Thoughts on 1 Cor 34 Let your women keep silence

[Flynmonkie]

Recently someone had addressed me that as a woman I have no place in leadership. I belong to a web study group and help moderate and administer the system. I am learning and I would not ever feel that I would be in a position of “Leader” or "Pastor" or elder as he plainly put it that he was. After much banter between two members I pulled the plug on the false teacher accusations that started flying. It was simply non-productive and I did not believe either fit the description. One became very upset with me (both male) and told me I had no business correcting/instructing men. I basically was told to “sit back and let the men run things” like a good little woman. Well there is truly no “leader” there. We all try to keep our own comments in line. But he used this verse…amongst others.

1 Corinthians 14:v34,35
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Now I believe that Paul was responding to the Corinthians questions on the disorder that had been taking place. And I felt this verse has been taken out of context. Further reading he says:

Philippians 4:v3
3And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
So obviously there were women working with him in sharing the gospel.

In addition other verses in Timothy, and Ephesians regarding female submission and non-instruction came up. He told me women are too emotional for leadership of any kind.

However while speaking to a friend of another denomination, she felt that Baptists believe that women are “second rate” compared to men. Later on while visiting a sister church here locally, I felt very strongly that the women felt this way also. So can anyone shed some light here? Are there divisions on this?

[GreenEyedLady]

I do not think that Baptist view women as second class.

I believe that women should be in subjection to her husband and obey her pastor that God has given her.
This does not mean that our thoughts, intents, actions, and opinions are not valid.
There are some women out there that is NEVER going to allow a MAN to tell HER what to do because SHE is her OWN woman...we can usually hear these women roar.
I truley believe when a woman is in subjection to her husband God blesses the marriage. I know that we don't like it, but the bible is clear about our roles in our lives. We should not be placed in a leadership position unless it is a womans bible study or a womans prayer meeting, etc. As far as church leadership roles, I belive the bible is clear in Titus and in Timothy about the roles we have in church.
I hope this helps you.
Where you in church when he quoted the scripture? God made in clear, woman should be silent in CHURCH, but is says nothing about home or anywhere outside the church! :D

GEL

[Flynmonkie]

No it is a private study forum. Not in church.

See now I see this entirely differently. A man is to serve his wife and a woman submits. If the man is busy serving and the wife submitting..wheres the problem? I feel there is equal instruction there.

I was raised in a very fundamental conservative SBC church setting; you did not hear a woman speak. However, I have had wonderful instruction from Elizabeth George, Beth Moore, and a few others. However there are quite a few I raise my eyebrows at (but there are some men too) I believe God works with and through everyone. I truly do not understand where the Bible claims this is a "limited" ability for women. I instruct my husband, if I didn't - he would probably be unsaved to this day. I still have to explain things. (to the best of my ability! with Gods help!) It makes him no less of a man nor do I feel I am not doing the work of God or am in disobedience? Now, if he were to tell me that he wanted to "try another church, even another denomination" I would interject my thoughts on why if I disagreed but would go if he insisted. Not because he is more knowledgeable in this regard. But that it protects the respect (sanctity) in my marriage. I would assume God wants to use me or teach me something in that situation. Otherwise my prayers would have been answered! If this church was outside Christianity altogether? Not a chance! (Must be the southern stubbornness in my blood coming through there ;) )

So traditionally this is what Baptists believe? It must be lurking somewhere at my church then, and I have never seen it. Many times we have had women with testimonies and explanation of scripture to teach the congregation. (Sermon dependant).

[novcncy]

Hey Flynn and GEL, and whomever else reads this post ;)

I'm going to tread lightly.

It boils down to submission because God has placed you where He has placed you. You have the scripture, and they're very plain. Do you have the faith to believe that God knew what He was doing when He created you a woman? If so, then do what He clearly tells you to do, and submit to Him.

As far as this study group thing goes...

The Bible teaches women should be silent and not exercise authority over men IN THE CHURCH!!! This does not mean that a woman cannot share her faith with a man, talk to men, minister to men, etc. etc. It means that she is not to be in a position of spiritual leadership. It's quite cute to infer that women are too emotional for leadership roles, but the same knucklehead who would make that inference is the one who will light his kids up for not obeying their momma. Talk about confusing to the kids! So although we can come up with creative rationales for WHY God has structured the church the way He has, we really don't know. What we do know is clear, and I think you've already read what God has to say on the subject.

One more thought...most of the arguments for women in the pastorate, leadership roles, etc. etc. are based on humanism, selfishness, "unfairness" and the false argument that men and women are equal. (I worded it that way on purpose, as a hook, so keep reading ;) ) Men and women are not equal, neither are they unequal, they are DIFFERENT. Just as you cannot compare an apple to an orange, because they are different, you cannot compare men to women. Most arguments begin with I, WE, or some other word or phrase which instantly reveals the speaker's motivation is selfishly based. Some other words once uttered were also selfishly motivated "I will be like the most High, I will ascend above the Heavens" We can see what happens once you get so selfish that you want your role to be different from what God assigned you. As for fairness, is it fair that both a woman's pastor and her husband will answer to God for her? It's not really fair at all, but it is the role that God has given them.

I love this forum, and there is much wisdom to be gleaned from Godly sisters. Some of the Godliest people I know are women. If you know a godly man, look at his wife, and you will truly be impressed. Make no mistake that he who will not listen to someone because they are a woman, or believes that women are of less value then men, that man is a fool. But the scripture is clear, regarding women in spiritual leadership roles. Why? I don't know, beyond God said so. If He said it, it must be for reason, and whether or not I understand it really doesn't change a thing. You can do things God's way, or your own way. The choice is up to you.

[hindsey]

Hey Flynn and GEL, and whomever else reads this post ;)

I'm going to tread lightly.

It boils down to submission because God has placed you where He has placed you. You have the scripture, and they're very plain. Do you have the faith to believe that God knew what He was doing when He created you a woman? If so, then do what He clearly tells you to do, and submit to Him.

As far as this study group thing goes...

The Bible teaches women should be silent and not exercise authority over men IN THE CHURCH!!! This does not mean that a woman cannot share her faith with a man, talk to men, minister to men, etc. etc. It means that she is not to be in a position of spiritual leadership. It's quite cute to infer that women are too emotional for leadership roles, but the same knucklehead who would make that inference is the one who will light his kids up for not obeying their momma. Talk about confusing to the kids! So although we can come up with creative rationales for WHY God has structured the church the way He has, we really don't know. What we do know is clear, and I think you've already read what God has to say on the subject.

One more thought...most of the arguments for women in the pastorate, leadership roles, etc. etc. are based on humanism, selfishness, "unfairness" and the false argument that men and women are equal. (I worded it that way on purpose, as a hook, so keep reading ;) ) Men and women are not equal, neither are they unequal, they are DIFFERENT. Just as you cannot compare an apple to an orange, because they are different, you cannot compare men to women. Most arguments begin with I, WE, or some other word or phrase which instantly reveals the speaker's motivation is selfishly based. Some other words once uttered were also selfishly motivated "I will be like the most High, I will ascend above the Heavens" We can see what happens once you get so selfish that you want your role to be different from what God assigned you. As for fairness, is it fair that both a woman's pastor and her husband will answer to God for her? It's not really fair at all, but it is the role that God has given them.

I love this forum, and there is much wisdom to be gleaned from Godly sisters. Some of the Godliest people I know are women. If you know a godly man, look at his wife, and you will truly be impressed. Make no mistake that he who will not listen to someone because they are a woman, or believes that women are of less value then men, that man is a fool. But the scripture is clear, regarding women in spiritual leadership roles. Why? I don't know, beyond God said so. If He said it, it must be for reason, and whether or not I understand it really doesn't change a thing. You can do things God's way, or your own way. The choice is up to you.

Amen!

[sara elizabeth]

Men and women are not equal, neither are they unequal, they are DIFFERENT. Just as you cannot compare an apple to an orange, because they are different, you cannot compare men to women.




This is so true. To often we think of the role that God gave to men as superior to the one God gave to women. One is not better than the other, they are just different.
I take those scriptures at face value, and believe that as a woman I need to keep a place of submission in the Church. To me, this also extends to any spiritual posistion over a man. (Sharing the gospel and Christian fellowship are not taking spiritual authority.)

[Pilgrim 33]

If i were a woman, i think my response would be, "you're welcome to your millennia-old Corinthian views but around here in my space I'm the boss second only to my husband and, itmt, you WILL act accordingly or you WILL take your blathering abuse elsewhere for here it is my way or the Appian Way"--if i were a woman.

1 Peter 3:7, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

I see nowhere in this verse where any men, other than the husband, are above a particular woman; in fact, i see where there is an equality in them before God and if that equality is not respected God is very explicit on the negative results that will be visited upon that husband.

The pastor (now deceased) of the largest Baptist church in Dallas once made the comment that women possess an unbelievable amount of power within the church.

Behind every man that feels a woman should be silent, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen is an abused wife.

[Flynmonkie]

Hey Flynn and GEL, and whomever else reads this post ;)
I'm going to tread lightly.
It boils down to submission because God has placed you where He has placed you. You have the scripture, and they're very plain. Do you have the faith to believe that God knew what He was doing when He created you a woman? If so, then do what He clearly tells you to do, and submit to Him.

:wave: Hey novcncy! Thanks for getting your feet wet on this. Oh and Nice backpeddling in that last paragraph by the way. That'll get ya an extra helping at the next potluck! ;) just teazin, I know you are being genuine! :thumbsup:

Ok my thoughts.....
Don't you think that---
Christ sent you to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech 1 Cor. 1:17. Do not preach with superiority of speech or wisdom 1 Cor. 2:1.
Sort of covers that authority over all people? Not just men?

