The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

[Nikud]

Perhaps we can have a parallel conversation I don't recall anyone other than @ZecAustin responding to this claim.



I'm curious the about the Hebrew definition of the word "baal" translated into English as married in some places in the old testament. What do your study resources say? For example:

Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Baal (/ˈbeɪəl, ˈbɑːəl/), properly Baʿal, was a title and honorific meaning "owner," "lord" in the Northwest Semitic languages spoken in the Levant during antiquity. From its use among people, it came to be applied to gods.

You don't know me well if you think you can see my legitimate Biblical point and raise me one extremely ridiculous obfuscation and expect me to fold.

I knew you well enough that no matter what anyone said or showed in scripture you'd keep arguing and make a comment like the one you made attacking the logic of the statement because it either doesn't mesh with your veiw or its not clear to you what is being relayed for example see all previous threads you argued with some one on. I pointed out two truths we are told to Emulate Yeshua and that we are told G-ds ways are not ours, see Isaiah, and G-d gets to do things we dont. If you dont like that take it up with G-d.

In numbers 30:9 it shows the authority G-d delegated to us, not the right to rule. I never said G-d didn't give us the authority.

The answer to your question is yes. God described Himself as a husband in order to communicate with us in ways we can understand.

To communicate on way we understand with out a command to Emulate Him it was just that.

So your saying yes to

Are you comparing your self to G-d then? Saying you as a husband have the same authority as Him?

You only have the same authority as Him if your His equal. Now I doubt that's what you were implying. So give me scripture that actually confirms not implies with interpretation what your saying.

In the kjv every passage I pointed out uses the word rule. But several of the verses posted by Kevin do not...

I was trying to avoid the KJV translation conversation but, besides the Masoretic text, the Sepetugiant, it also use the Latin Vulgate to translate scripture. In the Latin Vulgate the Catholic church meticulously choose the ways they would translate a word to cultivate maximum authority for themselves. Many of the scriptures about rulership or speaks of ruling were carried over from the Latin Vulgate to the KJV. Why when they had the Greek source available? King James I authorized it. It maximized his right to rule. So with parts of the King James version you have an agenda driven translation of an agenda driven translation of the Greek. Before anyone says there's no translation agenda let me remind you of how translation was used to obfuscate polygyny.

Look at the different possibilities of the words in Greek and Hebrew and scripture as a whole. Not just the parts about the topic you want to prove or disprove.

 

[andrew]

Think about your argument, it's too hard in this culture so just forget about it. That's not an argument for a countercultural change maker. If the argument can't be made from scripture then it's nothing more than background.

That's not my argument, Zec, and I don't think you're wasting time with straw men, so I'm assuming you're missing my point. Either that or you're using words like force, compel, and control in some kind of metaphorical sense that is not the issue here. The argument at this point isn't about scripture; it's about what words mean and whether clear communication is possible between people who use the same word to mean different things.

 

[andrew]

Don't go full Humpty Dumpy on me. Never go full Humpty Dumpty....

 

[Nikud]

Humpty Dumpty is a meditation on the fleeting nature of power and the risk that comes with any position of authority. The fall that Humpty took was only fatal because he had ascended to such heights. All the Kings Horses and all the Kings men were in fact his army, capable of defending him from outward threats but impotent against the ones inherent to his position of King and the envy it inevitably inspires among those closest to him.

Consider that if he had not been alone on his wall, others would have been nearby to reach out and catch him. But balanced at the top, there was no help. Only a desire to push or pull him down so that someone else could enjoy the view. It ultimately draws parallels to the fate of King Charles II.

...this is all, of course, completely made up. And yet, it can be argued to be a correct meaning.

I didn't write this I found it a couple of months ago and saved it.

 

[rockfox]

Thats not what I'm saying I'm saying we are told not to seek the rule others. G-d stated in first Samuel. His intention was for Him to rule us. We rejected Him. Man chose mortal rulers. So mans authority to rule anyone is not of G-ds design.

God was speaking about rule of the nation as a whole; it does not necessarily follow from there that husbands aren't to rule. And 1 Cor 11 quite clearly contradicts that idea; man is called her master/lord and she is to have a symbol of authority upon her.

