Submissive women

[Jethro Bodine]

1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Is sanctified in this verse sanctified?

G37

From G40; to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: - hallow, be holy, sanctify.

G40

From ἅγος hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint

G53
hag-nos'
From the same as G40; properly clean, that is, (figuratively) innocent, modest, perfect: - chaste, clean, pure.


The Words tells us marriage is ONE flesh... is an unsaved spouse sorta like the parts of each of us that we pray, hope, try to make better..... as individuals we are not perfect although saved is the unbelieving spouse saved in light of the above verses?

No. What your unbelieving spouse being 'sanctified' means is you are not being defiled and made unclean by your association and fellowship with him, an unbeliever (see 2 Cor. 6:14-18). God has sanctified him in that circumstance for your sake, not his.

I've heard it said that the Corinthians were divorcing their spouses on the grounds of being unequally yoked to an unbeliever. That gives meaning to why Paul would point out to them that the unbelieving spouse and the children they have with you are 'sanctified' through you, the believing spouse, and does not violate God's prohibition "do not be bound together with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14 NASB). God has 'sanctified' and approved that relationship as being clean.

 

[reba]

I know in my head you are correct as is Danus.... my heart needs a refresher coarse every so often....

I know in my spirit when i step out of His path.... many times though the years my unsaved DH has shown more Christlike attitudes then this sweet old 'Godly' lady

 

[reba]

Tina,,,Another for our collection

Pro 27:15 A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.

 

[Tina]

Continual dropping ???!!


:D :biglol :toofunny :toofunny :toofunny

 

[Mike]

When I hear people say to win anyone over with the Light of Christ, I think the is much easier with people you know, the less you "know" them. The more they truly know you, the more flaws they will see. As with business or anywhere in life, skeptical people will magnify the flaws and weight them against a list of selfless acts.

This has got to be exponentially higher within the home where everyone let's down their guard, even if only a little. We respond tersely with unloving words that we can manage to keep off our tongues with others outside the home. Outside the scope of faith matters, this is usually without crippling effects, because we know we are a family unit and love continues. But, if we're talking about modeling this behavior day in and day out, year in and year out, being steady enough to influence an unbelieving spouse into accepting something they reject, it seems very difficult.

We're told in scripture to do this, yes, but it doesn't make it easier. I believe this is where Christian friends and church members come into play. They have to be nonjudgmental Christians, but if they see the spouse as a part of a community that supports one-another, sharing a bond that they are not part of, it seems this could be even more effective.

 

[Slider]

I've been thinking about this thread for some time, and don't have too much new to say that hasn't been said already (either in this thread or the other related one). But just to give my thoughts...

We can't ignore the verses like 1 Cor 14:34. It appears that in this verse as well as others that women can't be the head or one in authority in the Church. I've seen this question many times on many boards over the last ten years and there is no way around it. I don't believe it has anything to do with whether or not a woman is smart enough or gifted to teach. It's just ordained by God due to the fall of Adam and Eve.

Many have spent time discussing the roles of both the husband and the wife in marriage, and I agree with most of the ideas. Yes, a woman should be submissive to their husbands and the husbands must be kind to their wives.

To answer the OP direct problem, I do not think a woman should never be permitted to "utter a word" in Church. I have been told and seen scriptural suggestions that Paul wrote letters and sent women to read them in Church. So then, the entire letters to the Corinthans may have been Paul's words, but it is possible that they heard it with a woman's voice. It seems to me more of a matter of setting down doctrine and being in leadership.

I didn't see it on this thread, though it may be on the other thread (which is some 25 or more pages long): we've got to remember what the earthly roles in a marriage represent. They represent the Church itself. We are all well aware of the verses that say Christ is the head of Church. If we (the Church) are his bride, then we the bride aren't supposed to take headship over Jesus. If the Bible is the Word, then the Pastors and Apostles must preach within its confines. We serve his needs, not look for him to serve ours (although like any good husband, he does).

So when we look at these verses with a spiritual eye, and realize that Paul is speaking first about the Christ and Church, we realize the importance. Yes, these verses also have earthly meanings and that is that a marriage should have order. Anyone who has been married for a long time realizes that the couple must be on the same plan, and when there comes disagreeances, there is going to be problems. I can't say having "co-leadership" never works (by that I mean both the wife and husband are on equal ground), but I can say there will be problems.

With that in mind, there is nothing wrong (and I'd say it is good) with a wife offering suggestions and giving input into certain situations if done in a respectful manner. We do see this in the Bible when Moses backed down God from destroying all of Israel during the exodus. Wives are helps to husbands. Sometimes they have good insight. However, the ultimate decision should be that of the husband.

 

[JoReba]

When I hear people say to win anyone over with the Light of Christ, I think the is much easier with people you know, the less you "know" them. The more they truly know you, the more flaws they will see. As with business or anywhere in life, skeptical people will magnify the flaws and weight them against a list of selfless acts.

This has got to be exponentially higher within the home where everyone let's down their guard, even if only a little. We respond tersely with unloving words that we can manage to keep off our tongues with others outside the home. Outside the scope of faith matters, this is usually without crippling effects, because we know we are a family unit and love continues. But, if we're talking about modeling this behavior day in and day out, year in and year out, being steady enough to influence an unbelieving spouse into accepting something they reject, it seems very difficult.

We're told in scripture to do this, yes, but it doesn't make it easier. I believe this is where Christian friends and church members come into play. They have to be nonjudgmental Christians, but if they see the spouse as a part of a community that supports one-another, sharing a bond that they are not part of, it seems this could be even more effective.

Please refrain from further speaking to represent other people whom you do not know, and people over whom you have not been appointed to be a representative. Your use of the word "We" above is clearly presumptive, and should be set aside. Please continue to focus upon the very words and principles of Scripture rather than upon what "seems" acceptable to yourself as you reference yourself by using the word, "I."

Praise God for your teachable spirit and accepting response.

 

[Classik]

I see nothing wrong with his use of We. I think his use of We here is clear and should not be confused. His We here is equivalent to saying these people who...(and if I or him falls under that category it includes Classik or Mike.

--
Anyway thanks for your advice.

 

[JoReba]

I see nothing wrong with his use of We. I think his use of We here is clear and should not be confused. His We here is equivalent to saying these people who...(and if I or him falls under that category it includes Classik or Mike.

--
Anyway thanks for your advice.

You do not know that his use of the word "We" means, "These people who."

If he were in fact referring to those people then he is to name them for us. Please try to stop arguing about the dishonest use of this idiom because apparently you want to defend its use as a presumptive rhetoric device. Nobody in here has been appointed to represent "We" in the manner he has done so.

Praise God for your heightened sense of Godly Wisdom in matters of effective communication. I am glad to lovingly and joyfully help your efforts.

 

[Classik]

You do not know that his use of the word "We" means, "These people who."

If he were in fact referring to those people then he is to name them for us. Please try to stop arguing about the dishonest use of this idiom because apparently you want to defend its use as a presumptive rhetoric device. Nobody in here has been appointed to represent "We" in the manner he has done so.

Praise God for your heightened sense of Godly Wisdom in matters of effective communication. I am glad to lovingly and joyfully help your efforts.

Ukulele bought, not trombone.

 

[JoReba]

Ukulele bought, not trombone.

An answer close to what I expected ...

 

[Classik]

An answer close to what I expected ...

:toofunny

 

[JoReba]

:toofunny

You look funny there in the corner. Lol. And, I did not even need to check what "We" thought about it.

 

[Jman96]

Wow....let's not derail the train.

 

[Classik]

Wow....let's not derail the train.

:toofunny
Like the driver suddenly drove from Australia to Gaza?

totopic
Submissive women, how many are they today?

 

[handy]

totopic
Submissive women, how many are they today?

More than might be guessed. I think that probably most Christian women in the Body heed the need to be submissive...it's just that the more vocal women in the West tend to garner the most attention. Until I was associated with the ELCA, almost all the Christian women I knew personally were submissive to their husbands and to their church authority.... The ELCA opened up a whole new (and rather alarming) perspective.

When I hear people say to win anyone over with the Light of Christ, I think the is much easier with people you know, the less you "know" them. The more they truly know you, the more flaws they will see. As with business or anywhere in life, skeptical people will magnify the flaws and weight them against a list of selfless acts.

This has got to be exponentially higher within the home where everyone let's down their guard, even if only a little. We respond tersely with unloving words that we can manage to keep off our tongues with others outside the home. Outside the scope of faith matters, this is usually without crippling effects, because we know we are a family unit and love continues. But, if we're talking about modeling this behavior day in and day out, year in and year out, being steady enough to influence an unbelieving spouse into accepting something they reject, it seems very difficult.

