Meat Complementarianism vs. Biblical Patriarchy

[HomesteadWife]

Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hol

Based off of the above points being their grounding to prove that men and women essentially have equality in the pre-fall created order. Mutual submission rather than subservience of woman with equal value and different functions and roles. The complementarianist will then go on to view the new testament through this lens. Rather than the patriarchal, woman being subservient to man, as the base lens.

There is a distinction made between person hood (which all are equal in to salvation), and function and role. The Complementarianism view being that patriarchy limits or devalues women's 'true and equal, though different' functions and roles biblically.

Based off 1 Corinthians 7: 2-5 the arguments are:
V 2. Equality of conjugal responsibility. ( both husband and wife belong to each other equally.)
V 3. Equality of responsibility in duty to each other. (They claim there is no responsibility in this given to the husband to 'police' the wife to make sure she fulfills her side. Community in action is supposed with both parties willingly fulfilling their side.)
V 4. Equal responsibility in duties to each other. Sexually both men and women have right to their husbands/wife's body equally. (Thus making women more than a sex slave to men.)

The claim is made that men and women are equal in the body of the Messiah and therefore both submit to him as their ultimate authority.

To continue on this same line of logic we will move on to Ephasians 5:21 and Colossians 3: 18-19. As well as 1 Peter 3: 1-5 and Titus 2:5 in regards to headship.

The translation of the word head that complementarianism will argue for is having it defined as : source, and thus supplier and sustainer rather than authority or ruler.

The claim is made that with the Messiah as a model of headship over the church there are some aspects of this that man cannot be his wife's head in the same way. The husband cannot be his wife's 'savior'. Nor can the husband demand the same level of submission from his wife because this submission to Messiah is based on the Messiahs perfection.

With this model in mind their definition for a husbands headship consists of:
1. The husbands willingness to put his wife above himself and therefore
2. His willingness ttolay down his life for her.
3. The husbands desire to see his wife purified and Messiah like and
4. Viewed by all as glorious and beautiful, Holy and blameless.

Sustaining, authority, source and leadership is the type of headship the wife is called to submit to.

On submission in these verses the following claims are made.

Nowhere in scripture does it exhort or suggest that husbands actively subjugate their wives.
All exhortations of a wife submitting to her husband are directed at the wife.
The middle voice (used consistently in these passages) signals that the wife has to voluntarily submit to this as Gods order for marriage.

Based off these the assumption is made that the wife is viewed as an equal and that her voluntary submission is not implied and required by her subordinate and inferior status, but by her choice. Thus Paul's instructions were an appeal to woman's status rather than the common "woman as property ' view of the time.
on Ephasians 5:21
It is implied that the submit applies to the husband as well from the general heading. The fact that a husband has the duty to die for, care for, protect, and submit his entire life to her welfare implies an even greater level of submission required of the husband.
The fear spoken of is more one of awe at the example of a man being willing to sacrifice so much (as the Messiah laying down his life on the cross) rather than a punitive fear. Not being a burdensome submission as an inferior to a superior.
All must submit to each other Ephasians 5:21 all must consider others above himself/herself Phil 2:3.

There is the argument made that it makes no sense based off of Ephasians 5:21 to equate submission with Obey. As that word is specifically used in other passages applying to children and slaves.

*I am just playing the devils advocate here by summarizing the gist of arguments I have been reading. Some arguments made have a lot more backing than others in the original form.*

 

[FollowingHim]

Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hold.

So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are. Per Genisis 2.
1. Order of creation - woman after man
2. Woman was taken from man.
3. Man named woman (showing dominance.)
4. Woman was made as a helper for man.

Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.

The simple response to that is that we interpret the Old Testament as it is interpreted in the New. And Paul is very clear that all the following are valid arguments for patriarchy:
1. The order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13)
2. Woman was taken from man (1 Corinthians 11:8)
4. Woman was made as a helper for man (1 Corinthians 11:9).

