Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Alive in Christ, Sep 26, 2010.
...for those who wish to continue the discussion.
have you ever stopped to think that women will probably have been used (when it's all said and done) of the Holy Spirit for the ingathering of the children of God at least to the same degree if not more than men.
Godly mothers, grandmothers, great grandmothers at home, women as Sunday School children's teachers and in Children's Church (when these little ones are young and pliable) are predominant in these ministries as well they probably should be.
2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
We men get all the hardened cases with seared consciences.
If you want to rile up the women, tell them where you think their place should be. Funny, it's always the men who think they need to put women in their place!
One of the problems with this discussion is that few if any have gone to Genesis 3 to see what is going on now in a fallen world.
Before the Fall, the man, Adam, held the primary responsibility for himself and the woman, Eve, before God. This is clearly seen in Adam being created first and Eve being created to be Adam's helper, not vice-versa.
We can assume (after reading Paul's instructions to husbands and wives in Ephesians, understanding that God is, in the church, undoing the Fall) that Adam loved Eve and demonstrated it in a sacrificial way. We can also assume that Eve submitted to Adam's headship.
After the fall, of course, the world was literally turned up-side down.
When we see the curses of God against Eve several things come out:
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” (ESV; emphasis mine)
The word "Desire" is only used three times in the Old Testament. The most notable time is in Genesis 4 where God is talking to Cain--"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (ESV; emphasis mine)
In these passages, the word desire and the word rule are the same.
So, in the curses God is telling Eve: You will desire to dominate your husband, but he will rule over you.
Eve, then, is the first feminist. This part of the cursing of God is due to her role in leading Adam to eat the fruit. Now, where Adam was, I have no idea. Why he didn't stop Eve from eating the fruit, I have no idea. But, what we see is that as part of the fall, God has placed in every woman the desire to rule over man, and her husband especially.
The second part of that curse (he will rule over you) is also the beginning of spousal abuse. No longer would Adam love his wife sacrificially. Instead, Adam would seek dominion over Eve in a more forcible way.
So here we have the problem between men and women, even until today. Women desire to rule men (feminism) and men desire to dominate women (abuse).
Eve will use her God-given position as "helper" as a base for usurping the man's role. Adam will use his God-given position as "head" to dominate, as opposed to lovingly sacrifice, woman.
This is why we, as Christians, must exhibit the behavior Paul commands in Ephesians.
The immovable facts are: Man is the head. Period. Woman is the helper. Period. Man must seek to lovingly sacrifice and the woman must graciously submit. (notice, though this is to be between husbands and wives and we should only demand this within the church. We can and should expect that the world--those who are not Christians--to live as the curses of God dictate).
True! We should always have the upperhand (or at least let us think we do).
Many have come to the conclusion that Pricilla is always mentioned 1st, rather then Aquilla, because she was the more prominant one in that husband/wife evangelistic team.
Since you wish to continue the discussion maybe you could address a question I asked of you in the other thread that you failed to answer.
Are Christ and His church mutally submissive?
Good post Archangel. :flower:
Why would any man here feel the need to tell another man's wife of her place? It seems the focus is only on the first part of the verse in the OP. What about the part that says women are to ask THEIR HUSBANDS at home??? If, and that's a big IF, you see this as a problem in your church, talk to the MEN. After all, they are the heads of their own homes. (Isn't this what has been hammered into the ladies' heads?) Let the other husbands take care of their own wives.
If men are considered in charge because Adam was created first, wouldn't cows be in charge of men?
And if primogeniture rules, what about King David?
Now before you brain me, I know very well that Paul alludes to creation order in restricting women.
The same passage says women will be saved through childbearing.
Apparently this one of those passages Peter refers to as writings of Paul that are hard to understand.
My personal take on it is that Paul is perhaps refuting a common teaching OF THAT ERA that we just don't have.
Otherwise, it makes no sense to say in one place how a woman is to dress and wear her hair when speaking in the church, and in other command silence.
It would seem to square more with the actions and teachings of Jesus to take Paul's prohibitions as freedoms within boundaries.
Instead of not teaching women, let them learn quietly and submissively just as the men do.
Instead of letting them wrest wrongfully or usurp power from men, let them serve alongside.
And honestly, when I read the New Testament I find nothing that compares to today's career path senior pastor. Restricting women from that--or allowing them to follow it--both seem to depart from the idea of a royal kingdom where all are priests.
My gut feeling is that we are arguing about who will be the greatest in the kingdom again.
Instead, we should each be about our Father's business.
We certainly submit to Him, as He is our Lord, and He willingly submitted himself unto death for our sakes.
I have heard this many times. I wonder if those "many" have read the scriptures concerning this and they would find that their "always" is wrong. But, it is a nice twist as long as the people who they are telling this, do not check the scripture.
I am glad, when someone(anyone), uses Scripture to remind me where my “place” is.
All of us, should want to be in “our place”!
StillLearning, you have a lot to learn.
Did Christ submit to us?
You are saying that husband and wife should be submissive to each other and claim Ephesians 5 as justification for that view. Ephesians 5 points husband and wife to the example of Christ and His church. The wife is to emulate the church, the husband Christ. Is Christ submissive to His church?
Christ's submission was the greatest it could be. He submitted to death for us that we may have life. If Christ has not submitted we all would be lost.
The husband is to submit to not demand his desires and wishes unless they are best for the wife and family. This is a call to a much greater submission than that of the wife. Too many of us men think the call of the wife to submit is for us to be the BOSS. That isn't the case. The husband is to do that which is best for his wife and family ... it may not be what is best for himself alone.
I'm not asking that. The poster asserted that husband and wife should be equally submissive to each other. My question is, does Christ submit to the church? I never claimed that man was to run roughshod over the wife. Christ doesn't do that to the church, husbands shouldn't do that to their wives. I'm asking if Christ submits to the church.
What do you mean by the church? This seems a fuzzy area to me. I believe that English may be deficient in this as we have only one word 'church' that can have several meanings.
I was discussing the English word 'church' with several students here. One was from Belgium, one from Russia and one from Kazakhstan. They agreed that English needs two words, one that stands for the body of believers and another for the building. They said their own first language would also benefit if there were two distinct words. I guess I am saying what do you mean by church. I am pretty sure it is not the building ... it would be rather difficult to submit to a building. Are you saying submit to believers, or to the hierarchy that some denominations have?
If to believers what would this submission be. I am not sure how a body of believers can put a request, demand, etc. upon Christ that he could choose to submit to. Enlighten me on this.
The thing is though that Christ did not submit to the church in going to the cross. He submitted to His Fathers will, not the church. Christ does not submit to the church He is the head of the church.
Exactly. The husband does not submit to the wife. He is to love his wife in the same manner that Christ loves the church. He is to be the head of the wife. People don't like that because American society today preaches equality of the sexes and has backlashed against the 50's practice of a woman's place being in the kitchen and all of that. The truth is, the woman's place was never ordained to be in the kitchen by the order of God, that's society's nonsense. The genders should be equal in terms of rights, but they are certainly not equal in terms of purpose. Women are better at things than men, vice versa. It amazes me that people cannot understand this.
In marriage, God ordained that wives should be submissive to the husband, the husband being the head. He also ordained that husbands should love their wives a) as Christ loves the church and b) as their own selves. If husbands would follow that command, you wouldn't see adultery, abuse, neglect, etc. You also shouldn't see the husband sitting with his feet propped up while the wife does all the work around the house.