"Initially, it was most natural for man to follow woman. Read the story: If Eve was convinced to eat of the Tree of Knowledge through dialogue with a talking snake, what convinced Adam? Quite simply, nothing at all. As he himself admitted, "The woman you put here with me gave it to me and I ate!" If Eve told him to do something, Adam understood he was bound to listen. After all, hadn't she been put here by G-d as a "helpmate"? What else could that mean?
And so, writes the Nachmanides, (the "Ramban," 1194-1270) the logical consequence: From now on, the roles would be reversed. Adam would dominate Eve. A curse, truly, for both of them -- for how much of a helpmate can you be when you are dominated?Until Sarah. Sarah was the first, the Zohar says, to begin to heal the catastrophe of Eve. And so, G-d tells Abraham, "All that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice" (Genesis 21:12). And so it will be for all of us once the moshiach arrives: The feminine will once again dominate in the world, as it was in the garden before the fall."
Yes, but those rules have been done away with Christ. Men are called to love their wives the same way Christ loved the church — by willing to give up their lives.
It is no longer domination — although people abuse this — it is sacrificial love.
Then why does Paul tell wives to submitt themselves? Why were the women told not to speak in the church? Why are women told they must keep their heads covered but for men it is a shame?
Then why does Paul tell wives to submitt themselves? Why were the women told not to speak in the church? Why are women told they must keep their heads covered but for men it is a shame?
The earlier, so-called "heretical" Christian movements exhibit a quite different, more equitable and democratic perspective in regard to women than the old patriarchal attitudes which ultimately re-asserted themselves and prevailed, affecting the re-writing of scriptures (encompassing the Pauline material) to reflect this sexism. Prior to the ascendancy of orthodoxy, the Marcionites and other so-called "gnostic" movements were continually criticized by opponents for the key, active roles women played in their churches. It's quite feasible that Christianity might have never gotten off the ground without the particular appeal that it held for women back then, and their contribution toward its circulation.
The statement attributed to Paul, of wives to "submit" themselves to their husbands, I think may be authentic only in those contexts where the idea of a mutual submission is expressed (i.e., Eph. 5), where a husband is also told to submit to his wife. Outside of the contexts of a equal and mutual submission between a husband and wife (e.g., the later, most flagrant fictional material of the Pseudo-Pauline "pastoral" epistles), it doesn't fly.
The command in 1 Cor.14 for women to be silent in the church is most likely a later, most deliberate interpolation - I think it was the French writer Joseph Turmel in his commentary on 1 Corinthians who pointed out that the early church writer Iraenus never mentions this particular "weapon" when railing against the Montanists (a movement in which prophetesses played a major role).
The command for a woman not to pray and prophesy with her head uncovered (1 Cor.11), by itself outright contradicts the interpolation in 1 Cor.14 - how could a woman "prophesy" in the church yet be commanded to be silent in a later chapter? As far as the material in 1 Cor.11 is concerned, we're also dealing with some peculiar cultural and cosmological ideas here, perhaps some for reasons we'll never be able to fully recover or explain. Even today in the middle east, and in other religions, women wear veils. The reason indicated in 1 Cor 11 - "on account of the angels". Apparently, it was believed that angels were present in congregations. Though even among the material of the Dead Sea scrolls, women, and those blind, infirm, feeble and diseased, were forbidden from participation in that congregation because of "the sons of God" (= angels). Jesus, in his parable on the banquet in Luke, goes against this grain of this thinking, and embraces all those which the Qumran "Manual of Discipline" forbade.
Terrific topic, I salute you. One that long needs to be addressed well too I think.
Your comment:
"Yes, G-d relegated Eve to a lesser social status
I don't know about that Abby. Afterall, women are still the fairer sex, and more appealing to look upon. From that standpoint you could say they are the life of the social party.
The homosexual movement has long made the arguement, that when the Apostle Paul talked about women covering there heads, this is proof that some Biblical things are out of date, thus there "movement" is ok with God. I Corinthians 11:16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, niether the churches of God." Paul said, unequivocally, that the was no custom "or rule or law" that said the woman had to have her head covered.
It would be my arguement that there is a terrific application of this scripture. Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only.
You know men are very visual. A woman that dresses to provoke men visually is doing a diservice to herself. It can be a signal to men also, look at me I'm cheap. As a man, if my wife is dressed in a sexually provacative way in public, it certainly makes me feel a little insecure, especially if she is beautiful. This is certainly one aspect of what the apostle was getting at.
I suppose for the present time you can hardly fault women for dressing the way they do. Most men have indicated to woman this is what they want. So women try and take advantage of there beauty in this manner. If men had more self control with there eyes and lusts, I think women would dress more approbriately
Tough issue. I once heard some Assemblies explain it away as "the female" bieng a type of the soul and "male" a type of the spirit, within an organization whose heirarchial order were preachers who were predominately women. Personally, I dont think this view flies either.
Bill Gothard (you may have heard of him) takes the strictist view that it is literal (Women should not speak in the church) Oddly, the churches who he supports by sending people who attend his conferences (Basic Institute of youth Conflicts), widely disapprove of his view.
Evangelical, Protestants, charismatics etc.
Joyce Meyers, a charismatic TV preacher, preaches consistently on TV. Yet her messages are more emblematic and resemble more story telling and encourage talk to what looks to be a predominately female audience, than the resembence of a church. To me its kinda like a really cute puppet show. (I salute Joyce Meyers)
Pauls view was " I suffer not a woman to speak or usurp authority in the church." He, "Paul"
would not suffer it. There must of been some unbearable thing about it that happened to him in his life. Personally, I can see that tack also. There are times when awoman talk so much it is impossible to get in a word edgewise. To listen to it over and over and over and over again, is just plain suffering. (no abby I am not talking about you)
My own personal view I can only illustrate with a story. As a kid in a Lutheran church, my mother and about 10 other women were in this rather archaic church with an old time litergy order. The pastor was very intellectual and appealed mainly to about half the congregation who were also intellectuals and not Biblical purists. These 10 or so women, never preached from the pulpit yet they ran that church. They ran it with there deeds. I suppose you could argue "lousy doctrine" but you know what, I never seen any women or men like these women were. You know how Jesus said take heed that you do not your deeds before men. This is what these women did. If the 10 of them had left together, that place would have folded like a tent and died. God listened and performed all those womens prayers. The skinny of the matter: You can rule a joint without ruling a pulpit. My personal view: If men were more active with God and a leadership role the was approbriate (instead of thinking Christianity is sissy) , it would be a non-issue.
The "leadership vaccuum" will always exist when men are not taking God seriously, and force upon woman more authorative leadership roles of which many are perhaps uncomfortable.
That was some great information you shared. I would love it if you could post some links, but if it means looking all the stuff up again, don't worry about it, I'll find it eventually.
"Even today in the middle east, and in other religions, women wear veils. "
Interesting point. It might be fun to check out the history on this. In Judaism, the men are to keep their heads covered. Married women too, will wear a scarf on their heads - at least in the more orthodox traditions, but not the single women. Yet, the single men still do..hmmmm.
Sky,
"Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only. "
Doesn't the wedding ring do that? I have to quarrel with a woman choosing to wear or not wear a veil. I'm speaking more on the deeper level of this entire submission thing. The weaker vessel and all that.
"Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only. "
Another topic for another thread probably. While I think a woman should have the right to dress as she chooses, I agree. At least in this society, it is wise to consider the message your clothing may be sending.
"As a man, if my wife is dressed in a sexually provacative way in public, it certainly makes me feel a little insecure, especially if she is beautiful. This is certainly one aspect of what the apostle was getting at."
I would think a man would be proud to have such a beautiful woman on his arm. What's to be jealous of if she has already decided she wants to be with you anyway? Instead, it is the other men who should be jealous because she has not chosen them. I know 1000Names loves it when I dress a little sexy to go out with him, he feels proud. I enjoy it as well. Course I wouldn't dress that way to go out without him, either.
"So women try and take advantage of there beauty in this manner. If men had more self control with there eyes and lusts, I think women would dress more approbriately"
And this really is the crux of the matter. Because it is the beauty which may attract a man, but it is not what will ultimately keep him. A woman (and a man as well) would be wise to find a balance between looking nice and making sure the attraction is more than skin deep.
"The "leadership vaccuum" will always exist when men are not taking God seriously, and force upon woman more authorative leadership roles of which many are perhaps uncomfortable."
This may be true as well. But likewise, there would be no "vaccum" if it was understood one gender does not have authority over the other.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
A little more from another article
Excerpts from "How Sin Started
By Tzvi Freeman"
"Initially, it was most natural for man to follow woman. Read the story: If Eve was convinced to eat of the Tree of Knowledge through dialogue with a talking snake, what convinced Adam? Quite simply, nothing at all. As he himself admitted, "The woman you put here with me gave it to me and I ate!" If Eve told him to do something, Adam understood he was bound to listen. After all, hadn't she been put here by G-d as a "helpmate"? What else could that mean?
And so, writes the Nachmanides, (the "Ramban," 1194-1270) the logical consequence: From now on, the roles would be reversed. Adam would dominate Eve. A curse, truly, for both of them -- for how much of a helpmate can you be when you are dominated?Until Sarah. Sarah was the first, the Zohar says, to begin to heal the catastrophe of Eve. And so, G-d tells Abraham, "All that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice" (Genesis 21:12). And so it will be for all of us once the moshiach arrives: The feminine will once again dominate in the world, as it was in the garden before the fall."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Yes, but those rules have been done away with Christ. Men are called to love their wives the same way Christ loved the church — by willing to give up their lives.
It is no longer domination — although people abuse this — it is sacrificial love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Then why does Paul tell wives to submitt themselves? Why were the women told not to speak in the church? Why are women told they must keep their heads covered but for men it is a shame?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The earlier, so-called "heretical" Christian movements exhibit a quite different, more equitable and democratic perspective in regard to women than the old patriarchal attitudes which ultimately re-asserted themselves and prevailed, affecting the re-writing of scriptures (encompassing the Pauline material) to reflect this sexism. Prior to the ascendancy of orthodoxy, the Marcionites and other so-called "gnostic" movements were continually criticized by opponents for the key, active roles women played in their churches. It's quite feasible that Christianity might have never gotten off the ground without the particular appeal that it held for women back then, and their contribution toward its circulation.
The statement attributed to Paul, of wives to "submit" themselves to their husbands, I think may be authentic only in those contexts where the idea of a mutual submission is expressed (i.e., Eph. 5), where a husband is also told to submit to his wife. Outside of the contexts of a equal and mutual submission between a husband and wife (e.g., the later, most flagrant fictional material of the Pseudo-Pauline "pastoral" epistles), it doesn't fly.
The command in 1 Cor.14 for women to be silent in the church is most likely a later, most deliberate interpolation - I think it was the French writer Joseph Turmel in his commentary on 1 Corinthians who pointed out that the early church writer Iraenus never mentions this particular "weapon" when railing against the Montanists (a movement in which prophetesses played a major role).
The command for a woman not to pray and prophesy with her head uncovered (1 Cor.11), by itself outright contradicts the interpolation in 1 Cor.14 - how could a woman "prophesy" in the church yet be commanded to be silent in a later chapter? As far as the material in 1 Cor.11 is concerned, we're also dealing with some peculiar cultural and cosmological ideas here, perhaps some for reasons we'll never be able to fully recover or explain. Even today in the middle east, and in other religions, women wear veils. The reason indicated in 1 Cor 11 - "on account of the angels". Apparently, it was believed that angels were present in congregations. Though even among the material of the Dead Sea scrolls, women, and those blind, infirm, feeble and diseased, were forbidden from participation in that congregation because of "the sons of God" (= angels). Jesus, in his parable on the banquet in Luke, goes against this grain of this thinking, and embraces all those which the Qumran "Manual of Discipline" forbade.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abby:
Terrific topic, I salute you. One that long needs to be addressed well too I think.
Your comment:
"Yes, G-d relegated Eve to a lesser social status
I don't know about that Abby. Afterall, women are still the fairer sex, and more appealing to look upon. From that standpoint you could say they are the life of the social party.
The homosexual movement has long made the arguement, that when the Apostle Paul talked about women covering there heads, this is proof that some Biblical things are out of date, thus there "movement" is ok with God. I Corinthians 11:16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, niether the churches of God." Paul said, unequivocally, that the was no custom "or rule or law" that said the woman had to have her head covered.
It would be my arguement that there is a terrific application of this scripture. Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only.
You know men are very visual. A woman that dresses to provoke men visually is doing a diservice to herself. It can be a signal to men also, look at me I'm cheap. As a man, if my wife is dressed in a sexually provacative way in public, it certainly makes me feel a little insecure, especially if she is beautiful. This is certainly one aspect of what the apostle was getting at.
I suppose for the present time you can hardly fault women for dressing the way they do. Most men have indicated to woman this is what they want. So women try and take advantage of there beauty in this manner. If men had more self control with there eyes and lusts, I think women would dress more approbriately
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Danny:
Once again an outstanding hisorical perspective.
Tough issue. I once heard some Assemblies explain it away as "the female" bieng a type of the soul and "male" a type of the spirit, within an organization whose heirarchial order were preachers who were predominately women. Personally, I dont think this view flies either.
Bill Gothard (you may have heard of him) takes the strictist view that it is literal (Women should not speak in the church) Oddly, the churches who he supports by sending people who attend his conferences (Basic Institute of youth Conflicts), widely disapprove of his view.
Evangelical, Protestants, charismatics etc.
Joyce Meyers, a charismatic TV preacher, preaches consistently on TV. Yet her messages are more emblematic and resemble more story telling and encourage talk to what looks to be a predominately female audience, than the resembence of a church. To me its kinda like a really cute puppet show. (I salute Joyce Meyers)
Pauls view was " I suffer not a woman to speak or usurp authority in the church." He, "Paul"
would not suffer it. There must of been some unbearable thing about it that happened to him in his life. Personally, I can see that tack also. There are times when awoman talk so much it is impossible to get in a word edgewise. To listen to it over and over and over and over again, is just plain suffering. (no abby I am not talking about you)
My own personal view I can only illustrate with a story. As a kid in a Lutheran church, my mother and about 10 other women were in this rather archaic church with an old time litergy order. The pastor was very intellectual and appealed mainly to about half the congregation who were also intellectuals and not Biblical purists. These 10 or so women, never preached from the pulpit yet they ran that church. They ran it with there deeds. I suppose you could argue "lousy doctrine" but you know what, I never seen any women or men like these women were. You know how Jesus said take heed that you do not your deeds before men. This is what these women did. If the 10 of them had left together, that place would have folded like a tent and died. God listened and performed all those womens prayers. The skinny of the matter: You can rule a joint without ruling a pulpit. My personal view: If men were more active with God and a leadership role the was approbriate (instead of thinking Christianity is sissy) , it would be a non-issue.
The "leadership vaccuum" will always exist when men are not taking God seriously, and force upon woman more authorative leadership roles of which many are perhaps uncomfortable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Danny,
That was some great information you shared. I would love it if you could post some links, but if it means looking all the stuff up again, don't worry about it, I'll find it eventually.
"Even today in the middle east, and in other religions, women wear veils. "
Interesting point. It might be fun to check out the history on this. In Judaism, the men are to keep their heads covered. Married women too, will wear a scarf on their heads - at least in the more orthodox traditions, but not the single women. Yet, the single men still do..hmmmm.
Sky,
"Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only. "
Doesn't the wedding ring do that? I have to quarrel with a woman choosing to wear or not wear a veil. I'm speaking more on the deeper level of this entire submission thing. The weaker vessel and all that.
"Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only. "
Another topic for another thread probably. While I think a woman should have the right to dress as she chooses, I agree. At least in this society, it is wise to consider the message your clothing may be sending.
"As a man, if my wife is dressed in a sexually provacative way in public, it certainly makes me feel a little insecure, especially if she is beautiful. This is certainly one aspect of what the apostle was getting at."
I would think a man would be proud to have such a beautiful woman on his arm. What's to be jealous of if she has already decided she wants to be with you anyway? Instead, it is the other men who should be jealous because she has not chosen them. I know 1000Names loves it when I dress a little sexy to go out with him, he feels proud. I enjoy it as well. Course I wouldn't dress that way to go out without him, either.
"So women try and take advantage of there beauty in this manner. If men had more self control with there eyes and lusts, I think women would dress more approbriately"
And this really is the crux of the matter. Because it is the beauty which may attract a man, but it is not what will ultimately keep him. A woman (and a man as well) would be wise to find a balance between looking nice and making sure the attraction is more than skin deep.
"The "leadership vaccuum" will always exist when men are not taking God seriously, and force upon woman more authorative leadership roles of which many are perhaps uncomfortable."
This may be true as well. But likewise, there would be no "vaccum" if it was understood one gender does not have authority over the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.