This one is a DOOZY (CC)

[Heather in Neverland]

My homework question from last week was VERY interesting (especially since I am usually the only female in my classes). I can't wait to hear what WOMEN have to say about this:

 

Many Evangelicals of the 1800s used the Bible to defend American slavery (especially in the South). For example, 1 Peter 2:18 commands, "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh." Dropping down eight verses, 1 Peter 3:1 subsequently commands, "Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands."

 

ASSUMING THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES ON SLAVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO SUPPORT AMERICAN SLAVERY... "EVANGELICAL FEMINISTS" ARGUE THAT JUST AS MOST COMMENTATORS NOW AGREE THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO DEFEND AMERICAN SLAVERY, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO DEFEND THE CONTEMPORARY SUBMISSION OF WIVES TO HUSBANDS TODAY. THEY ARGUE THAT JUST AS EVANGELICALS BECAME ENLIGHTENED ON THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY, THEY WILL BECOME ENLIGHTENED ON THE ISSUE OF GENDER ROLES. HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND?

 

Let the games begin....:D

[*********]

HA! Oh wow, this should be interesting... :lol:

[Ria]

I would tend to agree with the statement. I know very few women who are totally submissive (although I do know some).

 

My dh and I see each other as equal partners in the relationship. He does not determine what I do, think, or say. I covet his input, but ultimately I make my own decisions when appropriate (ie, if it's not a joint decision such as a parenting issue).

 

Ria

[Parrothead]

I look at it as being a different time, different culture. At that time slavery was common. At that time and in that culture women being submissive was acceptable and even seen as womanly. That is even the case today in the Middle East. Women are expected to be submissive. In our culture that is not what is expected.

 

To quote that passage to and use it against a woman (wife, daughter) is wrong. It think it is derogatory and assumes a woman is not as intelligent as a man. I think it is used by weak men who want to keep their women "in their place."

Edited February 17, 2009 by Parrothead

[BMW]

I think that gender roles are defined in the Bible. Women are told to be caretakers of their homes. I believe that the Bible does say that wives are to be submissive to their husbands and that the husband is to live with his wife with understanding. It also says that husbands are to love their wives like Christ loved the church. If men follow Christ's example, they would serve their wives very lovingly, yet lead their wives as well...

 

If both men and women follow these guidelines, with accountability, it is beautiful and peaceful. The man would be understanding, helpful and serving. The wife would not mind submitting to his leadership if she had that type of a man and felt like his life partner. IMO.

 

But men do not always lead with accountability and love. I will teach my daughters that they should honor and respect their husbands. This would mean not to belittle, insult or argue outright with them. I teach that they should think through thieir arguments and discuss them. If you cannot have a discussion with your life partner than there's a problem!!! I teach them that they will marry a sinner... someone who will fail them at times, just as they will fail their husbands. Marriage has to be lived out with grace. And I will teach them that if their children are abused or they are abused, they are to stand strong and get out of that marriage... AFTER seeking help. I believe girls should know how to run finances and should have what it takes to lead their family, if necessary.

 

Anyway... that's my view on it. I did not use scripture references because it's time for me to start schooling my son. Hopefully someone will add those, if not, I can check back again and list where the bible teaches what I wrote in this first paragraph.

 

As to the context of slaves obeying their masters and wives being submissive to their husbands... we are not slaves and the scriptures state very clearly what husbands roles are... the husbands are never referred to as being slave owners over their wives. Enlightenment on gender roles?? I think it is healthy to have a man earn income and a wife care for the children - women tend to be much more nurturing and patient for the role than men (not all). If something works, it doesn't need fixed. However, women should also be allowed to read, have a high education and pursue goals for her own future both if she has that desire and also to provide for her family, if necessary. And the child bearing years are just a season. Children grow up and women can serve the community and minister to their extended families for years to come...

[FlockOfSillies]

Super-short answer: the wife passages appeal to the order of things at Creation, as well as the circumstances of the Fall, while the slavery passages do not. AFAIK there's no passage in Scripture that says some people are worth less than others and that slavery is part of the ideal (certainly not present at Creation). The NT passages on slavery in the epistles (Paul's commands to slaves and masters) talk about how one should behave while one is in that situation, and don't address the rightness or wrongness of the situation itself. But it is interesting to note that the masters are told to be good to their slaves, because they too have a Master in heaven, and they aren't specifically told to set their slaves free. There's also that verse that says that "in Christ... there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, for Christ is all and in all." (Not a perfect quotation.) In other words, we are all fellow heirs of the blessings of salvation. There are not different levels of salvation for different groups of people. Christ is in all believers equally. All believers have become God's slaves, if you will, rather than slaves of darkness. You're gonna be one or the other.

 

So much for super-short, eh?

