UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Oh I see. So... marriage was created so people could understand the love of Christ and the submission of the church. That's.. interesting
Originally posted by daronmedway in a Hell thread:
quote:Because God has designed marriage to be a way in which the principle of Christ-like love and church-like submission is displayed. The husband represents Christ the bridegroom and the wife represents the Church his bride. Christ is the bridegroom. The church is the bride. The husband is the bridegroom. The wife is the bride.
Posted by evensong:
Why should the image of Christ and the Church apply to husband and wife?
quote:Yes.
Posted by the long ranger:
Oh I see. So... marriage was created so people could understand the love of Christ and the submission of the church.
quote:Yes. Everything.
Are there other things that God created in the world simply so we could understand him?
quote:Of course it is a biblical image:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Are there other things that God created in the world simply so we could understand him? Is it just me or does anyone else find this a tad screwy?
quote:I think the emphasis of the imagery is the mutual love between God and humanity and their close relationship.
Isaiah 62:11 Indeed the LORD has proclaimed To the end of the world: “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Surely your salvation is coming; Behold, His reward is with Him, And His work before Him.’”
Zechariah 2:10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD.
Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, The LORD of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel
Jeremiah 3:20 Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, So have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel,” says the LORD.
Hosea 2:16 “And it shall be, in that day,” Says the LORD, “That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’
Revelation 19:7-9 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;
John 3:29 ESV The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
Revelation 21:2 ESV And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:9 ESV Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”
2 Corinthians 11:2 ESV For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
Ephesians 5:25 ESV Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Matthew 25:1-46 ESV “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
Revelation 22:17 ESV The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
quote:That too
Originally posted by the long ranger:
What a loada crap.
quote:Ahem, if you look carefully at what is being said, it is not just that marriage is portrayed as an image of God's love for the church, but rather than marriage itself was invented by God in order for us to understand God.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think the emphasis of the imagery is the mutual love between God and humanity and their close relationship.
Since God is most commonly portrayed as male, it makes sense, and is most common, for humanity to be portrayed as female.
Specifically it refers to God's "marriage" with the "church" because this word describes those who supposedly love God more than others.
quote:Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Ahem, if you look carefully at what is being said, it is not just that marriage is portrayed as an image of God's love for the church, but rather than marriage itself was invented by God in order for us to understand God.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think the emphasis of the imagery is the mutual love between God and humanity and their close relationship.
Since God is most commonly portrayed as male, it makes sense, and is most common, for humanity to be portrayed as female.
Specifically it refers to God's "marriage" with the "church" because this word describes those who supposedly love God more than others.
quote:This seems a remarkably subtle distinction. If we take it that;
Originally posted by the long ranger:
it is not just that marriage is portrayed as an image of God's love for the church, but rather than marriage itself was invented by God in order for us to understand God.
quote:Does this mean wives are literally expected to worship their husbands?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
According to Ephesians 5:22 ff. that cosmic secret is the love Christ for his church, and the submission of his church to that love. Husbands and wives get to reveal that cosmic secret by relating to each other in a particular way.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Or one could say that Paul called the marriage relationship a mystery in a passage about Christ and the church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Ad yet the Apostle Paul called the marriage relationship a mystery in a passage about marital submission.
quote:Interestingly enough... no. But traditionally the husband said...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Does this mean wives are literally expected to worship their husbands?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
According to Ephesians 5:22 ff. that cosmic secret is the love Christ for his church, and the submission of his church to that love. Husbands and wives get to reveal that cosmic secret by relating to each other in a particular way.
quote:I don't think that's right. Ephesians 5 is a pastoral theological passage about different kinds of human relationships being transformed by the gospel. Christ and the church is the analogue, but the human marital relationship is the target subject.
Originally posted by Scotus:
quote:Or one could say that Paul called the marriage relationship a mystery in a passage about Christ and the church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And yet the Apostle Paul called the marriage relationship a mystery in a passage about marital submission.
quote:Then that's at least one way husband and wife are not like Christ and the church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Interestingly enough... no.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does this mean wives are literally expected to worship their husbands
quote:And abracadbra, with those words the wife "traditionally" became a non-person in the eyes of the law! "Tradition" is big on dressing up subjugation in pretty words and romanticized bullshit. Remember that the whole marriage-as-a-partnership-of-equals is a fairly recent social innovation. It's also one at odds with the hierarchical "Christ-and-His-church" model.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But traditionally the husband said...
