Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation of &#039;s use o...

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

March 10, 2004

In a message dated 3/9/04 8:59:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> Wouldn't you say though that many other folks de facto use that definition

> in that they see the man as the " ruler " as it were, in that he has the

> power to make all policy decisions for the marriage, just as a ruler does

> for his/her nation, and in some cases his power goes beyond that?

Maybe, but that's implicit in the head/body analogy, isn't it-- since the CNS

is located in the head?

>>Oh that's interesting! Neither of these articles mentioned that about the

>>woman being the body. Did you read either of them?

No. Unfortunately I don't have time right now, but maybe I'll try to get to

it over the weekend.

Chris

March 10, 2004

In a message dated 3/10/04 6:47:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> Apparently it's NOT implicit in the head/body analogy, at least according

> to

> the authors of the links I posted. (Did ** know where the CNS was

> located when he spoke those words, anyway?

Probably, but who cares? It's evident to anyone, no matter how primitive,

that thoughts and especially rational thoughts occur in the head. Don't you

" feel " your thoughts occuring in your head? Can't you sense the presence of

consciousness in your head?

And that also doesn't account for

> the gut brain with, I think, more nerves than the head brain.)

That's clearly irrelevant, since rational decision-making is clearly located

in the head, and the government of the body is clearly located within the CNS.

Maybe there's some interaction and some role in some of those things in the

gut, but it's unlikely that someone 2000 years ago would have been thinking

anything other than the head being the governor of the body.

>

> The translation from 's words is distinctly NOT " ruler " .

Right... but it's " head, " which obviously implies some sort of governance or

leadership of some fashion. I think there's definitely a greater range of

possible interpretation with " head, " but one possible interpretation could

certainly be something akin to " ruler. " I don't think it much matters, since

said the great mystery was that marriage is a type of Christ's relationship to

the Church, not the head's relationship to the body. Clarification of the

interpretation should be derived from that analogy.

Chris

March 10, 2004

In a message dated 3/10/04 10:00:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> >Right... but it's " head, " which obviously implies some sort of

> >governance or

> >leadership of some fashion.

>

> No it doesn't imply a governing type of leadership - if you'd READ the

> article you'd see the explanation of the translation.

Ok, ok, I read it. Kephale is used for the somatic " head " as well as the

more abstract usages emphasized in the article... so my point is that anything

that uses it to mean " head " using the meaning of a somatic head as a metaphor

(which is direclty implied by contrasting it to the woman as " the body " ) can

imply anything about the normal relation of a head to a body-- part of which is

governance.

distintcly chose> to use a word that does NOT mean governer or ruler of

> any sort, but ratherfirst into battle - the one who leads into battle.

I suppose that's one *possible* rendering of " kephale, " but certainly isn't

the most likely rendering, since the comparison is with Christ and the Church.

>

> I think there's definitely a greater range of

> >possible interpretation with " head, " but one possible interpretation could

> >certainly be something akin to " ruler. "

>

> In *English* - yes, but in Greek - NO.

Well, I disagree. The usage is obviously a metaphorical usage of the more

tangible meaning-- that of a head of a body-- so any implications of a head-body

relationship apply, rather than merely the literal but abstract alternative

meanings to kephale.

Again please read the article so you

>

> can see the specific words that chose for " head " and " submit " . The word

> used for " head " in describing the husband's position is not the Greek

> word for ruler - there IS a word for ruler which also translates to " head "

> in English, and he used it elsewhere in the bible to describe ruling

> " headships " . But again that's NOT the word he chose to describe the

> husband's relationship to the wife.

And rightly so. But there's also a qualitative english difference between

" rulership " and a variety of other dynamics that involves some sort or another

of governance. When a person drives a car, they are certainly governing their

movement and therefore the direction of the car, but I don't think anyone

would say they are " ruling over " the car, for example.

>

> I don't think it much

> >matters, since

> >said the great mystery was that marriage is a type of Christ's

> >relationship to

> >the Church, not the head's relationship to the body. Clarification of the

> >interpretation should be derived from that analogy.

>

> I agree. Christ *served* the church and the Church was Christ's bride from

> what I understand, so clearly there's no " rulership " position here.

I wouldn't characterize it as such, but there's also some sense in which

Christ gives commands and the Church obeys.

However, that's only a superficial look. Christ's fundamental command is to

imitate himself, because God became man that man might become god, so we

imitate Christ, or imitate the saints as they imitated Christ before us. Every

commandment of Jesus is to imitate him. So the Church doesn't so much obey

Christ as a subject obeys a King, and Christ doesn't so much " legislate, " but

rather its a matter of alligning one's will with that of Christ's, so that we

might

say " It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. "

Essentially I think the crux is that a husband and wife are to operate in

harmony. The husband assumes headship. Now, Christ isn't head of the Church in

terms of pragmatic operations-- he didn't give commandments, for example, over

which metropolis is under the jurisdiction of which bishop, etc. So how do

we translate this relationship to the pragmatic operations of a family unit?

It's hard to say, and I think there's room for interpretation. But I'd say the

" head " of the family would, while clearly not being a ruler of his subject,

his wife, have some sort of facilitation power or something, which, in a unit

of two where there can't be a majority, would usually render him in some sort

of arbitration role that gives some sort of final say.

The> first article I posted (written by some Canadian Theologian) clearly

> explains why it is totally erroneous for men to use a false interpretation

> of " headship " and " submit " to subjugate or " rule " their wives, which

> apparently, many do.

Well, I agree with that.

Chris

March 10, 2004

> Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

>

>In a message dated 3/9/04 8:59:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

>> Wouldn't you say though that many other folks de facto use that

>definition

>> in that they see the man as the " ruler " as it were, in that he has the

>> power to make all policy decisions for the marriage, just as a ruler does

>> for his/her nation, and in some cases his power goes beyond that?

>

>Maybe, but that's implicit in the head/body analogy, isn't it--

>since the CNS

>is located in the head?

Apparently it's NOT implicit in the head/body analogy, at least according to

the authors of the links I posted. (Did ** know where the CNS was

located when he spoke those words, anyway? And that also doesn't account for

the gut brain with, I think, more nerves than the head brain.)

The translation from 's words is distinctly NOT " ruler " . He deliberately

did not use the Greek word for " ruler " according to these authors, although

he easily could have and did chose that word on other matters in which he

referred to head as " rulership. " You will understand better if you read one

of the articles - the material is almost the same in both.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

March 10, 2004

>> The translation from 's words is distinctly NOT " ruler " .

>

>Right... but it's " head, " which obviously implies some sort of

>governance or

>leadership of some fashion.

No it doesn't imply a governing type of leadership - if you'd READ the

article you'd see the explanation of the translation. distintcly chose

to use a word that does NOT mean governer or ruler of any sort, but rather

first into battle - the one who leads into battle. It's frustrating to

debate this with you when you haven't read the material and are arguing

against something that's clearly explained there, without knowing what

you're arguing against.

I think there's definitely a greater range of

>possible interpretation with " head, " but one possible interpretation could

>certainly be something akin to " ruler. "

In *English* - yes, but in Greek - NO. Again please read the article so you

can see the specific words that chose for " head " and " submit " . The word

used for " head " in describing the husband's position is not the Greek

word for ruler - there IS a word for ruler which also translates to " head "

in English, and he used it elsewhere in the bible to describe ruling

" headships " . But again that's NOT the word he chose to describe the

husband's relationship to the wife. If you refer to my orginal email on this

you'll see a more detailed explanation. But better to read the article which

gives the full details.

I don't think it much

>matters, since

>said the great mystery was that marriage is a type of Christ's

>relationship to

>the Church, not the head's relationship to the body. Clarification of the

>interpretation should be derived from that analogy.

I agree. Christ *served* the church and the Church was Christ's bride from

what I understand, so clearly there's no " rulership " position here. The

first article I posted (written by some Canadian Theologian) clearly

explains why it is totally erroneous for men to use a false interpretation

of " headship " and " submit " to subjugate or " rule " their wives, which

apparently, many do.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> http://www.uocc.ca/marriage.html

----------------------------

March 11, 2004

From this discussion, I get the impression that we're talking about

one who is leading the parade (or battle).

There's a place in scripture where God talks about the children of

Israel being the " head and not the tail " . That gives the distinct

impression of an organism that has a linear arrangement of its

resources.

If you were just talking about a " ruler " , why would " head " be

singular and " tail " be singular?

I know that lots of husbands like to make their wife " submit " when

they read about their being the " head " . Sometimes that means the

husband is trying to force the wife to be the first one into battle

(e.g., the breadwinner, the one that takes the heat for mistakes,

etc.).

