Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is submission of wives for today? | 1 Pet 3:1 | XRing | 124350 | ||
Joy, I feel your pain and share your confusion if you listen to those who "pick and choose" which scripture is applicable today, and which scripture is somehow null and void due to social or cultural advancements. It's refreshing to know you seek truth - and truth based on God's infallable word. 2 Tim 3:16 - ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 4:3-4 tells what some choose to do by determining for themselves what from God's word still works today, and what is "outdated." Confusion will always result when this happens. I hope to be able to help - if even a little - with the issue of woman's role as wife. Not to make it too simple, but I want to avoid confusion. Submission to God's will and order is NOT slavery. Jesus was not a SLAVE when He washed His disciples' feet - but He did this humble act as "an example" (John 13:15). I believe confusion may be caused by seeing servitude as slavery. One may be a slave and forced to do much against his/her will, and still have a hardened, prideful heart. The scripture - and Jesus' example in John 13 - directs believers to servitude with humility, and to not esteem others better than ourself (Phil 2:3). The wife is to be called by God to be a "helpmate" for the husband. God's order is for the man to be the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. And God commands the husband to love his wife just as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her (Eph 5:25). Again, this headship of the man is to be in accordance with God's order and plan - not a license for the husband to be a schmuck, or to be commanded by the wife. The wife's submission to the husband is as a co-laborer in the call to serve God - together. That's what Paul is saying all through Ephesians 5:21-33. Another scriptural example I hope may shed some light on this is found in Romans 13:1-3. In context, Paul is speaking about governing govermental authorities - but as you can see in V.2, "whoever resists the authority resists the ordinace of God." Without going into a bunch of detail on the doctrins of individualization of the soul, Rom 13:1 can suffice. "Let every SOUL be subject to governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and authorities that exist are appointed by God." Considering these verses in Rom 13 along side Ephesians 5, we can see a parallel of God's plan for everyone (husband, wife, man, woman - everyone) for submission. (NOT slavery.) "To be subect to" can be translated to mean - to come into, to merge into a larger life, but still maintaining the individualization of the soul, for the greater good and greater performance. This sort of "subjection" would make any marriage a dynamic force for God's kingdom if each party recognized and accepted that Jesus Christ is REALLY "the boss," and we are to first be subject to Him and His word. Then to one another, and then other governing authorities. The "women's lib movement" from back in the late 60's and into the 70's sent a shockwave through out the world that is to this day STILL challenging the validity, truth and "fairness" of God's word. Most women - especially in America and western cultures - are infuriated at the very idea that they are "supposed to be submissive." This is human pride. Nothing more. It doesn't matter if you're male or female when one has a pride-hardened heart and stands defiant against God's word. (This is likely why Rom 12:21 leads directly into Rom 13:1.) I hope this is helping, and not making it more confusing for you, Joy. God's word is the ultimate authority by which we will be judged. The Holy Spirit has given you this "check in your spirit" to prompt you to find His peace for you in His word for you. Submission does not mean slavery. It's the humble and contrite heart that God looks upon with great favor, and raises up. Abounding in His grace, XRing |
||||||
2 | Looking at this in another way | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124407 | ||
I think I should clarify a bit. I don't think that the act of submission is slavery, but I wonder if we should apply/interpret that passage with the same light that we apply the slavery passages. There are 3 major passages dealing with submission and each of them is linked to a passage on slavery - we say that the bible does not condone slavery, but don't treat the submission passages at all the same way even though the context of marriage was SOOOOOO DIFFERENT at the time of the writing. I guess I am looking for the "rules" that we are using to interpret - why do we SOMETIMES use cultural explanations as in the slavery passages, as well as the head-covering passages, and the women speaking in church passage? I don't think that just because "marriage" is a bigger heading that we should necessarily assume to carry those submission verses into today. Again, I wonder how much Paul is talking about marriage in general, or if it is more specific to the time - is he not talking about the specific hierarchy that existed back then - that the women were definitely subordinate, lower-class citizens. Note the question I posed from above: Why don't we read/interpret the verse like, "as long as the culture supports and condones the suppression of women, and the defining of women as less than equal - Wives, submit to your husbands." Read the 1 Peter passage that way just for kicks - it seems to totally flow with the context and make a lot of sense - or am I wrong? | ||||||
3 | Looking at this in another way | 1 Pet 3:1 | srbaegon | 124428 | ||
Hello Joy, You ask a question that stirred my interest: "why do we SOMETIMES use cultural explanations as in the slavery passages, as well as the head-covering passages, and the women speaking in church passage?" An excellent question. I would come at the head-covering and speaking passages as normative rather than cultural. That way it cannot be dismissed as cultural but will be properly applied today. Therefore, what Peter and Paul say concerning marriage is altogether relevant regardless of the culture. Steve |
||||||
4 | Is everything literal? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124457 | ||
So then you would say that women should be silent in church and wear head-coverings? | ||||||
5 | Is everything literal? | 1 Pet 3:1 | srbaegon | 124460 | ||
Hello Joy, Yes, women should be silent and wear head-coverings. I will qualify silence by saying there is nothing forbidding singing the songs, rather it's the teaching aspect. Steve |
||||||
6 | What about reading the announcements? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124483 | ||
Though I totally disagree with you, I commend you for your consistency. Would you also then say that women should not speak even as a guest Missionary (for a 5 minute clip), or to lead worship, or to sing a solo? | ||||||
7 | What about reading the announcements? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124488 | ||
joyduncan First the verse you discussing is 1 Cor. 14:34 “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.” What does it say, women should be silent. Then is says they are to be submissive and if we read on the next verse says if they have a question they should ask their husband at home. First women aren't to be submissive to all men just wives to their husbands and daughters to their fathers. Secondly if it was talking about all women what would those that have question and aren't married do? Therefore it can’t be talking about all women being silent in church, we have the whole thing wrong somewhere. But where? Now let us go back to context. In prior verse it says God is not the author of confusion but rather the author of peace. What would cause an unpeaceful situation in the church? Merely a women talking or something else? Let’s read on, it says women are to be silent and if they have a question ask their husband at home. Why would asking a question cause an unpeaceful situation? Well many said the women sat on one side and the men on the other and for a wife to ask a question she had to holler across the church. Hogwash. These were home churches and women probably passed through the gathering insuring the comfort of everyone. So what could it be? How could a question cause an unpeaceful situation? What if the question was asked in a way to embarrass her husband? Perhaps she was mad at him and rather than be submissive decided to publicly embarrass him. We know the man is to be the priest of the home, and was responsible for the religious education in the family. What if the wife in an effort to get even (as opposed to submitted) decided to ask a question that would make everyone question what the man was teaching his family. A question like, “do I really have to sweep the floors to be saved?” I imagine that would start a fight that could get real interesting. Doesn’t that make more sense to say a wife should be submissive to her husband not questioning him in public but to remain silent and if there is a question ask at home, than saying all women are forbidden to talk in church, or this was cultural thing where women were hollering across the church etc. EdB |
||||||