[Soph the vet]

Even before the fall, gender roles and authority structure were put in place by God. Adam was created first and was given the authority to name Eve who was created to be his helpmate. Authority does not equal worth however. Our culture would not agree with that statement and evangelical feminists have taken cues from the culture on that. We are all equal in Christ, no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile. But God has designed women and men differently for different roles, to compliment one another, to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Unfortunately, due to the fall and the sin nature of man, authority entrusted to men has been lorded over women and resulted in abuse that God would never condone. Women have retaliated and usurped authority from men that they should never have had. Embracing our roles and living them out in our marriages and in our church relationships honors God and gives a clearer picture to the world of what Jesus has done.

I think it would take an awful lot of hermeneutical gymnastics and Scripture twisting to make a convincing argument for evangelical feminism. The argument used for a pro-slavery stance basically used the same premises by taking verses out of context. There was no authority structure set up in the garden for master vs. slave, BTW.

[Tap]

Does the Bible define the word 'submissive'? Does it say that a wife (or servant) has to submit every action, thought, and word .... 24 hours a day, to the exclusion of having a uniqueness about one's self?

 

The bible says to pray (in many more places than it talks about submission), but doesn't expect us to only pray, 24 hours a day, to the exclusion of everything else. I think of submission the same way. It can have its place, but doesn't have to be the be all/end all.

 

I don't believe in enlightenment about the bible, the words haven't changed. We can't understand them any different now than we did before. What I do believe can, does and has changed is that people are less likely now to follow one pastor/preist/leader's interpretation of the bible to meet his/her own agendas.

[PinkInTheBlue]

I absolutely agree. Submission is absurd and humiliating to women. And, yes, that's my opinion.

[Rhonda in TX]

The feminists are taking the argument that the former passage is not condoning slavery and extrapolating that we should not condone submissiveness in the latter passage. It seems more that you would extrapolate that the latter passage does not condone marriage. And we all know that is not true.

 

The former passage is saying - if you are a slave, this is how you should act. The latter passage is saying - If you are a wife, this is how you should act. We are not slaves. We are, however, wives. And, just as wives are given instructions, husbands are, too. If you don't believe wives should be submissive, maybe you also shouldn't believe husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church.

 

God has a plan. We are not perfect people, and we don't always carry out His plan perfectly. However, that does not make the plan wrong. It makes us wrong.

 

JMNSHO.

[sweetTN]

To quote that passage to and use it against a woman (wife, daughter) is wrong. It think it is derogatory and assumes a woman is not as intelligent as a man. I think it is used by weak men who want to keep their women "in their place."

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

I would agree.

 

If for no other reason than the bible also says that we cannot have two masters, God should be our only master.

 

But mostly because I think most of the time people confuse submission with willful slavery.

 

I am not my husbands slave.

 

I am his wife and thus due respect and consideration from him.

 

The bible also mentions a few things about that to husbands, but no one seems to ever read those sections.

 

Plus there's the whole this has nothing to do with gender roles even.

 

What if my husband as head our home decided he wants me to mow the lawn and get a job while he stays home and rasies the kids and makes dinner?

 

:auto:

[BMW]

I would tend to agree with the statement. I know very few women who are totally submissive (although I do know some).

 

My dh and I see each other as equal partners in the relationship. He does not determine what I do, think, or say. I covet his input, but ultimately I make my own decisions when appropriate (ie, if it's not a joint decision such as a parenting issue).

 

Ria

 

 

Thank you, Ria. In addition to what I said about the topic, this is how I feel also. In daily life it is very important for wives to think and make choices and not be dictated to. In the end we stand before God alone. It is really very healthy for wives as individuals to have choices and be partners. I still do believe that we are to honor and respect our husbands. That shows up in our attitudes and behavior in the home, but it doesn't take away from our individuality and ability to make decisions. And life requires decisions!!

 

If there is a stand-off where a decision is to be made and we disagree with dh and there is no way to not postpone the decision, I believe it is the wife's place to back down... but that happens much less often in healthy relationships... right??? What do you think? If we cannot agree, put off the decision. And what would you think would be an instance that the wife would hold firm to her choice, in opposition to dh and not be "wrong"?? Any? (sorry if that is highjacking... I am thinking through this topic in my own life)

[newlifemom]

Well, I don't think I will be jumping in on this one. Enjoy ladies, and Heather, I am more interested in how your class went. :D

 

For now I'm,

 

:leaving:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I have a lot of thoughts on this passage and its context, but I'll try to be brief. :-)

 

1. I think it is always wise to consider the historical context of the writing. According to some commentaries this could have been written at the time when Nero decided to make a scapegoat of Christians, for the burning of Rome, by various persecutions.

 

2. From the beginning 1Peter emphasizes self-controlled living through persecution and suffering, in contrast to active rebellion against authorities. He gives Christ as the example: committing no sin of retaliation, deceit, or threats.

