Two. great things about this… First, you were willing (where others are so unwilling) to point out the academic bias that doesn’t allow for good scholarship. Second, as you’re talking through it, we are getting a good sense of the kind of questions that we should ask as we think about these things.
Worked my way through your video, Preston, and I came pretty much to the same conclusion that kephale has some sense of authority associated with it. Arguments for kephale (head) as prominence make the most sense, though still with at least some limited sense of authority. Your point that Philip Payne, in making a huge distinction between simile and metaphor, is pressing beyond what the evidence can bear was exactly my take on Payne as well. Payne wants to totally disconnect the non-metaphorical aspect of head the metaphorical, which pretty much undercuts why the head metaphor arose in the first place. Then to suggest that Paul would completely redefine head, based on some supposed contextual reasoning, to mean "source" in the New Testament passages you are considering, requires a lot of exegetical moves. Would Paul's original readers really have caught that? Andrew Bartlett, too, seems to be taken in by Payne's reasoning, which is befuddling. Though I appreciate both Andrew Bartlett and Philip Payne as wonderful, thoughtful Christians, I just do not find the reasoning convincing.
It's rather ironic that the Egalitarian 'solution' to the word meaning Head as in Headship is to argue for Prominence instead, which means that which stands above something else; literally the opposite of equal. Or if you grant them the definition 'source' the interpretation still seems to follow similar lines. Why, exactly, would Paul bring up Adam as the Source of Eve in a way parallel to the Father being the Source of the Son? What is he getting at if not some sort of primacy, authority, prominence, leadership or so on? I'm actually not that low on the idea that it means source in a figurative sense whereby Paul is engaging in wordplay(so both). I'm just not sure how that gets you to an egalitarian interpretation of the passage that is actually coherent.
@@karl5395 I havent got the book at hand, so Im not sure what youre specifically referring to (is it 'I am not permitting'?). But if youre arguing that everything Paul taught or advised applies today to Christians, then that is simply not true. For example, Paul told his readers at that time that if they were single, they should remain single and not marry. When was the last time you heard a church minister tell that to their congregation? In fact, the opposite is true today - church pastors tend to positively encourage people to get married and have families. We need to remember that, particularly in the case of letters, that they were written to either specific congregations or individuals. It may be that much is relevant today, but we should not presume every instruction is, otherwise we are denying the very nature of the writing and the author's purpose in writing it.
@@PC-vg8vn unfortunately yet another example of very poor hermeneutics and eisegesitically imposing ones own prior presumptions and biases onto the text. You claim 'Paul told his readers.. they should remain single and not marry' If you simply read the context of your claim (1 cor 7) Paul puts this as a concession and not a command as you claim. Moreover it's in the context of avoiding sexual immorality and Paul actually encouraging marriage in this context. The hermeneutics approach which you appear to use fails miserably, ie 'If the writings don't agree with my current cultural experience then it must be wrong.' Good luck with that cherry-picking approach - you'll end up with a very thin bible.
@@PC-vg8vn Seems that in paraphrasing Paul you have misrepresented his teaching. Paul actually teaches that people who are gifted wtih singleness and are able to maintain a celibate life without 'burning with passion' should seek to remain single, a reality that is particularly rare and difficult in a society that is saturated with pornography. So it's quite reasonable to infer that while singleness is a desirable state that this is not realistic for most people living in the 21st century and as Paul teaches that each is a gift from God we should act accordingly. There being a culture around preferencing marriage to eager service of the Lord while living a chaste life may be a genuine concern in some cases but that in no ways invalidates the idea that we should consider seriously the teaches of Paul and seek to apply them today. You've just assumed someone's position on singleness and used that to suggest an inconsistency that they may not hold in the first place.
