Christian Forums

Is it Biblical?

It all depends upon how old they are.

 ::nodding:: ::GodisGood::

GTM

Age has nothing to do with it.  Are women qualified to be elders?

No, it's not.  Sorry for the brief reply, but I have a headache.  I'll get back to this topic some time later.

love,

Sopranette

Gary,

  1.) Who is Church Norris and 2.) I was making a funny but I guess that you didn't see that or maybe didn't like it.  

In all honesty what is your opinion on women elders?

GTM

"Church Norris?"  That would be Walker, Texas Pastor.  My opinion on women elders is found in 1 Tim. 3, and I believe that passage is not trumped by Gal. 3:28.

No, woman should not have power over men in church.  Although I think sometimes we are much more fitted to the job than some men are.   LOL

Gary,

   Actually I really enjoyed Walker Texas Ranger over the years. But on the other issue, I think that this idea could go two ways. The strict literal interpretation is one and the other is the relation idea of women during that time period.

GTM

The catch is, has God changed...  without telling us?

These people think so...

http://cahaba.goodnewsherald.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35

In our church we have no women elders   We have women pastors

Does the word forbid against that ?

I Think this would explain it

http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

Women in Bible times were second class citizens.  Usually God does not interferes with a culture if it doesn't contradict His own laws.

We have women elders where I attend.  Is it biblical?  I don't think the assembly had official offices they are man made.  Therefore in my denomination decides to have women elders;no problem.     

I used to be pretty conservative on this issue.  My views are beginning to change.

There were a few women who were in leadership positions during Biblical times.  Deborah comes to mind.  I know she wasn't an elder, but she definitely was a leader. 


Gary, This one's for you brother:
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Irving-Bible-Church-Puts-First-Woman-in-the-Pulpit

God told Eve to submit to her husband.  And I don't think Adam and Eve were bound by any social customs, were they?   ::noworries::

All through the Bible, God tells us that women should submit to their husbands.  All of the leaders in Jewish and Christian society were men. (Yeah, go ahead and make an issue of Deborah.  Doesn't change the principle.)  Seems strange that God would require a women to be submissive at home, and at the same time be in charge at church.

I don't see a real distinction there.  Either women are permitted to lead a Christian assembly, or they're not.

If I ever make it to Irving, I will visit another one then.  Joking aside, I am a complementarian, not an egalitarian.

Biblically, pastor=elder.

But not always so, in modern practice.

My only real point there, was that women should have authority over men in either capacity.

I don't look at the issue primarily in terms of authority, but in terms of responsibility and service.

Just stating it how it is in our church   Then reading that article   it does say  elder is like pastor


So if that is the case      do you go as far and say that even on this forum   that is should be only men to men

no woman allowed to teach or instruct another man?      

I really don't know    I think I will eat popcorn and let the scholars teach while I stay silent  ::eatingpopcorn:

::smile:: I learned some new words. 
I hadn't read anything but the headline.
I'm on the fence.  I have no aspirations of being an elder or in a leadership position in Church or anywhere else.   (I am a "ministry team leader", but that just means I am the librarian, and I have a few helpers... I report to and am accountable to an elder.)  We have occasional meetings with the elder team to discuss goals, direction, ideas, special needs.
I see some women as being extraordinarily gifted and would like them to be able to use their gifts in the church. 
Analogy: Maybe like a Physician's Assistant.  They can perform a physical, and write a prescription, under the direction of an MD.  Does that make sense? 

God made a prophesy after sin.  That does not mean that He was pleased with it.  Please read Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

The Lord did not bring sorrow to anybody.  But He makes Himself responsible for everything that happens in this world.

It's not biblical. Women do not meet the qualifications for elders according to Paul's letter to Timothy.

I the greek the word for elder just means older man.  The female version means older woman.  I don't see either as an official office of the assembly.  We are told what a widow is so we can reconize one when we see them.  Paul explained what an older man in the faith should look like so we could reconize them and seek their wisdom.  I do not see this as a list of qualifications for some official office.

If it is an official office how do we get them?  The only way they were reconized in NT times was by the HS or an inspired preacher.  So how shall we meet this NT requirement if it is an official office?     

I Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

One of the problems with proof text is they seldom prove the point.  Your quote is from the KJV.  One of the flaws is seen here.  King James insisted that bishop be in the KJV even though it certainly is not in the Greek.  Also he was justifying his office by having bisops in the church.  He said " where there is no bishop there is no king.  That being said the word office is not in the Greek.  A betterliteral rendering is If any man desires (oversite or to be out front) he desires a good work.  Office is not in the Greek.

That being said if God intended this to be a perpetual office where is the process for making one an elder?

Leadership talents and character traits are not limited by gender.  Rather, a person's gifting makes place for them. 

So, is male leadership in the Bible "Descriptive" or "Prescriptive".  I believe it is "Descriptive".  In other words, the Bible predominantly speaks of and even assumes men in leadership positions because men were the leaders in those cultures; but that's not necessarily the way it should be.  Rather, I believe we should walk in mutual respect and honor seeking to grow in servant leadership. 

Frankly, I don't care whether the messenger is male or female, what matters is the message.  And I don't care who leads as long as we're following the Lord.  As for leadership in a local community of faith, I believe a team of people, men and women, with differing gifts and talents is the healthiest expression of a local body of believers. 

In Bible times women could not  ask a question in church.  Not even to their husbands.  This was a cultural issue and many years ago.  In my opinion Jesus and His followers did not want to interfear with this culture.  It would cause to much confusion.  It was not practical.  However, today we live in a more knowledgeable culture where science has made us aware that intellectually and spiritually both sexes are the same.  If Jesus was on this earth today.  I am sure that He and His followers would have teach certain things a little different, including this very subject.

Actually, depending on the bylaws of the denom, an Elder may not have authority over men, but the Pastor would have the authority over all of them. So... then a woman could be an elder. 

I agree 100%  I was beginning to fear that I was alone on this subject.

I believe Jesus would have stood by His word.  He would have revealed to Paul the truth and not have people going down the wrong path.

I believe it goes against the Bible for a woman to have authority over the man.  We don't have elders, just a Pastor and 7 deacons.
You have the right to believe as you see it.  We each have to decide for ourselves what we believe and why.

While I don't believe in women being a bishop/presbyter/overseer/elder/pastor, I also do not agree with a church leadership model of a single pastor/elder and deacons.  I believe in the plurality of overseers who take care of the spiritual needs of the church, and deacons who take care of the physical needs of the church.

In the words of Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend." "Bishop" in 1 Tim 1:3 is from the Greek word episcopas, and refers to overseers or, put another way, elders. Episcopas appears four times in the NT:
1) Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
2) Phil 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
3) Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
4) 1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

The word literally mean "one who watches over." Episcopas refers to the office of an elder.

Coming in on this a little late!  Can you guess what my answer is? A GREAT BIG YES!

This subject cannot be effectively understood by just reading a verse that, in all but a very small number of NT versions, is not translated correctly and without having a good foundation in the early church's history, geographical laws and geographical customs.   I have discussed this issue before with others and it usually ends up in both sides holding their own particular choice of translation--restrictive or not restrictive.

The best study I have found on this subject is a small book written by Richard and Katherin Clark Kroeger.  It is a thorough study but is not so large that one feels that they will never get through it.  There are two versions available.  A pdf that is an earlier version than the book and the book, which can be ordered from http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml .  The pdf version can be downloaded from http://www.pcusa.org/womensministries/history-theology/women-elders.pdf .  The Kroegers als wrote a very in depth study of 1 Tim 2 11-15 under the title "I SUffer Not A Woman."  It is available through a number of book retailers, including CBE and Amazon.  This book is worth every penny you will spend on it.  I highly recommend it as it presents a very good explanation of some of the most mistranslated and misunderstood verses in our modern Bible.

I used to be of the opinion that women could never be elders.  However, after doing my own study using available resources from numerous church fellowships (not just CoC) I came to the conclussion that the Church of Christ (sof) has a lot to learn where women are concerned.  I came to the definite conclussion that not only can women be elders, but we are probably sinning in God's eyes by refusing to let women stand equal with men and use their God supplied talents and abilities equally with men in the church.

Bonnie,

Please note in my previous post, I did not say women were to be over men.  They are to serve equally with men at all levels.

Galations 3:26-29 is about as clear as it gets as to how we are to view and treat each other when we are immersed in Christ.  Equally!

Okimar
In part you are making my point for me.  Yes I said it is one who has the over site that does not a bishop make.  The word bisop as used in the KJV refers to a bisop an official office in the COE and the RC.  It literally said "If any one (not man) desire the WORK not office.  Again how do you scripturally get men into an official office of an elder in the assembly??   If one is following a pattern for the "church" the pattern must be complete.  The only way elders were ordained (reconized) in the NT was by the Holy Spirit or by an inspired preacher.  So which one of those 2 do you want to use to ordain elders?   Now if we are talking about a man made institutional church.  I think they are free to set up their leadership by their rules.   

We can get down in the weeds of the Greek text if that is what you wish.  But to keep it simple here is I Tim 3:1 from Young's literal translation.


1 Timothy 3
 1Stedfast [is] the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth;


The rest of the NT talks about older men well worn in the faith who are to persude us with their live and ensample.  They are to watch out for warn and be there for the younger converts.  It is not a position of power and authority.  I know this for at least 3 reasons.  1.  Jesus (when He was ask about who could sat on His right hand..) said the power and authority of a ruler would not be in His Kingdom.  2.  Jesus said all power and authority was given to Him that leaves none for men.  3. The letter to the assemblys were not addressed to elders and there is no example of elders ever making a decision on any thing seperate and apart from "the whole assembly".

Actually, I am showing you that one of the offices is the eldership. The fact that there are qualifications for Elders demonstrates that the office exists. Further, your three points conflict with scripture. Just b/c all authority resides with Christ does not mean that He has not delegated some of that authority (i.e. the Apostles and the Elders of today). FInally, the elders in Ephesus ware charged with overseeing the flock in Acts 20. Elders are absolutely in a position of authority.

I believe we are equal in God's love for us.  He doesn't love the Jew more than the Gentile, or a man more than a woman.  Although some would argue over that. LOL
He is also referring to our future state in heaven.

Okimar
A wave of the hand argument won't work.

An elder is told he has a work not an office,   Jesus said there would be no positions of power where one is over another in His kingdom.  If elder was a position of power and not a loving ensample for the assembly why were not Paul's letters addressed to the elders?   Why do we not have an example of an elder or a group of elders making a decision on anything separate and a part from "the whole assembly"??
If it is a God given office how do we put men in  that office.  Again in NT times only the Holy Spirit and and inspired preachers ordained elders.

Think about what you are saying.  God gave an office in His church but gave no system for placing men in this office.  He gave no examples of them exercising this power to make decisions for the assembly.  When he inspired Paul to write letters to the assembles he did not inspire him to address them to the elders.

Elders are spiritual leaders by their life and ensample not by man given power.  We are to be persuaded by their life and ensample not to be knuckled under by a power structure.  Because they are well worn in the faith they have the obligation (work) of teaching , warning and watching out for the souls of less experienced Christians.  A person is an ensample or elder by their life.  All the voting, putting before a congregation or what ever will not make the an elder if their life does not persuade folks.  Likewise the lack of a vote or official recolonization will not stop one from being an ensample .

 

Okimar here is another thought for you.

Ephesians 4:11 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

   
11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

 Now why are not these other works made official offices in an institutional church?

If you look at verse 10 you will see that God made all of these folks what they were not man.  Jesus came to set up a spiritual kingdom not another version of the Jewish system where one had to do certain things and follow a certain pattern to be acceptable to God.  Later my brother

hello everyone, this is my first post here and thought this to be an interesting topic to start with.

I certainly agree that women are not to be Pastors, Elders, or in any other position that includes authority over men or in a teaching position over men in the church. The bible is very plain about these topics and although some would say these were cultural rules laid down,, God did not send His Apostle to the Gentiles to teach them cultural rights and wrongs. Paul was sent to teach the Gentiles about Jesus and how they (and we) were (are) to live.

2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17.that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.[/color]

If this scripture is true that would mean that all scripture should be used and taught regardless of the time, place, and culture.

To me it falls down to this, God placed the responsibility of these positions on men and other responsibilities he gave to women. Its not about who is more important or who is better. Sure there are plenty of women that are wonderful speakers and are gifted with a great knowledge of the Word of God; but to go outside the parameters set forth by God isn't right.

God Bless

Jason

Jason
When God told the slave to obey his master and the master to treat the slave fairly was He upholding slvaery or telling folks to work within the culture and circumstances they found themselves in?   

Why would women need a leadership title in order for their talents and services to be of use to the church?

love,

Sopranette

This is about the worship service type leadership.  If they can not teach, preach, pray out loud, serve at the Lord's table, lead singing what is left in a worship service for leadership?

But why would they need an official church title to do these things?  Unless they're on some sort of payroll.

love,

Sopranette

Neither men nor women need a title to function in their gifts and talents, but they do need to be accepted.  A doctor can be very skilled, but people who refuse her care because she's a woman are foolish.  And the title "Doctor" does help us to show her the respect she deserves because others whom we trust have given her that title because she has shown a certain character, level of skill and education. 

If we take our physical health so importantly, how much more importantly should we take our spiritual health.  I don't want to take the advice of just any quack, but I want someone who has been tested and proven themselves in this field to minister to the health of my sick child.  And I tell you what, a person whose child is dying of cancer doesn't care whether the doctor is male or female if they have the cure.  But I wouldn't even know to go to this person or trust this person if she didn't have the title.

If you cannot tell, I believe that women not only "can" be elders, but those who have the character, spiritual maturity, and have been tested by fire should be recognized as elders, and given which ever title is appropriate as a leader in that community of faith!

Now that makes sense to me, Sherman!  Thanks!  I guess I was thinking title=prestige, not exactly keeping in line with the modest, submissive roles of women.  I'm still kind of wondering if "elder" would be an appropriate title.  Maybe "deaconess"?

love,

Sopranette

I don't believe you have to be an overseer to "pray out loud" or "lead singing" or "serve at the Lord's Table."  And I believe the leadership transcends the "worship service."  I don't believe in strictly authoritarian leadership, but servant leadership.  I believe with regards to the beginning of time, and with 1 Timothy 3, that the role of overseer is limited to qualified men, who are ultimately responsible before God for the church.

Perhaps you are not aware of Conservative CoC doctrine.  Women are not allowed to do any of these things when men are present.  The same thing would not apply to many other groups.

Gary
 I was speaking from personal experience in the conservative CoC.  Women are not allowed to do any of these things.  I understand that leadership would and should extend behond the "worship service"  however, in many cases in this group they do little other than call the shots for the assembly and oversee the money.  Sorry if that sounds bitter.  I guess that is because I am.   

I'm glad that helped some.  I do believe though that any title appropriate for a man is also appropriate for a woman.  The word elder actually refers to one who is older and in the Greek is used for both men and women.  I think we differ concerning "submissive"; I believe we should all be "submissive" to one another and provide servant leadership as we're able to.  We're family, we have fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters.  Elders would be fathers and mothers, even grandparents in Christ.  All this arging people do over leadership roles comes from thinking of the Church as an Organization, instead of as a Family!  I suppose for churches that are just social organizations, people worrying about titles and roles is a big deal; but in a family they are not.

BTW, in my family, my wife and I are equal seeking to serve oneanother and provide servant leadership based on our talents, gifts, and availabilty.  I believe an egalitarian model of family is the divine ideal as established in Eden, what God intended and intends for us.  Patriarchy, man ruling over woman is a fruit of sin, actually a curse upon humanity.  This curse effects not only the family, but all of society (religious and civil).

Anyhow, may your church be Family with fathers, mothers, and even grandparents, all serving, respecting, and loving one another as Christ loves us!

http://cahabavalley.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35

The above link is to the Cahaba Valley Church (church of Christ) web site showing their elders.

I don't think that i the CoC I am familiar with. 

This congregation is like alot of the more grace centered congregations regarding their name.  They have dropped the Church of Christ in favor of just "_______ Church" and in much smaller letters on down the sign "a church of Christ" or not at all.

Cahaba Valley is way ahead of their time!  As far as I know, they are the first to have women elders in the CoC.  THey describe themselves as an ecumenical church of Christ and have participated with other church denominations in events, etc.
This was one of the churches that was courting my oldest daughter when she was looking for a childrens ministry position before accepting a children's minister position at Kingwood Church of Christ, near Houston.  It was just too far away from home base.  It would have made it almost impossible to see them more than twice a year and that just wasn't in the options!

Cahaba has published the study they did of women in the church on their website for others who are tackling this same type of study.

Sherman,

We may not agree on everything but we are in 100% agreement here.  You have an additional manna for your comments.  My marriage is also based on an egalitarian concept.  It has been since the day we said "I do" and that was directly contrary to the complimentarian (just a weakened patriarchal and sinfull concept!) view that was being taught as the Christian marriage in the church we were married in.  We will make 35 years in Feb, Lord willng, and keep on pushing toward that 50 mark!  I know for a fact that a number of those in that congregation who practiced what was being taught are no longer married while most of those who maintained a more egalitarian marriage principle are still together!  Interesting, huh!

Much of the problem we have in the modern church can be directly linked, IMO, to an attitude that became strong and pushed apx 1850 years ago when the male side of the church that existed in the gentile churches began pushing women out of leadership in a very deliberate move to take control and make the church coincide to the customs of females being in full subjection to men both in the church and outside the church.  Then, as the English Bible was released, the translation was held to a male based translation on purpose to maintain the status quo.  We now know from indepth study in the last 30 years that this particular type of translation was not correct and that there was more to Paul's letters to Timothy than just a straight simple translation yields!  However, I do not believe we will see Bible publishers make the corrections in the near future due to the "maximized profit" or "don't make changes however correct they are if they will lower the profit ratios of the company's product!"

When we finally realize that servant leadership is the only model of leadership acceptable to God, then maybe we will see positive growth, marriages that last, and churches based in the Gal 3:26-28 concept where all gifts are utilized, regardless of who you are.

Wiley
Thanks that is refreshing.  I now attend a DoC and we also have women elders.

Sherman, I missed most of this thread so forgive me if I ask something that's already been asked.  But is GALATIANS all we have to go on that would make Paul's letters about women's roles different?

Actually there are several scriptures that are misinterpreted to imply that men should rule over women, in the family, society, and the church.  Thankfully though, God is breaking through to bring equality to the forefront.

Thanks


Not suprising! The church, rather than embracing the equality that we have in Christ, has continued to operate and promote the worldly patriarichal model of family and church.  Thankfully though, God is revealing to many Christians the truth of the divine ideal for family - the egalitarian model.  If the church will embrace this radically, teaching couples how to be equal partners instead of masters & servants, then the divorce rate in the church will go down radically while the world's divorce rate continues to climb.  And rather than toughing out bad marriages, we'll be empowering couples to have happy healthy marriages based on mutual respect and love!


