It is only unclear lately. Everyone I have ever known or read teaches that after speaking to the Church about the two office for men in the church, Paul then speaks to the wives of both. Not sure why it is so unclear unless we want it to be unlcear so we can have our own way.
Commands are commands so where the "core" concept comes from is interesting. The core of the Gospel is salvation through the Cross, etc. Still, to maintain decency and order Paul was inspired by God to give commands that are details, if you please, dealing with church government, secular government, labor relations, marriage, child rearing, giving. roles, etc.
If you question all the "details", you have to question the core. If Paul was allowed to be sexist, narrow minded, cultural slave, etc. then maybe his "core" doctrines of justification by faith are his alone as well and we are still dead in trespasses and sins. Maybe he was a Jewish plant to warp out the Gentiles and turn off potential Jewish followers by slapping both cultures and their practices and it just backfired growing out of control by mindless saps that just believed what he said even after searching the Scriptures to see if they were so and for 2000 years, more saps have done the same until the enlightened ones of today rose up to challenge all that and mold Paul's writings to their image rather than renew their mind thus conforming themselves to the moods of their culture.
I interviewed with a church Wednesday night and they gave me 20 questions. 19 of them I flew through with flying colors. Indeed, some were amazed and intriqued by my "abilities". We were only supposed to be there a hour and it went over two. Only the question that dealt with this issue caused excitable responses from the committee. No one had any Scripture, they just pled ends justify the means since they had few men willing to teach or lead so we just had to put women in places of leadership and authority no matter what the Word might say.
I noticed none of my message posted on women drew much attention outside of the Holy Women ARE Beautiful one. I have been rather busy,so I have not been able to respond to some of the other responses on this message or some of the others I have read from time to time. Ladies, y'all should read my series. Until very recent history, my thoughts have been the "orthodox" take on the issues.
For my own self, if God did not clearly lay out the roles of men and women from Genesis to Revelation, I would not give a hoot. I heard a lady addressing other women at a rescue mission the other week and she did better than some male preachers I know. If it were biblical for women to be pastors, I would ordain her in a minute (whoops forget she has been divorced) if all other factors were equal. But they cannot be pastors biblically and I won't do it.
NT:1135 gune (goo-nay'); probably from the base of NT:1096; a woman; specially, a wife:
KJV-wife, woman.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Where do you get deaconess here? He is speaking to wives. Maybe I'll start calling my wife my sweet goonay. Naw, too close to gooney and we would have a few moments of intense fellowship if I did that.
Later it says the same phrase that clinches it for the pastor when it says let the deacons be the husband of one wife. Unless it is a gay union no woman can be a husband.
NT:4291 proistemi (pro-is'-tay-mee); from NT:4253 and NT:2476; to stand before, i.e. (in rank) to preside, or (by implication) to practise:
KJV-maintain, be over, rule.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
The deacons must rule over their house well. When someone presides the dictionary says it like a chairman. There is only one chairman so if the man is chairman over the house the woman by default is not. She is the second in command in the household, but not the chairman/person. Note the reference to rank inthe Greek. Submit (huptasso) is a military term with the concept of ranking. You cannot get away from the concept honestly. Scripture stresses it. Personally, I think that man's headship may be part of the curse. Adam certainly did not communicate with Eve because where did she getthe idea of not touching it and why did she not run that by Adam? If she did, why did he not correct her or the both f them go to God for clarification? So, since Adam did not communicate with his wife and be a good head making sure she understood God's Word man is the head and given more responsibility than the woman in many ways. If nothing else, man Adam was first and so has the oldest date of rank. In the military, if two colonels of equal abilities given a task one will be in charge and if they are both bird colonels it will be given to the man with theoldest date of rank. No one is superior or inferior, but as business knows someone has to have the deciding vote in a tied situation. God gave man the tie breaking vote. With that he gets all the responsibilty of blame if he makes the wrong decision. I see far more freedom in the wive's role than I do in the man's.
Wives must support their husbands whether the lads are pastors, deacons, or firemen or they cannot be all they can be. Hence, if a man wants to be a pastor or deacon and his wife is a gossiping wino he will have severe problems even if he is a Paul or Billy Graham and hence should not be given the office until he can get his house in order. It is all so simple that it is mindboggling that it is such a controversary. It is only a controversary because we live in a society that cannot stand any kind of restrictions and has a bogus sense of equality. The Bible does not downgrade a woman, but rather exalts her. I don't get my prayers answered if I do not treat my wife right. It does not specifically say that she won't get hers answered if she treats me wrongly. I have to be willing to die for my wife. She does not have to be willing to die for me. I just have to look at a woman in lust to commit adultery. The converse may be true, but he called down the men, not the ladies. I think women got a pretty good deal there.
The one lass did not know what I meant by 1881. That was the beginning of the age of apostasy that we are now experiencing. That was when the harlot mother of the "modern" translations was birthed. Since that time, we have seen denomination after denomination fall away into apostasy and everything being challenged by the "scholars." Look around, if they have been so right we should be seeing a great revival instead of such a falling away. 3/4 of the SBC churches are static or dying and it is as bad or worse in all of the other denominations while Mormons are in the top 5 groups.
Maybe we need to return to the old paths and dump the pop theologies and bad manuscripts. Update the KJV English but use the Textus Receptus. I have no problem with that. That was all they were supposed to do in 1881, but they went far beyond their scope per their own confession and allowed themselves to be ramrodded by two men and their obviously flawed manuscripts. Age is not necessarily proof of authenticity. There are older versions with all the words and passages left out. Older lectionaries and the writings of the Church Fathers either quote verbatim "the challenged passages" or refer to them. It was not good scholarship in 1881 and it is not now.
The game plan is far more deeper than just changing giveth to give. The One World Church will need a book that pleases everyone as well as popular doctrine to unify folks. All we are seeing are the rough drafts of that book. They have taken out words, passages and now genders as well as having watered down the language so that the New Agers, Wiccans, and Satanists are happy with it. By the time it arrives it will be too late for the ones touting the current new versions of the week to retreat. Indeed, one day it will be Our Mother, who is in Heaven (and in some places that has nearly already happened in the Presbys) or Our Person. Jesus may even become Yeshuaetta. Someone will get a revelation that the truth has been suppressed for 2,000 years and the Messiah was a woman and gay at that since Mary Magdelene hung out with her so closely.
Satan asked, "Yea, hath God said" and we have the same thing today coming out of seminaries that once contended for the faith and now contend if there be anything to have faith in other than the originals. They question the Apostles like atheists or as if they are better than the Apostles and the far greater scholars that came before them. Surely, they are the people and wisdom shall die with them. Yea, right. Truth will stand and be vindicated and those lads and lassies will be found wanting.