I wonder if anyone can suggest a book or article that discusses this

principle. Did C.S. discuss it? As long as I've been in the

church, I've never heard the idea that the " head " is the one who

leads into battle. It's always had the tone that the husband is the

ruler and the wife is the rulee.

>

> >> The translation from 's words is distinctly NOT " ruler " .

> >

> >Right... but it's " head, " which obviously implies some sort of

> >governance or

> >leadership of some fashion.

>

> No it doesn't imply a governing type of leadership - if you'd READ

the

> article you'd see the explanation of the translation.

distintcly chose

> to use a word that does NOT mean governer or ruler of any sort, but

rather

> first into battle - the one who leads into battle. It's frustrating

to

> debate this with you when you haven't read the material and are

arguing

> against something that's clearly explained there, without knowing

what

> you're arguing against.

March 11, 2004

wrote: There's a place in scripture where God talks about the children of

Israel being the " head and not the tail " . That gives the distinct

impression of an organism that has a linear arrangement of its

resources.

Raine replies: The scripture you were referring to is listed as part of the

blessings of obedience to the Torah:

De 28:13 And the LORD will make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt

be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if thou shalt hearken unto the

commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and

to do them;

And this is in the list of curses for disobedience;

De 28:44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the

head, and thou shalt be the tail.

The word translated as " head " is " rosh " in Hebrew, and means;

1) head, top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum, height, front, beginning

1a) head (of man, animals)

1b) top, tip (of mountain)

1c) height (of stars)

1d) chief, head (of man, city, nation, place, family, priest)

1e) head, front, beginning

1f) chief, choicest, best

1g) head, division, company, band

1h) sum

I hope this helps.

-Raine

**He that keeps Israel does neither slumber,

nor sleep. Psalm 121:4**

March 11, 2004

In a message dated 3/11/04 9:48:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> I think you missed the point of the article.

Then my analytical skills must be " woefully inadequate " ;-) because the point

seemed fairly obvious.

>First, I don't see why you're

> choosing *one* of the three meanings of " kephale " (head) and imply that

>

> meant that definition and not the other two.

Because it's apparent from context. says the husband is the " head " and

the woman is the " body " so obviously is using the " thing that sits

superior to the torso resting on the neck " definition of head. " Maybe he's

using

more than one definition of " head " at the same time, but that he's using THAT

particular definition is pretty obvious from the context.

Even if " foremost " as in

> " cornerstone of a foundation " or " first into battle " are less concrete than

> " head of a body " , we can't presume to know that intended that meaning

> and that meaning *only*.

We can't presume to know he intended that meaning *only*, but we can

certainly presume to know he intended that particular meaning, because, again,

it's

very obvious from the context of the passage.

> Nor can we presume to know what HE thinks of when

> he talks of a head of a body.

That's true. I think my original point was that there's basis for claiming

the husband is granted some sort of decision-making power by his role as

" head, " but not that it was absolutely clear how this power should be manifest,

the

extent to which its granted, or necessarily whether it is even granted. I'm

just saying it's pretty easy to conclude that from the passage-- as one valid

interpretation, anyway.

It sounds reasonable to US to see the head of

> a body as it's " leader " so to speak but when you look at the translations

> and what he really told women when he said to " submit " to their husbands,

> that context puts " head " in a new light. How do we know that did not

> mean the spirit of these other two like definitions more so than he meant

> head of a physical body?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Is the only evidence that elsewhere the woman is

> referred to as the " body " of the marriage?

Yes, that would be my contextual evidence for suggesting he meant " kephale "

to mean " head " in the sense of a somatic head.

> Were those 's words?

Yes: the man is the " kephale " and the woman is the " soma. "

Does it > prove he meant the one definition of kephale as physical head?

I don't see how you can prove it more than that. What other kind of head is

attached to a body?

> Additionally, he could've chosen to use the word " arche " which also

> translates to head, and means " chief " and clearly implies governance.

I guess so, but as far as I know, " kephale " is much more commonly used to

refer to the somatic head. Also, I agree with you and the author that did

not intend for the man to be the " ruler " of the wife, so it's a moot point.

But he > specifically chose a word that, according to the authors, NEVER

> means

> " leader " as in governance or " ruler " .

" Never " is stretching it, and some of the comments in the article suggest the

author is lacking in objectivity. There's basis to interpret kephale as

possibly meaning " master " or " superior in rank, " but it's much more commonly

used

to mean " head, " " cornerstone, " the beginning of something, as in a title page

of a book, or some kind of sustaining support, akin to " cornerstone, " as

Christ being the " kephale " of the Church, or, elsewhere, the " kephale " of the

universe.

If he thought men were to " govern " > their marriage then it would make sense

> for him to use the word for headthat MEANS govern. And is a word he'd used

> elsewhere to describe governanc of others. But he did not.

I think this is our main difference. You seem to think that " ruler " and

" governance " are synonymous, and that you would ONLY use the word " ruler " if you

were to imply governance. I don't. I think the head clearly governs the body,

and I think anyone 2000 years ago would think the same thing. I wouldn't say

the head " rules over " the body, or that the body is a " servant " of the head,

but the central processing of commands exists in the head, and the head is

definitely a facilitation center. The rest of the body also forms an integral

part of the decision-making process through feed-back mechanisms, but its fac

ilitated in the head. (using a little more detail we have now that didn't

have.)

>

> Secondly, had he thought men should be the " governors " of their marriage

> then he would logically have used a form of " submit " that translates to

> " obey " when he told wives to " submit to " their husbands. But he didn't use a

> word that translates to obey, he used a word that roughly means " give

> allegiance to " or " place yourself at the disposition of " . This is further

> evidence that the idea that he gives men " governance " over their marriage is

> not as clear-cut as some think, and could possibly be downright wrong.

Ok-- so the husband is the leader and the wife pledges alleigance to his

leadership. It think that's well within the bounds your setting, and the

linguistics going by the evidence you and the article are providing.

>

> Thirdly, the authors explain that is VERY fond of using military terms,

> so it's not a stretch to think he meant " first into battle " when describing

> the husband as the kephale, especially, again, since he doesn't tell wives

> to " obey " their husbands (implying leadership as in " governance " ), but

> rather tells them to give allegiance to or support their husbands.

He's obviously not using that sense directly in the passage. does use

some soldiery metaphor, but not as ubiquitously as the author is suggesting,

and not in this particular passage. If he says " the man is the head " and in the

same sentence says " the woman is the body, " but nowhere in the paragraph does

he use the imagery of soldiery, I think it's quite a stretch to say he's

emphasizing the " first into battle " meaning over the " head of a body " meaning.

> > distintcly chose> to use a word that does NOT mean governer

> >or ruler of

> >>any sort, but ratherfirst into battle - the one who leads into battle.

> >

> >I suppose that's one *possible* rendering of " kephale, " but

> >certainly isn't

> >the most likely rendering, since the comparison is with Christ and

> >the Church.

>

> Right, and Christ *served* the church - he was the foremost martyr, the

> first to battle for humankind by dying for humankind.

>

> From " An Orthodox Christian Perspective on the Mystery of Marriage "

>

> " A second fundamental characteristic of Christian marriage is the equality

> of each spouse. In the marriage service the couple is called to realize and

> acknowledge the equality of honour and dignity of both the woman and the

> man. While the Orthodox rite of Matrimony acknowledges the Scriptural

> teaching that the man is called to be the head of the wife [cf., Eph. 5:231,

> this headship is founded in the example and teachings of Christ. Indeed,

> ultimately, marriage is viewed as a living icon of the relationship between

> Christ and His Bride, the Church. Thus, what ever may be said about the

> nature of the relationship between Christ and the Church may also be said

> about the relationship of husband and wife.

Agreed-- essentially what I was saying in the last email.

> Therefore, like Christ Who came not to be served but to serve, he who is

> the

> head in the relationship holds a primacy of servitude. The husband is seen

> as the first servant, the first martyr, the first to give up his " self " and

> reach out in love to his wife. "

Absolutely-- as I've tried to emphasize from the beginning of this marriage

discussion.

> Hmmm....sounds an awful lot like the kephale definition of " foremost " and

> " first into battle " and nothing to do with " governance " that you equate with

> " headship " .

Nothing? Jesus died for the church, but the church also obeys Jesus's

commandments-- so there seems to be *some* element of governance, no?

> >Well, I disagree. The usage is obviously a metaphorical usage of the more

> >tangible meaning-- that of a head of a body--

> so any implications

> >of a head-body

> >relationship apply, rather than merely the literal but abstract

> >alternative

> >meanings to kephale.

