The Culture of today Calls Biblical Truth ‘Misogyny’

[Dino246]

Give not thy soul unto a woman to set her foot upon thy substance. (Sir 9:2, KJV Translation)
Do not give yourself to a woman so that she gains mastery over your strength. (Sir 9:2, RSV Translation)

While this is a wisdom saying and is reasonable as no person should submit themselves to another except where God has ordained, it is not Scripture. There are many ways to interpret it, and none of them are certain to be consistent with the author's intent, so it is no better than poetry as far as informing us how the genders "should" interact.

 

[Dino246]

Today, when you point out God’s commands concerning man-woman relationships and roles, you are said to be guilty of misogyny, yet many claiming that are themselves guilty of misandry. All 66 books of the Bible are indeed written by men, and God designed and commands patriarchy. Scripture states “men were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God.” 2 Pet. 1:21. The message we have in the scriptures comes NOT from culture, but from God!

True, but interpretation, indoctrination, and ignorance play large roles in how we understand the messages contained in Scripture.

(For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) (1Cor 11:8-9) [Man was formed first, giving him primacy.]

Man's prior formation does not give him primacy. If it were true, then every woman would be subject to every man. Are you proposing that?

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1Tim 2:11-14) [Adam, being ‘first born’ has preeminence. Adam and Eve can’t be equal partners any more than you can have two equal chiefs or two equal presidents, and Paul bases this on the created order, not culture.]

Again, Adam being first created gives him nothing special except a short time alone with God. If you study the cultural context of Paul's letter, you will discover that he was specifically addressing issues in that city at that time, not male-female relationships for all places and times.

Man and woman are indeed equal partners. The word used for the woman, translated into KJV English as "help meet", is also used of God Himself elsewhere in Scripture.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1Cor 11:3) [Christ is equally and fully God, but his role in redemption’s plan is subordinate. Similarly, man and woman are equally human, but the woman’s role is subordinate to man.]

Again, are you proposing that all women are subject to all men? That is the only rational conclusion of your view.

Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1Co 14:34-35) [Paul claims continuity of God’s law, not his being influenced by culture.]

There is a much better explanation but it will have to wait.

 

[Brasspen]

The man should be head over the woman for this reason that I know of here. Her body has too many sexual pressure points. It's easy to just have no intention and hit her in a good spot. Even breathing on the woman can cause a problem. The men should do business with the head of the house, the man. It stops adultery from happening.

I am not ignorant that woman can do this, that have been seen in the NT witnessing and teaching too St. Paul. No problems happen there. But if a man is after adultery, you are letting the front door open.

 

[Mem]

The man should be head over the woman for this reason that I know of here. Her body has too many sexual pressure points. It's easy to just have no intention and hit her in a good spot. Even breathing on the woman can cause a problem. The men should do business with the head of the house, the man. It stops adultery from happening.

I am not ignorant that woman can do this, that have been seen in the NT witnessing and teaching too St. Paul. No problems happen there. But if a man is after adultery, you are letting the front door open.

Ok... is this supposed to be funny? I'm asking because I'm not sure if I would be rude in using the laugh emoji.

 

[Dino246]

The man should be head over the woman for this reason that I know of here. Her body has too many sexual pressure points. It's easy to just have no intention and hit her in a good spot. Even breathing on the woman can cause a problem. The men should do business with the head of the house, the man. It stops adultery from happening.

I am not ignorant that woman can do this, that have been seen in the NT witnessing and teaching too St. Paul. No problems happen there. But if a man is after adultery, you are letting the front door open.

With respect, your post is incoherent.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

We need a “Shake my head” emoji.

Bingo! And one that's just a" ?"

 

[Dino246]

The feminists have done a good job of changing the Bible to make man and wife “equal partners”, and labeling the biblical model of the rule of man to be misogynistic or of “toxic masculinity”.

So anyone who disagrees with the "misogynistic" view is influenced by feminists? That does not follow, and it simply is not true. Given that you open with that comment, I wonder if you're capable of considering other viewpoints, or if you have been indoctrinated into a toxic misogynistic perspective.

Yes, it goes both ways. How about we set aside the insulting labels and discuss the text.

The Christian man knows well the commands to love their wives and it is clearly stated at least three times. Oddly, the closest verse telling women to love their husbands is:

and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited. (Titus 2:4-5)
however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects (or fears or reverences) her husband. (Eph 5:33)

Women love their men, but typically struggle more to respect them. That's why Paul gives different instructions to women than to men.

Women must keep quiet in the churches, for no permission is given them to speak. On the contrary, they must take a subordinate place, just as the law says. (1Co 14:34)

Translations vary on the punctuation of this verse, but Paul’s use of “law” refers to the woman taking the subordinate place as in “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’” (Gen 3:16). If the man is in the rule, than of course the woman is in the subordinate place. The question of what the “desire” is in the verse is best explained by comparing it to Gen 4:7, where sin wishes to take over a man; in like manner, women try to take control over men, as some translations render it.

The problem with this is that Paul knew the law very well and did not mince words when citing it, yet this passage does not cite a specific passage. The truth is that there is no such passage, throwing much doubt on the authorship of this verse.

What nails the coffin shut is verse 36. "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (KJV). Sadly most English versions skip the first word, which expresses exasperation. This verse makes no sense if the previous two verses are his own words. He had already permitted women to speak in chapter 11, and would have known perfectly well that requiring "women to ask their husbands" would exclude the unmarried and widowed women. However, they make perfect sense if they are actually a quotation, likely from the Corinthians themselves.

As for Genesis 3:16, it is not at all a command for women to be submissive. It's not a command at all, in any sense. Rather, it's a statement of certain consequence, just as verses 17-19 are statements of consequence for the man. Were they "commands" then men would be violating them by working without sweat or eliminating thorns. Again, the "logic" breaks down.

In 1 Tim 2:12, the Greek αὐθεντέω, translated in the KJV by “authority” is defined in the BDAG as “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to w. gen. of pers. (Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 10 Boll-B.; Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/1 p. 177, 7; B-D-F §177) ἀνδρός, w. διδάσκειν, 1 Ti 2:12 (practically = ‘tell a man what to do’ [Jerusalem Bible]” The Thayer defines in similar manner “ one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to αὐτοκράτωρ an absolute master; cf. Lobeck ad Phryn., p. 120 (also as above; cf. Winers Grammar, § 2, 1 c.)); to govern one, exercise dominion over one: τινς, 1 Timothy 2:12.”

I would encourage you to do some more research on this. The word is used in about 50 different ways in Greek literature of the period, but only this one time in Scripture. It has a wide semantic range, and the English translation of the one that best fits the cultural context is "seduce".

Phoebe’s role in Rom. 16:1 is debated, but I go with “servant”. The debate as discussed in the NET Bible reads:
Or “deaconess.” It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative.

The argument that Phoebe was merely a "servant" appears to be based on a prejudicial view that women cannot be "deacons". The word itself is a transliteration that means "minister" or "servant" so employing the restrictive nuance is without merit.

 

[Dino246]

What would Paul say about all these women in pulpits today?

"Preach it, sister!"

 

[tablet123]

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh(woman saw that the tree was good for food), and the lust of the eyes(and that it was pleasant to the eyes), and the pride of life, (and a tree to be desired to make one wise), is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Plain and simple Eve wanted to exalt herself and have an elevated position.

For it is the way of the world.

Eve was the first person to be lifted up in pride and exalt herself and violated all 3 ways that are of the world.

All that misogyny and misandry really does not mean anything.

The world is motivated by arrogance and self exaltation and everybody plays the game.

The world is a power struggle and has been pushing for power and control for thousands of years between the nations, ethnic groups, and genders.

Women want power and control the same as men.

Black people want power and control the same as the white people.

Both groups cry if they are not the major influence all the while they want to be on top.

That is the way of the world.

Even children get arrogant against their parents.

Babies when they first start talking it will not be long and they are saying no to their parents.

I say this because women will cry about men but they want the same.

They do not want to be equal for that is how the world operates.

Ecc 7:25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:
Ecc 7:26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.
Ecc 7:27 Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:
Ecc 7:28 Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.

Pro 21:9 It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.

Pro 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

Let king Solomon tell you about those oh sweet women.

According to a 2019 study published in the Journal of Political Economy, European states ruled by queens were significantly more likely to engage in war than those led by kings between 1480 and 1913. The study challenged the conventional wisdom that female leadership results in more peaceful outcomes.

Let historians tell you about those oh sweet women.

So feminists can cry oh those men they want to rule over us when they want the same thing.

Me personally I look at men and women equally and I am not in to controlling a woman.

People confuse the husband being over the wife for it is not according to his agenda but according to the agenda of God.

So he is to lead according to the ways of God.

So he has nowhere to glory.

 

[SonJudgment]

You are right about feminism and what the Bible says about women, and in fact you have chosen the more passive verses that would apply to just simply good women or neutral women. There's entire chapters about the evil women that fit these generations of women, and the wicked simps that go after them, like a glove. Your only error is assuming the heresy of preterism and the heresy of cessationism, be wary these heresies will result in eternal damnation, and besides that they're just stupid and certainly all who hold to them have no power whatsoever. If you want to know power, just keep your virginity as a male you'll basically become a one man spiritual warfare army, praise Jesus.

 

[Jon777]

My response is mostly to Dino, because he is the only one who seems who has put effort and study into his position. I do not mean disrespect, just giving my reasons for my belief in contrast.

Jesus said, “Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth”, also, “know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Paul writes, “learn by us not to go beyond what is written.” Peter wrote “no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”, and then later Peter warned us: “speaking of this as he [Paul] does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" 2 Pt 3:16.

The Bible takes for granted that scripture can and will convey clear truth, not half-truths, or partial and twisted truth; but accurate and solid truth that cannot be evaded by “that’s just your interpretation”. As long as we are not dealing with the “ignorant and unstable”, there is a way to avoid subjectivity in interpretation, and it is to study principles of interpretation and keep to the guidelines and rules. The idea that God’s word is twisted by culture and societal pressures is contradicted by the above where men by the Holy Spirit spoke from God, not from their own ideas influenced by culture. I will reply to some of the arguments.

The translation “authority”, for αὐθεντέω, in 1 Tim 2:12 is challenged as incorrect and “seduce” is given as a possible translation. In what Lexicon, NT or Classical Greek, is “seduce” found as a possible translation. Using biblegateway.com the translations overwhelming use “authority”, and where it does not, the wording gives the same idea. I cannot find anywhere “seduce” as possible. Having a true and correct translation of a word is basic to interpretation.

The judgement sentence in the submission of Eve in Gn 3:16 is questioned, as not applicable today. Do women still have pain in childbirth today? Do farmers still battle the briers and weeds to grow our food? Did Paul mean Gn 3:16 as “the law” in 1 Cor. 14:34? I do not study from just one source, but many, and my Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian & Lutheran commentaries point to Gn 3:16 as the specific law referred to by Paul. My most liberal, feminist friendly study Bible is the SBL NRSVue, with the NRSVue considered the most accurate, academic translation available. Neither the text, nor the liberal annotations support all the objections raised against the obvious and traditional view of this passage.

In 1 Cor 11, the narrative stating women praying and prophesying does not cancel a direct command in 1 Cor. 14:34. It is common sense that recording women doing something can NOT in any way cancel out an authoritative, direct command not to do it. Proper Bible study dictates the need to see in what way 1 Cor 11 is different in context, to reconcile the superficial contradiction. I have read several ideas on it. One, actions in the church itself is not mentioned until v18. Another possible reason is that Paul is not dealing with the role of women in the church, his intent is stressing the continued difference to be kept between men and woman. I personally can see this as the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit seen prior to the notable, fearful day of the Lord, Acts 2:20, which day of the Lord came upon the Jews in 70 AD, which were to be seen in the apostolic era.

The role of Deborah the prophetess in Judges 4 has been brought up. Nowhere is it stated that men chose or elected Deborah, for she was in that position brought about by the sovereign will of Yahweh, not the will of men. Then Barak, for whatever reason, refused to go into battles unless Deborah went with him. Yet, in the list of the faithful in Hebrews, it is Barak who is said to be faithful, not Deborah: “And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions,” (Heb 11:32-33)

Some seem to think loving the wife cancels out her role of obedience, usually quoting Eph. 5:25 comparing man’s love for the wife to be like Christ’s love for the church? First, does Christ’s love for the church, remove the command for us to submit be obedient to Him? In addition, later in the same chapter it is clearly stated: “Nevertheless, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” (Eph 5:33) Respect is variously translated as: reverence, fear, give deference.

This is becoming such a long reply, I'll reply to the question about the meaning of "men" in the Bible, and what role is indicated for Phoebe, in Rom. 16:1, in another reply.

Of course, in such a forum as this, you find some who post flippant, snarky comments like a delinquent teenager would do, and of course those don’t deserve recognition or response.

 

[Jon777]

What about Phoebe in Romans 16:1? Is she in the office of deacon?

“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:” (Rom 16:1 KJV)

The Bible translations Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great and Bishops all translate “minister” in Rom. 16:1; and the Geneva “servant” and the KJV “servant [margin minister]”.

