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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is a classic case of begging the question.

In the context of a discussion that is suggesting that men have been domineering because of their (mis)understanding of scripture you want to use the number of men v women as a yardstick to support the position that men did the heavy lifting, not the women? Or otherwise suggest that men are superior? That is a statement that cannot be made since the lack of women was not their inability to be involved or contribute, but the fact that they were excluded. And if there was a lack, that could be because the women were generally not educated the same as men. Not that they were somehow intrinsically inferior.

Please provide relevance so this discussion.

This is like relying on the words of Lee claiming a position to be correct as evidence that he is correct. Not talking about whether what he said aligns properly with scripture, but whether what he said/wrote can support his own assertions without scripture or even though contrary to scripture. It doesn't matter how right or wrong he ultimately is proved to be. Until it is proved from something other than his own claim of correctness, his words are what are being questioned, not what are being consulted to determine their own correctness.

The exclusion of women from things like the creation of the creeds or the determination of the canon of scripture is the issue that needs analysis and therefore cannot be used as proof that women should be excluded. We obviously are not going to rethink the canon of scripture if we determine that the exclusion of women was contrary to a proper understanding of the "place" of women according to scripture. But we cannot use that historical fact as proof that it should have been that way.

I think facts such as these speak for themselves.

Where were the women when decision were made about which books should be considered part of the Canon?

Likewise, where were the women when the doctrine of the Trinity was defined?

Which Creeds were written by women? The apostles creed? The Nicene creed?

Likewise, in the Reformation, we know about Luther, Calvin etc. Where were the women?

Has there been any major move of God over the past centuries with a female leader? Maybe Kathryn Kuhlman?

I think it is related to Jesus choosing only males as his closest disciples. That tradition continued in the early church - there were no female bishops. We hear a lot about early church fathers, were there early church mothers?

I have read about the matter of why the author of Hebrews is unnamed, and some, have suggested that if it were written by a woman, there is good reason why that fact should be hidden. Yes on the one hand it is positive that at least one woman possibly (hypothesis only) wrote a book of the bible. On the other hand it is a negative if her authorship was hidden because of male domination at the time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think facts such as these speak for themselves.

They do speak. They say something. But only someone with the view of a patriarchal system where women are property or second-class citizens would presume that what it is saying is that it was ordained to be that way.

It was ordained that Cain would kill Abel. It was ordained that slavery would be commonplace for centuries. It was ordained that women be excluded from any important acts in society other than bearing and raising children and cooking meals.

What you fail to consider is that it may simply be saying that the doors were locked and two big guys named Bruno and Rufus were standing outside with Glocks.

This is how Lee came up with so many of his novel teachings (and Nee too). Read something. Declare that nothing except his version of how it should be understood is valid. Declare a new prescriptive doctrine.

The stupidity of your opening sentence is that it is simply an observation of action by people who are acting in concert with the very problem that we are trying to figure out. The fact of their action cannot be accepted as the reason that their action was correct. That is circular reasoning. It is classic begging the question.

Planes flew into the World Trade Center. What principle does this prove? That it was correct for planes to fly into the World Trade Center.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have read about the matter of why the author of Hebrews is unnamed, and some, have suggested that if it were written by a woman, there is good reason why that fact should be hidden. Yes on the one hand it is positive that at least one woman possibly (hypothesis only) wrote a book of the bible. On the other hand it is a negative if her authorship was hidden because of male domination at the time.

It does not occur to you that in what was still mostly a male dominated society that hiding the fact (if it is a fact) of a woman writer for Hebrews was the way to get it read by the dim-witted men that would otherwise just reject it without as much as a second look? And that men are still doing that to this day? Your mention of Luther and others yet no women is hardly surprising given that Christianity has continued to understand its primary source text as relegating women to the back row, or outside watching video monitors.

The question as to whether that is the right thing to do in light of all of the scripture (not just one or two verses) must be studied from within the scripture, not by reference to how the people who already had an opinion on the subject did things. If your way was the way to go, then slavery would still be the norm because the fact that there was slavery would prove that there should be slavery.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

They do speak. They say something. But only someone with the view of a patriarchal system where women are property or second-class citizens would presume that what it is saying is that it was ordained to be that way.

It was ordained that Cain would kill Abel. It was ordained that slavery would be commonplace for centuries. It was ordained that women be excluded from any important acts in society other than bearing and raising children and cooking meals.

What you fail to consider is that it may simply be saying that the doors were locked and two big guys named Bruno and Rufus were standing outside with Glocks.

This is how Lee came up with so many of his novel teachings (and Nee too). Read something. Declare that nothing except his version of how it should be understood is valid. Declare a new prescriptive doctrine.

