Women in the Bible

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

-----Original Message-----
From: JoeJarv@aol.com <JoeJarv@aol.com>
To: higher-fire@prairienet.org <higher-fire@prairienet.org>
Cc: richardm@cd.com <richardm@cd.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 6:59 AM
Subject: Women in the Bible


> In a message dated 97-11-21 05:33:27 EST,
> byoung@spry.com writes:
>
> But, old Webster is unable to distinguish the true meaning of the Greek by
>using definitions of the English words only.


I think that the Bible does just fine by itself;  God authored it-- God
preserved the meaning in translation.  'Nuff said.

> Note in 1 Peter the use of
> 50.  The Middle Voice represents the *subject* as *acting* in some way
*upon
>himself* or concerning himself. Since *English* does *not* have a middle
>voice, it is usually *difficult to translate* the middle voice *into
>English*:


Hmmm... that middle voice keeps telling me to clean the guns (uh, oh yeah,
never mind). =)

<snipola stuff about active voice (and here I thought they did voice mail
all this time) and middle voice (in four part harmony)>

> So, when we observe a husband trying to *forcibly* bring his wife into
>subjection, what he is doing is not in accordance with the scripture.


Agreed.  A man's position is not to be an "unenlightened despot."  However,
for the wife to be truly obedient, she would have to do/not do things that
she wouldn't/would otherwise (I'm not saying for the husband to go looking
for things either...) not do/do, or she is just doing what she wants to and
it happens to line up with her husband.  If she will not submit to her
husband when she does not want to, she is not in submission *at all*.

> You:
>   But here's my real question:  I just gave you two verses about wives
being
>  in *subjection* to their husbands.  That means "to rule over."  Can the
>  saint man command his preacher wife (in love of course) to obey some
>  particular holiness standard?  Who has *authority* (I'd say who wears the
>  pants, but I'm afraid of the tangent it would start =)) in the household
in
>  spiritual matters?>>
>
> Me:
>
> See above.
>
>  You:
>  <<I don't seem to understand how the man can follow his wife and still be
> her
>  head.>>
>
> Me:
>
> The scripture also teaches us
> Eph 5:21
> 21 Submitting yourselves *one to another* in the fear of God.
>
> So, we can be subject to a person, who is at the same time , subject to
us,
>once we lose this notion of "being in charge".
>
> Reading the scripture in its fuller context will reveal the true meaning
of
>being the *head*. (Husbands, please read verses 23 & 25, and do not dwell
on
>verse 24 only)
> Eph 5:23-25
> 23 For the husband is the *head* of the wife, *even as Christ* is the head
>of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
> 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to
>their own husbands in every thing.
> 25 Husbands, *love* your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and
>*gave himself* for it;
>
> The idea of being a true *head* is further explained in:
>
> Mark 10:42-45
> 42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they
>which are accounted to *rule over* the Gentiles *exercise lordship* over
>them; and their great ones *exercise authority* upon them.
> 43 But *so shall it not be among you*: but whosoever will be great among
>you, shall be your minister:
> 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be *servant* of all.
> 45 For even the Son of man came *not* to be ministered unto, but to
>*minister*, and to *give his life* a ransom for many.
>
> The notion of the head exercising lordship, exercising authority, and
ruling
>over (even being slave-drivers) seems to be dispelled by the teachings of
>Jesus Christ. Jesus is teaching service (selflessness), and giving of
>oneself.

I sincerely hope that you did not interpret my postings as a green light for
"slave-driver" husbands.  Let me clarify:

Husbands, love your wives, but be their head as Jesus is your head.  I'll
even throw in "follow your pastor as he follows Jesus" just for good
measure.

I hope that I didn't confuse any of the Pig Latin on that one. =)

> You:
>  << Do you know what the single thread of commonness that you find in the
>  psychological profiles of serial killers and mass murderers is?
>
>  Domineering Mothers!  I fear for the day that we have a woman run church.
>  Sorry if that offends you.>>
>
> Me:
>
> I would have thought that the common thread would have been multiple
murder
>victims.

Et tu Brute.  =)

>But, the above answer reveals the real common thread: refusal to
>accept responsibility for their own actions, and claiming that they,
>themselves are the true victims (of domineering mothers).


Not an excuse, a common thread.  I did not say that, "they blamed it on
domineering mothers,"  I said that they had domineering mothers.  When the
head isn't right, destruction follows.

Brad