>

> How do you KNOW that meant the one meaning and not the other two, and>

> how do you KNOW what he meant by " head of a body "

Because he SAYS it.

IF indeed he meant that

> and not the other two definitions? Is it possible that you're projecting

> your own culture and historical perspective on what he meant rather than

> responding to the actual translations?

No, it isn't even remotely possible. My cultural context has nothing to do

with translating " soma " as body.

> So? As mentioned above " kephale " NEVER means " leader " as in someone who

> governs. How much clearer can that be?

*sigh* It could be considerably clearer.

> Right, and as the article on the Orthodox Christianity perspective on

> marriage above states, that translates into the husband being the *first*

> into the servitude, the *first* to give up self for the wife, etc.

That's because in Christianity being a leader and being a servant are

corollaries of each other. One can't negate the other, because they correspond

to

each other.

> >>I agree. Christ *served* the church and the Church was Christ's

> >bride from

> >>what I understand, so clearly there's no " rulership " position here.

> >

> >I wouldn't characterize it as such,

>

> Well it seems that OTHER Orthodox Christians characterize it as such (see

> link above).

I didn't get that impression from the quoted text.

> but there's also some sense in which

> >Christ gives commands and the Church obeys.

> >

> >However, that's only a superficial look. Christ's fundamental

> >command is to

> >imitate himself, because God became man that man might become god, so we

> >imitate Christ, or imitate the saints as they imitated Christ

> >before us. Every

> >commandment of Jesus is to imitate him. So the Church doesn't so

> >much obey

> >Christ as a subject obeys a King, and Christ doesn't so much

> > " legislate, " but

> >rather its a matter of alligning one's will with that of Christ's,

> >so that we might

> >say " It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. "

>

> But Christ also *serves* the Church according to the Orthodox Christian

> article above. Quote " he who is the head in the relationship holds a primacy

> of servitude " .

The key word you use there is " also. " So why do you keep insisting the two

are at conflict? It is a bishop's job to serve the church, and the king's job

to serve the people, too, so there isn't necessarily any conflict.

> Can you give some examples of Christ's commands and the Church's obeying?

> It

> would contradict 's chosen word of " submit " to characterize what the

> wife is expected to do in marriage, since it doesn't translate to " obey " but

> rather means " give allegiance to " .

I honestly don't see such a grand conflict here, but the Church is supposed

to obey all of Jesus commandments, which are contained within the Gospels.

However, the key here is that the commandments are NOT legislative commandments

that exist for the sake of order, for the sake of themselves, " society, " or

Jesus. They are meant for the sake of the one who obeys. Thus, any " headship "

the husband has that translates (if it does) into any kind of decision-making

power or whatever over the wife's must be used for her benefit, and not his

benefit.

>

> And this " alligning " as you term it sounds like the definition of

> " hupotasso " in the form that used it (according to these authors) - " to

> give allegiance to " or " to be responsive to " one's husband. But as you read

> in the articles, " obey " is a different word in Greek and is used to describe

> the relationship of child to parent or slave to master, among other things.

Ok, and the relationship between husband and wife is certainly qualitatively

different than those-- agreed.

> But again, it's not the word used to tell wives how to relate to their

> husbands. Is there supposed to be " aligning " going on between master and

> slave in their relationship? Is their relationship supposed to be symbolic

> of the Christ/Church relationship? If the Christ/Church relationship is one

> of ruler and " obeyer " than the answer must be yes.

I agree that the relationship between Christ and Church is nothing like

master and slave, or ruler and subject.

Only must not have > been aware that the Christ gives " commands " and

> the Church " obeys " since he called husbands a word that NEVER means

> ruler/commander and did not use the word " obey " in telling wives how to

respond to their

> husbands.

I think you're making a logical leap in concluding that because he didn't use

the words that would convey a ruler-subject/master-slave relationship, he

didn't imply any sort of governance. Or we are just using " governance " in

different ways. I'm not sure why you see such a major conflict here, but Christ

certainly does give " commandments " (Christ says so anyway...) and the Church

certainly does " obey " them, but they aren't even remotely similar to the

commandments that a master gives a slave (which is to benefit the master) or a

ruler

gives a subject (which is to benefit either the ruler or the society, or

whathaveyou). Most importantly, Christ never, ever, ever uses force to make us

follow him, whereas a ruler's or master's commandments are always enforced by

the

use of force or the threat thereof.

> It seems like many folks interpret headship that way, but I wonder if

> that's

> based on erroneous interpretations of the words " headship " and " submit " or

> overly simplistic interpretations of those words. OR perhaps just injecting

> our own linguistic meanings into them and deriving a semi-accurate or

> inaccurate understanding. I don't know, but the translations of " kephale "

> and " hupotasso " as described in these articles certainly seems to call into

> question the way that some folks are interpreting them. If " kephale " NEVER

> means " leader " as in " ruler " or governance, then how can we interpret 's

> use of kephale to mean the husband has " facilitation power " or the " final

> say " in marriage?

I'd have to think about it more, but it's certainly within the bounds of what

says, if not directly implied. It's possible-- and I'd have to think

about it-- that it isn't *necessarily* impled though.

>

> And again, I agree with you that there's some room for interpretation, and I

> think it's probably wise for each couple to use the interpretation that

> would facilitate the most *harmonious* marriage. If one couple has a strong

> man and submissive woman, then perhaps the " governance " interpretation

> (although it seems contrary to what said since kephale never means

> leader as in ruler)

You keep repeating this but it isn't really true. It's especially not true

if one considers the metaphorical implications the relationship of the head to

the body.

would be the interpretation that makes their marriage

> harmonious. OTOH, if another couple has both a strong man AND a strong

> woman, then it would seem wise if they used the translation of the husband

> being the foremost or first to enter servitude, and the first into battle,

> and the wife's role not one of " obeying " (which seems to be an incorrect

> translation anyway) but one of giving allegiance and support to her husband,

> as they could obviously serve God better when in harmony and alignment, and

> this translation is just as (if not more) accurate than the governance

> dynamic you described.

If someone goes first into battle, then don't they necessarily have some

power over the direction of the battle that the followers do not have, and is it

not implicit in the analogy that the one who " submits " follows the direction

that the " head " establishes?

Chris

March 11, 2004

> Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

>

>In a message dated 3/10/04 10:00:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

>> >Right... but it's " head, " which obviously implies some sort of

>> >governance or

>> >leadership of some fashion.

>>

>> No it doesn't imply a governing type of leadership - if you'd READ the

>> article you'd see the explanation of the translation.

>

>Ok, ok, I read it. Kephale is used for the somatic " head " as well as the

>more abstract usages emphasized in the article... so my point is

>that anything

>that uses it to mean " head " using the meaning of a somatic head as

>a metaphor

>(which is direclty implied by contrasting it to the woman as " the

>body " ) can

>imply anything about the normal relation of a head to a body--

>part of which is

>governance.

I think you missed the point of the article. First, I don't see why you're

choosing *one* of the three meanings of " kephale " (head) and imply that

meant that definition and not the other two. Even if " foremost " as in

" cornerstone of a foundation " or " first into battle " are less concrete than

" head of a body " , we can't presume to know that intended that meaning

and that meaning *only*. Nor can we presume to know what HE thinks of when

he talks of a head of a body. It sounds reasonable to US to see the head of

a body as it's " leader " so to speak but when you look at the translations

and what he really told women when he said to " submit " to their husbands,

that context puts " head " in a new light. How do we know that did not

mean the spirit of these other two like definitions more so than he meant

head of a physical body? Is the only evidence that elsewhere the woman is

referred to as the " body " of the marriage? Were those 's words? Does it

prove he meant the one definition of kephale as physical head?

Additionally, he could've chosen to use the word " arche " which also

translates to head, and means " chief " and clearly implies governance. But he

specifically chose a word that, according to the authors, NEVER means

" leader " as in governance or " ruler " . If he thought men were to " govern "

their marriage then it would make sense for him to use the word for head

that MEANS govern. And is a word he'd used elsewhere to describe governance

of others. But he did not.

Secondly, had he thought men should be the " governors " of their marriage

then he would logically have used a form of " submit " that translates to

" obey " when he told wives to " submit to " their husbands. But he didn't use a

word that translates to obey, he used a word that roughly means " give

allegiance to " or " place yourself at the disposition of " . This is further

evidence that the idea that he gives men " governance " over their marriage is

not as clear-cut as some think, and could possibly be downright wrong.

Thirdly, the authors explain that is VERY fond of using military terms,

so it's not a stretch to think he meant " first into battle " when describing

the husband as the kephale, especially, again, since he doesn't tell wives

to " obey " their husbands (implying leadership as in " governance " ), but

rather tells them to give allegiance to or support their husbands.