I am by no means advocating a certain position, or usurping the importance in men! However something is just not setting right here. Again, I am not very familiar with the "hierarchy of church leadership" or the "rules" that apply in a church building. But if a Man/elder/pastor is instructing me (and has happened before) completely against scripture...I have no problems speaking up. My familys salvation depended on it. I cannot consciously allow anyone male or female to misrepresent God. But I do feel as a Christian this should be done with discretion and discernment.

In the home – I understand the “roles”. In my studies they are different but equal.
~If a man is serving his wife he is placing God then wife’s needs/wants/desires before his own.
~If a woman is submitting to her husband she is placing God then husbands needs/wants/desires before her own.
Sounds pretty equal to me.

But I do not see how this equates with leadership position/ teaching position in the church. Not equating here?!??! It seems in each of the passages that Paul seems to be addressing in Corinth are situations that were occurring at this time, questions and comments regarding the unruliness that was going on there. My KJV version titles the passage as “order in worship” :scratch: The surrounding text seems to imply that too many people were trying to prophesy …the passage rests with all things be done with decency and in order. So is my pastor wrong, by allowing a woman to speak in testimony for support of his sermon? And so when I consulted my pastor regarding our marriage for guidance during restoration I was also “wrong” making my husband shameful for this. IOW….I should have just prayed and read books or something? Waiting for God to impress on my husband the right way? (Which I can say did happen, it was his choice to start attending church and we have been there ever since)

[eldermike]

Hey Flynn and GEL, and whomever else reads this post ;)

I'm going to tread lightly.

It boils down to submission because God has placed you where He has placed you. You have the scripture, and they're very plain. Do you have the faith to believe that God knew what He was doing when He created you a woman? If so, then do what He clearly tells you to do, and submit to Him.

As far as this study group thing goes...

The Bible teaches women should be silent and not exercise authority over men IN THE CHURCH!!! This does not mean that a woman cannot share her faith with a man, talk to men, minister to men, etc. etc. It means that she is not to be in a position of spiritual leadership. It's quite cute to infer that women are too emotional for leadership roles, but the same knucklehead who would make that inference is the one who will light his kids up for not obeying their momma. Talk about confusing to the kids! So although we can come up with creative rationales for WHY God has structured the church the way He has, we really don't know. What we do know is clear, and I think you've already read what God has to say on the subject.

One more thought...most of the arguments for women in the pastorate, leadership roles, etc. etc. are based on humanism, selfishness, "unfairness" and the false argument that men and women are equal. (I worded it that way on purpose, as a hook, so keep reading ;) ) Men and women are not equal, neither are they unequal, they are DIFFERENT. Just as you cannot compare an apple to an orange, because they are different, you cannot compare men to women. Most arguments begin with I, WE, or some other word or phrase which instantly reveals the speaker's motivation is selfishly based. Some other words once uttered were also selfishly motivated "I will be like the most High, I will ascend above the Heavens" We can see what happens once you get so selfish that you want your role to be different from what God assigned you. As for fairness, is it fair that both a woman's pastor and her husband will answer to God for her? It's not really fair at all, but it is the role that God has given them.

I love this forum, and there is much wisdom to be gleaned from Godly sisters. Some of the Godliest people I know are women. If you know a godly man, look at his wife, and you will truly be impressed. Make no mistake that he who will not listen to someone because they are a woman, or believes that women are of less value then men, that man is a fool. But the scripture is clear, regarding women in spiritual leadership roles. Why? I don't know, beyond God said so. If He said it, it must be for reason, and whether or not I understand it really doesn't change a thing. You can do things God's way, or your own way. The choice is up to you.

Amen to this post!
The first entity created was the family, if you study all of that chapter you will see the continued importance of the family structure within church fellowship. Men are lazy and willing to watch women out-serve them at home and in the church. Many churches have been crippled by the lack of men in the pews. These churches are filled with godly women who faithfully serve and continually pray for dead beat fathers and husbands. They are out fishing, golfing or sleeping. There is no scripture that reveals a lesser role for women, in fact the completer of the family (the woman) is the greater role, it's a different role, and by assuming that proper role is exactly how God intended us to live and serve His purposes.

[Pilgrim 33]

Amen to this post!
The first entity created was the family, if you study all of that chapter you will see the continued importance of the family structure within church fellowship. Men are lazy and willing to watch women out-serve them at home and in the church. Many churches have been crippled by the lack of men in the pews. These churches are filled with godly women who faithfully serve and continually pray for dead beat fathers and husbands. They are out fishing, golfing or sleeping. There is no scripture that reveals a lesser role for women, in fact the completer of the family (the woman) is the greater role, it's a different role, and by assuming that proper role is exactly how God intended us to live and serve His purposes.

Well, that may be true up to a point; however, let's not forget that society today places an inordinant amount of pressure on men, particularly, those men whose families have only one income producer in an age when two income producers are required to make the family "go". Sadly, all too many people are caught up today in trying to obtain more of everything; in short, too few have learned to appreciate--and to be content--with what they have, iow, learning to live within their means. It doesn't matter whether it is credit or welfare as both allow people to live outside their means.

Philippians 4:11, "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content."

Regardless of whatsoever state we are in, be it Texas, taxes or confusion! :D

[Pilgrim 33]

While it is true that there is an (often abused and convoluted) order to be followed within any church heirachy this does not extend to everywhere out in life in general; nor does it extend to religious discussions in the course of normal everyday life, and this includes messagboards, Bible studies and similar. Those that desire to extend such church protocol to life in general not only are ignorant of the spirit of the Gospel but are, imo, abusive from their very hearts.

1 Corinthians 13:1, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

[eldermike]

Well, that may be true up to a point; however, let's not forget that society today places an inordinant amount of pressure on men, particularly, those men whose families have only one income producer in an age when two income producers are required to make the family "go". Sadly, all too many people are caught up today in trying to obtain more of everything; in short, too few have learned to appreciate--and to be content--with what they have, iow, learning to live within their means. It doesn't matter whether it is credit or welfare as both allow people to live outside their means.

Philippians 4:11, "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content."

Regardless of whatsoever state we are in, be it Texas, taxes or confusion! :D

Perhaps I should add "men are tired" to men are lazy. To me it makes no difference when I see them missing out on a childs first role in a church play. My point is: Women are sensing a call to a role that is currently vacant due to whatever circumstance might be the cause.

[DawnTillery]

:scratch: Can I give you something to ponder?

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27-28

I think right there says it all.. WE ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST..

[eldermike]

:scratch: Can I give you something to ponder?

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27-28

I think right there says it all.. WE ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST..

I agree. We are all one in Christ, which means we are all saved, the same way, and have the same reward, we are one body. however, we have different gifts and roles within the body.

[novcncy]

If i were a woman, i think my response would be, "you're welcome to your millennia-old Corinthian views but around here in my space I'm the boss second only to my husband and, itmt, you WILL act accordingly or you WILL take your blathering abuse elsewhere for here it is my way or the Appian Way"--if i were a woman.


Lot's of "I" 's. :(

[novcncy]

:wave: Hey novcncy! Thanks for getting your feet wet on this. Oh and Nice backpeddling in that last paragraph by the way. That'll get ya an extra helping at the next potluck! ;) just teazin, I know you are being genuine! :thumbsup:

Ok my thoughts.....
Don't you think that---
Christ sent you to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech 1 Cor. 1:17. Do not preach with superiority of speech or wisdom 1 Cor. 2:1.
Sort of covers that authority over all people? Not just men?

I am by no means advocating a certain position, or usurping the importance in men! However something is just not setting right here. Again, I am not very familiar with the "hierarchy of church leadership" or the "rules" that apply in a church building. But if a Man/elder/pastor is instructing me (and has happened before) completely against scripture...I have no problems speaking up. My familys salvation depended on it. I cannot consciously allow anyone male or female to misrepresent God. But I do feel as a Christian this should be done with discretion and discernment.

In the home – I understand the “roles”. In my studies they are different but equal.
~If a man is serving his wife he is placing God then wife’s needs/wants/desires before his own.
~If a woman is submitting to her husband she is placing God then husbands needs/wants/desires before her own.
Sounds pretty equal to me.

But I do not see how this equates with leadership position/ teaching position in the church. Not equating here?!??! It seems in each of the passages that Paul seems to be addressing in Corinth are situations that were occurring at this time, questions and comments regarding the unruliness that was going on there. My KJV version titles the passage as “order in worship” :scratch: The surrounding text seems to imply that too many people were trying to prophesy …the passage rests with all things be done with decency and in order. So is my pastor wrong, by allowing a woman to speak in testimony for support of his sermon? And so when I consulted my pastor regarding our marriage for guidance during restoration I was also “wrong” making my husband shameful for this. IOW….I should have just prayed and read books or something? Waiting for God to impress on my husband the right way? (Which I can say did happen, it was his choice to start attending church and we have been there ever since)

It's not backpedaling. Just because a woman shouldn't be a pastor doesn't mean that she doesn't grow in Christ, and have spiritual wisdom.

As you pointed out, the principles of men in leadership roles within the church are clearly spelled out in Timothy and Titus. How can a woman be the husband of one wife, and rule her household well? She can't.

One thing that I think has been totally misconstrued is the part about women keeping silent in the church. I don't think that means they can't utter a peep. I think that it means that they are not to contend with the leadership, but rather to address any of their concerns through their husbands. A woman can give a testimony, ask questions, answer questions, any of these things, but she can't hold the role of leading men. Not my words, but those of God in Timothy and Titus.

