Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
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 | joyduncan | 124344 | ||
I have been really struggling with some of the interpretations I am hearing of how to follow the directive for a wife to submit to her husband. I have been reading the verses in the Bible dealing with this subject and I've noticed that often the issue of slavery is not far in front of or behind the writers mention of submission. This, of course, is the case in 1 Peter, as my pastor had mentioned a couple of weeks ago. If I remember correctly, my pastor noted that the Bible did not support or condone slavery, rather gave directives with how to operate or submit within its confines. Why is it that we don't see the issue of women submitting to husbands in the same light? At the time of the writing of 1 Peter, abuse and suppression of women was completely normal, as was the institution of slavery. Women were often viewed as little more than slaves and as the property of the husband, weren't they? So why don't we see that the "institution of suppression of women" (for lack of a better term) was not supported by the Bible, and that the Bible was only giving directives for women to submit under that authority as long as it existed? Therefore that passage would have as much application as the verses pertaining to slavery - we would glean only the general concepts and principles. It is so easy for us today to see slavery as sinful, but it seems like we do the reverse by interpreting the wives/submission verses by continuing many of the sinful traditions of the past. 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." Isn't that how we are reading the slavery verses? Weren't the roles of men and women during the time of the writing of the Bible a good example of an authority structure that we in America no longer adhere to, therefore don't need directions on operating within? I also would like to know why it is that we so literally are applying the 1 Peter verses, and others like them, but discount the verses pertaining to women wearing head-coverings. Also, Paul very specifically notes that women were not allowed to speak in the churches (1 Cor) - but we don't follow that literally today either. I am very confused by what seems like inconsistent interpretation. I have struggled with these verses and their interpretations for another reason as well. In my professional background, I have had a lot of experience with the DISC assessment, or others like them, which attempt to classify behavior and personality into 4 basic categories - sometimes they are also called Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy. Every message that I have heard with regard to the role of women has described the women's character or role as being almost textbook "S" or phlegmatic - as if we had been given a prescription for a certain personality. It would seem that women are not allowed to be choleric, or at least I have never heard anyone in the church describe how a marriage should work specifically when, due to personality styles, the wife is a choleric, the natural leader, the idea person, the pioneer, and the husband is the phlegmatic, or quiet, easy-going, even-tempered one. Please know that I am searching for truth, not a "way out" or a convenient loophole with any of my questions. I am not trying to be argumentative or insubordinate. I do believe that the Bible is the complete Word of God - I completely believe in the verbal-plenary view of scripture. But I need to see consistent interpretations, or I am left with nothing but confusion. Could someone help me out with this struggle? All truth is God's truth. :) |
||||||
2 | Is submission of wives for today? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Hank | 124444 | ||
joyduncan: This short response is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of the Bible's teaching either on slavery or the fairer sex by any means. But there is in your post regarding the treatment of slaves and women, a phrase that is especially interesting and, for that matter, troubling. It is this: "as long as the culture supports and condones..." This is a particularly reckless and dangerous way to go about exegeting the Bible. God's word, Scripture, is eternal (see, e.g., Isaiah 40:8), and its truths are for all times and all cultures. It was never written with the intent to be culturally and politically correct or applicable only to a certain time or place -- and then dismissed as being no longer relevant. God's word never has been in line with what "culture supports and condones" -- not when it was written and not in our time. Nor was it ever meant to cater to or be subservient to the ways of sinful society in any age at any time. Today, for example, "culture supports and condones" homosexuality, abortion, divorce for any cause whatever, and is marching toward full sanction of same-sex "marriage." Are we therefore to redefine what the Bible says about immorality, murder, infidelity, and marriage? Do we have the authority to re-image God to our personal tastes and preferences and to bend His eternal word to fit current social mores and human standards of right and wrong? ....... Incidentally, the plan for the respective roles of man and woman, and their relationship to one another, was divinely established in Genesis 3, ages and ages before a word of the New Testament was written. There is no evidence whatever in Scripture that God ever has altered or ever will alter His plan to bring it into compliance with what "culture supports and condones." --Hank | ||||||
3 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124456 | ||
I agree with you - we can get into dangerous ground when we "interpret away" any directive of the Bible. But the alternative is to say that the Bible supports slavery, silence of women in church, headcoverings, and the like, right? Would you say that we should follow these instructions literally? | ||||||
4 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | srbaegon | 124461 | ||
Hello Joy, If I might comment on just one part of this. The Bible neither supports nor abolishes slavery. It regulates it. Slavery is alive and well in the U.S. penal system. Whether community service or a work farm, it's still slave labor at the core. Steve |
||||||
5 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124485 | ||
I totally agree with you. But I was thinking the same thing with regard to "supression of women" - it does not support it, nor did it abolish it - it regulated it with the submission passages. | ||||||
6 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124489 | ||
joyduncan The submission is this verse has nothing to do with suppression of women. The word used for submission here is very similar to the meaning of the word Roman soldiers used to connect their shields to form a turtle. The turtle was a very unique battle formation where the soldiers linked their shields together. On side of the shield held a loop and the other a hook. You can imagine the confusion if every soldier tried to hook his loop to the guy next while trying to hook is hook also. Nothing would get done and everyone would be frustrated. Each man would upon command would offer his loop to the hook of the solder next to him and in order they would “submit” to the next until they were all linked together. In every situation there has to be a tie breaker or nothing would get accomplished each would be trying to hook his hook and loop and his loop. God in his wisdom said man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. How much was that? Did Jesus lord Himself over the church? No He served the church, giving His life for the church, yet He is the head of the church. Does that mean He suppresses the church? No. It means when a decision is made it is His responsibility of leadership to look out for the welfare of the church and make the right decision. Now man is to model that, does that mean he is to lord his position over his wife suppressing her. No it means he should so love his wife that he would be willing to give up his own desires for her welfare. In effect die of self for her, to become one flesh with her. Thus feeding her desires is feeding his. But there is also a requirement of the wife, she is to allow him to make that decision not to try to force her will upon him. Suppression of women only comes when men put their interest above the welfare of the wife, that is they fail to love the wife as Christ loved the church. The failure here is not in God’s command it is in our human failure to properly apply it. EdB |
||||||
7 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Country Girl | 124499 | ||
Excellent treatment of the subject in perfect support of God's Word. Blessings to you, dear friend. Country Girl | ||||||
8 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124517 | ||
I am so glad that there is another woman in on this with me! Thank you for your support! Are there any more women out there? | ||||||