>

> distintcly chose> to use a word that does NOT mean governer

>or ruler of

>> any sort, but ratherfirst into battle - the one who leads into battle.

>

>I suppose that's one *possible* rendering of " kephale, " but

>certainly isn't

>the most likely rendering, since the comparison is with Christ and

>the Church.

Right, and Christ *served* the church - he was the foremost martyr, the

first to battle for humankind by dying for humankind.

From " An Orthodox Christian Perspective on the Mystery of Marriage "

http://www.uocc.ca/marriage.html

" A second fundamental characteristic of Christian marriage is the equality

of each spouse. In the marriage service the couple is called to realize and

acknowledge the equality of honour and dignity of both the woman and the

man. While the Orthodox rite of Matrimony acknowledges the Scriptural

teaching that the man is called to be the head of the wife [cf., Eph. 5:231,

this headship is founded in the example and teachings of Christ. Indeed,

ultimately, marriage is viewed as a living icon of the relationship between

Christ and His Bride, the Church. Thus, what ever may be said about the

nature of the relationship between Christ and the Church may also be said

about the relationship of husband and wife.

Therefore, like Christ Who came not to be served but to serve, he who is the

head in the relationship holds a primacy of servitude. The husband is seen

as the first servant, the first martyr, the first to give up his " self " and

reach out in love to his wife. "

Hmmm....sounds an awful lot like the kephale definition of " foremost " and

" first into battle " and nothing to do with " governance " that you equate with

" headship " .

>>

>> I think there's definitely a greater range of

>> >possible interpretation with " head, " but one possible

>interpretation could

>> >certainly be something akin to " ruler. "

>>

>> In *English* - yes, but in Greek - NO.

>

>Well, I disagree. The usage is obviously a metaphorical usage of the more

>tangible meaning-- that of a head of a body--

so any implications

>of a head-body

>relationship apply, rather than merely the literal but abstract

>alternative

>meanings to kephale.

How do you KNOW that meant the one meaning and not the other two, and

how do you KNOW what he meant by " head of a body " IF indeed he meant that

and not the other two definitions? Is it possible that you're projecting

your own culture and historical perspective on what he meant rather than

responding to the actual translations?

>

> Again please read the article so you

>>

>> can see the specific words that chose for " head " and

> " submit " . The word

>> used for " head " in describing the husband's position is not

>the Greek

>> word for ruler - there IS a word for ruler which also translates

>to " head "

>> in English, and he used it elsewhere in the bible to describe ruling

>> " headships " . But again that's NOT the word he chose to describe the

>> husband's relationship to the wife.

>

>And rightly so. But there's also a qualitative english difference between

> " rulership " and a variety of other dynamics that involves some

>sort or another

>of governance.

So? As mentioned above " kephale " NEVER means " leader " as in someone who

governs. How much clearer can that be?

>

>>

>> I don't think it much

>> >matters, since

>> >said the great mystery was that marriage is a type of Christ's

>> >relationship to

>> >the Church, not the head's relationship to the body.

>Clarification of the

>> >interpretation should be derived from that analogy.

Right, and as the article on the Orthodox Christianity perspective on

marriage above states, that translates into the husband being the *first*

into the servitude, the *first* to give up self for the wife, etc.

>>

>> I agree. Christ *served* the church and the Church was Christ's

>bride from

>> what I understand, so clearly there's no " rulership " position here.

>

>I wouldn't characterize it as such,

Well it seems that OTHER Orthodox Christians characterize it as such (see

link above).

but there's also some sense in which

>Christ gives commands and the Church obeys.

>

>However, that's only a superficial look. Christ's fundamental

>command is to

>imitate himself, because God became man that man might become god, so we

>imitate Christ, or imitate the saints as they imitated Christ

>before us. Every

>commandment of Jesus is to imitate him. So the Church doesn't so

>much obey

>Christ as a subject obeys a King, and Christ doesn't so much

> " legislate, " but

>rather its a matter of alligning one's will with that of Christ's,

>so that we might

>say " It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. "

But Christ also *serves* the Church according to the Orthodox Christian

article above. Quote " he who is the head in the relationship holds a primacy

of servitude " .

Can you give some examples of Christ's commands and the Church's obeying? It

would contradict 's chosen word of " submit " to characterize what the

wife is expected to do in marriage, since it doesn't translate to " obey " but

rather means " give allegiance to " .

And this " alligning " as you term it sounds like the definition of

" hupotasso " in the form that used it (according to these authors) - " to

give allegiance to " or " to be responsive to " one's husband. But as you read

in the articles, " obey " is a different word in Greek and is used to describe

the relationship of child to parent or slave to master, among other things.

But again, it's not the word used to tell wives how to relate to their

husbands. Is there supposed to be " aligning " going on between master and

slave in their relationship? Is their relationship supposed to be symbolic

of the Christ/Church relationship? If the Christ/Church relationship is one

of ruler and " obeyer " than the answer must be yes. Only must not have

been aware that the Christ gives " commands " and the Church " obeys " since he

called husbands a word that NEVER means ruler/commander and did not use the

word " obey " in telling wives how to respond to their husbands.

>

>Essentially I think the crux is that a husband and wife are to operate in

>harmony. The husband assumes headship.

This is clear, but apparently it's not universally agreed as to what

meant by " headship " . That is the million dollar question!

Now, Christ isn't head of

>the Church in

>terms of pragmatic operations-- he didn't give commandments, for

>example, over

>which metropolis is under the jurisdiction of which bishop, etc.

>So how do

>we translate this relationship to the pragmatic operations of a

>family unit?

>It's hard to say, and I think there's room for interpretation.

Agreed!

>But I'd say the

> " head " of the family would, while clearly not being a ruler of his

>subject,

>his wife, have some sort of facilitation power or something,

>which, in a unit

>of two where there can't be a majority, would usually render him

>in some sort

>of arbitration role that gives some sort of final say.

It seems like many folks interpret headship that way, but I wonder if that's

based on erroneous interpretations of the words " headship " and " submit " or

overly simplistic interpretations of those words. OR perhaps just injecting

our own linguistic meanings into them and deriving a semi-accurate or

inaccurate understanding. I don't know, but the translations of " kephale "

and " hupotasso " as described in these articles certainly seems to call into

question the way that some folks are interpreting them. If " kephale " NEVER

means " leader " as in " ruler " or governance, then how can we interpret 's

use of kephale to mean the husband has " facilitation power " or the " final

say " in marriage?

And again, I agree with you that there's some room for interpretation, and I

think it's probably wise for each couple to use the interpretation that

would facilitate the most *harmonious* marriage. If one couple has a strong

man and submissive woman, then perhaps the " governance " interpretation

(although it seems contrary to what said since kephale never means

leader as in ruler) would be the interpretation that makes their marriage

harmonious. OTOH, if another couple has both a strong man AND a strong

woman, then it would seem wise if they used the translation of the husband

being the foremost or first to enter servitude, and the first into battle,

and the wife's role not one of " obeying " (which seems to be an incorrect

translation anyway) but one of giving allegiance and support to her husband,

as they could obviously serve God better when in harmony and alignment, and

this translation is just as (if not more) accurate than the governance

dynamic you described.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

March 11, 2004

>De 28:44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him;

>he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

>

>The word translated as " head " is " rosh " in Hebrew, and means;

>

>1) head, top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum, height,

>front, beginning

>1a) head (of man, animals)

>1b) top, tip (of mountain)

>1c) height (of stars)

>1d) chief, head (of man, city, nation, place, family, priest)

>1e) head, front, beginning

>1f) chief, choicest, best

>1g) head, division, company, band

>1h) sum

As an FYI - going back to my original post that started this thread - **

did not use the word " rosh " when saying the man is the head of his wife. He

used the Greek word " kephale " . According to the authors of the articles I

posted the other day, " kephale " NEVER means " ruler " , " chief " or even

" leader " in the sense of governance. " Kephale " means the physical head of a

body, the first into battle, or " foremost " as in a cornerstone. There is a

*different* Greek word that also translates to " head " but means " chief,

" ruler " etc. didn't chose this word to describe the husband's position

in marriage.

See message #

/message/45323 for full

details.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> http://www.uocc.ca/practices-b.html

----------------------------

March 11, 2004

Suze wrote: As an FYI - going back to my original post that started this thread

- **

did not use the word " rosh " when saying the man is the head of his wife.

Raine replies: I'm sorry, you did state that quite clearly. I wasn't trying to

imply that was using the Hebrew " rosh " , but merely expanding on the Deut.

references made by... someone.

