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

[Pacman]

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?

I gave an example earlier in the thread...

A wife has a spending problem and is starting to rack up some debt purchasing things that are not necessary and are even frivolous. The husband realizes the problem and tells her to stop spending money on things that are not truly needs. He lovingly and patiently explains to her that her spending habits will lead to financial problems in the future for the entire family and that she is not being a good steward of what God has given them. She slows down the spending for a little while but before too long she is back to overspending and starting to rack up more credit card debt. He talks to her again patiently but to no avail.

I contend that the loving thing for him to do is apply consequences for her actions. Take away her credit cards and give her a specific amount of money that will be sufficient for the needs she has to purchase. While continuing to teach her about proper stewardship and financial wisdom.

The unloving and spineless thing would be to allow her to continue in her foolish spending habits and apply zero consequences allowing her to put the entire family into financial hardship. While only "lovingly and patiently" asking her to stop.

I'm curious of your opinion as well...

 

[Pacman]

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?

That was also unclear to me...

 

[FollowingHim]

@Kevin, ZecAustin is right, that was completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Although I'm not technically moderating at present, to avoid distractions if I see any more personal attacks like that (from anyone on either side of this debate) I will help out by removing the posts at least temporarily until @Verifyveritas76 has a chance to review them and devide whether to let them stand or not. Keep it civil.

 

[andrew]

Humpty Dumpty is a meditation on . . . .

That was all very interesting, and probably has some relevance here, but to be clear, I had something else in mind. My statement was a follow up to my reply to Zec in which I referenced the meanings of certain words, and was an allusion to this dialogue in Through the Looking Glass:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

I do not agree with Samuel's repeated assertion that we can all get along if we just agree to let everyone use whatever words they want to describe what they mean (love ya, bro!). Words are important—they are the foundation of inner thought and outer communication. And anyone following this thread can tell that some of us may be talking about the same thing using different words (remains to be seen, but hints are there), and some of us appear not to be talking about the same thing at all.

Zec so completely mistook my point above that it's time to stop and be sure we mean the same things when we use certain words (such as force, compel, rule, etc). If it turns out that we are using different words to mean the same thing, or using the same word in some cases to mean different things, then at least we can straighten out the communication problem, after which we can determine whether we have a substantive conflict. But it is premature to declare unity and give everybody a pass on the words they're using to convey meaning.

 

[andrew]

Once again I repeat - we're using 'rule' and 'lead' to refer to the same thing, and mainly differing in word preference.

For some of us this may actually be true. For some of us it clearly is not.

It is completely incorrect to assume that someone using the word 'rule' necessarily takes a more controlling stance than someone using the word 'lead'.

Sure, and you didn't even need the word 'necessarily' for that to be true. It is equally incorrect to assume anything about how someone is using a word once a dispute comes up, at least until you clear up everyone's definitions. And it is equally incorrect to assume that someone's use of different words discussing the meaning of scripture passages is benign and unimportant.

We're just referring to the same thing, but each using the words we read in our personally preferred Bible translations.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Some of us are pretty close in our understanding, or overlap quite a bit; some of us are quite a ways apart.

Whether the words are correct is irrelevant - it is what we mean by them that matters.

Disagree 100%. If our rule of faith and practice is a book of words, then it is of the utmost importance that we understand the words in scripture and the words we're using and use them correctly. If you can't even use the right words to describe what you're thinking, how can you know what you're thinking? If you can't communicate using the generally accepted definitions of words, how can you communicate at all?

Never go full Humpty Dumpty.

 

[andrew]

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.

. . . .

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, I want to honor your determination to navigate through all the ruckus around you to some kind of useful conclusion of the matter. I don't think "everyone" here has a unified understanding on anything in this thread, so it's not you against everyone else. Just hang tough and keep doing what you're doing.

 

[andrew]

The way he does that is the threat of consequences for our sin.

So what consequences do you typically threaten your wife with?

 

[andrew]

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.

Well, I was actually asking some questions about all three of the first chapters, but as for Gen 3 goes, my question had to do with the future tense there. I already believed that 'rule means rule' where it appears in Gen 3:16; my interest is in the "shall" part.

My concern is that, as I see it, something changed with Gen 3:16. "He shall rule over you", not "he will continue to rule over you". The argument is made that "patriarchy existed before the fall", the truth of which depends on what you mean by "patriarchy" in that context. Clearly the man had some kind of priority and authority over the woman before the fall, but that "shall rule over you" bit appears in 3:16, not before, so "ruling like a king" appears to be a change of state. (In addition to which, the pre-fall state (Gen 1 & 2) includes expressions that point to an essential unity or partnership of the man and woman, rather than evidence of a strict ruler/subject relationship. But that's the other part I was asking about.)

