Obedient Woman

really? who does the man answer to again? Christ?

did God take Eve aside in the garden and tell her 'well look Eve. you ate that fruit and gave some to Adam so I am going to have to just make a new Eve and we'll start over.'

God directed the correction to Adam.

perhaps you are being too lenient on the behavior of men who think women should obey while they 'work at it' and too bad if they don't get it right the first 100 times. women should just bite their lower lip and make supper

She came off as one. I am sorry if I was mistaken. Usually, feminists have problems with the teaching of the Bible on wives submitting to husbands, and many other women who have a problem with that in western culture due to the influence of femist philosophy on education, media, etc.

And now you make a bunch of junk up. In this forum, I've basically been repeating the fact that the Bible teaches wives to submit to their husbands, and pointing out for some reason women have a problem with that. We've talked about a few other things, concubines and such.

So why do you get so bent out of shape you want to make stuff up about me, that I am against women reading or writing? As far as women voting, I'm not 100% committed one way or another on that. If it turns out more Democrats have gotten elected because women vote, and I could push a button to rescind that amendment, I might consider it. Of course, if I could push a button that kept feminists or ultra-left wingers of both genders from having the vote, I might consider that also. I don't see anyone in particular voting as an 'inalienable right' in scripture. Votes are only as good as the electorate doing to voting and those counting the votes.

Have you gotten married? Do you godly young men concerned about the word of God are going to want to marry a woman who types stuff like that? Maybe you snagged your fellow already. But if you haven't, you should consider this.

There are two exegetical possibilities in Ephesians 5 compared to the rest of scripture. One is that Paul says to submit to one another and says who exactly is supposed to submit to whom. The other is that Paul is saying generically to submit to one another, but lays a special emphasis and responsibility on women to submit to their husbands 'as unto the Lord' and 'in everything'. He repeats the instruction to wives to submit to their husbands--without a statement that can be construed as 'mutual submission' in Colossians 3. Peter says for wives to submit to their husbands just as Sarah ___obeyed___ Abraham. If I think I have a problem with the idea of women reading, then you can prove to me that as a woman you can read by reading those passages. The issue, here, is not reading, but one of submission, not only of wives to husbands, but of women who have a problem with scripture to its teachings.

You seem to associate a wife submitting to her husband with a man yelling at her. I think you have a wrong concept in your mind and maybe you think of something abusive when you read 'submit' and that might keep you from processing what scripture actually says and accepting it. Also, if you are married and submit to your husband and treat him with the respect/reverence Ephesians 5, it might be less likely that he yells at you. if you are married, do you yell at your husband?

I can't think of a time I've picked up my Bible, waived it at my wife and yelled at her. Maybe you have a different set of experience, and different pictures come into your mind when you read about wives submitting to their own husbands. Don't attribute all these ideas to me.

we are not living in Eden any longer. we are now all joint heirs with Christ and every believer has the same instructions

women are also a new creation in Christ and and no longer as was Eve

just more massaging of scripture to give it a twist in favor of men

for the record, I am not anti men

I am anti men who think they are God's gift to women and above reproach

What country do you live in? Women are people to. In the US and much of Europe, they are fed a steady diet through the education system and media against the idea of submission to husbands, and fathers for that matter. Women are human beings and are capable of sin even if the husband is doing well. Just like men can be bad even if their wives treat them well.

Christ is perfectly loving, but those churches in Revelation did not perfectly submit to Him in all things.

What kind of agendas are we talking about? Getting his wife to help him rob a bank, or something that isn't really clear from what the Bible teaches?

Huh?

That's not the topic at all. I was not arguing for polygamy. Look at the highlighted words in my post. Keturah is called a concubine. Keturah is called a wife. She was both. Concubines are wives. They are wives that became wives because the husband took his slave to wife, or his father's slave as a wife. But still wives.

I suspect anyone who has read the life of Abraham carefully knows that Sarah was dead. It was not my intention to imply otherwise.

I don't know if Hagar was dead at this time. There is a Jewish tradition that Keturah was Hagar, but that seems unlikely to me.

Yeah....I know that this is going against hundreds of years of certain denomination's particular theologies. They most certainly would not admit to ever being wrong in this. But I still call it as I see it.
But the truth is that Paul was writing to Timothy...an apprentice with which he would have had a much more casual manner of speaking. IOW not so much for a broader audience as it is used for today.

And yes, polygamy was practiced among the Jews in Greek society. In fact it was mandated by Moses to do so in certain situations. Just because they didn't live in Israel didn't mean that they didn't have to follow the Law of Moses. (That's a rather strange notion you got going there)

Sure there were "Hellenistic Jews" but also you have to consider Paul himself...a devout Jew and full Roman Citizen before his conversion. In fact they chose him to be the point man for persecuting the followers of Jesus. If he had been a bit older he would have had at least one wife if not two. He was married (not consumated) to at least one woman if not two when he became converted. (Being engaged was considered being married in Jewish society) This was fairly standard practices in Paul's day.

And as far as Deacons go...reread Romans 16 again. Phoebe was a deacon and a Gentile.

well tell her sorry and don't paint with such a broad brush. strong women can be mislabeled by men who feel challenged simply because...well...they are strong and that strength is expressed in how they conduct themselves and communicate. enjoy it.....better than a noodle head I would think

I only know you by how you express yourself in this forum and you often seem to communicate in a defensive manner when no one delivered an accusation to you. at any rate, why get defensive if you think you are right? Democrats? LOL! that is not going to work with me. I don't see men getting a pass for their ungodly behavior...we still have human trafficking....why is that?

LOL! what type of woman is that? the ones who can read and write? you have no idea how very much you are illustrating why some women actually are anti-men

married over 20 years and still turning heads but I don't let it go to my head. I had more than one marriage offer actually and offers for an affair with several married men who purported to be Christian but that's another story I guess. IMO? many women are stronger then men are but they desire to please Christ so they remain in a marriage that is not ideal.

What's a strange notion? What are you talking about? Where did I say Jews outside of Israel wouldn't follow Moses law on divorce (or their interpretation of it?)

I have read that polygamy had fallen out of favor among Jews and it wasn't commonly practiced in the first century. I read that in a secondary source, probably more than one. I can imagine there could have been some hanky panky on the side or whatever if the man weren't particularly upright... or woman for that matter.

This verse addressed to the Jewish reader from Romans 2 comes to mind:
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

Since polygamy was in the Old Testament, I wouldn't surprised if there weren't some Jews still practicing it.

Two wives. That doesn't fit with what I have read. My memory of Tractate Sanhedrin is fuzzy. I am wondering if I read that a judge or member of the Sanhedrin had to have one wife. Of course, that is supposed to capture beliefs from the time period but was written over a thousand years later--- the same issue I brought up. The diverse Judaism of the first century gets reinterpreted through Hillel Pharisaical tradition. But Paul would have been in the 'Torah cult', during a time of Shammai school dominance, but Gamaliel was a grandson of Hillel.

I don't know if Maimoinedes requirements for marriage were necessarily followed a thousand years or so before. And I don't know that Paul giving his voice against Christians meant that he would have met the requirements for Sanhedrin judge. Maybe they had some extra-legal Jewish lynch mobs that didn't follow all the requirements for Judean judges out in the hinterland.
I was referring to the requirements in another passage.

again, with the all the woman's fault

I am clear on what I think. but you don't see that. instead, you 'see' yet another woman who thinks submit means abuse

I cannot help how you perceive the world. you really do not have a clue on what is going on with men and women in church today

the divorce, the adultery and abuse. and it is not because women won't submit...more likely that women are refusing to submit to the adultery and abuse

I don't mind if a woman is strong. The issue was arguing against what the Bible teaches.

The single fellows would do well to repel such women.

I hope you submit to your husband as unto the Lord, obey him, and treat him with respect, and he loves you as Christ loves the church.

I will try to be civil but understand, you are outrageous

you said concubine was the same as wife and used Keturah as your example

I pointed out to you that she married Abraham after Sarah died so she became his second wife

read slowly and hopefully it sinks in the 2nd time but this is not going to be a debate here, when clearly a concubine is not a wife

actually I take exception with your interpretations of scripture

y'all can't keep up with the current requirements; I doubt Maimonides will help

I say a wife should submit to her husband, and you went off onto a husband yelling at his wife and waiving a Bible around. Do you think a husband should yell at his wife? Is that what submission means?

There are lots of problems. There are probably some men who have submissive loving wives who cheat on them with the secretary. And there probably some unsubmissive shrews whose husbands cheat on them. There are probably sweet submissive women with abusive brutish husbands, and nasty shrews with abusive brutish husbands. And there are couples who love each other, too.

That's not the topic. The Bible teaches wives to submit to their husbands and indicates that they should obey them. When, I or other posters, point that out, it gets a lot of resistance, usually from women, sometimes from men. Some of the resistance comes in the type of things you posted-- a man yelling at his wife waiving his Bible at her was the word picture you painted for us.

rinse and repeat

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

and you are stuck on that one sentence because?

when I know how some men are as stuck in their submit/yield position as are you, I ask myself why bother?

well, may a woman somewhere needs to see another side and understand it is not because she is a disobedient wife that her husband yells (many men yell...it's a form of intimidation...not a fact for you to flail) but rather because he is not submissive to Christ

that's it

done

excuses and reasons are not the same

I did not say that a concubine is the same as a wife. Hebrew concubines-- at least post-Moses if they were following the law-- were wives. The term 'wife' is used in translation of the patriarchal era in the example I gave above.

They didn't have our wedding ceremonies back then. If a man wanted to marry a virgin, he would give her father a bride price. He had to agree. According to Jewish tradition, she had to agree, too like Rebecca did about marrying Isaac.

In the case of a widow, Boaz had a right to marry Ruth when the other relative backed out. He announced he was taking her as a wife.

It was the custom to have a feast, at least by the time of Samson and certainly by the first century. Having a religious official declare them married as they recited vows was a Roman custom.

If you they had to do that to be married then it is likely that no one in the Old Testament was married.

There is no reason to think that Abraham had a wedding ceremony for Keturah. It doesn't say that she was his concubine prior to Sarah's death, either. I think you are imagining something the text doesn't say. What we do know is that __in translation__ she is referred to as both wife and concubine.

Your post doesn't really have much to do with the points I was making.

Yes a lot of source material has a fair amount of mysogenistic overtones...and one good "scholar" copies another... The whole westernized culture of the Roman Empire colors so much of anthropology relating to scriptures it's ridiculous. Instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves the Geneva Calvinists were responsible for much of today's theological principles. (Geneva Bible being the first bible read by the common man with "glosses" AKA commentary written underneath the scriptures) To this day errors are still being removed but it is not without a lot of resistance.

Of course men should lead...but that in no way discounts a woman finding herself in a leadership role. And I'm not advocating for running to a woman led church...but an accurate portrayal of the scriptures is called for regardless of traditional theologies.

And Paul was most definitely an extremely sarcastic person...just like God. The whole book of Galatians is full of sarcasm. (Emasculation, bewitching and etc)

Loving like Christ loves the church is certainly emphasized for men, since Paul leaves us that whole section there in Ephesians 5 and singles out the husband-wife relationship for this discussion.

I see some reasons-- sinfulness and selfishness, the same reason some husbands are treat their wives poorly, too.

We also live in a culture where many women are ideologically predisposed _against_ submitting to their husbands based on their upbringing. The prevailing culture is hostile toward the idea. You can get flack for suggesting the idea even on a Christian discussion forum.