Results 1 - 20 of 21
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Rabbi Mark Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is reverence feasible? Always? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66587 | ||
Emmaus: I didn't psychoanalize you. Such comments are really unprofessional. I somehow thought you were professional. Many on this forum do not really seem to be seeking the Truth. They just seek to be right. It is sort of like a King of the Mountain type game. Everyone is conceited in his own opinion. I don't offer opinion, however. So, since I am really doing very little good here. I am going to quit wasting my time on the Forum and do some real work. Nice knowing you. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
2 | Is reverence feasible? Always? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66274 | ||
Emmaus: The Lord Jesus himself said to call no man rabbi or master. I do not consider anyone under my teaching authority. I think your answer to my post is below your standards -- not mine. I guess you couldn't find any scriptural evidence to reprove me and that is why you are upset and vague. You thought that your indignation would mask your error. Don't let it bother you. Try to approach the word without preconceived notions. And steer away from those Study Bibles that teach theology rather than scripture. You'll do much better. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
3 | Is reverence feasible? Always? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66272 | ||
mommapbs: Do you remember the first post that I answered? It was another member of the Forum leaving you a note telling you about your maturity. I challenged that maturity based on what I had read in your note. I had scriptural evidence that contradicted what you had said. And I reproved you. In your biography you welcome anyone to do this. Anyway, after reading this post I can certainly state that you have matured greatly since that first post. I wrote what I did to challenge you to think about what you say. Because we shall be judged for every idle word. When giving advice from the Bible, it is important for me to be 100 percent accurate in what I say, and to be certain that what I say is in context with the rest of scripture. Perhaps I wounded you. But I did so for your edification. See my answer to cyclist. Anway, I'm very glad that you wrote this post back to me. And if I could have come to you privately concerning these matters then I would have. I derived no joy from expressing these views in the open forum. Perhaps I have not earned your admiration mommapbs ... but you have earned mine. Sincerely, Rabbi Mark |
||||||
4 | Is reverence feasible? Always? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66269 | ||
Dear Cyclist: As you well should know, no one scripture can neutralize another. But all scripture works together to show the perfect will of God. In the verses you quote above Paul is addressing the Galations in regards to the issue of pride among them. This is why he says that we are all equal in God's sight. However, Paul states in 1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. I have clicked on mommapbs name and read her biography. In it she welcomes anyone to set her straight if she needs it. But from the very moment she answered one of my post, not even addressed to her, she had antagonism toward me because I did just that. Anyway, I foster no ill will toward her. I write for her edification. Like I said, they are bitter pills to swallow but in the end I hope she examines her heart and her motives and comes away better for it. Why do I do this? Years ago, when I was still young in the Word a friend told me that I had to "Work out my own salvation with fear and trembling." I was aghast. Where does it say that in the Bible, I thought. How can you work out your own salvation? Jesus did that for us. And why should I fear, doesn't perfect love cast out fear? Well, as I continued to study, I found that what he said was written in the Bible, and can be found in Phillipians 2:12. By my error, I learned not to take the Word for granted. I learned to investigate all things very thoroughly before taking a position on it. I began to check into not just what others assume about the Bible but what I assumed myself. Not only did I learn to reprove others with the Word but I learned to reprove myself. Now, I barely speak unless I am absolutely certain of what the Word says, for fear of leading someone astray. And I hope to instill that in mommapbs, Emmaus, and everyone else on the forum. God Bless You for writing, Rabbi Mark |
||||||
5 | Rabbi Mark, can you explain this verse? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66268 | ||
Dear Searcher: Let me just briefly restate the facts. In your previous post you cited that entry no. 5399 in Strong's Greek Dictionary said: "Phobeo (Strong's Number: 5399) means "to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)" ... and in this case to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" I corrected your definition by copying the entry exactly as it appears in the Strongs Dictionary under that entry. 