Hallo Retha, ek antwoord tussen-in met my voorletters: slc

Hallo Retha, ek antwoord tussen-in met my voorletters: slc Ek gee hier en daar n lang aanhaling uit ander bronne, neem vinnig kennis daarvan en lees wat ekself daaroor skryf. Dankie Die man as hoof van die vrou betekenis Jy weet waarskynlik die Nuwe Testament was oorspronklik in Grieks geskryf. Die Nuwe Testament sê: Die man is die kephale van die vrou Efes 5:23, 1 Kor 11:3, as ons vereers die problematiese Griekse woord onvertaal laat. Kephale beteken, onder andere, die letterlike kop (hoof) bokant jou nek. Ander betekenisse sluit in bron, lewe, hoeksteen, uiterste punt, voorsaat, begin, kroon, voltooiing en totaal. Die Liddel, Scott and Jones s Greek-English Lexicon is een van die mees gerespekteerde leksikons van antieke Grieks. Dit gee niks soos leier of gesagsfiguur as moontlike betekenis vir die woord nie. Met soveel moontlike betekenisse om uit te kies, hoe weet ons wat hier bedoel word? slc: Kom ons kyk na n paar Griekse woordeboeke (sien veral beklemtonings) 1. Friberg Lexicon kefalh, h/j, h` head; (1) literally, of a human or animal head (MT 6.17); (2) figuratively; (a) metaphorically, of Christ as the head of which the church is the body (EP 1.22); (b) of persons, designating first or superior rank head (1C 11.3); (c) of things uppermost part, extremity, end point; of buildings keystone, capstone (MT 21.42); (d) leading city, capital (AC 16.12) 2. Barclay Newman Lexicon kefalh,, h/j f head ( kata. kå e;cw have one's head covered 1 Cor 11.4); lord, head (of superior rank, etc.); kå gwni,aj main corner-stone 3. Thayers Greek Lexicon kefalh, kefalh, kefalh/j, h`, the Septuagint for varo; the head, both of men: Matt. 5:36; Mark 6:24; Luke 7:38,44 (Rec.),46; John 13:9; Acts 18:18; 1 Cor. 11:4; Rev. 1:14; 4:4, and often; and of animals: Rev. 9:7,17,19, etc.; on the phrases kli,nein th,n kefalh,n, evpai,rein th,n kefalh,n, see kli,nw, 1 and evpai,rw; on the saying in Rom. 12:20, see under a;nqrax. Since the loss of the head destroys the life, kefalh, is used in phrases relating to capital and extreme punishments: so in to, ai-ma u`mw/n evpi, th,n kefalh,n u`mw/n (see ai-ma, 2 a., p. 15{b}), Acts 18:6, and similar phrases in classical Greek; see Passow, under the word, p. 1717{a}; Pape under the word, 3; (Liddell and Scott, under the word, I. 3 and 4). Metaphorically, anything supreme, chief, prominent; of persons, master, lord: ti,noj, of a husband in relation to his wife, 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; of Christ, the lord of the husband, 1 Cor. 11:3 (cf. Buttmann, 124f (109)); of the church, Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 2:19 (cf. Buttmann, sec. 143, 4 c.); tou/ sw,matoj th/j evkklhsi,aj, Col. 1:18; pa,shj avrch/j kai, evxousi,aj, Col. 2:10; so Judg. 11:11; 2 Sam. 22:44, and in Byzantine writings of things: kefalh/j gwni,aj, the corner-stone, see gwni,a, a. ((From Homer down.))*

4. Johan Lust / Erik Eynikel/Katrin Hauspie Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint (en aangesien die NT juis uit die Septuagint aanhaal en dit gebruik, is dit baie belangrik om te sien hoe die woord in die Griekse OT ook gebruik is slc) 5087 kefalh, kefalh,(&h/j alh,(&h/j+ - N1F 97-122-66-80-68-433 Gn 3,15; 8,5; 11,4; 28,11.12 head (of men and anim.) Gn 3,15; id. (metaph.) Dt 28,13; head, leader Jgs A 10,18; person, oneself [tinoj] Sus Th 55; ; top Gn 8,5; capital (of a pillar) 1 Kgs 7,27; band or troop of soldiers (semit.?) Jb 1,17 kata. kefalh,n individually, a head Ex 16,16; th / kefalh / a piece Ex 39,3; evpi. th.n kefalh,n tinoj upon one's responsibility 2 Sm 1,16; kata. kefalh/j with the head covered Est 6,12; kefalh. gwni,aj head of the corner, most important one (of a stone) Ps 117 (118),22; a;nqrakaj puro.j swreu,seij evpi. th.n kefalh,n auvtou/ you shall heap burning embers on his head, you shall cause him pain (leading to contrition) Prv 25,22; avpo. kefalh/j e[wj podw/n from head to foot, from top to toe Lv 13,12; avpo. podw/n e[wj kefalh/j from foot to head, from top to toe Jb 2,7 *Sir 25,15(bis) kefalh, head -varo for varo / var poison, venom (no ms evidence), cpr. Jb 20,16 Cf. CERVIN 1989, 85-112; DORIVAL 1994, 96; GRUDEM 1985, 38-59; 1990, 3-72; MURAOKA 1990 b, 28; SMEND 1906, 229; VAN ROON 1974, 278; WEVERS 1993, 449; WISSEMAN 1988, 377-384; ïnidntt; 5. Gingrich Lexicon 3682 kefalh, kefalh, h/j, h` Cor 11:4f, 7, 10; Rv 10:1; 17:3, 7, 9; 18:19; 19:12. 