We're told in scripture to do this, yes, but it doesn't make it easier. I believe this is where Christian friends and church members come into play. They have to be nonjudgmental Christians, but if they see the spouse as a part of a community that supports one-another, sharing a bond that they are not part of, it seems this could be even more effective.

I agree with you on this Mike. I dealt with this in two ways: when I was 13 and became born-again...me, the youngest of a family of backslidden parents and non-Christian siblings. Then again, when I married, and while not "unequally yoked" in the sense that Steve wasn't a Christian, he was, but we were very far apart spiritually.

When I was 13, I learned fast that my family didn't want to listen to a word I had to say, especially about God. I had to live a godly life before them to be an effective witness. However, I was also...well...a 13 year old girl, going through all the normal teen angst as well as some specialized problems. So, I was far from perfect which even further eroded my ability to effectively witness.

Yes, being a part of a body of believers does indeed help and what helped me most of all was to simply, daily prayerfully claim my family for Christ. I took Acts 16:31 to heart and prayed, prayed, prayed that my family would come to know the Lord. The Lord certainly answered that prayer... far more in spite of my bumbling baby witness than because of it.

It was certainly a lesson I remembered with Steve and God brought him about as well.

It is vital, when living with non-Christians, to make our witness be far more about what we do rather than what we say, and to have the support of the brethren.

What your unbelieving spouse being 'sanctified' means is you are not being defiled and made unclean by your association and fellowship with him, an unbeliever (see 2 Cor. 6:14-18). God has sanctified him in that circumstance for your sake, not his.

I've heard it said that the Corinthians were divorcing their spouses on the grounds of being unequally yoked to an unbeliever. That gives meaning to why Paul would point out to them that the unbelieving spouse and the children they have with you are 'sanctified' through you, the believing spouse, and does not violate God's prohibition "do not be bound together with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14 NASB). God has 'sanctified' and approved that relationship as being clean.

Now that's a very interesting and enlightening perspective. I've often wondered exactly what were the ramifications of this particular text and really have never heard any solid teaching on the subject. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[WIP]

totopic
Submissive women, how many are they today?

Ditto!

 

[Classik]

Of course. But it's not written on faces. (some women tend to be less submissive when they are more prosperous).

 

[Sparkey]

Learning to recognize order:
Rush-hour traffic is my chosen example here. You may wonder, "Rush-hour traffic?" How can that oftentimes chaotic behavior where participants are isolated in vehicles, driven by their personal needs be an example of order? If the association that pops into your mind when someone says, "rush-hour traffic" is "traffic jam" -- you are neatly supporting the thesis that we notice only failures and take success for granted. The dominant characteristic of rush-hour traffic is not jam but movement. Thousands of people leave their homes at about eight in the morning, slide into their automobiles, and head for work. They all choose their own routes without any consultation. They have diverse skills, differing attitudes toward risk, and varying degrees of courtesy. As these passenger vehicles in their wide assortment of sizes and shapes enter, move along, and exit from the intersecting corridors that make up the city's traffic veins and arteries, they are joined by a mixture of busses, trucks, motorcycles, taxi-cabs, bicyclists and pedestrian cross-traffic.

The drivers all pursue their separate objectives, with an almost single-minded devotion to their own interests, not necessarily because they are selfish but simply because none of them knows anything about the objectives of the others. What each one does know about the others is confined to a few observation about position, direction, and velocity of a changing handful of vehicles in the immediate vicinity.

Add to that the assumption that other drivers are about as eager to avoid an accident as they themselves are. There are general rules, of course, which everyone is expected to obey, such as stopping for red lights and staying close to the speed limit. That's about it, however. The entire arrangement sounds like a prescription for chaos. It ought to end up in heaps of mangled steel.

________________________

Submission (yielding) isn't for women only. Consider the rule at the intersection, the first vehicle to enter has the right-of-way. If two vehicles come to a stop at an intersection at the same time, yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the right. This (to me) sounds remarkably like God's statement that since he was created first, he leads. The rule is needed to avoid collision, to preserve order, and to allow all things to be done peaceably. Yet God doesn't leave it at that. We are told to submit (yield) to each other. When taken together with the heart of the law, to Love God first and to love others as oneself, these are very simple (wonderful) rules.

 

[Classik]

Sparrowhawke :dunno