These three are not arguments that patriarchal thinkers have dreamed up themselves. They are straight from the mouth of Paul. So they cannot be argued against without arguing against Paul - without casting off parts of the Bible itself.

Reason 3 is not directly in scripture as far as I can see. It is a very logical argument that confirms the others, but is not used by any scriptural author. But even if you discard it you're still left with three firm scriptural arguments that say exactly the same thing.

 

[HomesteadWife]

The simple response to that is that we interpret the Old Testament as it is interpreted in the New. And Paul is very clear that all the following are valid arguments for patriarchy:
1. The order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13)
2. Woman was taken from man (1 Corinthians 11:8)
4. Woman was made as a helper for man (1 Corinthians 11:9).

These three are not arguments that patriarchal thinkers have dreamed up themselves. They are straight from the mouth of Paul. So they cannot be argued against without arguing against Paul - without casting off parts of the Bible itself.

Reason 3 is not directly in scripture as far as I can see. It is a very logical argument that confirms the others, but is not used by any scriptural author. But even if you discard it you're still left with three firm scriptural arguments that say exactly the same thing.

From my understanding of the arguments I was reading is that they were trying to establish the old testament 'garden of Eden' pre-fall order as the lens to view the new testament. So they were finding ways of looking at Paul that supported that lens.

 

[FollowingHim]

From my understanding of the arguments I was reading is that they were trying to establish the old testament 'garden of Eden' pre-fall order as the lens to view the new testament. So they were finding ways of looking at Paul that supported that lens.

They were trying to selectively quote Paul to support that lens, ignoring the statements of his that directly contradict it. I assume that both of your subsequent posts have been inspired by the same source. It is very notable that in those posts you have not quoted either 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 11, the places where Paul actually directly says what he believes the "garden of Eden" means to this topic. Instead, the argument simply ignores what Paul actually said directly, in order to find ways to reinterpret his other statements in isolation to support the author's own predetermined view.

Paul is an author whose words can readily be twisted to support any viewpoint if read in isolation. It is vital to look at all of Paul's words on a subject rather than just using the bits you like.

 

[NickF]

I'll respond to a couple points but don't have time to exhaustively deal with most of the silly arguments.

To continue on this same line of logic we will move on to Ephasians 5:21 and Colossians 3: 18-19. As well as 1 Peter 3: 1-5 and Titus 2:5 in regards to headship.

The translation of the word head that complementarianism will argue for is having it defined as : source, and thus supplier and sustainer rather than authority or ruler. This is an argument without merit as it's not scriptural, but humanistic.

The claim is made that with the Messiah as a model of headship over the church there are some aspects of this that man cannot be his wife's head in the same way. He cannot be the same head. But that does not abrogate the wife's command to "submit unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" The husband cannot be his wife's 'savior'. He isn't commanded to be. Nor can the husband demand the same level of submission from his wife because this submission to Messiah is based on the Messiahs perfection. And people can make stupid arguments with no basis in logic or scriptural truth. The husband does not need to demand the same level of submission. God commands it. To say otherwise is direct rebellion against God's command. They are blaspheming the word of God.

Tit 2:5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

With this model of lies in mind everything will be skewed and their definition for a husbands headship consists of:
1. The husbands willingness to put his wife above himself and therefore
2. His willingness ttolay down his life for her.
3. The husbands desire to see his wife purified and Messiah like and
4. Viewed by all as glorious and beautiful, Holy and blameless.

Sustaining, authority, source and leadership is the type of headship the wife is called to submit to. She is commanded to submit to her husband as all believers are to submit to Christ. There is no clause saying "Submit if he's perfect like God".

On submission in these verses the following claims are made.

Nowhere in scripture does it exhort or suggest that husbands actively subjugate their wives. Correct
All exhortations of a wife submitting to her husband are directed at the wife. Correct
The middle voice (used consistently in these passages) signals that the wife has to voluntarily submit to this as Gods order for marriage. God orders her to submit to her husband's authority with the same word used to describe a subordinate soldier obeying orders from a general.