5399 phobeo from 5401; to frighten, ie (pass.) to be alarmed; by anal. to be in awe of, ie. rever:--be(sore) afraid, fear (exceedingly),reverence. Now compare your definition above and my definition below. Are they equal? Then you said, ... "I don't think you should be afraid. The same idea is carried elsewhere (Col 3:22; 1Pe 2:17; Rev 14:7, 15:4, 19:5).. But in your recent post to me you said that you never said that you should not be afraid. Your premise for the whole posting was that the English translations lead to misunderstanding. So I am not really quite sure what you were trying to say ... other than you misquoted the Strongs and you stated that you did not think we should be afraid. In your post you asked me to quote some verses relating to "We should not fear death. We should not fear evil. We should not fear the temptor." They are as follows: Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and boy in hell. Hebrew 2:14-15, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who throgh fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Hebrews 2:17-18 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Psalm 23:4 "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:" Psalm 27:1 "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid." It is a constant theme through out scripture that we should fear the Lord but that He will deliver us from fear of death, temptation and evil. I thought you would have known this. But my previous post was an answer to you according to your statement that you don't think we should fear. If you didn't say that then what did you mean? Rabbi Mark |
||||||
6 | Is reverence feasible? Always? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66113 | ||
Emmaus: You put a great deal of research into this. But none of these verses come close to saying what mommapbs suggested. Mary praising God for recognizing her low estate doesn't come close to mommapbs becoming one with god's heartbeat. And Song of Solomon 1:2-4 is a description of God's relationship with Israel and Israel's relationship with God. Not our individual relationship. So that doesn't qualify mommapbs assumptions either. Again, Revelation 22:17 talks not of personal relationships but of how God see's the New City of Jerusalem. As a bride who awaits her husband. Not as mommapbs attempting to become one with God's heartbeat. And the memorial where Mary washes Jesus feet in Luke 7:36-50 shows how much Mary loved and served Jesus. We all should do this and follow her example. But she wasn't trying to become one with his heartbeat. Sorry, but when I read mommapbs wanting to become one with God's heart beat and intimacy (not love, service and self sacrifice) ... I saw how mommapbs words ring more toward the concept of nervana or buddhism when those worshipers feel they are becoming one with God and actually become God. I appreciate your attempt, but of a truth mommapbs words cannot be reconciled with scripture through the best efforts ... as you have just proven. Now, take a closer look at mommapbs words and tell me what you think she is trying to say. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
7 | Woman's sin worse than man's? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66112 | ||
Dear Beensetfree: Let me see if I am following your logic here. What you seem to be saying is where ever we find silence on a subject in the Bible we are free to infer anything we want. Is that correct? If not, then how can the silence we find here ring like a gong and speak volumes? I'm sort of at a loss to combat this kind of logic. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
8 | Woman's sin worse than man's? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65973 | ||
Dear Robert: No, you did not offend me, my brother. I came home at 2am and found a score of post on my email and none of them having adequate scriptural references. I always check everything I say against the scripture to make sure that I'm not giving out any false doctrine. And this takes time. When I saw your post, I thought of how long it was going to take me to research the four paragraphs you wrote and kicked it back to you to do the research for yourself. I didn't quite understand the points you were trying to make and thought you were shooting from the hip. But now that you have put down your references I see more clearly what you were trying to say. As for the issue with the law, which I think is the most important one to you, I try to abide by Romans 7:25, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord, So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." The law of God (being the law of grace) and the law of sin (being the law of the flesh). I know we are not under the law of sin. We are under grace. I don't argue with you there. But Paul makes it clear that our flesh is constantly at war with our spirit and his remedy was as prescribed above. That is all I was saying about the law. Perhaps I didn't make that as clear as I thought. I only paraphrased the verse in my previous post and did not give any real comprehensive explanation. That is my fault. The other issue you raise is about the husband having responsibilites to the wife. I don't disagree with you on any of this. Yes, the husband has great responsibilites to the wife. But that is a whole other study. I've tried to avoid being side tracked into that and stay focused on the question posted for the study concerning the womans responsibility. That one is complex enough for now. As four our equal standing before God found in Galations 3:28, you do realize the context throughout the book of Galations is showing us not to puff ourselves up because we're all viewed the same before God whether we are Jew or Greek, male or female. It is really a whole other issue as well. But 1 Peter 3:7, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." Now if the wife is a weaker vessel (which makes perfect sense in all regards) this verse suggest some inferiority of the woman. But the central issue behind all of this is Ephesians 5:33, "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence (fear exceedingly in awe) her husband." And 1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Can we use certain Bible verses to neutralize others? Can we say that we've come out of those dark ages into an age of equality and therefore the Word of God does not apply any more? I can't say that Robert. I can see why people of our age get upset about these things. But I also see that this is what God ordained. It is as right today as it was 2,000 years ago. There is no expiration clause that I can find. I can't help what governments have done. Certainly there has been some oppression. But that is not God's fault. Not only have men used God's Word to justify oppression of women but to justify every sin in the book. But you and I have the choice of doing it right. And that is what I want to do. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
