-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A full exposition of the function and role of women is required, not some soundbites (although your post is certainly not a soundbite!) - again, I direct everyone's attention towww.arlev.co.uk/col026.htm - a study 'from start to finish' about women that puts the Timothy passage *in context*.
I'm sure it is a good study source...........however I have yet to find a study source that can put Scripture in context better than the Word of God. Scripture supports Scripture..........ALL Scripture is the best source for "context."
I'm sure it is a good study source...........however I have yet to find a study source that can put Scripture in context better than the Word of God. Scripture supports Scripture..........ALL Scripture is the best source for "context."
Agreed! It seems when the word of God goes against the norms of the day, we have good people denying what it actually says and trade it for man's wisdom. Stick with the book and what it says. God knew what He said, and said what He meant. Timothy helps set the order for the body of Christ. This does not degrade women at all. I don't need to know historical and cultural backgrounds. If God wanted me to know those things, He would have gave it to me in His word. "Let God be true and every man a liar."
John 146 said:
"I don't need to know historical and cultural backgrounds. If God wanted me to know those things, He would have gave it to me in His word. "Let God be true and every man a liar."
It may be debatable if you "need to know historical and cultural backgrounds", but it is a fact that in most cases knowing them will enrich your experience and bring you a fuller understanding and insight that you would not have otherwise had.
"I don't need to know historical and cultural backgrounds. If God wanted me to know those things, He would have gave it to me in His word. "Let God be true and every man a liar."
It may be debatable if you "need to know historical and cultural backgrounds", but it is a fact that in most cases knowing them will enrich your experience and bring you a fuller understanding and insight that you would not have otherwise had.
Well..one could argue...look what happened to America when women were allowed to vote.. look how the country went down hill after that....
(I am being totally facetious here just to show how we can make things "appear" to be the problem )
Galatians 3:27-28 (NASB)
[SUP]27 [/SUP] For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
[SUP]28 [/SUP] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I still think many scriptures have to be looked at in context...historically and culturally or we have weird doctrines that make "distinctions " and limit believers in the body of Christ.
But that's just my thoughts.. personally I love to hear what the Spirit of the Lord is saying..whether through a man or a woman as we are all one in Christ.. having differing gifts as the Spirit gave out as He wills..
(I am being totally facetious here just to show how we can make things "appear" to be the problem )
Galatians 3:27-28 (NASB)
[SUP]27 [/SUP] For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
[SUP]28 [/SUP] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I still think many scriptures have to be looked at in context...historically and culturally or we have weird doctrines that make "distinctions " and limit believers in the body of Christ.
But that's just my thoughts.. personally I love to hear what the Spirit of the Lord is saying..whether through a man or a woman as we are all one in Christ.. having differing gifts as the Spirit gave out as He wills..
God has ordained women throughout the ages to help advance the Kingdom, and women who are called by God to preach will be blessed by God with the necessary gifts needed to be effective.
Now I don't want to derail this thread but let me say one more time and leave it at that:
I love Black women preachers because they "bring it." Black women have a passion for glorifying Him that most White women, at least here in the Northeast, simply don't have, and I believe it has a lot to do with true callings as opposed to spurious ones.
Now I don't want to derail this thread but let me say one more time and leave it at that:
I love Black women preachers because they "bring it." Black women have a passion for glorifying Him that most White women, at least here in the Northeast, simply don't have, and I believe it has a lot to do with true callings as opposed to spurious ones.
Last edited:
Y
Quite correct - and something I haven't mentioned yet is that one of the Greek words in I Tim is only ever used there. It's translation is incorrect in most of the translations because they seem to have gone with the interpretations that have preceded them.
Just comparing English versions of the Scriptures is misleading. We need *first* to understand what the Scriptures are actually saying - retranslations are sometimes necessary cos none of us has the perfect translation. Only after understanding what the Scriptures are saying can we understand what it means. And, as you say, some of the historical and cultural backgrounds that we know about make the Scriptures more mind blowing than they are.
If women are saved through childbirth (this isn't about what you've commented on) then the Gospel is null and void - but it's what they must do rather than preach/teach according to Paul here. And if God has bypassed His use of women in the proclamation of the Gospel then He has contradicted Himself. As I said before, the Bible is the context for the I Tim passage. You can't understand it without understanding the Bible's references to women. God hasn't changed...
