Status
Not open for further replies.

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,124
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,521.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
2. You impute extra-biblical ideas into it, such as marriage equality

Nope. I have built and presented my argument on Scriptural grounds. Nothing extra-Biblical about it.

3. You reinterpret every verse that disagrees with you.

There are three options available to us.

1. That Scripture puts forward a completely coherent view of marriage that is roughly your position.
2. That Scripture puts forward a completely coherent view of marriage that is roughly my position.
3. That Scripture presents a mixture of views of marriage which cannot be entirely reconciled.

I actually think 3) is true to some degree, but we as humans can't hold and live from a mixture of views. We have to choose which we think most closely adheres to the will of God. And I can justify my position from Scripture.

It is common knowledge that when a general statement is followed by specific statements, the specifics clarify the general. You are doing the opposite, using the general to nullify the specifics.

Sure, the specifics clarify the general; they cannot negate the general. So the specifics here tell wives that they are to specifically direct their submission to their husbands. But this does not let husbands off the hook of the general direction to "submit to one another," including their wives!

Even lawyers know you can't get away with this shoddy argumentation.

Jesus said: Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.

Legal argumentation is hardly held up as a model for us to emulate.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: bekkilyn
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I think that you are compromising the Bible message to agree with your political message. Christian history stands with me.
Using Christian history as a basis for understanding scripture can promote all sorts of terrible things ranging from slavery to abuse of women to blood libel (killing Jews on the claim that they had murdered Christian children for their blood). Should we return to burning witches? I don’t think so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Peter J Barban

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2016
1,474
973
62
Taiwan
Visit site
✟97,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nope. I have built and presented my argument on Scriptural grounds. Nothing extra-Biblical about it.



There are three options available to us.

1. That Scripture puts forward a completely coherent view of marriage that is roughly your position.
2. That Scripture puts forward a completely coherent view of marriage that is roughly my position.
3. That Scripture presents a mixture of views of marriage which cannot be entirely reconciled.

I actually think 3) is true to some degree, but we as humans can't hold and live from a mixture of views. We have to choose which we think most closely adheres to the will of God. And I can justify my position from Scripture.



Sure, the specifics clarify the general; they cannot negate the general. So the specifics here tell wives that they are to specifically direct their submission to their husbands. But this does not let husbands off the hook of the general direction to "submit to one another," including their wives!



Jesus said: Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.

Legal argumentation is hardly held up as a model for us to emulate.
Noted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Why do people who use two or three cherry-picked, out-of-context verses to argue in favor of dominating and controlling other people always seem to ignore the entire gospel (GOOD news) message in the process?

The cognitive dissonance must be immense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,124
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,521.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
For what it's worth, I'm on leave at the moment.

That said, for me the far more difficult thing in this thread is not the time and thought that goes into replying to it, but the emotional labour of having to respond to such genuinely distressing views; and that's true no matter which day it is.
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟304,048.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God, to whom every human being will bow, speaks of His Image (of the female aspect). It would be better to submit with Him now and reason together, rather than demand that He submit to you because of an analogy that doesn’t fit the typology.

Genesis 1:27 Women and Men created in God’s image
“Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them.”

Hosea 11:3-4 God described as a mother
God: “Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I who took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with bands of love. I was to them like those who lift infants to their cheeks. I bent down to them and fed them.”

Hosea 13:8 God described as a mother bear
“Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and tear them asunder…”

Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God described as a mother eagle
“Like the eagle that stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young, God spreads wings to catch you, and carries you on pinions.”

Deuteronomy 32:18 God who gives birth
“You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.”

Isaiah 66:13 God as a comforting mother
God: “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”

Isaiah 49:15 God compared to a nursing mother
God: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.”

Isaiah 42:14 God as a woman in labor
God: “For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept myself still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gasp and pant.”

Psalms 131:2 God as a Mother
“But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.”

Psalms 123:2-3 God compared to a woman
“As the eyes of a servant looks to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to you, YHWH, until you show us your mercy!”

Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 God as a Mother Hen
Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”

Luke 15:8-10 God as woman looking for her lost coin
Jesus: “Or what woman having ten silver coins, is she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: bekkilyn
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟304,048.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The truth is in the representation of law vs grace and seen in the type of relationship represented.
One is parent/child marriage or the other, an adult/adult marriage.
Unripe or ripe fruit as some would say.
Law represents the governor placed on a child until one becomes of age.
When they become of age the things of a child are no more.

First that of a parent / child. That is where one is not mature enough, either a young believer or unbeliever who does not understand the relationship of Christ and the church. The need is for them to understand God in the picture of marriage that Paul saw around him, much in the same way that Jesus taught from farming examples.

The absurdity of adult/ child used as a symbol of marriage that does not respect christianity is seen in 1 Peter where the believer is dominated by an unbeliever. It represents God’s answer to lovelessness in a marriage that results in unanswered prayer. God’s silence.

An adult/adult marriage, mutuality, is grace fulfilled and represents Christ meeting face to face at the throne of grace. That is true Christianity in the movement of law to grace. Or the lack thereof.

So it’s easy to see if one has a mature marriage or not. and if one is acting from law or from grace.

ETA
A further elaboration on the the leading into a mutuality with God in serving each other, is that the leading must come from God:

Hebrews 7:28
the law appointed frail mortals to be high priests, but the oracle pronounc'd with an oath, which was since the law, established the Son, who is crown'd with immortal perfections.

Hebrews 12:25
See that you refuse not Him that speaks. For if those did not escape who had refused Him who uttered the oracles on earth, much more we who turn away from Him who does so from heaven:

1 Peter 4:11
If anyone speak, let them speak as the oracles of God; if anyone minister, let them do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Basically, you can't use verse 21 to control the interpretation of vs 22-24. Instead, you should use vs 22-24 to guide the interpretation of vs 21.

And you would be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Peter J Barban

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2016
1,474
973
62
Taiwan
Visit site
✟97,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not saying anything different than Matthew Henry did 300 years ago (1710): "The duty prescribed to wives is submission to their husbands in the Lord (v. 22), which submission includes the honouring and obeying of them, and that from a principle of love to them. They must do this in compliance with God's authority, who has commanded it, which is doing it as unto the Lord"

Ephesians 5 Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry (complete)


If this disturbs you, then you are not following the same shepherd that Paul, Peter, the Early Church, and the Reformation did. You are following a new shepherd and cannot tolerate the voice of the old one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billy93
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
And you would be wrong.

But surely everyone knows that the topic sentence of every essay goes at the end instead of the beginning! Oh...wait a moment....

:)

So now this guy is calling a 300 year old human being our shepherd, even if not directly. Funny, I thought our shepherd was Jesus Christ and not Matthew Henry, Matthew apparently being the font of all truth and wisdom that brooks no disagreement.

I wonder when he'll figure out that commentaries are just people's opinions and not inspired scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm not saying anything different than Matthew Henry did 300 years ago (1710): "The duty prescribed to wives is submission to their husbands in the Lord (v. 22), which submission includes the honouring and obeying of them, and that from a principle of love to them. They must do this in compliance with God's authority, who has commanded it, which is doing it as unto the Lord"

Ephesians 5 Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry (complete)


If this disturbs you, then you are not following the same shepherd that Paul, Peter, the Early Church, and the Reformation did. You are following a new shepherd and cannot tolerate the voice of the old one.
I hadn’t realized that Paul, Peter and the early church followed Matthew Henry as their shepherd.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Reading comprehension problems?
I was being humorous. So sorry you couldn’t figure that out. I thought it was pretty obvious that Peter and Paul were both dead long before Matthew Henry came along.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

St. Helens

I stand with Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
CF Staff Trainer
Supporter
Jul 24, 2007
59,024
9,668
Lower Slower Minnesota
✟1,216,969.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
ADMIN HAT ON
241636_9f4a3046555e3431f8a087b68dbce899_thumb.jpg

ADMIN HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.