Bible translation is much more difficult than what most people want to admit.  Shoot, many people misunderstand my posts though we share the fact that English is our mother tongue.  As the church matures though, I believe the translations will get better, I pray.


Amen!

Yes, I would like to understand them.

Hey Bonnie,

For me the place to start is Genesis 1.  In the beginning God created humanity in His own image, male and female created He them and gave them dominion over the fish, birds, and living creatures of earth. Gen. 1:27-30

So the first thing we need to realize is that both men and women were created in the image of God, not just men.  Women are not inferior in any way, but equal with man, both made in the image of God and thus worthy of honor.

Furthermore, when looking at Eden, many theologians, including myself, not only see Eden as God's creative act, but the Divine Ideal, what God wants for humanity, not just what we've lost, but what we should strive towards, and what we are restored to in and through Christ! Anything less than this Divine Ideal is the result of sin.

BTW, as Americans, our nation is founded upon the principle that all men, as in humanity, are created equal.  The Declaration of Independance states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." 

This statement is the foundational principle that is working in our nation to bring about equality of the races and genders, and it's based upon Gen. 1:27.

Thanks, Sherman, for the reply.  I always value your opinions and I will study on this a bit.

Bonnie,

The next scripture that I'd meditate on is the Fall in Gen. 3.  Note that the devil is cursed because of his deception, and the ground is cursed because of man's sin.  The fruit of sin for humanity was death - spiritual separation from God.  The specific results of sin for the woman are in vs. 16.
1.  Increased pain in childbearing
2.  Undue negative desire for her husband
3.  Male dominance - "he will rule over you.'"

The divine ideal is that men and women should be equal with both ruling over creation.  However, due to sin men rule over women.  Patriarchy is a result, fruit of sin.  Should we promote the fruit of sin, or do what we can to lessen it and mitigate the oppression of women? 

A good point to think through is the second point, a woman having a desire for her husband.  In context, this is a negative result of sin.  What is this speaking of?  I believe it reflects a common emotional problem of women desiring a relationship with men to such a great degree that they are often willing to put up with abuse and oppression, the man "ruling" over her. 

I simply wonder why an omniscient God wouldn't have just plainly said something about women elders (and a multitude of other "issues") 

Or at least a plainly stated:  "The day is coming when what I said now in scripture will have to be interpreted to match what I ultimately meant it to mean"

I believe God was pretty plain in 1 Tim. 3 which is consistent with the entire OT and NT.  I believe one has to use Gal. 3:27 as a trump verse to make the egalitarian argument.

This is what I ask folks about the "pattern"  The NT is not written as  a rule book or pattern like the OT.  Is is a simple story of God coming to redeem man and our relationship to Him.

I appreciate what you're getting at John.  The OT had Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but the NT has no corresponding Law books.  Much of the NT is Descriptive and not necessarily Prescriptive.  For example, much of the NT presumes male dominance in the family and in the church and speaks from that perspective - Descriptive; but does that mean that such passages indicate that such is the way things should be - Prescriptive?  I don't believe so.  Rather, it tends to Christianize such male dominance encouraging males to not be oppressive, and females to not be rebellious, speaking to the current order of things and not seeking to change the current order. 

On the other hand, there is significant evidence that women were accepted as leaders in the church, though such was certainly not the norm due to the culture being so male dominated.  Phillip's daughters prophecied.  Junias was considered a great apostle.  The first evangelist was a woman.  Paul encouraged his readers to honor and respect specific women he named who served with him in the ministry. etc.

I suppose the reason so many people quote Gal.3:28 is because it so well expresses what they, we, see in scripture elsewhere.  We are all one in Christ, children of God, heirs of his righteousness. 

Gal.3:26-29
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 

We know that was never the Lord's wish that men oppress women in any way.  If we all lived according to what God wants... well we would be a lot less troubled.

God loves us equally, I'm sure of that.  He tells husbands to love their wives as they do their own bodies. 

Of course not...women don't age past 39 (or so I've been told).


V

Sherman
Amen!

39 was several years past the average life expectency for the first century so that would not disqualify them even if it was the 21st time they were 39.  rofl

What's up, HeHealedMe?  I have noticed you have posted this response in many of the threads today?  Are you ok?

love,

sopranette

Gary,

Gal 3:26-28 isn't what I would call the Trump Verses for 1 Tim 2 or 1 Cor 14.  What it does is tell us what God expects of the church when one is totally immersed in the spirit of Christ.  IMO, we loose what we are to be seen as the image of Christ in us.  When you read the traditional translation of the other two sets of verses, there is a definite conflict of meaning that cannot be explained away, no matter how hard one tries.  Viewing Genesis 2 and 3 also conflicts with 1 Tim 2 in the since it is currently translated, at least until we factor in the the now know conflicts that had arrisen in Ephesus in the church.  The conflicts I'm referring to are the assorption of paganistic Gnostic teachings which were quite active in Ephesus at this time into the Christian church in Ephesus which would form the basis of the Christian Gnostic teachings which we still suffer from the effects of in our modern church.  What most people are unaware of is that much of the reason for writing Timothy was to combat Gnostic teaching, much of which was coming throughy women who were heavily influenced by the reverse view of the creation of man.

I would highly recommend the foundational study on this which was done in apx 1995, give or take,
I Suffer Not A Woman: Rethinking 1 Tim 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence  by Richard Clark Kroeger & Catherine Clark Kroeger  ( http://www.amazon.com/Suffer-Not-Woman-Rethinking-Evidence/dp/0801052505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1225976813&sr=8-1 )

Greek translation is definitly not an exact science!  There is much we still don't know and discoveries are continually being made that show that the Greek to English translation needs to be redone in some areas of our NT, especially where gender is definded.  The Kroegers tackle this problem head on using a historical approach which takes into account the Gnostic influence on how the letter to Timothy should be understood and translated,, especially in light of discoveries of Greek texts in the 1970's that have served to give us a better understanding of one word in particular:  authentien.

Another example of how we apply translation for a male only view is the following:  From the NIV: (Traditional view)
3:1This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer{or, superintendents, or bishops}, he desires a good work.
3:2 The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;
3:3 not a drinker, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
3:4 one who rules his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence;
3:5 (but if a man doesn't know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the assembly of God?)
3:6 not a new convert, lest being puffed up he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
3:7 Moreover he must have good testimony from those who are outside, to avoid falling into reproach and the snare of the devil.
3:8 Servants{or, Deacons.}, in the same way, must be reverent, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for money;
3:9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
3:10 Let them also first be tested; then let them serve{or, serve as deacons} if they are blameless.
3:11 Their wives in the same way must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
3:12 Let servants{or, deacons} be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
3:13 For those who have served well{or, served well as deacons} gain for themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Translation based on the latest knowledge that is presently considered the untraditional view
 
Ch.3:1-7 This is a faithful saying. If any person  aspires to be a Guardian,  they are desiring a fine work. 2 So then it is necessary that they are blameless and faithful to their partner,  not a drunkard, sensible,  well behaved,  hospitable, skilled in teaching,  3 not a drunk nor someone who gets into fist fights, but they must be fair, peaceful and free from greed.
4 They must provide for  their own household, and have their little children in support, and to do so in a most dignified manner. 5 (For if someone doesn’t know how to provide for their own household, how will they manage God’s house!)
   6 They can’t be a novice, or they might get wrapped in clouds of conceit and silliness which would lead to them falling prey  to Slanderer-Liar’s law court.  7 They must also have a fine reputation with the outsiders, so that they don’t fall into disgrace, as this is  a trick set up by Slanderer-Liar.
8-13   In the same way also  deacons must be dignified, not two-faced, not addicted to  wine, not greedy for dishonest profit. 9 They must possess the hidden secret truth of the faith with a clean conscience. 10 And after they have first been examined,  and found to be without reproach,  then let them serve as deacons. 11 In the same way also,  female deacons  must be dignified,  not slanderers or drunks, but trustworthy in everything.
   12 Deacons must be faithful to their partner,  and provide for  their children and their household well.  13 For those who have served as deacons obtain for themselves an advanced standing. They also have much right to speak freely, boldly and openly,  by means of the faith that comes from the Anointing of Jesus.

While this newer rendering of 1 Tim is more accurate in literal Greek translation, it is presently considered the untraditional view due to the idea that the eldership (Guardian/s in this case--I prefer elder) and the deaconate are now open to not only males, but females with the desired qualities and desires to serve.  Please note that there is nothing in the verses that describes the way the vast majority of elde3rships seem to work in our smaller congregations!  Larger congregations have moved to a servant-leadership model over the last few years which is how I personally believe the eldership should be.

there is a huge volume of work and study that has been published and more coming out everyday that challenges the ultra traditional views as applied by the vast majority of male controlled denominations/congregations.  The biggest problem we have, IMO, is getting past the idea that the perfect understanding (traditional views) regarding the place of men and women in the church and that women cannot be equal to men in the church at all levels. 

Jesus made his most important announcements of his ministry through women and we cannot even recognize that simple fact in the traditional views!  With that fact in mind, how can we start to understand what Paul said regarding women, and paul was guided by the Holy Spirit!

Another great post, Wiley!  ::tippinghat::

Wiley,

Looking at the above rendering, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  Have you looked at the Koine Greek behind this passage for yourself?  It's obvious that much attention was given to make the above "translation" gender neutral.  I would call it a paraphrase since it drifts a little too far from the actual meaning of the Greek.

miaV gunaikoV andra

That is the phrase in the Greek that is "traditionally" (if you will) translated as "husband of one wife."  The problem with forcing that to be gender neutral is that the Greek is very gender-specific there.  The Greek word for wife or woman there is the word from which we get the word root "gyn" (as in "gynecology").  "Aner" (or "andra" in its declension here) specifically and only refers to a man or male (as opposed to other Greek words which might have been used instead... such as "anthropos," which could be ambiguous with regard to gender).  "Gyne" specifically and unambiguously refers to a woman or female.  And, the way these words appear together in the context, a "husband" and a "wife" is what we're talking about.

Also, if the "translator" was only concerned about making this "gender neutral," I wonder why the word "spouse" wasn't used?  That would have been a perfectly adequate word if you're only concerned about forcing the text to be gender neutral.  But, apparently, anyone could potentially qualify as long as he or she is faithful to his or her... uh... "partner."  Hmm...

I worry that this kind of rendering/stretching of the text might not only be used in the gender equality discussion... but could also be used in another conversation that is taking place in some denominations.  But, that's another issue.




Just for some info, here is Strong's description of the Greek word that is translated as "husband" in 1 Timothy 3:2:
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/435.htm (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/435.htm)

And, the word that is translated as "wife": 
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1135.htm (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1135.htm)

There's no making either of those words "gender neutral."  They mean what they mean.  ::wink::

Traditional or not, to make that verse gender neutral is to depart from a literal translation of the Greek.  If you want to take liberties with your application of that verse and apply the "priniciple" of "husband of one wife" to women so that "wife of one husband" could also be acceptable, that's one thing.  But, to say that the Greek says something other than what it says is something else entirely.

I disagree, and you can read DCR's post.  Gal. 3:28 is used as trump verse against the rest of the bible.

 ::amen!::

Thanks for the recommendation.  For those interested in researching this further, you might also read, "God's Word To Women" by Kathrine C. Bushnell, and "Why Not Women" by Loren Conningham and David Joel Hamilton. 

We all know that it is better that a man go to hell than to suffer the degradation of being preached to and taught by a woman.  Mercy sakes alive.  What will they think up next??  ::crackup::

Now, now!  Don't make me sic Knut over here on you! ::crackup::







<====(me & Knut)

love,

Sopranette

After reading all the posts I think it would be presumptuous to put women in as Elders.
I don't see any real proof that God intended it to be so. I don't believe Gal. changes the meaning of the other verses.  I wonder if it isn't referring to our lives in heaven any way.

 

Derek is technically accurate.

However...

Much of the problem as relates to Gary's original question has to do with other problems with "traditional translations".  There really is a "carrier frequency" that our translators have tuned into when they approach the text, and, it's a tradition of word choices which goes back centuries and has become the lens through which Christians have read and understod their Bibles.  One of those traditional biases of translation is evident in I Tim. 3:1.  From the KJV;


"Office" is not in the text.  The ASV and the NASV don't make much improvement;

(NASV)


The NIV makes some significant improvement;



Young's Literal is certainly most literal;


Darby followed the same tack;



So, the word "office" was interpolated into the translated text and Christians continue to think about leadership from a Grecco-Roman, Constantinian perspective.

From the perspective of Jesus, Peter, and Paul leadership is not "positional/official" but "functional".  A person does not upon appointment to an office begin functioning as an overseer/elder/pastor.  Rather, a person is and has been functioning as such then they are "recognized" in that function by the assembly.  That is the point for the "qualifications" which Paul lines out in I Tim and Titus..."here's distinguishing qualities of those who serve the Body as overseers; when you see these qualities in action then you know you got the real thing."

(BTW, episcopos comes from "epi"--over, above, and "scopos"--to look.  Originally, an episcopos was the guy who sat in an elevated platform [watch tower, crow's nest] and served as the "look-out".  "Episcopos" did not connote, until much later, the idea of "rank" and "higher status".)

Ok, I said all that to say this...eldering, pastoring, deaconing, etc. are not gender specific gifts.  It isn't required to wear Hanes For Guys to function as a Spritually mature Believer who is able to lead and instruct the less mature, nor is it necessary to wear Hanes For Gals to be a servant to other Believers in the many nuturing ways that are most often associated with women.  None of the Spiritual Gifts and their functions are given only either to males or females.

If we'd cease from worring about rank and status we'd get to enjoy much more of the fullness and Joy that our Father wants for us.




V


P.S.  Another one of those "traditional translational biases" has to do with the word "proistemi", in both masculine and feminine usages.

And, yet another translational bias has to do with the word "apostle".  Good post here at Better Bibles blog....The Apostle Titus (http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2008/08/apostle-titus.html)


(edited for typical typos or somesuch band name...)
V

This quote was in an Ed Fudge GraceMail which came as I was typing my prior post.  Interesting coincidence  ::smile::


(Full document HERE (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm) )


V

If you haven't had enough of me yet....



More Translational Bias

I Tim. 3:11 is translated terribly in most translations. Even those who footnote it still have the 'traditional' translation in the main body of the text. Example, the NIV reads...



"their wives" is an interpretive translation. Most correct would be "women also are to be respectful..." A good paraphrase (mine, that is ;o) ) would be...'women who serve as deacons are to be sincere, don't have diarrhea of the mouth, don't drink to excess, and are fully trustworthy'.

gune, gunaikos, gunaikas, gunaiki (the root being gune) means woman. It may mean 'wife' if the context demands it. I Tim. 3:11 no more demands that gunaikas means 'wife' than the usages in 2:9,10,11 demand that it be translated 'wife'.

Also, in terms of the literary structure of this chapter, why would it be necessary to have qualifiers for deacon's wive's, but not for the wives of the bishops?

My point: There are several instances in the NT where translators have stayed with the 'traditional' translation instead of actually translating. I think Phoebe was an 'official' (read, recognized as such by the church in Rome) deaconess.




V

Some very interesting posts!  Volkmar   ::clappingoverhead::  well said!

Sorry I can't be around much.  My wife and myself have been hit with serious health problems (different problems) that have kept us very tied up.  My comments are going to be directed mostly at all of us on both sides and not at the discussion, per sey!

Where would all of us be who are members of the "Restoration Movement Churches" if Alexander Campbell and Barton W Stone, along with many others, had taken the traditional attitude of "no change" in the biginnings of the movement?  They looked at Scripture and asked do we understand it correctly and if not, do we need to change.  As a result of that attitude, the Churches of Christ, the Independent Christian churches, the DoC, and several others movements came out of restudying Scripture and going directly against what was the tranditional understanding.  So now, there is a small but growing movement inside these groups of what used to be independent thinkers saying we need to openly rethink and act on the new information available regarding the translation of the Greek and how it should be understood.  Unfortunately, these people usually end up feeling like, for all their study, they are banging their heads against brick walls in churches where preachers and elders have stood in pulpits for 100 plus years saying "show me I'm wrong and I'll change".   In my experience, those who make that claim are the ones who are totally closed minded to anything that might make them have to tear down a wall of their safe house/comfort zone. 

I was talking to an elder the other night who I think is about as frustrated at times with the genderism that exists in the church as I am!  He believes there should be women elders and that the church is actually not what Jesus expects it to be unless it has women elders but he is limited by the other "traditional" elders to even being able to talk about it.  One thing I believe with all my heart:  The legalism and patternism that is so prevelant in the church today and that has caused so much division in the RM churches (all of them!)cannot exist in a church that uses Gal 3:26-28 as their guide line to how people are to be treated and accepted and allowed to use their spiritual gifts.

How many times have we discussed this topic and not a single person from my memory who is against females in leadership has ever changed their mind or even really listened to what is really being said?

 ::frustrated::

Are you implying that folks that disagree with you, would agree with you if they only listened?

That's what I imply all the time.

I did listen and it would be more to my liking for women to have as much authority as men do in the church.  I didn't see anything convincing enough to have that happen.  If there is doubt and confusion and no real Biblical doctrine to back it up wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry?

"Church Norris?"  That would be Walker, Texas Pastor.  My opinion on women elders is found in 1 Tim. 3, and I believe that passage is not trumped by Gal. 3:28.
[/quote]

I agree...Galatians 3:28 does NOT trump I Tim 3......It says that men and women should minister, to demonstrate the fruits of the spirit.....That is not making them Elders or Pastors in a church..Just demonstrating what God has done in their life

I think Galatians 3 is speaking of an entirely different thing.  It's the promises God made to Abraham that his seed would come from every nation, kindred and tongue.  That has become a reality through and by Jesus.  God loves and forgives all without prejudice who come to Him.
Somebody else could probably explain what I'm trying to say much better but if you study the whole chapter it makes more sense.

