God's "Design" for men and women
Where in the Bible can that word or even the concept be found? Can someone produce one scripture that specifically uses the words "God's Design" in reference to men and women?
...And God blessed them and said unto them...have dominion.
Where in the Bible can that word or even the concept be found? Can someone produce one scripture that specifically uses the words "God's Design" in reference to men and women?
...And God blessed them and said unto them...have dominion.
Roles
Pastors preach about "roles" for men and women. Where in the Bible can the word "roles" be found? Can someone produce a single scripture containing that word?
Pastors preach about "roles" for men and women. Where in the Bible can the word "roles" be found? Can someone produce a single scripture containing that word?
Sermons on the "authority" given to man over woman abound. What scripture says man was placed in authority over woman?
You cannot serve two masters...We have one Lord even Christ....
You cannot serve two masters...We have one Lord even Christ....
Woman's Protector
Christians are taught that man is woman's protector. Where does the Bible say that? Scripture please!
Christians are taught that man is woman's protector. Where does the Bible say that? Scripture please!
Congregations are informed that woman needs protection for far more than just physical reasons. She needs protection--they are told--emotionally, mentally and spiritually. How frail woman is! What specific verse of scripture says that man is woman's protector?
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System
Woman this is WAR!, examines Bible commentary and translation
practices which have historically been androcentric (male centered) and even
misogynistic (anti-woman). These have adversely effected understanding of the
scriptures, relations between women and men, the happiness of men and women,
and, in general, has hindered the work of the gospel, by forbidding women to
preach, pastor, or serve as elders or deacons.
The book chronicles the early
history of the women's rights movements, as well as the role of church
leadership in aggressively suppressing both women's rights and the historical
record of Christian initiatives within the movements. Through the
complementarian movement, many of the same arguments used to support the
institution of slavery, are still used today in suppressing the rights of
Christian women. This book documents identical arguments used by Christian
leaders against both movements and is an unparalleled resource for all who
desire an in-depth study of gender equality from a Christian perspective. The
history of women’s rights is traced back [much further than usual] to the very
first feminists…who were Christians—godly women, who brought the issue
of women's rights to the forefront as they struggled to alleviate the suffering
of others, and found they were hindered in doing so for no other reason than
the fact of their sex. This work, provides valuable historical insight into
Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights, that are rarely
included in Christian literature.
Subscribe to Jocelyn Andersen’s Updates &
Newsletters: http://eepurl.com/dgDt6b
18 comments:
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. -1 Peter 3:7
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34
Those are two verses that come to mind.
Also, your exegesis of Gen 1:28 is a bit misleading and not a little misguided given the wider context. You see, while it is true that both were charged with the subduing of the earth they were not both held equally responsible. Specifically, even though we are told that the it was the woman who was deceived and ate of the fruit first the man, who was with her, was the first to be held accountable, "But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”" -Gen 3:9.
In fact, God's attention does not turn to the woman until the man attempts to shift the blame onto her.
It is actually critical to note here that everything you railed against above is found in the first three chapters of Genesis.
I actually wonder why you bother going to church at all if your view of men and patriarchal authority is so low.
You do realize that God explicitly and exclusively defines himself in the masculine right? You do realize that Jesus came in the form of a man, right? You do realize that the helper He promised to send is exclusively defined in the masculine as well, right?
Male privilege is something that men will go to any lengths to support. They have a good thing going and they WON"T give it up! The above poster is proof positive that sinful men will never follow the example of Jesus Christ in living a life of love. Never. They believe their gender puts them above such things.
Jesus said that believers should not lord it over other believers, but men won't give up that perceived right. Jesus said we were to have no master but God, but men won't give up that perceived status. Jesus said we have no need of any teacher because the Holy Spirit will indwell and teach us, but men still insist women aren't smart enough to hear from God on their own. This in spite of clear teaching on the day of Pentecost (on your sons and your daughters...) and the presence of women on the day of Pentecost, and all the women who ministered to and with Jesus (Anna, Mary and Martha of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, Samaritan woman, etc.) and in spite of all the women who ministered to and with the early apostles (Lydia, Junia, the daughters of Phillip).
Men like the poster above will never never never give up their perceived right to lord it over others!
But thank God there are many brothers in Christ who love Jesus more than male privilege! My Lutheran pastor is one of them, Wade Burleson is another.
There are many churches not being led into sin and error by misogynist and prideful men. But obviously not the church that "anonymous" attends.
And God also described himself as "the might breasted one" in the OT and Jesus said he was like a "mother hen" once as well. God is Spirit, and when we are in heaven there will be no male/female relating to one another.
What an evil man you are, Anonymous! The wicked pride of your heart is abhorrent. May God forgive you for the way you use scripture to justify yourself instead of glorify God.
There is a vast difference between lording over someone and filling a role given by God Almighty.
I'm curious to know, however, why you automatically assume me to by misogynistic simply for answering the question above with clear biblical teaching.
If I didn't know any better I would say that equality or truth are hardly what you are after here. Seems a lot like misandry to me.
Any condition placed upon a person solely on the basis of their intrinsic being-- such as skin color or sex-- is not a "role" to play but a statement of essence. Therefore, to say all women without exception must play a subservient role is a statement of inferiority of being.
That's the logical refutation of the typical male supremacists argument. The theological one is that which has already been stated: that "not so among you" comes with no fine print exempting males; that "submit to one another" cannot be "doublespeak" for "some submit to others"; that Jesus came to free the oppressed-- ALL of them--; that the Golden Rule cannot be negated by "pink and blue" hermeneutics.
Which all means that if you find a proof-text you can claim means males have privilege over females, you violate the over-arching teachings of Jesus and the apostle.
Wes Widner said:
"Also, your exegesis of Gen 1:28 is a bit misleading and not a little misguided given the wider context. You see, while it is true that both were charged with the subduing of the earth they were not both held equally responsible. Specifically, even though we are told that the it was the woman who was deceived and ate of the fruit first the man, who was with her, was the first to be held accountable, "But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”" -Gen 3:9.
In fact, God's attention does not turn to the woman until the man attempts to shift the blame onto her. "
This is a misreading based on a problem with the translation. When God called to "the man" and said, "where are you?" the word there is "adham", meaning "the human." In Genesis 1:27 God made "the human" in His own image, male and female He created them. So the word includes both genders and also allows for the plural. In Genesis 5:2 it says that God called them both "adham" ("human") in the day He made them.
So when it says "God called to the man," what it means is that God called to "the human" (e-adham means "the human" and is the same construction as "God created e-adham in His image, male and female He created them")
God was calling both the man and the woman. The man answered first, so God addressed him in response. God was not treating the man as representative of both himself and the woman and ignoring the woman's personhood.
As for "God exclusively referring to Himself in the masculine," that is patently false. God compares Himself to a mother bear, to a woman in labor, etc. Jesus compares Himself to a mother hen, as Shadowspring brought up-- and also the ancient Hebrew name for God "El Shadai" means "the One with big breasts."
And the word for the Holy Spirit in ancient Greek is female. Every time a Greek pronoun for the Spirit is used, therefore, it's a female pronoun. It is the translators who turned it into a male pronoun.
In truth, God is not male or female: God is spirit, as Jesus said in John 4.
1 Cor. 14:34 is a bit contradictory in that a few verses earlier Paul talks about women praying and prophesying in the churches. You can't prophesy without speaking aloud. Clearly "remain silent" isn't what Paul was talking about.
Well, it is probably harder for female minds to grasp deep theological concepts........don't you think?
Men speak from a higher rung on the chain-of-command ladder so that makes them feel emboldened and superior. The very thing they claim women are 'trying' to do they have always done........hypocrisy.
(Its me Terri Tippins, (I can't use my AOL ID.) Hey Paula!
God certainly does not define God using only masculine terms. God is said to have breasts and a womb. Paul compares himself to a hen. Jesus compares himself to a woman searching for a coin.
Get over your idea of male supremacy and repent!
”Also, your exegesis of Gen 1:28 is a bit misleading and not a little misguided given the wider context. You see, while it is true that both were charged with the subduing of the earth they were not both held equally responsible.”
Wes Widner,
You’ll need to give Biblical proof to support this.
”In fact, God's attention does not turn to the woman until the man attempts to shift the blame onto her. “
An interesting claim. God reformed the woman from the flesh and blood of the man, yet pays no attention to her? God takes time to explain not to eat of the fruit of the tree, yet this is not considered paying any attention to her. Are you really claiming that you think God created the ezer kenegdo in a special way, creation not being good until she was formed, to alay the aloneness of the first human and you think God wasn’t giving her any attention until after the man brought her to God’s attention in a complaint.
”You do realize that God explicitly and exclusively defines himself in the masculine right?”
Actually, that is incorrect. It almost sounds like you are claiming that males are superior to women and more like God??
In the beginning years 6000 years ago extending to the times of Abraham, God was known as Eloheim (pl.) and El Shaddai. El Shaddai is feminine and means breasted one. It refers to God as parent, nurturer and all sufficient to provide.
I posted this earlier, but it seems to have gotten lost.
When the passage says that God called "the man" and said, "where are you?" the word used there is "adam." Genesis 5:2 says God called both Adam and Even "adam," - that is, "human." In Genesis 1:27, it says God made "e-adam" (the human") in God's image; male and female He created them. Therefore the words "e-adam" (the human) not only means either of the humans, but it can also mean both humans. It's exactly the same construction where it says God made "e-adam" male and female and refers to "e-adam" as "them."
When God calls "e-adam" and says, "where are you?" He is calling both of them. God does not create them male and female and then ignore the female.