Delegated authority not rulership.

To the contrary, delegated authority is still rule. It is just rule on another's behalf. As Rom 13:1 points out, ALL rule is delegated from God. Does God have rule over his daughters? Yes! And he has delegated that rule to the husband (Ephesians 5:22).

 

[rockfox]

To those of you who think rule is bad/wrong, do you only apply it to men, or to women too?

Are we wrong to rule our children? Or is it just the women you want free from rule?

 

[FollowingHim]

Against my better judgement I'm going to step into the 'rule' discussion too briefly...

God is our ruler, so He can compel us to do anything.

In theory, He could - but He never does. Instead, He gives us free will, to choose to obey or disobey. That's what happened in the Garden, and what happens every time any of us sins - we use our God-given free will to choose to disobey Him. We can only do this because He does NOT compel us to obey Him. He could have made us all mindless robotic slaves, but He chose to give us free will so we could choose to willingly submit to Him out of love - or choose to disobey.

So, if He does not compel us to obey Him, does that mean that He does not 'rule' us?

Is ruling really about 'compelling' obedience at all?

I think that a straw-man argument has been set up somewhere here: That 'rule' means to 'compel obedience', and is bad, and 'lead' means to request obedience but not force people to obey. But if even God Himself, who is clearly our ruler, does not 'compel obedience', then the entire argument is invalid because 'rule' simply cannot mean that (in a Biblical context).

Once again I repeat - we're using 'rule' and 'lead' to refer to the same thing, and mainly differing in word preference. It is completely incorrect to assume that someone using the word 'rule' necessarily takes a more controlling stance than someone using the word 'lead'. We're just referring to the same thing, but each using the words we read in our personally preferred Bible translations. Whether the words are correct is irrelevant - it is what we mean by them that matters.

 

[Pacman]

I was trying to avoid the KJV translation conversation but, besides the Masoretic text, the Sepetugiant, it also use the Latin Vulgate to translate scripture. In the Latin Vulgate the Catholic church meticulously choose the ways they would translate a word to cultivate maximum authority for themselves. Many of the scriptures about rulership or speaks of ruling were carried over from the Latin Vulgate to the KJV. Why when they had the Greek source available? King James I authorized it. It maximized his right to rule. So with parts of the King James version you have an agenda driven translation of an agenda driven translation of the Greek. Before anyone says there's no translation agenda let me remind you of how translation was used to obfuscate polygyny.

I wasn't trying to claim one translation was better or worse than the other. I am aware there are some strong opinions on all sides of this issue. I was merely pointing out the difference may be part of why we are seeing things differently in this conversation...

 

[Pacman]

Against my better judgement I'm going to step into the 'rule' discussion too briefly...

In theory, He could - but He never does. Instead, He gives us free will, to choose to obey or disobey. That's what happened in the Garden, and what happens every time any of us sins - we use our God-given free will to choose to disobey Him. We can only do this because He does NOT compel us to obey Him. He could have made us all mindless robotic slaves, but He chose to give us free will so we could choose to willingly submit to Him out of love - or choose to disobey.

So, if He does not compel us to obey Him, does that mean that He does not 'rule' us?

Is ruling really about 'compelling' obedience at all?

I think that a straw-man argument has been set up somewhere here: That 'rule' means to 'compel obedience', and is bad, and 'lead' means to request obedience but not force people to obey. But if even God Himself, who is clearly our ruler, does not 'compel obedience', then the entire argument is invalid because 'rule' simply cannot mean that (in a Biblical context).

Once again I repeat - we're using 'rule' and 'lead' to refer to the same thing, and mainly differing in word preference. It is completely incorrect to assume that someone using the word 'rule' necessarily takes a more controlling stance than someone using the word 'lead'. We're just referring to the same thing, but each using the words we read in our personally preferred Bible translations. Whether the words are correct is irrelevant - it is what we mean by them that matters.

My opinion about compel or attempt to compel is not the idea of absolute authority like God has. I have said several times throughout the thread that a husbands authority is deligated by God and is not absolute. It must be kept within the boundaries outlined in scripture. Avoiding both physical and emotional abuse. Excersized within the commands regarding love and everything else...

So if compel is the wrong word then perhaps attempt to compel would better describe it.

She has free will. I have never said otherwise. Ultimately if she chooses to she can completely reject my authority.
1. She could simply choose to continue to live with the consequences I have set in place.
2.She could choose to leave me.
3.Or she could choose to conform her will to match mine because she recognizes she was in the wrong scripturaly and that I lovingly disciplined her to attempt to compel her to do what is right.

The third option is what took place in my home and as I mentioned before the results have been and continue to be amazing.

@ZecAustin is right in this culture it is extremely difficult to do. But in my opinion that's an indication that it's likely the best thing to do.

Perhaps we are defining things differently. I think there is some of that happening. What I am calling rule or force or compel may be completely different from what everyone else here understands it to mean. I have tried to explain what I mean by those terms in multiple post within this thread. If my definitions are incorrect then I'm sorry to have wasted everyone's time.

If anyone would like to talk practical application I would welcome that because it is truly "where the rubber meets the road"

 

[Pacman]

In theory, He could - but He never does. Instead, He gives us free will, to choose to obey or disobey. That's what happened in the Garden, and what happens every time any of us sins - we use our God-given free will to choose to disobey Him. We can only do this because He does NOT compel us to obey Him. He could have made us all mindless robotic slaves, but He chose to give us free will so we could choose to willingly submit to Him out of love - or choose to disobey.

So my take on it is a bit different. Yes free will is given by God but I think he does attempt to compel us to make the right choices. The way he does that is the threat of consequences for our sin. We still have free will but if we exercise that free will in defiance of his commands we will live with or possibly even die from the consequences.

 

[Nikud]

And 1 Cor 11 quite clearly contradicts that idea; man is called her master/lord and she is to have a symbol of authority upon her

Authority does not me rule. Headship means Leadership don't take my word for it, there's no way to define it as rule. That's something I always felt strange reading because I know Yeshua has the right to rule but the example is given for us is leadership.

1 Corinthians 11 King James Version (KJV)
11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is G-d.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of G-d: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of G-d.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto G-d uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of G-d.

17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper


Clearly?? A man is called her master/lord WHERE?? Implied interpretation.

As Rom 13:1 points out, ALL rule is delegated from God

Heres kjv again
Romans 13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of G-d: the powers that be are ordained of G-d.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of G-d: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

All Authority/power is Delegated from G-d.

To those of you who think rule is bad/wrong, do you only apply it to men, or to women too?

 

[Nikud]

@Pacman and @ZecAustin that last statement is not directed at yall or any other man who is authentic and actually trying to rightfully divide the word of G-d.
@Pacman I believe your are doing the best at humbly approaching the subject something that @ZecAustin and I, more so myself, can work more at.

 

[Pacman]

And that's the problem. I know this discussion began with the word "rule". But what really matters is how we ACT, not what words we use to describe it. The whole "rule" thing is becoming a frustrating distraction from a profitable conversation. Can't we just discuss how a husband is to act towards his wives, and stop getting hung up on whether to label this "ruling" or not?

Let's do this. We probably should have a long time ago.

 

[IshChayil]

There is some convergence happening. Once we realize/admit that there is no such specific instruction, we can start to think about why that is.

Personally (@Pacman, just walk with me a second here...), I still see Gen 3:16 as curse stuff. I think the grammar is pretty clear about that, and I'd like to officially dial 1-800- @IshChayil to see if we could get a ruling on the Hebrew grammar in Gen 1, 2, & 3. [Chap 1 - Looks like God originally purposed to create mankind both male and female. Chap 2 - Looks like the signature teaching is the UNITY of the male and the female ("bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" - he didn't say "oh, finally you're here, go make me a sammich"). Chap 3 - Looks like "he shall rule" is definitely future tense (it certainly is in the Greek translations, I just don't have a good Hebrew interlinear). In other words, in the garden we had "one flesh", with a "first among equals" or "partners in dominion with a managing partner and an assisting partner" vibe, until Eve tanked that arrangement.
...

Yep, the Hebrew grammar comes across fine in the English "He will rule you". Of interest may be that the wording משל+ב mashal+b, "rule" is the word used of a king over his subjects/territory.

 

[Man@Home]

If anyone would like to talk practical application I would welcome that because it is truly "where the rubber meets the road"

I think that is a splendid idea in order to get the differences clear between the two view points. I am really interested in how that works out practically. May I ask if you can elaborate on that from your side?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I knew you well enough that no matter what anyone said or showed in scripture you'd keep arguing and make a comment like the one you made attacking the logic of the statement because it either doesn't mesh with your veiw

What you're calling logic doesn't mesh with many things, especially not my views.

In numbers 30:9 it shows the authority G-d delegated to us, not the right to rule. I never said G-d didn't give us the authority.

In Numbers 30 God gives us the ability to over rule our wive's and daughter's covenants with Him. It is a breathtaking example of the level of authority, that yes I would say rises to the level of rule, that He gives to husbands and fathers. You can minimize that if you like but He literally partially steps aside for the father/husband.

Are you comparing your self to G-d then? Saying you as a husband have the same authority as Him?

Yes and no. I am comparing all husbands to the kind of husbanding God modeled. No I am not saying anyone has the same authority as God. That's a patently ridiculous statement and shows that you're not arguing in complete good faith. I said that God gave us a model of literal Godly husbanding and that I believe we can trust that model to be an accurate guide for the rest of us. He said He was "like" a husband. He wouldn't of said that if it wasn't true.

You only have the same authority as Him if your His equal.

Or if He gives it to me.

So give me scripture that actually confirms not implies with interpretation what your saying.

I did. You didn't like it. You went off on some disconnected tangent that wasn't connected in any way with the conversation and on top of all of that I never even said directly what I thought those passages meant. You jumped to a very silly conclusion and then tried to connect that back to the statements you assumed I would make.

Before anyone says there's no translation agenda let me remind you of how translation was used to obfuscate polygyny.

Look at the different possibilities of the words in Greek and Hebrew and scripture as a whole. Not just the parts about the topic you want to prove or disprove.

And yet with all that translation bias they were actually unable to obfuscate the truth so maybe this isn't a very good argument to discount the scripture as handed down to us and instead adopt your reading of the Greek and Hebrew.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That's not my argument, Zec, and I don't think you're wasting time with straw men, so I'm assuming you're missing my point. Either that or you're using words like force, compel, and control in some kind of metaphorical sense that is not the issue here. The argument at this point isn't about scripture; it's about what words mean and whether clear communication is possible between people who use the same word to mean different things.

I'm sorry Andrew but I have repeatedly seen you say some version of "this can't work in this culture so let's get serious." It's very frequently your closing statement in this argument.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So my take on it is a bit different. Yes free will is given by God but I think he does attempt to compel us to make the right choices. The way he does that is the threat of consequences for our sin. We still have free will but if we exercise that free will in defiance of his commands we will live with or possibly even die from the consequences.

I think the story of Jonah has some relevance here as well. When God decided He wants something to be done He will ensure it get's done and He doesn't care at all about your feelings or your comfort.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@Pacman and @ZecAustin that last statement is not directed at yall or any other man who is authentic and actually trying to rightfully divide the word of G-d.
@Pacman I believe your are doing the best at humbly approaching the subject something that @ZecAustin and I, more so myself, can work more at.

I take it personally Kevin. Because nothing @rockfox has said would lead a reasonable person to those conclusions so obviously you are reacting to the ideas and saying that holding these beliefs indicates a weakling looking to puff himself up behind the anonymity of the internet. You were wrong in those conclusions and you were wrong in that attack.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yep, the Hebrew grammar comes across fine in the English "He will rule you". Of interest may be that the wording משל+ב mashal+b, "rule" is the word used of a king over his subjects/territory.

I'm not clear here. Are you saying that the text supports the idea of a husband ruling over his wives like a king over his subjects or territory or are you saying that this was the result of the fall and was never intended or both?