 

3. Women and slaves at that time did not have the choices or freedoms we have today. A man of God once told me that we are being liberal with scripture when we say that what was written to specific people in specific times totally applies to us in this time.

 

4. However, there are lessons to be learned from all scripture. In this case I believe the lesson in these passages is that Christians should try to maintain self-control and refuse to commit evil acts, even in the face of severe trials and persecutions, no matter what their origin. Why? Because we can never be condemned for doing what is right.

 

5. Is it wrong to report your husband to the authorities for abuse? No. Is it wrong to leave him to preserve your sanity or your life? No.

 

Is it wrong to take revenge,maim, or kill him? Most Definitely.

 

Of course this is my opinion. :-)

[elegantlion]

I would agree.

 

If for no other reason than the bible also says that we cannot have two masters, God should be our only master.

 

But mostly because I think most of the time people confuse submission with willful slavery.

 

I am not my husbands slave.

 

I am his wife and thus due respect and consideration from him.

 

The bible also mentions a few things about that to husbands, but no one seems to ever read those sections.

 

Plus there's the whole this has nothing to do with gender roles even.

 

What if my husband as head our home decided he wants me to mow the lawn and get a job while he stays home and rasies the kids and makes dinner?

 

:auto:

 

:iagree: My head is in a fog, but where is the passage that says wives are to submit to their husbands as their husband submits to the church?

 

My dh is the head of the household and I am "submissive" in some areas. Although I can see that my definition of submissive is probably different. Part of that is his personality is more a leader and mine is more of a follower. However I do not have the gentle and quiet spirit listed in 1Peter 3:4. :D

[Spy Car]

Even before the fall, gender roles and authority structure were put in place by God. Adam was created first and was given the authority to name Eve who was created to be his helpmate.

 

The second version of "Adam and Eve" does appear to contradict the first creation story in Genesis 1:27 where man and woman are created co-terminously in the image of God (or some heavenly plurality).

 

Bill

[Closeacademy]

1 Peter 2:18 commands, "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh." Dropping down eight verses, 1 Peter 3:1 subsequently commands, "Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands."

 

Just going to make one point. It says "servants" not "slaves" and the other verse does say "wives".

 

I will not get involved in the discussion but wanted to point that out. Now if you want to bring in Greek interpretations and various definitions of words you could have some real fun with these passages.

 

My dictionary (The Random House Dictionary consise edition 1983 copywrite) defines:

 

servant--a person employed by another, esp. one employed to perform domestic duties.

 

employ--1. to hire the services of, 2. to use (instrument, means, etc.), 3. to occupy or devote (time, energies, etc.), 4. employment or service

 

slaves--1. a person who is the property of another and bound to serve him or her without pay, 2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person, 3. to work like a slave

 

hire--1. to engage the services of for pay, 2. to engage the temporary use of for a set price

 

According to these definintions:

 

1. a servant is an employee which means that they get paid for their work.

 

2. a slave is the property of another.

 

So the word "servant" is the not same as "slave" and this passage should never have been used to defend slavery.

 

Now, if someone wants to break out their Oxford English Dictionary or their Greek knowledge and trace the history of useage of these words to what the word "servant" really meant at the time the New Testament was written you will probably get different definitions.

 

Good luck and just my observations.:001_smile:

[SnowWhite]

Read the rest of the verse:

 

1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

 

Also, if you pay attention to the last half of chapter 2, think of it in the light of employer/employee relationships. Every bit of this scripture is admonishing us to willingly offer our lives as a sacrifice for Christ in the same way that he gave us the sacrifice of his death.

 

If I were to speak to young wives trying to give them the same message Peter was trying to get across, I'd say something like this:

 

"In order to be a witness to your husband and offer your life as a sacrifice for Christ, be the most awesome wife you can! When you think of the sacrifice Christ gave for us, the little annoyances and sacrifices of married life seem like nothing."

[joannqn]

I think that gender roles are defined in the Bible. Women are told to be caretakers of their homes. I believe that the Bible does say that wives are to be submissive to their husbands and that the husband is to live with his wife with understanding. It also says that husbands are to love their wives like Christ loved the church. If men follow Christ's example, they would serve their wives very lovingly, yet lead their wives as well...

 

If both men and women follow these guidelines, with accountability, it is beautiful and peaceful. The man would be understanding, helpful and serving. The wife would not mind submitting to his leadership if she had that type of a man and felt like his life partner. IMO.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

I also think that the man is given a much greater responsibility. To love their wives as Christ loved the church would mean the man must be willing to give their lives for their wife should it be required. He needs to love and support her no matter what she does or doesn't do. He must be loving and gentle in leading his wife and family. A husband who does well in his Biblically-defined role would be very easy to submit to.

 

I also think that what people think of as "submission" isn't accurate because Proverbs 31 also describes a woman who has a great deal of responsibility. She doesn't just sit around waiting to be told what to do.

[LizzyBee]

I've known men who used the submission passages to defend abuse, and that is wrong. There's a huge difference between Biblical submission and abuse. Any discussion of a wife's submission should include the husband's call to love his wife "as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." So I wouldn't agree with the total dismantling of Biblical gender roles, but I think some people's view of them is disgusting and abusive.

 

Oh, and I don't think a Biblical view of marriage means that the wife can't think for herself and/or work outside the home. I think the idea that the man must be the breadwinner and the wife must be a sahw or sahm is a 1950's American model, not a Biblical model. The Proverbs 31 woman had her own means of income and certainly doesn't sound like anyone's doormat.

[joannqn]

1

Now, if someone wants to break out their Oxford English Dictionary or their Greek knowledge and trace the history of useage of these words to what the word "servant" really meant at the time the New Testament was written you will probably get different definitions.

 

 

 

According to blueletterbible.org:

 

The original of servant was:

oiketēs

 

(This is the transliteration since I doubt the message board would support that actual Greek letters.)

 

which means:

1) one who lives in the same house as another, spoken of all who are under the authority of one and the same householder

a) a servant, a domestic

[OnTheBrink]

Even before the fall, gender roles and authority structure were put in place by God. Adam was created first and was given the authority to name Eve who was created to be his helpmate. Authority does not equal worth however. Our culture would not agree with that statement and evangelical feminists have taken cues from the culture on that. We are all equal in Christ, no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile. But God has designed women and men differently for different roles, to compliment one another, to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Unfortunately, due to the fall and the sin nature of man, authority entrusted to men has been lorded over women and resulted in abuse that God would never condone. Women have retaliated and usurped authority from men that they should never have had. Embracing our roles and living them out in our marriages and in our church relationships honors God and gives a clearer picture to the world of what Jesus has done.

I think it would take an awful lot of hermeneutical gymnastics and Scripture twisting to make a convincing argument for evangelical feminism. The argument used for a pro-slavery stance basically used the same premises by taking verses out of context. There was no authority structure set up in the garden for master vs. slave, BTW.

 

Dr. Soph, Vet Woman, put it very well. I agree.

[Free Indeed]

Even before the fall, gender roles and authority structure were put in place by God. Adam was created first and was given the authority to name Eve who was created to be his helpmate. Authority does not equal worth however. Our culture would not agree with that statement and evangelical feminists have taken cues from the culture on that. We are all equal in Christ, no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile. But God has designed women and men differently for different roles, to compliment one another, to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Unfortunately, due to the fall and the sin nature of man, authority entrusted to men has been lorded over women and resulted in abuse that God would never condone. Women have retaliated and usurped authority from men that they should never have had. Embracing our roles and living them out in our marriages and in our church relationships honors God and gives a clearer picture to the world of what Jesus has done.

I think it would take an awful lot of hermeneutical gymnastics and Scripture twisting to make a convincing argument for evangelical feminism. The argument used for a pro-slavery stance basically used the same premises by taking verses out of context. There was no authority structure set up in the garden for master vs. slave, BTW.

 

:iagree: I may be old fashioned, but I take Titus 2 and submission to my husband as my joy. I ahve a wonderful marriage. I completely agree with Created to be His Help Meet as well. I know this puts me in the minority around here, but it is something I feel very strongly about.

[Colleen in NS]

ASSUMING THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES ON SLAVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO SUPPORT AMERICAN SLAVERY... "EVANGELICAL FEMINISTS" ARGUE THAT JUST AS MOST COMMENTATORS NOW AGREE THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO DEFEND AMERICAN SLAVERY, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO DEFEND THE CONTEMPORARY SUBMISSION OF WIVES TO HUSBANDS TODAY. THEY ARGUE THAT JUST AS EVANGELICALS BECAME ENLIGHTENED ON THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY, THEY WILL BECOME ENLIGHTENED ON THE ISSUE OF GENDER ROLES. HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND?

 

I'm responding before reading other responses.....so I can say what I currently think without getting influenced....:lol:

 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT - this is my life theme for the moment. I am filtering everything I have ever heard, read, seen, or previously accepted in my Christian background/experience, through setting the Bible in historical context, learning what principles/stories I can from it, and not blindly using Bible verses/passages/stories as illustration/justification for a custom in contemporary life - my personal, or life around me.

 

A book called Why Not Women by Loren Cunningham was a good read for me on this issue. Also (a harder read for me) Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse (?).

 

I do hope that Christians in general (evangelicals or other) will become more thoughtful about how they apply the Bible to contemporary life.

[Heather in Neverland]

The second version of "Adam and Eve" does appear to contradict the first creation story in Genesis 1:27 where man and woman are created co-terminously in the image of God (or some heavenly plurality).

 

Bill

 

This is very interesting to me...care to expand?

[Unicorn.]

I would tend to agree with the statement.

 

My dh and I see each other as equal partners in the relationship. He does not determine what I do, think, or say. I covet his input, but ultimately I make my own decisions when appropriate (ie, if it's not a joint decision such as a parenting issue).

 

Ria

 

:iagree: I'm in the same camp as Ria, and I have to leave it at that. I've typed and re-typed, and have decided to play nice. :)

 

ETA: Parrothead sums it up pretty well for me too!

[Colleen in NS]

quoted by joannqn: "According to blueletterbible.org:

 

The original of servant was:

oiketēs

 

(This is the transliteration since I doubt the message board would support that actual Greek letters.)

 

which means:

1) one who lives in the same house as another, spoken of all who are under the authority of one and the same householder

a) a servant, a domestic "

 

 

I don't know much yet about Bible translations from previous languages and all that, but when I learned in Latin that servus=slave and that servant was derived from servus, that put a new light on some Bible verses for me. Meaning, I tend to see the word "servant" and now think "slave." But I'm in process. :D (of course, there is the Biblical principle of serving others, which I think is a good thing.....now I'm processing and editing this post about a million times)

Edited February 17, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[Colleen in NS]

The second version of "Adam and Eve" does appear to contradict the first creation story in Genesis 1:27 where man and woman are created co-terminously in the image of God (or some heavenly plurality).

 

Bill

 

I want to hear more about this, too. And (I could look in the dictionary, but want to hear from you) what does co-terminously mean?

[Parrothead]

This is very interesting to me...care to expand?

The first story of the creation of man is a only one verse: Genesis 1:27. It says:

 

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female He created them.

Very simple and straight forward - God created man and woman at the same time. Genesis 28-31 go on to say that God blessed them and gave them dominion over the Earth.

 

Genesis 2 goes on to tell a different version of the story of the creation of man (male and female) - which encompasses the entirety of Chapter 2. This is the one that is most often quoted for male to be dominant over female because God created female from male.

 

The two storied contradict each other on the making of mankind. They also contradict on the role of the female. In the first male and female were created together and both given dominion over the Earth. In the second, not.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Parrothead

[Mekanamom]

Didn't read the other replies yet...

 

This is coming from a secular, feminist viewpoint: Here in the US, women can choose what sort of relationship, faith, and lifestyle they want to have. They can walk away if they feel too burdened. That said, if a woman chooses to be submissive to her husband, that choice should be respected. If she backs up her choices with scripture, that is equally valid.

 

I do consider myself a feminist (see men and women as equals), and it's pretty eye opening to see the responses I get about choosing to stay home, keep house, and homeschool. LOL. I let the criticisms roll off my back. I feel ownership over my choices. :001_smile: OTOH, I also let the criticism from people who think I don't know my "place" in my marriage roll off my back as well. ;)

 

I most certainly am not going to judge another woman's choices unless she is putting herself or her children in danger. I mean this in general terms. Of course there are some actions I may judge as "irresponsible"... but in general, I stay out of other people's relationship choices. The fact that we HAVE choices in this country is very, very important to me.

 

Gender roles are very cultural. They will vary depending on culture and subculture.

[Heather in Neverland]

Heather, I am more interested in how your class went. :D

 

 

 

Well here is what I wrote about women and submission:

 

I Peter 3:1 “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,â€

 

My first question is “in the same way as what?†This verse comes right after the description of how Christ suffered for us and served us out of love. So the idea is that women should serve their husbands out of love whether he is a believer or not and perhaps the witness of her life will be an example to her husband. The verb submit (Hupotasso- to subject one's self, to submit to one's control) is something the wife does willingly…she is not a servant or a slave or inferior in any way.

 

Those who love to talk about the “submission†of wives often forget to read a few more verses down where the husbands are told to honor their wives since both husband and wife are heirs to God’s grace. And since Paul tells us in Galatians 3:28 that “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†we can know that men and women were and are equal in God’s eyes. Women owned property, worked outside the home and participated in ministry (Paul mentions several women who helped him in his ministry).

 

Respecting one’s husband without trying to usurp or snatch away his authority is an act of love not servitude as is the giving of honor to his wife by the husband. In following Christ’s example, we are to have a servant’s heart towards all. So I would argue that there is no need for “enlightenment†if one reads the NT correctly… only for those who read it with their own agenda in mind.

 

Let's just say I ruffled a few male feathers.

[joannqn]

I don't know much yet about Bible translations from previous languages and all that, but when I learned in Latin that servus=slave and that servant was derived from servus, that put a new light on some Bible verses for me. Meaning, I tend to see the word "servant" and now think "slave." But I'm in process. :D (of course, there is the Biblical principle of serving others, which I think is a good thing.....now I'm processing and editing this post about a million times)

 

The New Testament was written in Greek so you must go to Greek to understand the origins of the words. The Old Testament was in Hebrew so you'd look to Hebrew for understanding. I don't know how much Latin helps in understanding the Greek or Hebrew languages since I've never studied Latin.

[MBH]

The feminists are taking the argument that the former passage is not condoning slavery and extrapolating that we should not condone submissiveness in the latter passage. It seems more that you would extrapolate that the latter passage does not condone marriage. And we all know that is not true.

 

The former passage is saying - if you are a slave, this is how you should act. The latter passage is saying - If you are a wife, this is how you should act. We are not slaves. We are, however, wives. And, just as wives are given instructions, husbands are, too. If you don't believe wives should be submissive, maybe you also shouldn't believe husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church.

 

God has a plan. We are not perfect people, and we don't always carry out His plan perfectly. However, that does not make the plan wrong. It makes us wrong.

 

JMNSHO.

 

Rhonda,

 

Great answer. I love it.

[Carol in Cal.]

:

 

Very simple and straight forward - God created man and woman at the same time. Genesis 28-31 go on to say that God blessed them and gave them dominion over the Earth.

 

QUOTE]

 

 

The other point here is that God created both men and women in His image. Women carry the image of God to the same extent that men do.

 

And BTW, the word helpmeet for Eve is the same word as for the Holy Spirit, as quoted by Jesus in saying that it is good that He is going away (ascending after the resurrection) because He is going to send a Helper to them--the Holy Spirit.

 

I think that it is important to take the whole Word seriously, and that a careful reading leaves a lot more dignity in the woman's role than that of a servant or slave, no matter whether one is a feminist or not.

[Tami]

Just off the top of my head:

 

1) I don't take recommendations for Biblical exposition from secularists very seriously. I would not consider them to be experts of Christian faith and practice, so I don't tend to change my way of thinking based on what they say. This type of question sounds like a "Jump on the bandwagon" type fallacy to me.

 

2) History shows how the spread of Western Civilization and Christianity brought freedom, rights, and value to women and children. Generally, women in countries touched by the Reformation enjoy a high degree of freedom.

 

3) Slavery in ancient times was common. It is amazing how we put our modern values and culture on others. People even sold themselves into slavery to pay off debt. I would view the modern counterpart as an employee/employer relationship. There is a valid principle here: if you are an employee, you should strive to do your work well, and not only when your boss is looking, demonstrating submission of the heart.

 

4) Gender differences were created by God and He called them good. I see no evidence that the NT mandate to submission to each other in marriage would cease. Gender roles are clearly laid out in the New Testament, and it is up to each reader to decide what to do with that information. When a husband loves his wife, like Christ loves the Church, he is wonderful to be married to. He is a servant, following the example of the Savior, who washed the disciples' feet, never Lording His authority over them, but instead, taking the form of a servant. Submission can never be demanded by a husband-- that is coercion. When a husband is a loving servant, it is easy to give one's self to him in trust, respect, and submission. This does not demean the wife in any way, nor does it imply a lower position. It is a choice by the wife that is made freely, and without coercion. Though both lead and both submit, I believe that the wife has the greater responsibility to be sensitive to her husband's leading, and the husband has the greater responsibility to serve and love. We find that it works beautifully, and I couldn't be happier or more at peace with my husband -- we complement each other very well.

 

Just a few quick thoughts!

[Tami]

That said, if a woman chooses to be submissive to her husband, that choice should be respected. If she backs up her choices with scripture, that is equally valid.

 

I do consider myself a feminist (see men and women as equals), and it's pretty eye opening to see the responses I get about choosing to stay home, keep house, and homeschool. LOL. I let the criticisms roll off my back. I feel ownership over my choices. :001_smile: OTOH, I also let the criticism from people who think I don't know my "place" in my marriage roll off my back as well. ;)

 

:iagree: Coming from the opposite end, as a conservative Christian, and I couldn't agree with you more.

[MBH]

Just off the top of my head:

 

1) I don't take recommendations for Biblical exposition from secularists very seriously. I would not consider them to be experts of Christian faith and practice, so I don't tend to change my way of thinking based on what they say. This type of question sounds like a "Jump on the bandwagon" type fallacy to me.

 

2) History shows how the spread of Western Civilization and Christianity brought freedom, rights, and value to women and children. Generally, women in countries touched by the Reformation enjoy a high degree of freedom.

 

3) Slavery in ancient times was common. It is amazing how we put our modern values and culture on others. People even sold themselves into slavery to pay off debt. I would view the modern counterpart as an employee/employer relationship. There is a valid principle here: if you are an employee, you should strive to do your work well, and not only when your boss is looking, demonstrating submission of the heart.

 

4) Gender differences were created by God and He called them good. I see no evidence that the NT mandate to submission to each other in marriage would cease. Gender roles are clearly laid out in the New Testament, and it is up to each reader to decide what to do with that information. When a husband loves his wife, like Christ loves the Church, he is wonderful to be married to. He is a servant, following the example of the Savior, who washed the disciples' feet, never Lording His authority over them, but instead, taking the form of a servant. Submission can never be demanded by a husband-- that is coercion. When a husband is a loving servant, it is easy to give one's self to him in trust, respect, and submission. This does not demean the wife in any way, nor does it imply a lower position. It is a choice by the wife that is made freely, and without coercion. Though both lead and both submit, I believe that the wife has the greater responsibility to be sensitive to her husband's leading, and the husband has the greater responsibility to serve and love. We find that it works beautifully, and I couldn't be happier or more at peace with my husband -- we complement each other very well.

 

Just a few quick thoughts!

 

Tami,

 

Excellent observation! Unfortunately 50% of the world does not practice what you mentioned above.

[Spy Car]

This is very interesting to me...care to expand?

 

The first story of the creation of man is a only one verse: Genesis 1:27. It says:

 

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female He created them.

 

Very simple and straight forward - God created man and woman at the same time. Genesis 28-31 go on to say that God blessed them and gave them dominion over the Earth.

 

Genesis 2 goes on to tell a different version of the story of the creation of man (male and female) - which encompasses the entirety of Chapter 2. This is the one that is most often quoted for male to be dominant over female because God created female from male.

 

The two storied contradict each other on the making of mankind. They also contradict on the role of the female. In the first male and female were created together and both given dominion over the Earth. In the second, not.

 

Chucki, did as well or better than I could have in answering this, thank you m' lady.

 

Interestingly, this seeming contradiction is taken so seriously in some quarters of Jewish* thought that an explanation has developed that involves Adam having had a "first wife" (before Eve) named Lilith. Their union did not go well, and this necessitated the creation of a "second wife" Eve. Some versions of the Lilith story even speculate that she (Lilith) transformed into the "serpent" in Genesis 2.

 

I don't believe this is a majority belief in Judaism, but I am aware of it's existence.

 

Bill (* who is not Jewish, and does not wish to speak "definitively" about other peoples faith systems. I've just heard the stories, and am sharing my limited knowledge).

Edited February 18, 2009 by Spy Car

[Parrothead]

Chucki, did as well or better than I could have in answering this, thank you m' lady.

 

Interestingly, this seeming contradiction is taken so seriously in some quarters of Jewish* thought that an explanation has developed that involves Adam having had a "first wife" (before Eve) named Lilith. Their union did not go well, and this necessitated the creation of a "second wife" Eve. Some versions of the Lilith story even speculate that she (Lilith) transformed into the "serpent" in Genesis 2.

 

I don't believe this is a majority belief in Judaism, but I am aware of it's existence.

 

Bill (* who is not Jewish, and does not wish to speak "definitively" about other peoples faith systems. I've just heard the stories, and am sharing my limited knowledge).

Your welcome, Bill.

 

And I'll back you up on the Lilith stories too. I've heard of them.

 

Now, I'm off to research the Lilith stories again because I don't remember the exact who, what, when, where and why.

[Spy Car]

Just off the top of my head:

 

1) I don't take recommendations for Biblical exposition from secularists very seriously. I would not consider them to be experts of Christian faith and practice, so I don't tend to change my way of thinking based on what they say.

 

:iagree:

 

Bill

[Laurie4b]

A comment on the prompt: it was American evangelicals who used the Bible to support slavery. Evangelicals from Canada and Europe didn't read the text the same way. So rather than "getting enlightened" it might be a better prompt to say, "How did the influences of culture and economics affect their interpretation of the text? In what areas might current economics and culture be affecting our interpretation of the text today? "

[TKDmom]

I haven't read all the way through this thread, but I am going to throw in my 2 cents. I would tend to interpret the word "submit" as "honor". In other words, don't just blindly follow, but do your best to respect them and honor your spouse's wishes. In a good marriage, this would happen naturally, and it would be a two-way street, where you're both looking out for each others best interests.

[Parrothead]

Here is a good article about the Lilith myth if anyone is interested.

[Catherine]

that biblical teaching is dependent on cultural context. To us, slavery is abhorrent, to those who practiced it, an attempt to justify it was necessary. Hence , quoting those verses from the Bible. To me, also from the secular, feminist perspective, it's easy for people to see what they are looking for in the Bible or anything else for that matter. The injunction to submit seems clear enough, but in our culture, submission means something different from what it means in rural Pakistan, for example. In those settings, unfortunately, total submission of the will is sometimes exactly what is demanded. Those women may have no power to help themselves in that situation. Thank goodness, we do.

[HSMom2One]

:lurk5:

[Joanne]

My model for Biblical womanhood, the Proverbs 31 woman, is always strong, competent, an asset to her family/husband.

 

I don't believe in wife ONLY submission. I believe the biblical design is for MUTUAL submission; a couple standing together with hearts and ears open to the Holy Spirit.

 

I believe a culture of cultishness and idolotry has developed around Patriarchy/wife only submission. I believe that any ONE person having authority in a marriage is inherently unhealthy.

 

I have read created to be his helpmeet, the excellent wife and the other one I can't think of.... I find them *extra biblical*. I think they encourage manipulativeness. I think they present wife only submission as a panacea; and therefore blame the wife in unhealthy and inaccurate ways.

 

Parts of those books, particularly ctbhh, actually encourage abuse.

[Kate CA]

The first story of the creation of man is a only one verse: Genesis 1:27. It says:

 

Very simple and straight forward - God created man and woman at the same time. Genesis 28-31 go on to say that God blessed them and gave them dominion over the Earth.

 

Genesis 2 goes on to tell a different version of the story of the creation of man (male and female) - which encompasses the entirety of Chapter 2.

 

This is not the straightforward reading of these passages and it is not a "different version" from one chapter to the next. Genesis 1 gives the whole chronology of the creation of the world day by day and Genesis 2 fleshes out the specific details on the creation of man and woman because it then goes into the fall of the man and woman. There is no contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 in any manner because man and woman were created on the same day - the sixth day.

[Colleen in NS]

Gender roles are clearly laid out in the New Testament

 

I'm not convinced anymore that these types of NT instructions were meant to be applied to every Christian in every part of the world for the past 2000 years. This is why I'm using historical context as a filter for my thinking these days. It just seems to me, in the stories of the Bible, that God worked in all sorts of ways with all sorts of people, while still communicating/demonstrating certain bigger principles (love your neighbour as yourself, take care of the poor, look at this big, beautiful creation with all its hidden treasures that I made for humans to enjoy, etc.).

 

And it seems to me that at times, certain specific prescriptions were given by the writer (ex.: orderly worship, see 1 Cor. 14:26-40, or all the stuff in Eph. 5:22-6:9 about wives and husbands and masters and slaves) to solve some specific problems that may have been going on in the society at that time. (?) And even if I think that these specific prescriptions were only aimed at that society's situations, and don't apply the specifics of to my own life, I can sure extract some overall principles that are repeated and exemplified throughout the Bible - treat others with kindness, love, and respect no matter what their place in society and no matter what their gender.

 

I'm not a Bible scholar, but this is what I'm thinking these days, after 25 years of not being aware of the tool called historical context, and being taught that certain things written in the Bible apply to my personal daily life.

 

This Christian is trying to become enlightened! :lol:

 

Oh, and Joannqn, I knew the NT was written in Greek, and I, too, don't know if Latin is useful in interpreting that. I was just musing about the words, and how my understanding of words change the more I learn about roots and origins (and historical context ;)). I've got a long way to go in understanding the Bible and how it applies to me personally, even though I've been a Christian for a long time.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[Kate CA]

Just off the top of my head:

 

1) I don't take recommendations for Biblical exposition from secularists very seriously. I would not consider them to be experts of Christian faith and practice, so I don't tend to change my way of thinking based on what they say. This type of question sounds like a "Jump on the bandwagon" type fallacy to me.

 

2) History shows how the spread of Western Civilization and Christianity brought freedom, rights, and value to women and children. Generally, women in countries touched by the Reformation enjoy a high degree of freedom.

 

3) Slavery in ancient times was common. It is amazing how we put our modern values and culture on others. People even sold themselves into slavery to pay off debt. I would view the modern counterpart as an employee/employer relationship. There is a valid principle here: if you are an employee, you should strive to do your work well, and not only when your boss is looking, demonstrating submission of the heart.

 

4) Gender differences were created by God and He called them good. I see no evidence that the NT mandate to submission to each other in marriage would cease. Gender roles are clearly laid out in the New Testament, and it is up to each reader to decide what to do with that information. When a husband loves his wife, like Christ loves the Church, he is wonderful to be married to. He is a servant, following the example of the Savior, who washed the disciples' feet, never Lording His authority over them, but instead, taking the form of a servant. Submission can never be demanded by a husband-- that is coercion. When a husband is a loving servant, it is easy to give one's self to him in trust, respect, and submission. This does not demean the wife in any way, nor does it imply a lower position. It is a choice by the wife that is made freely, and without coercion. Though both lead and both submit, I believe that the wife has the greater responsibility to be sensitive to her husband's leading, and the husband has the greater responsibility to serve and love. We find that it works beautifully, and I couldn't be happier or more at peace with my husband -- we complement each other very well.

 

Just a few quick thoughts!

 

This was beautiful. I completely agree.