next »

[Gabriel Anast]

How does headship work, biblically and practically speaking, for the elderly woman whose husband is incapacitated?
 
ref: When you KNOW hubby is wrong, mistaken, unconcerned . . . What's a wife to do?

Could this be broadened to include the headship of ANY wife whose husband has diminished abilities/capacities? I'm thinking about our injured and wounded (many head wounds/traumas) returning from overseas and how their wives should honor them.

As far as I can tell, the people of Israel (from the actual man, "Israel" (also called Jacob) on down to at least the first century) saw headship two ways:

1) Your "head" was your father, your father's father, etc. In this way Adam, and again Noah were the head of all humans. Israel was the head of all the peoples of Israel. Joseph was the head of the people in the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, etc.

Jesus uses this very idea to demonstrate that Messiah was to come out of David, but would not be fathered by a son of David, and therefore David could not be considered "Messiah's lord" ie: head. Jesus presses the point by quoting David as calling the Messiah his lord... ie: head.

2) Every man's head was God. This was why asking for a king was an act of wickedness in God's eyes. It is also why later God says that He gave Judah and Israel to David in the context of David taking another man's wife! This is why a man of Israel could not be a servant for life.

Paul establishes this is a very clear teaching sortof out of the blue in 1 Cor 11, and less so in Ephesians 5, but if one had a better understanding of the nature of the old testament... then Paul's teaching would not (I think) seem so out of the blue... rather it would be a plain re-capitulation of all any son of Israel already knew.

Sooo... how does this apply to an old man?

First, headship among a family seemed to be in large part predicated on the idea that the sons of one man were in some sense that very man. A man of Benjamin would say he was of Benjamin, but in the case of the 600 that escaped the war between Benjamin and the rest of Israel (see Judges 21) those 600 are as often as not called "Benjamin." Not that they were in literal point of fact the person "Benjamin" but that they represented him very specifically in the sense that if these men did not have sons, Benjamin himself would be cut off from the people (and promises) of Israel... in the same sense that Adam would have been "cut off" had it not been for Noah... and that Cain, and Lot, and many others were "cut off" from all inheritance among the peoples of the Earth.

In the case of David, he gave all his authority over to his son Solomon before he died.
It is apparent that Jacob himself followed the will of his sons in going down to Egypt:  "Gen 45:9  Haste ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt: come down unto me, tarry not: And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy herds, and all that thou hast: And there will I nourish thee; for yet there are five years of famine; lest thou, and thy household, and all that thou hast, come to poverty.[...]And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die."
In the case of the giving of Rebekah to Abraham for Isaac, both her father and her brother gave consent: "Gen 24:50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the LORD: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good. Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the LORD hath spoken."

So, I cannot find an example of a man that had become more or less senile at the end of his life, and how he was handled... but the laow of Moses speaks very clearly about recalling the law and bringing it to mind. I would assume that to the degree that a man could not do this, his sons would take over his duties. They would decide to whom a sister should be given for marriage, they would care for a mother... and in the cases where he could not care for himself, a father. In this they would make his decisions, etc. I do not think that they would go against his will (righteously in any case) in those moments that he was lucid and thoughtful.

For a woman in this case, her head would be her eldest son, or a son that would like to take care of her and his father. If there are no sons, then one of the husbands brothers or one of his brother's sons would have according to these things been head for this woman.

The point is not that the woman cannot take care of her husband... the point is the protection that headship avails.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

Could this thread be broadened to include divorced women who claim no pastor or leadership? 

In the law of Moses, and in Jesus teaching, it is plain that a divorced woman, or a woman whose husband died could choose who she would go to... but there was no place for her (as far as I can tell) outside of the headship of a man. She might choose to go to her father's house, or to a brother if they would take her... in those cases, they might keep her as long as she desired, or they might betroth her to another man... in the vast majority of cases according to her desire, but in some cases possibly (lawfully) against her will.

Paul says that such a woman must remarry if she is under 60, but I think this presumes that she has no other family in the body of believers... in other words, it seems like a special teaching that included the possibility that the woman was a gentile... not in any way nullifying the more general teachings in the law of Moses. In other words, if her father wanted to take her and her children into his house, and if he was in the body of believers, and if this is also what she wanted... I believe this does not violate Paul's command in 1Ti 5:14. Paul was simply saying that she should not be supported by the body of believers... but that she instead should be supported by a man within the body. The most common case here being marriage... even if this is a "marriage of convenience" so called.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

young adult women still at home... or not?

Headship of virgins

If I understand correctly, every daughter of Israel was the rightful possession not to go out from her father for life, unless he released her to another man of Israel who then had the same right of "possession." place as her head. The exception is if either man did not give her food or clothing (including housing), and in the case of a husband, duty of marriage... in this case she was free to leave and go to another man. She had other rights as well, but they are not specifically germane (I think) here.

