We probably discussed this before...but I haven't....

The concept of headship...the word is not found in the bible...Yet there are people here who promote it...Samuel Bacchiochi, many who have read his treatise on the Sabbath, promoted headship....

I want to keep this biblical and non-EGW in the discussion.

Where does the bible talk about headship and what is it? How do men and women submit to authority? Who has the last say in a matter [in marriage or church matters, or social matters] and is that biblical?

The Greek kephale- Strong's 2776, is used of the literal head of the body and also as the "source of life" just as we used the term "head of the river", meaning the source of the river. In Greek mythology Athena sprang fully grown from the head of Zeus, therefore "head" became connected with the idea of "source of life" and became a common meaning.

If the Greeks wanted to express the idea of authority or ruling over someone there were many other words that they used, but the exact word used for one's literal head, kephale, was thought of as "source of life" and not as authority. So in this way, the Greek word for head does not always carry the exact same meaning that our English word does.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

If it is common to think of the head as the "source of life" and not as authority, then what is col 1;18 refering to? If Jesus is not concidered as an authority [per sae] but more along the lines of "source of life", have we overstepped our bounds when we apply this verse as men having authority over women rather than men being the source of life for the women?

In practical terms, is our marriages more about men ruling over our women than it is about being the source of life for our women?

Its interesting to me that we say I don't want any EGW quotes, but yet we have quotes from others and that's OK. If we insist the Bible only than lets keep it there. I have no problem hearing quotes from whatever people want to use but I do have a problem when we say the Bible and Bible only than start quoting from all kinds of other unbiblical sources, but no Biblical sources, EGW, aloud??????

I would like to get this out of the way first, if I may. I would like to ask why no EGW? You can answer here or by pm, or not at all, and we will get on with the study. :)

The study looks promising in hopefully helping us understand both the relationship among the Trio, as well as what it means for us personally. I want to hear more, anyway. It has my "wheels" turning.

I agree, to do a good bible study Ellen has to be kept out of it. Many SDA's consider her word above the God-breathed Word.

Well, girl, start laying tracks! Let's hear from a woman's point of view what they have found about "headship".....

I am sure that there are other approaches to "headship" and other verses that apply, but at least this will get this study started....But, as I understand it, this lays out the principle of headship pretty well....Do you agree?

The Triune God first, over all things. Christ, equal to, yet submitting to His Father, and the Father in turn placing all things under his feet, (Psalm 2:7-9, 110:1, & First Corinthians 15:24-28). Mankind, then as the pinnacle of all creation, with men as heads and women as helpers, are placed over children and the animal and plant kingdoms.

Now, for the Scriptural proof of this, let's begin with Genesis 1:28 & 2:18.

"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'" The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'"

Note that though the plants and animals were created first, God very specifically gave mankind rule over them. On the other hand, not only was the man created before the woman, but she was again very specifically proclaimed as man's "suitable (or corresponding) helper." There can be no question as to God's intended meaning.

St. Paul makes this point abundantly clear in First Corinthians 11:3,8-9.

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

Next, please note another passage often overlooked in this connection, Genesis 3:16.

"Your desire will be for your husband ('s position), and (but) he will rule over you."

Note that the Fall into sin did not alter the Order of Creation or the Headship Principle. The Fall only tainted these portions of God's will with sin just as with the rest of His once perfect creation. Again, God's meaning is clear; the woman's desire will be for the position already occupied by the man. It would be meaningless for God to say that Eve's sexual desire will now be for her husband as part of a curse, because He created them both with this very desire for each other in the beginning and declared it was "very good!" Also, if woman had equal authority with man already before the Fall, then how can she desire something she already has? The answer is obvious; she was not equal in authority even before the Fall into sin. Indeed, God makes a point of saying that the man will continue to rule over the woman despite her attempts to take over. Again, if man and woman are intended to have the same authority, how can the man rule over an equal? The answer is clear; she never was equal in authority, and is not to be either after the Fall. Again, St. Paul teaches this clearly in his inspired writings. Read First Timothy 2:12,13.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

The Bible also makes a clear application of the Headship Principle to the workings of the church. St. Paul writes in First Corinthians 14:33-34.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law (the Books of Moses) says."