1 Timothy 3:1-2
“This is a true saying, If a man (ei tis) desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
ei tis (i tis); if any Strong’s Greek-Hebrew Dictionary, Strong’s 1536.
ei tis- whoever, whatever, Thayer’s Definitions 1536.
The original does not say “man” at all but instructs,
“If any desire the office of a bishop, (he/she) desires a good work....”
Paul knew the Greek language. He would not have used a word that can mean either
man or woman if he had intended to limit overseers to males only! If Paul had intended a
male ministry he would have used the all male word, “aner” 435 in this text. Paul did
not just slip up in this scripture. In all his admonitions concerning the ministry he uses
words that include both sexes! Yet translators were bound by their own traditional
ideas and translated with male words not found in the original! Just as their hatred of the
Sabbath caused the translation of “sabbatismos” 4520, in Hebrews 4:9 to become “rest”
instead of the correct translation, “Sabbath rest.” In both cases they knew better.
3
The word “he” is not in the original text above, it is inferred from the verb used in the
third person, he/she/it. (I is first person, you is second person, and he/she/it is third
person.) This verb form can include both male and female. The original Greek is not
limited to the male gender.
The translators added maleness to this scripture also.
1 Timothy 3:5
“For if a man (tis) know not how to rule his own house, how shall
he take care of the church of God?”
tis “an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:” Strong’s 5100
It should be, “For if anyone know not how to rule...”
Also, “his” and “he” were not in the original text, but indicate third person (he/she/it).

Should we use common sense translation of tis to mean one/anyone/any or should we use a traditional but stressed translation of the Greek tis to mean specificall any man or a man?  True and accurate translation (eg:  baptism: a transliteration into English rather than a true translation meaning "immersion" which most of us accept it to mean but just live with the present day politics of translation!) is to be desired to accurately understand God's words to us through inspired writers such as Paul.  If we can't get that accuracy, how can we ever correctly understand what is actually being said?

The most accurate translation of 1 Tim 3 says if one desires or anyone desires.  Translating it naturally as it was used by Paul without the stress of making it into something it is not (meaning a male only gender translation) brings this verse into agreement with other passages and cures some of the conflicts in translation that more and more people are seeing.

Wiley said

"He would not have used a word that can mean either
man or woman if he had intended to limit overseers to males only! If Paul had intended a
male ministry he would have used the all male word, “aner” 435 in this text."


If anyone gets a woman pregnant they should take full responsibility.....
If someone grows a very long beard they should keep it well groomed.....
If they had known they had testicular cancer sooner.....
I knew someone that after giving birth to 6 kids decided to get their tubes tied.....
All four of my kids played college football for Notre Dame.....


In all 5 instances above it easy to tell which sex I am talking about, due to the activity they are involved in. It is the same with Paul's teaching. He clearly says a husband of one wife, and since homosexuality is also clearly taught against it is Only a man that could be the subject of which he is speaking of in this context. Beyond that if He was saying a woman could be an elder then he would be contradicting his own teachings throughout his other epistles.

I believe that the Bible is the perfect and infallible Word of God and cannot contradict itself in any way. If Paul was teaching this, it would contradict his other teachings of the roles of men and women and their roles toward each other and Christ. It has nothing to do with superiority or men being more important or women getting the short end of the stick. We must stay within the roles that God has made for us, it is not our right to decide to change the roles that have clearly been taught in the Bible.


Eph 5:22-24

22.  Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23.  For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body.  24.  But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

God Bless

I had thought a long these lines also.  God does not like gender roles confused.  Women are told not to wear men's clothing.  I wonder if that is exactly what that means or is it symbolic?

Wiley
Excellent thoughts.  It just seems so difficult for many to look at the good news as anything other than a new rule  book.  IMO that completley misses the message.

Grace

The passage is in a way symbolic.  God was not telling women not to wear pants as some contend but rather is speaking of men trying to look like a woman and men trying to look like a man.  Cross dressing if you will.

[/color]


To accept Christ do we not have to adhere to His Word, or do we only have to say I believe but tell Jesus We dont really want his rules? I have always understood this as part of the package. When we accept Christ we also accept what He has laid out for us to follow. His plan for the way we should live,, I thought that was the whole point, to die to our flesh and fleshly desires and submit to His will for our life through Him and yes His rules.

God Bless

Bonnie said:

I had thought a long these lines also.  God does not like gender roles confused.  Women are told not to wear men's clothing.  I wonder if that is exactly what that means or is it symbolic?

I truly believe that Duet 22:5, is still very important in our lives today. I agree with you completely, God wants the Gender roles separate for His reasons. I believe one reason is because we as men and women parallel Christ and the Church and we should honor that in everyway we can. Women are to be feminine and beautiful in their differences from man. I believe that we should do everything in our power to please God and if that is something that makes us uncomfortable or makes us stand out from the norm of todays cultural filth then that is all the better in my opinion. There are to many so-called christian churches today that are ordaining homosexuals and women to be pastors. It saddens me to see the Word of God being spit on by people that claim to know God and are really just leading the blind right off of a cliff. Sorry I got a little sidetracked. ::smile::

But my opinion is that it has a Literal and a Symbolic meaning.

God Bless you

Flapjack...  You are a Marine?  My son is a Marine... my husband is Navy.  23+ years.

I have a question to the topic... WHY would a woman want to be an Elder?  No thanks... Knowing that we are equal sojourners in Christ is enough for me.  I have my covering...  it is the Blood of Jesus...  for that... I submit to Him.  No one in the Church has authority over me, unless I submit anyway... and I reserve that for my husband.  It's a choice.  "Submit yourselves" is what it says.

And just because a woman teaches, it does not mean she is in authority over a man. If he is walking with God, the spirit would witness to him if she is speaking truth and it would be GOD who is sending it to him, through her ... submission to that word, would be between he and GOD, the woman would only be speaking what God told her to any way. 

A man who says a woman can't teach... is foolish.  I teach all the time, I teach truth to ANYONE who will listen.  I have no authority to make them submit to it...  the Holy Spirit in us does that.  If you reject the truth and say .. "You can't teach me, you are a woman"...  ::doh::

Please...  do you not know GOD?  He can use a fisherman to teach or even a donkey to complete his will...  hey, he can even use MEN!!   ::preachit::

And that is good preachin, whether you say AMEN or not!    ::blushing::

I agree, if it's not done for the Lord then why do it at all.

flapjacklambo


I disagree.  When we are in Christ, there is no gender, race, or life status.  We all stand equal before Christ and because of Christ.

Regarding, women being in subjection to men (or husbands depending on particular translation of the NT).  For a really good article on that see Al Maxey's recent study.  All Christians are in subjection to each other.  If a man and a woman are married and both are Christians, then they are in subjection to each other and the husband rulling over the wife (wife in subjection) is strictly based on the historical, geographical location of where they live (eg:  Rome, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Washington DC, Dallas, Hong Kong, etc).  God made man and woman equal in the Garden.  That status changed because of sin.  God allow that change to remain in effect until the Cross when he brought everyone back into an equal state though his son's sacrifice and resurection.  There were female apostles in the early church.  There were elders/bishops (yes, there is evidence of that fact that has been discovered in recent years), there were female ministers/teachers/evangelists, and there were female "deacons."  That is a historical and biblical fact.

The main problem we have in understanding Scripture and how it was written is the hermeneutical principles we use to come to a conclussion.  If we try to understand it just from a black and white view (ink on paper from the 20th/21st Century vantage point) we run into alot of problems which cause misunderstandings and the extreme legalism that has been a major thorn in the side of church growth because of all the divisions it has caused.  If we use a historical view of understanding Scripture, then at least from our vantage point of 20 centuries down stream, we can kind of get an idea of what the writer was trying to convey.  We can also see where translation has been effected by traditions that have no business being included in the understanding of what was said.  Some of what Paul wrote is open to alot of interpretation because of these factors.  Gender is one of those interpretations.  As we learn more about the laws, customs, and problems of the time frame with the help of intense archaelogical research that has been a rather recent factor on the age scale, we can get better understanding of what was being addressed by Paul and why.

Got to go.   if I'm lucky, I'll be back in a couple of days to read replies.  If not:

May God continue to bless each and every poster here as they strive to understand God's revealed words to us.

Yes I am a Marine although I got out in 2001, I still think about re-enlisting.



Concerning women "preaching" I refer to 1 Tim 2:12-15

12.  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.  13.  For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.  14.  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

God Bless

You can't reinlist... there could be women over you in authority in the chain of command, and you don't believe in that.  Right?

Flapjack said  (Off topic)

Yes I am a Marine although I got out in 2001, I still think about re-enlisting.



Do it!  I was out 11 1/2 years before going back.  That desire will not leave you.  A million dollar bonus will not get those to serve who have no desire.  If you still have that desire go and serve.  We need more who will.

Wiley said

" God made man and woman equal in the Garden.  That status changed because of sin.  God allow that change to remain in effect until the Cross when he brought everyone back into an equal state though his son's sacrifice and resurection.  There were female apostles in the early church.  There were elders/bishops (yes, there is evidence of that fact that has been discovered in recent years), there were female ministers/teachers/evangelists, and there were female "deacons."  That is a historical and biblical fact."


Do you have any Biblical evidence to support any of these claims?  You say here that God allowed that change to remain in effect until the Cross when He brought everyone back in to an equal state through His son's sacrifice and Resurrection. If that were the case then when Paul wrote his epistles (after the ascension) then he would have been teaching contrary to the Word,, I could never accept that Paul was off the Word. Equal in importance always, equal as people of course, but we are not talking equality here. We are talking about roles that God laid out for us to fill. Women play a very important part in the Church of Christ and in the individual families as well. You talk of female apostles as being a biblical fact, back that claim up with the Word and I would be the first to repent. But the "fact" is that the Bible teaches us only the contrary to what you are saying. Otherwise we make Paul's teaching faulty and uninspired. If we cannot accept the entire Bible as perfect and infallible then how would we justify what parts to accept and what parts to deny. I believe that is what is happening to some of the denominations today, allowing homosexuals not only to be members of the church but to be ordained ministers.
They are watering down the Word to adhere to their lifestyles and cultures instead of the other way around. I believe we should line everything up with the Word not the world. Lastly concerning this topic you talk of Historical facts, what should that matter, it was a historical fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were filled with sodomites but that didn't make it right. People have been doing things that were contrary to Gods Will since the Garden and that is also a part of History. Should we put the Bible through a man made and uninspired historical strainer to pull the parts of the Bible out that we don't think are in line with out unbiased historians?

Kensington said:

"You can't reinlist... there could be women over you in authority in the chain of command, and you don't believe in that.  Right?"  

Lol, that's pretty funny. First I don't have a problem with a woman being in charge of a man outside of the Church unless that man is her husband. Although I will say that while in the Marines I can only remember 4 or 5 women in my unit and none were my senior. Women are called to be submissive to their husbands, not everymans husband.  ::smile::

JohnB said:

"You can't reinlist... there could be women over you in authority in the chain of command, and you don't believe in that.  Right?"  

Thanks for the encouraging words, if my current endeavors to not pan out then I may very well consider it.


God Bless

Jason

Great post.  I don't see anything in Genesis concerning this except that God decided it wasn't good for man to be alone, so he made Adam a help mate.

I have been thinking today about this subject and this is what I felt like sharing with you all.

This is the last Age, the last covenant God is going to make with sinful mankind.  As we have all been discussing it seems overwhelmingly so that Christ is coming back very soon.  One thing we need to remember is that God never changes.  He may change the way He goes about bringing something to pass but His character never changes.

He inspired the NT writings and nowhere does He say that we will need to update them for Him.   Times and people change but not God. What He hated in the OT is what He hates in NT times and what He loved in the OT He still loves now.   You can depend on His promises. I think that's one of the great things about God, don't you?

The inerrancy of the Bible is something we Christians have always taken pride in. We knew that through translations a word here or there may have been misinterpreted but it wasn't something big enough to change the original meanings of Scripture. Now we have people fussing not only over a word or two but complete books, some have questioned and called them strawmen. What is it coming to when we can't trust God to give us a Bible that is holy and true!

It may not matter to some of you that some of the newer versions have changed that Mary was a virgin to a young woman but it matters to me.  The free sex going on today and people living together without ever marrying is nothing new and they probably don't care or even notice the change.

We are living in a very educated and evil generation.  It doesn't matter what people have done to advance themselves or how their cultures have changed over time, not to God any way.  What He told Paul, Peter, James and John, etc., to write is good until He returns to end the world that now exists.  It has been doomed since the beginning. Mankind can try to make it better but God has already told us, it will wax worse and worse.

 For I am the LORD, I change not Mal. 3:6

Bonnie said:

He inspired the NT writings and nowhere does He say that we will need to update them for Him.   Times and people change but not God. What He hated in the OT is what He hates in NT times and what He loved in the OT He still loves now.   You can depend on His promises. I think that's one of the great things about God, don't you?

Nowhere does He say that we will need to update them for Him...........Amen and Amen.

 
That is scary stuff there. When people start taking it upon themselves to make updates or modifications, that scares me to death. I just recently left a church that was doing this, we left as soon as we felt led which was pretty fast. Many feel that we must stay up with the modern fads and fashions of society, let us not yolk with the world.

God Bless
Jason

The thing is that when Paul was writing to the church about women in the church... He was speaking to a time when the church was new, and everyone was trying to learn, they met in the Temple and the men sat separated from the women, women were asking questions across the divide and there was confusion. Paul wrote to this. Telling a woman today that she cannot teach, when she is a spirit filled born again believer who has read her bible every day for 28 years, studied on the secondary level on many subjects and spent time with God learning, as Paul did is futile.

I said I speak the truth and teach the truth every day, every where I go...  some man who is not above me in Christ... is not going to tell me that I can't. Because I already am, and I have been for a long long time. What I know, I teach to others.  I am a sojourner in Christ with anyone who is in Christ, and I am fulfilling the commandment to "Go into all the world and make preach the truth"... 

It's what I do, it's who I am.  I teach anyone who will listen and I speak the word consistently daily.  Men hear it... do you mean that because I spoke it, they aren't learning the word?  That is silly.  Or that when I speak truth, they are to reject it because it came from me? That is sillier than the other one. 

Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God...  I teach when I speak about the word and the LORD...  I know that. If you are seeking truth, you go to someone who knows it and you listen and learn. 

Paul said what needed to be said for the day and time, concerning order in the service at that time.  99% of my time is NOT spent in a church service.  It's not the ONLY place to find the word today.  When I am there, I am learning from my Pastor who is teaching...

I'll go on teaching what I know, God will continue to guide those who he wills to learn from me. I'm not giving up now, I've come too far, and there is so little time left to see people saved and learning in faith. 

Lets remember.... where a man could not be found, God used a woman.  He used Debrorah to lead the Nation of Israel.  And Paul was clear more than once, that many of his teachings were his, not the LORD. God gave him some "growing room" and he used it. We need to be patient and do the same thing.

People learn from one another, and that does not mean that anyone is taking authority.  I'm for that.  I'm sure God can handle it if I missed one verse in the word in my walk, which is what men seem to build their whole faith on.  He can do so much more than that. If you could see where I was when he found me, compared to where He has me now... you would understand.

The scary thing is when folks take the good news, the grace of God, the sacrifice of Christ and attmpt to turn it into a new rule book.  The NT is not a new Law that we must obey to the t or be lost.  Even a casual reading should make it clear that it is not written as a new rule book.  It is the simple story of Christ comming to earth to be te sacrifice for our sins.  (the gospels)  Then a collection of letters helping the early church deal with their struggles.  Every group that trys to make a binding pattern or new set of laws comes up with differnt patterns and different rules or laws. IMO that is because they are using the wrong approach to the NT.  It is not simply a new rule book. 

I believe Wiley has taken the right approach.   

Wiley's assessment, which you quoted in green, is correct.  Wiley, Sherman,  and others, have given ample evidence to these things numerous times.  Most of the time the evidence is rejected because of;

1.  It is constantly necessary to argue the technical problems relative to traditional translations.  I've already given one exposition of translational bias having to do with "office of Bishop".  Translators have typically interpolated their cultural perspective into the NT text, especially as relates to women and "leadership".  The constant rooting around with the original language and the various ways in which it has been understood/misunderstood by translators becomes a thoroughly tiring, fragmenting experience.

2.  An hermeneutic of "Biblical Blueprintism" is typical of many Christians who "take their Bibles seriously", and especially we who have history and ancestry in the Stone/Campbell movement.  "Those who advocate this paradigm champion the idea that the NT contains a meticulous blueprint for church practice.  To their minds, we simply need to tease out of the Bible the proper blueprint and mimic it.  (However), the NT contains no such blueprint for church practice.  Neither does it contain a list of rules and regulations for Christians to follow.  As NT scholar F.F. Bruce puts it, "In applying the NT text to our own situation, we need not treat it as the scribes of our Lord's day treated the OT.  We should not turn what were meant to be guiding lines for worshippers in one situation into laws binding for all time." 

"Biblical Blueprintism" is stultifying, not to mention that it constitutes an avoidance of actually living the way that Jesus modeled so that we could enter into the fullness of Life with the Father and each other.  Any system of hermeneutics that produces second class citizens within the Kingdom of Heaven is by definition a faulty hermeneutic.

As Wiley and Sherman have already pointed out, the cultural norms of the first century (also before and after) demonstrate the realities of what God told Adam and Eve were to be the consequences of their rebellion.  That has been, and continues to be, the story of "the world", and unfortunately that worldly story has too often been in the "church story".  Paul and Peter often instructed Believers to not exercise their "rights" in Christ if that exercise would be offensive, especially to the "weaker brother" (and evidently this doesn't apply to women, because NO "weaker sister" is ever mentioned... ;o)  ) and cultural propriety was part of their instruction to the churches. 

So, it remains to us to discern what in the Epistles and Acts is prescriptive and what is actually descriptive. 

When it comes to issues of "authority" in the church I'd always advise skepticism if that perspective of "authority" gets cross-wise with what Jesus said about "lording it over" in Matt. 20:25ff and if "authority" means that some so and so's takes upon themselves to be the Holy Spirit for other Believers.

"Authority" and "leadership" are not necessarily synonyms.  No Believer is to have command authority over any other Believer, rather, we are to submit ourselves to the Lord and submit outselves to each other.  Leadership among Believers becomes an organic reality where there is humbleness and submissiveness to the Lord and to the brethren.



V
 

Excellent V. ::clappingoverhead::

In green are quotes from Volkmar:


Wiley's assessment, which you quoted in green, is correct.  Wiley, Sherman,  and others, have given ample evidence to these things numerous times.  Most of the time the evidence is rejected because of;


because it isnt supported by the Bible.

As Wiley and Sherman have already pointed out, the cultural norms of the first century (also before and after) demonstrate the realities of what God told Adam and Eve were to be the consequences of their rebellion.  That has been, and continues to be, the story of "the world", and unfortunately that worldly story has too often been in the "church story".  Paul and Peter often instructed Believers to not exercise their "rights" in Christ if that exercise would be offensive, especially to the "weaker brother" (and evidently this doesn't apply to women, because NO "weaker sister" is ever mentioned... ;o)  ) and cultural propriety was part of their instruction to the churches. 

So, it remains to us to discern what in the Epistles and Acts is prescriptive and what is actually descriptive.   