-Raine

**The Greeks stressed the holiness of beauty; the Jews emphasized the beauty of

holiness. --Emil G. Hirsch**

March 13, 2004

In a message dated 3/13/04 12:08:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> OK, if he says the woman is the " body " then I'll grant you that he likely

> meant " physical " head. (Although I'd be careful not to call it " superior " to

> the body - the obvious implication being that thought men were superior

> to women, and, AFAIK, there is no evidence of that.)

I didn't say that. I think a head would be worthless without its body!

> It may be one valid interpretation, but also may not be the only valid

> interpretation. You know it seems like you have changed your opinion on one

> aspect of this subject. When we first started discussing it you said the

> " headship " implies no power *differential* between husband and wife, but now

> you are saying " the husband is granted some sort of decision-making power by

> his role as " head, " " which is obviously a power differential...Is it correct

> then, that you've changed your opinion on this?

I think what I said is that as one approaches the idea spiritually the power

differential approaches zero.

> And although I don't agree that it's absolutely certain implied

> decision-making power goes along with " headship " , I agree that whatever

> " headship " means, at least from what I've read to date, is not clear.

I don't think it means he has the final decision-making power over every

decision, but if he's the " first into battle, " as I say below, and she follows,

clearly there is *some* degree to which she " obeys " some of his decisions;

namely, what " battles " they're " fighting " and how they go about fighting them.

> >Yes: the man is the " kephale " and the woman is the " soma. "

>

> Hmmm...then is the woman the " temple of the Holy Spirit " ?

>

> " Orthodoxy holds the Biblical view that the body is the temple of the Holy

> Spirit. As such, it must be treated with honour and dignity. "

I think the " body " would include the " head " in that sentence.

> Well, I'd expect the author's personal bias to be in the article to some

> extent, but how do you know that at the time of , kephale sometimes

> meant " master " etc? Is there anywhere else in the bible where kephale is

> used to mean " master " or " superior in rank " ?

I looked in a New Testament Greek lexicon. Writings were rarer at the time

than our time, so one or two examples of something is significant, and they

cite one example where " kephale " is used to describe one's master (not

biblically). It's quite possible, though, that the person was using " kepahle "

not to

describe his master's master-ness, but a specific attribute of " headship " such

as we've been discussing, of his master. So I don't think anything conclusive

can be drawn from it (I haven't seen the document), but it should be noted in

a discussion involving the range of potential uses of " kephale, " especially

when using the emphatic language as has been used.

Because, according to this

> author it's not. " Arche " is used to describe masters and those superior in

> rank whereas kephale is only used to describe physical head, foremost and

> first into battle.

Very well. And there's some degree to which Christianity would have change

the masters role from " archos " to " kephale " in some sense, or changed it even

more drastically. Many people in the early church freed their slaves upon

conversion, and some families of saints (yeah, saints tended to run in families)

treated their slaves as equals and did their work *with* them, etc.

> Yes, I think " governance " implies rulership. Only a " government " can

> " govern " so I guess if you are correct, then the husband is a government of

> 1 over a group of 1 (not including himself). And the first definition of

> " government " in Merriam Webster's online dictionary is " authoritative

> direction or control " . I'm not sure how you can separate governance from

> rulership?

I suppose technically they are the same or similar, but coloquially we use

" govern " in places we wouldn't typically use " rule, " or at least say the

governing thing was a " ruler. " For example in something mechanical you might

say

part y " governs " the position of part x, but no one would say part y is part

x's " ruler. "

> Secondly, as an FYI, I've been told by the person who sent me these

> articles

> that the book they came from has MUCH more detailed contextual information

> on the translations of what really said and why female submission is

> not really a part of God's plan. And apparently there are numerous books on

> the subject, and entire congregations that do not follow the " governance "

> intrepretation, although I'd imagine you're already aware of that. I'm

> ordering the book today, so will be able to discuss this from a more

> informed perspective at some future date. Now, all I have to go on are the

> two articles I posted.

Ok. But one thing that should be added to this discussion immediately:

Genesis 3:16:

" To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in

pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your

husband, and he shall rule over you. "

Two things worth taking into account:

1) Is " rule over " the proper translation here?

2) Is this *de*scriptive or *pre*scriptive? Most of the same story has been

taken by traditional theology to be *de*scriptive, but I've never noticed the

point made that *this* sentence was. I've generally taken it to be

descriptive, to say that sexism was introduced into the world after the Fall,

thus

sexism is a result of sin and something we will always face in a sinful world.

> >>Therefore, like Christ Who came not to be served but to serve, he who is

> >>the

> >>head in the relationship holds a primacy of servitude. The

> >husband is seen

> >>as the first servant, the first martyr, the first to give up his

> > " self " and

> >>reach out in love to his wife. "

> >

> >Absolutely-- as I've tried to emphasize from the beginning of this

> >marriage

> >discussion.

>

> So, as you see it...the husband is supposed to " serve " his wife and the wife

> is supposed to " serve " the husband? But in different ways?

I think that seems to be the crux of the passages we've been discussing.

If the wife is> supposed to be submissive in decision making, as you've said

> in so many words (if HE has the casting vote or " governance " then she is by

> default

> being submissive to his power of governance), then in what specific ways is

> the husband supposed to " serve " the wife?

I don't really understand the logic of the question. Specifically as relates

decision-making, it would be that the decisions made that affect the wife

would be made taking her best interest into account and putting it over his best

interest and/or desires. (But there are obviously many ways to " serve " the

wife that aren't directly connected to decision-making.) Let's take a practical

example:

In a particular family, the wife is raising the children and the husband is

generating the income supporting the family. (I'm not saying this is the only

possible setup, just that it is in this example.) The husband's choice of

work directly affects the wife and his children in many ways, including status,

provisions, and possibly even where they live, and certainly what kind of life

they live.

Say the husband gets some opportunity to change jobs, and it involves

changing locations. There are a variety of costs and benefits to accepting the

change, and it profoundly affects the entire family. Among them:

-- status increase for the husband

-- a less direct status increase for the family

-- more desirable work (affects husband only)

-- children have to change schools, leave old friends, make new friends

-- wife was significantly involved in school community, deals with same

change

And I suppose we could list many others.

* A husband who is the RULER of the family makes the decision taking whatever

into account he feels like, and his decision justifies itself.

* A husband who is the SUBJECT of his family gives the decision to the wife,

and she takes whatever into acount she feels like, and her decision justifies

itself.

* A husband who has complete PARITY of decision-making power with his wife

VOTES-- they each vote opposite one another, and reach a stalemate. They are

left with a variety of options, including rock-paper-scissors, letting the

children have the final say, writting decisions on paper, folding them, and

putting

them in two bowls of dog food and seeing which one the dog goes to first, or

asking their neighbor, Homer Simpson, to arbitrate.

* A husband who is the HEAD but SERVES his wife, makes the final decision to

take the job or reject the job, but his decision is not justified until he

takes full input from his wife, considers the needs of the entire family as a

unit, but puts his wife's desires above his own.

> Because governance IS rulership and he neither used " arche " (master, chief,

> leader) nor the word for " obey " when telling wives to support their

> husbands.

I disagree. Christ as the " kephale " of the universe GOVERNS the universe,

because from him proceed all natural laws that GOVERN the behavior of all

particles in the universe, but he is NOT the RULER of the universe in the sense

of

" archos " because he doesn't embody the dynamic exhibited between a master and a

slave or a king and his subject.

> But the word for " obey " WAS used in the bible to describe how children

> should " obey " their parents, yet the parents obviously make decisions for

> the benefit of their *children*.

Yes, but the decisions are made primarily for the *needs* of the children,

which very often run directly *opposite* to the desires of the children, and

input from the children is rarely taken into account for many kinds of matters--

for example, deciding how to punish them for disobedience. Also, many things

a parent tells a child to do will be somewhat arbitrary, much like a ruler can

make arbitrary legislation and a subject must obey it.

The " governing " dynamic of the husband vis-a-vis the wife is entirely

different. It proceeds from the dynamics you've been agreeing with -- such as

" first

into battle. " If the husband leads into battle, the wife doesn't walk in the

opposite direction. That's a " governing " dynamic, but its fundamentally

different from the parent-child, master-slave, ruler-subject dynamic, and thus

would use different words.

So COULD have used the word for " obey "

> when he told wives to submit to their husbands, but did not, even though it

> was used to describe the parent/child relationship. It didn't ALWAYS mean to

> the benefit of the one giving " commands " .

Right, because meant to describe two different dynamics.

> Most importantly, Christ never, ever, ever uses

> >force to make us

> >follow him, whereas a ruler's or master's commandments are always

> >enforced by the

> >use of force or the threat thereof.