"With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
quote:Yes. There are lots of ways that husband and wife are not like Christ and the church.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Then that's at least one way husband and wife are not like Christ and the church.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Interestingly enough... no.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does this mean wives are literally expected to worship their husbands
quote:I don't agree with your conclusion, but I'm sure that there's at least some truth in what you say about tradition being a major way in which unbiblical notions of submission are perpetuated.
quote:And abracadbra, with those words the wife "traditionally" became a non-person in the eyes of the law! "Tradition" is big on dressing up subjugation in pretty words and romanticized bullshit. Remember that the whole marriage-as-a-partnership-of-equals is a fairly recent social innovation. It's also one at odds with the hierarchical "Christ-and-His-church" model.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But traditionally the husband said...
"With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
quote:Wait a sec, how is submitting to the will of Christ "unbiblical"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't agree with your conclusion, but I'm sure that there's at least some truth in what you say about tradition being a major way in which unbiblical notions of submission are perpetuated.
quote:It isn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Wait a sec, how is submitting to the will of Christ "unbiblical"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't agree with your conclusion, but I'm sure that there's at least some truth in what you say about tradition being a major way in which unbiblical notions of submission are perpetuated.
quote:So if a woman is supposed to obey her husband as God incarnate, what kind of submission would be going too far or being "unbiblical"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:It isn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Wait a sec, how is submitting to the will of Christ "unbiblical"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't agree with your conclusion, but I'm sure that there's at least some truth in what you say about tradition being a major way in which unbiblical notions of submission are perpetuated.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Right, but I'm not sure what kind of submission would be considered "out of bounds" if asked of you by God. Given that "murder your children" is considered to be on the acceptable side of the line when it comes to submitting to God, what does that leave?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Oh, I see! Sorry. Let me clarify.
There is the sort of submission which the bible affirms, and there are notions of submission which the bible doesn't affirm. I'm agreeing with you that tradition is one of the ways that the type of submission that the bible doesn't affirm is perpetuated.
quote:Aren't all tests of faith "unique"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That passage is a descriptive account of a unique test of one man's faith . . .
quote:So what's the modern, post-revelation standard? Obey the commands of God, unless you know better?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It is not a prescriptive command with universal application in a time (i.e. now) when formal written revelation of God's character is available in the canon of scripture.
quote:If you believe God has designed marriage in this way, that is fine, but you still have not qualified on what basis and why God would design marriage this way.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway in a Hell thread:
quote:Because God has designed marriage to be a way in which the principle of Christ-like love and church-like submission is displayed. The husband represents Christ the bridegroom and the wife represents the Church his bride. Christ is the bridegroom. The church is the bride. The husband is the bridegroom. The wife is the bride.
Posted by evensong:
Why should the image of Christ and the Church apply to husband and wife?
quote:By your reasoning, the abolition of slavery is contrary to God's will.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ
quote:To the same degree that husbands are expected to be crucified for their wives, yes.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Does this mean wives are literally expected to worship their husbands?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
According to Ephesians 5:22 ff. that cosmic secret is the love Christ for his church, and [qb]the submission of his church to that love. Husbands and wives get to reveal that cosmic secret by relating to each other in a particular way.
quote:Because it has been used for 2000 years to condone great evil against women.
Originally posted by coniunx:
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives? Is it that they hear that bit and get so up tight they can't listening to the rest of it?)
quote:But isn't that just as much a result of ignoring the rest of it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because it has been used for 2000 years to condone great evil against women.
Originally posted by coniunx:
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives? Is it that they hear that bit and get so up tight they can't listening to the rest of it?)
quote:True enough, but it would seem the damage is done.
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:But isn't that just as much a result of ignoring the rest of it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because it has been used for 2000 years to condone great evil against women.
Originally posted by coniunx:
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives? Is it that they hear that bit and get so up tight they can't listening to the rest of it?)
quote:But the damage is surely exacerbated if the unbalanced reading of the passage remains.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:True enough, but it would seem the damage is done.
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:But isn't that just as much a result of ignoring the rest of it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because it has been used for 2000 years to condone great evil against women.
Originally posted by coniunx:
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives? Is it that they hear that bit and get so up tight they can't listening to the rest of it?)
quote:If posters had kept to the question this thread would not be in DH.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Are there other things that God created in the world simply so we could understand him? Is it just me or does anyone else find this a tad screwy?
quote:I think people say, "Oh this is the 'wives submit' thing" and skip the whole passage.
Originally posted by coniunx:
But the damage is surely exacerbated if the unbalanced reading of the passage remains.
But then I guess that's what leads to a lot of misinterpretation of Scripture, and of Tradition - people reading part of if and ignoring the rest...
quote:These are all things that God specifically created to explain something about a profound spiritual mystery (over and above any other function they might have)..?
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
If posters had kept to the question this thread would not be in DH.
So, OTOMH:
Running (particularly appropriate for (para)olympic games time.
Judges
(Absentee) Landlords and tenants
Chickens
Soldier's uniforms
Slaves
Monarchy
Prostitutes
Divorce
(Two edged) swords
Pottery
etc.
etc.
But that's enough to be going on with. [/QB]
quote:That was kindof the point I was making in the original post..
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
They are used in metaphors just as marriage is used in a metaphor, and all have the limitations of a metaphor.
I don't buy that marriage was "specially designed ... "
quote:This. Hard.
Originally posted by Hawk:
I've long thought that the problem with this passage is that it's being read back-to-front. An existing institution is used as a metaphor for Christ's relationship with the Church. Marriage isn't being created to reflect the metaphor, the metaphor is created to reflect marriage.
quote:Because Jesus went to crucifixion believing it was God's will.
Originally posted by coniunx:
To the same degree that husbands are expected to be crucified for their wives, yes.
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives?
quote:This is what I refer to as the Titanic justification, and variations on it are quite popular among those advocating gender discrimination. It involves using something so rare it almost never happens (but is fairly extreme and dramatic when it does) as a reason to perpetuate everyday inequalities. Something along the lines of "If we were on a sinking steamship without enough lifeboats I, the man, would be expected to give you, the woman, preferential seating on the lifeboat. Therefore it's only fair that you serve and obey me in all situations that don't involve a sinking steamship with too few lifeboats."
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It seems to me that Paul is saying "You want to know what God and the Church are like? It's as if the Church is the wife, and you know how wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. But here's the radical thing: hands up, you husbands, who'd be prepared to sacrifice yourself for your wife? That's what Jesus did for his bride."
quote:So is sacrificing yourself for them. Your point?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Because Jesus went to crucifixion believing it was God's will.
Originally posted by coniunx:
To the same degree that husbands are expected to be crucified for their wives, yes.
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives?
But he did not submit to human authority.
There is a significant difference in the imagery.
They are not equal.
Submitting to God is one thing, submitting to humans and their institutions is totally different.
quote:Good grief - you think sacrificing yourself for your spouse 'almost never happens' in marriage?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This is what I refer to as the Titanic justification, and variations on it are quite popular among those advocating gender discrimination. It involves using something so rare it almost never happens (but is fairly extreme and dramatic when it does) as a reason to perpetuate everyday inequalities.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It seems to me that Paul is saying "You want to know what God and the Church are like? It's as if the Church is the wife, and you know how wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. But here's the radical thing: hands up, you husbands, who'd be prepared to sacrifice yourself for your wife? That's what Jesus did for his bride."
quote:Er, no. The Birkenhead Rules kind of post-date Paul, and grew out of the expectation that the "weaker sex" needed protecting - look on it as chivalry, or romanticism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This is what I refer to as the Titanic justification, and variations on it are quite popular among those advocating gender discrimination. It involves using something so rare it almost never happens (but is fairly extreme and dramatic when it does) as a reason to perpetuate everyday inequalities. Something along the lines of "If we were on a sinking steamship without enough lifeboats I, the man, would be expected to give you, the woman, preferential seating on the lifeboat. Therefore it's only fair that you serve and obey me in all situations that don't involve a sinking steamship with too few lifeboats."
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It seems to me that Paul is saying "You want to know what God and the Church are like? It's as if the Church is the wife, and you know how wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. But here's the radical thing: hands up, you husbands, who'd be prepared to sacrifice yourself for your wife? That's what Jesus did for his bride."
You can substitute in "crucifixion" for "sinking steamship with too few lifeboats", mutatis mutandis, if you like.
quote:On what do you base this? The Wikipedia article "Women in Judaism" says this:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Women were, literally, worth-less.
quote:
Classical Jewish rabbinical literature contains quotes that may be seen as both laudatory and derogatory of women. The Talmud states that:
Greater is the reward to be given by the All-Mighty to the (righteous) women than to (righteous) men[3]
Ten measures of speech descended to the world; women took nine[4]
Women are light on raw knowledge — i.e. they possess more intuition[5]
A man without a wife lives without joy, blessing, and good; a man should love his wife as himself and respect her more than himself[6]
When Rav Joseph[who?] heard his mother's footsteps he would say: Let me arise before the approach of the divine presence[7]
Israel was redeemed from Egypt by virtue of its (Israel's) righteous women[8]
A man must be careful never to speak slightingly to his wife because women are prone to tears and sensitive to wrong[9]
Women have greater faith than men[10]
Women have greater powers of discernment[11]
Women are especially tenderhearted[12]
While few women are mentioned by name in rabbinic literature, and none are known to have authored a rabbinic work, those who are mentioned are portrayed as having a strong influence on their husbands, and occasionally having a public persona. Examples are Bruriah, the wife of the Tanna Rabbi Meir; Rachel, the wife of Rabbi Akiva; and Yalta, the wife of Rabbi Nachman. Rabbi Eliezer's[who?] wife (of Mishnaic times) counselled her husband in assuming leadership over the Sanhedrin.
quote:And if Paul's instructions were in a letter to Jews, you might have a point...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:On what do you base this? The Wikipedia article "Women in Judaism" says this:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Women were, literally, worth-less.
quote:
Classical Jewish rabbinical literature contains quotes that may be seen as both laudatory and derogatory of women. The Talmud states that:
Greater is the reward to be given by the All-Mighty to the (righteous) women than to (righteous) men[3]
Ten measures of speech descended to the world; women took nine[4]
Women are light on raw knowledge — i.e. they possess more intuition[5]
A man without a wife lives without joy, blessing, and good; a man should love his wife as himself and respect her more than himself[6]
When Rav Joseph[who?] heard his mother's footsteps he would say: Let me arise before the approach of the divine presence[7]
Israel was redeemed from Egypt by virtue of its (Israel's) righteous women[8]
A man must be careful never to speak slightingly to his wife because women are prone to tears and sensitive to wrong[9]
Women have greater faith than men[10]
Women have greater powers of discernment[11]
Women are especially tenderhearted[12]
While few women are mentioned by name in rabbinic literature, and none are known to have authored a rabbinic work, those who are mentioned are portrayed as having a strong influence on their husbands, and occasionally having a public persona. Examples are Bruriah, the wife of the Tanna Rabbi Meir; Rachel, the wife of Rabbi Akiva; and Yalta, the wife of Rabbi Nachman. Rabbi Eliezer's[who?] wife (of Mishnaic times) counselled her husband in assuming leadership over the Sanhedrin.
quote:1. No. But that's not the point either.
Originally posted by mousethief:
There were no Jews in the church in Ephesus? Are you SURE?
quote:Yes, of course I mean "worth less", and hyphenated it to play on the more common "worthless".
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well since the former appears to be a term you made up, perhaps you can explain the difference. I assume you don't mean "worth less," i.e. not worth as much, or you'd have written that. So what does "worth-less" mean in your idiolect?
quote:My point is this:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:So is sacrificing yourself for them. Your point?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Because Jesus went to crucifixion believing it was God's will.
Originally posted by coniunx:
To the same degree that husbands are expected to be crucified for their wives, yes.
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives?
But he did not submit to human authority.
There is a significant difference in the imagery.
They are not equal.
Submitting to God is one thing, submitting to humans and their institutions is totally different.
quote:Oi! The only ones allowed to be pettifoggers round here are lawyers, like me!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, if trying to understand what you say is overweening literalist pettifogging, I'll never do it again. And suggest everybody else take the same course.
quote:And you're not the whole body of the Church, and never will be - no matter how much you obey him. Again, what exactly is your point?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:My point is this:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:So is sacrificing yourself for them. Your point?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Because Jesus went to crucifixion believing it was God's will.
Originally posted by coniunx:
To the same degree that husbands are expected to be crucified for their wives, yes.
(Why is it that people looking at Ephesians seem to get stuck on the bit about wives?
But he did not submit to human authority.
There is a significant difference in the imagery.
They are not equal.
Submitting to God is one thing, submitting to humans and their institutions is totally different.
My husband is not Jesus, nor will he ever be - however much he sacrifices himself for me.
quote:Yes, but since when do lawyers try to understand what other people say?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Oi! The only ones allowed to be pettifoggers round here are lawyers, like me!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, if trying to understand what you say is overweening literalist pettifogging, I'll never do it again. And suggest everybody else take the same course.
quote:No. The Apostle Paul suggests that a way exists by which professing Christians can and should test themselves to see if they are in the faith.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Aren't all tests of faith "unique"?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That passage is a descriptive account of a unique test of one man's faith . . .
quote:So what's the modern, post-revelation standard? Obey the commands of God, unless you know better? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It is not a prescriptive command with universal application in a time (i.e. now) when formal written revelation of God's character is available in the canon of scripture.