2. fig. a. head denoting one of superior rank 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:10. b. head as extremity, end k) gwni,aj cornerstone Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17; Ac 4:11; 1 Pt 2:7. Capital or frontier city Ac 16:12 v.l. [cephalic] [pg 108] h` head 1. lit. Mt 5:36; 8:20; 27:29f; Mk 6:24f, 27f; 15:29; Lk 21:28; J 13:9; Ac 21:24; Ro 12:20; 1 6. New International Dictionary of NT Theology The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Volume 2. 156-163. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967, 1969, 1971. kefalhv G3051 (kephale), head; ajnakefalaiovomai G368 (anakephalaioomai), sum up, recapitulate. CL kephale, head, attested from Homer on, is related to the Gothic word gibla (Eng. gable) but also to Eng. head. Derivatives from it include kephalaion, main point (Heb. 8:1), sum of money (Acts 22:28); kephalaioo, sum up, late Gk. strike on the head (Mk. 12:4); late Gk. kephalis, little head (Heb. 10:7 roll of a book) and anakephalaioomai (see below). In secular Gk. kephale means: 1. The head of man or beast, the coping of a wall, the capital of a column etc., the source or mouth of a river, the beginning or end of a month, etc. In Plato the head of a speech is its conclusion (Goal, art. tevlo"). 2. What is decisive, superior. In Gk. anthropology the head takes precedence over all other members; it is, or in it lies, the authoritative principle, the reason (hegemonikon). If the emphasis is upon the idea of origin, kephale takes on some of the meanings of arche (Beginning). But the head of a community is never referred to as a kephale (TDNT III 673). 3. kephale also stands for the life of an individual. As early as Homer it was used in a similar way to psyche (Soul). Thus, curses which name the head are directed against the whole person and his life. Konklusie: uit bogenoemde woordeboeke is dit duidelik dat kephale ook gesag/hoër rangorde/heer/meester/leier/gesagdraer in die klassieke sowel as die bybels Grieks kan beteken, en dat jy nie reg is om te beweer dat die kwessie van gesag of leierskap nie ook moontlik is met kephale nie. Let wel, ek argumenteer nie dat dit noodwendig Ef.5:23 se gebruik van die woord is nie, maar wel net dit: kephale kan behalwe al die woorde wat jy

genoem het en die paar woordeboeke se gebruike, ook nog gesag/leier figuur beteken volgens vele ander woordeboeke. Griekssprekende Bybelskoliere van die vroegste eeue het reeds daardie een geantwoord: Athanasius (296-373) Biskop of Alexandrië, stateer in De Synodis Anathema: Want die hoof (dit is die bron) van alle dinge is die Seun, maar God is die hoof (dit is die bron) van Christus. slc: Hier is n beter verduideliking wat daarop wys dat Atanasius nie eers hierdie woorde gespreek het nie (sien Grudem se artikel hier): Athanasius (ca. A.D. 296-373), Syn. Armin. 