>

> Do parents use force? Or did they in 's time, I wonder?

I'm sure. Most or many parents use force today, too. Even if you don't use

physical force with children, it's only because you can get them to do what

you say to *some* extent. For example, you could tell them to stand in the

corner, and usually they'll stay there, at least as long as you're watching.

The

point is that each disobedience has some punishment as a corollary, and the

subject (be it a child, slave, or citizen) doesn't have a choice as to whether

to accept or reject the punishment.

> >If someone goes first into battle, then don't they necessarily have some

> >power over the direction of the battle that the followers do not

> >have,

>

> No, not necessarily. Depends on the type of warfare. In some cases you have

> the leader (General or whatever) giving orders from the ranks further back

> or some distant command center (as in the recent Iraq war, etc), and sending

> the grunts onto the front lines. In other cases, you DO have the leader

> leading the ranks.

That doesn't matter though. The leader still leads the battle, and therefore

has some decision-making power as to what battles they enter and how they

enter them that the followers don't have.

> and is it

> >not implicit in the analogy that the one who " submits " follows the

> >direction

> >that the " head " establishes?

>

> Not if the first into battle is not, in fact, the " leader " . If you recall,

> the author writes that the word used for wives that was translated to

> the English " submit " was commonly used to tell soldiers to come help out

> their platoon, support them, jump in and do their share of the work.

That's roughly analogous to what I was saying before about power

differentials. In the spiritual ideal, the husbands decisions don't come from

his own

will, but from his following the will of God, and when the husband and wife are

both submitting wholly to God, there are no distinct opposing wills and ther

efore no power differential-- much like a " kephale " of a platoon who is taking

orders from a general to enter a given battle as you say above.

Chris

March 13, 2004

> Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

> >First, I don't see why you're

>> choosing *one* of the three meanings of " kephale " (head) and imply that

>>

>> meant that definition and not the other two.

>

>Because it's apparent from context. says the husband is the

> " head " and

>the woman is the " body " so obviously is using the " thing that sits

>superior to the torso resting on the neck " definition of head. "

>Maybe he's using

>more than one definition of " head " at the same time, but that he's

>using THAT

>particular definition is pretty obvious from the context.

OK, if he says the woman is the " body " then I'll grant you that he likely

meant " physical " head. (Although I'd be careful not to call it " superior " to

the body - the obvious implication being that thought men were superior

to women, and, AFAIK, there is no evidence of that.)

>> Nor can we presume to know what HE thinks of when

>> he talks of a head of a body.

>

>That's true. I think my original point was that there's basis for

>claiming

>the husband is granted some sort of decision-making power by his role as

> " head, " but not that it was absolutely clear how this power should

>be manifest, the

>extent to which its granted, or necessarily whether it is even

>granted. I'm

>just saying it's pretty easy to conclude that from the passage--

>as one valid

>interpretation, anyway.

It may be one valid interpretation, but also may not be the only valid

interpretation. You know it seems like you have changed your opinion on one

aspect of this subject. When we first started discussing it you said the

" headship " implies no power *differential* between husband and wife, but now

you are saying " the husband is granted some sort of decision-making power by

his role as " head, " " which is obviously a power differential...Is it correct

then, that you've changed your opinion on this?

And although I don't agree that it's absolutely certain implied

decision-making power goes along with " headship " , I agree that whatever

" headship " means, at least from what I've read to date, is not clear.

> Is the only evidence that elsewhere the woman is

>> referred to as the " body " of the marriage?

>

>Yes, that would be my contextual evidence for suggesting he meant

> " kephale "

>to mean " head " in the sense of a somatic head.

>

>> Were those 's words?

>

>Yes: the man is the " kephale " and the woman is the " soma. "

Hmmm...then is the woman the " temple of the Holy Spirit " ?

" Orthodoxy holds the Biblical view that the body is the temple of the Holy

Spirit. As such, it must be treated with honour and dignity. "

http://www.uocc.ca/practices-b.html

> But he > specifically chose a word that, according to the authors, NEVER

>> means

>> " leader " as in governance or " ruler " .

>

> " Never " is stretching it, and some of the comments in the article

>suggest the

>author is lacking in objectivity.

There's basis to interpret kephale as

>possibly meaning " master " or " superior in rank, " but it's much

>more commonly used

>to mean " head, " " cornerstone, " the beginning of something, as in a

>title page

>of a book, or some kind of sustaining support, akin to " cornerstone, " as

>Christ being the " kephale " of the Church, or, elsewhere, the

> " kephale " of the

>universe.

Well, I'd expect the author's personal bias to be in the article to some

extent, but how do you know that at the time of , kephale sometimes

meant " master " etc? Is there anywhere else in the bible where kephale is

used to mean " master " or " superior in rank " ? Because, according to this

author it's not. " Arche " is used to describe masters and those superior in

rank whereas kephale is only used to describe physical head, foremost and

first into battle.

>

> If he thought men were to " govern " > their marriage then it would

>make sense

>> for him to use the word for headthat MEANS govern. And is a word

>he'd used

>> elsewhere to describe governanc of others. But he did not.

>

>I think this is our main difference. You seem to think that " ruler " and

> " governance " are synonymous, and that you would ONLY use the word

> " ruler " if you

>were to imply governance. I don't. I think the head clearly

>governs the body,

>and I think anyone 2000 years ago would think the same thing. I

>wouldn't say

>the head " rules over " the body, or that the body is a " servant " of

>the head,

>but the central processing of commands exists in the head, and the head is

>definitely a facilitation center. The rest of the body also forms

>an integral

>part of the decision-making process through feed-back mechanisms,

>but its fac

>ilitated in the head. (using a little more detail we have now that

> didn't

>have.)

Yes, I think " governance " implies rulership. Only a " government " can

" govern " so I guess if you are correct, then the husband is a government of

1 over a group of 1 (not including himself). And the first definition of

" government " in Merriam Webster's online dictionary is " authoritative

direction or control " . I'm not sure how you can separate governance from

rulership?

Secondly, as an FYI, I've been told by the person who sent me these articles

that the book they came from has MUCH more detailed contextual information

on the translations of what really said and why female submission is

not really a part of God's plan. And apparently there are numerous books on

the subject, and entire congregations that do not follow the " governance "

intrepretation, although I'd imagine you're already aware of that. I'm

ordering the book today, so will be able to discuss this from a more

informed perspective at some future date. Now, all I have to go on are the

two articles I posted.

>> Therefore, like Christ Who came not to be served but to serve, he who is

>> the

>> head in the relationship holds a primacy of servitude. The

>husband is seen

>> as the first servant, the first martyr, the first to give up his

> " self " and

>> reach out in love to his wife. "

>

>Absolutely-- as I've tried to emphasize from the beginning of this

>marriage

>discussion.

So, as you see it...the husband is supposed to " serve " his wife and the wife

is supposed to " serve " the husband? But in different ways? If the wife is

supposed to be submissive in decision making, as you've said in so many

words (if HE has the casting vote or " governance " then she is by default

being submissive to his power of governance), then in what specific ways is

the husband supposed to " serve " the wife?

> Only must not have > been aware that the Christ gives " commands " and

>> the Church " obeys " since he called husbands a word that NEVER means

>> ruler/commander and did not use the word " obey " in telling wives

>how to respond to their

>> husbands.

>

>I think you're making a logical leap in concluding that because he

>didn't use

>the words that would convey a ruler-subject/master-slave relationship, he

>didn't imply any sort of governance.

Because governance IS rulership and he neither used " arche " (master, chief,

leader) nor the word for " obey " when telling wives to support their

husbands.

Or we are just using " governance " in

>different ways. I'm not sure why you see such a major conflict

>here, but Christ

>certainly does give " commandments " (Christ says so anyway...) and

>the Church

>certainly does " obey " them, but they aren't even remotely similar to the

>commandments that a master gives a slave (which is to benefit the

>master) or a ruler

>gives a subject (which is to benefit either the ruler or the society, or

>whathaveyou).

But the word for " obey " WAS used in the bible to describe how children

should " obey " their parents, yet the parents obviously make decisions for

the benefit of their *children*. So COULD have used the word for " obey "

when he told wives to submit to their husbands, but did not, even though it

was used to describe the parent/child relationship. It didn't ALWAYS mean to

the benefit of the one giving " commands " .

Most importantly, Christ never, ever, ever uses

>force to make us

>follow him, whereas a ruler's or master's commandments are always

>enforced by the

>use of force or the threat thereof.

Do parents use force? Or did they in 's time, I wonder?

>

>> It seems like many folks interpret headship that way, but I wonder if

>> that's

>> based on erroneous interpretations of the words " headship " and

> " submit " or

>> overly simplistic interpretations of those words. OR perhaps

>just injecting

>> our own linguistic meanings into them and deriving a semi-accurate or

>> inaccurate understanding. I don't know, but the translations of " kephale "

>> and " hupotasso " as described in these articles certainly seems

>to call into

>> question the way that some folks are interpreting them. If

> " kephale " NEVER

>> means " leader " as in " ruler " or governance, then how can we

>interpret 's

>> use of kephale to mean the husband has " facilitation power " or the " final

>> say " in marriage?

>

>I'd have to think about it more, but it's certainly within the

>bounds of what

> says, if not directly implied. It's possible-- and I'd have to think

>about it-- that it isn't *necessarily* impled though.

OK, I'm glad to see you're not rigidly clinging to the one interpretation.

If you have any real interest in the subject, I'll post more info when I

read the book.

>If someone goes first into battle, then don't they necessarily have some

>power over the direction of the battle that the followers do not

>have,

No, not necessarily. Depends on the type of warfare. In some cases you have

the leader (General or whatever) giving orders from the ranks further back

or some distant command center (as in the recent Iraq war, etc), and sending

the grunts onto the front lines. In other cases, you DO have the leader

leading the ranks.

and is it

>not implicit in the analogy that the one who " submits " follows the

>direction

>that the " head " establishes?

Not if the first into battle is not, in fact, the " leader " . If you recall,

the author writes that the word used for wives that was translated to

the English " submit " was commonly used to tell soldiers to come help out

their platoon, support them, jump in and do their share of the work.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/chris.html

----------------------------

March 13, 2004

>> * A husband who has complete PARITY of decision-making power with

his wife

> VOTES-- they each vote opposite one another, and reach a

stalemate. They are left with a variety of options, including rock-

paper-scissors, letting the > children have the final say, writting

decisions on paper, folding them, and putting > them in two bowls of

dog food and seeing which one the dog goes to first, or

> asking their neighbor, Homer Simpson, to arbitrate.

>

I think you are implying that there is a better chance for a good

decision if there is a predetermined decision maker, in particular

the husband, and that having parity between partners will lead to

stalemate. If this is what you mean, then I don't agree.

First of all, your example is skewed, if I read it correctly. You're

giving an example suggesting that the wife and husband wil disagree

but you have set it up to suggest that the wife's choice is based on

less important reasons than the husband's choice. So I'd throw in

some more weight on what I think you mean to be the wife's position

of staying - for instance that she is part of the way through a

degree program.

When they reach an initial stalemate they have other choices.

(Divorce is of course one, but let's assume we're not interested in

that.) There is the option to explore alternatives in more depth.

Perhaps they can re-examine the possibilities - maybe the husband

moves and the wife stays put for a year. But assume we only have

these two choices. Then one of the two must be willing to change

position. Maybe one person cares less than the other about the

change, or maybe one person is less confident the change will be

successful/dreadful than the other person. Somehow, people

negotiate, rethink, jostle around and come out with a workable

choice. Or maybe they continue to be in complete disagreement but

one person concedes the position in order to keep the family

togather. However that same person may have the deciding vote in the

next decision. I don't see the necessity to choose one of the pair

as final decision maker ahead of time.

Anyway if one assumes that each person in the marriage has an equal

ability to make a reasonable decision, then deciding by paper

scissors rock might be just as likely to have a successful outcome

as having a predesignated decision maker.

Marty

March 13, 2004

I don't see the necessity to choose one of the pair

as final decision maker ahead of time. - Marty

-------------

I agree, Marty. Historically, and even contemporarily to some extent, the

patriarchal system has reigned. It has been the model since civilization

began, with few exceptions. However, to take a Bible verse or two and try

to make it fit in our times, then we must go way back. We must become very

reactionary. For women could not vote, be educated, have rights, etc. ad

naseum, back in the days of St. . Thus, to even begin to talk about

these arguments in proper context, we must consider the times we are dealing

with. Does anyone really want to go back to they days where women were

property? If not, then the arguments don't hold for modern relationships.

Period.

Deanna

March 13, 2004

In a message dated 3/13/04 4:19:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

darkstar@... writes:

> I think you are implying that there is a better chance for a good

> decision if there is a predetermined decision maker, in particular

> the husband, and that having parity between partners will lead to

> stalemate. If this is what you mean, then I don't agree.

That's not really what I'm saying. I'm just trying to clarify how someone

could be in a decision-making position and still be serving someone else, or how

being in such a position differs from being in a " ruler " position.

>

> First of all, your example is skewed, if I read it correctly. You're

> giving an example suggesting that the wife and husband wil disagree

> but you have set it up to suggest that the wife's choice is based on

> less important reasons than the husband's choice. So I'd throw in

> some more weight on what I think you mean to be the wife's position

> of staying - for instance that she is part of the way through a

> degree program.

That's fine to throw that into the mix. In fact, I think it would have made

my point much better, since my point was that the husband should be taking the

wife's desires into account above his own.

>

> When they reach an initial stalemate they have other choices.

> (Divorce is of course one, but let's assume we're not interested in

> that.) There is the option to explore alternatives in more depth.

I agree. And I think, traditionally, the Christian way to settle things

would be to go to the community, or the priest, etc.

> Perhaps they can re-examine the possibilities - maybe the husband

> moves and the wife stays put for a year. But assume we only have

> these two choices. Then one of the two must be willing to change

> position. Maybe one person cares less than the other about the

> change, or maybe one person is less confident the change will be

> successful/dreadful than the other person. Somehow, people

> negotiate, rethink, jostle around and come out with a workable

> choice. Or maybe they continue to be in complete disagreement but

> one person concedes the position in order to keep the family

> togather.

But from the Christian perspective, keeping the family together is an

imperative, rather than simply an option.

>However that same person may have the deciding vote in the

> next decision. I don't see the necessity to choose one of the pair

> as final decision maker ahead of time.

On a rational basis, I don't necessarily think there is, but I'm assuming

that the husband is the head of the family as a premise.

Chris

March 13, 2004

In a message dated 3/13/04 5:34:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

nativenutrition@... writes:

> For women could not vote, be educated, have rights, etc. ad

> naseum, back in the days of St. .

Two highly honored saints of the church-- their names are escaping me at the

moment-- and the first of the " unmercenary healer " tradition, were doctors

from the Apostolic age.

Chris

March 13, 2004

In a message dated 3/13/04 11:46:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ContinuumFamily@... writes:

>

> Right, because God is the one saying which battles are fought and in what

> direction they go. Both the man and the woman communicate with God as

> individuals through reading the Bible, prayer, meditation, etc. and both are

on the

> " same page " .

>

That's exactly what I'd said before, that as one approaches the spiritual

ideal, the power differential approaches zero.

>

> <I'm sure. Most or many parents use force today, too. Even if <you don't use

>

> <physical force with children, it's only because you can get <them to do

> what

> <you say to *some* extent. For example, you could tell them <to stand in the

>

> <corner, and usually they'll stay there, at least as long as <you're

> watching. The

> <point is that each disobedience has some punishment as a <corollary, and

> the

> <subject (be it a child, slave, or citizen) doesn't have a choice <as to

> whether

> <to accept or reject the punishment.

>

> Really, Chris? *Do* most parents use force today? I think that is really sad

> that you have this view of the parent-child relationship. I don't think it

> is a Godly parent who hits and punishes his/her children. I think it is an

> entrenched belief, just like " female submission " , that is not how God would

have

> us treating each other. I think this is where the " WWJD " comes into play.

> " What would Jesus do? "

Are you suggesting that there is no qualitative difference between a

parent-child relationship and a spousal relationship? I don't think *physical*

force

should be used (though I'd allow it in some hypothetical example I can't

currently conceive of), but I think parents should have the right to punish

their

children, regardless of the child's desire to accept the punishment.

Chris

March 13, 2004

In a message dated 3/14/04 1:28:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> He also said that the woman was in charge

> IN the house and the man OUTSIDE the house. I have no idea how

> common that idea is, but it was certainly different from the view

> I'd heard (woman is fallen because of Eve etc.).

I'd always gotten that impression from Christian families too.

Chris

March 13, 2004

Hello

Here I am - the person who recommended this book and those articles. <waving> I

don't normally like to reply to this subject because of previous bad experience,

but I feel inspired tonight.

Rebekah

March 13, 2004

>Really, Chris? *Do* most parents use force today? I think that is really sad

that you have this view of the parent-child relationship. I don't think it is a

Godly parent who hits and punishes his/her children. I think it is an

entrenched belief, just like " female submission " , that is not how God would have

us treating each other. I think this is where the " WWJD " comes into play.

