Results 1 - 18 of 18
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: joyduncan Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Adding more info to the role of women ? | Gen 2:18 | joyduncan | 124898 | ||
I spoke today with a good friend of mine who is a liberal evangelical in terms of her view on the role of women. It was very enlightening. One thing she mentioned was that the Hebrew word in Gen. 2:18 is very often badly translated as "helper" when many Hebrew scholars today, liberal or conservative, would translate it "partner". I'd like to get some feedback from anyone who does know some Hebrew. Is this really the case? | ||||||
2 | A question for all men - please answer! | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124605 | ||
I like your thinking here, because you are addressing the major differences culturally in the roles of women. Can I ask you, and any other man who happens to be following our thread, to tell me simply how often you think that a husband should have to even mention submission to his wife - or should he at all? Do you think that a man who is totally fulfilling his Christ-like duty to love his wife would ever have to ask his (Christian) wife to concede on an issue? How often in your Christian marriages have you come to "impasses" that resulted in you having to "pull rank"? | ||||||
3 | 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! |
||||||
4 | What are interlocutors? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124569 | ||
It's great to get such diversity as well - I am noticing extremely conservative evangelicals, Catholics, lay people as well as pastors, -how cool! What are "interlocutors"? | ||||||
5 | Grey? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124566 | ||
So why, with such a specific and direct command for women to be silent, would there be a grey area at all? Steve - your opinions, though toughest to follow, and most out of the mainstream, seemed to be the most consistent (until the grey :) If one is going to follow the Bible literally in it's every Word - I think that one has to follow it as you are. |
||||||
6 | Socratic method gone wild! | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124565 | ||
Thanks Emmaus - is that your real name - I love it! I am totally new to studybibleforum.com - is this "thread" pretty common - I can't believe the volume of responses! It's awesome. By the way, do you happen to know if I can print the whole thread at once - or do I need to print each posting separately? | ||||||
7 | 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)? | ||||||
8 | Holy Spirit needed | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124561 | ||
Tim, I agree that it is clear that all Christians are commanded to submit to one another. It also makes sense to say that head coverings, food offered to idols, and circumcision have "element(s) of cultural perspective, not universal command" - female submission also has that element, since the context was so different, right? When it comes down to it, it seems like there has to be a reliance on the Holy Spirit and an admission of subjective thought. We could keep going round and round but I feel like we will likely end up in the same place - we have to see that there is certainly an element of subjectivity - of man's opinion as to how to apply these passages. It's very difficult for me - I really want to see black and white - probably because it would be purer - not influenced by the generation, or the cultural sin at the time. I guess I want to feel that what I am following is the clear, pure, honest truth that God was trying to communicate - but I think I am going to have to settle with opinion. I don't mean to sound pessimistic - maybe I am expecting too much. |
||||||
9 | 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! |
||||||
10 | 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. |
||||||
11 | What about reading the announcements? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124483 | ||
Though I totally disagree with you, I commend you for your consistency. Would you also then say that women should not speak even as a guest Missionary (for a 5 minute clip), or to lead worship, or to sing a solo? | ||||||
12 | Still looking for black and white | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124480 | ||
So then, how applicable are the submission passages? Back in Bible times they were extremely revelant, becuase of the hierarchy of the family and because of social norms, which dictated that a women necessarily be subservient to her husband, or any man for that fact. Could we not say then that the principle that is being taught is general subservience to each other - man to woman, woman to man, employee to employer, Christian to Christian, etc - the principle of others first. It is a principle that the context of the verses would support, as well as the rest of the Bible. In the submission verses, the principle is more narrowly applied in the context of the culture. The principle today however would take on a different shape, right? I promise, I am really not trying to be argumentative. If I don't question this to it logical conclusion, it just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I keep looking for more concrete and discreet "rules of application" - because it seems that if there aren't any, the application becomes completely subject to man's opinion and sin, as well as being subject to the paradigms which we hold and subconsciously apply to it. |
||||||
13 | Is everything literal? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124457 | ||
So then you would say that women should be silent in church and wear head-coverings? | ||||||
14 | 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? | ||||||
15 | Democracy at work in marriage? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124411 | ||
I really like your explanation. Let me ask you - do you think then that a woman has more of an obligation to be submissive in the marriage relationship? What do you do when, for a difficult decision, both parties feel uncomfortable with the others' choice? Should there be another system to ensure that both parties at times concede and at times take the lead? | ||||||
16 | Through Cultural Eyes - or not??? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124409 | ||
I agree, but I don't want to shape my actions around what is easy or difficult. I just really want to understand the passage in a clear way. Would it be more difficult to have to look at my role as "submissive" - yes, probably. However, it shouldn't change the way in which I would interpret this verse. I don't like the way that we are using certain "rules of interpretation" for certain verses, and totally different ones for other very similar verses. It is especially difficult given the fact that most of the people who seem to be making the decisions as to which "rules" to use are men. So this is what I think I need clarification on - why do we look through such cultural filters for certain passages, and not for others???? I also incidentially studied the greek on this one - hupotasso (sorry I don't know how to type here in Greek font). I've noticed that the Greek is sometimes translated "be submissive" - might this be the best way to look at it - it is a little less direct, but the word used here is written in the middle voice - so perhaps "be submissive" is the best translation - what do you think? |
||||||
17 | Looking at this in another way | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124407 | ||
I think I should clarify a bit. I don't think that the act of submission is slavery, but I wonder if we should apply/interpret that passage with the same light that we apply the slavery passages. There are 3 major passages dealing with submission and each of them is linked to a passage on slavery - we say that the bible does not condone slavery, but don't treat the submission passages at all the same way even though the context of marriage was SOOOOOO DIFFERENT at the time of the writing. I guess I am looking for the "rules" that we are using to interpret - why do we SOMETIMES use cultural explanations as in the slavery passages, as well as the head-covering passages, and the women speaking in church passage? I don't think that just because "marriage" is a bigger heading that we should necessarily assume to carry those submission verses into today. Again, I wonder how much Paul is talking about marriage in general, or if it is more specific to the time - is he not talking about the specific hierarchy that existed back then - that the women were definitely subordinate, lower-class citizens. Note the question I posed from above: 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." Read the 1 Peter passage that way just for kicks - it seems to totally flow with the context and make a lot of sense - or am I wrong? | ||||||
18 | 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. :) |
||||||