26.3.35. This is not actually a statement by a church father. This quotation is from an Arian creed, the Macrostich or 5th Confession of A.D. 344, which Athanasius quotes, along with several other Arian creeds, in order to show that they cannot even agree among themselves on what they teach. It is surprising that Kroeger cites this as evidence of what the church fathers taught, for Arianism was rejected as a heresy by the orthodox church, and this Arian creed does not represent what the recognized church fathers taught. The quotation is as follows: Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unbegun and co-ingenerate with the Father.... But we acknowledge that the Father who alone is Unbegun and Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and incomprehensibly to all; and that the Son hath been generated before ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to have the Father who generated Him as His beginning (ajrchv); for the Head of Christ is God. Here ajrchv is used in the sense beginning, according to the NPNF translator. In any case, the quotation of an Arian creed, with no subsequent comment on this word or phrase by Athanasius himself, is not reliable evidence on which to decide anything about the way kefalhv was understood by Athanasius or other church fathers, as Kroeger claims. Nor does it provide any evidence that church fathers argued against the subordination of the Son to the Father. 2. Athanasius (ca. A.D. 296-373), Anathema 26, MPG 26, 740B. This quotation is not actually from an orthodox church father either. It is from another Arian creed, which Athanasius also quotes to show how the Arians cannot agree among themselves. Whosoever shall say that the Son is without beginning and ingenerate, as if speaking of two unbegun and two ingenerate, and making two Gods, be he anathema. For the Son is the Head, namely the beginning (ajrchv) of all: and God is the Head, namely the beginning (ajrchv) of Christ; for thus to one unbegun beginning (ajrchv) of the universe do we religiously refer all things through the Son. Here again ajrchvis used by the Arians in the sense of beginning to explain kefalhv. But it does not show us how kefalhv was understood by Athanasius or other church fathers, as Kroeger s article claimed. In fact, Athanasius himself did not argue vehemently that for Paul, head meant source, nor did he deny that kefalhvcould mean authority over, for he refers to the bishops of illustrious cities, for example, as the heads of great churches (kefalai; tosouvtwn ejkklhsiwǹ). Cyril (376-444) Aartsbiskop van Alexandrië, in De Recta Fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam het geskryf: Daarom het hy [Adam] die eerste hoof, wat bron is, van ons ras geword, en was van die aarde en aards. Aangesien Christus die tweede Adam genoem is, was hy geplaas as hoof, wat bron is, van diegene wat deur Hom nuut gevorm is tot onsterflikheid deur heiligmaking van die Gees. Daarom het hy wat ons bron, dit is

hoof, is verskyn as n mens. Maar hy, al is Hy van nature God, het self n genererende hoof, die hemelse Vader, en al was hy die Woord, was verwek deur hom. slc: weereens Grudem: Cyril of Alexandria (died A.D. 444), De Recte Fide ad Pulch. 2.3, 268.... the one of the earth and dust has become (gevgonen) to us the first head of the race, that is ruler (ajrchv) but since the second Adam has been named Christ, he was placed as head (kefalhv), that is ruler (toutevstin ajrchv) of those who through him are being transformed unto him into incorruption through sanctification by the Spirit. Therefore he on the one hand is our ruler (ajrchv), that is head, in so far as he has appeared as a man; indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from Him. But that the head signifies the ruler (ajrchv), the fact that the husband is said to be the head of the wife confirms the sense for the truth of doubters: for she has been taken from him (ejlhvfqh ga;r ejx aujtou`). Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a head accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.29 In this quotation, kefalhvis explained by ajrchv, probably in the sense of ruler, but the ambiguity of ajrchv confronts us here, and the sense beginning or the sense origin or source for ajrchvwould also fit. In 1990 I responded to Kroeger s citation of this passage and said that even if the sense source were understood here, this is still not an instance of source apart from authority, for God and Christ and the husband are all in positions of authority.31 Of course, if we took this passage in an isolated way, apart from its context in patristic writings and ancient Trinitarian controversies, and apart from previously established meanings for kefalhv, there would be no strong objection to thinking that the meaning source would fit this passage as well, even though it would not be necessary for the sense of the passage. And it must also be recognized that it is an elementary fact of life that we receive our nourishment through our mouths, and thus in a sense through our heads, and this idea was plain to the ancient world as well; therefore, the idea that a metaphor would occur in which head meant source is not impossible.32 But even if that sense were accepted here, it would scarcely be decisive for Pauline usage, since this passage comes four hundred years after Paul wrote. Yet several factors make me hesitate to jump to the meaning source here: (1) First, a very similar connection between the man s headship and the woman s being taken from the man is made by an earlier Alexandrian writer, Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 155-ca. 220), in The Stromata 4:8 (ANF 2, 420): For I would have you know, says the apostle, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man: for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man (ouj ga;r ejstin ajnh;r ejk gunaiko;~, ajlla; gunh; ejx ajndrov~). Such an explicit connection between man s headship and woman s being taken out of man might lead us to think that Clement of Alexandria would understand head to mean source, origin here, just as we might in the statement from Cyril of Alexandria. But this is not so, for later on the same page Clement explains: The ruling power is therefore the head (kefalh; toivnun to; hjgemonikovn). And if the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman, the man, being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman. Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife.... 35 This means that Clement of Alexandria s first statement should be understood in the sense: the man has ruling authority over the woman because she was taken from him. Clement of Alexandria is simply connecting 1 Corinthians 11:3 with 1 Corinthians 11:8 and sees one as the reason supporting the other.

This means that a similar manner of reasoning would not be inappropriate for Cyril of Alexandria, writing later and coming from the same city: the man is the head of (that is, has ruling authority over) the woman because she was taken from him. And there are several other factors that argue against the meaning source in Cyril of Alexandria, such as the following: (2) the way that a third writer, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is contemporary with Cyril, so clearly connects the wife s obedience to her husband to the idea that she was taken from him in 1 Corinthians 11:7-8; (3) the way other patristic writers so clearly understand kefalhv to mean authority over in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and connect it to ajrchv meaning authority over ; (4) the fact that it says Adam has become (gevgonen) first head of the race, which would be a strange notion for source (for a source is there from the beginning, and one does not later become a source, nor does one become a first source); and (5) the fact that authority over is a commonly understood and established meaning for kefalhv, while source has yet to be demonstrated by anything other than ambiguous passages. A factor related to (5) is (6) the absence of support from the lexicons for the meaning source. This meaning is not given in Lampe s Patristic Greek Lexicon, the standard lexicon for this material, in the entry for kefalhv, nor is it given in BAGD, the standard lexicon for New Testament Greek.38 At this point sound lexicography should cause us to be cautious about adopting