Based off these the assumption is made that the wife is viewed as an equal and that her voluntary submission is not implied and required by her subordinate and inferior status, but by her choice. Her choice is to Obey God or be in rebellion. Thus Paul's instructions were an appeal to woman's status rather than the common "woman as property ' view of the time. She is the property of her husband, she is bought and paid for as we are bought and paid for. We the ecclesia are all individually bought and paid for, a particular possession of Christ. God has given us His example of His relationship to us as the model for our marriage relationships. This is simple stuff. I belong to my wife just as much as Jesus belongs to me. I have no claim on him, as I am His, and I belong to Him.
on Ephasians 5:21
It is implied that the submit applies to the husband as well from the general heading. All believers are to submit ourselves one to another in the fear of God. That means to bring ourselves under submission to God. That does not mean obey the commands of children. We are not at liberty to take one verse out of context and make it antithetical to the whole counsel of scripture. The fact that a husband has the duty to die for, care for, protect, and submit his entire life to her welfare implies an even greater level of submission sacrifice required of the husband. There, I fixed it for the feminists. This is a perversion of the word submission. The husband is not commanded to submit to his wife. You can tell, because God doesn't say so.

The fear spoken of is more one of awe at the example of a man being willing to sacrifice so much (as the Messiah laying down his life on the cross) rather than a punitive fear. This is patently false. The fear word is literally deathly terror. Phobeo. Those who say it's a nice awe are liars. Not being a burdensome submission as an inferior to a superior. hypotassō is literally the opposite of the feminist's view. The people who peddle these lies have no truth in them. They will be in that multitude that says "Lord. Lord!" when he casts them into outer darkness.
All must submit to each other Ephasians 5:21 all must consider others above himself/herself Phil 2:3. To pervert the

There is the argument made that it makes no sense based off of Ephasians 5:21 to equate submission with Obey. As that word is specifically used in other passages applying to children and slaves. Why? What is the argument? There is none, that's what the word means. We as men are to submit in the exact same way to Christ as our wives are to submit to us.. I feel like I'm losing IQ points

*I am just playing the devils advocate here by summarizing the gist of arguments I have been reading. Some arguments mad have a lot more backing than others.*

I understand you're playing devil's advocate here. I'm responding to the arguments, not your character. I hope you don't take offense... But the arguments are asinine.


1Ti 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1Co 11:3,7-9
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.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1Pe 3:1-2, 5-6
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation (actions) coupled with fear.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Where are the verses commanding men to obey or put themselves in subjection to their wives? There are none. There are juxtaposed commands given to men and women side by side. Women are commanded to subject themselves to the authority and command of their husband, to obey them, "in every thing". Ephesians 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Men are given different commands.

Feel free to post more of the lunacy from those blogs, maybe one of the other gents will bother with rebuttals.

 

[Yan]

The difference is that complementarians are monogamous, while patriarchalists are polygamous.
But both believe that the man should be the main provider and leader of the family, while the woman takes care of the children and the house and submits to her husband.

 

[HomesteadWife]

One of the doctrines that I found when digging into Complementarianism was that of 'Eternal Servitude of the Son', This was someone's critique of it:

"The eternal subordination of the Son has been a popular doctrine in certain complementarian contexts, being used either to ground the submission of women and authority of men in the life of the Trinity, or, perhaps more commonly, to defend such a position against the charge that naturally hierarchical relations are necessarily oppressive by means of a weak analogy."

For those who have familiarity with complementarianism, Is this something you were familiar with? Seeing if this is a well known belief basis, or if it is something you have to dig a bit deeper to find doctinally?