Huge side note: this might seem like a really weird thing to say, women "owned" by men, etc... this has to be the artifact of a wrong, stone aged, thoughtlessly designed system... right? However, in modern nation states the practical application of human ownership vs. individual sovereignty almost always boils down to some statement by the government along the lines of: we own you, but we are good for these reasons... etc... (can anyone point to a modern government that does not see its citizens as direct property of the state, or of the commercial apparatus?) So, in the Mosaic law the rule was (as I understand it) that no man was to be permanently indentured by any other man (or government) since each man was to be directly under the headship of God and that every woman was indeed to be under the headship of one man for life. The man could change as in father -> husband, or possibly husband (dead / divorced) -> new husband, but always under a head who was a man.    The sense here of headship was much different than ownership or slave-holding as is common to modern American thought. Slave-holding in the American mind is (naturally enough) predicated on the same ideas that Nation State's have for millennia used to define their relationship(s) with their respective citizens... ie: slaves. In the US after 1865, the constitution guaranteed that certain people under certain conditions could not be slaves. Of course you could still be a slave (of the state) if you were convicted of a crime (not wearing your seat-belt, not getting immunizations, etc...). There was no way for this to happen ever under Mosaic law.    Under Mosaic law you could be stoned to death, or have your eye put out... or possibly just be forced to leave the country... but even these sentences were to be carried out by those offended, and not by the governmental system. The point is that the nature of the headship of a woman by a man in the Mosaic law was not anything like ownership of a slave in the typical sense, or in any way a commercial ownership. It was, in fact, identical to the headship of a man by God... and in that sense not at all foreign to the man in application or sensation. The woman's rights were assured, and the social structure was based not on human typifications or philosophical ideals, but on the nature of created order, and the needs of the created.    When thinking about these terms of order it is really wild... almost surreal... that God became man in the form of Christ as the Messiah of Israel. God... the head... became man... the one under headship... and when he did so, he obeyed perfectly the will of the Father. Its... its hard for me to think about, really, however the point is that every command to or for a woman is, I believe, in some way applicable to a man in his duty to God.

Because the woman was always to be under the headship of a man, when discussing the benefits of a woman remaining un-married (as Paul and Jesus do for men: 1Cr 7:7&8,26, Mat 19:12) Paul says that it is better for a virgin daughter to remain with her father if it is possible (for her and for him) to do so: 1Co 7:40  "But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." In other words this is the way she may remain a virgin... to stay in her father's house. Just as with men, some have the will, and the "gift" and others don't: (v36) "if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, [I believe, she desires to marry... it would seem "uncomely" to prevent her from marrying] if she pass the flower of [her] age, [she's old enough] and need so require, [I believe financial, emotional, whatever] let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. [it is no sin for him to marry off his daughter] (v37) [Father's part:] Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, [This is as strong a commitment as marriage... he must choose to keep her for life] having no necessity, [he can afford to keep her, etc] but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. (skip to v40) But she is happier if she so abide, [It is evident to me here that it is her will in conjunction with her father's will to keep her that affords her this place. I mean, although it is possible I think that a father would will to keep his virgin daughter against her will... or against her desire... it just doesn't seem like it would really ever happen. Its like the father says, "I am willing to keep you if you wish." and she says, "I am willing to abide." and that is the only place that makes this "virgin-hood" possible... although external circumstances sometimes dictate what is possible.]

Note: to better understand the entire passage, I think v39 would have been correctly translated thus: "The wife [woman] is bound by the law as long as her husband[lord / head / man (ie: the man to whom she belongs)] liveth; but if her husband [lord / head / man] be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." This in the context of Matt 19:12, etc.

Should her father die, she should go to the house of a brother if this is her desire and if he will allow it, otherwise she should marry whomever she will... this only in Christ.

If a woman who is "on her own" should become a believer, I think that she should marry in the body of believers, or, if she has family within the body of believers that she should (if she desires it) put herself under the headship of a brother or her father until she might marry. It may be possible to find a Godly older couple who believe that might sort of "adopt" you as a daughter for a time. I say this though with a strong warning. I have yet to see a properly functioning body of believers aside from a very few strange phenomena here and there... some of which were accidental and quickly went the way of the corporate church... others which I pray still stand.

What I mean is, if you are a single girl, and have become a believer, or have just understood this teaching of Paul's... it can be a tricky situation. Finding a man of God that can be your head is, as far as I understand, not a task that a woman should have to do on her own. Finding an actual body of believers may also seem impossible. I will say this, though... God is faithful (according to His word, and in my experience) and if you pray, "God, help me, I need to get this headship thing straightened out..." I believe that in the same sense as He is "Father to the father-less" that this applies to women who find themselves without a believing man for a head. Not that this is not a situation full of jeopardy... I personally believe that it is... but that God will be your father / man until He leads you to a godly man. He will show you the way... although, (also from my experience) it might not be anything like what you are expecting... lol... but it will be according to His word.

Another side note/question: Dad won't let me go... but he does want me to marry... theoretically speaking  1) Is it your dad holding on, or your mom? You are your dad's, not your mom's as concerns headship. Go to him alone, talk to him alone, bring your fiancee and have a quick chat... all your fiancee needs from your dad is a quick "yes" and that's it as far as I understand the Bible and headship. 2) Does your dad take care of you? Feed you, clothe you, house you? If not... if you work outside the home and pay for those things yourself, then... according to the Bible, he already let you go. Marry whom you will, but only in Christ. 3) Is he abusive... physically, sexually, verbally... despite your "chaste conversation coupled with fear" (submissive manner of life coupled with the fear of God with regard to being under headship as He ordained)? If so, this is not (as I understand it) headship... it is torment. Be careful though, as simply leaving cannot (I think) make your situation better... just different. In this case I think you must commit yourself to God and pray like there is no tomorrow the prayer of a widow or an orphan. Plead that he be your Father, and deliver you to godly headship. 4) If you dad is the one keeping you, and he provides all things for you (though you may work for him) and he loves you... I'd say stick with him and pray for him. While the situation might not seem ideal... God is faithful. You will see.

[AndysDad]

This is, as I see it, a major weakness of the "No Divorce" doctrine.  A woman, divorced from her husband and now under the headship of another man, is told that she has to leave this husband because he's not her authorized head. Chances are very slim that her first husband will take her back, so now she and all her kids are on their own, hoping the children's father(s) will at least provide for them.  Or failing that, that the church will take them on as a welfare case.

The track record in cases where the church split up a family like this is dismal.