 1 Tim 2:12-15

12.  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.  13.  For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.  14.  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul here gives some reasons for why he teaches on women not teaching or exerciseing authority over a man. Have these reasons changed, did the woman being deceived, falling into transgression stop being a reality after that culture passed? I will choose to listen to Paul and his teaching that were inspired by God and not the culture of his day.

Thier does not need to be any discerning where their is plain, straight foreward teaching , read verse 12, it isnt a very deep issue, pretty cut and dry. To me its similar to do not fornicate or murder or lie.

"Biblical Blueprintism" is stultifying, not to mention that it constitutes an avoidance of actually living the way that Jesus modeled so that we could enter into the fullness of Life with the Father and each other.  Any system of hermeneutics that produces second class citizens within the Kingdom of Heaven is by definition a faulty hermeneutic


What I am suggesting in Obedience, nothing else. Obedience is more important than sacrifice...Are you saying that keeping withing the guidlines that paul left for us keeps us from living like Christ. Then whose guideline should we follow, our own discernment, ive never met someone discerning enough to live outside the Bible and inside the will of God at the same time, are you that wise and discerning in Gods will for you life to pick and choose what "guidelines" to take and which to ignore as cultural ideals.

As Wiley and Sherman have already pointed out, the cultural norms of the first century (also before and after) demonstrate the realities of what God told Adam and Eve were to be the consequences of their rebellion.  That has been, and continues to be, the story of "the world", and unfortunately that worldly story has too often been in the "church story".  Paul and Peter often instructed Believers to not exercise their "rights" in Christ if that exercise would be offensive, especially to the "weaker brother" (and evidently this doesn't apply to women, because NO "weaker sister" is ever mentioned... ;o)  ) and cultural propriety was part of their instruction to the churches.   

So should we not speak against genocide or rape or homosexuality, because it may have been just a cultural thing and if we do speak out with the truth of Jesus Christ some person living in sin may be offended and we wouldnt want to make someone feel uncomfortable for living contrary to the Word of God would we. Jesus Christ didnt stop speaking against rebellion and disobedience when the pharasees and sudducees appeared, of did He?

So, it remains to us to discern what in the Epistles and Acts is prescriptive and what is actually descriptive


I would never want to be included in the "us" of discerning the scriptured to mean something different for you than for someone else. God is the same..always.

When it comes to issues of "authority" in the church I'd always advise skepticism if that perspective of "authority" gets cross-wise with what Jesus said about "lording it over" in Matt. 20:25ff and if "authority" means that some so and so's takes upon themselves to be the Holy Spirit for other Believers.

"Authority" and "leadership" are not necessarily synonyms.  No Believer is to have command authority over any other Believer, rather, we are to submit ourselves to the Lord and submit outselves to each other.  Leadership among Believers becomes an organic reality where there is humbleness and submissiveness to the Lord and to the brethren.

Some can and do abuse authority, but we cant just pick and choose or "discern" away scriptures because they ruffle our feathers or are contrary to the way WE believe we should live, We are either in Gods will or not, in line with the Bible or not. God is not going to lead us astray from what He has already had written down for us as a guidebook for our lives.


finally I will end with this I will be back later must sleep and God Bless you.

Jason

"Paul here gives some reasons for why he teaches on women not teaching or exerciseing authority over a man. Have these reasons changed, did the woman being deceived, falling into transgression stop being a reality after that culture passed?"

Excuse me, but exactly WHEN did men stop being deceived and falling into sin in the body of Christ brother?  I have seen more men ruin the pulpit than women... 

This comment takes your side past the realm of reality and into fantasy... Men are sinless?  Give me a break.

I see now the heart of your theology... it is contrived from a male dominance idea, and probably stems from insecurity issues brought on by some sort of thing the mother did wrong in raising them.  UGH...   ::crazy:: ::nana::

johnb, you're right about God not changing.  I see no new laws in the NT, just Jesus expounding on the commandments.  Jesus made some of them a little tougher.  Not only do you commit adultery by sleeping with someone other than your spouse but you are guilty also just by lusting in your mind.   What about murder?  It no longer takes a gun to kill your brother or sister when lies will do it.

Mosaic law is done away with but the commandments written by the finger of God aren't a part of those laws. They were given before any of the civil and ceremonial laws of the OT called the law of Moses.

Is it a rule to love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, or to love your neighbor as yourself?  What about when God says if you love me, you will keep my commandments?

Did Jesus come and die so you can continue to live in sin?  Or did He send the Holy Ghost back to empower you to triumph over sin?

Now that Grace abounds should we continue in sin, God forbid!

Kensington, using silly emotionicons does nothing to enhance your post.

Jason are you saying we must obey all commands in the NT?

 ::eatingpopcorn:



Actually I see the issue of man ruling over women as part of the curse as a result of sin.
Weeds and biting insects were also part of the curse.

It's not what God originally intended.
Do we let weeds grow unchecked?
Do we not attempt to eliminate pesky insects?

Just contemplating...

That was  unnecessary.  If you'll read what he said a little closer, you'll see that he's discussing what 1 Timothy 2:12 actually says.  It would be more productive if you would address how we should interpret that passage rather than hurl insults at someone for bringing it up.

I wasn't trying to enhance my post Bonnie.   But, if I ever see you use them.. I'll remind you of what you said.  Thanks.

DCR... my comments were not to him, it was to the idea, the teaching, which I have encountered over and over again in the body of Christ.  It's invalid... it's moot.  And using that women may sin is nuts....   Men sin also.   

PS... I already did address what was said... and it was ignored and the same scripture was posted again.  I guess the dismissal was due to my being a woman? 

I believe only qualified men can be overseers.  They are responsible for the flock, and are to emulate the leadership of the ultimate qualified male leader of the church, Jesus Christ, by servant leadership.

The overseers are to put the needs of the flock above their own, just as Jesus Christ put the needs of the church above His own.  In the same way, husbands are to put the needs of their wives first.

Some disagree with the authoritarian leadership of men in the church, and rightly so.  However, scripture is clear, that the responsibility of being an overseer rests with qualified males.

I can agree with that.  I learn from a Pastor who is responsible for the whole congregation...  His responsibility is large. 

When you look back on this topic, you see women posting here... and even the ones who agree with the notion that women can't teach, are teaching with their comments.  You can see the effort, you can read the words...  It's teaching. 

If you are learned in an area, and you open your mouth to speak what you know, you are teaching someone.  The notion that it's not teaching, is just refusing to see the inevitable.

May I ask you Bonnie...   Is this something you would like everyone to consider?  Both men and women?  You put emphasis on lines also... for impact?  Isn't that teaching?  Men are reading this, did you not ask, (beseech) those here to glean from what you said?  Who are you teaching here with these comments? 

You make what you believe is a valid point in the body of Christ... and if someone reads that and gleans from it, something they can take with them into their faith walk, male or female,  did you not just teach them?  ::shrug::

Men ruling over women isn't what I'm speaking about.  God told the men to love and cherish their wives as the weaker vessels.  To honor and treat them as they would treat their own selves. We are to submit to one another.

But I see taking the authority over the man in church the same way as the Bible teaches it.  It doesn't seem to leave much doubt.

 
I believe the Bible backs you up on this.  ::reading::

I don't see having discussions on a forum as teaching.  We all put our input down.  Nobody is over anybody else.  We're hopefully exchanging thoughts about God and love and different things in life that we enjoy.   I'm willing to see what other Christians think if anybody wants to discuss it.

Ephesians 6:5
[ Slaves and Masters ] Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Ephesians 6:4-6 (in Context) Ephesians 6 (Whole Chapter)
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Is God endorsing the institution of slavery or is he simply telling folks how to be Christians in the culture they were living in? 

When Jesus commanded to wash the feet of disciples was that a command that applies today or was it a lesson within the culture of the day?

"Greet one another with a holy kiss"  does that apply today or is it part of a culture?

These signs shall follow they that believe.  They SHALL pick up deadly serpents...drink Poisson...  Does that command apply today?

But now women stay quite in the assembly and submitt to men that is not cultural but a command that must be followed?  Who get to make these decisions?  Are they not based on the concept of a new law or pattern? 

Again the NT is not a new law or rule book.  It is the good news of Christ coming to earth and dying for our sins.  It is about great principles of right and wrong not laws.  We are to submit to Christ and one another in Christ.  I do not believe there are second class citizens in the kingdom of God.

That is just the point... That is what teachers do.  Real, good teachers do not just stand in authority ordering people around by rules. They exchange thoughtful insight, and they are willing to see what others think, to help them find things and to glean from the material at hand... just like your post.  Whether you think so or not, that was a teaching post. You were putting a point about a principle across....   Every teacher I ever had from grade school through college did that. Daily.

I'll get back to Jason's comments...but in reading through the thread to this point there seems to be a certain perception that is coming through, but maybe it's just the way I'm reading...


Do men have "authority" over women?  Or, is it that women are to not have "authority" over men?

I thinks theres been some halfast logic in play over this issue, and not just on this thread.  I Tim. 2:12-14 appears to be the polar opposite "trump card" (to use Gary's referent as he did about Gal. 3:26-29 earlier in this thread) that is used to "put women in their place", so to speak.  From my reading and experience in the Lord, NO Believer is to "usurp" or "have authority" over any other Believer, male or female.  This backward reasoning also seems to be much of the basis of what is fobbed off as "male headship in the family", ie. "the guy's in charge".

Also, the word "authority" may not be clearly defined in this discussion.  Normally, when I see "authority" being discussed in this setting the equivalent Greek word that comes to mind is "excousia"--command style, top-down hierarchy--the kind that Jason is well used to from his experience in the Marines.  That kind of "authority" is the exact kind that Jesus said "not so" to. 

So, to reiterate; "Do men have "authority" over women?  Or, is it that women are to not have "authority" over men?"  Or, is there actually a third path, *cough*, I mean, The Jesus Path?


V

As I said before I don't see this as teaching.  It's just a casual sit down where we exchange our opinions.  Church to me any way is a different matter altogether.  We are in subjection there first of all to God.  There's a Godly reverence and respect about coming together to worship.
The teachers do their part first before the church service and I start out with that attitude and feeling from the beginning.  We can glorify God's name in songs and testimonies.

The Jesus path is that men are to be responsible and serve their families and put the need of the family above their own (leadership).  The Jesus path is that qualified men are to serve their church families and put the need of their church families before their own (leadership).

No, I don't believe God meant for anybody to be second class citizens.  Why you think that I don't know.  It's not second class to have different roles in life. Some things mentioned in this thread seems to have more to do with women's liberation movement and the secular roles of men and women.  I think that probably calls for a thread of its own.

As far as some of the other things you mention, I can only speak for those I know.  I don't think most of the things you brought up are commandments.  We wash feet to show that we are humble enough to do that in love and fellowship. Some people do not do that.  It's really up to them.  We had a discussion on here a day or two ago about the holy kiss and different opinions were discussed. 

What we are discussing here is whether woman can have the oversight, the authority over a man in the church and I don't believe it's biblical for them to take that position.

 ::amen::

Bonnie... We are the church.  Our whole lives are about Christ.  It's not about when we are in a building.  We are the church.

Bonnie
If you look at the passages I mentioned they are all commands in the same way as women be silenent etc.
4Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Sounds like a command to me.

If you were not allowed to speak at a public gathering in the US, not allowed to vote, not allowed to speak a word of thanks to the president in the presence of a man and not allowed any voice in the decisions of the country would you be a second class citizen?  I say yes.

True!

As I said we practice that but some people don't.  What does that say to you about the ones who don't?  Some people take Communion every Sunday, some only do that once a year.

[/color]

Its interesting that all I have been doing is quoting scripture.


First you said that only a fool would say women cant teach, I hope that was before you knew Paul taught that so you can claim ignorance.

Kensington said:
A man who says a woman can't teach... is foolish.  I teach all the time, I teach truth to ANYONE who will listen.  I have no authority to make them submit to it...  the Holy Spirit in us does that.  If you reject the truth and say .. "You can't teach me, you are a woman"... 

Please...  do you not know GOD?  He can use a fisherman to teach or even a donkey to complete his will...  hey, he can even use MEN!!   


You teach all the time, I'm sorry to here that. If the truth you are teaching is anything like the truth you claim here then that is a scary thought. Do I not know God? I know God enough to know that He expects us to Love one another as ourselves, I know God enough to know that He inspired 66 books of the Bible to be written for our benefit so we wouldn't have to be in the World without a Guidebook, I know God enough to know that He expects obedience, I know that the Entire Word of God is eternal and infallible. I also know that Gods Holy Spirit would not lead someone to live contrary to the Word of God.

Kensington wrote:
Excuse me, but exactly WHEN did men stop being deceived and falling into sin in the body of Christ brother?  I have seen more men ruin the pulpit than women... 

This comment takes your side past the realm of reality and into fantasy... Men are sinless?  Give me a break.

I see now the heart of your theology... it is contrived from a male dominance idea, and probably stems from insecurity issues brought on by some sort of thing the mother did wrong in raising them.  UGH...     

I sincerely wish you could TRULY see the heart of my theology, because that would mean that you would understand that my only concern is that all Christians were striving to be as close to Christ as possible. I didn't realize I ever said men were without sin?? Oh wait that's right, I never did. Is this one of those teaching techniques you use, its very effective, I have been making the mistake of using scripture to back up my beliefs. This must be a part of the heart of my theology that you seem so insightful about. You say that my comment takes my side past the realm of reality into fantasy... Well it is a fantasy of mine that all would turn to God and accept His Gift that He gave us through the sacrifice of His Son that we might take that gift and give all (our prideful desires etc.)      to live for Him. I believe that we must die daily to the flesh and do our best to live for Him and By His Word. Just for the Record I believe that men and women alike, are sinful in nature and neither is more or less sinful than the other.

It is contrived from a male dominance idea, and probably stems from insecurity issues brought on by some sort of thing the mother did wrong in raising them.  UGH...   

I'm sorry you feel this way about me. I always thought I had the best mother in world, I will always feel that way and love her very much. She and my father raised me and my brothers to be obedient to the Word above all things and I thank God for giving me God fearing/loving parents.

We may disagree about doctrine and I hope this isn't always so, but I still love you and want the best for everyone on this website. I pray that all here are truly seeking Gods face and use His Word for a way to do this along with prayer and adhering to the Holy Spirit.


Titus 2:1-5

1.  But Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: 2.  That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.  3.  The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not to given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4.  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5.  to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

speak sound doctrine  - I believe that to be the teachings in the Bible, not in history or the things that culture would have us do.

aged women should be teachers of good things  - again teachers of things that are in line with the biblical scriptures

That they may teach the young women  - I believe here Paul explains to women one of the groups of whom they may teach.

obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.  - To blaspheme the Word of God would be quite a sin.. maybe that is a hint from Paul that the things that he teaches are more than just a cultural issue, or would it be blasphemy to the Word to act contrary to cultural issues?

God Bless

Jason

So you say.  However, my perspective and understanding is not the ONLY one being challenged.  I am challenging your perspective because of your un-questioning allegiance to certain interpretations of many translators.  More later...



It might be that simple if 1 Timothy weren't such a "low context" document.  All of the epistles are much like listening to one side of a phone conversation...we have to infer and construct much of the in-coming conversation.  The letters to Timothy are especially one-sided in this way. (I'm not going to argue whether or not Paul actually wrote all of the Pastorals or not.)(btw, we know from internal evidence in I Cor. that the Corinthian ekklesia had received at least one letter from Paul prior to "1st" Corinthians.)  We don't know to any great degree what the questions were from Timothy which Paul is addressing.  Paul also makes statements in regard to specific individuals in his response to Timothy which Timothy must have directly understood even though the names of the individuals were not mentioned in the letter.  We do the same when we share a common personal history and experience--like when a jealous wife refers to another female who presents a challenge to the exclusivity to her husband, "THAT woman!!"

That "low-context-edness" is certainly at play in your I Tim. 2 citation.  I'll try to demonstrate the flow...

Notice that in vs. 9-10 "women" plural is used;

Then, in vss. 11-14 Paul shifts to "the woman" or "a woman" singular;
(NASV)

I don't think Paul was speaking in the "generic singular", that is, he wasn't referring to all women, rather, he was directing his remarks to Timothy in how to deal with a specific woman in the Ephesian ekklesia.  The addressed problem fits the cultural context of Ephesus, which contained the Temple of Diana where women were the authorities and men the subjects.   Verse 14 drives that point home; it wasn't the man Adam who was deceived, rather it was the woman who fell prey to Satan and transgressed.  (The only thing about vs. 15 which has general agreement is that vs. 15 lessens the impact of vss. 13-14.)

I don't know if Paul used spacing and punctuation when he wrote his letters, if indeed he did the actual writing (and we do know that he employed amanuensis from time to time).  The oldest manuscripts we do have are Uncials with no space between words, and certainly no chapter/verse demarcations (nothing you don't already know).  Given those realities, we, and the translators, make little more than leaping guesses as to punctuation, sentence beginning and endings, shifts in subject, etc.  I don't think translators have typically picked up on the shift between vs. 10 and 11.  Another example of institutionalized bias.  (The other example which we might dicuss is the "silence" passage in I Cor. 14.)

You may agree or disagree, but you do not have the latitude to say that my argument (or Wiley's or Sherman's, or johnb's or whomevers) isn't supported by the Bible.  And, to be blunt, the Bible doesn't support itself or interpret itself; only people interpret and/or support the Bible.  What you would prefer to be "cut and dry" and conform to your hermeneutical methodolgy isn't of the same nature as "fornication, murder, and lying", though it's apparent that you'd prefer to see all issues from the same level playing field of a Biblical Blueprintism which relies on proof-texting over against text plotting and Cononical criticism (which basically says that every part of the Bible must be interpreted in its relationship to the entire Canon and not just interpreted by authorial intent).

You might find this paper by N.T. Wright useful...A conference paper for the Symposium, 'Men, Women and the Church' (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm                                              )

However, if you are of the opinion that Anglicans are "gets of Satan" then I'm sure it will be a waste of your time to read the paper.





I have no problem with obedience, or, at least no more than the next bloke.  I do think it's important to know what it really is that we are to obey, and even more important than the "what" is to know the "who".  Jesus did not "genderize" in any sense as has been common in His church.

As Samuel said, "It is better to obey than to sacrafice."  But, even better than obeying is to Love the Lord with all the heart, mind, soul.  If we have the grace to do that then all else will find its place, despite our mistakes.

To discern is not to live outside of the Bible...rather it is more like "rightly dividing" and is one of the gifts of the Spirit.  I'm not claiming infallibility, and I have not always believed what I've been attempting to articulate in this discussion, but I am at peace with my understanding at this point and with the Spirit of Christ within me.