 

[HomesteadWife]

They were trying to selectively quote Paul to support that lens, ignoring the statements of his that directly contradict it. I assume that both of your subsequent posts have been inspired by the same source. It is very notable that in those posts you have not quoted either 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 11, the places where Paul actually directly says what he believes the "garden of Eden" means to this topic. Instead, the argument simply ignores what Paul actually said directly, in order to find ways to reinterpret his other statements in isolation to support the author's own predetermined view.

Paul is an author whose words can readily be twisted to support any viewpoint if read in isolation. It is vital to look at all of Paul's words on a subject rather than just using the bits you like.

The article later on actually did briefly touch on the Paul garden of Eden references. The author basically just referenced back to how he had already proven how in Genesis there was equality of men and women.

 

[HomesteadWife]

I'll respond to a couple points but don't have time to exhaustively deal with most of the silly arguments.

I understand you're playing devil's advocate here. I'm responding to the arguments, not your character. I hope you don't take offense... But the arguments are asinine.


1Ti 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1Co 11:3,7-9
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.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1Pe 3:1-2, 5-6
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation (actions) coupled with fear.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Where are the verses commanding men to obey or put themselves in subjection to their wives? There are none. There are juxtaposed commands given to men and women side by side. Women are commanded to subject themselves to the authority and command of their husband, to obey them, "in every thing". Ephesians 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Men are given different commands.

Feel free to post more of the lunacy from those blogs, maybe one of the other gents will bother with rebuttals.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I did save everyone a bit of time by condensing a 48 page essay into two or three comments. Haha The whole logic flow the writer had really built on the lens they created for themselves. Once you start poking holes it all unravels pretty fast.

 

[NVIII]

One of the doctrines that I found when digging into Complementarianism was that of 'Eternal Servitude of the Son', This was someone's critique of it:

"The eternal subordination of the Son has been a popular doctrine in certain complementarian contexts, being used either to ground the submission of women and authority of men in the life of the Trinity, or, perhaps more commonly, to defend such a position against the charge that naturally hierarchical relations are necessarily oppressive by means of a weak analogy."

For those who have familiarity with complementarianism, Is this something you were familiar with? Seeing if this is a well known belief basis, or if it is something you have to dig a bit deeper to find doctinally?

I do consider it a service to my wife (and children, directly or through her) to carry out my authority, to acknowledge and act on it. In this way, it appears to be common ground with complementarians, but again it's the bit of truth in their lie. Unlike the woman who is subjugated by God to the man, the man voluntarily serves (although enforcement of State laws strips power from us and make it appear to be involuntary servitude). Just as "He disciplines those He loves," so also it is the epitome of hate for a man to leave those who are weak and vulnerable, who depend on him for discipline, leadership, and protection, to fend for themselves. It is not easy. It is a labor, a labor of love. It would be so much easier to let the women and children do as they please in many instances. It would also be so much easier to send them away. But, it would not be good. It would not be love. They would suffer, and ultimately so would I, because it is not good for me to be alone. I need a purpose. I need that labor. We were not created to serve ourselves. @DustinM bringing it back around

 

[rockfox]

Submission and assisting someone in attaining righteousness are not at odds. If your wife isn’t spurring you to be a better man, she isn’t being a godly woman. A woman who excuses your sin, who never pushes back, is bad for your soul.

I've heard complimentarians pushing this idea. It is nothing more than excuse for women to rebel against their men. It is at odds with both human nature and the New Testament. Paul makes it quite clear that the man is the spiritual leader of the house. And nature teaches us that women desire a man who they look up to, a man better than them.

Inherant to the complementarian claim is that a woman can stand in spiritual judgement of her man; i.e. that she is above him in the hierarchy.

2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.

None of this proves complementarianism and is contradicted by Paul as Samuel so well pointed out. Likewise God commanded the man was to rule her and that was not changed in the NT, to the contrary 1 Cor 11 affirms it. The common theme here is they don't like the idea of subordination of women to men. But that is exactly what Paul teaches women to be and there is no way around that.

more frequently "soft sell" feminism to the people of God.