Andy'sDad

[Gabriel Anast]

This is, as I see it, a major weakness of the "No Divorce" doctrine.  A woman, divorced from her husband and now under the headship of another man, is told that she has to leave this husband because he's not her authorized head. Chances are very slim that her first husband will take her back, so now she and all her kids are on their own, hoping the children's father(s) will at least provide for them.  Or failing that, that the church will take them on as a welfare case.

The track record in cases where the church split up a family like this is dismal.

Andy'sDad

I have no idea what you are responding to, but I completely agree 

--gabe

[AndysDad]

I was responding to the decidedly un-feminist idea that every woman has a head. No woman can be without a head (according to the view you've propounded) any more than any minor can be without a guardian (according to family law).

Telling a woman that she has to view as her head a husband who has divorced her is kind of like telling a young child that he has to view as his guardian a father who has abandoned him.

It may sound ideal, but doesn't ever seem to work.

Andy'sDad

[Gabriel Anast]

Telling a woman that she has to view as her head a husband who has divorced her is kind of like telling a young child that he has to view as his guardian a father who has abandoned him.

It may sound ideal, but doesn't ever seem to work.

Both of these ideas are commonly propounded as truth in some "Christian" circles... and I agree that both are evil. Another similar situation is strict, headship-type obedience by men to others in authority (pastors, fathers of grown sons, political authorities, etc). Although the word says to honor these, to be subject to these in doing good, and to live peaceably with them as much as one is able... it never commands strict obedience... and even (I believe) calls this "whoring."

--gabe

[Larry]

Telling a woman that she has to view as her head a husband who has divorced her is kind of like telling a young child that he has to view as his guardian a father who has abandoned him.

It may sound ideal, but doesn't ever seem to work.

Both of these ideas are commonly propounded as truth in some "Christian" circles... and I agree that both are evil. Another similar situation is strict, headship-type obedience by men to others in authority (pastors, fathers of grown sons, political authorities, etc). Although the word says to honor these, to be subject to these in doing good, and to live peaceably with them as much as one is able... it never commands strict obedience... and even (I believe) calls this "whoring."

--gabe

Gabe, I agree. I have to admit that my understanding of headship was lacking in depth until the last year or so and I do not typically go along with new things quite so fast but thanks to MP & bible study I got up to speed in month or so, and your beating the drum in posts like this has only reinforced the truth. I can't help but contrast this experience with another discussion taking place on 7x. Truth should resonate like a bell, pass muster and fit naturally with the rest of the bible and then be fast tracked into practice.

[Gabriel Anast]

I just saw the post(s) by SC Lady regarding her husband's thoughts on the headship issue in the     
Re: When you KNOW hubby is wrong, mistaken, unconcerned . . . thread, and wanted to comment. Even though he may seem to disagree with what I have posted above, I think I agree with him (depending on the scope of his comments).

The very important point that he brings up is the moment in time where the head is incapacitated. This is a very important because it is that plight that is described in the Bible as the "widow"... and it is specifically described as a bad place, and a place of danger. So, what happens when suddenly you find yourself there? I believe that Duke's comments are very pertinent to this situation... I would just add that if there is the possibility to move back under godly headship, by all means take it!

I cannot tell you all how important this topic is to me, since I think there is a time in our nation's near future where this "moment of widowhood" in a very absolute sense will happen to the entire nation at once... In any case, I am studying Duke's comments in light of what I can find in the Bible... and I hope will have more to say on the topic.

--gabe

I just realized (I know, I'm slow  ) that not everyone has the same point of view concerning headship. . . . 

This is just to clarify where I'm coming from, and what Duke has taught me, not to teach or change anyone else's beliefs.

Duke tells me that God's authority is dispensed along the lines He defines in Scripture as a means of organizing, protecting and coordinating the Body of Christ. Duke explains to me that this is similar to military rank in it's practical application.

This means that a woman (like a military soldier) while not in a position of headship should be preparing to function in the event that her head becomes incapacitated or is unable to be immediately on hand. In his absence (or incapacitation) she continues the work begun by her head.

One example given to me was that of a battlefield operation where the commander is wounded. Those in his command would be expected to step in and accomplish the objective (or move towards that end) until he could resume his position or (upon his death) be replaced by an appointment from headquarters.

The other example Duke used was when the wagons are circled and mama is loading the weapons, handing them off to papa and papa is wounded. Mama is expected to yank papa to safety and take up the position to hold off the enemy. Later, she can nurse papa back to health or bury him (whichever is needed), but for now, she is responsible to take care of business while praying for reinforcements!

So, in our family, we see headship as a provision made by God for His people, a tool. But, I guess we part ways with those who see it as a way to be relieved of the responsibility of decision-making or accountability.

And that's where my posts were coming from.
It was very naive of me to not realize that others have a different basis from which they view the same issues. 

[AndysDad]

I read about one such case in Turkey during the Armenian Genocide. A pastor who was outspoken against the Genocide was taken away a day or two before he was to have preached. That Sunday, the congregation gathered, wondering who would dare to take over the pulpit from their courageous pastor. When the appointed time came, his wife stepped into the pulpit and delivered the sermon he had prepared.  Although her husband was never seen again, what she said was noised abroad far more than if her husband had given the sermon.

AndysDad

[Gabriel Anast]

Duke wanted me to ask (in light of the ongoing discussion) where is the Scriptural basis for a yet married woman being classified as a widow?
How is a woman WITH a husband (although incapacitated) the same as a woman bereaved of her husband (dead) according to Scripture?
If an incapacitated husband is considered 'as good as' dead, then at what point and who determines this state (according to Scripture)?

OK, so I am not saying that a woman that has a husband in a coma is a widow in the permanent sense... but she may be. If her husband does not come out of the coma before she has to deal with terminating life support, who does she go to? Well, her son if he is old enough, or to one of her husband's brothers or her father if he be a believer, or to the elders in the body of believers.