...btw, in case it comes across as such, I don't disagree with your post.
Just comparing English versions of the Scriptures is misleading. We need *first* to understand what the Scriptures are actually saying - retranslations are sometimes necessary cos none of us has the perfect translation. Only after understanding what the Scriptures are saying can we understand what it means. And, as you say, some of the historical and cultural backgrounds that we know about make the Scriptures more mind blowing than they are.
If women are saved through childbirth (this isn't about what you've commented on) then the Gospel is null and void - but it's what they must do rather than preach/teach according to Paul here. And if God has bypassed His use of women in the proclamation of the Gospel then He has contradicted Himself. As I said before, the Bible is the context for the I Tim passage. You can't understand it without understanding the Bible's references to women. God hasn't changed...
...btw, in case it comes across as such, I don't disagree with your post.
From the Colossians 3:18-19 , from poster John146
"God was subjecting the wife to the husband in marriage relationships but not that He was subjecting woman to man."
Subjugate definition -
I agree, but when the husband is following God's ways, she not really subjecting herself or being submissive, in the way that feminists believe the lie they have put out there, because it is likely she is doing it from the stance of love, not from the perspective of degradation or control by a husband, as the modern movement would have woman believe. Again, it is just another lie from the devil that appealed to the pride of man, actually woman, in this example.
"God was subjecting the wife to the husband in marriage relationships but not that He was subjecting woman to man."
Subjugate definition -
- 1 : to bring under control and governance as a subject : conquer
- 2 : to make submissive : subdue
Submissive definition
1. inclined or ready to submit or yield to the authority of another; unresistingly or humbly obedient: submissive servants.
2. marked by or indicating submission or an instance of yielding to the authority of another:
I agree, but when the husband is following God's ways, she not really subjecting herself or being submissive, in the way that feminists believe the lie they have put out there, because it is likely she is doing it from the stance of love, not from the perspective of degradation or control by a husband, as the modern movement would have woman believe. Again, it is just another lie from the devil that appealed to the pride of man, actually woman, in this example.
If we don't have the perfect word of God, we have no authority to go against this world. If what I'm reading is not perfect, then I don't want it. Who is man to say this is true but this is not true? That makes man the final authority. There are many definitions in the Greek for any given word in Scripture. Who are we to say which is the right one to use?
God's word is enough. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
From the link from poster John 146
Colossians 3:18-19
"It is...usually argued that "rule" here represents harsh exploitative subjugation which so often characteristics woman's lot in all sorts of societies...Women often allow themselves to be exploited in this way because of their urge toward their husband: their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable male demands'While I can affirm the strange way in which female partners stay with their men when they're treated cruelly, the problem with such a position is that it pushes such male behavior to be interpreted as the outworking of God's curse upon man in that they'll subjugate their wives by a direct action of God. In other words, woman's harsh treatment at the hand of man is seen firstly as the result of their sin and secondly as the fulfilment of the work of God.
Attributing such a dominance by man of woman throughout subsequent history to God is hardly a correct assessment of His character - and it becomes an even greater error to think it so when we look at Gen 3:16 again and note that this has nothing to do with man-woman relationships but those between husband-wife.
Even if it was to be conceded that a husband's dominion over his wife was to be 'harsh exploitative subjugation', there's no indication in the text that such a position was meant to be understood as applicable to men and women in general."
Colossians 3:18-19
"It is...usually argued that "rule" here represents harsh exploitative subjugation which so often characteristics woman's lot in all sorts of societies...Women often allow themselves to be exploited in this way because of their urge toward their husband: their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable male demands'While I can affirm the strange way in which female partners stay with their men when they're treated cruelly, the problem with such a position is that it pushes such male behavior to be interpreted as the outworking of God's curse upon man in that they'll subjugate their wives by a direct action of God. In other words, woman's harsh treatment at the hand of man is seen firstly as the result of their sin and secondly as the fulfilment of the work of God.
Attributing such a dominance by man of woman throughout subsequent history to God is hardly a correct assessment of His character - and it becomes an even greater error to think it so when we look at Gen 3:16 again and note that this has nothing to do with man-woman relationships but those between husband-wife.
Even if it was to be conceded that a husband's dominion over his wife was to be 'harsh exploitative subjugation', there's no indication in the text that such a position was meant to be understood as applicable to men and women in general."
Again, from the link John146 posted, an excellent article.
Thank you for that John146.
Colossians 3:18-19
"~The cultures which developed from the Creation seem mainly to have instituted woman in subjection to man and much of the OT is based on this assumption with men being the rulers and important mediators between the gods (or God) and their servants. These are indicators that the set up was assumed to be necessarily as it was being lived out rather than that there was a direct and unambiguous command from God or a reorganisation of man-woman relationships in the Creation following the entry of sin into the world.
The new husband-wife relationship that had been brought about through the Fall seems to have been accepted as the norm for man-woman relationships as well and is rarely - if ever - questioned by those who belong to the ancient cultures represented in the OT.
In such a cultural organisation, it would be difficult for God to have sent a woman to a man-dominated people and to have expected for His voice to be heard even though we'll see that this is exactly what happened on occasions and the 'norm' seems to be that man was raised up as the mouthpiece through which God chose to speak to the people of the earth.
God also chooses to reveal Himself in male terms - even though we must note that masculine titles were indicative of the entire species of man - both male and female - and that in many places it may mean less than it's normally taken as. Nevertheless, God reveals Himself primarily as 'Father ' and not 'Mother' in the NT, Jesus comes as 'Son' and not 'Daughter' and the vocabulary is predominantly masculine - therefore it would be wrong for us to think of God as choosing both aspects of mankind by His self-choice of male vocabulary.
Even so, we must still remember that both male and female were created to reflect God's image, the nature of Jesus Christ, as individuals and not only corporately as husband and wife. Therefore God is able to show Himself through both man and woman because both were channels in the beginning for the outworking of His nature on earth.
The subservience of woman to man is well attested in the OT and needs little comment - but the Mosaic Law is difficult to accept as being a series of absolute laws which are regulations expected to be taken as equally applicable under the new covenant.
There are some here which should be taken with equal seriousness but the Law brought reform to Israelite culture so that the expression of sin might be restricted and that God might be seen to get His will done through their culture rather than for Him to establish a totally different one which was strikingly different, radical and revolutionary."
Thank you for that John146.
Colossians 3:18-19
"~The cultures which developed from the Creation seem mainly to have instituted woman in subjection to man and much of the OT is based on this assumption with men being the rulers and important mediators between the gods (or God) and their servants. These are indicators that the set up was assumed to be necessarily as it was being lived out rather than that there was a direct and unambiguous command from God or a reorganisation of man-woman relationships in the Creation following the entry of sin into the world.
The new husband-wife relationship that had been brought about through the Fall seems to have been accepted as the norm for man-woman relationships as well and is rarely - if ever - questioned by those who belong to the ancient cultures represented in the OT.
In such a cultural organisation, it would be difficult for God to have sent a woman to a man-dominated people and to have expected for His voice to be heard even though we'll see that this is exactly what happened on occasions and the 'norm' seems to be that man was raised up as the mouthpiece through which God chose to speak to the people of the earth.
God also chooses to reveal Himself in male terms - even though we must note that masculine titles were indicative of the entire species of man - both male and female - and that in many places it may mean less than it's normally taken as. Nevertheless, God reveals Himself primarily as 'Father ' and not 'Mother' in the NT, Jesus comes as 'Son' and not 'Daughter' and the vocabulary is predominantly masculine - therefore it would be wrong for us to think of God as choosing both aspects of mankind by His self-choice of male vocabulary.
Even so, we must still remember that both male and female were created to reflect God's image, the nature of Jesus Christ, as individuals and not only corporately as husband and wife. Therefore God is able to show Himself through both man and woman because both were channels in the beginning for the outworking of His nature on earth.
The subservience of woman to man is well attested in the OT and needs little comment - but the Mosaic Law is difficult to accept as being a series of absolute laws which are regulations expected to be taken as equally applicable under the new covenant.
There are some here which should be taken with equal seriousness but the Law brought reform to Israelite culture so that the expression of sin might be restricted and that God might be seen to get His will done through their culture rather than for Him to establish a totally different one which was strikingly different, radical and revolutionary."