I am not suggesting you should swallow false doctrine, but rather, speak to your husband about it, and let him approach the leadership. It's a hard thing to do, to swallow our pride, and consign ourselves to doing things God's way, but we do know that it will be for the best, right? This reminds me of Peter in the Garden. What was he thinking pulling out his sword against the professional soldiers of the temple guard? But that's what will come of our human wisdom, no matter how incensed or correct we may be, when we act in our own strengths and ways instead of God's. I don't understand why God set it up the way He did, but it's clear from the multitude of scriptures, that He indeed set it up that way.

[novcncy]

While it is true that there is an (often abused and convoluted) order to be followed within any church heirachy this does not extend to everywhere out in life in general; nor does it extend to religious discussions in the course of normal everyday life, and this includes messagboards, Bible studies and similar. Those that desire to extend such church protocol to life in general not only are ignorant of the spirit of the Gospel but are, imo, abusive from their very hearts.

1 Corinthians 13:1, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Yes, with the exception to SOME Bible studies, I would agree with everything else in this post very enthusiastically.

[Flynmonkie]

It's not backpedaling. Just because a woman shouldn't be a pastor doesn't mean that she doesn't grow in Christ, and have spiritual wisdom.

I believe my words have been mistaken. If you revisit my comments, I jokingly made this statement, and reassured you I knew you were being genuine.
A.) Because you were the first man to answer this.
B.) Because you started your thought with “I'm going to tread lightly.” And followed your thought with “I love this forum, and there is much wisdom to be gleaned from Godly sisters. Some of the Godliest people I know are women. If you know a godly man, look at his wife, and you will truly be impressed. Make no mistake that he who will not listen to someone because they are a woman, or believes that women are of less value then men, that man is a fool.”

So I teased to lighten things up a bit. My apologies for assuming you would have a sense of humor or understand mine in this.



I am not suggesting you should swallow false doctrine, but rather, speak to your husband about it, and let him approach the leadership. It's a hard thing to do, to swallow our pride, and consign ourselves to doing things God's way, but we do know that it will be for the best, right?

....And she cannot approach said leadership as that if she does -- it would be construed prideful? Is that what I get from this last paragraph? I will agree with you for the most part, and I follow this rule quite often....but not always things that need to be addressed are situations of selfish pride.

[Pilgrim 33]

Yes, with the exception to SOME Bible studies, I would agree with everything else in this post very enthusiastically.

What are "SOME Bible studies"?

[novcncy]

What are "SOME Bible studies"?

Bible studies that are affiliated with the church, and are coed. Women are certainly able, and perhaps more appropriate, to lead their church's ladies Bible study, or even Sunday School class. Women shouldn't LEAD men, but in a Bible study format, coed or not, they should definitely feel comfortable with sounding off, asking questions, etc. etc., because, as you point out, a Bible Study IS NOT church.

[Ginny]

There are some women out there that is NEVER going to allow a MAN to tell HER what to do because SHE is her OWN woman...we can usually hear these women roar.

i.e., Joyce Meyers? ;)

[novcncy]

....And she cannot approach said leadership as that if she does -- it would be construed prideful? Is that what I get from this last paragraph? I will agree with you for the most part, and I follow this rule quite often....but not always things that need to be addressed are situations of selfish pride.

About the backpedaling....I'm glad you were kidding. It's hard to get tone, as you know, on the internet, and I don't want you to get the impression I'm a "barefoot, pregnant, and in-the-kitchen" type of guy, because that couldn't be farther from the truth.

I don't profess to know the answers, but here are some thoughts. Approaching the leadership is NOT prideful in and of itself. I think the problem is arguing with the leadership during a service or in public or some other high profile environment. We do have what God has said, but I don't see where this precludes approaching the leadership. You will have to follow the Spirit of God in this matter. He put your pastor in a place of spiritual leadership for a reason, and it wouldn't make sense if you couldn't approach your pastor, would it?

I would say a few things to consider before going to you pastor are: Did you try to go through your husband? If your husband has already spoken to the pastor, and relayed your concerns, then you should probably refrain. But if your husband is an unbeliever, or just very nonconfrontational, or maybe a woman doesn't have a husband, I think you can approach the leadership. Just don't do it in a contentious and public manner (perhaps the meaning of "in the Church"?). Take someone else with you, for a witness, and keep it as low key as possible. One you have voiced your concerns, don't be argumentitive. If you find the results don't agree with Scripture, then maybe that's God's way of leading you elsewhere. The bottom line is, be meek, and obey the scriptures.

So it's confusing, and I don't claim to have all the answers. I just know that there are a few things we can take for a fact from the Bible, and whether or not we understand the rationale behind them has no impact on our responsibility to obey them. When we do things God's way, He WILL bless it, and things will work, because He's the designer of the system in the first place.

[Pilgrim 33]

If you find the results don't agree with Scripture, then maybe that's God's way of leading you elsewhere. The bottom line is obey the scriptures.

"maybe that's God's way" really comes on as a sort of copout; afterall, even with the best of intentions how are we to know when the Lord is speaking or leading? My understanding is that there are five aspects and ALL must be in agreement: prayer, the Word, fellowship, the Holy Spirit within us, (brain block, i forgot the 5th, gotta go for a 2nd cup of java); iae, if even one of these do not agree with the others then it is likely questionable that it is God speaking to us. ANother issue is that it is most difficult to distinguish between God speaking and our own wishes and wannabes.

"The bottom line is obey the scriptures" is not always true, per se, as since we have millennia-old customs and traditions of many differing and often pagan cultures that while the scriptures were applicable to the times back THEN but have no applicability to us in the now and today.

If, in God's eyes men and women are equal before Him who is to say (other than God) whether or not a woman is fitting to fill a position we think was otherwise meant for a man? Surely God can speak through a woman just as well as He can through a man. Kinda reminds me of two verses combined, "don't muzzle an ox but always silence a woman", sorry, there's something here that just doesn't jive.

Time to get that other cup of coffee.

[TwinCrier]

Behind every man that feels a woman should be silent, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen is an abused wife.
That is so wrong! Submission is a verb, it's a voluntary act. It's an act that requires self disipline and a strong desire to please God not, self or husband. Silence, pregnancy and household work are not abuse by any means.
Submission is an act done by the wife, abuse is an act done (usually) by the husband. They are not connected. A wife who cannot submit to her husband simply doesn't trust that he loves her.

[Pilgrim 33]

Machismo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo)

Machismo is a noun of Spanish origin, and refers to a prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity). The word machismo—and its derivatives machista and macho, "he who espouses machismo"—comes from the Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) word macho, meaning "male" or "manly". (The word macho literally translates as "male (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male)", but is applied primarily to animals in this sense.) In Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) macho can sometimes mean "courageous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage)" or "valorous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valor)", although machista rarely has such positive connotations.

As an attitude, machismo ranges from a personal sense of virility to a more extreme masculism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism). Most machistas believe in conservative gender role ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_gender_role_ideas). Generally speaking, machistas oppose a woman's right to work, participate in sports, or pursue other traditionally male roles in society. Many machistas also believe it is their right as men to seek extramarital adventures, although women are to remain faithful. Machistas believe that women were created to stay home and be mothers and wives. Thus, most machistas believe firmly in the superiority of men over women.

Some acts of domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence) against women have been committed by men who consider themselves superior to women, whereby the doctrine of machista such violence may often be called appropriate or justified.

The most common Spanish term for a woman with exaggerated feminine pride is feminista (as in "feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism)"), although some Spanish speakers prefer the female equivalent of macho: hembra ("female" in Spanish), as in "Yo soy muy macho, pero tú eres muy hembra" (I am very macho, but you are very hembra). Today, both feminista and hembra are widely used in modern Spanish.

Machismo around the world

Machismo, of course is not only a feature of Hispanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic) culture, and a more general term might be male

Depending on the country, machistas are viewed with either respect or with disdain. In Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico), many men consider it an honor to be called a machista. The Mexican actor Andrés García (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%E9s_Garc%EDa) has long been pointed to as a typical example of the Mexican machista man. In Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru), talk show host Laura Bozzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Bozzo) (Laura en América) spends a good number of her shows exposing machista men and teaching them a lesson.

In many cultures, from Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) to Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea) to countries of the Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) world, machismo is acceptable and even expected. In 2004, the Spanish government and Spanish media began to take on the entire concept of machismo, linking it directly to a spate of notorious domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence) crimes perpetrated by men against their own wives or female companions.

In American literature, a memorable example of machismo comes from Tennessee Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Williams)' character Stanley Kowlaski (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Kowlaski&action=edit), the egotistical brother-in-law in A Streetcar Named Desire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Streetcar_Named_Desire). In the play (and in the motion picture), Stanley epitomises the hyper-masculine alpha male (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male), socially and physically dominating and imposing his will upon his wife and her sister, Blanche Dubois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_Dubois). Bound up with Stanley's aggressive and occasionally misogynist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynist) views is a strong sense of pride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride) and honour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour) which leads to his hatred of Blanche.

[Pilgrim 33]

That is so wrong! Submission is a verb, it's a voluntary act. It's an act that requires self disipline and a strong desire to please God not, self or husband. Silence, pregnancy and household work are not abuse by any means.
Submission is an act done by the wife, abuse is an act done (usually) by the husband. They are not connected. A wife who cannot submit to her husband simply doesn't trust that he loves her.

uhm, well, Is the husband supposed to be a total and complete servant to the wife or is the wife supposed to be the servant to the husband?

[novcncy]

"maybe that's God's way" really comes on as a sort of copout; afterall, even with the best of intentions how are we to know when the Lord is speaking or leading? My understanding is that there are five aspects and ALL must be in agreement: prayer, the Word, fellowship, the Holy Spirit within us, (brain block, i forgot the 5th, gotta go for a 2nd cup of java); iae, if even one of these do not agree with the others then it is likely questionable that it is God speaking to us. ANother issue is that it is most difficult to distinguish between God speaking and our own wishes and wannabes.