9 | Is reverence feasible? Always? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65842 | ||
Dear mommapbs: I have read your previous post to Sebkin and have seen that you repented of your assertion that you do not have to fear God because you are under grace. So I see no need to address that other than to offer you a few New Testament references which tell all of us under grace that we are to fear God. These verses are: 2 Cor 7:1, Ephesians 5:21, Phillipias 2:12. The kind of people who do not fear God are described in the New Testament in Romans 3:12-18, which says, "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes..." I am indeed glad to see that you have had a change in heart concerning fear toward God. The only other thing I see a need to respond to in your post is the following quotes on which you base an intimacy with God upon. You wrote: "When we seek to know the Lord, and listen for His heartbeat, our being will reflect Him more and more and obviously, that will be seen in a life that exemplifies the principles that God has set for us to live by." Having studied the Bible for many years I immediately recognized that not only is this not from the Bible ... there is nothing in the Bible that could be twisted or stretched in any way to even resemble what you wrote. This is a New Age concept. And it sounds very much like Shirley McClain to me. Next you wrote: "Living life by the Law, following Biblical principles will never bring about the abundant life we long for unless we long for the giver of Life as a Bride longs for her husband --the key word is intimacy." Again this concept can be found no where in the Bible. I mean, you actually say, that following Biblical principles will never bring about the abundant life we long for ... unless... But the Bible says in Romans 10:9, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." In other words, following this Biblical principle will give us the abundant life we long for. These two quotes are the perfect example of why a woman should learn in silence and not be suffered to teach. You have proven in your own words that women easily fall prey for spiritual counterfeits. Let me just warn you with these words: "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." James 3:1 In other words, you are responsible for the doctrine you teach and run the risk of condemnation if you lead others astray. I know that it is a hard pill to swallow. But mommapbs, you yourself have fallen victim to spiritual deception. And that is why Paul spoke in the Holy Spirit forbidding women to teach or usurp authority over the man -- for any reason. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
10 | Woman's sin worse than man's? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65810 | ||
Well said Debbie. A woman of wisdom and discernment. If only all women were like you Rabbi Mark |
||||||
11 | Is reverence feasible? Always? . . . | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65647 | ||
Srchng, Your not a fool. You are like us all. Seeking for wisdom. I apologise if I said something that made you feel like a fool or inferior. Clearly, what you have wrote here is a humbleness of heart which is more wisdom than I have seen from any other person who has posted on this site. We have a lot of different types here. We have the real scholar's, we have the want to be scholar's, we have the opinionated, we have the self appointed, and we have the true seekers and true laborer. All of this makes discernment very difficult. Know this, however. Your entire Christian walk will be full of those who will offer to teach you. Some of those will be wolves in sheeps clothing. Others may seem harsh and critical. But test every instruction you are ever given with the Word of God. Read the Bible for yourself. Read it each day. Read from Genesis to Revelation every year. Spend your whole life doing it. It is your only safety in a world such as this. It is hard to do ... for the Bible condemns us as the sinners we are. The Bible shows us how we always fall short. But it also shows us God's love and acceptance. Learn Old and New Testament. They go together. They compliment each other. The New is the fulfillment of the Old. It is the same God. He has not changed. Every question you will ever need to ask was answered by God in the Bible. Don't do like most Christian's today and be Bible illiterate. Accepting blindly doctrine taught from the pulpit. Believe me ... alot of doctrine from the pulpit today is false doctrine. And I have already seen people on this forum quote it as if it were in the Bible. You will be surprised once you read the Bible in its entirety how much false doctrine there is out there. But the good thing is, that the Word of God that does go forth, does not return empty and void. I also obey poorly sometimes. I am a fool. And neither am I a prophet. Nor were my parents. I too am searching for wisdom. I've just been doing it longer. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
12 | Woman's sin worse than man's? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65643 | ||