We all "pick and choose" to some degree, even you.  Do you practice foot washing and snake handling and drinking poison in your assembly?



And you miss the point.

Genocide, rape, homosexuality may be expressed in any culture, and in any cultural expression they are sin, anti-Christ, contrary to Life in the Spirit.

The most insidious kind of rebellion and disobedience that Jesus addressed with the Pharasees and Sadducees was their religiously justified disregard for God's intent.  By substituting the traditions of the Fathers they nullified the Word of God.  

Do you think that your understanding on this subject is penultimatly definitive and beyond modification?  





Each person must determine what it is they believe and what they don't believe.  To blindly accept a group-think is not obedience, rather, that is conformity to the group.  Our "conformity" is to be conformed to Christ...not to a systematic theology, a  hermeneutic, not to a religion.  This conformity to Christ is a messy process, and difficult, and impossible by our own resources.

I too must get some sleep.  God's peace upon you also.


V

"Well it is a fantasy of mine that all would turn to God and accept His Gift that He gave us through the sacrifice of His Son that we might take that gift and give all (our prideful desires etc.)      to live for Him."

You are right, while your fantasy may be sincere, it is sincerely fantasy... because we KNOW that the WORD of GOD says that men will be lost, that some will go to Hell. So, it is a fantasy to want the all would turn to GOD but, that we live and talk and teach a saving gospel that men might be saved, and always remember that men come to Jesus by the Holy Spirit, and not by us.

I'm sorry you feel this way about me.   ::frown::

NOPE... I did not say this about you, I said it is the basis for the theology that you believe.  I think it is, it is a "copout" that has been widely accepted around the world and even in the body of Christ.  Men preach male dominance in the body.  Speaking a theology that says that women do not teach when they speak the word of God, and men do...  is just what that is.  I was being sarcastic and rude, I've had that "Male" only stuff shoved at me since I got saved, and I've watched men of God stand silent when teaching NEEDED to be given and if I had kept my mouth shut, a moment to witness and teach someone who might be saved would be lost.

You don't believe women should teach? But, you cannot be around the world to preach every day all day long, or teach, and it's proven the body of Christ has more women than men... and we need to be teaching the word.  Daily.  If you hold so fast to your rules that you miss that... THEN you will fall under that "mentality" that I compared your theology to.

Now, let me repeat myself... I am going to continue to teach the word of God every day of my life until He returns and I go home.  I am not going to shirk back, I am going to contend and strive for the Gospel, because the LORD is my covering.  That is all.  At least I can admit that I teach... women who jump on the band wagon to fall inline with that mentality and then I see them teach... what are they doing?  They are deceiving themselves.  Paul may not have suffered me to teach, but I do teach. Sorry Paul....  If you were the Savior, I might ask forgiveness... but you are not.

And women are not called to that?

V

Someone answer this for me...  It's simple Bible 101...

If a new born believer hears me talking or I know them, and they come to me and say... "you are older in the LORD than me, will you explain this passage to me"...  and I can, and I know I can, and I have that knowledge..  am I supposed to tell them "NO" am I supposed to say... "I am not a man, I can't teach you about the Bible"...   Because there is not one standing around?

Am I supposed to say... "WAIT... we must wait for a man for you to learn that in your baby walk"?  

Anyone?  This is what this theology is saying to me.. and I am not ready to just walk away from someone who needs something that way.

Kensington

You have the picture now.  I once preached at a church that had a bus program.  We could not have a woman teaching the children if a man was driving the bus.  She might be teaching him also.  How absurd. 
Again I ask is the NT a new rule book or law? 

If our theology is based on CENI.  We must follow all NT commands, and aproved example.  Logic demands it.  If not why not?  Who gets to choose which commands and examples we must follow and which ones we are free to ignore?  This is a theology based on human logic and rule keeping.  Simply can not work and has no chance of unifing Gods children,  

I have missed Phoebe and Peck in this discussion.  I know Peck is not able to, but I am very surprised Pheobe has managed to avoid this conversation.
 ::eatingpopcorn:

I must admit my thinking on this subject is in a continual state of flux.  From a more male dominant view due to the obvious patriarchal themes in the OT and the analogy to Christ as the head of the church and the man/husband is the head of the woman/wife, to cultural considerations, to what was really the status of man/woman - husband/wife in the Garden of Eden, to the meaning of "authentein", to current cultural considerations, to well, OK, just no preaching or eldering for women, to the bottom line of good arguments on both sides of the issue.

I'm still listening and learning from many of you.  So if I'm learning from you, you're teaching me.

As overseer?  No.

I think anybody worth their salt would help a young Christian in that situation. 

 ::eatingpopcorn:

The devil works even through Christians if we allow him to.  He would like to put to silence anything done for Christ or any enjoyment we have in serving God and sharing our love and opinions with other people.  I witness in RL when the opportunity comes and I praise His name and stand firmly on His word. 

He would like to destroy this Christian forum.  He wants disagreements to break out between us over trivial nothings so that we cannot work together or be a light to a lost and dying world.

...These signs shall follow them that believe. Not that all who believe, shall be able to produce these signs, but some, even as many as were employed in propagating the faith, and bringing others to it; for signs are intended for them that believe not; see 1 Co. 14:22.

It added much to the glory and evidence of the gospel, that the preachers not only wrought miracles themselves, but conferred upon others a power to work miracles, which power followed some of them that believed, wherever they went to preach. They shall do wonders in Christ’s name, the same name into which they were baptized, in the virtue of power derived from him, and fetched in by prayer.

Some particular signs are mentioned; (1.) They shall cast out devils; this power was more common among Christians than any other, and lasted longer, as appears by the testimonies of Justin Martyr, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian Minutius Felix, and others, cited by Grotius on this place. (2.) They shall speak with new tongues, which they had never learned, or been acquainted with; and this was both a miracle (a miracle upon the mind ), for the confirming of the truth of the gospel, and a means of spreading the gospel among those nations that had not heard it. It saved the preachers a vast labour in learning the languages; and, no doubt, they who by miracle were made masters of languages, were complete masters of them and of all their native elegancies, which were proper both to instruct and affect, which would very much recommend them and their preaching.

(3.) They shall take up serpents. This was fulfilled in Paul, who was not hurt by the viper that fastened on his hand, which was acknowledged a great miracle by the barbarous people, Acts 28:5, 6. They shall be kept unhurt by that generation of vipers among whom they live, and by the malice of the old serpent. (4.) If they be compelled by their persecutors to drink any deadly poisonous thing, it shall not hurt them: of which very thing some instances are found in ecclesiastical history. (5.) They shall not only be preserved from hurt themselves, but they shall be enabled to do good to others; They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover, as multitudes had done by their master’s healing touch. Many of the elders of the church had this power, as appears by Jam. 5:14, where, as an instituted sign of this miraculous healing, they are said to anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord. With what assurance of success might they go about executing their commission. 
Matthew Henry
   
 

 ::headscratch::

You don't think that women are already doing that, even though they don't "have the title"?

The real issue here has to do with the positional title, not the function.


V

I think the common thinking is that you can do all that you described, JUST NOT IN CHURCH.  (Whatever "church" is...  ;o/  )


V

Phoebe
I am with you ::headscratch:: I don't have a clue as to Bonnies point.  Perhaps she can clear it up for us.

What are you puzzled about?

They refer to this:


How does that relate to the issue of women elders?

That was in response to Volkmar's post; and I believe johnb had asked some of the questions in a previous post.  Snake handling and drinking poison, etc.

Bonnie
I kind of thought that is what you were attempting to do.  However, you simply made V and my point.  None of the letters were written directly to us nor were the so called commands given directly to us.  In the NT we are reading the simple story and how the early church handled their problems.  You have attempted to explain away some direct commands or statements  "these signs shallfollow them that believe..."  by saying it does not mean all believers.  Then when Paul is dealing with a specific problem in the Corth. church you want to make the command  to women to keep quite to apply to every woman for all times.  That simply is inconsistent.  I could just as easy say it only applied to the women of that church and in that culture.  When one attempts ( even if you do not believe you are you are)  to make a rule book or pattern that we must follow out of the NT. 
Jesus taught principles not rules.  Example when He told the slave to obey his master and the slave owner to treat the fairly He was not endorsing slavery or saying it was good .  He was teaching the principle that one can serve Him regardless of their circumstances.
I don't see the same folks contending that women are forever children of a lessor God saying slavery is good or OK.   

Please read what's on this link and tell me what do you think.


http://www.intervarsity.org/mx/item/4175/

These questions some of you asked about and I supplied an answer thinking you really wanted to know but all a long you wanted me to make "your case" for you seems underhanded; and I still fail to see what any of it has to do with the apostles setting up guidelines for churches. It wasn't like, hey Paul,  I need an answer over here.  These Scriptures are inspired by our Lord and without them we wouldn't have a clue as to how to conduct ourselves or a worship service.

I CO. 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

I have seen people try to discredit the words of Apostle Paul by using the Scripture above when all else has failed.  This has been no exception here.  I know that you realize that Paul was not an ordinary run of the mill sort of guy.  He was a chosen vessel picked by God Himself to preach the gospel.   God calls him a holy man.  Is He offended when we speak ill of the man?

As far as the instructions given by Paul on how to conduct church services and even our own lives being out dated, I cannot find any proof to support that.  The NT was inspired by God and it includes His Will for all future generations.

AMEN sis-ta Amen                         If the word is out dated then what have we got? Are the promises out dated also? Maybe they are just for the Jews? Maybe we can pick and chose which ones are out dated and which ones are not. Who gets to be the one to decide? Do we all just pick for ourself or do we appoint someone the task? How foolish are we going to allow ourselves to get?


Amen Sister Bonnie    You have spoken with great wisdom

Bonnie,

If you are responding to something I wrote, please bear with me, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.  I'm not making the connection.  It's probably just me.  Would you clarify, please?




By the way, I colored red a statement you made.  There's a couple of things in that statement that don't make sense to me (not debating the "inspiration" part);

1.  Most Believers, up till the not that distant past, were illiterate.  They usually had no Bibles to read,even if they could read.  And, until well into the last third of the first century the NT as we know it did not exist.  The "scriptures" of which Paul was referring in his letter to Timothy was what we would call the Old Testament.

2.  Given the reality of the preceeding point #1, you/we would have to conclude that the congregations of Believers that Paul was in contact with had absolutely no way to know how to "conduct a worship service".

3.  The phrase "worship service" is never found in the NT referring to what Christians did when they assembled together.  Can't find that terminolgy (or idea) in any of the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James or Jude's.

I would assert that the Believers in the time of Paul, Peter, John and James and Jude had a clear idea of how they were to function when they came together, and that knowledge was not based upon having "scripture".  And, going one step further, they knew how to function as an assembly/ekklesia because they had been functioning/interacting/fellowshipping/sharing their lives together in small group interactions all week.


V

Bonnie
I was not doing anything underhanded.  It was not my purpose to have you make my case it just happened that way.  No one here including me is denying the inspiration of the NT.  It is the purpose of that text that is in question.  If it is approached as at new law or rule book then we have confusion.  Every group even most individuals pick and choose which parts must be obeyed and which parts do not apply.  If it is a new w law or rule book then we are worse off than the Jews under the law.  Everything there was spelled out.  2 doves for this sin...  The NT simply is not written that way.  Again I ask if we must obey NT commands and examples why do we not obey them all?  It is an impossible task because it was not written as a law.     Volkmar is correct.  The assemble in the NT was not called a worship service nor is the concept of the assembly primarily for worship.


bvaug
I am not saying that parts of the NT is outdated and parts are not.  It is the CENI approach to the NT that I am taking issue with.  The purpose was not to give new rules and laws but to tell the simple story of the good news and how the newly established kingdom of God handled their challenges.  It is not the text that we are questioing but your approach to the text.
   

So any "woman" worth her salt would teach in that situation?  That's what I thought.  I will continue to teach at every opportunity until the day the LORD returns. 

I read it.  I think his core arguments are informed and accurate.


V

I have only lightly skimmed the .html version, but have downloaded the .pdf version for a fuller reading.

I'm glad my post was a blessing to you.  That's the right questions ~  who gets to pick the answers and just far are we willing to go!  God Bless

Bonnie,


It was the handling of snakes and drinking poison.





I'm speaking of the Bible.



I don't see how they can be classified as OT since they were setting up meetings for Christians.  Is meetings a better word? There were no Christians until after Penecost.


It wouldn't seem that they did, no.  This was also a new concept for Paul and all other Christians.  Paul was no longer killing God's people but preaching the gospel. 


I don't understand your point here.



The newly converted Gentiles I'm sure needed to hear the Word just as we do.  The NT wasn't put together in a book but it was in the making.  The Jews had much to learn as well.  We all know that.
V

[/quote]

I don't know how you can think we are worse off than those who had to sacrifice animals for their sins, who didn't live by enabling grace nor were they empowered with the Holy Spirit to be able to please God, something that the law which was by flesh could never do.   You really want to try and keep all 613 laws of which some were not given by God but added by men.   I don't think we would.

If you will pardon my saying so  the individuals picking and choosing what they shall believe and what they won't is one of the biggest problems of all.  That is not a God given right but rebellion.

The commandments are there and they are meant to be obeyed to the best of our ability and Jesus will take care of the rest of it.  It's good that He is forgiving or we would all be in trouble.

 12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Do you obey this command?

"Greet one another with a holy kiss..."   Do you obey this command?

"They (believers)  shall pick up serpants...  Do you obey this command?

" If any is sick let them call for the elders of the church.. anoint them with oil ...  Do you obey this command?

The slave is told to obey the master .   Do you accep0t slavery as the willof God or fight against it?

The reason we have so many different groups teaching differnt things and condeming one another is because  the NT is viewed as a new rule book.


The reason I said (If the NT is a new law or rule book)  we are worse off than the Jews is because they knew exactly what they had to do.  They knew what was reguired of them to please God.  However, they were not able to be a perfect rule keeper.  That was the purpose of the OT.  If the NT requires us to be rule keeper we are wose off because the rules are not spelled out.  We are required (if your view is correct)  to read leters written to a specific group for a specific purpose and trying to decide which parts apply to us and which ones we can ignore .  IMO that is not freedom from the law, nor grace nor a free gift of God but confusion.  It is the difference in how we approach the NT that causes our difference in understanding. 

Yes.

I've always said it is harder to live under grace than it is to live under law. I think that's why we so easily fall back into lawkeeping. We like it when someone else tells us what to do, then we don't have to wrestle with the questions of what is the right thing to do as a Christ-follower. Children behave better when they have lines and boundaries drawn for them. But we expect them to grow up and be able to make those decisions for themselves as adults. I believe that, under grace, God expects the same from us.

Yes Phoebe.  It just seems many are not happy with the great principles of the NT.  They want to take something  like love the Lord.. and have a set of rules to judge if you have obeyed enought to prove you love the Lord.  Problem is everyone has their own set of rules to follow.   

johnb, I have answered your questions as I understand them.  I really don't see what more I can do.  It's up to you what you believe and why you believe it.

God Bless

Bonnie again we have come to different conclusions on this subject.  However, again I have to compliment you on disagreeing without being disagreeable.  I enjoy discussions with you and your Christian attitude.  I do believe you are trying to serve God.

Amen, brother, same here.   ::tippinghat::

Bonnie,

I still don't understand what point you're making about my comment about handling snakes and drinking poison.


V

The Scriptural mandates on this subject do not apply to a place like this forum because the instructions were given in the context of a Church body or a Church worship service.   

Man it must have taken a sharp knife to split that legalistic hair. ::tippinghat::

Do you believe that since we are saved by grace, that we have no rules to live by? Do we just live how we decide to, as long as we believe that Jesus exists and is the son of God? In your opinion how should a Christian live?

God Bless

Jason

What?  All I meant was that the instructions that were being given in the passages that we are talking about here were given in the context of a Church Body, an assembly, a meeting, whatever you want to call it, that sort of thing.  Do you disagree with that?

I dont think that a forum is a teaching platform at all, but a discussion of our individual beliefs and why we believe them.  Not to say people cant teach from a forum or learn from things that are read from a forum but that doesnt necessarily mean that the individual that someone may learn from is attempting to be a teacher.

Just my opinion,

Jason

I totally agree, very well said, and you said it better than I did!

That can happen, 'tis true, and that's wrong if it does.  But does that mean we shouldn't hold to any Scriptures or Biblical principles because some people in some situations abuse or misuse them?  The reason why people abuse those things is because of SIN.  Wow, we sure can mess just about everything up, right?  Look, I'm a woman and I am the last person that would be in favor of somehow subjucating women.  I'm a strong woman myself with a strong personality.  (My husband will attest to that!)  I just think the Scripture we've been talking about is pretty cut and dry and easy to understand. 

Obedience to the King is legalism.

Princess said
That can happen, 'tis true, and that's wrong if it does.  But does that mean we shouldn't hold to any Scriptures or Biblical principles because some people in some situations abuse or misuse them?  The reason why people abuse those things is because of SIN.  Wow, we sure can mess just about everything up, right?  Look, I'm a woman and I am the last person that would be in favor of somehow subjucating women.  I'm a strong woman myself with a strong personality.  (My husband will attest to that!)  I just think the Scripture we've been talking about is pretty cut and dry and easy to understand.

Princess our differences come from how we approach the NT.  As I have pointed out I approachit as the story of the good news (Jesus comming to make His sacrifice for our sins) and leters of how the 1st century church was guided by the apostles and other inspired writers in dealing with their problems.  When one starts taking those answers and applying them to every culture and situation you have made a new and very inconsistant law.  IMO it is the principles of Christ tahat are the things that should guide us.  Do good to all men, treat other as you wish to be treated, turn the other cheek, meet evil with good.  teach others the good news.  It just does not make sense to me to take advise given to a specific group to deal with there problems in a specific culture and try to make a new law for folks today.     

Hmmm.  I agree with you more than you think, but don't you think that there are things in the NT that were given to us to show us how to conduct ourselves, and in the specific thing we were originally talking about, I thought the author of the Scripture was telling us how to conduct ourselves in a church Body.  Are you saying you don't think that is necessarily for us to follow today?  It's odd, I guess what I would say is I agree with your above statement to a point, but I think there's a fine line there.  Don't you think people could say that about almost anything in the Scriptures?

Honestly, I'm not arguing with you, I find this a very interesting discussion.

And, the $64K question is--what constitutes a "Church body or a Church worship service"?  Or, as Johnb observed...it takes an awfully sharp knife to split that theological hair.

Notice the flow of this from Romans 16:

Look at how many women are named and how Paul speaks of them;

1. Phoebe; a MINISTER (literally, a deaconess), receive her in a way befitting a saint who serves others sacraficially--a true leader.