Definition from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary).
“minister…1.b. A servant, an attendant; a person who waits upon or ministers to the wants of another. Obsolete. 1384-1868”

The words “minister” and “servant’ are synonymous. From the 1526 Tyndale translation and early English versions, through the KJV, ERV, ASV all have those two words. The change begins with the 1946 RSV “deaconess”, until today, the 1989 NRSV “deacon”. I emphatically deny that the original, Spirit inspired penmen of our Bible, were swayed by culture; but translations are surely swayed by the culture in which they are made. The evangelicals have changed Ex. 21:22, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 to support their right-wing ideology. The liberals from the NCC, have gradually bowed to the pressures of the feminists, which is what we see in Rom. 16:1. I do not place any trust in such changes from either the liberals or the conservatives. The liberal, NCC denominations began ordaining women as deacons somewhere around the 1950s, and that matches up with the timeline their translations. I do use the NRSVue as well as other modern translations but being observant of biases and philosophies of the translators. On some points, even the KJV has its bias.

When look to the scriptures, I cannot find any reason to change the historic belief of the church on Rom. 16:1, translating “servants”. The Bible records many occasions where the chosen ones for leadership are specifically men: Ex. 18:21, 25; Deut 1:13; 17:15-16. Across civil, military, cultic, and administrative spheres, the text repeatedly says “choose men” or “appoint men. Nowhere in the Bible are such commands given for the people to select or choose a woman, or women. Jesus chose 12 as his apostles, all are men. When seven are chosen to apparently be the first deacons, they are specifically men, Acts 6:3. When Paul gives qualifications for the deacons, 1 Tim 3:12, they are to be “husbands”, men. The Bible records God in his sovereignty placing a woman in various roles, but nowhere does the Bible give instructions for the OT or NT church to choose women.

The woman/wife in the qualifications for deacon, 1 Tim. 3:11 would not be a deacon, for putting a woman in that office would be the only such appointment or choice made by the church, in the OT or NT. The better understanding is by comparing Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18:24-26, where the husband and wife together explained the way of God to Apollos more accurately. This did not make Priscilla the head of the husband or home, but she certainly was an asset and help to Aquila. That is a good comparison to the wife of a deacon in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the deacon’s wife would assist and help with the women in ways inappropriate for the man.
In various ecclesiastical arrangements in churches through the centuries, faith traditions have used the term “deaconess” as if a woman deacon, but that is from the churches, not from God’s word. So, I will remain with the traditional understanding of Rom. 16:1, “servant”.

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops (Or, overseers) and deacons: (Phil 1:1) This verse would indicate there was the office of deacon just like bishop or overseer.

 

[AnOldLady]

Some general comments from reading this thread: I have wondered whether Adam could have changed the outcome by having a quiet discussion with Eve about the benefits of serving the God Who made them instead of doing something He told them distinctly not to do. I wonder today whether many situations would benefit from the same.

If men are to love their wives and wash them with the water of the word, it would seem that it falls on men to be instructive when error invades a woman's thinking and that the man should point out how the resultant path would lead the couple or family away from obedience. In the partnership of marriage, if the husband has set his heart on obedience to God and loves his wife, it would likely not often take "authority" to break a tie of ideas (she wants this and he doesn't want this). The "Come, let us reason together" idea comes to mind. It seems a waste to suggest that women should check their brains at the door when it comes to submission; and on the other hand, it's always dangerous when men check in their brains at the door.

Both men and women who realize their accountability should be, from that realization, humbled in their approach to each other. Where both are seeking God's best, there should be good discussion. Where there is an unresolved tie, it would appear that the man earns the right to break the tie by fulfilling his role to provide for, protect and nurture his wife and family. If he doesn't fulfill his role, it would make sense that his wife might have trouble respecting or trusting him. On the other hand, I've met my share of hen-picking ladies, the ones who tear their houses apart with their own hands. It makes one realize how important it is to choose carefully, since even Adam had issue with the woman God made for him. God made both in His image, with the ability to reason, or not.

I appreciated reading through the threads and finding the word from 1 Tim, authentein. I hadn't realized it was more than it implies, and I particularly liked the implication to woman being violent toward men, which made sense as this was part of the history of the Corinthian area.

 

[Bingo]

Bingo! And one that's just a" ?"

I was not here (lol)

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I was not here (lol)

But you heard someone call your name! lol

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I was not here (lol)

The forum is so large sometimes I miss seeing people and I think they have left. Then they pop up somewhere. I hope you are doing well brother. I enjoy the laughs you share on the joke thread.

 

[pinebeach]

....................................................2.0