Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[StanJ]

Okay, so let's say the wife is innocent. She drinks the nice, healthy, holy dust, and nothing happens. So, she and hubby go home and live happily ever after?
Uh...probably not. Don't you suppose there might be some resentment? The entire camp now knows that her husband suspects her of being an adulteress. This innocent lady has been subjected to this humiliating trial by ordeal in front of the entire camp.

And there are always going to be those who think that she must have been guilty. Human nature being what it is, people like to think the worst, don't they?
Men are looking at her a bit differently...sizing her up...and women are avoiding her vicinity and calling their children to them when she walks by.
The relationship between her and her husband has changed...

I know that if I were the innocent wife in the case, I would be...well, I can't use the first word that comes to mind, but I would be royally ANGRY. I would be hurt and resentful. Here I've been a good wife to this lout...as faithful as an old dog...and he puts me to open shame in front of the entire camp? Maybe I ought to mix a bit of dirt into his supper...right after the men get through fertilizing the fields...

And here we have a very good indication of how femism overrides common sense AND faithful submission, with just a hint of sarcasm and disdain for men's roles in general. This has definitely turned into an exercise of 'pursuing an untamed ornathoid'!

 

[OzSpen]

If, as you say, our husband in this scenario "has enough evidence", why does he not present his evidence, so that his wife might be judged on the evidence, fairly?

The Barrd,

Who are you and I to tell the Lord what should be done with the evidence of suspected adultery. As Deborah has pointed out so nicely in #297, this was pro-women and not anti-women.

There is suspicion, here. Do not tell me that it is not possible for a man to suspect his wife of adultery when she is, as I said "as innocent as a daisy".
And please do not tell me that the wife is going to be willing to go along with this "test". Even if she is found innocent, she has been humiliated in front of the entire camp.

Again, the Barrd, you are inventing with a 21st century mind. The test that is given to this woman will demonstrate whether she is innocent or not. If she is a perpetrator of adultery (determined by the test), she and her lover will receive capital punishment (see Lev 20:10-21; Deut 22:22).

Why would a woman in ancient Israel not be prepared to go along with this test? If she is innocent, this test will demonstrate it. If she is guilty, she knows the consequences. You are demonstrating a low view of Scripture and you don't want to accept that Num 5:11-31 is from God when the Scriptures are clear: 'And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, speak to the people of Israel....' (Num 5:5-6 ESV).

Dirt is dirt, even if it comes up off of the Tabernacle floor. We could say that all dirt is sacred, since it all comes from God's Hand...but I still wouldn't recommend drinking it in your morning coffee...

You are using hyperbole - extremist language. God, the holy God, would never be asking a woman suspected of adultery to drink muck contaminated by 'God's Hand' (your language). This is another example of how you refuse to accept what Scripture has stated and you have thrown in your own contamination into the mix. Muck with your morning coffee is not what the Scriptures state when it speaks of holy water mixed with dust from the floor of the tabernacle (Num 5:17). Your extremist example is not fit to be associated with what Scripture declares.

Or she could be suffering the consequences of ingesting dirt.

No! She would be suffering the consequences of being an adulteress or a faithful wife.

And in neither case is guilt or innocence actually proven. Just because a woman can swim doesn't mean she is a witch...and just because the dust from the tabernacle didn't make some woman sick doesn't mean she hasn't been playing house with someone other than her husband.

This is not a true conclusion. Num 5:22 (ESV) states, 'May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, "Amen, Amen."'

Guilt or innocence is proven by what happens to the woman. But you don't want to accept this. You really do have a problem with accepting the authority of Scripture.

Perhaps someone ought to explain to you that the whole thrust of this discussion is that I believe that God wrote the Ten Commandments Himself. He didn't inspire Moses to write them, they are not "God breathed"...rather God actually wrote them in the stone with His Own hand...well, finger, if you want to get technical.
He did not write the rest of the Law of Moses.

I am not going to go into details to affirm the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Better scholars than I have done that. I have written a brief article dealing with this topic, 'Did Moses write the Pentateuch?' In this I provide a brief response to the JEDP theory.

In other words, the laws concerning a slave taken from foreign peoples were harsher than the laws regarding a bond servant from your own people. Nice.

I was simply giving a comparison and you have arrived at a meaning I did not intend.

Which made it okay to beat them, to the point of death?

Where does Scripture state that?

What you are telling me is that you do think that the same God who said "Thou shalt not kill" also said "unless it's just a slave...after all, it's your money".
I find that I cannot agree with that.