The Greek word "kephale" goes beyond a simple head count or essense of authority; it seems that Paul paints a powerful picture of unity and source as his main focal point. Initially referring to a person's physical head, "kephale" transforms into a metaphor, illustrating a profound connection between the head and the body - two parts seamlessly joined, forming a single, cohesive entity. In this metaphorical union, the head is not merely a distinct entity but serves as the focal source, encapsulating the entirety of the person. It symbolizes a fundamental unity, emphasizing the inseparability of the head and the body. Think of it as the head being the wellspring, the source from which the entire person emanates. This concept of unity extends beyond the physical realm, delving into a deeper interconnectedness. "Kephale" invites contemplation on the organic unity between the head and the body, emphasizing their interdependence and harmonious collaboration to constitute a singular, unified being. In narratives like Adam and Eve, "kephale" carries the idea of source even further. Adam being the "head" signifies not just creation first but also being the source from which Eve emerges. This forms a union of shared substance, reinforcing the concept of a singular source giving rise to a connected whole. A one flesh union. Amidst historical challenges, such as Gnostic beliefs suggesting the inferiority of women, "kephale" becomes a tool to emphasize shared substance. It stands as a counterpoint, asserting that men and women share a common source, challenging notions of inherent inequality. As time progressed, the interpretation of "kephale" evolved. The concept of male headship became linked with "authority." "Kephale" started representing more than just a physical head; it became a symbol of the source of authority within a structure. In essence, "kephale" encapsulates a rich and evolving concept - from a literal head count to a metaphorical expression of unity and source. Its profound implications have left an indelible mark on discussions about identity, interdependence, and authority within the Christian tradition.
Wow, I feel like I just read a really great blog or article about Kephale. Very intriguing to think of head as 'source' and 'substance.' Ty for sharing.
This conversation should not be hinged upon the definition of one word. That is madness. The entire context of scripture is needed. STARTING in Eden where God made BOTH male and female in His image to Rule and Reign as Priests. That EQUALITY is where the story starts and ends. The rest is us grasping at straws as we fall away from God's designed eternal purpose. History is filled with violence and patristic control of women and the world. In the Kingdom Jesus teaches there will be an upsetting of power. No power needs more upsetting than that of male dominance and control over our world. Equality is God's plan and all conversations about the role of men and women should START in the Garden!
This conversation is ABOUT the one WORD....the entirety of this ONE video is about this ONE word. He isn't going to create his entire theology of women in ministry based upon the word Kephale....but THIS VIDEO is about translating that word.he states at 31:37 that the translation of this word does not necessarily dictate how you view women in the church or home. And at 49:26 he states that he doesn't believe the translation of Kephale is "enough". So again Sprinkle isn't basing his theology of women in ministry and home on this one word. This video itself is about how the word is translated.
The title of the video is “Are husband’s The head of the household?” He is deciphering a woman’s role and a husbands role with a three hour conversation going over ONE word. So my original comment stands😘✌️❤️
@@PrestonSprinkleRaw thank you for that clarification. And hopefully other elements will be added to the conversation other than this one word. I appreciate the fact that you are going through this very important subject. But the etymology of the word pales in comparison to the focus of the narrative which places male and female as EQUAL co-heirs of God’s image and God’s rule and reign on this earth. God put them both as Priests and did not say in the garden that the man should rule over the woman…
Let’s say it does mean source, does that mean that it can’t mean authority? If kephale means both source and authority, then it seems like we need to find the common ground between the two terms. If a leader is the source of life for a people group, does that mean they are not in authority? If we think of it in terms of Quareshis explanation of the trinity, God can be the same being as Christ, but a different person. In the same sense, should the leader of a people group be considered of equal value to the people, however different “status” or role or purpose? It seems like people who were writing about this a couple thousand years ago seemed to believe that the head is the source of life and in authority of the rest of the body. I’m very new to this and don’t know much about a lot of the background, but just trying to gain clarification as well.
( I haven't watched the video. ) Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
No theological argument should hinge on a single NT word. It's already too late if you get to that point, you're already assuming a different interpretation than what the OT was saying. IMHO
If we don’t understand the meaning of the original words used, we can be way off in our interpretation of a passage. (A chain is only as strong as its weakest link). The only problem would be if we are allowing a bias to determine our definition of the original Greek or Hebrew.
@@amybeavers9758 Nobody disputes that. The point being made is that you must look at the WHOLE of scripture, corroborating with all the other passages which address the topic, not focusing too much on just a single usage of a single word in a single passage. "Text without a context is a pretext" - and that's exactly what y'all are doing. You don't like the Bible telling women to defer to their husbands, so you're straining to find loopholes.
@@DainBramaged00 Some people may be looking for loopholes but I most certainly am not. I am happy to take a submissive role, but the fact is that not very many men in this world are assuming the role God has for them as servant and spiritual leader to their families. And that causes women to step out of their intended role to fulfill what is missing. And feminism is another big problem-I am not a feminist.
Come on Preston! Paul is addressing fallen social relationships (patriarchal heads, masters) and he is replacing them with submission and on-ness in Christ. Head means head, and 'In Christ' Paul is abolishing it. Paul starts with stating the socially obvious 'the husband is the head' and he's transforming it in Christ. In Christ's kingdom weare commanded to submit to one another in love. Christ showed us that to be the head in the social order is turned upside down in Christ to serve and give our life and be last. Imagine Paul writing Ephesians 5 to a group of Middle Eastern Islamic men today, how would he address them? He would start where they're at. Headship isn't Paul's biblical command, but it is his social starting point. Adam and Eve were sinful and broken, and we aren't going back to the garden but rather we are going forward in the Spirit as Sons (positional both men and women) of God! Christ in the Spirit changed men and women's relationships. Paul is demolishing SIN in his letters, he is not creating a heirarchecal legal structure that demotes women for proper church authority and order! Answer this, is it ever Biblically a sin for a women to lead or speak whom God has called? No! Come on Preston.
I think your comment might have been meant for a different video. This video doesn’t address Ephesians 5 or Paul’s letters. It looks at the use of Kephale outside the NT. Was there anything I said about the use of Kephale outside the NT that you agree/disagree with?
This "church" teaches non-biblical things. God says not to add to or take away from His perfect word; study the WHOLE bible. Be advised and find a church that clearly teaches TRUTH not lies.
As one who holds firmly to the Biblical Patriarchy position, Yes. The husband is the head. Only complementarians and egalitarians seem to be having this discussion.
It’s clear in Scripture that the husband is “head” of the woman . What is being debated is the original meaning of the Greek word “kephale,” whether authority is part of the meaning or not. I believe that it does include that, however there is more there than just authority. I have a strong intuition that traditional patriarchy has gotten it wrong and this has allowed for a lot of abuse of women. Myself being a woman, I am happy to assume a complementary role, as I believe Jesus assumed while He was on earth. I would just like to understand more fully what God meant on this subject. I have questions on the role of a single woman in the church, since I believe women are to submit to their husbands, but not in general to all men.
@@amybeavers9758 Good feedback. We used to be complementary, but have leaned in to Biblical Patriarchy as we have investigated the Reformed Theology much more. We grew very discontent with modern day evangelicalism as it has become more influenced by culture and mainstream liberal politics. A great many Christians are returning to the Reformers in order to recalibrate. Of course, there are always abuses by people who don’t understand how to properly navigate Biblical authority and hierarchy, but we are of the opinion that the best way forward for the modern day church is to return to our roots and our cherished church history. We have 2000 years of history that we can learn from. I wish you the best in your journey.
@@westyso.cal.8842 Thanks for your comment. I am in agreement that churches have drifted far from scriptural theology in their attempts to appeal to the masses. But even the most well intentioned will miss the mark if they are not dependent on the Holy Spirit for guidance of their understanding. Church history can be helpful but has not perfectly followed God’s ideals either. The problem with “Biblical Patriarchy” to my thinking is that we don’t have a widely accepted definition of “abuse” in our culture, and patriarchy opens the Church to more defamation because of this. Not that we form our theology on the basis of what society will do. However Christ’s Church must be above reproach. Admittedly, this is a sticky issue. Blessings to you as well 🙏🏻
It’s fine to read and study reformed theology, but you should take a close look at the culture that the theology came out of. What was believed about women at the time is pretty detestable, and it shows up in the writings of the Reformation theologians. We need to be honest about how reformed theology was not constructed in a vacuum. It was influenced by culture as well, and is not superior to modern day theology.
@@amybeavers9758 I love your point about our theology not being informed by society. That’s exactly what we need more of. The church ought to care less what society or culture says of it. We follow King Jesus regardless of what culture thinks of it. I love your point about the need to let the Holy Spirit lead us. At the risk of over-simplifying it, basically anything that a husband would demand or expect from his wife that is outside of Christ’s command, she doesn’t have to submit too. The husband has overstepped his authority at that point. This is why whenever the scripture speaks of submission, it puts it in the context of “as unto Christ.” If the husband is truly submitted to Christ authority, the wife will gladly submit to her husband’s authority.
Two. great things about this…
First, you were willing (where others are so unwilling) to point out the academic bias that doesn’t allow for good scholarship.
Second, as you’re talking through it, we are getting a good sense of the kind of questions that we should ask as we think about these things.
Mike Winger's Women in Ministry (part 8) also covers this in great detail and looks at all sides of the debate, not just Egliterean.
Preston Sprinkle demonstrates far better scholarship and understanding into the egalitarian position than Mike Winger does in his series.
Mike’s series is a joke
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou you're egalitarian?
The ancient medical conception of head as source of the body is pretty intriguing 💡
Looking forward to this 😊
Worked my way through your video, Preston, and I came pretty much to the same conclusion that kephale has some sense of authority associated with it. Arguments for kephale (head) as prominence make the most sense, though still with at least some limited sense of authority. Your point that Philip Payne, in making a huge distinction between simile and metaphor, is pressing beyond what the evidence can bear was exactly my take on Payne as well. Payne wants to totally disconnect the non-metaphorical aspect of head the metaphorical, which pretty much undercuts why the head metaphor arose in the first place. Then to suggest that Paul would completely redefine head, based on some supposed contextual reasoning, to mean "source" in the New Testament passages you are considering, requires a lot of exegetical moves. Would Paul's original readers really have caught that? Andrew Bartlett, too, seems to be taken in by Payne's reasoning, which is befuddling. Though I appreciate both Andrew Bartlett and Philip Payne as wonderful, thoughtful Christians, I just do not find the reasoning convincing.
It's rather ironic that the Egalitarian 'solution' to the word meaning Head as in Headship is to argue for Prominence instead, which means that which stands above something else; literally the opposite of equal.
Or if you grant them the definition 'source' the interpretation still seems to follow similar lines. Why, exactly, would Paul bring up Adam as the Source of Eve in a way parallel to the Father being the Source of the Son? What is he getting at if not some sort of primacy, authority, prominence, leadership or so on?
I'm actually not that low on the idea that it means source in a figurative sense whereby Paul is engaging in wordplay(so both). I'm just not sure how that gets you to an egalitarian interpretation of the passage that is actually coherent.
For anyone interested in how God views his daughters in the church, I would strongly suggest Andrew Bartlett's "Men and Women in Christ".
I disagree.
Having read the book I was alarmed at Andrew's implied argument that Paul's discussed letters have no jurisdiction over all Christians
@@karl5395 I havent got the book at hand, so Im not sure what youre specifically referring to (is it 'I am not permitting'?). But if youre arguing that everything Paul taught or advised applies today to Christians, then that is simply not true. For example, Paul told his readers at that time that if they were single, they should remain single and not marry. When was the last time you heard a church minister tell that to their congregation? In fact, the opposite is true today - church pastors tend to positively encourage people to get married and have families.
We need to remember that, particularly in the case of letters, that they were written to either specific congregations or individuals. It may be that much is relevant today, but we should not presume every instruction is, otherwise we are denying the very nature of the writing and the author's purpose in writing it.
@@PC-vg8vn unfortunately yet another example of very poor hermeneutics and eisegesitically imposing ones own prior presumptions and biases onto the text.
You claim 'Paul told his readers.. they should remain single and not marry'
If you simply read the context of your claim (1 cor 7) Paul puts this as a concession and not a command as you claim. Moreover it's in the context of avoiding sexual immorality and Paul actually encouraging marriage in this context.
The hermeneutics approach which you appear to use fails miserably, ie 'If the writings don't agree with my current cultural experience then it must be wrong.'
Good luck with that cherry-picking approach - you'll end up with a very thin bible.
@@PC-vg8vn Seems that in paraphrasing Paul you have misrepresented his teaching. Paul actually teaches that people who are gifted wtih singleness and are able to maintain a celibate life without 'burning with passion' should seek to remain single, a reality that is particularly rare and difficult in a society that is saturated with pornography. So it's quite reasonable to infer that while singleness is a desirable state that this is not realistic for most people living in the 21st century and as Paul teaches that each is a gift from God we should act accordingly.
There being a culture around preferencing marriage to eager service of the Lord while living a chaste life may be a genuine concern in some cases but that in no ways invalidates the idea that we should consider seriously the teaches of Paul and seek to apply them today. You've just assumed someone's position on singleness and used that to suggest an inconsistency that they may not hold in the first place.
Are you interviewing yourself? 😋😊
The Greek word "kephale" goes beyond a simple head count or essense of authority; it seems that Paul paints a powerful picture of unity and source as his main focal point.
Initially referring to a person's physical head, "kephale" transforms into a metaphor, illustrating a profound connection between the head and the body - two parts seamlessly joined, forming a single, cohesive entity.
In this metaphorical union, the head is not merely a distinct entity but serves as the focal source, encapsulating the entirety of the person. It symbolizes a fundamental unity, emphasizing the inseparability of the head and the body. Think of it as the head being the wellspring, the source from which the entire person emanates.
This concept of unity extends beyond the physical realm, delving into a deeper interconnectedness. "Kephale" invites contemplation on the organic unity between the head and the body, emphasizing their interdependence and harmonious collaboration to constitute a singular, unified being.
In narratives like Adam and Eve, "kephale" carries the idea of source even further. Adam being the "head" signifies not just creation first but also being the source from which Eve emerges. This forms a union of shared substance, reinforcing the concept of a singular source giving rise to a connected whole. A one flesh union.
Amidst historical challenges, such as Gnostic beliefs suggesting the inferiority of women, "kephale" becomes a tool to emphasize shared substance. It stands as a counterpoint, asserting that men and women share a common source, challenging notions of inherent inequality.
As time progressed, the interpretation of "kephale" evolved. The concept of male headship became linked with "authority." "Kephale" started representing more than just a physical head; it became a symbol of the source of authority within a structure.
In essence, "kephale" encapsulates a rich and evolving concept - from a literal head count to a metaphorical expression of unity and source. Its profound implications have left an indelible mark on discussions about identity, interdependence, and authority within the Christian tradition.
Wow, I feel like I just read a really great blog or article about Kephale. Very intriguing to think of head as 'source' and 'substance.' Ty for sharing.
What a wonderful commentary!
I will be saving this and reflecting upon it. Well written… well said!
And @mikehuston8697… I also came
to the same conclusion. that Paul’s use of head ( with Body) has as its main focus unity.
You state it quite well
I’m on the journey with you
Thanks, this was helpful!
This conversation should not be hinged upon the definition of one word. That is madness. The entire context of scripture is needed. STARTING in Eden where God made BOTH male and female in His image to Rule and Reign as Priests. That EQUALITY is where the story starts and ends. The rest is us grasping at straws as we fall away from God's designed eternal purpose. History is filled with violence and patristic control of women and the world. In the Kingdom Jesus teaches there will be an upsetting of power. No power needs more upsetting than that of male dominance and control over our world. Equality is God's plan and all conversations about the role of men and women should START in the Garden!
AMEN
This conversation is ABOUT the one WORD....the entirety of this ONE video is about this ONE word. He isn't going to create his entire theology of women in ministry based upon the word Kephale....but THIS VIDEO is about translating that word.he states at 31:37 that the translation of this word does not necessarily dictate how you view women in the church or home. And at 49:26 he states that he doesn't believe the translation of Kephale is "enough". So again Sprinkle isn't basing his theology of women in ministry and home on this one word. This video itself is about how the word is translated.
The title of the video is “Are husband’s The head of the household?” He is deciphering a woman’s role and a husbands role with a three hour conversation going over ONE word. So my original comment stands😘✌️❤️
I completely agree that this conversation should not be hinged upon the definition of one word. (And, of course, I never said it should.)
@@PrestonSprinkleRaw thank you for that clarification. And hopefully other elements will be added to the conversation other than this one word. I appreciate the fact that you are going through this very important subject. But the etymology of the word pales in comparison to the focus of the narrative which places male and female as EQUAL co-heirs of God’s image and God’s rule and reign on this earth. God put them both as Priests and did not say in the garden that the man should rule over the woman…
Let’s say it does mean source, does that mean that it can’t mean authority? If kephale means both source and authority, then it seems like we need to find the common ground between the two terms. If a leader is the source of life for a people group, does that mean they are not in authority? If we think of it in terms of Quareshis explanation of the trinity, God can be the same being as Christ, but a different person. In the same sense, should the leader of a people group be considered of equal value to the people, however different “status” or role or purpose? It seems like people who were writing about this a couple thousand years ago seemed to believe that the head is the source of life and in authority of the rest of the body. I’m very new to this and don’t know much about a lot of the background, but just trying to gain clarification as well.
( I haven't watched the video. )
Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman
can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
No theological argument should hinge on a single NT word. It's already too late if you get to that point, you're already assuming a different interpretation than what the OT was saying. IMHO
If we don’t understand the meaning of the original words used, we can be way off in our interpretation of a passage. (A chain is only as strong as its weakest link). The only problem would be if we are allowing a bias to determine our definition of the original Greek or Hebrew.
@@amybeavers9758 Nobody disputes that. The point being made is that you must look at the WHOLE of scripture, corroborating with all the other passages which address the topic, not focusing too much on just a single usage of a single word in a single passage.
"Text without a context is a pretext" - and that's exactly what y'all are doing. You don't like the Bible telling women to defer to their husbands, so you're straining to find loopholes.
@@DainBramaged00 Some people may be looking for loopholes but I most certainly am not. I am happy to take a submissive role, but the fact is that not very many men in this world are assuming the role God has for them as servant and spiritual leader to their families. And that causes women to step out of their intended role to fulfill what is missing. And feminism is another big problem-I am not a feminist.
@@amybeavers9758 Have you read Andrew Bartlett's book? If not Id recommend it.
@@PC-vg8vn No but I just read some reviews on it. It sounds like it is worth a read, thank you!
Come on Preston! Paul is addressing fallen social relationships (patriarchal heads, masters) and he is replacing them with submission and on-ness in Christ. Head means head, and 'In Christ' Paul is abolishing it. Paul starts with stating the socially obvious 'the husband is the head' and he's transforming it in Christ. In Christ's kingdom weare commanded to submit to one another in love. Christ showed us that to be the head in the social order is turned upside down in Christ to serve and give our life and be last. Imagine Paul writing Ephesians 5 to a group of Middle Eastern Islamic men today, how would he address them? He would start where they're at. Headship isn't Paul's biblical command, but it is his social starting point.
Adam and Eve were sinful and broken, and we aren't going back to the garden but rather we are going forward in the Spirit as Sons (positional both men and women) of God! Christ in the Spirit changed men and women's relationships. Paul is demolishing SIN in his letters, he is not creating a heirarchecal legal structure that demotes women for proper church authority and order! Answer this, is it ever Biblically a sin for a women to lead or speak whom God has called? No! Come on Preston.
I think your comment might have been meant for a different video. This video doesn’t address Ephesians 5 or Paul’s letters. It looks at the use of Kephale outside the NT.
Was there anything I said about the use of Kephale outside the NT that you agree/disagree with?
Leon Morris says it means source and he was a C
This person shows clear bias. After reading his blog, it was obvious he had already formed an opinion before conducting any research.
This "church" teaches non-biblical things. God says not to add to or take away from His perfect word; study the WHOLE bible. Be advised and find a church that clearly teaches TRUTH not lies.
“An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.” - Prov. 12:4
As one who holds firmly to the Biblical Patriarchy position, Yes. The husband is the head.
Only complementarians and egalitarians seem to be having this discussion.
It’s clear in Scripture that the husband is “head” of the woman . What is being debated is the original meaning of the Greek word “kephale,” whether authority is part of the meaning or not. I believe that it does include that, however there is more there than just authority. I have a strong intuition that traditional patriarchy has gotten it wrong and this has allowed for a lot of abuse of women. Myself being a woman, I am happy to assume a complementary role, as I believe Jesus assumed while He was on earth. I would just like to understand more fully what God meant on this subject. I have questions on the role of a single woman in the church, since I believe women are to submit to their husbands, but not in general to all men.
@@amybeavers9758
Good feedback.
We used to be complementary, but have leaned in to Biblical Patriarchy as we have investigated the Reformed Theology much more.
We grew very discontent with modern day evangelicalism as it has become more influenced by culture and mainstream liberal politics.
A great many Christians are returning to the Reformers in order to recalibrate.
Of course, there are always abuses by people who don’t understand how to properly navigate Biblical authority and hierarchy, but we are of the opinion that the best way forward for the modern day church is to return to our roots and our cherished church history.
We have 2000 years of history that we can learn from.
I wish you the best in your journey.
@@westyso.cal.8842 Thanks for your comment. I am in agreement that churches have drifted far from scriptural theology in their attempts to appeal to the masses. But even the most well intentioned will miss the mark if they are not dependent on the Holy Spirit for guidance of their understanding. Church history can be helpful but has not perfectly followed God’s ideals either. The problem with “Biblical Patriarchy” to my thinking is that we don’t have a widely accepted definition of “abuse” in our culture, and patriarchy opens the Church to more defamation because of this. Not that we form our theology on the basis of what society will do. However Christ’s Church must be above reproach. Admittedly, this is a sticky issue. Blessings to you as well 🙏🏻
It’s fine to read and study reformed theology, but you should take a close look at the culture that the theology came out of. What was believed about women at the time is pretty detestable, and it shows up in the writings of the Reformation theologians. We need to be honest about how reformed theology was not constructed in a vacuum. It was influenced by culture as well, and is not superior to modern day theology.
@@amybeavers9758
I love your point about our theology not being informed by society. That’s exactly what we need more of.
The church ought to care less what society or culture says of it.
We follow King Jesus regardless of what culture thinks of it.
I love your point about the need to let the Holy Spirit lead us.
At the risk of over-simplifying it, basically anything that a husband would demand or expect from his wife that is outside of Christ’s command, she doesn’t have to submit too. The husband has overstepped his authority at that point. This is why whenever the scripture speaks of submission, it puts it in the context of “as unto Christ.”
If the husband is truly submitted to Christ authority, the wife will gladly submit to her husband’s authority.