Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still looking for black and white | 1 Pet 3:1 | Hank | 124487 | ||
Joy: It isn't a matter of consideration of HOW applicable the "submission passages" are. They are either fully applicable or they are not applicable at all. God's commands, His principles, His truth are not meted out by degrees of applicability. His commands to Noah concerning ark building, the illustration I used in a previous post, applied solely to Noah and his immediate family. They did not apply to Abraham, Moses or the apostle Paul -- or to present-day believers. The changing times that have occurred across the centuries since Noah's day, and that occur in our society still, have had absolutely nothing to do with the applicability of God's commands to Noah. The commands applied to Noah and only Noah then, and they apply to Noah and only Noah now. They did not apply to Noah one hundred per cent and to present-day believers fifty per cent or twenty-five per cent because times have changed, and we must make adjustments in the degree of their applicability to us. ..... But the "submission verses" have nothing to do with the one-time-only building of the ark. The "submission verses" that first appear in Scripture are in Genesis 3. They pertained to the divinely ordained relationship between man and woman -- not to Adam and Eve alone. All subsequent scriptural passages, which for convenience we will continue to call "submission verses," that touch upon God's commands concerning the right relationship between man and woman, clearly encompass all men and all women. They have no expiration date. They are as applicable now as when they were first revealed by the Spirit of God. --Hank | ||||||
2 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124513 | ||
Hank, you mention Noah's building of the ark. It seems so obvious to us that we should draw conclusions from the principles, and not to go out and build our own ark. But there are so many other verses that don't seem as clear cut. You are applying a principle that we would not follow an exact interpretation of the Word -go and build our own arks- if that passage applies soley to the particular person at that particular time, right? You also mention that we need to either follow the apply the passage 100 percent or 0 percent. But don't we draw principles of obedience from Noah's building of the ark? In a way then it would seem that we do follow it to a degree. Again, then I would pose another question to clarify - would you say that women should wear headcoverings in church and that they should be completely silent in the services? And if you do not feel that those should be applied 100 percent, why not? What would be the principle -universal and general, I would hope- that would allow present day Christians to ignore these rules? I have posed this question to a lay-counsellor I know, and he started going into the particular problem and culture of the Corinthians, bla bla bla. I don't know why we are so willing to start going down that path with the head-covering issue, and not see how similar the submission issue is. I think that if we are going to consider the context and culture of the headcoverings then we should consider the context and culture of the submission passages. (When I talk about the submission passages, I am generally talking about the 3 - Eph 5, Col 3, and 1 Pet 3. Are you thinking of any others that mention submission particularly?) Let me also mention that I am not a "women's libber." I still feel uncomfortable in a church with a female pastor, but I think that most of that is because of my tradition, not becasue of convictions on this issue, at this point anyway. |
||||||
3 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124523 | ||
Greetings Joy! May I extend Hank's argument? A cultural arguement should be used only sparingly and where Scripture supports such an interpretation. I believe that 'head coverings' is such an issue. The context of 1 Cor. 11 has to do with impropriety in worship. One of the principles that Paul establishes in 1 Cor. is that one should not do anything that would harm another's faith - such as eating meat to idols. I believe that the section on 'head coverings' is another such issue. No where in Scripture are woman commanded to cover their heads. Yet, this practice was a common Jewish custom. So, Paul seems to simply be saying that women 'should' cover their heads rather than bring disgrace to themselves or their husbands in public. Paul, personally, had no problem with eating meat that had been offered to an idol. However, he urged believers to change their behavior when it might impact others. I believe he is doing the same thing with the 'head covering' issue. So, in the case of 'head coverings', 'meat offered to idols', and even 'circumsicion', there certainly is an element of cultural perspective, not univeral command. There is a difference with the submission issue, since all Christians are commanded to submit to one another. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124527 | ||
Tim You said, "A cultural argument should be used only sparingly and where Scripture supports such an interpretation." I say it is a slippery slope wherever it is used. Today we see the same tactic being used by the homosexual community. As for the headcovering issue what is a women's head covering? 1 Cor. 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. Perhaps rather than dismissing this as merely a Jewish custom we should read it in context with 1 Cor. 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. Perhaps Paul was saying women who have haircuts in an attempt to imitate men should not try to appear righteous. As for meat offered to idols, your right we don’t have many physical idols but how many lives are destroyed eating meat offered to the idol of more material worth, more power, more notoriety? Instead of dismissing we need to seek the truth in what the passage is saying. Not hunt for a legalistic law but rather the life lesson God is teaching us. EdB |