"The bottom line is obey the scriptures" is not always true, per se, as since we have millennia-old customs and traditions of many differing and often pagan cultures that while the scriptures were applicable to the times back THEN but have no applicability to us in the now and today.

If, in God's eyes men and women are equal before Him who is to say (other than God) whether or not a woman is fitting to fill a position we think was otherwise meant for a man? Surely God can speak through a woman just as well as He can through a man. Kinda reminds me of two verses combined, "don't muzzle an ox but always silence a woman", sorry, there's something here that just doesn't jive.

Time to get that other cup of coffee.

What are you talking about??? Are you suggesting that a woman, or anyone for that matter, should argue incessantly with a church's leadership about anything? If the leadership agrees that they are in error, and acknowledges and realigns themselves to God's word, then you have helped your pastor and congregation. But if the leadership refuses to acknowledge the truth of scripture, it's not up to you to convince them, it's up to the Holy Spirit. But you can't allow yourself and your family to be led by someone whom you KNOW is wrong, so at that point, you KNOW it's time to go elsewhere.

The Bible says plainly in Timothy and in Titus that a bishop, or elder, is to be "the husband of one wife." If that's not specific enough wording for you to realize that Paul is saying it has to be a man, then nothing ever will be.

And yes, it is always true, that we are to obey the scriptures. You couldn't be more right when you say something doesn't jive. I hate to break this to you, hero, but moral relativism and the Bible don't jive. The Bible either says what it means and means what it says, or it doesn't. If you don't think the Bible is always applicable, then maybe you should just throw the whole thing away. You can't pick and choose the things you want due to "cultural" issues.

Sarcasm hat on:

I suppose that homosexuality IS ok, because after all, God didn't REALLY mean it when He condemned in the Old and New Testaments. God probably didn't realize that our culture would change when He inspired people to write down His word, so He accidentally condemned things that we, as humans, now realize are perfectly ok.

Hat off.

To me, that sarcasm sounds ridiculous, yet that's the thought process that ends up saying it's okay for women to be pastors. God doesn't change, no matter how much you might want Him to. When He says something, He means it, and our twisted cultural "progress" does nothing to change that fact.

Men and women are equal, but that doesn't mean that they are the exact same. We're not androgynous for a reason, that reason being, that God created us DIFFERENT. Equal and different are not the same thing. A woman is different, just as she is equal. Do I need to go into biology? Probably not, you can easily see how they are biologically different, with different roles in life (no matter how much a man might want to, he can't be a mother) so how come you seem to have such a difficulty understanding that God has assigned them different roles in the church. Lose the humanist, feminist preprogramming, and you will see that. Quit insisting equality means that men and women should occupy the same role. You can't equate apples to oranges, but they are both fruits. You can't equate sedans to pickups, but they are both vehicles. You can't equte women to men, but they are both humans.

Hope you enjoy your java.


Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

[novcncy]

uhm, well, Is the husband supposed to be a total and complete servant to the wife or is the wife supposed to be the servant to the husband?

They both are to submit to each other. Ephesians 5

[Pilgrim 33]

They both are to submit to each other. Ephesians 5

Let's whittle out the prooftexting and entertain the complete thought(s), ie let's look at the entire sentence(s):

Sentence #1 speaks to believers, not the married:

Ephesians 5:18-21, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Sentence #2 speaks to the married, specifically, to the wives:

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

Essentially, both verses speak of different issues, the only aspect that connects the two are the degree to which the husband serves (ie is a servant) to the wife.

Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

And how did Christ do this? By serving those beneath Him.

Wives are to submit to their husbands BUT only insofar as the husbands serve their wives.

If the husband is not a servant to the wife, and if the husband does not heed her, then God, IN LIKE FASHION, will not hear the husbands prayers which will lock the husband out of fellowship with God:

1 Peter 3:7, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

[Ginny]

I am proud to say that I am submissive to my husband and in return I am never made to feel like a weakling. I enjoy submissiveness and authority within the household. We come to decisions together, but if my husband AS LED BY THE LORD feels we should move in a certain direction- then I'm all for it brother.


HEAR ME ROAR!

[novcncy]

Let's whittle out the prooftexting and entertain the complete thought(s), ie let's look at the entire sentence(s):

Sentence #1 speaks to believers, not the married:

Ephesians 5:18-21, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Ahhh, but what if the believers are married? Although, that the "prooftexting" was pretty cute, and mature, too.

I do agree with you though, that the husband is to serve his wife.

[Flynmonkie]

I hate to break this to you, hero, <snip>
Lose the humanist, feminist preprogramming, and you will see that.

Novcncy you are out of line with these comments. Being assured and superior are two entirely different things. I believe you are doing a lot of assumption here and I don't think it to be fair. Might be nice to ask what one means instead. I really would like to have an edifying and mature discussion here for once.

[Flynmonkie]

About the backpedaling....I'm glad you were kidding. It's hard to get tone, as you know, on the internet, and I don't want you to get the impression I'm a "barefoot, pregnant, and in-the-kitchen" type of guy, because that couldn't be farther from the truth.



I think you might be taking things too personally, and if I have caused this, I apologize. By no means did I intend to put someone in the "hot seat". Nor have I ever held this impression of you. Actually I am trying to figure out what in the world has gotten into you! As that I know this is not normally your mannerism in responses :scratch: I have always enjoied fellowship with you and I believe I have said this before.... :)

[Pilgrim 33]

But if the leadership refuses to acknowledge the truth of scripture, it's not up to you to convince them, it's up to the Holy Spirit. But you can't allow yourself and your family to be led by someone whom you KNOW is wrong, so at that point, you KNOW it's time to go elsewhere.

This sounds like the "ask what your church can do for you approach"; if the church can't do as God desires then we should just forget them and go find another church that will do things the way we want. To paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what your church can do for your, rather, ask what you can do for your church" would seem the more apropos action for to approach it the other way is, as you mentioned, a morally relativistic attitude.

And yes, it is always true, that we are to obey the scriptures. You couldn't be more right when you say something doesn't jive. I hate to break this to you, hero, but moral relativism and the Bible don't jive. The Bible either says what it means and means what it says, or it doesn't. If you don't think the Bible is always applicable, then maybe you should just throw the whole thing away. You can't pick and choose the things you want due to "cultural" issues.

I suppose that homosexuality IS ok, because after all, God didn't REALLY mean it when He condemned in the Old and New Testaments. God probably didn't realize that our culture would change when He inspired people to write down His word, so He accidentally condemned things that we, as humans, now realize are perfectly ok.



I do not believe you are correct in the "the Bible is ALWAYS right no matter what" attitude. Ask Dr Laura:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

b. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. Is this only those nations joined by land? Please clarify.

e. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g. Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[Ginny]

are you serious?

[abbygirlforever]

What about women who aren't married but no longer in their father's household (say they have no family to speak of). How is such a woman going to discuss things with her husband?

I have a huge problem with the scriptures in question. My father took these verses and twisted them so far that my mother had to beg him to be allowed to go visit a friend or family member. She had to make sure everything was taken care of before she left and that we kids had something to do or else take us with her as well as other things that are innappropriate to mention in this forum. Dad thought nothing of going to visit his friends or going on long hunting trips and leaving Mom with four kids and no car. Tell me, how is that godly?

Dad believed that women should be pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen. If she disagreed with something he said, then she was "stupid" and told to shut up. Apparently, she was worth less than a dog to him. And people wonder why their marriage fell apart after 25 years of her trying to be good enough for him!

I've seen men take these passages and do the exact same thing to their wives. There is no love, only the desire for a slave. When their wives question the practice, the husbands reach for their Bibles and jump up and down and point out how wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. It is a powerful form of mental and psychologcial control. My mom almost committed suicide because she couldn't stand it anymore.

And you know what? The Baptist church we went to supported Dad's position. The pastor would write sermons directed at Mom because she "got too uppity" or some such thing. I say the men of the churches have a lot to answer for before God for what they have done. Granted, not all men are like that, but some are, especially in certain denominations.

If some men have such a huge problem with women in the church, then why don't the women sit still and follow the scriptures to the most literal extent possible? After all, it seems that some people here like to pick and choose what parts to take literally and what parts to trim up. I would love to see how far the church gets if the women quit participating and simply listen like good little slaves.

I apologize if I sound bitter, but lives have been ruined because of this issue.

[Ginny]

Abby- that is the problem. People take scripture and twist them...then on theo ther hand you have women, like GEL stated earlier, that are dominating feminist that won't be told what to do if their life depended on it. Har me roar type females.

I think when both spouses use this scripture to the glory of God, then it is such a blessing. I love the feeling that my husband nurtures me and takes care of me while I do all for him I can in respect and love in return. We feed off each ot her in regards to decisions, but like I said earlier, if God directs my husband in a direction, then I will follow...but that is also trusting in your husband...something wives should totally love doing if the relationship is right before God.

As far as women in the church, I fully agree there should not be women preachers- HOWEVER, it sure seems odd that it is always women you find teaching children's SUnady School and vacation bible school....just a thought.

[Ginny]

I do not believe you are correct in the "the Bible is ALWAYS right no matter what" attitude. Ask Dr Laura:

NO thanks.

a. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

b. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19[/color]-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. Is this only those nations joined by land? Please clarify.

e. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g. Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

So what parts of the Bible do you pick and choose as to what is literal and what is not....I am afraid I don't get your post or moreso the point youare trying to make.:)

[Flynmonkie]

Abby, this is my problem too. It seems to my meager experience compared to others in scripture. That there seems to be more overwhelming evidence of not having pride enter into thing, jealousy, the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves....yet somehow, one or two verses are picked out and taken to cause others to contradict. As I said before, I believe these verses have been taken out of the context they were written. To an unruly bunch that could not seem to "get it".

