Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "women keep silent in the churches" | 1 Cor 14:34 | jesusfreak508@aol.com | 58919 | ||
It is hard to disagree with someone in whom I share so much agreement, and even with exceptions, I am not disagreeing, merely trying to clarify. So-- two points: What law is he referring to, and if it's not Moses delivered, and is Corinth/Roman law, if we are supposed to disregard time/place/circumstances why mention it at all? Second point, v40 of same chapter, "But all things should be done with regard to decency and propriety and in an orderly fashion." Having asked this, though, I do not in any way wish to be implying that I think any Scripture was meant for only the time in which it was written. Even if Paul was referring to local law, I would say that he was reminding them that Jesus also commanded we respect and obey our local authorities and government. Looking forward to your thoughts, Melanie |
||||||
2 | "women keep silent in the churches" | 1 Cor 14:34 | EdB | 58921 | ||
Melanie The law Paul is referring to is the Adamic covenant found Genesis 3 and in particular to verse 16. I'm not sure what you asking in the second part but the reference to decency and order. What Paul is telling us is exactly what nature tells us. God is the author of order and propriety. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman and does not bring confusion or chaos into any situation. Therefore church services should likewise be decent and in order and any hint of confusion or choas is not of God but rather from man EdB |
||||||
3 | "women keep silent in the churches" | 1 Cor 14:34 | jesusfreak508@aol.com | 58930 | ||
But that law says a woman will be ruled by her desires for her husband. And that is just truth. It happens whether we like it or not; even for the feminist who staunchly maintains no man is going to rule over her. It doesn't say he will rule over her. It says she will be ruled by her own love/desire/craving -- for him. Now Jesus did say wives submit to your husbands, but in the context of that verse I can't find any interpretation that would lead me to believe I should accept a secondary or subordinate place. I am to submit to him, but he has to be willing to die for me....I've always felt that pretty much put me up on a pedastal. And I take a lesson in the right attitude for it from Jesus washing His disciples feet. He was serving them, in a role that they saw as that of a subordinate, but it wasn't subordinate at all, was it? Did that make sense? This forum is really teaching me or at least trying to teach me how to articulate my thoughts. It's not as easy as I had always thought. I really appreciate you taking this time for me. Melanie |
||||||
4 | "women keep silent in the churches" | 1 Cor 14:34 | EdB | 58938 | ||
Melanie Reread Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." Your right women by nature prefer their husbands even when they find it might be distasteful. Notice later we see Jesus orders men to love their wives he never had to give that command to a wife. The husband was also given to be the head of family, “he will rule over you”. Jesus defined what that meant, and your right a woman’s place is a place of high esteem, however the husband is still the head. The man is to love, honor, respect, cherish, care for, protect and even be willing to die for his wife. But he is also the tie breaker. That is not to say his wife is his slave, servant, or a piece of meat for sexual gratification, but rather a partner, help mate, advisor, confidant, back watcher, lover, but the husband is still the tie breaker. What Genesis 3:16 and Jesus said other places is this very simply. When a decision must be made and neither can agree, the husband is the final voice. EdB |
||||||
5 | "women keep silent in the churches" | 1 Cor 14:34 | jesusfreak508@aol.com | 58945 | ||
That is something else I am wondering (not as in 'wondering' per se but as in awe of) about with the Bible. So many people with so many different ideas of how to interpret this verse or that, yet they still get to the same central idea or meaning of the verse. I look and v16 in Gen 3 and see the same words you do and I read them much like (as an example) 'you add the yeast to the dough and set it aside, and it will rise'-- the dough will rise BECAUSE I have added yeast and set it aside. 'I will desire and crave my husband, and he will over me'--I will be ruled by my husband BECAUSE I desire and crave him. Yet we both reached the same point: somebody has to have the final say, and God has determined that it's the husband (or the father--or in our day of single parents, the mother). I heard John Davidson on TV years ago say that his wife was adored, cherished, put up on a pedastal, the Queen of his life--but she could never be King. I laughed at that time and wondered if he realized he was being completely Biblical. This is just such an awesome book. Look how it tells us to fellowship with other Christians. If I didn't obey that I wouldn't have ever thought about your point that Jesus never had to order the wives to love their husbands. You give me much to pray about and consider, and all of it valuable. Thank you very much. Melanie |
||||||