I think that the basic misreading of one being the head of the other in the NT is that it is not about power over (that is a worldly misreading; because as fallen people we all love to have power), but, read in the light of the attitude of service which is to pervade relationships governed by love, it is about being unified: God and Christ are a unity, man and woman, a unity, etc.

The second point is the idea of ‘leader’. If we adopted a biblical concept and refered to ‘the servant team’ and the church servants, or referred to our paid brothers and sisters as ‘servants of the church’ a large part of the problem would go away…many men have no problem with women being servants, the shock would come when they realised that that is what we all are to be to each other.

and you know something, God showed His true nature in the life of Jesus, and Jesus was no pimp or dictator or despot. He healed women and men, His entire ministry, He healed and He nourished and He Loved,

NOT ONCE, DID HE DEMAND WOMEN TO SUBMIT TO ABUSE, not once…MEN have done this,

so why do we continue to perpetuate blasphemy? Because THAT is what it is,

God does not say, do not sin on one hand then make ‘exceptions’ to women, just because they have husbands who are jerks – clearly, to say otherwise, is really missing it.

Submission has to do with living in peace, being humble, willingness to serve; not this blind obedience garbage that is being spewed by the beast who is putting himself up as God today,

Submission has to do with honoring God, first and foremost. Heck, if we were to take the warped teachings of so many to heart, that would mean, if hubby dear demands a wife to worship satan or to take the number of the beast, well by golly she had better do it or else,

it’s nonsense, it’s just mind- blowing nonsense.

Enough said

Jane

Well, gee, lets hope he doesn’t demand her to take part in raping their children or selling them or prostituting her self out, and her thinking that to submit means ‘she must obey’.

That is clearly, an abuse of scripture, in no way is submission meaning that one cannot separate from husband in anything, IF that were the case, then why does the Word also say, be separate from them, touch NOT their unclean things or that we are not to be unequally yoked or to disobey God, etc.

And to just ‘warn’ them, NO, I think there are times that yes, we are to obey God, over husbands, plain as day…and the Bible is very clear about our duty to obey God first. To say that women are supposed to submit in everything with this meaning that she cannot disobey,

is basically, putting ‘husband’ as Savior and as God – it’s idol worship, plain and simple. And in the case of Sapphira, it killed her…

why I believe that God put that in the Word, was to show that, no dumb dumb, you don’t disobey God in agreement with your husband, because guess what, her husband’s ‘supposed authority’ didn’t save her ass now did it?

NO, when it comes to sin, we are to obey God, husbands aside…to say otherwise, is putting a whole new twist and meaning on the ‘one flesh’ concept,

one flesh does not mean, a woman becomes brainless and without responsibility for her choices nor her moral actions. IF that were the case, then Jesus would have died for men, leaving MEN to be the Saviors for their wives,
and heck, wives could just sin galore with the permission of their so called ‘god husbands’,

na, I think, that is just taking submission to the really extreme degree–I don’t know if I concur with the passive text on submission either,

but, good grief, where does COMMON SENSE ever come into play, Seriously?

Jane

Sapphira didn’t do that. She appeared to have obeyed him. It is my opinion that arranging oneself under in attaching oneself to another’s life, does not preclude opposing and exposing when deemed necessary. If you are really supporting the life of another, when they are going astray you warn them.

But as Christina Park points out in her comment, when you investigate how kephale was used both in the Septuagint and in Greek texts, secular and religious, that were contemporary with the NT, other than in the military sense of a “pointman,” this word is never used as a description of leadership.

And when used in connection with the body, it has the sense of nourishing source that promotes the growth and development of the body(cf. Eph. 4:15-16). And regarding Eph. 5:21-33, I like what Larry Richards has to say about the meaning and application of this text:

In Eph. 5 Paul continues his instruction on how to be “imitators of God” and how to live a life of love (5:1). There is to be harmony and mutual submission in the church (5:15-21). Then Paul shows how to maintain harmony in marriage (5:22-33)…It is very critical here not to read into this passage hierarchical notions. Instead, it would appear that “head” is used in its well-established sense of source and nourisher of life. Rather than demand from the church, Christ “gave himself up for her” (v.25). His purpose is not to rob the church of her identity but to help her achieve her full potential: “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (vv. 26-27). The husband imitates Christ by [so] loving his wife–”feeds and cares for” her (again in the sense of head as source and norisher)–just as Christ does the church” (v.29) (cf. “Head,” EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF BIBLE WORDS, Zondervan, 1985, pp. 328-329).

The only real “sticking point” with me on 1 Cor. 11:3 is how this text is misused and abused to make the so-called “eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” the theological basis and warrant for maintaining “the permanent subordination of women to men.” This is an anti-trinitarian, anti-woman heresy that I detest and oppose with a purple passion. And for the last few weeks, on Cheryl Schatz’s website, I argued extensively with a complementarian regarding this very issue, apparently to no avail. But that’s all I will say about that endeavor.

Since it is Christmas Eve, I will now wish everyone a Merry Christmas. And a Happy New Year as well, before I forget. See you all in 2010. “Good Lord willing, and the creek don’t rise,” as my mom used to say.

Not to sidetrack, but how would that work in the case of Sapphira? I think a wife is called to oppose and expose her husband at times.

Which BTW is quite compatible with the Fact of her passive subjection (Eph 5:24, 1 Peter 3). Because she IS subject to him, and his choices will impact her (perhaps more than vice versa? since the Bible insists she is subject to him in EVERYTHING as the church is to Christ) she needs to oppose things which are going to lead to death for her and the household (for example see Abigail in 1 Sam 25 and the book of Esther)