Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124607 | ||
Tim Tim I don’t think I ever said there weren't cultural issues discussed in scripture, if I did or that was the impression I left, let me clear it up right now there ARE cultural issues in the Bible.. We don't carry wineskins and mill our wheat with oxen. What I’m saying is that scripture is explained away far to many times using, “the well this pertained to the culture of the day and since we don't do thus and such it doesn't pertain to us today.” To that I say hogwash. Here is a cultural precept that was given and is accepted, don't muzzle the ox that grinds the wheat. Instead of merely explaining it away as a cultural thing of the time and we need not worry about it now. We instead looked for the more universal meaning and realized this was an analogy that reinforced another precept that a work man is due his hire. Yet we try to dismiss issues like women be silent in church as dealing with a cultural issue which is doing a disservice to scripture and to women. I believe the man did very little research into what may the scripture be really talking about since it was against women and didn’t effect men. Later as the issue became Politically incorrect another understanding had to be found and found quick. Again very little study was used but great amounts of imagination. Context was ignored and someone envisioned the Puritan church where men and women were separated and hence for a women to ask a question of her husband she would have to shout across the church. This satisfied most “deep’ thinkers and became universally accepted. However the first century church was not a Puritan church at all but rather private dwelling. Women mingled with men. There was no reason to disrupt the church by hollering anywhere. I have given a viable explanation of this precept in another post and won’t bore our readers with repeating it. In the examples you gave with the exception of meat for idols all were Old Testment law of which we are no longer under. As for spiritualizing offerings to idols, I don't think so. I know many people that their job, or home, or children, or possessions have become their idol. I have also witnessed people that have prayed what I would term demonic prayers over their food as a form of offering that we would succeed in their quest for more power, more money, more fame. I sorry we do disagree I say when a precept is given we need to rightly understand how that precept effects us today and not discard it as merely addressing a cultural issue of the day. EdB |
||||||
2 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124623 | ||
Greetings EdB! We don't disagree my friend that cultural can be appealed to too much! :-) I pretty much agree with everything you just posted with the exception of the silence issue. I have posted on it before, but I believe (from my research) that the word used does not refer to 'lack of speaking' but to a peacefulness of spirit that was willing to submit to the leadership of the church. So, I would not take the cultural approach with this passage either! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124629 | ||
Tim You said, "I pretty much agree with everything you just posted with the exception of the silence issue. I have posted on it before, but I believe (from my research) that the word used does not refer to 'lack of speaking' but to a peacefulness of spirit that was willing to submit to the leadership of the church." Evidently you haven't read my posts on this subject. This was not an explicit command for women never to talk in church. Nor was this a command to quail some unique situation that pertained only to the Corinth church. I agree with your findings overall, however I think in this particular passage the women were breaking the peacefulness of the church by asking potentially embarrassing questions. Further more I interrupt this to say they were either doing this deliberately or in ignorance, but the effect was the same, the husband was shamed and peace was broken. In other words the women were going outside of scripture and trying to get even with their husbands by asking a question that would make him seem ignorant, overbearing or totally wrong. A question like, “Is it true to be saved, a women has to keep a perfect house?” This would have shown the man was using religion as whip against his wife and also as the priest of the home was teaching false precepts. In that culture, if you will permit me to use that, this would have brought the church into chaos until the matter was straightened out. Hence the scripture was given for, “peace let the wife submit to her husband and not speak out in effort to make him look bad and to settle the issue at home. EdB |
||||||
4 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124636 | ||
Greetings EdB! I probably read your posts, but didn't remember them! :) Old age! I would agree! Walter Kaiser Jr. proposes that the situation may have even went beyond embarasment to certain women actually rebelling against the church leadership. Either way, the point of the passage definitely seems to be one of proper relationships, not absolute silence. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | EdB | 124638 | ||
Tim Then I think we both agree the explanation that it was a unique situation in Corinth where women sat on one side of the church and men on the other. And if a women having questions would yell over to their husband on the other side of the church is what caused Paul to tell them to remain silent, is total and complete nonsense. However this nonsense is exactly what we hear in many pulpits today. What does that say for the men in the pulpits in this nation today? Blessings to you and yours EdB |
||||||