2. Priscilla, of Aquila and Priscilla fame.  "Fellow workers in Christ Jesus".  Isn't it interesting how BOTH are "fellow workers" and that Priscilla's name usually is mentioned first?  Not to mention that a church meets in their house...Who lead that church?  Which of the two didn't speak "in church"??

3. Mary, "who worked very hard for you."  I guess Mary had taken a vow of silence...did all of her "working for you" for the Body in Rome in silence??

4. Junias and her husband, who counted off days with Paul in prison.  Who are counted among the apostles...only Andronicus did the talkin' ??

5.  "Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord."  Do you think their "work" was maybe just making sandwiches and sweeping floors and arranging chairs for the meeting of the ekklesia at the house in which they met?  When Paul uses the phrase "work in the Lord" he means it in the same way that he said that Timothy carries on the work of the Lord (I Cor. 16:10).  It would be safe to assume that Tryphena and Tryphosa publically expounded in the assembly just as Timothy was apt to do.

6. Persis,  another woman and dear friend "who has worked very hard in the Lord."

7. Rufus' mother, who had been a mother to Paul.

8. Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.  Again, three women who were active in a house church, an ekklesia.  I should take it that Nereus put the quietus on his sister until after the "closing prayer"??


Do you get the impression that Paul expected women in the ekklesia to be "seen and not heard"?


This, from I Cor. 1, is significant;

The "household" is refered to as "Chloe's"...that means that Chloe was the head of that household, and the mention of "household" is significant because a "household" either constituted and/or hosted an ekklesia-- a "church body".  At least 7 times in Paul's epistles (the ones we have) Paul refers to specific "households" which were "church bodies" (ekklesia's).  In those instances he is using "household" in the same sense that he used it when saying, "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household," (Eph. 2:19).


If we'd just take off the tradition-shaded glasses through which so many of us have been reading the Love Story from God, we'd begin to notice that our Lord and Brother wants all of His siblings-brothers and sisters-to speak forth boldly the oracles of the Creator of the Universe Who is Our Father.


If Paul is not credible, then listen to Moses;
Numbers 11:29

The LORD has put His Spirit IN us, not just upon us!!


V

That's the way the Pharisees saw it...

V

And I take it that the assembly of Believers is primarily a "teaching platform"?  If so, then that is more a Reformation perspective than a NT perspective.


V

Well, John and I and Phoebe are saying the same thing...The scriptures we're talking about are pretty easy to understand once you get back to what actually was being said, not what some translational traditions have led us to believe what they say.


V

Princess
I answered you but I guess the dog ate it it did not post.  Volkmar did a good job of answering it.  When wetake stuff written to another culture and time and make laws for today it can become very difficult.  Example Jesus said for the slave to obey his master and for the master to treat his slaves well.  One could make a case that slavery is ordained by God and we ought not to try to end slavery.  That is the legalistic law keeping approach.  The principle approach would say we can serve God regardless of our circumstances in life. It also would lead us to do good to all men (work to end slavery). Hope that helps.

How?

Excellent post #190, BIG V.

Manna to you.

OK I will show my ignorance here.  How do you know what number a post is in a thread?

Johnb, look just below the thread title on the post and there's the number.
For instance this is post #198.

Thanks Bonnie I was clicking on all the little icons and stuff trying to make thee easy difficult.  Just show people over look the obvious or at least I do.

LOL  I'm gulity as well.

Look at how many women are named and how Paul speaks of them;

1. Phoebe; a MINISTER (literally, a deaconess), receive her in a way befitting a saint who serves others sacraficially--a true leader.

literally your own opinion, but maybe give some Biblical evidence that she was a deaconess.


2. Priscilla, of Aquila and Priscilla fame.  "Fellow workers in Christ Jesus".  Isn't it interesting how BOTH are "fellow workers" and that Priscilla's name usually is mentioned first?  Not to mention that a church meets in their house...Who lead that church?  Which of the two didn't speak "in church"??3. Mary, "who worked very hard for you."  I guess Mary had taken a vow of silence...did all of her "working for you" for the Body in Rome in silence??

We dont know who spoke more or less since we were not at there house. Everyone man or woman in the body of Christ is a fellow worker, we all have a function in the body,,,that function however must fall inline with the scriptures. Priscilla's name is usually mentioned first, please give us a count, and then lets talk about what significance that even has,, none. Who lead that church again you are presuming what you want to have been true, but have no evidence other than your opinion. I never claimed that women should be silent while doing the work of Christ. Only during a session of teaching or preaching. You assume too much, if you have an actual scripture in the Bible give that as evidence to back up your ideas.

4. Junias and her husband, who counted off days with Paul in prison.  Who are counted among the apostles...only Andronicus did the talkin' ??

Can you give us scripture of either talking or of them being married, they were called kinsmen

5.  "Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord."  Do you think their "work" was maybe just making sandwiches and sweeping floors and arranging chairs for the meeting of the ekklesia at the house in which they met?  When Paul uses the phrase "work in the Lord" he means it in the same way that he said that Timothy carries on the work of the Lord (I Cor. 16:10).  It would be safe to assume that Tryphena and Tryphosa publically expounded in the assembly just as Timothy was apt to do.

Can you again go back in time and tell us exactly what happened, they labored for the Lord. That could include cleaning and cooking, but also helping with the children and other younger women. The labor they did could have been any number of things, but I doubt that Paul would praise them for doing things contrary to His Teachings. Or was he a hypocrit?6. Persis,  another woman and dear friend "who has worked very hard in the Lord."

7. Rufus' mother, who had been a mother to Paul.

? Good a just woman who treated him like a son?

8. Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.  Again, three women who were active in a house church, an ekklesia.  I should take it that Nereus put the quietus on his sister until after the "closing prayer"??

I would guess that they listened and obeyed the inspired teachings of Paul that you discredit.


Do you get the impression that Paul expected women in the ekklesia to be "seen and not heard"?

I get the impression that they were Godly women that were very important to the Body of Christ. Which in turn would mean that they were submissive to Gods Will that Paul plainly teaches in the Word.  

This, from I Cor. 1, is significant;

Quote
11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.

The "household" is refered to as "Chloe's"...that means that Chloe was the head of that household, and the mention of "household" is significant because a "household" either constituted and/or hosted an ekklesia-- a "church body".  At least 7 times in Paul's epistles (the ones we have) Paul refers to specific "households" which were "church bodies" (ekklesia's).  In those instances he is using "household" in the same sense that he used it when saying, "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household," (Eph. 2:19).

Is that what that means? Im glad that God put you here to re-interpret the cut and dry parts of the Bible...like I permit women not to teach and the like. Is not a household both mine and my wifes or only mine because I am the Head of my family. Me being the Head of my Wife does not mean that she is any less important to my family or the success of. My family is the household of my wife and of myself.

If we'd just take off the tradition-shaded glasses through which so many of us have been reading the Love Story from God, we'd begin to notice that our Lord and Brother wants all of His siblings-brothers and sisters-to speak forth boldly the oracles of the Creator of the Universe Who is Our Father.


What tradition would that be, the tradition of being obedient to the Word of God. Let us just forget about any rules, laws, suggestions, or any teaching that is in the Word unless it concerns us loving each other and accepting the sin we are living in. Did Paul just sit around and let the churches drowned in sin or did he rebuke them and correct them asking for them to repent.  


If Paul is not credible, then listen to Moses;

If Paul is not credible? You have basically torn out the pages of Pauls teaching that you disagree with and try to twist them to line up with your belief.


Quote
But Moses replied, "Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!"

Women being prophets is not the discussion, the Bible encourages this gift on all of Gods people. We are discussing what the Bible actually says about women being in authority in the church and women being preachers.
Numbers 11:29

The LORD has put His Spirit IN us, not just upon us!![/color]

Jason

I will let Volkmar go blow by blow with the others but the first one is so well know and obvious I can't believe you even questioned it.  Phoebe in Rom 16:1 is called  a DIAKONOS   It literally means servant.  However, when conected to being a servant in the church it is most often rendered deacon.  The only reason it was not in early translationsis because she is a woman.  It is the same word used for the 7 servant or deacons. In many newer translation NIV etc in the foot notes it will say deaconess or minister because that is what is clear from the Greek. 

flapjack said
What tradition would that be, the tradition of being obedient to the Word of God. Let us just forget about any rules, laws, suggestions, or any teaching that is in the Word unless it concerns us loving each other and accepting the sin we are living in. Did Paul just sit around and let the churches drowned in sin or did he rebuke them and correct them asking for them to repent.


There is the old "if you don't agree with me then you must be saying anything goes" argument.  Volkmar is simply saying that the NT is the love story of God for man.  He like myself is guided by the principles of fairness , love , forgiveness and yes principles of right and wrong.  However, this has nothing to do with taking letters written to a specific group dealing with a specific problem of that time and culture and applying it to all men in all times.  It is like you can't see the forest for the trees.

Zoo,

Have I misunderstood your statement?  Are you saying that obedience is the end-all be-all?  If that is what you meant, then my response was that is what the Pharisees also thought.  Jesus did not concur wth the Pharisees on this point (and many others, for that matter).


V

Not an "opinion", actual fact, though one that has been obscured by translational bias.  Here's the verse, with the phrase under question underlined...read it for yourself;

A διάκονον = "deacon" = "minister" = "servant".  Phoebe, being female, was a deaconess in/of/for the ekklesia in Cenchrea who was on her way to Rome on some kind of business, that business probably related to the same kind of things by which she had been of assistance to Paul (remember, Paul was an apostolic worker?) and other saints.

I suspect that a significant part of your problem in seeing this is that when you see the word "deacon" (a transliteration of the Greek "diakonos") you read "deacon" = "office in the Church".  "Deacon" wasn't used by Paul to describe an "office", rather diakonon is a verb--a function that results from Spiritual gifting.  The Spirit's gifts (charisma), and thus the ensuing functions, are not gender specific. 

BTW, Paul recognized Phoebe as a "prostatis" (16:2..."a helper" or "a succourer"), which carried with it the idea of leadership (cf. 1 Thess.5:12) (and, this is another interesting example of translational bias...In places where it's easy to infer that "leaders" is talking about men, as in the I Thess. 5:12 passage, the word "leader" will usually be used, but if it's apparent that the root is feminine, then "helper" or "succourer" is the typically biased choice...this is another study in itself).

I Tim. 3:11 is most accurately understood to be speaking of deaconesses...thought I'm sure that could be another argument ;o)




No, not assuming too much.  I'm actually being more "literal" than you are.  You assume other than what Paul is plainly saying.

Exactly what is "a session of teaching or preaching"?  How exactly do you define "preaching"?  I assume you know how to use Young's or Strong's or Vine's; if you need a link here's one to Vines--PREACH (http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=preach)




Junias/Junia is a feminine name.  Some translations used Junias (masculine) because the Vulgate changed the feminine Junia to the masculine Junias.  Many translations, including the KJV, corrected that error.  They are kinsmen/relatives of Paul.  And yes, they are certainly related to each other by marriage.




Perhaps you should take the time to run down the instances when and where Paul uses that phrase "labor/work in the Lord".  In Paul's understanding all that we do in the Lord's name is "work in the Lord", and that is not limited to proclaiming/testifying, or limited to cleaning, cooking, or child care.





I'm sure they did, though it doesn't seem that they read the same Bible that you do.




See my answer above, with this addition...these people saw and heard Paul.





I'm not "re-intepret(ing", rather, I'm deconstructing a biased, off-target interpretation that has been foisted upon us for centuries by translators who were more concerned about not rocking the boat and not having to take the heat for translating with integrity.  I don't think most translators have done their work with some sly, shady, sense of deception, but I am saying that it's extremly difficult to "go against the flow".





What tradition would that be?  The one that has mis-translated almost every passage in the epistles that seem to challenge religious male heirarchy/dominance, the one that makes 51%+ of the Body of Christ into second class citizens. 

In the rest of your statement you make suggestions that are totally unfounded...it's like you're thrashing around trying to justify your position.  Address the text, not what you suppose to be my failings.





I'm running out of time, so if I seem short it's because time is short.

I have no disagreement with Paul or his teaching.  I have plenty of disagreement with many of the translators and the interpretations they have impinged upon us.



Prophets "expound publically".  Preachers "expound publically".  Elders "expound publically" (among other things).  The issue is "leadership".  One of the "proofs" that women cannot be "leaders" is because they are supposedly to be silent in the assembly.  It's all connected....


V

Even further, it is the exact word Paul uses to describe himself [Eph. 3:7] , but the English translators used the word "minister" when translating it to describe Paul... hmmmm...   ::headscratch::   (Couldn't possibly be gender bias, could it??  nah... translators are "above bias"!)

Phoebe,

Right.  Thanks for adding that.  It's exactly correct.

Have you read Paul's Idea of Community by Robert Banks?



V

No, I hadn't even heard of it! Can you believe that?!? Did you read the original '79 version, or the revised '94 version? It's ready to fall into my "shopping cart".

Presently reading the '94 version.

I've seen it quoted so many times that I began to think I'd better read it.  Extraordinary insight and scholarship.


V

That's an illogical fallacy. A group of men not being fit to lead does not necessitate the need for women to "take the reigns" so to speak. And I do recognize that your being sarcastic, but some women actually BELIEVE that statement.

Some women are more suited to lead then some men, and there is another group of men who are more suited than that same group of women, thus nullifying the argument. If the argument went to infinity, it still ends up at God saying "men lead" so there is no possible way around it.

Neither should men have power over women, in church or otherwise. Desire to power over another is one of the tools of the evil one.

No, God did not say that men are to lead women. God did not say that men are to have power over women or anyone else. That's where the fallacy lies, believing that God wants humans to have power over each other. We are to be in mutual submission to each other, to lead by serving. There is no "power" or control in any of that.

The desire for power comes from Satan. Has since the Garden, when he offered the woman to eat from the forbidden tree.

I believe just as Jesus is the head of the Church (his bride), that among the body, qualified men are to be the head.  And in the way of Christ, this means these men are to put the needs of everyone else before their own.  Just as in the marriage relationship, the husband is to put his wife and children before himself.  I realize that the wife is called to do this as well.  However, I believe the ultimate responsibility before God in the church and in a marriage rests on the male.

Look at the definition of "Power or Control" and then the definition of " A Leader" and then you can properly respond to my post once you understand the difference. God has called men to lead, not to put down, or oppress, or hold women back...God has called men to be leaders.

A leader, points toward the Lord for his spouse to witness. A leader, makes decisions for the family that reflect the Lord's will for their lives.

A pastor, points the congregation toward the Lord. No where did Power or Control come into play, if you struggle with these concepts they are merely personal issues and the foundation of the feminist movement.

A spiritually leading man doesn't say a woman "can't be a leader" to suggest inequality...he says "God has called me to lead, and I will obey". And no, the woman's movement, or whatever feminism is currently called, holds no weight to the Lord's desire for leadership, so there is no valid argument, only complaints.

Phoebe,

 ::amen!::  Manna for you! 

Phoebe said

No, God did not say that men are to lead women. God did not say that men are to have power over women or anyone else. That's where the fallacy lies, believing that God wants humans to have power over each other. We are to be in mutual submission to each other, to lead by serving. There is no "power" or control in any of that.

The desire for power comes from Satan. Has since the Garden, when he offered the woman to eat from the forbidden tree.

Isn't it funny that when I ask these same "we must obey" folks if they follow Jesus command to wash one anoters feet they say.. "oh He was teaching us about serving one another it was an objective lesson."   But as you have pointed out they really don't understand the lesson Jesu was teaching.  Preach on sister.

Uhh...I thought Jesus is the "head" of His Body/Bride??  How can "qualified men...be the head"?


V

Perhaps it is kind of like the 2 headed snakes and turdles we see in the side show.

One cannot use the world's definition to define God's design of servant-leader. Can't do it. Power and servant-leadership cannot co-exist in human beings.

A true leader does not merely "point the way". A true leader walks in that direction and others join. A genuine pastor does not merely "point the way", but is already walking in that direction, encouraging others to join him, letting others who also know the way take turns at the front of the journey, while he sometimes is protecting the rear, or stopping for a rest. For the husband-wife-as-one, they walk together, not one following the other. If one is behind the other, they are not one. God has called them to be one in all ways, they serve, encourage, support, and protect each other. They lead their family together, as one. That's God's design. Any other way is a deceit of the serpent. Don't take the bait.

Good!  Exactly!!

(Saving it so I can quote you.)


V

The desire for power and control was the very thing the serpent used, in the Garden, and in the wilderness. He's still using it.  After 10,000 years of success, why should he change his MO?

I agree with you Phoebe, and I should have expounded upon "leading" evidently. I'm very much equal with my wife, and she is included for every decision in our marriage. It may have been more appropriate, to ask the question of "If husband and wife are at a fork in the road, and both ways are acceptable paths to take, and the wife wants to go 'right' and the husband wants to go 'left' than which way do they go? Both directions are Christian choices and are in line with God's Word."

I believe that is the only time a man should make a family decision, even if the wife does not agree with it. I've never reached that place, my wife and I have always agreed together so far on family decisions.

Regarding church, I must reiterate that I believe men & women are equal and unique according to scripture, and that our differences are strengths in our unique genders. I do believe that women can be spiritual leaders. I do believe that women can be congregational pastors. I believe that God has asked men to lead...not to suggest that women cannot lead...simply that we were asked to lead. After all, the very rocks will cry out if no one stands up for God. I hope that explains my position better. To me, it is not an argument of power, I've never seen it from that point of view.

I think the sticking point I keep having comes from my house church experience.

It just seems natural to hear women praying aloud, selecting songs, reading from the Bible, sharing how scriptures have moved them and been applied, but walk into a building dedicated to churchin' and it seems alien.

I also have a hard time figuring out how some usurps power when those in power tell you to carry out their command.

What "power" and what "control" did the serpent use in the garden ?

There are early church writings which speak of women leaders and teachers. There is no rebuttals to these women being teachers.

So are we not looking at all the evidence.

FTL

He didn't... He used cunning, and tempted her with "knowledge"...  Telling her she would be like God.  He never told her she would have Power... or that she would be powerful.  He never told her she would have control over anything.  She never mentioned wanting power. That is injecting an idea in scripture that is not there.

Satan has used deception since the Garden of Eden... that is all. 

Acts 20:17: "From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church."
Acts 20:18: "When they arrived, he said to them: ...
Acts 20:28: "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."

1 Timothy 5:17: "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching."

1 Peter 5:1: "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:"
1 Peter 5:2: "Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;"
1 Peter 5:3: "not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock."

According to the above passages, elders were "overseers" and "shepherds" of the church, and they directed the affairs of the church, and some of them were the preachers and teachers in the church.

Is this correct? because we have never had elders in our church...just deacons.