a new meaning for a word based on one difficult passage, or one passage where it could have that meaning. This point was emphasized by John Chadwick in reflecting on his many years of work on the editorial team for the Liddell-Scott Lexicon: A constant problem to guard against is the proliferation of meanings.... It is often tempting to create a new sense to accommodate a difficult example, but we must always ask first, if there is any other way of taking the word which would allow us to assign the example to an already established sense.... As I have remarked in several of my notes, there may be no reason why a proposed sense should not exist, but is there any reason why it must exist? For these reasons, it seems to me that the established sense, ruler, authority, best fits this passage in Cyril of Alexandria. By weighing these considerations on this and other passages, readers will have to form their own conclusions. Yet one more point needs to be made. Cyril of Alexandria clearly did not deny the subordination of the Son to the Father, nor does his material support Kroeger s claim that these writers were quick to recognize the danger of an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 which could place Christ in a subordinate position relative to the Father, for no denial of the Father s authority over the Son is found here. In fact, in his Dialogues on the Trinity Cyril of Alexandria has an extensive discussion of the subordination of the Son to the Father, explaining that it is a voluntary submission, like that of Isaac to Abraham, or like that of Jesus to His earthly parents, and that it does not show Him to be a lesser being but is consistent with His being of the same nature with His Father and thus fully God. slc: die geskiedenis en die tale kan hier en daardie kante toe, so ek luister en neem kennis van verskillende geskiedenis argumente. 1 Kor 11:3 noem doodeenvoudig Adam die bron van Eva sy kom uit hom. In Efes 5:23 gaan dit oor liefde en versorging. Soos Christus die kerk liefgehad het en die bron van goeie dinge vir haar is (Efes 5:25-26), so moet die man sy vrou, sy liggaam, voed en versorg (Efes 5:28-29). Ongelukkig is kephale na Afrikaans vertaal as hoof. Dit sou nog gewerk het as n letterlike kop bedoel was, maar nie as die woord figuurlik bedoel word nie. Die figuurlike Afrikaanse betekenis van hoof is leier. Nou hoe moet die Bybel-leser wat nie Grieks ken nie raai hoof beteken nie gesagsfiguur nie? slc: Retha, enige goeie Griekse onderwyser sal jou leer dat woorde behalwe hul stambetekenisse, nog belangriker, in hul kontekste verstaan moet word om te bepaal wat is die bepaalde betekenisse in daardie spesifieke plek.

1 Kor.11:3ev skryf Paulus dan juis oor dat die skeppingsorde van 1 Kor.11:3 gerespekteer word in ons kerkwees en samekomste. Die doel is nie om die bron van die mens (man of vrou) aan te dui nie, maar hul onderlinge relasies met mekaar, want dit is wat op die spel is in die perikoop in en tydens die samekomste, die debat was nie skepping vs evolusie en of net die man deur God geskape is en nie die vrou nie. Op die spel is die relasie tussen die Vader en Christus as die model vir die verhouding tussen man en vrou: gelyk in waarde en wese, maar verskillend in rol. Christus is nie minderwaardig nie, maar verskillend in rol in die Goddelike ekonomie, netso die vrou, nie minderwaardig nie, maar verskillend in die skeppingsekonomie wat God daar gestel het (nie patriarge) nie. So ook by Ef.5:22-33: want v.23 se gebruik van kephale word bepaal deur die konteks, nl. die sleutelwoord onderdanig, wat vanselfsprekend wys op n bepaalde orde tussen mense op aarde. Hoekom praat Paulus van onderdanig wees as dit bloot was om aan te dui dat Adam die bron is van Eva? Nee, die skeppingsordelike soos afgebeeld in v.24 moet in man en vrou se huweliksverhouding reflekteer word: gelyk in waarde en wese, maar verskillend in rol. Wel, as