That being said, as far as the Husband being head of wife, true there seems to be more responsibility there, however...I do not think it negates overwhelming scripture of love, honor and respect. I infer to my husband no matter his spiritual condition, as an act of respect and submission. My husband infers to me for the same reasons. Equal.

Novcncy I agree with to a point. I also infer to my husband (at times to my dismay) to address things. However, I believe it does not matter what sex you may be, adressing misrepresentation of scripture should be called out. OF COURSE with discretion and discernment where ever possible. That is all a part of respect, humbling us before each other. Sometimes picking up and walking out of a church IS best. However, where is the growth?

[Pilgrim 33]

I have a huge problem with the scriptures in question. My father took these verses and twisted them so far that my mother had to beg him to be allowed to go visit a friend or family member.

I've seen men take these passages and do the exact same thing to their wives. There is no love, only the desire for a slave. When their wives question the practice, the husbands reach for their Bibles and jump up and down and point out how wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. It is a powerful form of mental and psychologcial control.

And you know what? The Baptist church we went to supported Dad's position. The pastor would write sermons directed at Mom because she "got too uppity" or some such thing. I say the men of the churches have a lot to answer for before God for what they have done. Granted, not all men are like that, but some are, especially in certain denominations.

If some men have such a huge problem with women in the church, then why don't the women sit still and follow the scriptures to the most literal extent possible? After all, it seems that some people here like to pick and choose what parts to take literally and what parts to trim up.

As with so many others, you have, unfortunately, learned (the wrong way!), the true meaning of the word "proof texting".

[eldermike]

It seems that we tend to use unhealthy family situations as the example of why God must have meant something else when He told us how to be families. I see many healthy families but they never come up when talking about this issue. I was also raised in an unhealthy family and I had to learn what God's ideal family was all about. The church is a family (Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church). There is not two heads in a family, anything with two heads is a monster, you would run from a two headed enity.

There is a reason for the structure in the family and in the church. We have come so far away from healthy and whole families that we almost never see it today. I understand the confusion in todays world, I was also confused by my childhood.

Why not try to understand it as it's written? Why not try to pratice it, as it's written?

Your pastor should be the husband of one wife, He should have a family that loves Him, He should not be lording over them but instead serving them as Christ loved and served us.

There is no substitute for the biblical model of family any more than there is a substitute for the biblical model of the local church family.

It's not written to confuse us, it's written to mold us into something better than we were in the world.

[Flynmonkie]

The verb sigao is found infrequently in the Bible (some 19 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, and less than a dozen times in the New Testament). A careful examination of the term reveals that the context identifies the nature of the “silence” under consideration.

For instance, when the Israelites, pursued by the Egyptians, arrived at the Red Sea, they were terrified; they complained of their plight to Moses. He told them that Jehovah would fight for them, but they were to “hold [their] peace,” i.e., be silent (Ex. 14:14). That obviously did not mean that they were forbidden to speak at all; rather, they were to cease their faithless whimpering.
When David described certain hardships in his life as a result of his weaknesses - and the fact that he had “kept silence” under the burden (Psa. 32:3) - he was not speaking of general silence, but silence regarding his sin. He had failed to acknowledge it with due dispatch.
After the disciples witnessed the transfiguration scene, they “held their peace,” i.e., remained silent (Lk. 9:36). That does not mean they did not talk at all. Rather, they did not discuss with others what they had seen on the mountain.

[novcncy]

Novcncy you are out of line with these comments. Being assured and superior are two entirely different things. I believe you are doing a lot of assumption here and I don't think it to be fair. Might be nice to ask what one means instead. I really would like to have an edifying and mature discussion here for once.

You're right. I am a little fired up. My confusion is based on the willful ignorance of the plainly worded scriptures.

<<<<Deep breath>>>>>

There are two issues here, and they are getting intertwined and confused with each other. They are related, but they are not identical.

The first one, as I understood the OP, was regarding women and their behavior IN THE CHURCH. The Bible does not speak in complicated language regarding this, but is quite plain. The humanist, feminist response is to claim equality, instead of submit to God's published plan. Whenever people can convince themselves to disregard God's word, based on how far we've come culturally, they have actually said that they know better than God. They are putting their own, or some other human's wisdom before God's, and that is humanism. Then, in an attempt to discredit the Bible, it is pointed out that we no longer follow to the letter the Old Testament. However, should one take the time to read the New Testament, it becomes obvious that the reason we don't have sacrifices anymore, is because Jesus was the last, and completely sufficient sacrifice. The law didn't change, it was fulfilled.

The second issue, and I'm not sure how we got here, is regarding men who think that the fact that women are to submit to their husbands, take that fact as a license for complete domination of their wives. As was pointed out, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for her. Christ doesn't dominate us. Rather, he patiently woos us, and even when we blatantly sin against him, is still patient, and never runs us over or imposes Himself on our free will. He patiently waits for us to submit to Him, and that is how men are to love their wives. We men are to have a loving servitude to our wives. The best way I can paraphrase the position on submission is this. A marriage is a partnership. Whenever an agreement on an issue cannot be reached, then the woman is to submit to her husband, even if he's wrong, because it's ultimately his responsibility before God. Her acknowledgement of that, is an acknowledgement of God's commands. A wise husband will definitely listen to his wife whenever she speaks.

As far as the backpedaling goes, I completely understood after your explanation that you were being lighthearted. I was simply trying to explain I didn't realize that at first, and why I thought it was important to clarify.

Hope that is a little better. Let me know what you're thinking.

[Ginny]

novcncy-

Good post. You know, before I even clicked on this thread I was thinking about people being submissive to God. I think many people do not come to Christ b/c they don't like "being told what to do" or having an authority over them. This is the same thing to a degree. The first thing people (women) think of is some man ruling over them when that is quite the opposite. It is unfortunate that people feel a certain way in regards to their feminist views or past experience.

Jesus tells it like it is. Only you and I make it what we make it to be.

You stated "A marriage is a partnership. Whenever an agreement on an issue cannot be reached, then the woman is to submit to her husband, even if he's wrong, because it's ultimately his responsibility before God. Her acknowledgement of that, is an acknowledgement of God's commands. A wise husband will definitely listen to his wife whenever she speaks."

I totally agree. This is what it is all about...

[Flynmonkie]

You're right. I am a little fired up. My confusion is based on the willful ignorance of the plainly worded scriptures.
<<<<Deep breath>>>>>

Try not to think of me being "willfully ignorant", more like something I need to get clear.

There are two issues here, and they are getting intertwined and confused with each other. They are related, but they are not identical.

Yes, tried to make the issue in the post clear but unfortunately the two issues do get intertwined as Abby noted. That is my point. From my studies thus far I truly feel this verse is being taken out of context. In doing so giving a license for people to "abuse" the Head of Household idea. Such as what happened to me. I cannot speak for Pilgrim33 in this regard, but I took the posts he has made as to support that idea.

The first one, as I understood the OP, was regarding women and their behavior IN THE CHURCH. The Bible does not speak in complicated language regarding this, but is quite plain. The humanist, feminist response is to claim equality, instead of submit to God's published plan. Whenever people can convince themselves to disregard God's word, based on how far we've come culturally, they have actually said that they know better than God. They are putting their own, or some other human's wisdom before God's, and that is humanism. Then, in an attempt to discredit the Bible, it is pointed out that we no longer follow to the letter the Old Testament. However, should one take the time to read the New Testament, it becomes obvious that the reason we don't have sacrifices anymore, is because Jesus was the last, and completely sufficient sacrifice. The law didn't change, it was fulfilled.

I am working on something to explain better where I am coming from on this. I had posted an article along with the definitions of silence above, thinking it would be easier to add to their words in explanation. But the site itself I was unfamiliar with (church of God?) I could not find it on our lists of denominations so I took it back down. Give me some time and I hope to have a fuller explanation with scripture. Sometimes, in my studies, I can just post and idea and someone whom has had some experience is able to "help" me out with my questions. This one I think I need to let you all know where I am coming from scripture. Usually I am way behind others so this is never needed.

As far as the backpedaling goes, I completely understood after your explanation that you were being lighthearted. I was simply trying to explain I didn't realize that at first, and why I thought it was important to clarify.

No not at all, I should have been more understanding to the sensitivity of the subject. Sometimes when I put my thoughts down, I don't always make it clear "this is what I am thinking, am I right or wrong". No worries. Like I said it seemed pretty “out of character” I am used to with you! This is a sad downfall of some of the games that are played here at CF. I have noticed. I am the first one to get caught in a trap and feel like an idiot at times. Guards are up.

Hope that is a little better. Let me know what you're thinking.
I would make a joke but in light of the circumstances ;) It is all good, no problems here! :thumbsup:

[Flynmonkie]

I Corinthians 14:24-39 King James Version
24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: [Not just men, But by all.]
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

[Note EVERY ONE has a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation and interpretation. Let all things be done in edification. Again not just men]

27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Thus is given the proper method for speaking in tongues (languages) and prophesying in verses 27-32 So strictly were these instructions to be followed that silence was commanded rather than to go outside of them. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church…(vs. 28).” “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints (vs. 33).”


34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
[NOTE: the word translated as women can also be translated as wives. the context of the writing.... “They are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”]
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
[Why would this not be directed to all women? What happens if there is no husband? ~ Reference is given here to Genesis 3:16, when God gives the place of the wife, saying that her husband would rule over her, or be her head. “…Let them ask their husbands at home…” This is sufficient proof that these words are directed to wives and not all women in general. It simply makes no sense why only married women could not speak and the single ones can?]

36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.


Many of the wives at this location were not in obedience. They were speaking out in the public assembly in a domineering way with neither regard for their husbands, nor for the edifying of the church. Their speaking was causing confusion and disorder in the congregation, thus their instruction was to not speak at all, not because they were women, but because they were out of order.