That is not what I stated or inferred. You have created a straw man fallacy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Okay, so let's say the wife is innocent. She drinks the nice, healthy, holy dust, and nothing happens. So, she and hubby go home and live happily ever after?
Uh...probably not. Don't you suppose there might be some resentment? The entire camp now knows that her husband suspects her of being an adulteress. This innocent lady has been subjected to this humiliating trial by ordeal in front of the entire camp.

And there are always going to be those who think that she must have been guilty. Human nature being what it is, people like to think the worst, don't they?
Men are looking at her a bit differently...sizing her up...and women are avoiding her vicinity and calling their children to them when she walks by.
The relationship between her and her husband has changed...

I know that if I were the innocent wife in the case, I would be...well, I can't use the first word that comes to mind, but I would be royally ANGRY. I would be hurt and resentful. Here I've been a good wife to this lout...as faithful as an old dog...and he puts me to open shame in front of the entire camp? Maybe I ought to mix a bit of dirt into his supper...right after the men get through fertilizing the fields...

Surely you would not feel like that if you were protected from the death penalty!

 

[Barrd]

Surely you would not feel like that if you were protected from the death penalty!

Assuming that I have been a faithful wife to this jerk, I would not be in danger of the death penalty, unless he accuses me falsely.
In other words, the thing I need protection from the most is this son of a jackal that my dear father sold me to.

Is there a punishment for a man who has falsely accused his wife of adultery?

If not....why not?

 

[Barrd]

I don't see this as protecting the woman at all.

I think we all know that what is under examination here is the line of inheritance. We all know the ancient saying: "Mommy's baby, Daddy's maybe"...

What is happening here is Daddy is trying to make very sure that there is no "maybe" involved.

Hey...perhaps he knows he's been a less-than-attentive husband. Maybe he figures she knows about the harlot he's been seeing two or three times a week...and maybe he's afraid she's found herself some comfort as well. Maybe she has discovered that he's been negotiating for a second wife and that's why he is worried about her fidelity.

Of course, we don't know any of this. All we know is that he's jealous.

Anyway, none of that matters. It's still her fault, no matter what the circumstances, right? Whether he's been a perfect husband or whether his sandals have been under every bed in town, doesn't matter.

Makes me wonder just how many cuckoo's eggs were nourished in how many nests? Perhaps, if God had explained to His people, as Jesus would do, much later, that He had intended just one man and one woman per marriage...if He had told the men to leave the harlots alone and to be satisfied with the one woman he had married, instead of bringing home competition in the person of "sister-wives"....
Maybe....just maybe...if he had been as faithful to his marriage as he insisted that his women be to him...he wouldn't have to worry so much about his precious blood line.

Take care of business at home, guys...keep Momma happy and she won't be inclined to wander.

 

[Barrd]

So, the wife passes the test. She drinks the adulteress' cup, and nothing happens.

Now is there some punishment for this shmuck who has falsely accused his wife of a crime worthy of death?

I don't see any punishment for the husband who falsely accuses his wife.

This is not the God I know and love....

 

[mjrhealth]

So, the wife passes the test. She drinks the adulteress' cup, and nothing happens.

Now is there some punishment for this shmuck who has falsely accused his wife of a crime worthy of death?

I don't see any punishment for the husband who falsely accuses his wife.

This is not the God I know and love....

A bit like the women persued by the pharisees, who ran to Jesus, never hear nothing of the man involved? Its teh devil who divides its not Gods plan. Women are persecuted and demeaned in every religion, seems they where blamed for Adams sin. It was by one man ADAM that sin entered into teh world, Eve was never mentioned.

 

[OzSpen]

A bit like the women persued by the pharisees, who ran to Jesus, never hear nothing of the man involved? Its teh devil who divides its not Gods plan. Women are persecuted and demeaned in every religion, seems they where blamed for Adams sin. It was by one man ADAM that sin entered into teh world, Eve was never mentioned.

I suggest you read Genesis 3 more carefully.

 

[OzSpen]

So, the wife passes the test. She drinks the adulteress' cup, and nothing happens.

Now is there some punishment for this shmuck who has falsely accused his wife of a crime worthy of death?

I don't see any punishment for the husband who falsely accuses his wife.

This is not the God I know and love....

The Barrd,

If you are truly Christian, yes this is the God you know and love. The problem is you won't believe all he tells you about himself and what he does.

Do remember: 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3;16-17 NIV). That means Numbers 5:11-31 (NLT) is God-breathed, even though The Barrd doesn't like what it says.

So Numbers 5:11-31 is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness - even though The Barrd has not yet seen and understood it that way.

Oz

 

[Born_Again]

So, the wife passes the test. She drinks the adulteress' cup, and nothing happens.

Now is there some punishment for this shmuck who has falsely accused his wife of a crime worthy of death?

I don't see any punishment for the husband who falsely accuses his wife.

This is not the God I know and love....

Okay, this thread has made it very apparent Barrd. You are one very jaded individual. "Schmuck" "Jerk"... I don't know what some guy did to you but this thread shows you have some issue with guys getting away things. Then, you have the nerve to say that what is in the Bible is not from God??? You have taken a serious walk here. This is pushing heresy, you know that, right? Im not going to sit here and have a quote battle and pick apart everything you have posted.

I'm willing to bet, the "God you love" is reading you posts and doing the best face-palm ever. You have deep issues you need to address. Further more, and you have been told this numerous times, you need get your theology straight.

In this thread, if what is in the bible doesn't agree with how you would have handled it you toss it out as coming from Moses instead of God. Here is where you went wrong in you early walk. You guessed this all on your own. So you missed a lot of the basics of bible teaching. But you say you don't need a teacher... Oh yes you do, Barrd. You especially with your whimsical heresy. Beware the false prophets, Thankfully, 99% of the members on here don't believe a word you say.

If anyone or anything ordained you, then they are just as confused as you are. And yes, this is a bit of a personal attack. That is because refuting scripture with you is pointless because you are so bent that you are right. This is the problem with KJV onlyers. Never properly taught.

But to lightly touch on your scripture posts in this thread, most of them don't even address and or apply to what you are trying to say. It seems as if you just toss darts at the bible and say "yep, this one looks good".

To recap, I don't know what some guy did to you, but its apparent you have problems with it.

God Bless

 

[mjrhealth]

I suggest you read Genesis 3 more carefully.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

I DID.

Rom_5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[StanJ]

As everyone but Barrd is in agreement here, I think it would be a good idea to close this thread, if for no other reason to let Barrd regroup and prayerfully consider her position against God's word.

 

[mjrhealth]

Why I agree with the Barrd, there is absolutely no reason why women cant teach except for mens pride, religion, and tradition.

Spelling fixed not to upset some.

 

[Barrd]

Thank you, Stan. I do not for one second believe that I have taken a position against God's Word...I think I have been misunderstood in this thread...and not for the first time.

Yes, I realize that my way of thinking about some of these issues is pretty radical...but then, I am not bound by anything at all except my own love for my Lord and my God...and His love for me.

I am, as another friend puts it, "Blissfully Unaffiliated".

I read about Jesus, and I find Him to be the very personification of LOVE. Everything He does, every word He says is motivated by His great love. There is no bigotry in Him, no hint of sexism in Him at all. All I see in Him is that great, irresistible love.
Knowing Him is to know what it means to be truly loved. Knowing Him is to know peace.

All this foolish arguing over whether or not women should teach or lead a service is the epitome of ridiculous...those barriers were torn down long ago.

Yes, I believe that God Personally wrote the Ten Commandments. They are simple, brief, and to the point. They deal with man's relationship, first to the God Who Created them, and then with his fellow-men. These laws are basic, necessary, and immutable.

I believe that Moses, who had been inspired by God, wrote most of the rest of the Law of Moses personally. That he did this under the auspices of God is a given, that he was inspired of God is also a given...however Moses wrote the law, not God.

There is a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. There has to be, because the Ten Commandments are, as I keep saying, the foundation for human civilization. This seems so obvious to me that I am amazed to find so many disagreeing with me. How could you have a human society without "thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not kill"? Of course, you can't.

It seems pretty obvious to me as well that when Paul wrote about "all scripture" he could not possibly have been referring to the Bible. How could he have been referring to a Book that did not exist yet? Yet we do know that Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture, and also mentioned "other scripture". What, then, constituted "scripture"? I have no idea what "all scripture" might have meant to Paul...the Torah, certainly, but what, if anything, else? Most of us never give it a thought...to us "all scripture" is the Bible we hold in our hands...but what was it to Paul?

Oh, and there is nothing at all wrong with searching the scriptures to see whether what you are being told is actually true...

One wonders what books those noble Bereans were searching through for their answers?

Hmmmm.........

 

[StanJ]

Thank you, Stan. I do not for one second believe that I have taken a position against God's Word...I think I have been misunderstood in this thread...and not for the first time.

Yes, I realize that my way of thinking about some of these issues is pretty radical...but then, I am not bound by anything at all except my own love for my Lord and my God...and His love for me.

I am, as another friend puts it, "Blissfully Unaffiliated".

I read about Jesus, and I find Him to be the very personification of LOVE. Everything He does, every word He says is motivated by His great love. There is no bigotry in Him, no hint of sexism in Him at all. All I see in Him is that great, irresistible love.
Knowing Him is to know what it means to be truly loved. Knowing Him is to know peace.

All this foolish arguing over whether or not women should teach or lead a service is the epitome of ridiculous...those barriers were torn down long ago.

Yes, I believe that God Personally wrote the Ten Commandments. They are simple, brief, and to the point. They deal with man's relationship, first to the God Who Created them, and then with his fellow-men. These laws are basic, necessary, and immutable.

I believe that Moses, who had been inspired by God, wrote most of the rest of the Law of Moses personally. That he did this under the auspices of God is a given, that he was inspired of God is also a given...however Moses wrote the law, not God.

There is a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. There has to be, because the Ten Commandments are, as I keep saying, the foundation for human civilization. This seems so obvious to me that I am amazed to find so many disagreeing with me. How could you have a human society without "thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not kill"? Of course, you can't.

It seems pretty obvious to me as well that when Paul wrote about "all scripture" he could not possibly have been referring to the Bible. I have no idea what "all scripture" might have meant to Paul...the Torah, certainly, but what, if anything, else? Most of us never give it a thought...to us "all scripture" is the Bible we hold in our hands...but what was it to Paul?

Oh, and there is nothing at all wrong with searching the scriptures to see whether what you are being told is actually true...

One wonders what books those noble Bereans were searching through for their answers?

Hmmmm.........

And yet Jesus called His mother woman, twice! You're not being misunderstood Barrd, you're being challenged, and your desire to prove yourself right is what gets you into trouble. This is not the only thread you have done this in.
The issue is not searching, the issue is you eisegeting instead of properly exegeting scripture. It'll result in tge same challenges every time.
You do realize most cults start in small home groups right?

 

[OzSpen]

The Barrd,

I'm pleased with your clarification about a couple of points in your last post regarding your view of Scripture, but I'm still left with a few questions. You wrote:

I believe that Moses, who had been inspired by God, wrote most of the rest of the Law of Moses personally. That he did this under the auspices of God is a given, that he was inspired of God is also a given...however Moses wrote the law, not God.

There is a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. There has to be, because the Ten Commandments are, as I keep saying, the foundation for human civilization. This seems so obvious to me that I am amazed to find so many disagreeing with me. How could you have a human society without "thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not kill"? Of course, you can't.

It seems pretty obvious to me as well that when Paul wrote about "all scripture" he could not possibly have been referring to the Bible. How could he have been referring to a Book that did not exist yet?

1. From where do you get your theology that Moses wrote 'under the auspices of God'? You make this kind of assertion, but I'm waiting for a biblical exposition of your view. Assertions are not a defense.

2. You say 'Moses wrote the law, not God'. I do not hold to the dictation view of any book of the Bible. That's a view of Bibliology for which I do not find biblical support in passages such as 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV). Scripture to be God-breathed does not mean a dictation theory. All books of the OT and NT had human authors but they are under God's authority with their writing.

3. What is the Law of Moses?

4. The 10 commandments can be the foundation of human civilisation, breathed out by God, but with Moses as the human author. I don't find any oxymoron in that statement.

5. If you did your homework on 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV) and the meaning of 'all Scripture', you would find that many commentators consider that it refers to the OT as the NT had not yet been compiled. An example of such an assessment is that by Gleason L Archer:

‘It would never have occurred to the Greek-speaking recipients of 2 Timothy to suppose that Paul could be referring to any other writings but the inspired and authoritative books of the Hebrew canon. Nor is there the slightest suggestion in any of the recorded utterances of Jesus Christ or His apostles – or indeed in any of the writings of the New Testament authors – that there were any portions of the Hebrew Scriptures that were not authoritative and inspire’ (Archer 1982:417, emphasis in original).

Don't you do any research before you write comments like you did about 'all Scripture'? See my article, ‘All Scripture’ in 2 Timothy 3:16.

I encourage you to work on understanding a biblical doctrine of the nature of Scripture. Why don't you develop a statement of what the Bible teaches about its own authority?

Oz

Works consulted
Archer, Gleason L 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House).

 

[OzSpen]

Okay, so let's say the wife is innocent. She drinks the nice, healthy, holy dust, and nothing happens. So, she and hubby go home and live happily ever after?
Uh...probably not. Don't you suppose there might be some resentment? The entire camp now knows that her husband suspects her of being an adulteress. This innocent lady has been subjected to this humiliating trial by ordeal in front of the entire camp.