Dear Debbie Now I will agree with you that Adam attempted to place the blame on God. And this was a defiant act on his part. But for Adam to state the simple facts about what Eve had done is in no way conclusive evidence that he was doing it to place the blame on her. And even if he was blaming her, wasn't he justified in so doing? I don't see how this is significant to the real question at hand. It seems to me to be a kind of side issue that was brought up by Robert to thwart accurate biblical instruction on the subject. After all, his post was full of opinionated rhetoric that would take any minister days to straighten out and answer correctly and accurately. As far as Eve being alone in the garden it is definitely implied. Can we be certain? Perhaps not strictly certain. But taken in context with the way it was written it is reasonable to believe that if Adam had been present his part in this whole thing would have been recorded. I don't believe God would have left out something that important. It is not consistant with His writing in the rest of the Bible. You however, are correct in saying that I do not have proof about Adam taking the fruit to share with Eve what was to come. This is purely my speculation. It is probably what I would have done if I had been Adam. But I offer it as an obvious opinion -- to show that it is as valid as the opinion offered to me by mommapbs. I would never teach it as a doctrine. But I should refrain from such embellishments. It really doesn't do much to further the Truth of the Word. And you do have excellent insight into stating that perhaps Adam not only turned dominion of the earth over to Satan, but also in a sense, turned dominion over to his wife. I'm not aware if this perspective has ever been investigated. It would have to be studied exhaustively to sustain validity of the concept. But it has merit. Clearly, however, if Adam had turned dominion over to Eve, God certainly laid down rules to thwart woman rule when He said, "...Your husband shall rule over you." |
||||||
13 | Worthy of Honor but not of Respect | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65640 | ||
My purpose for coming to the Forum is to offer the Word of God. Which is the final authority on all matters. "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 Those who do not abide by the Word of God always find offense with it. They tend to take this offense out on the individulas who deliver the Word. Thus the death and tortures of the prophets and countless martyrs throughout the ages. Jesus Himself, crucified because the scribes and Pharisees took offense at the Word of God. If God tells the Woman to fear her husband; that is good enough for me. I believe Him. And I believe that His way is best. There is no scripture that gives the woman leeway to decide whether the man is worthy of her fear or obedience. Therefore, I find your position in saying that certain men can be judged by a woman unworthy of her respect and obedience an unreasonable assertion. It is actually putting a qualifier on God's Word. Thus changing it's meaning. Changing the Word of God to suit ones own opinion or thought is a perversion of God's Word. Now I don't think you have perverted God's Word by offering your opinion about what you think. We have all done that at one time or another. But I think a more careful and exhaustive study would be in order before anyone should take it upon themselves to instruct other young Christian's to follow a personal opinion as though it is a biblical doctrine. And I do think you have offered your opinion to others in this manner. There is nothing in the Bible that ever states that it is acceptable for a woman to qualify God's Word concerning God's instruction or that a future time will come in which God's instruction will be invalidated. Therefore, I find no biblical foundation for your argument. If you can prove your position with the Bible (rather than an opinion) please post it to my attention. Your very common platform of may "godly women" is not a biblically based precept that the man of God can go by. God's kingdom is not a democracy. But a theocracy. Nobody votes. Nobody has the right to a contradicting opinion that opposes God's Word in a theocratic kingdom. God has the final Word, always. As far as opinions go, we were warned, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 I also want to make the point that God does not promise us a happy marriage in the Bible. He gives us instructions, that if followed, will lead to a better marriage. That is why I qualified my assertion that "if the man be in gods will ...." Of course it is not always the case that the man be in God's will. So in that case we can expect more problems in a marriage. But God did not provide any instruction that would make obeying or fearing the man optional in the case that the man was not a godly man. After a comprehensive study on this matter, it is clear to me that God intends that no matter what the spiritual state of the man that the woman is to obey God's instruction. There is simply no other scripture that gives the woman this leeway. If the man does not obey God or treat the woman with love and honour the matter is between God and that man. God is able to deliver that woman if He so desire. But God may have that woman in that man's life for a purpose. That woman's example unto that man can be very significant if she be obedient even when the man is not. Life is not easy for the Christian. Isn't it Paul who wrote, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." 1 Corinthinas 15 Certainly, in many marriages today, if in the husband only the wife had hope, she would be of all women most miserable. But the woman is not fearing and obeying the man for the man's sake alone. She is doing it for Christ sake, as a testimony, as an example -- and it is hard in most cases for the woman to do this. You also asked where was Adam in the garden while Eve was being tempted and exerted that he was right there beside her. No, the scripture clearly implies that Eve was alone at the time of her transgression. It equally implies that Adam knew nothing of it until Eve brought the fruit to Adam. Man is not omnipotent. Eve was in the transgression, because Paul said that she was, while he under the influence of the Holy Ghost as he wrote, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim 2:14. You can argue that if you like. But again, if you want to argue it with me, make your argument scriptural. Find something in scripture that reasonably refutes it. Your opinions are your opinions. And unlearned, undisiplined opinions at that. They mean absolutely nothing to me. But I do hope that scripture is important to you. |
||||||
14 | love...as himself (if no self-love?) | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65620 | ||
Sebkin I saw that you went to bat for me against mommapbs. Thanks, but you don't need to do that. I like to read her postings even if she is antagonistic. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
15 | Woman's sin worse than man's? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65619 | ||
Hi Robert: In your first paragraph you say, "What a pathetic excuse! Adam the first man with dominion over all blames the woman because he is not willing to take responsiblity for his own actions "he did eat" Adam did take the responsibility. But he gave a full explanation of what had transpired. Don't you see that he said, "And the man said the woman whom thous gavest to be with me she gave of the tree and I did eat." This is an accurate account of what happened. And Eve deserved the blame. She did give him of the fruit. He never would have eaten it unless she did. So when you say we are still playing the blame game ... your starting your whole premise off on the wrong foot. Adam didn't blame Eve. He simply stated the facts before God. As far as me blaming anybody for anything -- I don't know what your talking about. I think you are misunderstanding my post Robert. You demonstrate that by going way off on some tangents. The tangents you go off on express your opinion. Show me some scripture to validate your position. I know you think these things. And they are easy to say. But not so easy to prove. So if you are up to a challenge ... sit down and prove each and every thing you have written to me in your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs with relevant scripture. Then I'll be glad to answer you. If you prove me wrong with scripture, I will accept that. But why should I sit down with my Bible for hours to refute what you say when you've obviously put no time into researching it yourself. It seems to me you'd only write me another post based on the same whims expressed here. I don't deal in futility. And I am not going to spar with you. Rabbi Mark |
||||||
16 | Is reverence feasible? Always? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65586 | ||
Mommapbs: Did you never read the scripture, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Everything must be taken into proper context. And there is a place for everything. Even fear. And it is good where God says it is good. The original Greek version is far superior in language and meaning than our modern English translation. After all the writers were writing in the Greek language and they knew what they wanted to say. And phobia does mean fear. So I don't think you can argue that the writer, whom was God, did not mean fear. That being settled let us go on to your next point. You say they we are to disregard the law and follow Christ. But we cannot disregard the law and follow Christ. We are not to rely on the law for our salvation. For we cannot be saved without Christ. But just because we are in Christ, are we to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and covet? I think not. We are the more to keep these commandments. Truly we cannot be justified in the law. But as the Apostle Paul points out in Romans we should keep the carnal law in our flesh (body) but the law of grace in our minds. Now lets move on to Adam. Where was Adam when Eve committed the transgression? No my friend, he was not beside her edging her on. She was alone at that time. And she brought the fruit to him to eat. Yes, he partook of it. Why? We do not know for sure. But I believe it is because he would not allow her to stand in that awful place of judgment all alone. But her being bone of her bone and flesh of his flesh he shielded her with his loving arm and said by his act that, "I will face condemnation at your side...we shall die together." |
||||||
17 | love...as himself (if no self-love?) | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65584 | ||