What can you say about that future tense verb from the Hebrew grammar? I see a Greek OT text that has a clear future tense, but I don't have the tools or experience to speak to the Hebrew. Is that a clear "this will happen from now on" future tense, or is it some kind of "this will keep happening the way it has been" construction that I'm not familiar with?

 

[andrew]

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.

Would you mind pulling one or two quotes for me to look at? Shouldn't be too much of an imposition if I've been doing it repeatedly....

For the record, I find my position in this matter to be far more difficult than the relatively easy "because I said so" move, but beyond that, I don't see that "whose difficulty is longest" has anything to do with this. The only thing that matters is our obedience to God, and the same person who said "My yoke is easy and My burden is light" also said "if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me", so I'm not sure we can assume much from the relative difficulty of whatever it is we think we're called to do.

 

[andrew]

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.

Feelings and comfort are always subordinate to the mission. The question is, what is the mission?

 

[andrew]

@ZecAustin, rockfox isn't "winning", he's not even playing the same game.

@Kevin, I invite you to consider editing your post to make supportable observations without the personal insults. If you choose not to do so, I'll simply remove that paragraph. But I think you have some things to say that you could've said more diplomatically and less judgmentally, so I hope you'll choose to edit your post.

@rockfox, consider this a first warning that you need to rein in the chronic if-the-shoe-fits mocking and belittling of anyone who disagrees with you and the whole "seeing a feminist under every rock on the prairie" thing. It actually weakens the force of your argument, and you often have good things to say that would be heard more clearly if you lost the dogmatic and judgmental tone.

@FollowingHim, I'd love to have you back as a full-time moderator, but I question the utility of the "now you see me, now you don't" approach. Not complaining, just raising the question.

Until something changes, @Verifyveritas76 and @aineo are the moderators of record, so y'all take a look at this thread and have at it!

@Pacman, I salute you! Lesser men would've bailed a long time ago....

Everybody: Pacman has asked that we move to a discussion of practical application. Sounds good to me. "It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt." Let's consider this a messy and unsatisfactory end to the "question two" discussion (what does the bible actually teach about male headship?), and see if we can have a useful discussion around the practical reality of what this is supposed to look like.

 

[rockfox]

@andrew, I'm not offended by @Kevin statement so I could care less either way if he edits it. I'm a big boy who stepped into the fray willingly. I will speak boldly the truth as I see it and am willing to take it as I dish it out. I would just say to him: seeing as you got every single thing wrong in your guess about my life; I'd suggest you re-evaluate your reasoning that led to such conclusions and why you felt the need to resort to insults instead of ideas.

I'll attempt to follow the warning. But as I'm not sure what you mean by "if-the-shoe-fits mocking and belittling of anyone who disagrees with you" or how I was doing that I may have difficulty avoiding it.

As to "seeing a feminist under every rock on the prairie"... well that's probably guilty as charged. But justifiably so, to me it is an inescapable conclusion that feminism is a big driver in this debate. And really, how could it NOT be an influence in a subject like this? A couple hundred years ago few would have questioned the idea that men should rule their wives and set consequences for their misbehavior. Now that idea is shocking and disturbing to most. I too found the idea objectionable until I was forced to reckon with its consequences in the church and found the truth via in depth study of the scriptures. And I have come to realize feminism is one of the biggest influences and problems in the church today and touches everything. We truly live in the days of Isaiah 3, "women are their rulers".

 

[rockfox]

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

Interpretation? Far from it....

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 God.

head....meaning "of persons, master, lord". Words mean things. Masters and lords rule. How do I know they rule, besides it being obviously implicit in being a master and lord?

Authority does not me[ean] rule. Headship means Leadership don't take my word for it, there's no way to define it as rule.

Because authority is what rulers have over those they rule. Just think about a simple example: Kings. Is not a King a leader? Do not King's rule? Do they not have authority over their subjects? Subjects? Where did we see that? Oh yes, wives are to submit ("to subject themselves" ) to their husbands.

I can prove this as well in pointing to the nature of God's headship or of Christ's headship. But really, why do I need to? This is all straightforward definitional. The headship of the husband is repeatedly equated with the headship of God. Tell me, does God have rule or leadership over us?

Headship means Leadership don't take my word for it, there's no way to define it as rule.

Ok, I won't take your word for it: please, point me to where the scriptures and the language teach us "headship means leadership" and that "headship does not mean rulership"?

Those questions are meant to insult so I won't answer them.

That was not at all my intention. Rather, they were to make a scriptural point to disproof your position; which I think they do quite nicely. I'm told men are not to rule yet scripture speaks of both women and [male] elders ruling. That's a pretty clear contradiction.

 

[FollowingHim]

@FollowingHim, I'd love to have you back as a full-time moderator, but I question the utility of the "now you see me, now you don't" approach. Not complaining, just raising the question.

To clarify for everyone reading my last post: My preference is to step back, as I have done. I now read only a small proportion of posts and am often absent. However, given that @Verifyveritas76 and @aineo are clearly also limited in their time, and since being in a different time zone I tend to spot things while others are asleep, I may from time to time help out on small, time-critical matters. I am a site administrator, as is @andrew, and like him do step in as needed to assist the moderators when the circumstances appear to require it. In this case I really don't want to see this deep discussion descend into an argument, and if I can help towards that end by hiding a potentially disruptive post to avoid a sudden downward distracting spiral, and flagging it for moderator review, I will do so. But I am not a moderator and will not act when a mod is available to handle the matter themselves. To be very clear, I flagged Kevin's earlier post for moderator review, and have taken no action on it myself, for this very reason. I am not going to suddenly put on a moderator hat and say 'hey I'm moderator again' either temporarily or permanently without first discussing that with Andrew and getting his approval.

 

[FollowingHim]

@andrew, you're right that words are important and should not be entirely dismissed, and thankyou for the humpty dumpty illustration to remind me not to go too far there. My point has been that I believe the views of most posters are fairly close, but the words used are misleading. This may be because some of us are using words incorrectly and need to change in order to speak more accurately.

With that in mind, I think @rockfox has posed some very good questions around the definition of headship, and look forward to reading the answers to those.

 

[Pacman]

As to "seeing a feminist under every rock on the prairie"... well that's probably guilty as charged. But justifiably so, to me it is an inescapable conclusion that feminism is a big driver in this debate. And really, how could it NOT be an influence in a subject like this? A couple hundred years ago few would have questioned the idea that men should rule their wives and set consequences for their misbehavior. Now that idea is shocking and disturbing to most. I too found the idea objectionable until I was forced to reckon with its consequences in the church and found the truth via in depth study of the scriptures. And I have come to realize feminism is one of the biggest influences and problems in the church today and touches everything. We truly live in the days of Isaiah 3, "women are their rulers".

I mostly agree with @rockfox on this comment. I will however add that I don't think it is exclusively the fault of those women who have adopted the feminist ideology and then brought it into churches. I more so see it as a complete dearth of masculinity in society at large as well as within churches. Those beta males have sat back and allowed it to happen and in many cases have even encouraged, and helped it.

Curious if anyone has ever noticed that part of what God reprimanded Adam for was hearkening to the voice of his wife?

Genesis 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

 

[The Revolting Man]

Would you mind pulling one or two quotes for me to look at? Shouldn't be too much of an imposition if I've been doing it repeatedly....

For the record, I find my position in this matter to be far more difficult than the relatively easy "because I said so" move, but beyond that, I don't see that "whose difficulty is longest" has anything to do with this. The only thing that matters is our obedience to God, and the same person who said "My yoke is easy and My burden is light" also said "if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me", so I'm not sure we can assume much from the relative difficulty of whatever it is we think we're called to do.

Would I scroll back through this whole thread and all the threads we've ever engaged on this topic? No. It's not that I don't think you're right to call for the proof but it's just we both know I'm not going to do it. So if someone isn't willing to accept my statement on this then they should discount it as unsupported.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Curious if anyone has ever noticed that part of what God reprimanded Adam for was hearkening to the voice of his wife?

Genesis 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Interesting. I hadn’t seen this before.

Apologies to all for not keeping up with this more. I’ve been out of pocket since Thursday taking some young men muzzleloading in South East Ok. Needless to say my service has been spotty.

I’ll stay up on it til noon and then edit the post if @Kevin hasn’t yet

 

[Pacman]

Would I scroll back through this whole thread and all the threads we've ever engaged on this topic? No. It's not that I don't think you're right to call for the proof but it's just we both know I'm not going to do it. So if someone isn't willing to accept my statement on this then they should discount it as unsupported.

Zec I agree that the topic we are discussing and ideas that you and I are advocating cuts severely against the grain of our culture. And that fact is not even close to a good reason to avoid it and is even a good reason to put it into practice (assuming it is supported by scripture). However I don't think Andrew has been using that as an argument in this thread. I can see why you may have taken it that way if you were looking for it. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Just my 2¢ ignore it if you want.

 

[windblown]

Curious if anyone has ever noticed that part of what God reprimanded Adam for was hearkening to the voice of his wife?

Also, God gave His instructions to avoid the tree to Adam before he created Eve.

My concern is that, as I see it, something changed with Gen 3:16. "He shall rule over you", not "he will continue to rule over you". The argument is made that "patriarchy existed before the fall", the truth of which depends on what you mean by "patriarchy" in that context. Clearly the man had some kind of priority and authority over the woman before the fall, but that "shall rule over you" bit appears in 3:16, not before, so "ruling like a king" appears to be a change of state. (In addition to which, the pre-fall state (Gen 1 & 2) includes expressions that point to an essential unity or partnership of the man and woman, rather than evidence of a strict ruler/subject relationship. But that's the other part I was asking about.)

What difference would this make either way?