Judy wrote: > I just responded to the quote you posted from Holy Hubert > David. Yes it was cute as a 'one liner' but not God's heart > on the matter.
I disagree. I think it does capture God's heart on the matter, given the context in which it was spoken. Judy wrote: > When Paul wrote "thus sayeth the law" he was talking about > the Jewish writings or Mishnah which were comments made > by the Rabbi's because the law itself says nothing about > women being silent in an assembly. Wrong, Judy. We addressed this already in the past and it is discouraging to have to repeat it yet again. The Mishnah was not written until hundreds of years later. I suspect you got this from a book that was wrong and you erroneously trusted it and believed it to be true, but it is an anachronistic statement made in ignorance. Paul was teaching about what the Torah itself teaches. He even specifically teaches from the Torah on this matter in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 when he touches on this same subject. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV) I could write for pages from the Torah alone about gender differences and the role of women and men. The idea that the Torah is silent about women being subject to men is bogus. Recognize this first, then let's talk about it. Judy wrote: > Thank you for shedding more light on Hubert's belief. > However, neither should men be ruling the Church, > we are all to be led by the Spirit of Christ. Another erroneous teaching. Government is an orderly form of ruling, and the Spirit sets some in the church in governments (1 Cor. 12:28). We could discuss this in much greater detail. Where we agree is that godly rulers rule by serving, but that is not to say that men ought not rule and govern in the church. DavidM wrote: > In regards to Sarah's telling Abraham what to do, she was > basically undoing her previous work of telling Abraham > to take Hagar to be his wife. Furthermore, she did not > exercise authority over Abraham in this regard, but simply > expressed her desire and let Abraham make the decision. Judy wrote: > This is not the way it reads in my Bible DavidM: "But > Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian whom she had > borne to Abraham playing with her son Isaac; so she > said to Abraham "Cast out this slave women with her > son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir > with my son Isaac" And the thing was very displeasing > to Abraham on account of his son." But God said to > Abraham "Be not displeased because of the lad and because > of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do > as she tells you for through Isaac shall your > descendents be named." (Genesis 21:9-12) Yes, and notice that Sarah did not take the matter into her own hands here. She recognized Abraham's authority in the matter. Abraham listened to God, not Sarah, in this matter. Do you not see that? What if God had not agreed with Sarah, who do you think Abraham would have listened to? What do you think Sarah would have done in that situation? Would she have submitted unto Abraham or rebelled and kicked out Hagar anyway? DavidM: > So from this perspective, Sarah did not rule Abraham, > she did not tell Abraham what to do, but rather she > regarded her husband Abraham as her lord. Judy: > I don't know about ruling Abraham and I don't believe > I made that claim. However, when I read the scripture > above I see her telling Abraham what to do - I see > Abraham being uncomfortable with it - and I see God > validating what Sarah said he should do. How do you > get around it, does your Bible says something different? I see Sarah as expressing her opinion to her husband and submitting to his decision in the matter. That is what a godly woman would do. Did Sarah tell Abraham what to do? In one sense, yes, but not in the sense of ruling him. I'm just trying to point out that Sarah walked in submission to Abraham in this example. She did not rule over Abraham. Rather, Abraham ruled over Sarah. If I tell my government officials not to give us any more taxes, I am in one sense telling them what to do. However, in another sense I am not able to tell them what to do. They must hear all the people and they have the power to raise or lower taxes, not me. So in another sense, I do not tell them what to do. I only express my viewpoint, and then the decision is in their hands and I must submit to it. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