Again, this is consistent with the previous instruction given to the man who speaks in tongues. If he was unable to speak in a foreign language in such a manner that would be decent and orderly and in which all the church may be edified, then let him be silent. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church and let him speak to himself, and to God (vs. 28).” In chapter 11, verses 4 and 5 of the same epistle, we are made aware that both men and women speak in the congregation of saints, for it says of both that they pray and prophesy. We will now allow the writer of the epistle to himself define what he meant by the word prophesy: “But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” I Corinthians 14:3.

According to chapter 11, women did speak in a public assembly of the church, for they, as well as the men, were permitted to prophesy. God granted women the privilege to speak unto men (mankind) that they would be built up in the things of God. Women were permitted to speak so as to provoke to love and good works. By their words, women in the congregation openly comforted the hearts of God’s children.

Both men and women, under the direction of God, were able to bring forth the Word of God in such a manner as to convince and reveal God’s judgment to sinners. Women spoke as to cause the sinner to fall down and worship God and acknowledge that He was behind every word they spoke, according to I Cor. 14:24 and 25. This, according to Paul, is prophesying and this is done by women as well as men in Christian meetings.

With the foregoing understanding, there is no possibility that the apostle Paul was demanding or imposing silence upon all women in the churches. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 14, his burden is not men versus women, but rather order versus disorder.

The burden of his heart as he wrote this epistle is not only for the Corinthian church, but it directly applies in all of the present day congregations of the church of God. Not for women only, but also for men. If any speaking will cause confusion and disorder, if no one is being built up in the Lord, and it is no more than a show in the flesh, then keep silence. “Be silent, O all flesh, before the Lord: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.” Zechariah 2:13.


I Timothy 2:12
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” I Timothy 2:12.

Many, however, still feel that it is a very unnatural thing to see a woman preaching. Their primary thought is that by so doing, she is out of her place and is usurping authority over the man. Again, Paul is addressing wives in the home setting, for he speaks of one man and not men in general. “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” The Greek word here translated man can also be translated as husband. The very next verse strengthens his point when once again, as in I Corinthians 14, Paul refers to Genesis and is unquestionably dealing with the husband and wife relationship in the home life. “For Adam was first formed, then Eve (verse 13).”

The man (husband) is the head of the home, not the head of the church. He, with the help of God, sets things in order in his own home. Christ is the head of the church, He, being the Son of God, sets things in order in His own church. To usurp authority means to take the authority of someone else as your own and to act with that authority which was never intended to be yours. The woman is not to be forcing her opinions on her husband, for it is not her place to do so. This is the simple meaning of the apostle’s writing.

By the same principle, husbands or men in general are not to teach or give direction to Christ concerning matters of His church, for it is not their place. Men must keep silence concerning the gifting and the callings of God. God sets the members in the body as it pleases Him and not as it pleases men (I Corinthians 12:18 18But as it is, God has placed and arranged the limbs and organs in the body, each [particular one] of them, just as He wished and saw fit and with the best adaptation.). A woman cannot be guilty of usurping authority over the man by delivering God’s Word if she is called to preach, for delivering God’s Word is not authority that belongs to man, therefore she did not take it from him. If a man were to forbid a God-called woman to preach, he would be guilty of usurping the authority of God.


Jesus, contrary to custom, talked with and taught women. He taught the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4:27). Jesus talked publicly with the unclean woman who touched his cloak (Mt. 9:20-22). When he taught and fed the multitudes, women were in the crowd (Matt. 14:13-21 & Mk 6:30-44). When he healed a Canaanite woman’s daughter, he talked to her in public (Matt. 15:22). He commended Mary for listening to his teaching when Martha complained that she wasn’t helping with the housework (Lk. 10:38-42).
Contrary to custom, Jesus allowed women to be deeply involved in his ministry. The gospels record that there were women who traveled with him to assist in his work. The gospels do not tell us all of their names, but included in this group of women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Lk. 8:1-3 & Matt. 27:55-56).
Jesus broke with the common treatment of women.
(1) He talked in public to women.
(2) He taught women about religion in public forums and private forums.
(3) He gave women an active role in his ministry.
The early church, following the lead of Jesus, had women actively involved in all aspects of church life. In the book of Acts one sees a church open to women. Women were praying with the apostles prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:12-14). On the day of Pentecost Peter proclaimed the dawning of a new day in which God’s spirit would empower men and women to speak and teach God’s message (Acts 2:17-18). Paul taught a group of women in Philippi (Acts 16:13). In Berea, Paul taught women (Acts 17: 12). Priscilla was one of Apollos’ teachers (Acts 18:26). Philip had four daughters who were prophets (Acts 21:9).
Paul’s letters indicate women were deeply involved in his ministry. Perhaps the best example of women’s involvement is in his letter to the church at Rome. In the sixteenth chapter of Romans, Paul mentions numerous women in active and prominent roles in the church. The first is Phoebe who served as a deacon in Cenchreae (vs. 1-2). Priscilla is called his fellow worker (vs. 3-4). Mary is mentioned as diligent worker in the church at Rome (v. 6). Junia, a woman, is a called an apostle (v.7 see NRSV, KJV, NKJV). Three women—Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis—are mentioned as hard workers for the Lord (v. 12).
In other letters of Paul, one finds references to women praying and prophesizing in public worship (1 Cor. 11:5) and contending at his side in the cause of the gospel (Philip. 4:23). Also, in his letter to Timothy, Paul gives instructions about women deacons (1 Tim. 3:11).[Note: I am not fully convinced of this at this time without further study, however I am trying to stay away from leadership role issues for the time being. Right now specifically proven incidents of women in the church vs keeping silent]
Coupled with these examples of women in ministry are three basic theological truths, which seem to indicate women should be involved in all aspects of the church’s life. First, There is no indication that any spiritual gift was limited to men (1 Cor. 12:7-11, 14:31, 1 Peter 4:10). Second, all God’s people were called his priests without any hierarchy of males (1 Peter 2:9, Rev. 1:6, Rev. 5:10). Third, all human distinctions were removed in Christ who united them (Gal. 3:28). Paul believed that through faith in Jesus Christ all become God’s children--one family in which those things that separated them were broken down. Now Jews and Gentiles were of the same family, the Christian master now saw the slave as an equal brother (Philemon 16), and the man now saw the woman as an equal human being and as a sister in Christ.
In summary, what does one see happening in the early church in regard to women?

Women were actively involved in many areas–-teachers, prophets, deacons, apostles.
Women were included in worship and religious instruction as active participants.
The basic theology of spiritual gifts, priesthood of all believers, and oneness in Christ all moved toward the idea of women serving in an unlimited capacity in the church.


Taken from:
http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob/woman_pastor.htmMy overall problem is that this is only one verse against overwhelming scripture that proves contradiction and that this verse IS a one of a kind and being taken out of context. Any clearer?

[Stinker]

Do you maintain that a woman can be an Evangelist but not a Pastor?

[mesue]

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
The word for man in the Greek used in the above verse is:
hekastos
As if a superlative of ἕκας hekas (afar); each or every: - any, both, each (one), every (man, one, woman), particularly. (Strong's)
Verse 33 says:
1Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
The book of 1 Corinthians is Paul's reply to a letter the Corinthians sent to Paul. You see through out the book the phrase Now concerning...

Verses 34 and 35 were what the Corinthians asked Paul.
1Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Paul asks them, in rebuke:
1Corinthins 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

[Flynmonkie]

Do you maintain that a woman can be an Evangelist but not a Pastor?
My thoughts are.......
I have been raised with the idea women should be silent and submissive in church. That women should not be pastors. When I returned to my faith seeking the Bible as authority my husband and I had been together and not legally married. He was unsaved for several months after my revelation. I do refer to my husband now to handle things in which he does - but during the time he was unsaved, it was only I giving instruction. I had several incidents at the church he chose for us where "pastors" confused him, by saying God would not bless us until we legally married - a scare tactic (at the time he was yet to be saved and I was not about to force him to stand before God and have him make vows without true understanding) amongst other things. I had to clarify for him. I did not speak to the pastor....but encouraged my now husband to do so. After my husband spoke to him the senior pastor asked me what happened and I obliged. He called ME back to tell me that the associate pastor would contact me. In which he did. I did not feel that God wanted me to encourage him to leave this church. Of course we could of but that is not what I felt God was leading me to do. And in turn we grew.
However, when I had been "accused" of being over a man by moderating a study forum after deleting attacks on another Christian. He used this verse in support that I should be subject to "all" men. So I investigated. After delving into study, my gut feeling is that I am wrong in assumption on no women pastors (my upbringing). But ultimately the issue here is this verse in Corinthians .....silence...... being used in conjunction with Man is the Head of woman -- (including church meeting and capacity) verses.

[bleechers]

“For Adam was first formed, then Eve (verse 13).”

The man (husband) is the head of the home, not the head of the church.

You missed the reasoning by Paul: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." The woman was deceived. This is also why Paul singles out "silly women" who are led astray by false teachers. The woman was "beguiled" (2 Cor 11).

As for the church, would you say that elders are not "in the church"? Paul clearly states to Timothy and to Titus that elders are to be men. This is stated not only in the requirements but in how they are to be respected.

Clearly Jesus chose 12 men not only in his earthly ministry, but for a future kingdom where 12 men will rule and reign over the 12 tribes of Israel. I haven't read the whole thread (I apologize, but I was directed here in another), and I assume somebody has accused Jesus of not wanting offend his culture... I surely hope that argument has not been used...

:)

[Flynmonkie]

You missed the reasoning by Paul: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." The woman was deceived. This is also why Paul singles out "silly women" who are led astray by false teachers. The woman was "beguiled" (2 Cor 11).

