A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

But whether it is desire or lust, in terms of Gen 3:16, the intent is essentially the same. There would be something within the woman that would cause her to put herself under the man and therefore be ruled by him.

Still doesn't create a mandate as some are arguing.

What you are basically saying is that the criminal is the innocent and the innocent is the criminal, like this:

The sin - woman putting herself under man.
The result - women being suppressed by men.


The traditional and orthodox (or mandated) view is this:
The sin - woman deceiving man
The result - man ruling over women

The criminal, the woman, received the result of her crime.

In your view, the underlying, even sinister theme that is plainly obvious to me and anyone else who holds to the traditional, orthodox view, is that women are innocent and men are the criminals.

What much of the lemon verses actually are is Satan's inquisitive questions causing people to doubt the truth of God's Word.

Consider all of the questions posed, like this one
"did God really say that man should rule over woman"?

Sounds very much like the original question Satan posed to Eve:
"Did God really say that you would die if you eat the forbidden fruit"?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you are basically saying is that the criminal is the innocent and the innocent is the criminal, like this:

The sin - woman putting herself under man.
The result - women being suppressed by men.

First, I am not reading beyond Genesis 3:16. Neither before nor beyond. So however we should cast the act of being deceived is not part of the discussion I am having. You are too quick to find a thing you want to attack and subsume everything else into it without so much as acknowledgement of anything else needs separate analysis.

But I did not say that there was sin and result. I said there was a stated cost (pain in childbearing) and that there was also a prophetic statement concerning woman's relationship with man. In a way it made both responsible for the outcome. (Don't anyone say that I must say that I would say that a woman has it coming when abused in any way by any man> I am merely noting that the way it was stated indicated she would bind herself to a man (her husband) and that he would rule over her. (Not a lot of details in what that might entail.)

As for who received what for the "crimes," there appears to be plenty to go around. Man (generically, though more generally at the male) now had to work the ground to eat. And it was not going to be simple as it was in the garden. Thorns and thistles. Unresponsive soil. Less ideal growing conditions. And the woman was somewhat cursed with respect to two things. One, a tough time of bearing children. Two, a tendency to desire for (whether or not at the extreme of "lust") for her husband in a way that would not always be to her benefit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider all of the questions posed, like this one
"did God really say that man should rule over woman"?

Sounds very much like the original question Satan posed to Eve:
"Did God really say that you would die if you eat the forbidden fruit"?

Sounds can be deceiving.

Just because you can cast the question in the same kinds of words does not make them even remotely similar. What would make them similar would be if there has been a statement that was then being questioned. In this case there is no question what words we are talking about. We are talking about words that were said to the woman. (Not the words said to the man.) In those words God clearly (it would appear) said there would be a painful consequence. But he also said that there would be a desire on the part of the woman that would lead to another consequence.

But he never said to the man that he was granted the right . . . no . . . given the command to rule over the woman.

"You aren't to eat from it, or even touch it . . . you will surely die"

Not at all the same as . . .

"your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

The first is a clear command as to what was to be done and not done and what would be the consequence for disobedience.

The second is the immediate consequence of disobedience with respect to the first. And it comes in two parts. A sort of specific curse. And a prophecy of where the whole thing (being self determined with respect to good and evil) would lead.

I realize that it is so tempting to say that since the first part — pain in childbearing — is stated as a fact (and in effect a decree from God) to assume that the second must be the same. But it is not stated in that way. It is not given in a soft way. But it is not stated in a prescriptive manner as the first part is. It is stated matter-of-factly as if it is inevitable. Man is not commanded to rule over the woman. Woman was told that it would happen that way.

It is clear that you want it to be true oh so badly. It would almost seem as if your very understanding of the Bible will be shaken if you can't get this one to be the way you have been taught and believed all your life.

But it would appear that you have never really read it. Oh, you've read the words . . . with the pre-programmed understanding blocking your ability to see what words that are actually there are saying.

And your little sect is littered with proud testimonies about how its men stand as rulers over their wives. They are proud to go to a meeting, leaving their sick wife at home to do the dishes, then return home, see her still working in a pitiful state, and just go off to their study to do "God's work."

And they are proud of how they are obedient to God.

Obedience to God is the man who quick working at the LSM and started meeting along with his wife at a little Baptist church. This was done to remain one with her and united properly as husband and wife.

You would probably mock this as an improper submission of a man to a woman.

Stop reading the epistles for alleged exemption from the gospels. Jesus said. Paul can only interpret. If you think he is altering or overriding what Jesus said, then you don't know Paul.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, I am not reading beyond Genesis 3:16. Neither before nor beyond. So however we should cast the act of being deceived is not part of the discussion I am having. You are too quick to find a thing you want to attack and subsume everything else into it without so much as acknowledgement of anything else needs separate analysis.

But I did not say that there was sin and result. I said there was a stated cost (pain in childbearing) and that there was also a prophetic statement concerning woman's relationship with man. In a way it made both responsible for the outcome. (Don't anyone say that I must say that I would say that a woman has it coming when abused in any way by any man> I am merely noting that the way it was stated indicated she would bind herself to a man (her husband) and that he would rule over her. (Not a lot of details in what that might entail.)

As for who received what for the "crimes," there appears to be plenty to go around. Man (generically, though more generally at the male) now had to work the ground to eat. And it was not going to be simple as it was in the garden. Thorns and thistles. Unresponsive soil. Less ideal growing conditions. And the woman was somewhat cursed with respect to two things. One, a tough time of bearing children. Two, a tendency to desire for (whether or not at the extreme of "lust") for her husband in a way that would not always be to her benefit.

Sounds can be deceiving.

Just because you can cast the question in the same kinds of words does not make them even remotely similar. What would make them similar would be if there has been a statement that was then being questioned. In this case there is no question what words we are talking about. We are talking about words that were said to the woman. (Not the words said to the man.) In those words God clearly (it would appear) said there would be a painful consequence. But he also said that there would be a desire on the part of the woman that would lead to another consequence.

But he never said to the man that he was granted the right . . . no . . . given the command to rule over the woman.

"You aren't to eat from it, or even touch it . . . you will surely die"

Not at all the same as . . .

"your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

The first is a clear command as to what was to be done and not done and what would be the consequence for disobedience.

The second is the immediate consequence of disobedience with respect to the first. And it comes in two parts. A sort of specific curse. And a prophecy of where the whole thing (being self determined with respect to good and evil) would lead.

I realize that it is so tempting to say that since the first part — pain in childbearing — is stated as a fact (and in effect a decree from God) to assume that the second must be the same. But it is not stated in that way. It is not given in a soft way. But it is not stated in a prescriptive manner as the first part is. It is stated matter-of-factly as if it is inevitable. Man is not commanded to rule over the woman. Woman was told that it would happen that way.

It is clear that you want it to be true oh so badly. It would almost seem as if your very understanding of the Bible will be shaken if you can't get this one to be the way you have been taught and believed all your life.

But it would appear that you have never really read it. Oh, you've read the words . . . with the pre-programmed understanding blocking your ability to see what words that are actually there are saying.

And your little sect is littered with proud testimonies about how its men stand as rulers over their wives. They are proud to go to a meeting, leaving their sick wife at home to do the dishes, then return home, see her still working in a pitiful state, and just go off to their study to do "God's work."

And they are proud of how they are obedient to God.

Obedience to God is the man who quick working at the LSM and started meeting along with his wife at a little Baptist church. This was done to remain one with her and united properly as husband and wife.

You would probably mock this as an improper submission of a man to a woman.

Stop reading the epistles for alleged exemption from the gospels. Jesus said. Paul can only interpret. If you think he is altering or overriding what Jesus said, then you don't know Paul.

I suppose you interpret this verse:

Genesis 1:28 .... Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

To mean that man is not commanded to rule over the fish and the birds and the creatures that is just how God said it would happen.


Also, the interpretation of Gen 3:16 does not change Paul's appeal to the order of creation (man first, then woman) in 1 Timothy 2:13. This indicates that God's divine arrangement was there from the beginning, having nothing to do with the forbidden fruit.

The fact remains that the man rules over the woman - that is the divine arrangement, regardless of whether "he shall rule over you" is because of her submission, or a mandated rule. It is a strange sort of "exegetical gymnastics" and twisting of God's Words to say otherwise.

Ligon Duncan said

The gymnastics required to get from “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man” in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.”

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I suppose you interpret this verse:

Genesis 1:28 .... Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

To mean that man is not commanded to rule over the fish and the birds and the creatures that is just how God said it would happen.

Your complete lack of ability to see the difference in the two verses is evidence why your understanding is so flawed. They are not so similar as you would claim, but rather quite different.

The biggest part to all of this, even the quoting of various theologians on the subject, is that the premise is that there is something fundamentally wrong with how the verse has been treated. This gives us reason to question whether anyone that is not, in the present, engaged in this discussion is not simply caught-up in the perpetuation of the problem that dates back centuries. So the fact that a recent (and currently living) scholar would insist that certain things are intended to mean what has always been stated without addressing anything that gives reason to think they have considered the questions currently raised is to dismiss the question because it does not agree with the past.

That sort of works for court cases under that "stare decisis" rule (might not have the Latin spelling correct there). But even that rule is understood as insisting that until there is something substantial as a basis for changing a decision, it is not to be changed just on preference. But if it meant that there can never be a change in a ruling, then the very process of appeal should be questioned.

And there would never be reason to appear together in Acts 15 and question what had been going out across the Roman Empire under the name of the church in Jerusalem. They should have simply said, "That is just the way it is and we are closed to consider."

Your approach is not to actually consider, but rather to just not consider it and instead flood us with repeats of what has been presented in the past. You don't present anything that actually addresses the issues raised and carefully considers them (even if ultimately dismissing them). They just dismiss anything not in line with their thinking.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Also, the interpretation of Gen 3:16 does not change Paul's appeal to the order of creation (man first, then woman) in 1 Timothy 2:13. This indicates that God's divine arrangement was there from the beginning, having nothing to do with the forbidden fruit.

The fact remains that the man rules over the woman - that is the divine arrangement, regardless of whether "he shall rule over you" is because of her submission, or a mandated rule. It is a strange sort of "exegetical gymnastics" and twisting of God's Words to say otherwise.

So your consideration is that if she asks for it, then it is OK.

Sort of like "she dressed in a 'come on' style, so I did" and then expect that a jury will agree with you.

I will not give your quote concerning "I do not allow . . ." more visual space because even that is written with complete disregard for the context in which the statement in question is written.

And context is very important.

We are told not to judge, yet we are told to judge. So which is it? CONTEXT. There is too clearly a context in every one of Paul's statements to just ignore it. So rather than looking to Paul to answer the question about what is the underlying rule, look to the gospels because that is where the rules are. Paul is just interpreting them for use by Gentile and mixed Gentile/Jewish congregations. And each of those congregations has additional issues that are contextually different from each other. And are the reasons for the letters and the comments.

So a woman took an action that did not have the approval of any man in advance, got immediate statements of disagreement from any man (other than Jesus) who spoke at all, yet the statements of those men did not stand to stop her. She was approved — after the fact — by Jesus. Put that into your "under a man" theory and make it work. No one told her to do anything. What she did was of her own volition. Men immediately began to complain, declaring what should have been done. But God silenced them and left her following her heart. So the men who were not God were disapproved for even suggesting to stop her. Therefore no man between her and God.

No she did not instruct a man. But neither was she under the instruction of a man (other than God himself). The God to man to woman edict did not exist.

So rather than insisting on a one-size-fits-all use of that particular verse, maybe the thing to do is to see what might have prompted Paul's comments. Something was out of whack and it wasn't just that a woman was teaching. Something else was going on and this one edict given to one church was designed to nip it in the bud.

Besides, no matter what you think about the NT as scripture that is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, that does not turn every statement of Paul's into an absolute, for all times and in all places permanent edict of God. Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say." And he spoke it into a context that you refuse to even consider.

[OBW]

Further, Within Paul's writings are at least two examples of the diligent work of two women in the teaching of a man.

Timothy's mother who instructed him in the word for many years.

Priscilla and Aquilla who together took Apollos aside and instructed him.

No chastisement on either of these for teaching a man.

Beginning to look more and more contextual rather than absolute and permanent.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Besides, no matter what you think about the NT as scripture that is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, that does not turn every statement of Paul's into an absolute, for all times and in all places permanent edict of God. Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say." And he spoke it into a context that you refuse to even consider.

Re: "Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say.""

You are interpreting it as a modern day English speaking person would understand it, from the English bible. But the Greek experts are trying to interpret it as Paul would have meant it based upon their knowledge of the Greek and the way Paul wrote.

If we go to the Greek experts, they tell us that the grammar of 1 Tim 2:12 indicates it is a general timeless fact. In other words, Paul is not speaking from his own opinion, but a general timeless truth, which comes from the divine arrangement and order God gave us in Genesis. When you or anyone interpret it based upon its immediate context as per the English translation, then you miss a crucial aspect - the grammar and style of Paul's writing.

The present tense in Greek is often used in what is known as a timeless or gnomic sense. For example, Paul's "I appeal" in Romans 12:1 does not say "The Lord says.." yet we can understand this verse to be a general and timeless command because of the way it was commonly used. Paul uses this same sort of present tense writing in 1 Tim 2:12, and on that basis we can know that 1 Tim 2:12 is meant to be a general, timeless command. 1 Cor 4:16, Titus 3:8, Eph 4:1 are other examples.

This generality is indicated when we read the next verse, where Paul uses the Creation account of Genesis as the basis for his instruction: 1 Tim 2:13
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

It's got nothing to do with the fall of man, or the cultural specifics at the time. It is because God established a divine order of things, that applies in a general and timeless way.

This is found from here (emphasis mine)
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/n...thread&order=0
(a) Wallace points out that the generic γυνή, “woman,” indicates that ἐπιτρέπω, “I permit,” is gnomic and concludes that “the normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications” (Greek Grammar, 525, citing forty-one passages). To argue that Paul would have had to use a different verbal form if he were to indicate a timeless truth is simply not correct; this is the force of the gnomic use—to describe an action that always occurs (cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 208–17). (b) If use of the present tense automatically necessitated that the statement be relegated to the author’s present, then this would raise serious problems with much of Paul’s writing. In his thirteen epistles, Paul uses 1,429 present-tense active indicative verbs (out of a total of 2,835 indicative verbs). If this objection is true, then almost nothing Paul says can have any significance beyond the narrow confines of its immediate context. To be sure, many of these present-tense verbs refer to a specific historical situation (e.g., 1 Cor 8:13); but the reference is indicated not by the tense of the verb but by the context of the verse (cf. Wallace’s comments on Eph 5:18; Greek Grammar, 525). (c) When one looks at the use of the present tense in the PE, the general, universal scope of the tense is continually illustrated. In the PE there are 111 present-tense indicative verbs. If all of these were relegated also to the author’s present situation, then the PE would no longer teach that the law is not for the just (1 Tim 1:9), that God wishes that all could be saved (1 Tim 2:4; 4:10), that it is a good thing to pursue the office of elder (1 Tim 3:1), that the mystery of the Christian religion is great (1 Tim 3:16), that physical exercise is of some value but godliness is infinitely more valuable (1 Ti[/I]m 4:8), that children should take care of their parents and grandparents (1 Tim 5:4), that there is great gain in godliness (1 Tim 6:6), that those desiring to be rich fall into temptation (1 Tim 6:9), that the love of money is a root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10); and the list goes on (cf., e.g., 1 Tim 3:2–13; 4:5; 5:4–18; 24–25; 6:7). While the use of the present tense does not require that a statement be true in the future, neither is there anything in the tense that [Page 123] requires it to be true only in the present but not later. Spencer’s translation, “I am not presently allowing a woman to teach” (Beyond the Curse, 85), implies to many ears that the statement would not be true later, something the present tense cannot by itself connote. (d) The previous counterargument also holds for first-person (see above) present-tense verbs. Moo finds twelve uses of the first-person-singular indicative in Paul that make a universal statement (Rom 12:1, 3; 1 Cor 4:16; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 5:2, 3; Eph 4:1; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6), two of which (1 Tim 2:1, 8) specifically indicate that the statement is universal, which would imply by default that Paul uses the construction to make a universal statement (Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 200). Wallace argues that there is no instance in Paul that the combination “first person singular present tense with an infinitive ever means ‘right now, but not later’” (Greek Grammar, 526 n. 30; see Comment on 1 Tim 2:1 regarding the same construction). The present tense views an action from inside the action “without beginning or end in view” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103). It says nothing about the completion of the event but only that from the speaker’s point of view it is an ongoing process. οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” therefore, represents the apostle’s binding command for all churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wallace argues that there is no instance in Paul that the combination “first person singular present tense with an infinitive ever means ‘right now, but not later’” (Greek Grammar, 526 n. 30; see Comment on 1 Tim 2:1 regarding the same construction). The present tense views an action from inside the action “without beginning or end in view” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103). It says nothing about the completion of the event but only that from the speaker’s point of view it is an ongoing process. οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” therefore, represents the apostle’s binding command for all churches.

The strict constructionist view is fine except in the implementation. Where then does a Dora Yu fit into LC lore?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"Yu was trained in western medicine in Suzhou, and practiced briefly, doing work in Korea. She then turned to evangelism. In one of her revival meeting in Church of Heavenly Peace, Fuzhou, in 1920, a young man later called Watchman Nee, at the age of seventeen, experienced a powerful salvation and immediately consecrated himself to serve God full-time. Besides being Watchman Nee’s “spiritual mother”, Yu was also his mentor through whom he was introduced to fundamental biblical truths and to inner life experiences and apparently also converted several of the women who were important in his subsequent successes."