I suppose you could say that a rabbi is a Jewish pastor. Not all rabbi's believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I have believed that Jesus is the Messiah my whole life. Yes, I am saved. As for your question, you are supposing that srchng is a woman. And you are supposing that she is having problems with her husband. This I do not know. srchng has revealed very little concerning whether the intent of the question is related to a real situation or a hypothetical one. What I do know is that srchng, seems to read more into the scripture passage than there is. So, yes, srchng whether male or female, husband or wife, does seem to have a greater expectation for the husband than is commanded in the scripture. And this sentiment is great among the American culture today. This seems right in the eyes of man. But is it right in the eyes of God? The key thing to remember is that the woman was created for the man. And not the man for the woman. The man is not here to serve the woman. And God is not here to serve man. Biblically the man is here to serve God. And the woman is here to help man serve God,not to have the man meet her every emotional whim and need.. The man should love the woman as Christ loves the church, as srchng points out. But srchng should turn to Revelation Chapters 2 and 3 to see Christ relationship with the church. In these two chapters Christ addresses the flaws in each of the 7 churches that he loves and recognizes. Many women would not see this as love. They would want to have positive emotion lavished upon them despite their flaws. Yet Christ does not tolerate the flaws or spots or blemishes of these churches. And although He loves the church and has sacrificed Himself for the church we see that He is stern and that he judges the church. He tells the church to face persecution, trial, and tribulation. Most women would rely on the strength of her husband to deliver her from this. But Christ does not use His strength to keep the church from such suffering. He commends them for going through it. And as Christ loves the church so should a man love his wife. Yes, women seem to want more from a man in today's world than she is reasonably entitled to. This is not respect for the man. It is disrespect. The woman should be constantly seeking how she can help her husband, because she is his helpmate. She should be thankful for his provisions and be thankful to be called by his name. She should submit to her husband her petitions. And Her husband should provide what is reasonable and pray to God for provisions he cannot make himself if that is appropriate. But did you think of this. srchng's hypothetical man may have a mental problem. Suppose he is unhealthy. Suppose he does not take care of himself. Maybe he is depressed. Maybe he is suicidal. Perhaps this is the kind of man in question here. Is this the kind of love a man should have for a woman? Of course not. And unfortunately there are these types of people. The best thing a woman can do in this type of circumstance is be the helpmate she was made to be and to have very little expectation. Her help should come in the form of prayer to God for this man and to do as much as possible to make him feel cared for. If he is violent toward her phyisically, this is not to include verbal abuse, then perhaps she should seperate from him and continue her prayers. I have heard many testimony where such men were saved and became Godly ministers and great husbands. But in each such testimony the woman was the submissive one who prayed and served the man because of her faith. Never did I hear anything that worked out where the woman demanded the man to be more like Christ. Your questions are interesting, Sebkin. But there is too much left for speculation. And I think you assume too much about srchng. Don't make quick and hasty judgments about people or postings. |
||||||
18 | love...as himself (if no self-love?) | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65486 | ||
Dear Robert: Point well taken. But I did not use the word selfish to describe Jesus. And I hope that I did not imply this in my answer. I agree that Jesus had all these things before the cross and that He did not have to suffer any of these things to obtain them. What I was trying to show is that Jesus was not altogether selfless. He bought us with a price. And a person who is buying is not doing this for selfless reasons. It was necessary that Jesus suffer as a sacrifice in order to redeem us. He did not have to do it. But He desired our salvation because of His great love for us which no man can fathom. Personally, I would have scrapped all of us and started over. But I thank God that He is greater than I and that He is merciful and has such love. My intent was to point out that God is not altogether selfless (not inferring at all that He is selfish). And neither does He expect man to be selfless since He created us in His image. Nor do I see anywhere in the Bible where God expects us to be selfless -- although He does expect obedience, sacrifice, suffering, and patience on our part. I like your insight and your answers. Keep up the good work. Shalom |
||||||
19 | love...as himself (if no self-love?) | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65453 | ||
Hi Robert, Very insightful. But consider this. The Lord Jesus did offer himself for our redemption. But is He truly selfless? Is He not to be exalted above all? Is He not to rule the earth? Is not everything to be subdued and put under His feet? Is not everything created by Him and for Him? Is this really selfless? I wouldn't say so. And neither can any man be selfless for we were created in His image. But we are expected to yield ourselves to Him. We are expected to sacrifice ourselves to His work as He sacrificed Himself for us. But we are to reign with Him. But I do agree with you that the man who is enjoying the love of God will show that love to his wife .... and to all humanity as well ... for as you said ... the Holy Spirit indwelling us is love and teaches us love. |
||||||
20 | Worthy of Honor but not of Respect | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65449 | ||
Yes, but it is an opinion. Mature for this age. But not spiritually mature in discernment. Read Genesis 3:16, 1 Cor 14:35-36 and 1 Tim 2:12-14. Hopefully we seek the truth of God and not the opinion of man. What was the sin of Israel in the day of the Judges. Wasn't it that every man did what he thought was right in his own sight? | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |