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

[blackbird]

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

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
What is your take on 2 Kings 22?

thanks joseph, this is the kind of thing i'm looking for.
perhaps relaying verbatim god's word is not the same thing
as being a teacher or having disciples, not unlike like the difference between a king's messenger and a prime minister. one wields authority, the other does not.

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

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
i don't know, maybe there shouldn't be any female managers, along with all the other things you described. at this point i personally wouldn't take a job under the direct authority of a female manager.

While I respect your request for Scriptural support, practically every Biblical Scholar agrees with the thought that Paul's instruction in Chapter 2 of I Timothy refers to the Church. </font>[/QUOTE]Matthew Henry, on Genesis 2:21-25
Observe, 1. That Adam was first formed, then Eve (1 Tim. ii. 13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (1 Cor. xi. 8, 9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands.

Matthew Henry, on Genesis 3:16
II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris--at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num. xxx. 6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Timothy, if you have a beef about female moderators take it up with the Webmaster and quite taking up bandwidth here to vent on the matter. If his answer is not satisfactory and you do not like the way the Board is run then stop coming and posting here.

[ August 08, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

 

[timothy 1769]

if you don't like biblical debate, i invite you to stop responding to my posts. please do me the courtesy of reading my posts with grace, and not persisting in false accusations. as i said above, i don't really care what the policy of this board is, though i guess i should on some level, i'm far more concerned with my own behavior, and correctly understanding and being faithful to the word of god.

if you can't stand the idea of the bible being discussed and debated when that might imply you or your associates are doing wrong, then kick me off the board. it would be a small price to pay for being faithful to my lord.

i intend to keep discussing the interplay of gender and authority until i feel it has been fully explored. if this is unacceptable, i suggest that a change in board policy be made to prohibit such discussions.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by blackbird:
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

thanks for the friendly tone, blackbird.

from my current understanding of scripture, i think a woman is wrong to be a policeman, since obviously that involves exercising authority over men.

but at the same time i think i should submit in that situation to her as an agent of the government, as per romans 13.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
This idea would seem to me to pull away from the harmonization of scriptures that you seem to seek.

joseph,

i agree! i'm looking for the correct interpretation, not some lame cyber victory.

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.

i agree that's possible, and jimmy presented that idea earlier too. in many ways, however, this could lead to a slippery slope of anything in the epistles being questionable in it's application today.

that matthew henry seems to agree with my position makes me wonder if your interpretation is of recent vintage, and perhaps indirectly the result of feminism in our society. but i don't know enough to say.

does anyone have interpretations from pre 1850 or so commentators on this issue that we can consider?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Matthew Henry, on Genesis 2:21-25
&lt;snip&gt;
Matthew Henry, on Genesis 3:16
&lt;snip&gt;

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

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Matthew Henry, on Genesis 2:21-25
&lt;snip&gt;
Matthew Henry, on Genesis 3:16
&lt;snip&gt;

Interesting post, but how does this relate to the Scripture that you quoted? </font>[/QUOTE]sorry for being vague!

you made a comment about most biblical scholars holding that the subjection of women only applies within the church. i wanted to show at least one well respected commentator that believed otherwise.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
This idea would seem to me to pull away from the harmonization of scriptures that you seem to seek.

joseph,

i agree! i'm looking for the correct interpretation, not some lame cyber victory.

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.

i agree that's possible, and jimmy presented that idea earlier too. in many ways, however, this could lead to a slippery slope of anything in the epistles being questionable in it's application today.

that matthew henry seems to agree with my position makes me wonder if your interpretation is of recent vintage, and perhaps indirectly the result of feminism in our society. but i don't know enough to say.

does anyone have interpretations from pre 1850 or so commentators on this issue that we can consider?

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

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

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...

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
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...

afaik other than deborah, there are no indisputable examples of god calling women to positions of authority over men. and even this can doubted if one is willing to assume her judging was always according to the holy spirit and not somewhat according to her own wisdom, making her a mouthpiece for god. i only point this out since this appears to be a smaller assumption than assuming paul's commandments concerning the submission of women were only meant for those particular churches to which he was writing. both suppositions add to the text, and i reject them both.

i do not believe that god willy nilly overrides the principle of female subjection and i wouldn't accept a lady's word for it without irrefutable supernatural confirmation, in much the same way i don't accept benny hinn and other modern day "prophets". obviously god can do as he likes, but an extremely high level of proof is required when a "calling" or "vision" or whatnot contradicts the general principles revealed in his word.

[ August 10, 2003, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
johnv, here you go. i have hightlighted what i consider to be the core of my argument to help make it easier to understand, but all of the passages are important.


Genesis 2:18
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

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.

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

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.

can anyone refute this? especially the bolded argument?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
afaik other than deborah, there are no indisputable examples of god calling women to positions of authority over men.

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

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
johnv, here you go. i have hightlighted what i consider to be the core of my argument to help make it easier to understand, but all of the passages are important.


Genesis 2:18
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

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

 

[HankD]

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

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
afaik other than deborah, there are no indisputable examples of god calling women to positions of authority over men.

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

</font>[/QUOTE]thanks joseph.

perhaps i'm missing something, but i don't see any authority being exercised by huldah in that chapter. she seems to merely be acting as a mouthpiece for god, and god is the one wielding authority.

i see deborah in a different light, since the text says:

4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. 5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

 

[timothy 1769]

joseph, here's my take on deborah:

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by Jimmy C:
You want a spriptural reference about women with authority over men? How about the Book of Judges.

thanks jimmy. do you see deborah's experience as normative? how do you explain the genesis and timothy scriptures then?

i think deborah was a special case, a special calling verified by prophecies and/or other miracles. i think other women that show similar signs would be justified in asuming authority over men if god so commanded.

i think god made deborah a judge to show that the general subordination of women to men wasn't due to women's inherent inability. but even in this scripture, note the command was from god, and she only went because barak wouldn't go otherwise. of course, god was still working providentially to make his point.

that's my theory, anyway.

 

[timothy 1769]

hankd,

thanks, you've given me a few things to consider.

 

[timothy 1769]

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.

i think 1Samuel 25 exemplifies what you are saying here...