Yes your right Adam sinned willfully....

So this is what you believe supports the idea that women are subject to ALL men?
For I am confused now....who in the world would direct us easily deceived women if not for the fathers, or husbands? Surly not God?

So I wonder what Paul called "Mr jolly jingle pockets" preaching false doctrine...surly it would not be "silly man?" I don't mind discussion about this, however....I don't appreciate being spoken down to either.

[bleechers]

Yes your right Adam sinned willfully....

So this is what you believe supports the idea that women are subject to ALL men?
For I am confused now....who in the world would direct us easily deceived women if not for the fathers, or husbands? Surly not God?

So I wonder what Paul called "Mr jolly jingle pockets" preaching false doctrine...surly it would not be "silly man?" I don't mind discussion about this, however....I don't appreciate being spoken down to either.

I did say that women have the responsibility to check doctrine and to rebuke false doctrine. That is both their right and their responsibility.

Can you address the rest of my post?

As for the church, would you say that elders are not "in the church"? Paul clearly states to Timothy and to Titus that elders are to be men. This is stated not only in the requirements but in how they are to be respected.

Clearly Jesus chose 12 men not only in his earthly ministry, but for a future kingdom where 12 men will rule and reign over the 12 tribes of Israel.

Thanks. :)

[Flynmonkie]

I did say that women have the responsibility to check doctrine and to rebuke false doctrine. That is both their right and their responsibility.

NOT if they are told to be silent. :scratch:
Can you address the rest of my post?
Thanks. :)
which verses? I have located a few in which I would like to further study. At this time I would like to stick closely to the 1 Cor 34 verse first. If at all possible.

With regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34, some people believe that in this verse Paul was prohibiting women to speak at all in church. Since pastors have to speak in church, they exclude women from being pastors on this basis. I disagree with this interpretation and argument, but as already mentioned agree that women should not be pastors. The context of 1 Corinthians 14:34 has to do with the broader argument regarding worship and unity in 1 Corinthians 11-14. Some aspects of this section include that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul argued that wives ought to honor their husbands in worship services, and in 1 Corinthians 14:20-35 he argued for propriety, order and honor in worship services. As I understand 1 Corinthians 14:34 in these contexts, it teaches that wives (Greek has only one word that may mean either "wife" or "woman") are to honor their husbands in worship by not challenging their husbands' prophecies in public. Rather, they are to question their husbands privately at home. The public challenging of prophecy is to be done by the "others" (1 Cor. 14:29). Oddly, Paul refers to the "Law" in support of this instruction to wives, but nowhere in biblical Law does such a command appear per se. On the other hand, neither does any command appear in the Law to indicate that women ought to remain silent in church. Paul may be arguing from a general principle which he sees in the Law that wives are to honor their husbands. In any event, it does not make sense to me to imagine that he prohibited women from speaking in church. This is because in 1 Corinthians 11:5 he assumed that they would pray and prophesy in church, arguing only that they ought to cover their heads when they did so.
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99872.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim

[Pilgrim 33]

It sure seems herelate things kinda skewed toward the convuluted though it appears a way through may have presented itself afterall...

...[]...the reasoning by Paul: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." The woman was deceived. This is also why Paul singles out "silly women" who are led astray by false teachers. The woman was "beguiled" (2 Cor 11).

I think this may go deeper still into the heart of the thread's issue involving, quite frankly, the woman's proper place in the home and, as it seems to have evolved, in the church. Ok, so why shouldn't woman preach and all that other stuff that's been getting tossed around these past several pages?

Weaker vessel, deception, led astray, beguiled, pulling a few thoughts together here. What exactly does being the "weaker vessel" entail, aside from the more obvious physical comparisons? Mentally, emotionally, psychologically, whatever, how is the female, ie what goes into the reasoning behind the woman being considered the "weaker vessel"?

Presumably, there is the beguiled issue or, possibly at the least, more easily beguiled; perhaps "impressionable" somehow factors in.

For the mideast world there is a strong historical influence of women using bhurkas and ufll covering dress. The male may be turned on by sight yet the woman seems more likely to be deceived or beguiled. In some ways it would seem the full covering dress is a means to protect the woman.

Reminds me of the Star Trek: Next Generation episode where this genetically grown woman, bred for a specific person on another planet, had never met a male her entire life, and was raised and trained to be the perfect wife and the Enterprise was delivering her in her crysalis to her intended to be. Well, the crysallis broke in the cargo bay and the first person she saw was Captain Piquard. If you didn't see the episode you missed a good one for from here on out the issue revolved around how to keep affecting male contact from influencing her personality that up till then had preserved its otherwise virgin psychological and emotional state a clean slate that had been reserved solely for her future husband's influence. Very intereseting concept. In today's society, with people getting married and divorced faster more times than they go through cars it is very easy for rotten and emotional baggage to get dragged in from failed relationship to failed relationship.

Any of the rest of you have any thoughts or ideas to contribute to this vein of thought?

[bleechers]

Quote:
Originally Posted by: bleechers


I did say that women have the responsibility to check doctrine and to rebuke false doctrine. That is both their right and their responsibility.


NOT if they are told to be silent.

I didn't specify where or how now did I? My response was to clarify your accusation that I was saying that women are to be docile idiots led about by false teachers. All I was saying is that women are more prone to such folly just as men are more prone to act irrationally (see Adam and Eve).

I know many sound women who can spot false doctrine, but I know many more men who are more sensitive to the subleties of error. False teachers generally have large female followings and almost all discernment ministries are headed by men (n fact, I'm not familiar with any woman-led apologetic, discernment ministries).

But that's all a tangent. :)

which verses? I have located a few in which I would like to further study. At this time I would like to stick closely to the 1 Cor 34 verse first. If at all possible.

Well we need to interpret scripture in light of scripture.

When Paul addresses the appointing of elders to Timothy and to Titus, he clearly states that they are to be men.

Titus 1 "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly....

1 Timothy "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren..."

1 Timothy "This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop [elder], he desireth a good work. A bishop [elder] then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach..."

And also, Jesus chose 12 men to sit on future thrones to rule and reign in a future kingdom. In the New Jerusalem there will be 24 names seen, the 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 apostles.

[Flynmonkie]

Bleechers, I am trying to stay away from the woman pastor leadership issues as that I have yet to study. I am not sure I am in agreement with many various ideas on this at this time. Really, the main thing I am looking to understand is the 1 Corinthians scripture issues.

I asked in the other thread for the SBC scripture backing on their statement on this as that some of this study has led me into that arena. An arena I have never ventured into, as that it has never been a concern to me. I have no aspirations for this, and God seems to be keeping me busy with my own life. :sigh:

[bleechers]

Bleechers, I am trying to stay away from the woman pastor leadership issues as that I have yet to study. I am not sure I am in agreement with many various ideas on this at this time. Really, the main thing I am looking to understand is the 1 Corinthians scripture issues.

I asked in the other thread for the SBC scripture backing on their statement on this as that some of this study has led me into that arena. An arena I have never ventured into, as that it has never been a concern to me. I have no aspirations for this, and God seems to be keeping me busy with my own life. :sigh:

Oh OK. :) Actually, I don't believe that the practices (doctrine is different than practice) in 1 Corinthians are binding on the present church anyway, so you won't get an argument from me on that particular issue. :)

[Flynmonkie]

Oh OK. :) Actually, I don't believe that the practices (doctrine is different than practice) in 1 Corinthians are binding on the present church anyway, so you won't get an argument from me on that particular issue. :)
Then I just wish you would read through the thread because...somehow this is being used as a Head of woman type issue and I do not believe it is being taken in the context it was written. You might be able to shed some light.

And Thanks :)

[bleechers]

Ooh, but I hate coming in on page 6! :P

Anyway, why I believe that 1 Corinthians is not binding practice on the present church would probably derail the thread!

If I get a chance, and if I think my comments would be useful, I'll give it a shot. :) Thanks for caring enough to ask for my thoughts.

[Pilgrim 33]

Why did Satan approach Eve and not Adam?

[TwinCrier]

Why did Satan approach Eve and not Adam?Just my opinion, but God spoke directly to Adam. Eve was probably relayed the message by Adam, so it was easier to Satan to pull the "hath God said' thing on her. Simular to someone who attends church but doesn't read the bible, it's easy for Satan to convince them that the bible doesn't really say what they have been taught. Also, the legalism added to it; "neither shall ye touch it" which Adam may have added, which also cast doubt on God's word. Instead of going to Adam or God to discuss it, Eve followed Satan.

[Pilgrim 33]

Just my opinion, but God spoke directly to Adam. Eve was probably relayed the message by Adam, so it was easier to Satan to pull the "hath God said' thing on her. Simular to someone who attends church but doesn't read the bible, it's easy for Satan to convince them that the bible doesn't really say what they have been taught. Also, the legalism added to it; "neither shall ye touch it" which Adam may have added, which also cast doubt on God's word. Instead of going to Adam or God to discuss it, Eve followed Satan.
Thanks for the "how" Eve was deceived, TwinCrier; however, what I really was looking for was a response to the reasoning behind "why" Eve was Satan's "target" instead of Adam.

I'd like to explore whether there is a correlation between this (why Satan chose Eve and not Adam) and the thread's discussion on women's "place" at home and in church as exemplified in the "keep silence" issue and how it's related to the deceived, etc issues that have been brought up.

I think there may be some relevence in there somewhere.

[Flynmonkie]

Thanks for the "how" Eve was deceived, TwinCrier; however, what I really was looking for was a response to the reasoning behind "why" Eve was Satan's "target" instead of Adam.

Adam had been warned by God that Satan was the enemy. Genesis 2.15. Adam had been told to tend and keep. Keep translates the Hebrew word "shamar," which means "guard." (Same use Genesis 3.24.)

