Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124516 | ||
I'm sorry - I must not be communicating correctly - I didn't mean to say that the Greek word for submission here meant supression, rather that the unspoken truth there was that there MOST CERTAINLY was a supression of women - and from what I have read, it's not like America before women had the right to vote - it was - YOU ARE YOUR HUSBAND's PROPERTY - as is his slave, his child, and his camel. It was probably very similar to the Taliban's treatment of their women. We cringe at that when we see it today but forget about that major part of the picture when we read the verses. I am wondering why we don't see that Paul was trying to regulate women within this cruel system (very similar to slavery). He could regulate their actions by the directives given to submit, and therefore also stop the fall-out that would have occured if the men of the day saw that "this new Jesus religion" was one that caused their slaves to stop working or their wives to get the idea that they could buck the patriarchal gender roles of the day. | ||||||
3 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124522 | ||
joyduncan I think your taking the Hollywood version of how women were treated in Judaism and later Christianity. Read Proverbs 31 and tell me the woman here was a Taliban woman. Read the stories of Mary and Martha or any of the women that followed Jesus as he travel throughout Israel and tell me they were Taliban women. Remember what we see in the middle east today is not the result of Judaism or Christianity but rather a man made religion Islam. Also know that women's condition did not sink to the state until nearly 500 years later when Islam was invented. We can't expect Jesus or Paul to address issues that never existed. Later we see nearly same conditions for women happen in Europe and America. Why ignorance of God's word. Men read a passage that said women should be silent, women should be in submission and that was enough for them. Had the same passages used men instead of women you would have seen how quick they would have been to put them rightly in context. :-) Again I think you view of slavery is through the eyes of Hollywood and cases of mistreatment. The word slavery to use means whips and chains, families torn apart, women raped and children abused. This is not slavery by rather man's abuse of another called slavery. All of that is clearly condemned in scripture. Read the scriptures on the treatment of slaves. On the issue of slaves neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever spoke against slavery only the mistreatment of slaves. In fact slaves are admonished to work and serve their master well in scripture. In some cases we call slavery good. In Germany after the war, the people in the neighboring towns were forced into slavery to clean up the Concentration Camps burying the death and cleaning up the filth. We call that good and justified it by saying now they can never deny it. The scriptures also speak against enslaving ourselves. Which is very common is society today. Anyone that has a mortage or loan is in fact enslaved to the lien holder. EdB |
||||||
4 | Was it like the Taliban? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124558 | ||
So, you've got me thinking - the "taliban view" of women is from what I've read, not necessarily from Hollywood. Does anyone else have some hard and fast information re: what the real treatment and view of women was at that time? Or does anyone know of a really good place to go for historical information on this? My guess though, from the information that I've read, is that there probably was a much greater range of acceptable treatment of your wife. I'd love some more feedback (as factual as possible) on this. Wow - I've so enjoyed having so an awesome forum for discussion. This is the first one I've joined in on - do they normally go this far? I love it! |
||||||
5 | Was it like the Taliban? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124608 | ||
joyduncan Again I gave you some places to read. Read Proverbs 31 and see if there is any indication that women of the time were thought of as Taliban women. Read the gospels and how the women supported Jesus' ministry again not as suppressed women but actually as philanthropists. Read the rest of scripture and see if you can find a place where Jewish or Christian women were treated as Taliban women by Jewish or Christian men. Read the book Manners and Customs of the Bible Times, Moody Press or The Life and times of Jesus the Messiah, Edersheim Press or Today’s Handbook of Bible Times and Customs, Bethany Press or The Heart of Hebrew History, Broadman press. EdB |
||||||
6 | Was it like the Taliban? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124627 | ||
Just this morning though I was reading in John 4 that Jesus' disciples were surprised to find him talking to a woman. That sounds a little indicative of general supression, don't you think? I do agree that Proverbs 31 and other passages may seem to give women more place, more standing in society. Proverbs 31 though was written hundreds of years before the NT. I guess there probably was quite a span in treatment of women to go along with the huge span of time that passed during the writing of the Bible. Thank you for the other references. I have also been told that there is an excellent book on this entire thread of converstaion called Slavery, Women and Homosexuality that I am going to have to check out. | ||||||
7 | Was it like the Taliban? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124628 | ||
joyduncan John 4:27 And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why are You talking with her?" First single Jewish men did not speak to a single woman not because she was beneath them, remember there is not command in the scripture for woman to submit to man, the command pertains only to married couples. They did this because it could be mis-interrupted and they be accused of some indiscretion. So in fact this was done to protect BOTH their reputations. Secondly this woman was a Samaritan, Jews had no contact with Samaritans. Therefore the disciples were surprised by Jesus’ openly breaking that cultural barrier. EdB |
||||||