I agree with you, but would like Phoebe to answer her comments.

The qualifications which Paul listed:
 
must be above reproach (blameless)
temperate
self-controlled (disciplined)
respectable (upright, holy)
hospitable
able to teach (must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it)
not given to drunkenness
not violent but gentle
not quarrelsome (not overbearing or quick-tempered)
not a lover of money (and not pursuing dishonest gain)
must not be a recent convert
must have a good reputation with outsiders
one who loves what is good

So the question is...Can the above qualifications apply to men and women equally?

"...no rebuttals to these women being teachers." Excellent point, Harold. I hadn't thought of it from that perspective before. The only exception to that is to those who teach a false gospel, like those Paul wrote about to Timothy.

Paul attacked both men and women who would teach a false gospel. I agree my sister.

FTL

Just out of curiosity, do Christian women ever think it is unfair that the Bible says they are not to have power over any men in the church, even though some apparently think they'd do a better job? Would any Christian woman be willing to share her opinion on this? Thank you.


I may be mistaken, but doesn't it? "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:11-12) Does anyone think this passage is morally incorrect or unfair? Please feel free to share.


I'm a bit confused. What does that mean? That according to God's own laws, women are second class citizens? Does anyone view this as sexist, or is it acceptable because that is how God ordained it? If anyone would care to share their thoughts on that, I would appreciate it.


Once again, I am curious to know if anyone thinks this view is sexist. Consider these verses from the Qu'ran: "Women have rights similar to those of men, and men are a degree above them" (2:228), "Marry the women who seem good to you, two or three or four" (4:3), "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one to excel above the other. Good women are the obedient ones... As for those from whom ye fear disobedience, admonish them, banish them, and scourge them" (4:34), and "The treachery of women is very great" (12:28) Many Christian people have said that these verses are sexist and unfair, and that they contribute to the oppression of women in the Middle East. Does anyone here think that the Bible has ever contributed to the oppression of women? I am open to anyone's thoughts on this subject.


All Scripture? ::frown:: What about these? "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening" (Leviticus 15:19), "If... no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death" (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity" (Deuteronomy 25:11-12), "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1)

Do you believe a woman should be shunned while she is on her period? Do you think daughters should be stoned at their fathers' doorsteps? Do you think a woman's hand should be cut off if she accidentally touches a man's privates? Do you think men should refrain from touching women? Please explain your position. If all Scripture should be used and taught regardless of the time, place, and culture, why are these passages not taught, and why do we not follow them?


 ::frown:: I never like reading this. Many skeptics of the Bible point to passages such as the one above to prove the "obvious sexism" (to use their words) of its teachings. I am curious what other peoples' opinions are on this. Why is Eve, the woman, blamed for the fall of mankind? Why is Adam, the man, less guilty? Does anyone view this as an "obvious sexist tilt" to the Bible? Also, is there any record in the Bible of Eve ever having been warned not to eat the forbidden fruit? And does anyone think it is unfair for God to have allowed Satan, a supernatural being whose knowledge and understanding surpasses that of any human being, to tempt this naive and innocent woman who nad no adequate understanding of right and wrong? ::frown::

Please share your thoughts, if you are willing.

Hi,


Where does the bible state that women are not to have power over any men in the church?? Why are you asking about 'women' and 'power'?


This is not about pastors neither is it about women, plural.


A sexist person believes that women are second class citizens.


Paul instructs all to submit to one another which is in principle throughout the entire NT. Love one another, serve one another, be as slaves to one another etc. Husbands are not excluded from the principles of the kingdom.


No the bible does not contribute to the oppression of women, that would be sins place which began in Gen 3.


Where do you read 'Eve' in the above verses other than where Paul said of creation, 'then Eve'? Where is she blamed for the fall other than having been blamed through traditionalist, patriarchalists of the past?

Yes, she quoted God's command given to the both of them in Gen 3.

Since they are human qualifications and women are human it follows then logicaly that they can. If one says otherwise then they are not thinking correctly and rather seeing through a blue lens.

Sure women can be elders and leaders of churches. My wife is a pastor and is serving the Lord wholeheartedly. She teaches the true Word of God and is involved in deliverance ministry.

Thank you for your reply, Kathy. I appreciate your thoughts.


I suppose I should've said "authority" instead of "power," although they do mean basically the same thing. I was asking about it because it relates to this thread. I read a quote from a woman saying that she didn't believe it was biblical for women to hold positions of authority (or power) in the church, but that she thought some might do a better job than men. And the Bible does indeed state that women should not "usurp authority over the man" in church and elsewhere, and it also goes so far as to command that women must remain completely silent in church, and if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands or fathers at home.


I disagree with you. ::frown:: I think it is about women, plural. Just because it doesn't say "women" doesn't mean that it is not an instruction that applies to all females. Do you think that by saying "a woman," this passage is only referring to one woman in particular, or what? I think it is saying that a woman, therefore any woman, therefore all women should learn in quietness. Do not permit a woman, therefore any woman, therefore all women to teach or have authority over the man.

And I also believe that it is indeed talking about pastors. Pastors teach their congregations, do they not? And this passage is very clearly saying that women should not be allowed to teach.


According to Leviticus 12:1-5, "The LORD said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.'"

These words came from God himself. What is your opinion as to why God would suggest that women are twice as unclean and must be purified twice as long after giving birth to girls? Does this not suggest that girls are twice as dirty as boys, and therefore the mother is twice as impure giving birth to them and must be cleansed twice as long? Why do you think a just God would make such a statement, regardless or time or culture? Does this not imply that girls are indeed second-class in the eyes of God? Feel free to share your thoughts if you'd like.


Yes, but God instructs all women to submit to men.


So you do not think the verses I quoted sounded unfair toward women? ::frown::


First of all, that was not even my quote. That was someone else's, and it came directly from the Bible. The verse reads, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression." 1 Timothy 2:14.

That seems pretty clear to me. It obviously says "Hey, Adam was not fooled, but Eve was fooled, so she is the one who committed the transgression -- the sin." It is from these very verses in God's Holy Word that traditionalist views of the past and present stem, and it is these types of verses that support them.

I wish you had addressed some of my other questions, such as the one regarding the "fairness" of Satan being allowed to tempt poor Eve, but I am glad you responded nonetheless.

Thank you.

quote
All Scripture?  What about these? "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening" (Leviticus 15:19), "If... no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death" (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity" (Deuteronomy 25:11-12), "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1)

Do you believe a woman should be shunned while she is on her period? Do you think daughters should be stoned at their fathers' doorsteps? Do you think a woman's hand should be cut off if she accidentally touches a man's privates? Do you think men should refrain from touching women? Please explain your position. If all Scripture should be used and taught regardless of the time, place, and culture, why are these passages not taught, and why do we not follow them?


answer
These laws were given to the Jewish nation for that time in their history. They are Old Testament and Old convenant.
They are before Christ. Just look at the story of the women caught in adultery, Jesus DID NOT condone stoning for adultery, in fact he said the men who were wanting to stone her that they could do it if they had never committed a sin themselves.
Jesus was touched by the women who has bled for many years and he healed her. He wasnt then 'unclean' for the rest of the day. Jesus is to be our  pattern to follow. no where in the teaching of Jesus or Paul or any of the new testament teachers is it said that we are to stone anyone or regard anyone as being unclean or cut anyones hands off.If they did then I cant remember where.............
However it does show how seriously God regards some of the sexual sins and that can be a good warning to us when such things, even among Christians, are so rife these days.

Quote
Paul instructs all to submit to one another which is in principle throughout the entire NT.

Yes, but God instructs all women to submit to men.

Answer
The Bible only tells me to submit to my husband and not to all men. My husband is told to submit to Christ as his head. I am 100% happy to allow my husband to be the head of our family (and who cares if I feel that I could do a better job or not, it isnt what God has told me to do). He is a brilliant head and I have the utmost respect for him.

"like God". [actually, it says "gods", but I don't know what they knew of "gods" other than the LORD God] That would be omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful). Knowledge is power.

The serpent had control of both the man and the woman from the first sentence when he caused them to question God. He became a wedge between God and the humans, and between the woman and the man. He still has that control as we see the same struggle 10,000 years later. Humans are slow-learners.

Chosenone, thank you for your reply. To clarify, I was responding to someone who said, "All Scripture is inspired by God profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. If this scripture is true that would mean that all scripture should be used and taught regardless of the time, place, and culture," when I quoted those Bible verses. I did so because I do not believe that all Scripture should be taught regardless of setting. It is quite clear that the passages I quoted, which regarded (among other things) the stoning of girls whose virginity could not be proven, the shunning of menstrual women, and the amputation of a woman's hand for accidentally touching a man's privates, should not be taught or followed.

You say that they should not be taught and/or followed because they are the Old Covenant, and Jesus ushered in a new law. So you agree with me. ::smile:: This person is wrong in saying that all Scripture should be used and taught without exception.


Thank you for clarifying, chosenone. I did not mean to make it sound as if the Bible tells all women to submit to all men. I merely meant to assert that there is not a single instance I know of in which God tells any man to submit to any woman, but in all cases of a woman submitting to any human being, it is always a man. Therefore, I think it is quite clear who the dominant gender is supposed to be, according to the Bible.

I am glad you have such an admirable relationship with your husband, and that you are happy in your marriage. ::smile:: I'm sure your husband is a wise leader. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In many instances, the wife is in fact the more sensible and godly counterpart. My own mother is an example. Yet even though my father was foolish and sometimes abusive, she always, always submitted to him, and I hated to see it. She did this because she felt it was what the Bible asked her to. I realize that God would never want or ask any woman ever to endure such things, because he is fair and understanding. But I do wish the Bible were more clear on this. It worries me to hear people say, "who cares if I feel that I could do a better job or not, it isnt what God has told me to do" because this is the exact reasoning my mother used, and I personally feel it is unfair. If a woman can do a better job of leading her family, I say she should be free to do it. And I also think that if a woman can do a better job than a man in leading her church congregation, she should be able to. Unfortunately, the Bible does not seem to condone this. That is one of the many problems I have with it.

Thank you again for all of your insights. Take care.

Thats true in many cases but if the man and the woman (for example in a marriage) are  in Godly order then there is no wedge. Jesus has come to restore families and marriages and relationships and He can and does do it if we allow him to. 

A principle is placed first, and then the order follows. It can't work in reverse, that you have a few marriages that work well a certain way and so you make that the principle. It's backwards and flawed. And also not how it was designed by God.

I don't believe there is a household where Satan does not have a toe in the door, no matter how good and perfect the marriage and family life order is. The one that thinks he is not present just waiting for the right moment to pounce is the most vulnerable to him. "a snare -a lying-in-wait", as God spoke to Eve, and to Cain, "sin is crouching at your door, and it desires to have you". I think that applies to everyone.

He also said that He came to set son against father, mother against daugter, etc etc etc.

We have to take what God says about marriage and put that into practice. If we dont do things as he has told us to then how can we complain when it goes wrong? It isnt a question of making a principle out of anything, it is a case of trying our best to obey what he tells husbands and wives to do.
you are right in that satan does all that he can to destroy marriages which is why we need to obey God and His instructions and not try to do anything our own way.

chosenone - What God said about the relationship between the first man and the first woman in Gen 2 is that they are eye-to-eye, woman was man's capable, equal partner, cemented together as one. There is no hierarchy there.

The argument that women can't be elders because of the design of marriage in Genesis is false.

Nor is Paul's inspired design of the marriage relationship for that matter an argument that woman can't be elders.

 

I wasnt thinking of what Genesis says but of what Paul says in the New testament when he tells us that  the husband is to be the head and the wife is to respect him and submit to him.
I would think it may be a bit hard for a women to be an elder if she is supposed to be allowing her husband to be her head(how can she be his head in church and he be her head in the home, could be a bit tricky), but I wasnt specifically refering to women elders. I am totally in support of women teachers because I have heard too many very gifted and annointed women teachers in the UK to doubt that they are called by God, but being an elder is something different I feel.

Exactly..."churchin'".   When the family of God meets as a family in a family setting then it does feel natural when women (and all others for that matter) function in a way consistent with their giftings.  It would be quite abnormal for moms to not speak their minds with the family.


V

Christ should be the the only head in a church setting! The rest are under his authority.

I agree...but that will never happen on earth...too many theological divisions within the body for that ever to come to pass. I've never been to a church where everyone has a mic (or simply talks amongst themselves).

How does he use his authority?

Everything is done through His love for us...He is the authority...The word!

Do we submit to this love...do we submit to His word!

I don't think that answers the question of how he uses his authority. Specifically, with an example from Scripture if you can, show me how he uses his authority.

Thanks.

The situation with your mum and  dad is one that remnds me about how careful we must be to marry the person who God has for us, and not just make our own choice. I knew that my husband had to be someone who I admired and respected and he is. I knew that I wanted a godly and moral man who was kind and patient and he is. It is so much easier to allow the husband to be the head if he has these qualities. However,if the man that your mum married wasnt like this then she was still being obedient to God by letting him make desisions even if they were ultimately wrong. She sounds like a godly women.
My dad wasnt the easiest man to live with either, but my mum always respected him and I have come to greatly admire that about her now even though at the time (when I was a teenager and a young adult) I though that she was being weak. In fact she was being very strong and obedient to the God who she loved (and who she is with now). 

Don't you have to have authority before you can give it? Christ had aurthority from His father...he gave it to his disciples..Mark 9:1..."...gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases."

You mean Luke 9:1.

OK, so, Jesus had power and authority over evil and sickness. And he could give it away.

Sounds like serving for the good and well-being of others. Where are the examples that shows he used authority over his followers?

Jesus had authority...and he demostrated(maybe this is a better word) his authority to us. He does not force us to get under his authority...this is our choice to submit to Him.

grace - Does Scripture show us where Jesus used His "authority over" his followers? If so, where, how did he claim it, and what was the response of those followers "over" whom he claimed this authority?

Did you read my post above...I have stated before...it is His word that is the authority..through his life he demonstrated that authority. All the way to the cross...through love for us. He submitted to His Father authority...not ours! He did it out of Love for us.

What was the response of His followers......everyone is different, some respond and submit and some do not. As a follower you have to answer that one for yourself, as I do. Do we get under the authority of the word of God? Or do we want to be the authority?

Phoebe.... I can not convince you...the Holy Spirit has too. I have a peace about where I am in my marriage and what I believe the Bible says concerning this. If you do not want your husband to be the head...then that is between the two of you and God. I trust my husband, He is a loving leader and I gladly submit to decisions that he makes. Does he trust my input? YES! Sometimes my input changes the situation and sometimes it doesn't. But He is man enough to take on the responsibility of the decision. I still see it interesting that Adam was held responsible for sin entering human race when Eve talked him into it. Sin entered through Adam not Eve......

All I was asking for was Scripture to support your thoughts. If you can't provide that, then it's OK to say so. If it's just your opinion, it's OK to say that, too. Before I can embrace your beliefs or at least understand where you get them from, I need to see it in Scripture. The Holy Spirit alone does not convince me unless it is also shown to me in Scripture. I have already been on this journey, and the Holy Spirit showed me in Scripture that the husband and wife become one, and the Spirit showed me the fullness of its meaning. The Spirit does not show us anything that cannot be supported in Scripture.

My opinion:
So often our hard-core beliefs are nothing more than traditional teachings, and as we grow and learn and mature on our journey toward God, we sometimes see that those traditional teachings were ... not quite right. Flawed. Some outright wrong. I have changed my beliefs on a number of things: instrumental music in worship, baptism, the role of women in God's Kingdom, the Lord's Supper, marriage-divorce-remarriage, even how I see the Bible. The relationship of the husband and wife is one of those things. Had I not been open to God's leading me, I would still be stuck in those teachings, still believing that somehow being a woman made me a second-class citizen in God's Kingdom. Those days are behind me, and my husband is alongside me.

Well you have found satisfaction!

I too have change a lot of my man-made teachings. This one was a hard one to learn because my first husband was not easy to submit to..because He was not submitted to God. So I have experienced this and it works. But it takes the both of you submitting to God to make a marriage.

I have shown you scriptures...you have ignored them. So we agree to disagree on this one!

Here is one scripture where Jesus uses his Authority as a rebuke

Matthew 16 (New King James Version)


Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection
  
21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Good one! He did not submit to Peters decision!

That is only because Jesus didn't understand mutual submission yet.  That will take a couple of thousand years.

Yes, and then he washed his feet, and when he had understood, Peter's request was that he not only wash his feet, but his whole body. Jesus was a servant first and foremost.

It wasn't an issue of hierarchy and authority. It was understanding the plan.

He didn't answer Peter with    now Peter you have it all wrong   lets just sit down over a nice cup of tea and we can talk this over     and then you will see what I mean     You will then understand 

No  He didn't fairy coat it         the way he said it was rather blunt and to the point   He was addressing it with Authority and placing his word      over    that what Peter had said

And it was directed at the devil who was working through Peter

It was an issue of hierarchy and authority    It was about who's word would prevail

I think the washing of feet was before this...

You want scripture then you ignore scripture...that showed his authority.  How was he not manifesting his authority? What if Peter did not submit to this authority?

Well said !

No need for the attitude.

When Jesus spoke to Peter he addressed who? Satan. Adversary. His authority was over evil.
I have already stated that he used his authority over evil and sickness. He was angry at the Temple, but he didn't claim any authority to do so as far as I can read, but quoted Scripture to them. He taught as one having authority, the right, to teach Scripture. Indeed, it was His story.

I am asking for Scripture that shows Jesus using his authority as the "head over" his followers. (I was not addressing the issue of submission here.)

The Word of God tells us that we wrestle not against flesh and blood.  So the authority that Jesus used was to silence Peter .  For Peter was allowing the devil to work through him.

I haven't got a attitude      You have misunderstood my post if that is what you think    ::smile::


When Adam and Eve decided to align themselves with Satans word rather than Gods    What happened to them?     

And like Adam and Eve    Peter was questioning Gods word so the rebuke came hard and fast

Mark



Jesus is the head     we are the body



Its always being about who's word do we follow   and the consequences for not doing so

We are one. In marriage with our spouse. In community as church. In Christ. One. That is Scripture.

The "two-headed" argument is not Scripture, but human reasoning.

Are we under Christ authority or are we equal with him in authority? If so then why when we pray we say "in Jesus name"(by his authority)?

We only have the authority that he gives us...He is the example to the church as the husband is to the wife.

God is the head of Christ

Christ is the head of the man

Man is the head of the woman

I see three, not two heads.

Ephesians tells us that the revealed Mystery is suppose to be "as" a marriage is also suppose to be.  

"As" Christ is the head of the body, and the body of Christ is the wife to Christ.  "So is" the man the head of the woman and the wife is to submit, "As" the body of Christ is to submit unto Christ.