1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered

Adam was right there with Eve when she was “deceived” Adam was not deceived as that he had been warned. Adam willfully sinned by failing to heed Gods warning.

I Tim2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

IOW Because Adam did not protect and guard (Eve) as God commanded.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (Gen 3.6)

In short, Eve did not trick Adam, Satan did.IMHO Adam had been told to keep Eve. Where would an enemy attack?.....the weaker vessel?

This bothers me though as that Adam was willful in his transgression. He allowed Eve to eat. So therefore would he not have been the weakest one? :scratch:

[Pilgrim 33]

Adam had been warned by God that Satan was the enemy.

Please provide Scripture for this as I am unaware of any such warnings.

Genesis 2.15. Adam had been told to tend and keep. Keep translates the Hebrew word "shamar," which means "guard." (Same use Genesis 3.24.)

The side notes in my bible say it means "keep safe, preserve", which to me implies a milder shade of meaning than "warding off impending danger or damage or injury" that "guard" would seem to imply.

In fact, this took place in the earth's crowning Garden spot of beauty, serenity and perfection; there would have been nothing to protect anything or anyone in the Garden from, even the weather was so perfect they did not even need clothing.

1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered

Not sure how the Peter quote fits into what you are explaining with respect to A & E other than it contains the term, "weaker vessel".

I Tim2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam was right there with Eve when she was “deceived”

We do not know for certainty the two were together when she was tempted and deceived; we only know for certainty that at some indeterminate time afterwards that he was with her when she ate and offered.

IOW Because Adam did not protect and guard (Eve) as God commanded.

I think that's quite a stretch to make "dress and keep the garden" include Eve as part of the garden, although and however, this presupposes Eve was willing to submit to (God's and) her husband's will which, oddly enough and evidenced by her subsequent actions, she, obviously, was not.

Nor do I know of any scripture to support this claim.

No, i see this comment as a subtle attempt to throw Eve's guilt off onto Adam claiming a failure on his part to protect her.

She was aware of God's wishes as she was able to quote it (albeit not correctly) and, whether Adam reminded her or not is irrelevent as she nonetheless was, without doubt, aware of and helped herself anyway.

Further, with the lion and the lamb laying down together in The Garden I do not see where there was anything for Adam to protect her from; there was not even any thorns or thistles for her to walk on and get stuck in her feet.

In short, Eve did not trick Adam, Satan did.

I do not believe either Eve or Satan tricked Adam; imo, it was a choice made by Adam at Eve's offering.

Why did Adam choose to join Eve? It has been theorized by some that after Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam was faced with the dilemma of eating and maintaining Eve's accompaniment or, had he refused, he would have had to have given her up; had such been the case, she would have been cursed and subject to sin, sickness and eventual death while he, on the other hand, would have been the only one that could have eaten of the Tree of Life.

IMHO Adam had been told to keep Eve.

There is no scriptural evidence to support this as a pre-Fall command and, as such, we cannot interject this in as a qualified proof onto which to further bolster the view that Eve's failure was indirectly Adam's fault.

I think (aside from physical differences) what makes the woman "weaker" is center to why Satan chose her instead of Adam.

So, the question still on the table is, why did Satan choose Eve?

To which I would add, why are women regarded as "weaker"?

[Flynmonkie]

Adam had been warned by God that Satan was the enemy.

Please provide Scripture for this as I am unaware of any such warnings.




I did you ignored it silly
Genesis 2.15.
15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Genesis 2.15 Adam had been told to tend and keep. Keep translates the Hebrew word "shamar," which means "guard." (Same use Genesis 3.24.)

The side notes in my bible say it means "keep safe, preserve", which to me implies a milder shade of meaning than "warding off impending danger or damage or injury" that "guard" would seem to imply.

In fact, this took place in the earth's crowning Garden spot of beauty, serenity and perfection; there would have been nothing to protect anything or anyone in the Garden from.

Same difference. to Keep safe from what? God warned Adam to dress it…..and keep it. Two entirely different meanings.
Keep
8104. שָׁמַר shâmar, shaw-mar’; a prim. root; prop. to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; gen. to protect, attend to, etc.:— beware, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep (-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch (-man).

1 Peter 3:7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered

Not sure how the Peter quote fits into what you are explaining with respect to A & E other than it contains the term, "weaker vessel".

You are correct.

I Tim2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.Adam was right there with Eve when she was “deceived”

We do not know for certainty the two were together when she was tempted and deceived; we only know for certainty that at some indeterminate time afterwards that he was with her when she ate and offered.

Gen 3.66
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband WITH her; and he did eat.


IOW Because Adam did not protect and guard (Eve) as God commanded.I think that's quite a stretch to make "dress and keep the garden" include Eve as part of the garden, although and however, this presupposes Eve was willing to submit to (God's and) her husband's will which, oddly enough and evidenced by her subsequent actions, she, obviously, was not. Nor do I know of any scripture to support this claim.

I have given you scripture from the original post to now. Scripture is clear. God warned Adam to keep and he did not. He did eat of the apple, He did not only violate the command not to eat, he also did not heed Gods warning to keep.

No, i see this comment as a subtle attempt to throw Eve's guilt off onto Adam claiming a failure on his part to protect her.

Absolutely not. Equal in the transgression, your proof texting my words.

She was aware of God's wishes as she was able to quote it (albeit not correctly) and, whether Adam reminded her or not is irrelevent as she nonetheless was, without doubt, aware of and helped herself anyway. Further, with the lion and the lamb laying down together in The Garden I do not see where there was anything for Adam to protect her from; there was not even any thorns or thistles for her to walk on and get stuck in her feet.In short, Eve did not trick Adam, Satan did.I do not believe either Eve or Satan tricked Adam; imo, it was a choice made by Adam at Eve's offering. Why did Adam choose to join Eve? It has been theorized by some that after Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam was faced with the dilemma of eating and maintaining Eve's accompaniment or, had he refused, he would have had to have given her up; had such been the case, she would have been cursed and subject to sin, sickness and eventual death while he, on the other hand, would have been the only one that could have eaten of the Tree of Life.

And I am stretching scripture? Come ON! Yes I see this quite clearly….not.

IMHO Adam had been told to keep Eve. There is no scriptural evidence to support this as a pre-Fall command and, as such, we cannot interject this in as a qualified proof onto which to further bolster the view that Eve's failure was indirectly Adam's fault.

What part of the scritprue and translation do you not understand here?

I think (aside from physical differences) what makes the woman "weaker" is center to why Satan chose her instead of Adam. So, the question still on the table is, why did Satan choose Eve?
This is what I said before. When you go to attack the enemy where do you strike first?
To which I would add, why are women regarded as "weaker"?

You tell me.

[Pilgrim 33]

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.


fwiw Your grammar sucks big time today

"IT" refers to "the Garden", NOT Eve.

The verse does NOT say,

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress Eve and to keep Eve.


So, Genesis 2:15 does NOT support the claim that Adam was commanded by God to protect Eve.

God did not "warn" Adam to dress and keep the Garden, He instructed him, in all likelihood, He taught him how to husband the Garden like a farmer husband's his crops. Husbanding a garden is not the same as husbanding a wife (though some might argue the point! :D )

This all took place in the earth's crowning Garden spot of beauty, serenity and perfection; there would have been nothing to protect anything or anyone in the Garden from.

Gen 3.66
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband WITH her; and he did eat.

when implies there was a period of time between Satan's temptation and Eve's offering to Adam. We do not know how much time or if Adam was present during the temptation, only that she was with him or went to him to offer the fruit AFTER she was deceived.

If Adam had been there at the temptation and was so willing to eat why wait for Eve to offer it, why did he not just pick his own darned apple?

There is NO evidence that Adam was present at Eve's deception, only that he was with her sometime after the temptation when she ate.

Eve KNEW she was not to eat of the tree and yet she was UNwilling to submit to (God's and) her husband's will and was evidenced by her actions.

Eve's sin was totally her own, it was in NO way Adam's fault.

[Pilgrim 33]

To which I would add, why are women regarded as "weaker"?

You tell me.

Well, let's see now, could it be they are ruled by their emotions and not their brain as men are thought to?

Or maybe it's because they are more likely to be deceived than men are as the Scriptures seems to say?

[Pilgrim 33]

Genesis 2:15, "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

All this occurred well before Eve was created (v 22) so verse 15 couldn't apply to Adam protecting Eve anyway but instead and ONLY for his caring for the Garden.

[Pilgrim 33]

your proof texting my words.

That's not proof texting.
Improper use of the term is as bad as poor grammar.

[Pilgrim 33]

Genesis 2:15, "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

In fact, upon closer examination, it does not say God "told" Adam to "dress and keep" the garden.

So your entire argument based on that verse falls apart.

[Flynmonkie]

Eve's sin was totally her own, it was in NO way Adam's fault.
Again, you are reading too much into the male, female who is the bad guy here thing. This is not what I said or even implied.

Part of protecting the garden would be what was in it. In addition, as I said before...from what would he need to guard? Obviously the translation made a distinction of tilling or taking care in the "keeper" sense. But why would there also be a indication of guard? Why would it be important for this to be included? God’s intentions were for Adam to dress and KEEP. It is just that simple. He disobeys Gods wishes by not being guarding the garden and everything in it.(Yep, eve included), and then willfully eats of the tree, explicitly disobeying God? No? Unless you are saying that God did not know he planned on creating Eve to be in that garden too?

Well, let's see now, could it be they are ruled by their emotions and not their brain as men are thought to?

Or maybe it's because they are more likely to be deceived than men are as the Scriptures seems to say?

Now who’s taking this personal? Was it not I that deemed the reasoning of your question as that woman being the weaker vessel? I would not go as far as you as a blanket statement but I do believe you might find the d