Exactly this. I have seen complementarianism and 'servant leadership' used repeatedly in churches to get men to bow to the control of their wives.

Based off of the above points being their grounding to prove that men and women essentially have equality in the pre-fall created order. Mutual submission rather than subservience of woman with equal value and different functions and roles. The complementarianist will then go on to view the new testament through this lens. Rather than the patriarchal, woman being subservient to man, as the base lens.

They are interpreting scripture though the lens of feminism rather than using the statements of scripture to establish how men and women are to relate. If they want a lens to use they should look to the Gospel. Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. 1 Cor 11 shows there is a heirarchy: God -> Christ -> Man -> Woman. What was the nature of the relationship between Christ and God? "Not my will but thine be done."

If Christ acted like the complementarian woman he's claim God was asking him to sin by going to die and submission has to be willing and he doesn't feel like doing it.

There is a distinction made between person hood (which all are equal in to salvation), and function and role. The Complementarianism view being that patriarchy limits or devalues women's 'true and equal, though different' functions and roles biblically.

Is a child devalued by having a parent? Is a worker devalued by having a boss? They are at heart rebelious feminists, they hate the idea of women being under the leadership/headship/rule/authority of men. Complementarianism is just a fancy way of being feminist while claiming fidelity to the scriptures. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

To continue on this same line of logic we will move on to Ephasians 5:21 and Colossians 3: 18-19. As well as 1 Peter 3: 1-5 and Titus 2:5 in regards to headship.

The translation of the word head that complementarianism will argue for is having it defined as : source, and thus supplier and sustainer rather than authority or ruler.

Classic redefinition. You can't get that from the Greek word nor from the example of Christ. These are the same sorts that hate the idea that we are slaves of Christ, as Paul repeatedly says. In Genesis God commanded rule. God in Eph and Col tells her to be under subjection, i.e. the language of authority and rule.

The claim is made that with the Messiah as a model of headship over the church there are some aspects of this that man cannot be his wife's head in the same way. The husband cannot be his wife's 'savior'. Nor can the husband demand the same level of submission from his wife because this submission to Messiah is based on the Messiahs perfection.

This is a tactic to again make women the head by putting her in judgement of the man. "I'd submit to you if you were more like Christ." "I can't submit to my sinful husband." 1 Peter 3 disproves this approach. Men are head by virtue of their position, not their performance.

But it goes deeper than this. His being her husband is by definition her head with her in submission to him. In the language of the OT the word husband means man/lord/master and the word wife is 'man's woman'. A woman who is not in submission to a man is either not married or in a state of sinful rebellion. To be a wife is to be subject to the law of her husband as Paul states. His word is her law.

With this model in mind their definition for a husbands headship consists of:
1. The husbands willingness to put his wife above himself and therefore
2. His willingness ttolay down his life for her.
3. The husbands desire to see his wife purified and Messiah like and
4. Viewed by all as glorious and beautiful, Holy and blameless.

This is satanic inversion, the wife as head. It sounds scriptural and uses much sciptural language but it's not. All responsibility no authority.

Nowhere in scripture does it exhort or suggest that husbands actively subjugate their wives.
All exhortations of a wife submitting to her husband are directed at the wife.
The middle voice (used consistently in these passages) signals that the wife has to voluntarily submit to this as Gods order for marriage.

No other authority is treated like this. They do this for husbands because the actual goal is the overthrow of the husbands authority.

old testament 'garden of Eden' pre-fall order as the lens to view the new testament...The article later on actually did briefly touch on the Paul garden of Eden references. The author basically just referenced back to how he had already proven how in Genesis there was equality of men and women.

Basically he's using his interpretation of pre-fall to contradict Paul's clear commands. But these sorts never also argue that we shouldn't wear clothing; they merely cherry pick the parts they like (even though Paul's statements make clear pre-fall was also a hierarchy).