hoof gesagsfiguur beteken het, sou 1 Kor 11:3 (Christus die hoof van die man, die man die hoof van die vrou) van twee-laag Christenskap gepraat het: Mans kan Christus volg, maar vroue moet mans volg. Daar sal twee middelaars tussen die vrou en God wees: Haar man en Christus. Wat kan meer anti-evangelie as dit wees? slc: Nee, jy lees daardie gedagte daar in, want in v.12 wys Paulus daarop dat alles is uit God en in die Here (v.11), dus ook die skeppingsordelike van man en vrou wat in die gesin (en gemeente) gerespekteer word, dit is die bevestiging van Gen.1:27 man en vrou het Hy hulle geskape. Hy het mense/persone gelyk in waarde en wese geskape, maar verskillend in rol. Hul is nie net persone nie, hulle is mans en vrouepersone, en dit was baie goed (Gen.1:31). As jy meen 1 Kor.11:3 leer dan n twee-laag Christenskap geld, geld dit dan ook vir ouer en kind verhouding volgens Ef.6:1ev? Omdat kinders hul ouers moet gehoorsaam, beteken dit dan dat daar twee konings is tussen kinders en God: Christus en ouers? Wat dan volgens jou denke is meer anti-evangelie as dit? Beteken dit die ouers word nou soos God, of self God, en kinders moet hul slaafs gehoorsaam ongeag of dit teen God se gebod is? En so ook werknemer en werkgewer verhoudings, die feit dat werknemers hul werkgewers moet gehoorsaam, maak dit dat Christus en die baas tussen jou en God staan, en dus volgens jou redenasies - God word, omdat daar n bepaalde orde is? (Ef.6:5ev). Nee, God se skeppingsorde van verskillende gesagsinstansies en gesagsfigure en leiers bevestig die evangelie. Dit is God se bepaalde orde vir die lewe. Die Evangelie is teen die sonde in die ordes, nie teen die ordes self nie.

Onderdanigheid hoe die vrou moet onderdanig wees Wanneer jy verstaan dat hoof bron beteken, begin die res van die prentjie in plek val! Jy hoef nie meer onderdagheid (sic) deur n manlike-gesag bril te sien nie. In plaas daarvan, kan jy onderdanigheid in die regte konteks sien: Wees uit eerbied vir Christus aan mekaar onderdanig Efes 5:21 Kan almal onder wees in n hiërargie? Nee, dis onmoontlik. Kan almal mekaar volg en al die ander laat lei? Nee. Dus is Bybelse onderdanigheid nie om iemand die leier te laat wees nie. Onderdanigheid, soos die Bybel dit gebruik, moet iets wees wat almal vir mekaar kan doen. Bybelskoliere vertel daardie selfde Griekse woord beteken ook ondersteuning, samewerking, om jou deel van die verantwoordelikheid te vat, en identifikasie met. (As jy weet dat deel vat van die verantwoordelikheid deel van die betekenis is, sal jy onderdanigheid op ongeveer die teenoorgestelde manier benader as n my-man-is-baas onderdanige.) slc: stem saam, soos Christus ons geleer het, om te lei is om te dien, dienskneg wees, man of vrou wees, manlike leierskap en vrouelike onderdanigheid is nie op sig self die probleem nie, maar die sondige skeeftrekking daarvan. Die gesamentlike direkte onderwerping aan God (5:21), hef nie die onderlinge onderwerping aan mekaar op nie, inteendeel, dit is juis die rede vir die hele samelewing se onderwerping aan mekaar in die Here (sleutelwoord, want alleen Christus se mag is absoluut en soewerein, Matt.28:18, alle aardse gesag is afleidend en beperkend volgens God se Woord): 1. huwelik: vrou onderdanig aan man soos aan die Here (v.22), en manne vroue lifhê soos Christus... (v.25) 2. gesin: kinders gehoorsaam aan ouers in die Here (6:1) 3. arbeid/werk: diensknegte aan hul base gehoorsaam soos aan Christus (6:5) As die onderdanigheid van v.22 die onderdanigheid van punte 1-3 opgehef het, sou Paulus nie die woord onderdanigheid gebruik het nie. Dus, albei onderdanigheid soorte moet gehandhaaf word: afsonderlik en saam voor God, en afsonderlik ook in die onderlinge orde vir die lewe wat God daar gestel het. Kyk ook na Rom.13:1ev, ons onderwerp ons, ons is onderdanig ter wille van God, die owerhede word nie God nie, hul gesag is beperk, so ook die Vader en ouer en werkgewer s n.