What I did say is that as much as a man is able to think clearly and be rational, I believe he is indeed still capable as a head... to the degree that he is not lucid or rational, he is not a head. How can a head who has lost his head be a head? I know that sounds ridiculous, but I think it is correct. This is similar to drunkenness in my opinion... though if it be persistent and uncontrollable, then what can be done?

In the case of Nebuchadnezzar, they put him out to pasture (Dan 4:31ff). Presumably governors ruled in his place for seven years until his mind returned to him, at which time he was re-instated.

If a man says one thing ("I want a hamburger for dinner, please"), and then a moment later, forgetting that he has said it, says something completely contradictory ("I'm not hungry, why are you making me eat this hamburger?")... this isn't fully lucid. It is in this place that I believe a son would say, "Well dad, eat it or not, this is what's for dinner." Again, a man might say, "The birds are eating my corn, get them off, get them off!" ...but he hasn't grown corn in 17 years, and there are no birds or corn. She cannot be expected to obey such a command... the command is irrational. In such a case, if she needed guidance as to what to do, a son would be the appropriate person to go to. On the other hand, and old man might say, "Look, I'm old, and I just don't give a hoot about what the neighbors think... I'm going to paint the house orange... I've always wanted an orange house!" While this doesn't comply neatly with social norms, I don't think it is irrational or lacks lucidity. Buy him some orange paint and let him get it done!

David seems to equate being dead with being "silent":

Psa 88:10 Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise [and] praise thee? Selah.
Psa 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

I am not saying that a mute man cannot praise God, but I am saying that a man in a coma is silent (at least to us) in the same way that a dead man is. In the case of a woman whose husband is in a coma, I would suggest to her that she be under the headship of a son, or a believing brother of her husband. Since most coma cases involve life support... these are cases that under natural circumstances would have much earlier ended in death.

Would this line of reason not have ramifications which would reach into the debate over whether or not life is . . . well life?
Or is that another discussion? 

Duke says that a wife isn't a widow until her husband is dead.
He is very interested in your further study.

So... I am not sure what says about death / life... but the Bible makes many statements about the quality of a mind:

Mar 5:15 - A devil possessed mind vs. a "right mind" (one could be in the body of believers, the other could not.)
Rom 1:28, Tts 1:15 - A reprobate mind (a mind for which one would be put out of the church... the wife would stay. She would effectively be a "widow")
Rom 8:7, Col 2:18 - the "carnal" mind is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be... probably the type of man that if "he be pleased to dwell with her" could be a head (though an unbeliever) of a believing woman... regardless, Christ is his head with regard to her whether he believe or not.

Drunken mind:
Gen 9:21, Lam 4:21, Hab 2:15 - one can't tell whether they are decent or not... or, maybe, is liable to make oneself naked.
Deu 21:20, 29:19ff - in some cases deserving of death.
1Sa 1:13, Act 2:15 - an incoherent person is presumed to be drunken.
1Ki 16:9, Isa 28:3, Jer 25:27 - makes one easy to kill...
Job 12:25, Psa 107:27, Isa 19:14, Isa 24:20 - they stagger and reel to and fro... sometimes in their own vomit
Ecc 10:17 - drunkenness and gluttony are not fitting for a man that bears rule...
Jer 48:26 - scorned by others... held in derision
Luk 12:45 - violent without cause
Luk 21:34 - makes one thoughtless

I don't think it is any great mystery as to when a person is in their right mind, and when they are not... there are times when it might take some analysis... but, when it is clear that a man is "overthrown in his mind" for whatever reason, it seems reasonable that he be cared for by a son or a brother or a nephew, etc.

The Soviet era Russians were famous for taking dissidents and destroying their minds with "medications" that made them less antagonistic to the father-land. They had definite before and after definitions and expectations. If the before hadn't become the after, more meds were administered.

Anyway, not all of what I have said is, "Biblical"... but I think that the ideas of a "sound mind" are well portrayed and defined in the Bible, and that they do in many cases have implications on headship.

--gabe

[Timothy]

If a woman has lived a man all her life she knows which direction he would have gone. And she should be able to follow that direction without going against his wishes. If they have lived together all their lives they know each other.
    if a woman goes against an issue her husband believed in or stood for when he is incapacitated she would be violating that headship. But if she went the direction she knew he would go she wouldn't be violating that headship.
    As far as the issue of drunkeness goes a man may say things that he wouldn't normally say or do and she would know that. And being under headship doesnalt mean a woman should go against scripture or God.
   It is possible in the case of Abigail and Nabal that Nabal was already drunk when he told Davids servants that he would not give them anything. I believe Abigail may have known that he would have done otherwise if he was in his right frame of mind. I believe she was trying to be under his headship by telling him later what she had done.

[Timothy]

 it is just my opinion about Nabal and Abigail.
    She did say her husband was a fool and the bible says when you are drunk you are a fool.

[AndysDad]

Reflecting back on BJ's question at http://www.7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,19721.msg198373.html#msg198373:

Trying to reconstruct a biblical form of government shouldn't be so hard. When what is now America was first colonized, it was the stated intention of many of the colonists to erect a government based on biblical principles. This is why adultery, for example, was a capital offense in Plymouth; why business transactions were forbidden on Sunday; etc. Among the laws erected in this manner were those that dealt with mental incapacity.

In traditional American jurisprudence, an heir can ask the court to declare an individual mentally incapacitated. This was previously done in open court; now, of course, the medical establishment has taken over the process, making it a decision virtually impossible to overturn.

A better alternative is power of attorney, which can more easily be revoked if mental capacity is regained. And it can be done without expensive court proceedings.

In either case, the mentally incapacitated head of household is relieved of this position for the period of incapacitation, and an alternative head is appointed.