||||||
5 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124540 | ||
Greetings EdB! I respect your right to disagee my friend, but I do believe that there are some parts of Scripture that are clearly cultural, and not universal. We are no longer commanded to be circumcised, yet Timothy was to appease the Jews. We are never commanded to wear Phylacteries (Sp?), but Scripture gives direction concerning how to wear them. As far as meat offered to idols in concerned, spritualizing can be even more dangerous than culturalizing Scripture. ;-) The fact is, we simply don't have people offering meat to idols - so the directions concerning it no longer apply to us. I do agree that there are some spiritual principles that can be drawn even from these examples. My basic approach is this: 1) Is the passage dealing with a specific command only to an individual or a group. Timothy is commanded to bring Paul's books to him in prison. Obviously, Paul did not expect me to bring him his books - even though my name is Timothy. :-) 2) Is the passage dealing with a command at all. For instance, there is not a single command for women to cover their heads in Scripture. Though Paul does talk about this being something they ought to do. To me, this is a good example of a cultural indicator. This would rule out explaning away homosexuality since Scripture gives specific commands regarding this practice. Furthermore, the commands cover both the Old and New Testaments. 3) Is there some specific cultural custom being discussed? I only know of a handful of passages that I would classify as cultural, and not one of them contains a command. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | More rules may be good | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124563 | ||
I really like the spirit of this - rules seem so easy to follow - but (and I know I sound like a lawyer here) all of the rules are subject to semantics - what constitutes a "cultural custom"? How can you tell absolutely if the passage is commanding or suggesting (Proverbs can be difficult here specifically, I think)? What would make up a "specific command only to an individual or a group" (for instance - the book of Ephesians was written to the specific group of Ephesians)? | ||||||
7 | More rules may be good | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124582 | ||
Greetings Joy! Part of the answer is that Greek has a specific form for many commands. So, they are easy to identify. There are some rare exceptions where a certain word may be either imperative or indicative, but most are clearly one or the other. By specific commands, I would refer to those expressly indentified as being only to an individual. Earlier, I had used the example of Paul commanding Timothy to bring his books to him. This is clearly not a universal command. However, in other places, Paul says that he commands all men, everywhere to do certain things. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Greek and the application door | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124601 | ||
Sure - the indicative mood (the most common of the 4) makes a statement or asks a question, whereas the imperative mood expresses the command - but could that be a little over-simplified? Isn't the present active imperative stronger in its command than the present middle imperative or the present passive imperative? By the way, I think the submit word in the 1 Pet. 3:1 verse is in the middle voice (isn't it a passive middle imperative? Forgive me, I may be a little rusty here.) When I was talking about semantics though I was referring more to your interpretive rules. Even if we identify that the Greek word used was in the imperative, we would need to define weather or not it was denoting a "cultural custom" - we would need a definition here - and a definition of what exactly a "specific command only to an individual or a group" is. I don't know that we can totally have an answer here - so I pose the question - can we really say that we have objective rules for application/interpretation? When we find ourselves getting into the nitty gritty of what rules to use when and where, haven't we completely opened the door (for open interpretation of many other passages)? Isn't the only protection from this kind of relativism a completely literal application of scripture? Do you see what I'm getting at - if the exception or interpretative filter isn't taken to its "Nth degree" we don't really see the potential repercussions of our treatment of the Word. By the way guys, you have completely "hooked" me -I am a studybibleforum junkie - I'm supposed to be working, but I can't tear myself away! |
||||||
9 | Greek and the application door | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124622 | ||
Greetings Joy! Withdraw can be tough for a junkie! :-) In general, an imperative is an imperative. One voice isn't necessarily stronger than another, nor is one tense necessarily stronger than another. However, individual words can actually change meanings in different voices. So, one must always be aware of that possibility. Just so I am clear, my number one rule is whether or not a command is actually given. After that is determined, I would only consider it limited in scope if it were addressed to a specific individual with a very limited scope. Other than that, any general command would be binding, even it was also a custom. As far as 'submit' in 1 Pet. 3:1 is concerned, it is actually a Present, Middle, Participle. In this case, it is probably used as an imperative, but the form is not imperative. Well, I have to run now! God Bless! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||