Moet n vrou aan haar man onderdanig wees? Ongetwyfeld, ja! Alle gelowiges moet aan mekaar onderdanig wees, dus moet haar gelowige man ook aan haar onderdanig wees. Maar sy moet onderdanig wees soos die Bybel onderdanigheid beskryf, nie soos die woordeboek dit beskryf nie. En Bybelse onderdanigheid beteken duidelik, gesien in die lig van Efes 5:21, nie hiërargie nie. slc: ja, saam onderdanig voor God (5:21), maar ookonderling onderdanig volgens God se orde vir huwelik, gesin en werk, alles in die Here (Ef.5:22-6:9). Almal buig saam in die vrees van God én in hul onderlinge posisie/plekke/take/rolle in die kerk en samelewing soos die Woord bepaal. Die skeppingsplan Waar die geslags-hiërargiste allerhande goed by Genesis se woorde moet inlees om te bewys dat eensydige onderdanigheid nog altyd God se plan was, kan jy nou die skeppingsverhaal lees vir wat dit is: Man en vrou was op twee verskillende maniere geskape, maar met geen bevellyn tussen hulle nie. Eva as helper beteken nie sy is onder Adam nie God word Israel se helper en Dawid se helper genoem met dieselfde Hebreeuse woord. Die woord word meer vir God gebruik as vir mense. slc: Daar is n bepaalde orde (ek vermy die woord hierargie met al sy negatiewe bagasie): Adam is eerste geskape en kry die opdrag om te werk asook te bewaak (Gen.3:15-18). Dan word Eva as hulp gegee wat by hom pas, om hom te help, ja, Adam het die hulp nodig en nie andersom nie! As daar nie n bepaalde orde is nie, dan val Paulus se hele argument van 1 Tim.2:13 weg as begronding vir v.11,12 (hoe verklaar jy hierdie deel van Paulus dan?). 1 Tim.2:13 en 1 Kor.14:34 wys duidelik in hul Gees-geinspireerde dat n bepaalde orde is daar tussen man en vrou, kan dit nie ontken nie. Hoe dit verklaar en toegepas word is die bone of contention. Hiërargie word egter voorspel in die sondeval: hy sal oor jou heers Gen 3:16. Jy sal in staat wees om Gen. 3:16 te lees soos dit daar staan, en sien dis n donker voorspelling wat waar geword het, nie n opdrag nie. ( Ek glo geslagshiërargie is een van die negatiewe gevolge van die sondeval, wat Jesus gesterf het om te kom wegneem.) slc: ek sou sê chauvinisme (mans wat vrouens onderdruk en nie liefdevol dienend lei soos Christus sy kerk lei nie) en feminisme/egalitarisme is die gevolg van die sondeval: en na jou man sal jou begeerte wees, d.w.s. om orals die broek te wil dra. Die sondeval het juis die skeppingsordelike man wat lei en vrou wat volg beskadig, soos die sondeval uitwys en Paulus dan ook waarsku in 1 Tim.2:14 as rolle verwar word.