 

[The Revolting Man]

She’s gone. We went over board again. Back to the Torah debate.

 

[southernphotini]

She’s gone. We went over board again. Back to the Torah debate.

I was actually recently encouraged to consider men on this site as potential husbands but I'm having trouble seeing the appeal right now.

I've been sick, busy and have a life offline. I've studied Hebrew with seminary professors and I have nothing to prove here.

Enjoy your Torah debate.

 

[NickF]

I was actually recently encouraged to consider men on this site as potential husbands but I'm having trouble seeing the appeal right now.

I can understand that, and if my zeal has offended or I was too aggressive in defense of my position then I genuinely apologize. I’ve been trying to be more chill and sometimes I fail at that. Happy to have a thoughtful, and calm discussion on the topic.

I've been sick, busy and have a life offline. I've studied Hebrew with seminary professors and I have nothing to prove here.

Same, fever for the past few days and can’t afford the time off when I’m trying to run two businesses and a homestead.

Although I would like to discuss and hear your proofs.

Enjoy your Torah debate.

That IS something a few of us guys enjoy a little too much at times. Again, I’m one of the worst about going over the top in my response. I’ve probably done that in this thread, and should have shown more restraint. I do sincerely apologize if that’s the case. My brain’s too fried to go back through the thread and analyze what all I did to offend.

Hope I can at least own my missteps and show some grace and humility. I’m sure a couple people here can attest to my need for more of both those character traits.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I was actually recently encouraged to consider men on this site as potential husbands but I'm having trouble seeing the appeal right now.

I've been sick, busy and have a life offline. I've studied Hebrew with seminary professors and I have nothing to prove here.

Enjoy your Torah debate.

We have our inducements in addition to our flaws. There are strong men here with strong opinions. Not many people are used to that these days. If you can take the heat though you could leave here with your ideas and beliefs greatly refined and tempered.

We’re the theological equivalent of New York, If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.

 

[NickF]

We have our inducements in addition to our flaws. There are strong men here with strong opinions. Not many people are used to that these days. If you can take the heat though you could leave here with your ideas and beliefs greatly refined and tempered.

We’re the theological equivalent of New York, If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.

Which is why I stepped back from my intensity and harshness. I can get a bit too carried away in circumstances where it’s not warranted.

 

[steve]

To judge every guy on this site according to interactions with just a few isn’t a serious position.

 

[southernphotini]

Although I would like to discuss and hear your proofs.

I’m down with the crud so I asked friends for help.

“The Hebrew word is "Negedo" which Fr. Dr. Eugene Pentiuc, OT professor at Holy Cross GO Seminary, says has a meaning something to the effect of "one who can withstand you to your face", i.e. a counterpart or ally who can also confront you when warranted. He also has a very good book in this vein "Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible"”

Also: The Language of Creation | Matthieu Pageau | EP 292 - Jordan B. Peterson

I’m under the influence of NyQuil but I feel like these are correct. Both Pageau brothers are brilliant.

 

[southernphotini]

We have our inducements in addition to our flaws. There are strong men here with strong opinions. Not many people are used to that these days. If you can take the heat though you could leave here with your ideas and beliefs greatly refined and tempered.

We’re the theological equivalent of New York, If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.

Mike Rowe’s latest podcast is about how this kind of debate doesn’t change minds according to science. So I am not sured that refining and/or tempering actually happens on internet environments like this.

I’m surrounded by men with strong opinions on a daily basis. My church is literally led by a Patriarch and I literally refer to my bishop as Master.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So I am not sured that refining and/or tempering actually happens on internet environments like

I can tell you that my beliefs have been completely refined and totally tempered here. I almost don’t recognize some of my old posts I’ve shifted so much.

But even where I haven’t changed my mind, I have a much fuller understanding of the issue and all of its potential weakness or things I missed or areas I hadn’t explored.

I am much more sure in my beliefs from having thrown them in to the ring of fire that is BibFam.