And there are always going to be those who think that she must have been guilty. Human nature being what it is, people like to think the worst, don't they?
Men are looking at her a bit differently...sizing her up...and women are avoiding her vicinity and calling their children to them when she walks by.
The relationship between her and her husband has changed...

I know that if I were the innocent wife in the case, I would be...well, I can't use the first word that comes to mind, but I would be royally ANGRY. I would be hurt and resentful. Here I've been a good wife to this lout...as faithful as an old dog...and he puts me to open shame in front of the entire camp? Maybe I ought to mix a bit of dirt into his supper...right after the men get through fertilizing the fields...

The Barrd's creative imagination is not a good way to do exegesis and exposition of Scripture.

 

[Barrd]

And yet Jesus called His mother woman, twice! You're not being misunderstood Barrd, you're being challenged, and your desire to prove yourself right is what gets you into trouble. This is not the only thread you have done this in.
The issue is not searching, the issue is you eisegeting instead of properly exegeting scripture. It'll result in tge same challenges every time.
You do realize most cults start in small home groups right?

Stan, your opinion means very little here, considering some of what you believe yourself, and your own insistence that you are always right.
Newsflash....Jesus' mother was a woman.

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

I'm pleased with your clarification about a couple of points in your last post regarding your view of Scripture, but I'm still left with a few questions. You wrote:

:) Anything to make you happy, my kuddly koala friend. :wub:

1. From where do you get your theology that Moses wrote 'under the auspices of God'? You make this kind of assertion, but I'm waiting for a biblical exposition of your view. Assertions are not a defense.

Every writer of every inspired scripture was writing "under the auspices of God." In other words, they were writing under His guidance, at His direction, under His control. But that doesn't mean that God dictated to them what they should write. When you read the four gospels, for instance, each man is telling essentially the same story...but from a different pov.
I don't know any better way to explain it than that.

2. You say 'Moses wrote the law, not God'. I do not hold to the dictation view of any book of the Bible. That's a view of Bibliology for which I do not find biblical support in passages such as 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV). Scripture to be God-breathed does not mean a dictation theory. All books of the OT and NT had human authors but they are under God's authority with their writing.

I think that's what I just said. :unsure:

3. What is the Law of Moses?

There are the Ten Commandments, which were written on tablets of stone (to show their permanence), by the finger of God, Himself.

Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Then there is the rest of the Law, written in a scroll by the hand of Moses.

2Ch 35:12 And they removed the burnt offerings, that they might give according to the divisions of the families of the people, to offer unto the LORD, as it is written in the book of Moses. And so did they with the oxen.


The Law of Moses is that which was "done away". The Ten Commandments cannot be "done away".
No Christian would ever say that, since Jesus took our sins to the cross, we may now
have other Gods before God
make or worship idols
use God's name as a curse
disrespect parents
murder
commit adultery
steal
spread vicious lies about anyone
harbor a desire for what belongs to someone else

You may have noticed that I left out the fourth commandment...for some reason, that one seems to be subject to debate. I've never figured out what it is that people have against a day off...
However, it is a commandment...and we should keep God's Sabbath.

At least, that is what The Barrd thinks about it...

4. The 10 commandments can be the foundation of human civilisation, breathed out by God, but with Moses as the human author. I don't find any oxymoron in that statement.

I'm simply going by what is written in the Bible.

Exo 24:12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

5. If you did your homework on 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV) and the meaning of 'all Scripture', you would find that many commentators consider that it refers to the OT as the NT had not yet been compiled. An example of such an assessment is that by Gleason L Archer:

Don't you do any research before you write comments like you did about 'all Scripture'? See my article, ‘All Scripture’ in 2 Timothy 3:16.

I encourage you to work on understanding a biblical doctrine of the nature of Scripture. Why don't you develop a statement of what the Bible teaches about its own authority?

I have been curious for some time as to what the first century Christians were reading, besides the Torah.

Oz

Works consulted
Archer, Gleason L 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House).

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties? Now, that sounds interesting....

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd's creative imagination is not a good way to do exegesis and exposition of Scripture.

The Barrd is a writer...a teller of tales, a singer of songs, a poet...and yes, she has a creative imagination.
That's what makes a writer...but probably wouldn't be a good thing for a scholar.
The Barrd is not a scholar.
She doesn't do exegesis and exposition of Scripture...she leaves that to the people with the big brains and the letters after their names...

(PHD...Piled Higher and...uh, maybe you've heard that one before... )