This is our example which we are suppose to follow to a "T"

We are one when we align ourselves with the one who can make us one     Outside of that and we are many

Now look at this     the whole body is one in this scripture   But we all know we are not God and there still is a hierarchy system

Jesus Prays for All Believers
   
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[e] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

That is sort of strange becuase I have felt God leading me TOWARDS  the Biblical teaching of submission to my husband and AWAY from the idea that the man isnt the head and the thoughts that I had many years ago (in the early days of being a Christian) of 'why do I need to submit to a man etc etc' that I used to have. These were my own thoughts that I got from the world around me and God has shown me that His pattern for marriage is different and better, as He is, after all, God.
It is sad that you used to feel that being a women made you a second class citizen as I have never felt that, and certanly Gods teachings to wives have never made me think that. Why should  the fact that God tells us to submit to our husbands make you feel this way? it is becuase he does care about us and about our marriages that He gives us instructions to follow.
God never says that women are some how lesser beings. His instructions to wives dont say that at all. To Him we are equal to men, but just different. We have different qualities and different roles and a different part to play in marriage.Equally important and equally loved, equally special.

("this way" being the second-class citizen in God's Kingdom)

I became acutely aware of this when my five year old daughter asked me why a three year old boy could help serve at the Lord's Table but she could not. I could not tell her "Because God made you a girl." You need to understand that my daughter has been God's girl since she could talk. She has always been in tune with Him. This three year old was a brat from the git-go. (anyone will tell you that. It isn't just MO.)  It sounded so wrong to tell her that she could not serve as boys do because of gendered body parts. And that's all it comes down to. So I went on a journey, a decade + journey that has brought not only freedom, but a unity that I never in my wildest dreams could have imagined. Add to that the slap in the face at my family reunions where any boy was invited to come lead a song, but girls were prohibited. I didn't mind so much when I was 12 and still hiding behind my mother's skirts. But at 40, when the boy up front was monotone, yet not one of our blessed women were allowed to, I was resentful. It seemed so wrong to silence my aunts and cousins who are good enough to sing in the Symphonic Choir, but not good enough for a family gospel sing. I didn't like being resentful. I am 55. I was "churched" since I was a week old. So I took a long walk with God and all He would place in front of me. He set me free. It took this journey to bring me full redemption, where I see that it is human beings that suppress women, not God. That is how my journey began. And this is where it brought me.

You do not have to listen to one thing I am about to share with you.

But  it seems to me, that the church you have been going to was lawful and putting you and your daughter in bondage of a man made law. 

Your emotions got the best of you.  And for a lack of better words.  You lacking spiritual guidance found a way around the bondage that your church put you under.  Your church was wrong, and so you wanted to correct that wrong to satisfy your personnal journey.  It was not a journey to search out the truth.  It was a journey to search out satisfaction for what you perceived was untruth.  Even though your church lacks spirituality, and teaches untruth.  Your journey was not to find the truth, but to satisfy your personnal desire.  In doing so, you have twisted scripture in such a way, that your satisfaction is more important than the truth.  Your not alone, as many people do this.  The Word tells us that there will always be someone out there that will teach you something that your ears are itching to hear.   You obviously have found that which satisfied that itch.  Your freedom is based upon a false premise.  It will neither help you grow spiritually, and it especially will never help your daughter to grow spiritually.  You set the example for your daughter to follow. 

Something for you to ponder over.

These things that you spoke about in you family and church are man made things and not Gods desires for women. I have never been to a church where I was made to feel that I was anything but equally as important as a man, and I was blessed to have a family where I was equally loved and considered to be as equally important as my brother.

Thanks you for saying these things as it does give me some understanding of where you are coming from, but these ideas are NOT Gods ideas but ones that some that you have been in contact with have decided for themselves.

As an example My mother in law loves boys and men but hates women. She is a Chriatian, but has a real problem and she thinks thats the men in the family are all perfect angels and the women are all out to get her in some way.This has gone so far that she has even left money in her will to her four grandsons, and nothing to her granddaughter who has done nothing wrong.
She only wanted sons and got two of them and only wanted grandsons and got four of them and one granddaughter. She now has a great grandchild due soon and her first words to the parents were "Oh how lovely another grandson" The mum to be was so mad. The child isnt really wanted by her unless it is a boy.

The reason I say this is to say that this is her BIG problem.( She thinks that she can control the men but she cannot control the women.) This is nothing to do with God, it is her, just as it is the people in your family, and the churches that you have been to that have had the problems, and these things were NOT from God.He equally values both sexes and just becuase he tells women to submit to men it makes no difference to their importance in His eyes.
I have no worries that I am somehow inferior. Maybe I have been lucky but I have never felt this way in any church that I have been to here in the uK. (and I have been to several) I feel secure in being a wife and in being told to submit to my husband, and dont feel any less of a person for doing this, becuase I am not any less of a person for doing it. It is my choice in obedience to Gods will.

Just because my husband is my head is  no big deal to me.God has done a lot of work in me. I know that to God I am equally as loved and important to Him.
Did you know that there was a prophecy given many years ago that Great Britain will be saved by its praying women?How awesome is that!Women are vital in Gods kingdom, they are special and wanted and loved. They are not inferior just becuase God puts the husbands as their head. Christ is OUR head and He adores us also.

Amen, brother!  Even the wind obeyed His authoritative voice!!

Mystery - I am not interested in your pop psychology of my journey. That is only a brief summation, the whole of which cannot be contained on this forum. I didn't have some knee-jerk reaction. I spent a decade studying this. I am confident that God led me to where He wants me to be. Keep your opinions about me to yourself, please.

chosenone - I did not share my journey with you for a response of judgment, but only because you asked a specific question, to which I gave you a brief summation. I did not share with you here for you to judge me, as I do not judge you. We cannot base our understanding of Scripture based on people we know. We base our understanding of people on Scripture.

I believe my understanding of the marriage relationship and the relationships of all Christ-followers to each other are God's ideas, and I believe I have sufficiently shown why I believe as I do.

For those coming to the discussion late, I asked for specific examples of how Jesus used his authority as "head over" his followers. There has never been any question about whether or not he has authority. It is clear that he exercised authority over evil and sickness and death, over other things that harm us, as Protector. But I have yet to see a specific example of Jesus using his authority as the head over his followers.

chosenone - Can you explain to me how this can be:



This is the two-headed monster.

I think you are missing the whole point about Godly authority and worldly    Now as a teacher and one with authority he instructed them in all sorts    The disciples obeyed his command   He encouraged and rebuked them    you cant see that the disciples willfully placed themselves under the guidance of Jesus ?  Under his authority

One cannot help but read the bible and see where Jesus used the authority  of God against the devils with healing and casting out demons   preaching the Gospel

Now The worlds way is to lord it over someone    But Christ came to serve    And he had authority to lay his life down for his sheep and also pick it up again

He is the good Shepard and he says follow me      Now we have authority to accept or refuse this offer    Its Just like husband and wife      A good husband will serve his wife and want the best for her    and must lay his life down for her     now a wife should respect her husband    but like the church she has to make a free will choice to respect that place that God has appointed him to walk in                A good woman will help her husband be all that he can be in this role


If both do there part then they will be as one    How can a loving husband see his wife crippled by his actions 

How can a loving wife see her husband shrivel because of lack of respect


I don't believe in Lording it over woman    or men     I hate ungodly control

Mark

Phoebe, you are extreemly sensitive abut this whole issue. This is bourne out by all of your responses to whatever anyone says.
I wasnt aware that I had judged you at all,I was trying to be understanding and caring.  I was merely saying that based on what you had shared I could understand why you felt the way you did and where you are coming from. I think it was obvious to most here that there had been reasons why you found the whole idea of being submissive to your husband hard and your post partially explained why.What is so wrong in this? it is good that you have shared what you did. We are all human and we have all been hurt in the past which to some extent has shaped our present and you are no exception.

For whatever reason you seem unable to accept the teaching of paul that is directed to husbands and wives which seems very clear to me.I now have some understanding of why this is, is that so wrong?
Please dont get so prickly and defensive becuase this only proves more and more that there is hurt behind what you want to believe. You are human, hooray welcome to the human race.

Many women dont want to accept the idea of being submissive to their husbands. I know a young lady who really struggles with this becauase she was abused by her father, so it is totally understandable in this case. Joyce Meyer REALLY struggled with being respectful and submissive to her husband becuase of serious sexual abuse by her father. it wasnt until God told her that unless she started showing her husband more respect he wasnt going to bless her ministry, that she started the long road of trusting her  husband and working towards allowing him to be the head. This was a very hard journey for her beucase as she said herself she was a very controlling person and wasnt gong to allow anyone to control her(as she saw it)
.
I would like to ask you what it means to you when we are told that our husbands are to be the head and that we are to submit to them? Why is it hard to accept that?. Why do you work so very hard to try to ignore this teaching and instead always concentrate on the mutual submission thing (which isnt directed towards a husband and wife?)

Honestly phoebe it doesnt sit comfortably with me to be submissive either, but God has done some amazing work in me to make me realise that it is good and right and godly and for the benefit of my marriage that I do this.  For me it is a question of trust. Trusting God that he always says something for a reason, and trusting my husband that he would never take advantage of his position (which he never does by the way).

bemark some excellent points
You made a very good point when you said that a good women will help her husband be all that he can be in His role that God has appointed him to walk in. This is one of the reasons why I have been really working on staying in my role becuase I want so much for my husband to be able to be all that God has called him to be. He wasnt allowed to be the head in his first marriage becuase his wife was going to be in control no matter what, so I am doubly aware of the harm that I could do if I tried to take over in some way.

Another excellent thing that you said is how can a wife watch her husbands shrivel becuase of lack of respect.. A very good point indeed. . Men need respect in the same way as  women needs love. It is like air that we  breathe. A woman will shrivel if she receives no love and a man will shrivel if he receives no respect. My husbands first wife treated him like a joke, was always criticising him and telling him  what he was doing wrong.His sons learnt this alsofrom her, and when we met they treated him with no respect either (this has improved a lot since we met and married). He was so shriveled up when we met. I have never seen anything like it. She had taken away so much in him that was so good by her terrible attitude.
Thank God, he has blossomed over the years that we have been together and one of his sons said recently that it is as if he has come alive since the divorce and remarriage.He has come alive. If a man has a wife who treates him like a joke he will die inside .What a waste, she could have had a good marriage if only she had obeyed God and stopped being so selfish and controlling.
I want to be in my role so that he can be in his God given role and be all that God wants him to be.
Manna to you bemark, some really good points there.
God Bless

there is the  head of the church and that is Christ, in marriage there is one head and that is the husband. 

I felt the same way, and agree with what you have said here.

I think many of the men, and some of the women are getting caught up on the word, "submit."  Just what does it mean to be "submissive?"

Some dictionaries define it as doing the will of a superior force, and that is what I see the men and women here claiming...that a woman must do the will of the superior man.  Is that what the Bible says though?

The literal greek translation states "that woman which her own husband that Lord."  Seriously.

Knowing many of you will tell me I am taking things out of the Bible, I would like to point out that there are two verses about the woman to her husband and 9 verses about how the husband is supposed to treat the wife...including, giving himself up for her, treating her as he would his own body, and making her pure.  What is the Bible saying?  A man is supposed to serve his wife.  Doesn't sound like a woman is supposed to do the will of the superior man, does it?

In Christ,
KP

I am not sure that I have read the things that you mention here.
Speaking for myself only, I am definately not saying that a wife must do the will of the superior man. I believe that a man and woman are equally important in everyway, in society, marriage and to God. Also I dont say that I MUST do the will of my husband but that  I CHOOSE to allow him to be the head. No one is forcing me to do anything, but I do it in obedience to God. God mever forces us does he, the choice is ours as to whether we obey him or not.My husband would never force me to do anything but he trusts me and I trust him.
With reference to the husbands role and what he is told, yes that is equally as important as what I as a wife am told, but I can only speak as a wife and not as a husband.
maybe someone can start up another thread about that, but this one is generally looking at the wives role. 

Phoebe

My comments were to be considered helpful.  And as I said, you didn't have to respond, nor did you have to agree with what I said.

But , you decided to respond with anger, and frustration.

You also seem so sure of yourself.  Confidence does not show anger.   Confidence shows patience.   

All I was trying to show you, was that your little girl, your precious daughter was deprived because of her gender.  Your comments that I read, which by the way is all I have to go on, showed your displeasure with your church discision .  It appears that this is when your quest started.  Even if the thought had been somewhere within your mind previous to this.  But this was the last straw for you.

You went out to prove something.  Whether or not it was to prove your church wrong.  Or if it was to statisfy an itch you have had for a longer period of time.   This not only seems to be evident to me, but others here on this board as well. 

Now I am not picking on you.  All I was doing was making a loving suggestion that you should ponder over.  Think about.  Consider.  That is all . 

We can sometimes go on quests for all the wrong reasons.  And with the information you have given us, that seems to be the case.

Like I tried to say before.  You can take my suggestins or you can leave them.  But being angry back at me is no way to show others and myself that you desire the same respect that we deserve and the same respect you should be allowing us as well.

God Bless

I think you are missing why I asked for the examples. I don't misunderstand God's authority, or that of His Son. I don't for one second question that He has it. That isn't the discussion here, but those coming late to the discussion w/o reading all 30-something pages will miss what the point is. What I asked for is examples of how He used it with his followers, with His Bride, BECAUSE that is the model given by those here who claim that the man has "authority over" the woman, and placing the husband in the position of being the sole and final responsible person in a marriage, even though it is in violation of two-becoming-one. It is a failure to understand what "head" means, what kephale meant to Paul and his hearers.

IMO, not sharing that responsibility is a cop-out and in opposition to the intent of marriage, which IS two-becoming-one, first stated in the Garden, repeated by Jesus, and then again by Paul.

Two becoming one in purpose.  Becoming one does not mean that the roles have changed.  The man is still the head of the wife.

It is kind of strange to be speaking of the two becoming one (as in one individual now - not two) while simultaneously speaking of mutual submission.

You still aren't hearing me. I have no problem with being submissive. I have a problem with teaching submission that is not full in context, that of being mutually submissive. I believe that the traditional translating and understanding of "head" is wrong, and I have shown here what I think it is and how it works. As far as I know, I am not obligated to accept your teaching, which is your opinion of Scripture, any more than you are obligated to accept my teaching, which is my opinion of Scripture. Read these past posts to me through my eyes and see if they would not be offensive to you.

"For whatever reason you seem unable to accept the teaching of paul that is directed to husbands and wives which seems very clear to me."

I say the same to you, that YOU seem unable to accept the teaching of Paul that is directed to husbands and wives which seems very clear to ME. See how that sounds? And you wonder why I sometimes (less often than others on this thread) seem "prickly"? But to say that "Phoebe, you are extreemly sensitive abut this whole issue. This is bourne out by all of your responses to whatever anyone says." is grossly inaccurate and unfair. I have done my best to be respectful and patient with others, even when it was not shown to me. On the contrary, I think I have been very patient with those who tell me that I don't know what I am talking about, that I use bad sources, that I am not submissive, that I don't have a right understanding of Scripture. I could go on and on. For the most part, I ignore them, go around, and continue sharing what I have learned in my 55 years about God and His love for us, and esp. of His love for me. I disagree with the traditionalists. That doesn't make me wrong, or "prickly". I don't appreciate the recent posts by you and Mystery and Mark that attempt to diagnose my alleged spiritual illness of not understanding as you all do. I didn't ask for "suggestions". I asked for Bible examples (that, so far, no one has provided). So, if I am "prickly", forgive me. I have tried not to be as ugly to others as they have been to me.

examples were given.  It is not that no one has tried to give you an example, because they have. You just have not accepted the examples given.

Jesus loves the Church, do we agree ?  But does not love me also reproof ?  Correction ?  Instruction ?  And what about - chaseneth ?  If Jesus Christ loves the Church, all of these come into play.   Wouldn't you agree ?

Can you not read, man? Keep your opinions and cheap psychoanalysis about me to yourself. I do not appreciate these continuing comments.

Two-becoming-one is not exclusive to your definition. God defined it Himself in Genesis, when He made the woman the man's 'ezer kenegdo, His equal, capable partner "corresponding-to-him". Eye-to-eye. Not one "head over" the other. Jesus brings it up. Paul brings it up. It's important in understanding the union, the oneness of marriage, and that is the model given for understanding the union, the oneness, of Christ with the Church. Failure to understand this has caused the failure of the institutional church.

We are closer to Christ than we know.

No it isn't. It's how we become one.

Doesn't two becoming one imply equality? If you are joined together, how can you be separate. If you are one, the same, how can one be "higher" than the other?

But after the fall...I believe that he gave different instructions..Gen. 3:16..."and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall RULE over thee."

Isn't the head joined to the body to make one body?

Yes, and God is the head.

That was not an imperative, a command. It was a description of how their life was going to change. Indeed, we see that her desire turned from pleasing God to pleasing her husband, and she followed him out of the Garden. And in her desire to please him, she allowed him to do what he desired - control.

 

I believe that was an excellent prophecy. This earth is ruled by men, men are stronger (for the most part), men hold the most political power & influence. What does that have to with my wife not being equal to me? If I am spiritually minded, and God is the head, and we are the body, it doesn't really matter what part I or my wife are.

Am I going to rule over my wife in Heaven? No. Then why should I be ruler over her on earth? I only need one ruler, and she only needs one ruler, our Lord Jesus Christ.

You forgot the part where he said...he shall RULE over thee!

I did not say it, God did! Will we be married in heaven?

She "allowed" him ?

Using the word "allowed" here , implies that she was over the man, and she , from her ruling postion, allowed her husband to do something.  Like controll ?  Wow !

I thought this was the will of God, not the desire of the man !

paul doesnt teach mutual submission to husbands and wives, he teaches thast the wife is to submit to her husband. No where is the husband told to submit to his wife, and no where is the wife told that she is the head. 

We will be married to Christ, but the Bible doesn't mention if we will retain earthly marriage unions or not. I believe I will know who my wife is, and I think it would be cool if we were united still, I'm good either way.

My point was, I don't think there is anything wrong with living for eternity now. Why wait? Me and my wife love the Lord, and have faith that He will not give us conflicting messages regarding the direction our family should move in.

No one has ever said that the wife isnt equal as far as I know. The head, as in the husband, isnt to rule over the wife but is to be the head n the marriage. This doesnt mean that he can or does boss his wife around, or be controlling. This isnt the picture that is painted of Christ being the head of the church. Why is it hard to accept that Christ is the head of the church but not that the husband is the head of the wife?. Christ is his example if how to be the head. He isnt controlling or bossy or mean, he leads by example.