Wes, the English translation of 1 Peter 3:7 that you have quoted from is not entirely accurate. It does not say anywhere in the Greek of this verse that husbands are to be "considerate" to their wives. It simply says: "Husbands in the same way live with your wives . . ."
In Peter’s first letter he tells all his readers to submit to every secular authority (1 Peter 2:13). Then he tells slaves to submit to their masters (1 Peter 2:18). Then he tells wives, in the same way, to be submissive to their own husbands (1 Peter 3:1). Then he says, “Husbands, in the same way live with your wives . . .” (1 Peter 3:7).
This is implying submission from husbands also. Compare the very similar language in 1 Peter 3:1,7 and 5:5.)
More about this is on my website.
Kristen, I'm wondering what word you're thinking of when you say that the ancient Greek word for Holy Spirit is feminine. "Pneuma" (spirit) is grammatically neuter; "Parakletos" (comforter) is grammatically masculine.
"You do realize that God explicitly and exclusively defines himself in the masculine right?"
gee, Romans, real simple:
"And they changed the glory of the uncorruptable God into an image made like [let me help you here cuzz in case you can't read] TO CORRUPTIBLE MAN, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things." [Romans 1:23, oh, KJV, the OLD one for you fundies out there, cuzz it don't got cooties]
and
if That ain't good enough for ya,
"God is not a man,[whoops, What is That! Oh my Gosh, he's NOT a man, wow run for the hills folks] that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
Numbers 23:19, again, KJV Bible
Marg, my mistake. It is my understanding that "Spirit" is feminine in ancient Aramaic, the language in which Jesus spoke. Sorry for the error.
The Hebrew word used for the Holy Spirit throughout the Old Testament is "ruwach" which is a feminine noun. You were not mistaken Kristen
Thank you, Jocelyn. I thought probably the Hebrew was feminine too, but wasn't quite sure.
Kirsten. The Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine.
We do need to be careful though when translating Scripture that we don't add to much emphasise on whether the word is a masculine, neuter or feminine word when describing the subjects sexuality.
Take the word "Logos" and "Graphe" for example. Logos is mostly trasnalsted as word and graphe is mostly translated as writing.
Logos is a masculine word, graphe is a feminine. Both basically mean the same thing.
Yes, I'm aware that grammatical gender of words doesn't really mean much. I wouldn't even have brought it up had not Wes Widner insisted that "the helper He promised to send is exclusively defined in the masculine." It occurred to me that since the word "Spirit" is feminine in Aramaic, every time Jesus used a pronoun in reference to the Spirit, He would have used a feminine pronoun. However, the Holy Spirit is actually non-gendered, of course, being Spirit and not flesh.
But insisting that God (John 4 says "God is a Spirit") is masculine and that the Holy Spirit is masculine is just plain wrong. If God were masculine, then females could not be made in His image-- yet Genesis 1 says females and males are BOTH in the image of God.
It's like insisting that God is white, or something. Very off-putting and very much mistaken.
"I actually wonder why you bother going to church at all if your view of men and patriarchal authority is so low."
In this sentence there is much to be alarmed by, as it gives evidence of the true god being worshipped, and to what the altars are built.
Take Jesus out of the equation, and patriocentrics would have to change little to continue in their lifestyle. Take the human authority structure out of the equation, and EVERYTHING about their Jesus would have to change. It's apostate.
Awesome post, btw.
Okay, so you just totally ignore 1 Peter 3, Titus 2, Ephesians 5 and 1st and 2nd Timothy? We are not to pick and choose which parts of the Bible we like and don't like. You either accept all of it or none of it.
Men are to protect women. Just because most men abuse that mandate does not negate the mandate. Biblical submission runs both ways. The wife submits to the husband, and the husband is to love her the way Christ loved the church and GAVE UP HIS LIFE FOR HER to make her holy. (Eph 5:25-16, NLT)
The caps is obviously mine and not in the verse. How many of these men that ya'll deem "patriarchal" would lay down his life for his wife? I'd wager not many of them.
The true test of Biblical manhood is not if he dominates and lords over his wife or controls his children. Or if he does the exact opposite and lets her do whatever, whenever. The true test of Biblical manhood is this: Is he willing to lay down his life to save her? Will he die to protect her? To defend her? To keep her safe?
If the answer to any of those questions is n,o he's not a Christian man and he doesn't know what it means to be a husband.
And I say this as someone who has just escaped an abusive marriage with a man who didn't know the true meaning of submission and would not lay down his life for me. Biblical submission doesn't scare me, but abuse masquerading as submission does.
I think that's a distinction that is lacking here. Just because a Christian woman believes in Biblical submission doesn't mean she's been brainwashed and grown up in an abusive home. A wife is submissive to Christ and her husband. A husband is submissive to Christ and his wife. It just looks a little different.
Post a Comment