" What would Jesus do? "

I have to say here that most NON-Godly parents don't use force ...

at least the ones in my circle. I always said I'd spank my kids

if they needed it (and I've been tempted on occasion to use

a shock collar or a spray bottle, as some do for dogs) but really,

the most I've ever done is yell at them when I'm tired. I can't see how

force helps in child-rearing .... if the kid is tired, their brains aren't

connected

and nothing helps, and if they are in good health and alert, simple consequences

work fine.

> For those who practice " male headship " in this way, the husband is not just a

decision maker; he is deemed the " spiritual leader " of the marriage. If you

read the bible, you will see that God does not just speak to men. What about

the virgin ? There are many examples of women communicating with God,

especially through angels. I believe that the culture of the times during the

translation and interpretation of the scripture is what has stained the holy

scripture with human-made ideations of power and domination over others. Also,

as someone mentioned in a different thread a while back, the same Bible that is

now used to say that slavery is wrong and " all men are equal " was once used to

promote and condone slavery. It is now time for the end of entrenched beliefs

and practices about the place and treatment of women and children in our

society.

Just an aside, but I was having a private conversation with a couple

of orthodox Jewish guys. One told me that the reason women

aren't allowed in the " mens " section is that women don't need

the teaching so much ... in their tradition, women are naturally " spiritual "

and don't need " religion " . He also said that the woman was in charge

IN the house and the man OUTSIDE the house. I have no idea how

common that idea is, but it was certainly different from the view

I'd heard (woman is fallen because of Eve etc.).

-- Heidi Jean

March 14, 2004

In a message dated 3/14/04 10:44:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> No,this is not clear at all. A husband and wife can come to a decision

> *together* (as many often do), and decide that they will fight a certain

> battle, and that the husband will be the first to leap in. No " obeying "

> necessary.

But everyone agrees it is ideal to come to a decision together. (Is there

anyone who actually questions this?) I think the question is what happens when

that doesn't happen...

> I think the descriptive explanation makes sense. The alternative is to

> believe that God is unjust, or even evil, and clearly the Christian God is

> just the opposite. It would be as unlikely for Him to tell humans that *His

> plan* is for some other group of humans to rule over another. Ie; is it in

> character for the Christian God to tell Black people that His plan is for

> them to be ruled over by whites? Would that be any more or less likely for

> the Christian God to say than to tell women that His plan is for them to be

> ruled over by another group?

I also subscribe to the descriptive explanation. I also think this is the

traditional Christian interpretation in the sense that the authority of the

husband has been considered a transient earthly thing.

> Perhaps, His plan is for equality of the sexes and our rebelling against

> Him

> is what brought us inequality, as you mentioned above. My only question

> about is why do women pay the price and not men, since both rebelled against

> God?

If it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, the point is moot. If it's

prescriptive, it wouldn't be right to say that only women are punished, since

the

man, the woman, and the serpent are all given " punishments. "

>

> I find these examples all rather silly. The OTHER option is they can

> continue to work it out until they find a resolution.

If they find such a resolution they've agreed. The idea were considering--

that the husband might have some sort of role as a " leader " assumes there are

some instances in which the husband and wife might make different decisions.

If that's never the case, which is the ideal, it all becomes moot.

MY example is based in

> reality, as it is one that couples do all the time in their marriages, and

> which I'm sure many of us on this list do rather routinely in our

> relationships.

The majority of marriages end in divorce, so obviously it doesn't work as

ideally as you are proposing.

>Why come up with a bunch of arbitrary options that for all

> intents and purposes, no one's ever likely to use, rather than to speak

> about the very real option that probably most couples engage in?

My intent was to give an example of how the husband could have

decision-making power and be serving the wife at the same time. That's what you

asked for;

that's what you gave. Now you're " moving the goalposts, " it seems to me, and

debating whether this example shows that the husband *should* have

decision-making power, when that wasn't what it was intended to do.

That said, arbitrary options are necessary to create any sort of hypothetical

situation, and the point was to show an example where the desires and

interests of the husband and wife might diverge. (I think?) made a

modification to this-- hypothetically the wife is finishing a degree program--

that

made the choices not only more realistic, but more demonstrative of my point.

>

> There are times that one partner will concede to the other and other times

> it will be reversed. So I do not agree with you that the *hierarchy* is

> necessary, and I believe this is disproven constantly in many marriages time

> and time again.

If you get married, by probability you are not likely to stay married. I

don't really see a " hierarchy " that's being described here anyway.

>

> >* A husband who is the HEAD but SERVES his wife, makes the final

> >decision to

> >take the job or reject the job, but his decision is not justified until he

> >takes full input from his wife, considers the needs of the entire

> >family as a

> >unit, but puts his wife's desires above his own.

>

> Under your " governance " model, this would be the best case scenario. But

> unfortunately, we see many men who believe in the governance model in which

> the husbands don't put their wives needs above their own, nor even on parity

> with their own.

So what? Your question was how can a husband be a decision-maker and a

servant of his wife at the same time, and that's an example. Furthermore, your

objection that some couples will arbitrarily accept part of the passage and

arbitrarily reject another part of the passage is obviously-- well, arbitrary.

> Does it say somewhere in the Bible that Christ is the " kephale " of the

> universe? Or the " arche " of the universe?

The kephale, not the archos. The order of the universe is upheld through

Christ-- he is the cornerstone that holds the arch of the universe together.

Hence, the image of Christ the Pantocrator that circularly fills the inside of

the dome in the top of Orthodox churches, representing the encompassment of the

entire universe by Christ.

> >That doesn't matter though. The leader still leads the battle,

> >and therefore

> >has some decision-making power as to what battles they enter and how they

> >enter them that the followers don't have.

>

> But that doesn't speak to the translation we were discussing, which is

> *first* into battle, with no leadership necessarily implied.

I suppose if you were to erase the meanings of " first " and " lead " and invent

new ones there might be some way in which this sentence works; otherwise,

someone who goes first into the battle is leading the other(s) into the battle.

> >That's roughly analogous to what I was saying before about power

> >differentials. In the spiritual ideal, the husbands decisions

> >don't come from his own

> >will, but from his following the will of God, and when the husband

> >and wife are

> >both submitting wholly to God, there are no distinct opposing

> >wills and ther

> >efore no power differential-- much like a " kephale " of a platoon

> >who is taking

> >orders from a general to enter a given battle as you say above.

>

> You are assuming that all decisions will be black and white - either against

> God's will, or in alignment with it.

No, I'm not, I'm assuming that to the extent they've submitted themselves to

God they don't have disagreements. It's not really a practical issue, and

it's necessarily an impractical assumption.

But probably most decisions aren't

> against or in alignment with God's will. For example, the couple might

> disagree on which curriculum to use in homeschooling their children. For the

> sake of argument neither curriculum is in any way in opposition to God's

> will.

That's the likely scenario.

So it's not a matter of " aligning " with God's will and a power flow

> and all that nice stuff. It's a matter of making a practical decision as to

> which curriculum to implement. In your " governance " model, the husband will

> make the final decision even though there is no correct " in alignment with

> God " decision. The husband's position in this instance is one of shear power

> in the relationship since God is not making the decision with he and his

> wife merely following it. I suppose you could say he should put his kids'

> and wife's need above his and make a decision based on that, but in the end,

> HE makes the decision. I don't see how that's any different than rulership,

> technically or otherwise.

That's possible, or the child-rearing might be delegated to the woman, or the

man and the woman might both be in charge of different aspects of raising the

children. Who's doing the teaching? If the woman's doing the teaching,

obviously she should have some sort of disproportionate control over what's

being

taught, since the teaching is essentially just an interaction between the

woman and the children, and it wouldn't make much sense for the man to have

control the specific interactions between the woman and her children, or anyone

else. That would seem more of a " ruler " than a " leader. " In the " leader " or

" first into battle " model that I'm trying to convey, you might say the husband

is

in charge of the " foreign policy " or something maybe.

> Lastly,

>

> " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is

> neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. "

>

> Where in here is there any conformance to the notion that one group shall

> " govern " another?

You might want to read the rest of 's letters before you jump to

conclusions about the interpretation of certain passages. makes

distinctions

between the roles of men and women and slaves and masters, etc.

Chris

March 14, 2004

> Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

>

>Hello

>

>Here I am - the person who recommended this book and those

>articles. <waving> I don't normally like to reply to this subject

>because of previous bad experience, but I feel inspired tonight.

THANK YOU for a very thoughtful post, Rebekah :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics