is it right for men to post in forums moderated by women?

Tim, ole buddy!

You need to take a ride with Blackbird---your choice of vehicles--vintage P-51 Mustang or my newly commendered U-2 Blackbird! Loosin up a bit!

Suppose you knew that this Board was actually owned by a woman?

Then lets just say that you and me are ridin' along on my Harley--and a woman trooper(badder than a regular cop) pulls us over for speedin'--I tell ya--she ain't gonna let us rant and rave about what what we think the word has to say about women not being over a man--we'd have better luck tellin' her we had to "go" real bad and was in a hurry!

Just a thought--relax--it ain't all that bad!

Your buddy,
Blackbird

 

Timothy,

I figured that is what you were looking for. I like to use scripture when talking about what God does and doesn't want. I think a few points are in order here.

1. Deborah was not the only woman to serve in the capacity of Prophet in the Bible. So did Huldah. A prophet is one who is annointed by God himself to proclaim the Word of God to Israel. They were most certainly in a position of authority as they spoke for God.

2. Huldah proclaimed the Word of God with authority to a bunch of men.

3. Huldah was a true prophet because her prophecies did come true.

there is a similar situation with the prophetess preaching in the temple after jesus's birth.

another possibility is that these commands were only given to the church, and not to israel, even though the basic principle was there since creation, not unlike jesus's teachings on divorce. [/QUOTE]

This idea would seem to me to pull away from the harmonization of scriptures that you seem to seek. I would, however, offer another possibility though. I think it is possible that the restrictions that Paul made on women were dealing with a specific situation in the Church at that time (possibly false teachings by women or gossip), and were not meant to be for all times and for every woman.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Interesting post, but how does this relate to the Scripture that you quoted?

 

I surely wouldn't be considered by most a feminist. If I had my way and had written in the Bible, I would have taught that no woman should ever be in a position of leadership. Alas, however, I did not write the Bible. I only seek to obey the Bible. I think that I would follow what the Bible and not just what Matthew Henry thinks the Bible means because then you end up following man's interpretations. I guess the best thing for you to do would be to pray for God to show you his will, and then read and study the Bible more and wait for the Spirit of God to convict you of his will through his word. I think this is the best way to go.

Good Luck,

Joseph Botwinick

 

God called men in the Bible for specific jobs. He is still calling them today.

Why would He call women in the Bible for specific jobs and NOT call them today?

Please show me in scripture when He stopped doing this...

 

Hi Timothy,

I would only remind you of our previous conversation where we recognized that Deborah was not alone in her being a female called by God to serve in a position of authority over men. Please refer back to 2 Kings 22.

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

I agree.

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.</font>[/QUOTE]This was in the context of God punishing the woman for sin. This is not what God originally intended for women. This is part of the consequences of sin.

note the apostle paul applies these teachings to men beyond a woman's husband in 1timothy 2:11 [/QUOTE]

I think if we look at scripture as a whole and harmonize them (make sure that one does not contradict another) we are going to have a hard time understanding why God would have placed women such as Deborah and Huldah in positions of authority over men unless we are willing to state that this is not a command for all women in all times. The part of that chapter, interestingly enough, that I don't seem to understand, is v. 15. Now that, would be a great study.

and 1corinthians 11 below. that means it's impossible to uphold that these passages apply only to married women with their individual husbands AND the inspiration of 1timothy and 1corinthians at the same time.

1Corinthians 11:3
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.[/QUOTE]

v. 4: Every man who prays or prohecies with his head covered dishonors his head.

v. 5: And every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-

Apparently, Paul had no problem with women prophecying in the church. As a matter of fact, it would seem that this was an expected activity. He only says that if they didn't do it with their heads covered, they were bringing shame to themselves. What is this headcovering according to scripture:

v. 15: but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

As for my wife submitting to other men besides me, that is not Biblical. I am the head of my house as the husband and my wife is to submit to me only (Ephesians 5:22-24). But, notonly is she to submit to me as the head of the house, but I am to love her as Christ loved the Church (vv. 25-29). This is the way things are in a Godly, Biblical home.

1Corinthians 14
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

note this doesn't say "married women".

1Timothy 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1corinthians 11
3 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.
...
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

notice these passages say nothing about a woman being married, all women are referenced here. and this can't just be referring to a particular married couple, for verse 8 would make no sense - of course a husband is not taken from his wife! both of these verses refer back to the above verses from genesis, which the apostle paul applies to all men and all women, regardless of marital status. [/QUOTE]can anyone refute this? especially the bolded argument? [/QUOTE]

All I can say is that where you went wrong is by ceasing to harmonize all scripture as has been stated before and trying to prove an idea that you are comfortable with. If you are truly concerned with harmonizing all scripture, then please explain Deborah and Huldah. Also, for all you "New Testament" Christians, did the eternal I am, the immutable God somehow change between the Old and New Testament?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Dear Timothy,

Had it not been for Deborah and Huldah, I would probably take the position that women under no circumstance should have authority over men.

Yes, Paul brings this right back to the garden of Eden, so it apparently applies universally and is as timeless as marriage itself.

But then we have Deborah and Huldah who were without explanation each proclaimed as a "prophetess" upon whom God put His stamp of approval by including them in His Word.

Therefore IMO, it can't be an ironclad rule,
Paul surely being aware of these women in the Scripture.

Personally, I believe there are two other factors, that bear upon your question contained in the clause:

"nor to usurp authority over the man"

Had this clause been left out then again an ironclad rule might be possible. But even then we would still have Deborah and Huldah to deal with as women having authority over men.

Looking at this passage and contemplating the Deborah and Huldah situation, my own conclusion is this:

Paul's statement is a general rule which goes back to the very beginning of the human race, women are to be in subjection to men UNLESS that authority is relinquished in one way or another ...

For example, the men within a woman's sphere of influence are all unrighteous or unwilling to execute their obligation of provider and/or protector of the women over whom they have authority. God Himself putting His stamp of approval on the office of "prophetess" as undeniably shown by the example of Deborah and Huldah.

My own view therefore is, 1) the general rule should prevail unless there is a circumstance (no willing men, evil men) which require the women to fill the gap or 2) (a weaker but additional factor, and the one which I personally hold) If those righteous men in authority give specific permission to the women in their sphere of influence charge to speak or teach then it is within the limits of Scripture as long as that permission is not coerced and can be withdrawn at any time for any reason.

Having said that, I do feel resistance when I see/hear a woman "preaching" on TV/radio.

Here on the BB, I welcome and enjoy the insight of the many sisters who post.

My opinion of course.

HankD