I believe this process to be biblically based on Nebuchadnezzar's experience, and an important option for any Christian to consider.

AndysDad

[Gabriel Anast]

The Bible says that the head of the woman is the man. It's not more complicated than that.

Allow me, if you will, to put it in terms of a man and God, as I think this will allow a little more social latitude to the discussion.

Christ is the head of the man.

When? When is Christ the head of man and when is He not?

Look at the chapter that directly precedes 1 Corinthians 11:

1Cr 10:6    Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
   Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
   Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
   Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
   Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
[...]
   Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

So... if all these things that are examples to us of how-not-to-live are a) idolatry, and b) cut off the people that did them from their God... and these also directly precede Paul's specific teaching on headship... I think it is safe to say that these are examples of people who's head was not Christ.

...but, just in case there is any confusion:
1Cr 10:4      And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

So, in other words, there is no time when the righteous man is not under the headship of Christ.

Likewise, "the head of the woman [is] the man," again, this is not complicated. It does not say that the old woman that has lived with a man for a long time does not any longer need a head since she now knows everything that he would do. Nor does it mean that if he be mentally incapacitated that his warm body is enough to lead her. She must have a head, and that head must be a man who can lead her, guide her, and accomplish for her the things that are appropriate for a "head."

Now, I do agree that there is the "moment of widowhood..." that very moment when the husband dies. Well, if he was expecting lunch, and keels over dead, then it is obviously no longer necessary for the woman to keep doing what her man last commanded her. Instead, she should see about burying the dead body. In any case, this was a matter of law for Israel.

On the other hand, if we are considering a more general command, like, "make sure the children take violin lessons every Friday." ... and the next day is Friday, then it is reasonable that if there is nothing else to do (and there well may not be anything else to do) then it might be a nice thing to do to go to violin lessons to take one's mind off the recent bereavement... but if the husband's brother [her brother / father / etc,] has taken the family in, then it would be more appropriate to try to fit in as well as possible to her husband's brother's [his] schedule and needs. He is now her head. Or would likely have been among Israel.

OK... so, let's say there is a husband / wife team on the battlefield. This would not be lawful under the Mosaic law... but it is the type of thing that could happen... Randy Weaver and family at Ruby Ridge comes to mind. Although his wife was killed in the fire fight, it could just as easily have been him. Had he died that day, instead of her... her son already dead, and had their friend Harris not been in the home, then I think it would be reasonable to expect her to continue to defend her remaining daughter in whatever way she deemed right... presumably in some manner that reflected her husband's way of life. But, she is now free of him, and does not have to follow any of his commands. He is dead. She is free.

All this to say, if you don't have a head, you don't have a head. If you walk away from Christ, then you are bound to be swayed by every wind of doctrine... whatever seems right to you, but you have no guidance from your rightful head. If a woman walks away from her husband, and if the Bible is right when it says that the head of every woman is man, then she has walked away from her head and in the Biblical sense has no clear guidance. In the case where her man dies, the law of Moses is very clear about whom is to take her (near kinsman, etc)... only within Israel. In the New Testament, this is clarified further to be largely limited to the body of believers.

As regards drunkenness, I was demonstrating that the Bible does indeed characterize qualities of mind... although it is an interesting observation that when Nabal was plastered, and at the same time David arrived to kill all in the house... that Abigail served David in honor of her drunken husband... but not in the manner that Nabal would have done... and she was blessed because of it.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

Andy'sDad's example above (of the wife reading her lost / dead husband's sermon) is about as good and example as I can think of, however, even in that case I am willing to bet that it was another man in the church that guided her to speak the sermon.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

"it is that plight that is described in the Bible as the "widow"... and it is specifically described as a bad place, and a place of danger." (quote from gabe in Bible Discussion)

I hope it is not too much to ask...Would you list the scriptures? How is being a widow "a place of danger" more so than any other destitute person? Thanks.

*Edited to add context to the request. Thanks

OK... the widow:

Exd 22:22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Deu 27:19)

The first implication here is that the widow and the fatherless children would be easy to afflict. Why? Because they would have no one to call upon for help... and there would be no "avenger of blood" or "kinsman redeemer" for them. In Mosaic Law, the sentencing for a crime was made by the law according to the accusation of two or three witnesses before the elders of a people, or the priests, Levites, and any judge (Ex 18, Deut 17:8-13, ). The cases were judged according to the law of God given by Moses, and the sentence was to be carried out by the parties involved or, in the case of murder, by a party appointed on behalf of the offended. In the case of debt, there was always a kinsman redeemer who could by law buy his relative out of debt... except in the case of the true widow or orphan. These might not have a kinsman redeemer, or avenger of blood... or, in any case, might even be taken advantage of by the kinsman redeemer himself. Because the law worked this way, the woman or orphaned child did not have any real protector in these cases... they depended on the good will of the men upon whom they were cast (the brother of the husband, etc).    The widow and the orphan are considered to be in the same plight as the "stranger" among Israel in this regard. He too would have no kinsman redeemer, and no avenger of blood, etc...    Anyway... the curse against such a man was that God would kill him and make his wife a widow and his children orphans.

Deu 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay [it] up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which [are] within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest (also Deut 16)

They are assumed unable to provide for themselves and commanded provision among the men of Israel. Also the "gleanings" were appointed to them: Deut 24

The following need no explanation I think:

Isa 1:17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Psa 94:6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
Isa 10:2    To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and [that] they may rob the fatherless!
Isa 54:4    Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more
Jer 22:3    Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.
Lam 1:1    How doth the city sit solitary, [that was] full of people! [how] is she become as a widow! she [that was] great among the nations, [and] princess among the provinces, [how] is she become tributary!
Mar 12:42    And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

The place of the widow is difficult.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

If a wife became widowed or had a husband who was no longer in his mind and she went to a male from her husbands family, because she had no males on her side of the family, and she became under that in-laws head ship, wouldn't that cause trouble?

I mean wouldn't it cause trouble with that mans marriage? Especially if they were all still fairly young yet?  Taking in another female long term into the home would be kind of dangerous wouldn't it?


I not talking about an old lady widow.  I would think an old lady would be much less likely to get jiggy with another womans husband. I'm talking about younger widows.

I know they do such things in some other countries and in the Bible days but this is no longer the Bible days. Bringing another female that is close to the same age as the married couple, into the home on a long term bases can be a big temptation to the marriage. And visa versa.  Just as bringing in another close to age male could do the same for a marriage. I know it can be done and it is done with no troubles. But anyone can fall. And now a days our society does not live with the same moral ethics, we are not stoned to death for adultery these days. There is no punishment for adultery so it is easy to do and something that is done all to often.

I know of a young widow right now who has turned to her husbands father for headship. Her father in law is taking advantage of that and putting the moves on her. She is now staying away from him because of it.

Yes, I agree with you... I was wrong in generalizing that a widow would go to her dead husband's brother's house... she would indeed typically go to a father, a son, or a nephew... the time that she would go to a husband's brother would be when she had no sons by her deceased husband, and (in Israel) the husband's brother was to raise up a son to his dead brother... (I do not see this "duty of a husband's brother" as relevant anymore since I think we have reached the end of this era, and the reason for the duty is now for all intents and purposes over.)

Lev 22:13 But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.
1Ti 5:4    But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.

So how do we know what in the Bible is a command and what is just something that was done because of culture?
Because if we are to do everything according to how the ppl in the Bible did then we should all be getting off the computer because they did not have computers back then. Mise well throw out the car and electric as well.

Right... the two do come into play. One must differentiate.

Why is it OK to just pick and choose which cultural things we should be doing and which ones we should not be doing?

It still seems like a cultural norm back then that a single woman could not take care of herself if she were able to.

No, it is clear that there were women who could have taken care of themselves... that does not seem to be the point.

It almost seems to border the line with legalism by basicaly saying  "if you were born female then you will have to have a massive long list of rules to obey and can never have a mind of your own and must always be subserviant. But if you were born male well then have a party because you can do whatever you want and claim it to be your duty as a man." That is how it seems to get portrayed sometimes.

I agree that this is most often how it is portrayed... however, I would like to say that as far as I can tell, the relationship between men and women is the same as the relationship between God and men... and that the burden men bear is much greater (if they are righteous). Basically, take any rule given to women, and you can apply it directly to men as God is concerned.

Not sure this helps... but I find this truth useful for teaching men. Many times they won't believe me if I tell them that they are responsible to do [X]... but they do believe that they are to Christ as their wife is to them... and they also believe that their wife is responsible for [X]... it follows then that they are responsible to do it before God. Its hard for them to deny it since they have so long taught such to their wife.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

In light of BJ's post above, I guess a good question to ask is whether this scripture:

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. 1 Cor. 11:3


is applicable to all women, married or not. It says the head of EVERY man is Christ, the head of "the" woman is "the" man.  Do the "the"s denote woman-kind and man-kind? Does this question even make sense to anyone but me?? 

No, it is (in my opinion) clear from the law that a woman was only ever to be under the headship of one man. Primarily a father... most commonly a husband for most of her life, but at other times, others.

Some guy cannot just come out of the blue and tell a woman what to do... however, this does commonly happen by accident when the woman is out of proper headship. Look around the internet at psychological studies regarding "Response to Authority" that differentiate between male and female participants... females are almost 100% more likely in some studies to obey a person they see as an authority (Doctor, Policeman or Judge, etc...). Then think of all the stories of women who worked for men that were not their husbands / fathers / brothers, etc... you know the stories.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

Duke finds these examples relevant . . .
I Samuel 24
I Samuel 25:38-39
Luke 8:39

I Samuel 24 - Is the story of how David cut part of Saul's skirt off while he slept... not sure there are any headship issues here?
1Sa 25:38 - And it came to pass about ten days [after], that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed [be] the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife.

Luke 8:39 - Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

Can you tell us more of his thoughts on these?

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

Makes sense to me!      That is exactly what I have wondered so I'm glad you asked.  It clearly says EVERY man's head is Christ.  But the headship of an unmarried woman seems to be in a grey area. 
Looking forward to reading the studies on this. 

Can you explain how an unmarried woman would not have a man as a head? Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 7? Did you read my explanation above regarding that passage?

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

She must have a head, and that head must be a man who can lead her, guide her, and accomplish for her the things that are appropriate for a "head."

Gabe, I thought that it was a prevailing teaching here, that if a woman was married to a man who did not act as a head (he did not lead, guide, protect, etc.) he was still her head... because he held that position by virtue of being her husband, whether he was preforming the duties of a head or not.  So, I am not seeing how a woman who is still married to a man (even an incapacitated one) is in need of a head. She may be in need of help and guidance but the position of head belongs to her husband, doesn't it?

But if the position of head hinges on performance of the duties of  head, then the implications are staggering.

Wouldn't a woman in the situation I just described above, be justified in leaving her unwilling head to find a husband who will be a head for her?

I think I understand what you mean here... but it is not all completely clear... there seem to be a lot of generalizations in the above text. So... let's skip to the example you give:

Actually, I know that you once said that a woman can not have two husbands because she can not have two heads... but if the position of head is contingent on performance, then couldn't she stay with the first husband and just marry again, as long as only one of them was performing the duties of a head?