Or for that matter, Peace Wang? Or ME Barber? Or Ruth Lee? Or Jessie Penn-Lewis (the inspiration for Nee's "The Spiritual Man")? Or Madame Guyon (teacher of inner life experiences)? Or Mary MacDonough (who supposedly 'recovered the three parts of man')? Or Margaret MacDonald (discovered the 'secret rapture' teaching which Darby then promoted)? Or Miss Emily Fishbacher (who taught Nee 'charismania'; though he didn't promote it he accepted it - see e.g., the 'Shouters' today)?

And this doesn't even count things like head covering, which Paul also straitly enjoined, but are widely ignored today.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we go to the Greek experts, they tell us that the grammar of 1 Tim 2:12 indicates it is a general timeless fact. In other words, Paul is not speaking from his own opinion, but a general timeless truth, which comes from the divine arrangement and order God gave us in Genesis. When you or anyone interpret it based upon its immediate context as per the English translation, then you miss a crucial aspect - the grammar and style of Paul's writing.

It would be so much more clear if you could somehow make those contrary situations go away. The ones where a woman taught a man, or where a woman dared to act on her own and didn't even stop when the men started griping.

“the normal use of the present tense . . . ."

"The present tense in Greek is often used . . . . For example, Paul's 'I appeal' . . . yet we can understand this verse to be a general and timeless command because of the way it was commonly used."

Even Wallace's quote admits that it is not clear. But he worries that not always using an otherwise common form as absolutely always of that form would gut certain general truths. Fundamentals of the nature of God and of the church. He worries that we might not always say that pursuing the office of elder is a good thing. Yet for some people it probably is not a good thing. Especially for those that Paul would not exclude from the household of faith, but would exclude from the ranks of potential elder.

I am too often amazed that man has such a propensity to create as many absolutes as he can find and justify by any means rather than sticking to the ones that are clearly stated as so and letting the rest be less certain. After all, we are not called to defend Calvinism or Arminianism. And if either is simply right and the other wrong, then there is a serious problem for some of the so-called Christians.

Or is there?

I am too often impressed with the need for the people that push the doctrines (even the ones that I tend to think are likely correct) as if they are the key to salvation, sanctification, and a better "mansion" in the afterlife. But Jesus really didn't talk about any of the nonsense that is being argued in threads like this one. It should tell you something about the importance of it being "just so." (And I am not saying that Jane should back off. On the contrary, no matter how many gripes I have about some parts of it, the base issues are very real and solid and I see no reason that we should not come to a place where men treat women (their wives, girlfriends, other women in the church, and even women of the world) with respect and honor rather than as humans to be chastised for daring to say something to a man that would hint that his "authority" was being impugned or that he was being taught by (gasp) a woman. Sometimes women have to rise up to do what a man won't do.

And men who are so enthralled with their God-given right to be in authority over women will never rise up to suggest that it might not actually be so. It will take a Deborah to rise up. It will take a Mary to show the business heads of the men that there is something greater than what they think is important. It will take a Priscilla to teach an Apollos beyond a "Jesus only" mindset.

And consistent with that kind of thinking, I can't get excited about a man who is looking to make everything an absolute rule rather than take the effort to parse through what really should be absolute, what should not, and what maybe really doesn't matter which because it just isn't that clear. It won't get you into "heaven."

But when deciding what should be absolute, in light of much of the rest of this discussion, I would say that a claim that it should be absolute is suspect unless there is clear evidence that it really should be. Just saying it is in a form that often is does not decide the matter. It is clear that there is a tendency of the male of the species to want that to be the answer, so there is a confirmation bias at work.

And you would be correct if you suggest that there is a tendency toward a confirmation bias on the other side. But neither makes any particular position wrong. It just provides a warning not to just see what you want to see.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am too often impressed with the need for the people that push the doctrines (even the ones that I tend to think are likely correct) as if they are the key to salvation, sanctification, and a better "mansion" in the afterlife. But Jesus really didn't talk about any of the nonsense that is being argued in threads like this one..

A problem with creating absolutes out of contingencies is that contingencies change, and in out frailties we can't always keep them ourselves, and our faith diminishes as a result. We become hypocrites, in a word. Jesus pointed out this tendency.

So we compartmentalize our absolutes. In one box we might say that Watchman Nee was instructed by Dora Yu or Margaret Barber. In another we aver that women can't teach, because, well, Paul said so!

The key to survival becomes to never open both boxes at the same time. But the cost is great.