In n ideale wêreld sal interpretasies soos: God het Adam eerste gemaak, want Hy wil hê dat mans vroue lei en van Hom leer so simpel klink soos God het Adam eerste gemaak oor mans dubbel so lank vat om dinge te verstaan. Só kon hy haar een keer en hom twee keer vertel. Ons weet nie wie Adam of God vir Eva geleer het of hoekom God dit so gedoen het nie. Dis voorbarig om te maak asof ons weet. slc: die antwoord is geopenbaar, dit is nie voorbarig nie: Ef.5:32, die huwelik is n beeld van Christus se verhouding met sy kerk, en as mans nie liefdevol lei soos Christus nie, en die vrou is nie onderdanig soos die kerk teenoor Christus nie, dan lei hierdie wesentlike beeld groot skade. Moenie in mans self die rede soek om onderdanig te wees nie, soek dit in die eer van Christus, God se goeie skeppingswil, dit is wat die gelowige vroue in die Bybel gedoen het, ook vandag. Swaar laste Diegene wat glo die man is die leier (hoof) en die vrou n onderdaan, bind swaar laste op albei. Baie mans kan konsidererende huweliksmaats, goeie pa s, voorsieners en beskermers wees maar hulle kan nie, alleen, leiding neem in alle sake wat met die huwelik en gesin verband hou nie. Of hulle hoor hulle moet priesters wees wat intree vir hulle families, maar hulle weet hulle vroue bid meer en sien nie wat maak hulle gebede meer spesiaal nie. As sy meer vir haar gesin bid, moet sy minder, of hy meer bid om hom priester te laat wees? Maar mense wat dit glo, bind n nog swaarder rol op vroue. Maar as die man liefhet soos Christus die kerk liefhet, is dit maklik om onderdanig te wees vertel hulle. Gaaf, maar geeneen van hulle vertel vroue moet net onderdanig wees as mans perfek liefhet nie. Daar is vroue soos Journey in die liggaam van Christus. slc: 1 Pe.3:1-7 moet ook oor besin word. Aan die begin van die artikel het ek gevra hoe mans moet lei, vroue moet onderdanig wees proponente n vrou soos Journey kan help. Ons wat weet hoof beteken bron, en onderdanigheid verwys na ondersteuning en gedeelde verantwoordelikheid, nie n bevellyn nie, kan haar vertel om langs haar man te staan en nie onder hom nie. Sy is nie sy slaaf nie, nes hy nie hare is nie. Die Bybel gebruik gesag/ beskikking oor die maat/ mag net een keer in verband met die huwelik en dis om te vertel dat mans en hul vroue gelyke gesag in die slaapkamer het. (1 Kor 7:4) slc: ek hou van die gedagte van die fokus nie op die bevel nie (alhoewel die grieks by onderdanig hipotasso is in Ef.5:22, n duidelike imperatief = bevel is, en jy dit nie kan ontken nie), maar op die ondersteuning vir mekaar in Christus en verantwoordelik wees saam (maar elkeen in sy taak en plek). Die derde punt van

die HK fokus ook op ons dankbaarheidslewe, en ek wil hê, of eerder bid ek dat vroue, gelowige vroue hul rol en take met blydskap en opgewondheid en dankbaarheid sal vervul en nie omdat die patriarge of enige ander man so sê nie, maar omdat God se bevele goed is vir ons, kyk na Rom.7:12. So die Here se bevel tot manlike dienende leierskap en vroulike onderdanigheid is goed, as dit in Christus is, en nie wat die radikale feministe daarvan as karikature maak nie, of dalk sekere patriarge wat hul gesag misbruik vir goddeloosheid en dwase liefdelose leiding van hul vroue en dogters nie. Petrus leer dit aan ons mans ook: Net so moet julle, manne, verstandig met hulle saamlewe en aan die vroulike geslag, as die swakkere, eer bewys, omdat julle ook mede-erfgename van die genade van die lewe is -- sodat julle gebede nie verhinder mag word nie. (3:7) Weë die mans wat nie in verstandigheid, liefde en diens met sy vrou saamlewe asook teenoor die vroulike geslag nie. As ons verstaan wat God regtig sê oor mans en hul vroue, kan huwelike word wat God wil hê dit moet wees. Die resultate, soos Dr. David H. Olson gevind het, spreek vanself. slc: dit is ons almal se gebede, maar ons verskil oor die hoe. Dankie vir die gesprek Retha, en dat ons dit beskaaf kan doen. Ons gaan mekaar seker nie oortuig nie, maar dalk beter verstaan.