Which is feeding her? Which is clothing her? Which is housing her? Which is having sex with her? That man is her husband. If her first husband does not do any one of these things, she is free to marry another just as you have said. Remember the movie "Castaway?" The closing scenes described just such a case... well executed I might add.

It is my opinion that if you had been in a coma, were knocked unconscious, had had a stroke, or were just asleep for that matter,

Don't you see the difference between the first three situations and the fourth? I mean... as I see it... lumping them together seems a little odd. Maybe drunk instead of asleep? Something that I could not willfully recover from in any case... probably abducted by pirates for ransom... 

the day that evil spirit came to menace Rebekah, she could have still claimed the protection of being under your headship, in the same way that she did, and it would have had the same power... because you were still alive and you were still her husband/head, even while incapacitated.

Well... in that case, even if she were a widow, she could claim God... but that is not the point. Jesus Himself teaches that, Mat 22:30 "...in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." ...and Paul also, Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The point is that here on Earth, there is a very real distinction between men and women (just as there is between Israel and Gentiles). The reason evidently for this order of creation is to demonstrate the relationship between humankind and God:

Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

In this life the woman needs--as a matter of created order--a man for a "head" (according to my understanding of the Bible) in the exact same way that a man needs Christ as a head, and is in great jeopardy without that head. Nevertheless, God is still the head of Christ and all things, Christ is the head of men and women as well, and woman has for a head a man. This does not mean that Christ is not also her head... but that according to the order that God created, she also has a head in a man.

If I am in a coma, how can I feed her, clothe her, house her, provide her duty of marriage, lead her, guide her, etc... I am truly no head to her as long as I am in that coma.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

Duke finds these examples relevant . . . [...]

I Samuel 24 - Is the story of how David cut part of Saul's skirt off while he slept... not sure there are any headship issues here?

1Sa 25:38 - And it came to pass about ten days [after], that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed [be] the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife.

Luke 8:39 - Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

Can you tell us more of his thoughts on these?

--gabe

I'll do my best . . . 
As I understand it, Duke believes that David set a precedent of not assuming headship until the previous head had breathed his last.

Regarding the throne of Israel, Saul was a 'troubled' king. David refused to assert his position (the anointed king) and refused the opportunity to take the reigns before Saul was dead.

OK, I believe that the idea of the "Lord's anointed" might be being confused with "headship" here. Remember that it was wickedness in Israel for them to ask for a king, 1Sa 12:17 [Is it] not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness [is] great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king.

Immediately after this Samuel says to the people: 1Sa 12:20 And Samuel said unto the people, Fear not: ye have done all this wickedness: yet turn not aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart; And turn ye not aside: for [then should ye go] after vain [things], which cannot profit nor deliver; for they [are] vain

Later David himself says in several places that it is God that delivers, not a king:
Psa 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore.
Psa 33:16 There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength.
Psa 44:3-7 Psa 44:3 For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them. Thou art my King, O God: command deliverances for Jacob. Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us. For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me. But thou hast saved us from our enemies, and hast put them to shame that hated us. In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah.
Also 2Ch 14, 20, 32, Jer 9, etc...

Moses told Aaron not to tear his garments when Aaron's sons died before the altar specifically because they (the clothes themselves) were anointed to bear the iniquity of the people... and that if they were torn, the wrath of God would pour out on the people (Ex 29:29 -> Lev 10).

The anointing set aside (sanctified) the priests as holy to the Lord, and allowed them to do their duties (Lev 6, Num 3)

1Ki 19:14 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, [even] I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. And the LORD said unto him [...] Yet I have left [me] seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

No mention of the king here... only what individual people did with regard to worshiping God or a demon.

So... what I am saying is that David feared (it seems to me) to kill Saul because God had specifically anointed him to the office he held... not because there was a specific headship issue.

Regarding the headship of a woman, David did not seek to be Abigail's head until after Nabal's death, though Nabal lay unresponsive for ten days.

Right, well, the expectation was that he might make it... however, if he laid there for a month, I seriously doubt that his brothers would not have taken over his affairs... if they did not, then by rights, his servants and wife could legally leave freely since they were not being cared for... and it would be illegal for them to serve themselves of their master's things.

Duke told me that the last example was one of Jesus returning a man to his position in his own household. It doesn't say whether or not the man was the head of his household. Rather, Duke believes that whatever his previous position, it was understood the place remained for him to fill to whatever extent he was able.

Well, maybe, but... if he had had a wife previously... and then was no longer able to care for her... she could legally have left him... it would be up to her. According to my understanding of the law, Jesus would not have taken such a woman back from her current husband to be with the restored man again.

--gabe

Added portion:

[...it is of great importance to note David's reverence for the Lord's authority and the earthly expression of that authority (Saul). Duke says that while David was given cause (self-defense) and opportunity to end Saul's life, it was David's reverence for Saul's position that prevented him from doing so. David refused to step into the position of authority/headship before the appointed time as shown by Saul's death.

Right... I just don't think that was the issue here. I don't think David feared Saul personally, and that according to the law of Moses, I think David had the right to kill Saul: Ex 22:ff + Num 35. the reason he didn't... and the reason he called Saul his lord was that Saul was anointed of God to do this work..

I'd love to hear other perspectives on this though.

Duke tells me that what others may call headship (with incapacitated husband), he (Duke) is calling help, assistance, tending the body/Church, counsel, necessary support, etc. These things would be expected to be offered by a near-kinsman or believer. But Duke doesn't call that trading heads.]

Right, I just think that the law of God as given to Moses demonstrates it this way. Insurance probably comes into the picture as well I suppose...

--gabe

[AndysDad]

Andy'sDad's example above (of the wife reading her lost / dead husband's sermon) is about as good and example as I can think of, however, even in that case I am willing to bet that it was another man in the church that guided her to speak the sermon.

I'm not. Susanna Wesley (The Mother of Methodism) started holding Sunday evening services in her home during her husband Samuel's frequent absences. He was quite aghast at the practice, especially since she was reading his sermons herself instead of letting one of the parishioners do it (the associate pastor would have nothing to do with the services).  Her excuse was that not a one of them could read his sermons aloud without stumbling and she thought God would rather have a woman deliver a sermon clearly than a man haltingly--or something like that. She offered to stop the practice, should he assume responsibility for the souls that would suffer from a discontinuation of the services.

Anyway, despite his misgivings, he allowed the meetings to continue in his absence.

Andy'sDad

[Gabriel Anast]

Assuming that a woman was or wishes  to be under the headship of a man, but has no such place (from being widowed or abandoned because of the lack of natural order in our society) is it her responsibility to accept only when offered the headship (protection, provision, and guidance) of another man ( father, brother, son, or another husband(regardless of so called love) or adopted daughter as the situation dictates)   or is she  to actively go around seeking  among relatives who do not understand this kind of headship hoping that one might, accidently we might say, fulfill the role of head?

Yeah... this really is the question, isn't it? In modern American culture and social construction, how can any of this work anyway? (I would presume this applies to European, Asian, African cultures as well...)

First I want to say that I pray night and day that God would call the "righteous out of Babylon." I am not going to defend this wording at the moment... I am just expressing my personal views here to help demonstrate my perspective. My meaning is two-fold:
1) that God would call the righteous out of the corporate "church" to a place within the body of believers... a place where the rich directly meet the needs of the poor among the body, a place where the body is led by the natural elders among them, a place where the Bible is studied and considered carefully and with fear of God, a place where families are the only social structure...
2) that God would call the righteous out of the modern system physically (ie: from suburban areas to rural, mountainous areas).

I pray this, because I believe it is this place where the widow can be covered and the orphan protected. I believe it is this place where a man can be free of the idolatry of the social system of the day. I believe it is this place where men can sharpen each other in the word of God, and women can be at peace from the pressure of PC feminism that pervades modern cultural thought.

I know this really isn't an answer... but it is my prayer, and where I feel the basis of the answer lies.

My husband and I have discussed what I should do if he should die. He does not want me to accept the psuedo authority commanded by "churches" or "spiritual leaders" who provide skimpy physical protection and provision and ruthless often twisted scriptural "commands". He has done what is possible  so with reasonable effort we will be provided for and I could continue to raise our children according to his (now mine) beliefs and purposes. Being "free" from him can I count on God to be husband and father?

Yes, or at least that as a widow, you would have special strength in your cry to God to deliver you:

1Ti 5:5  Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
Psa 68:5  A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.
Jam 1:27  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Deu 10:18  He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
Psa 146:9  The LORD preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.
Pro 15:25  The LORD will destroy the house of the proud: but he will establish the border of the widow.

I (and my husband has said so also) would want to marry again IF I were to meet a man who would kindly and gently assume the role of father and protector. I'll admit that such men seem rare, so although I would pray in faith  it doesn't seem likely to happen.

Yes... I completely understand this. I have thought through this a hundred times as well... and cannot offer any sure answer.

For illustration look at my many single, faithful girlfriends.     Some of them are becoming confused (IMO) and deciding to marry unmanly men thinking it is better to be married whether "in Christ or out". I don't even know what term to use to describe a man who truly follows Christ. So many superficial, religious forms of unmanly christian men.   

Yes, I know... God, help them... us.

Also girls whose fathers are dictators bordering on abusive, not a righteous  head willing only to release them to men of their own type. Should they then marry or refuse?

In some of these cases, the girl, as far as I can tell, is already free to go... her father having put her away in one way or another... in other cases, I would say that according to the law of Moses (used as a guide as regards righteousness, not as a burden or a law in the strict sense), she cannot refuse... not that this is the complete answer... but that I believe there is always a righteous path, which God will honor in turn.

Another case in mind, the girl provides for her own physical needs with arranged employment, but is not allowed to leave home or take more suitable employment presumably in expectation that she will care for the parents later since all other children are alienated. Is she to remain?

She may, if she so wishes, but is (I believe) free and righteous to go as concerns the law of Moses. However, it is better (in my opinion) that she stay until she finds a righteous man who she can marry. The law of Moses would not say that she must leave, only that she is free to leave. I believe Paul would say, free to marry yet only in Christ.

I guess the short question is this: Is the teaching being presented here saying that a woman can righteously remain free of all headship until being offered kind, generous, complete headship under a righteous man?

I do not think "free" is the proper word, but sometimes she is forced into this position... and yes, as Paul says, "[she] trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day."

Can/should a woman currently under a man who is not fulfilling all needs, remain where she is, claiming God as a larger head and covering?

Yes, if it is safe to do so, I think this is partly what Paul is saying when he says that a woman should not divorce an unbelieving husband if he is please to stay with her. He is saying this in the full context of the law and prophets as I understand it. This means that this man does indeed care for her, provide her needs, loves her in the regular way that all men love their women the world over if they are what the world calls "good men." There is a place in Isaiah talking about the regathering of Israel from the nations after the great travail/ chastening / cleansing that overcomes Israel at some time in what I believe to be the near future:

Isa 4:1  And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The implication being... you, man of Israel, don't have to do anything for us but give us your name that we no longer have this "reproach" which is a specific reference to widowhood. Evidently in this time (according to the many prophesies) there will be many more women that survive than men.

So, I am saying that... even if you (a woman) can rightfully leave your man, sometimes it is best to stay where you are since the situation is better for the time being for one reason or another.

--gabe

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 07, 2012, 03:40:59 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6893
• Latest: ROxidRe4

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 30
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 32
• Total: 32