The kind of speaking that is forbidden is clear from the passages already discussed; that is, speaking in authority. Obviously, women, as well as men, are encouraged to sing, and speak, and pray in the church as elsewhere.

I think that is true to a point, but she can be used either way on an issue just as the bible is used - and abused. :)

I have no problems with leaving her out tho. I was just curious as to HB's reasons.

To address pkrause's concerns, as long as other authors are not used as an authority but merely as a point of view, bringing another perspective, to a discussion, I would think it would be alright.

Contrary to Tom Wetmore's statement, with all due respect :), I am hesitant to take a position at the moment. I truly do want to study the texts involved, regardless of how my posts may come across appearing to be in favor of women in leadership or pastoral ministry.

The truth is I have always been hesitant about women pastors, first because the ham has always been sliced at both ends before putting in the roaster, that is just how you do it. Second, I am a woman as has been pointed out, evenso, I really do not wish to go on I-want-to-believe-it-therefore-it-is-true-itis.

So on with the study.

Conservative theologian, Sarah Sumner, gives a very complete Biblical analysis of the concept of headship in her book, Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership

In addition to explaining the meaning of being the head of something as primarily the source, she also develops the head/body metaphor as one of unity or interdependence. The body and the head cannot exist separately. One needs the other to live.

Sarah Sumner is Dean of A.W. Tozer Theological Seminary. More about Sarah Sumner - here

Would I be derailing the topic to ask if we should study how God meant "man" to rule over nature? Or is the animal kingdom only meant? Was "man" meant to rule the same way that God rules? And how does God rule?

I tend to have problems with some of the arguments used here, but am waiting to see what direction you are taking.

An english teacher of mine once said that unless you are able to argue the converse of a subject, you really don't understand it...hence, I hope that most of what I put up regarding headship could resonate with those that favor the idea....I do not...

9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, " Where are you?" 10 He said, " I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." 11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12 The R77 man said, "The woman whom You gave {to be} with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, " The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

While the motivations from earlier in the chapter would seem to indicate that Eve's sin was greater, this passage clearly shows that the responses of the two were very different;Adam's response being much less forthright than Eve's. In the early part of the account, Eve eats of the fruit, disobeying God, because she sees that it is "good to the taste" and that it will "make one wise like God." She believes the lies of the serpent. Adam's motivations are much less clear. He merely seems to go along with the flow just because Eve gave him the fruit. But in their responses, Adam clearly tries to blame both Eve and God for his own actions; "the woman, the woman YOU gave to be with me, SHE gave it to me and, well you know, not to put too fine a point on it, but I did eat."

Eve comes right out and says "the serpent beguiled me" or "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." She makes no evasion, no attempt to shift the blame, except where it surely lies, with the serpent. She owns up to her mistake, while Adam tries to blame others. This creates the ground for one of the basic assumptions in the Egalitarian view, that Adam sinned willful, while Eve sinned as a result of deception. Adam's sin might be seen as more serious, since he was older and should have been more aware. Moreover, Adam was given the task of cultivating the garden. This term for "cultivate" implies protection. Adam was supposed to be guarding against characters like the serpent lurking about in the garden. In effect then Adam actually let Eve down, and sinned with his eyes wide open. While's Eve's sin is more one of being carried away in the moment, not checking her emotions, believing lies that she wanted to believe; Eve was the first impulse buyer.
neither male nor female

So what do you think of this passage? Does this color your thinking of God? Chruch?

I am not clear on the "source of life" for headship. It is an idea I would like to hear more about.

Re, the headship view being put forth currently doesn't really make sense to me. I can see Jesus being the Head because He knows all things, but for husbands to be equated with God in that position over their wives I don't really understand.

I don't know if I seem to be jumping from one thought to another, but I understand that women are to submit on their own initiative, yet it seems others are taking responsibility for trying to enforce that in one way or another.

1Co 11:3 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.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. The more I think about this the more it comes across as very confused thinking. Confusing the before and after sin circumstances.

I would say, only to the person who came up with this idea. I can't see it. It doesn't prove that "Adam" had any kind of "authority" over Eve, that I can see, nor that she "desired" that position before the fall.

There is nothing in the bible or SoP that leads to this conclusion, either before or after the fall. In any event, the "curse" was handed to her after the fall. That statement is confusion at its best, as I see it. Who decided that "desire" meant "sexually"?'

Or that it meant some supposed position of the husband?

I would say that, given society all over the world, women feel dependent first on their fathers/brothers, then on their husbands, (at least more so in the past for certain societies), and that was the "curse" God informed Eve would happen.
Yes, pretty much!

Excellent post, hamilton-beach.

Very clear and direct. Based solely on sound Biblical thought.

....And I disagree with it...

My high school english teacher told us students that unless you can argue the opposing side, then you can not say that you understand the issues.

I found that very useful.

So, just to let you know....I oppose headship as it takes advantage of assumptions made that are in error...There are evidences of women being deacons, apostles, prophets ...who by thier very positions have to violate Paul's assumed principles of headship....And since I like a God who is fair, that means that women and men are equal in many respects...including thier abilitiy to teach men...

I think Ellen White speaks against the traditional view of headship here,
Also interesting was that she didn't speak against the divorce in this case...

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/genesis-1-3

Genesis 1-3
by Allison Young

God created Adam first:

Genesis 1-3 contains nothing that suggests that man, because he was created first, was designated by God to function as the authority, or leader of woman. If we argued on the basis of this claim, then we would have to say that the plants and animals were to have authority over human beings because they came before humankind. Rather, the creation story is ordered so that the more complex beings come last; the climax of creation was human beings. On this basis, it could be concluded that Eve was more complex than Adam. In fact, Eve was the climax of creation, for humankind was not complete until Eve was created.

Those who point to God’s special place for the first-born neglect the many examples in Scripture in which preference is given to the second child over the first: Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 21), Jacob over Esau (Gen. 27), Rachel over Leah (Gen. 29), Ephraim over Manasseh (Gen. 48), Joseph over his brothers (Gen. 37), David over his brothers (1 Sam. 17). Would we say that John the Baptist was called to have authority over Jesus because he came first?

The purpose of the sequential creation of Adam and then Eve in Genesis 2 is to show the need they have for each other and the unity (“one-flesh”) of their relationship.[1] Adam alone was “not good,” and he was in need of a partner. It was not until Eve was created that the creation of humankind was complete and good.

Eve was taken out of Adam’s rib (2:21-22):

Some assume that the creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib shows her inferiority or subordination to Adam. The purpose for the creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib was to illustrate their similarity and likeness, for they were both made from the same flesh, and in marriage they become one flesh again (Gen. 2:24). Adam rejoices in this similarity when he exclaims, “this is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). In 1 Corinthians 11:12, Paul writes, “For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman…” indicating their equality. The source of woman was man, and the source of man is woman.

Adam named Eve:

Adam calling Eve “woman” does not indicate Adam’s authority over her; rather, it is an expression of the similarities that they share, as Adam exclaims “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken” (Gen. 2:23). In the Hebrew, the man is called ish and the woman ishsha, the similarity in the names being intentional. This is a word play, for just as the man (adam) was formed from the ground (adamah), so the woman (ishsha) was formed from the man (ish). These designations refer to the unity of the relationship to one another. To suggest that when Adam called Eve “woman” implies his authority over her is superimposed on the text. Scripture gives no indication that God gave Adam authority over Eve. Rather, by exclaiming “this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken” Adam was expressing joy at the similarity and unity he shared with Eve, a joy he did not exhibit when encountering the other animals.

Adam and Eve had different roles:

Those who claim that Adam and Eve had different roles are referring to the roles of male authority, or “leader,” and female submission, or “helper.” The Scripture contains nothing that suggests that Adam and Eve had different roles before the fall. Nowhere in the text is Adam called be in authority over Eve or to be her leader. Genesis 1:26-30 clearly indicates that both Adam and Eve were made in God’s image and both were given dominion over the earth and its creatures. Eve was made because Adam was in need of a partner to help exercise dominion over the earth (2:18). But, the text does not suggest that Eve’s identity or role was in that of a subordinate helper (see below for meaning of “helper”). The point of the narrative is not that the woman was created to be a helper, but that one male human being was insufficient, and Adam’s momentarily aloneness was the only “not good” in a perfect world! The creation of Eve is to fulfill Adam’s lack and need for a partner who was like him. Hierarchy in human relationships came as a result of sin (Gen. 3:16).

Eve was created to be a helper (2:18):

The Hebrew words used here to describe woman as a helper are 'ezer kenegdo. The word 'ezer means “helper” and is never used in the Old Testament to refer to an inferior or to a subordinate. In fact, the word is used in reference to God as our helper (Psalm 10:14; 30:10; 54:4; 70:5; 72:12; 121:2). Clearly God is not our subordinate. ‘Ezer is a sign of strength and power. Kenegdo is a Hebrew preposition and adverb meaning “corresponding to” or “face to face,” so it is best understood as meaning that Eve was a fitting partner for Adam, for she was like him. Eve was created as an equal to Adam. She was given equal authority and dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:28).

Eve was responsible for the fall/The fall occurred because Eve attempted to usurp Adam’s authority:

Both Adam and Eve knew not to eat the fruit (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:2), both disobeyed (3:6), and both were held responsible (Gen. 3:15-22). Nothing in the text suggests that the fall happened because Eve attempted to take authority over Adam. Also, nothing in the text suggests that Adam had authority over Eve before the fall. [b]The snake challenged God’s authority, not the man’s (Gen. 3)[/b]. The narrative makes it clear that the sin was disobedience to God (Gen. 3:11).

Gen. 3:16: “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”:

This verse reflects the consequences of sin due to disobedience. It is not a prescriptive statement about how man and woman ought to relate to one another, nor is it God’s original intent for male and female relationships. Rather, the subordination of women is the result of sin.

Notes:

1. Richard S. Hess, “Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1-3,” Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2005), 84.

For Further Study:

Beyond Sex Roles, by Gilbert Bilezikian

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, with Gordon Fee

Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

“Man and Woman at Creation: A Critique of Complementarian Interpretations,” by Christiane Carlson-Thies

In reading through the bible and SoP accounts of creation I can't see where there is any "headship" or "leadership" idea stated or implied regarding Adam and Eve...

Teaching such a concept can only lead eventually to the full papal error of a pope as spiritual leader.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul....
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man...
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

One thing I notice is that the writer of Genesis often uses the singular when meaning plural in the account of Adam and Eve. For instance,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them"

"God created man in his own image...male and female created he them."

Gen 3:22 ... the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, ... lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; ....

I assume that we know for a fact that both Adam and Eve are meant and not just Adam, even tho only "the man" is referred to in the above texts. Both might take of the tree of life, both were driven from the garden, not just Adam.

After the creation of Adam every living creature was brought before him to receive its name; he saw that to each had been given a companion, but among them “there was not found an help meet for him.” Among all the creatures that God had made on the earth, there was not one equal to man. And God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Man was not made to dwell in solitude; he was to be a social being. Without companionship the beautiful scenes and delightful employments of Eden would have failed to yield perfect happiness. Even communion with angels could not have satisfied his desire for sympathy and companionship. There was none of the same nature to love and to be loved. {PP 46.1}

God Himself gave Adam a companion. He provided “an help meet for him”—a helper corresponding to him—one who was fitted to be his companion, and who could be one with him in love and sympathy. Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, she was his second self, showing the close union and the affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation. “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it.” Ephesians 5:29. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one.” {PP 46.2}...

Although everything God had made was in the perfection of beauty, and there seemed nothing wanting upon the earth which God had created to make Adam and Eve happy, yet he manifested his great love to them by planting a garden especially for them. A portion of their time was to be occupied in the happy employment of dressing the garden, and a portion in receiving the visits of angels, listening to their instruction, and in happy meditation. Their labor was not wearisome, but pleasant and invigorating. This beautiful garden was to be their home, their special residence. {1SP 25.1}

The holy pair were not only children under the fatherly care of God but students receiving instruction from the all-wise Creator. They were visited by angels, and were granted communion with their Maker, with no obscuring veil between. They were full of the vigor imparted by the tree of life, and their intellectual power was but little less than that of the angels. The mysteries of the visible universe—“the wondrous works of Him which is perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16)—afforded them an exhaustless source of instruction and delight. The laws and operations of nature, which have engaged men’s study for six thousand years, were opened to their minds by the infinite Framer and Upholder of all. They held converse with leaf and flower and tree, gathering from each the secrets of its life. ... The order and harmony of creation spoke to them of infinite wisdom and power. They were ever discovering some attraction that filled their hearts with deeper love and called forth fresh expressions of gratitude. {PP 50.3}

God instructed our first parents in regard to the tree of knowledge,

and they were fully informed relative to the fall of Satan, and the danger of listening to his suggestions... {1SP 40.2}

Holy angels often visited the garden, and gave instruction to Adam and Eve concerning their employment and also taught them concerning the rebellion and fall of Satan. The angels warned them of Satan and cautioned them not to separate from each other in their employment, for they might be brought in contact with this fallen foe. The angels also enjoined upon them to follow closely the directions God had given them, for in perfect obedience only were they safe. Then this fallen foe could have no power over them. {EW 147.1}


Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love—they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission

on the part of the one

or the other.

Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. ... {PP 58.3}


Anything teaching contrary to the above,

as convincing as it might be,

is not

of the Lord.



It is

of

the enemy!

I think I get it, maybe more in a different direction tho.


Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Where Jesus is the source of life for all of us, Adam was the source of life for Eve in that she was taken from his side.

Sheep don't think of the shepherd as the "boss" who they have to submit to. They think of him/her as the one who protects them, feeds them, takes care of them, guides them to living streams and green pastures, the one they are utterly dependent on.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19021028-V79-43__B.pdf#search=%22headship%22&view=fit

Thanks for the invitation. I will weigh in on this when I have more time.

Don't know if you have seen this before teresa?

"We have but one leader, which is Christ, and the entire brotherhood of the ministry, while they should counsel with
each other out of due respect for the judgment of each other,
should nevertheless look to our great leader as their unerring
guide." {2BIO 467.3}

I don't believe I have. Nice study, isn't it? :) It's all about putting God and Jesus (not to leave out the HS. :) ) back in their rightful places, and putting man, whether male or otherwise, back down where he belongs.

TERESAQ

this is a good point

dgrimm60

Yes, I think it's a sockdolager.

Let's get things clarified right off the bat.First, if you are launching into a word study of the original use of the Greek text in order to prove the meaning of the text,then you are opening up the discussion to the opinions of outside the Bible sources.So your call to limit the discussion to the Bible only while leaving out EGW is somewhat misleading. Second, if you expect that your conclusion that the primary meaning of the word "kephale" is correctly interpreted and applied as "Source" will go unchallenged then think again.It is your version of kephale that has been overwhelmingly rejected by Bible linguists.Do you want us to go a long explanation into the evidence for the proper use of the word? Is it necessary for those who may venture to read this thread? Third, your introduction of the alleged misinterpretation of that Greek text implies that the Bibles we have based our doctrines and practices on are faulty due to wrong translation or misapplications. This also puts out the need for a more accurate version of the Bible as approved by..... whom?

Jesus and every one of His true followers confess that HE IS LORD.If you can reinterpret the Greek word for Lord into a synonym for the meaning of kephale as source then you might revolutionize the entire meaning of God's Holy Word.Paul always referred to himself as a bondservant of Jesus Christ.Is it wrong to assume an authority difference there or was Paul equal in authority?

So often,

I find people working very hard to promote God differently then the way God reveals Himself in Scripture. I guess they just can't love a God like that.

But, God has clearly in Scripture mandated that men are the "head" of the woman in the home and church.

forsOOth

Wondering which nuance of this definition you prefer, Olger:

for·sooth/fərˈso͞oTH/
Adverb:

1. Indeed (often used ironically or to express surprise or indignation): "forsooth, there is no one I trust more".
2. Used to give an ironic politeness to questions.

LD

1.


blessins,

G