. Well most of them; personalities.
Because we understand each other, can communicate, and they acknowledge my place at the top of the herd; there is a lot of mutual trust between us. Peace. But if I'm not at the top of that totem pole; that is when it gets dangerous.
With our children some took more convincing then others. Another training rule is you only use as much force as it takes to get the desired response, but you DO use as much force as it takes.
But can you put a blanket prohibition on something God doesn't even address? He tells wives to submit to their husbands in all things. Can you show me how you justify this exception. It's been shown multiple times that God will lovingly discilpline His church so you can't prohibit with the "love of Christ" verse. How do you justify a blanket prohibition?This thread has been quite emotional for many of us. In fact, I will have to repent of conclusions I have had regarding the area of discipline. I’ll explain later.
Acts 17:10-11 (KJV) 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
I will use KJV scripture, and try to use only as my point of reference on this text.
Let’s first go to Proverbs 13:24 as I believe this scripture could be quoted by most:
“He that sparethhis rodhateth his son: but he that loveth him chastenethhim betimes.”
We can look at a few important words. (using the Strong’s as my reference)
Spareth – to withhold, restrain, hold back
Rod – rod, staff, branch
Chasteneth – discipline, chastening, correction
Betimes – dawn, to seek, seek early or earnestly, in the morning
Dawn, seek early, in the morning, all references to beginning of the day. I take this to mean “an early part of life, when the child is young.” I think this is common sense conclusion to the word “betimes”.
In Ephesians 6:4 it says
“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
We have all seen where extreme discipline can “provoke your child to wrath.” This is a subject for another thread, but has become a reality in our society from use of ungodly discipline.
Here the word “provoke” is defined in the Strong’s as “to rouse to wrath, to provoke, exasperate, anger”.
Nurture
Admonition
Another scripture for this discussion is Proverbs 23:13-14:
“Withhold not correctionfrom the child:for if thou beatesthimwith the rod, heshall not die.”
Correction - discipline, chastening, correction
Beatest - to strike, smite, hit (additional info in your Strong’s Concordance)
(the word child used in Proverbs 23:13 could be a good discussion. At what age does a boy become a man? A boy goes through Bar Mitzvah at age 13)
Earlier, I mentioned after a little research, I realized I would have to repent based on the conclusions I have discovered. If you re-read Proverbs 13:24 and Proverbs 23:13-14, you can discover corporal punishment is an acceptable practice as defined in the Bible. However, in each of these two verses, it is clear, corporal punishment in these two cases, are both to correcting a sonwho is a child, “but he that loveth himchastenethhimbetimes” and “for if thou beatesthimwith the rod, he shall not die.” Since we are a “getting back to scriptures group” where many rewrite the scriptures, I realized that in spanking my daughters, I had no Biblical basis in doing so. I will be having a talk with God about this later this evening. In addition, I see no reference to women to a girl child.
In Ephesians 5:25 it says
25“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Verse 28 is of interest to this thread. “Love the wife as their own bodies.” If, as head of household, we subject ourselves to corporal punishment when we are in rebellion to Christ (our head) and the Word, I would not understand you, but you clearly would not be a hypocrite. However, if you are unwilling to submit yourself for a corporal punishment correction, then your hypocrisy is self-evident.
In verse 29 we have a prime example of how we are to treat our wives. “29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” With Christ being our example, we have to look at how he conducted himself in regards to the church for us to know how we are to treat our wives.
A prime example is in John 8:3-9
“3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, ‘He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.’ 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
My point in this verse is the penalty for adultery was death. Jesus scribbled in the dirt (probably sins they had committed, but that’s just a personal opinion). And what his conclusion?
“10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, ‘Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?’ 11 She said, ‘No man, Lord’. And Jesus said unto her, 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.’”
This was not a sink full of dishes or an out of balance checkbook, but it was a sin that carried the death sentence. “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”
Grace became the motivating factor of Christ. As for the woman at the well? The same thing for her, grace.
My conclusion is the woman is the weaker vessel. We are to protect them. If we would never allow another man to spank our wives, how hypocritical is it to spank them ourselves? One of the things that drew me to this site, was the elimination of “cherry picking” the scriptures. On this subject, I have seen cherry picking at its finest. I asked several days ago for scriptural reference to corporal punishment for a wife. The challenge is to refer to solid scripture to back such an idea. I toss this back to opposing views.
I agree. And if you have to resort to physical punishment in order to do that communication, to a grown woman who can fully understand normal language (we're not talking a toddler here), there's probably something else wrong.It's ultimately not about obedience but communication.
I agree. And if you have to resort to physical punishment in order to do that communication, to a grown woman who can fully understand normal language (we're not talking a toddler here), there's probably something else wrong.