The stupidity of your opening sentence is that it is simply an observation of action by people who are acting in concert with the very problem that we are trying to figure out. The fact of their action cannot be accepted as the reason that their action was correct. That is circular reasoning. It is classic begging the question.

Planes flew into the World Trade Center. What principle does this prove? That it was correct for planes to fly into the World Trade Center.

It does not occur to you that in what was still mostly a male dominated society that hiding the fact (if it is a fact) of a woman writer for Hebrews was the way to get it read by the dim-witted men that would otherwise just reject it without as much as a second look? And that men are still doing that to this day? Your mention of Luther and others yet no women is hardly surprising given that Christianity has continued to understand its primary source text as relegating women to the back row, or outside watching video monitors.

The question as to whether that is the right thing to do in light of all of the scripture (not just one or two verses) must be studied from within the scripture, not by reference to how the people who already had an opinion on the subject did things. If your way was the way to go, then slavery would still be the norm because the fact that there was slavery would prove that there should be slavery.

So what is being dealt with here is much more than just a few lemon translations of the bible. The "dim-witted men" have existed since the apostolic times. They defined the Canon, the Trinity, the Creeds, without inclusion of the female bishops (of which there were none).

Perhaps there were books and letters authored by females that never made it into our bibles? Perhaps Hebrews was one book that was lucky enough to make it, but only under an anonymous author.

It has been claimed here that the translators from the original Greek or Hebrew are to blame for not properly translating the bible. But I would suggest that any faulty translations are simply the norm of that period and even the norm of the apostolic period. So I would say that the bible translation is accurate if they correctly represent the apostolic and historical church norms.

So what we are doing is not only questioning the bible translators but also the judgement of those that gave us the Trinity, the Canon, the Creeds etc.
(These historical norms have largely been maintained up until today in the Catholic and Orthodox etc churches.)

This is not about the bible translators making some mistakes in a few "lemon verses". Male domination is largely entrenched in the original manuscripts themselves.

For example - the Bible is so male dominated that it does not even mention the names of Adam and Eve's daughters. God gave the name Adam to the first man, but the woman was just called "the woman". The woman was given a name only after she sinned against God. Eve would forever be known as the woman who deceived the man:

1 Tim 2:14:
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

I think what the history shows is that there was no Utopia of male and female equality before the bible translators got their hands on it. If there was we would find such. A simple example is female bishops, the Bible says a bishop must be a husband of one wife, it is clearly a male role. There are no female bishops in early church history that I am aware of. There were no females involved in deciding the doctrine of the Trinity or what books should go into the Bible. I think this rules out at least, the notion of female bishops in the church and even female church leaders. It is true that by and large, women were "kept silent". I think it is a true statement to say that no woman has made a major contribution to the doctrine and teaching of the church.

[Nell]

Changes to A Woman of Chayil were uploaded to Kindle recently which included spelling, punctuation, wording, and grammar changes throughout.
Significant changes and additions to the following sections:
. The Message of this Book (location 328)
. An Important Topic for Men Also (new section--location 356)
. A Fit with the Redemptive Message of the Old Covenant (location 1560)
. To Which Woman Do You Belong: Bond or Free? (location 4395)

A new topic was added to the Introduction: "An Important Topic for Men Also" which is attached and is in support of OBW's post/s.

If your Kindle version has "An Important Topic for Men", your version is current. If you decide to man up and spring for $2.99 for the book, the new version will be delivered. If you have Kindle for iPad, my 3 iPads updated automatically. Kindle for PC on Windows 10 took longer. I had to delete the old version first before the new update would synch.

If you need $2.99, let me know and I'll float you a loan .

I checked the attachment and it is attempting to "save" rather than "open". Not sure what's up with that.

Nell

[Nell]

1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes. The woman was deceived. We know this because she confessed it to God. She admitted it. Ever since she confessed and obtained forgiveness, her words have been misused against her implying that Adam was some kind of hero because he “wasn’t deceived.” Does this mean that the woman sinned but the man didn’t? No. If Adam was not deceived, then he sinned willfully. In fact, this is the case. He knew not to eat of the tree and did it anyway. Eve was deceived by the serpent but she confessed and was forgiven. We know she was forgiven because the remainder of the Bible does not hold Eve accountable for the fall, but Adam. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam (not Eve) to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's (not Eve's) transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Where was Adam?
Gen. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Adam was standing right there with Eve when she was deceived by the serpent. Why didn’t he stop her? Why didn't he rebuke the serpent? The disobedience might not have happened if Adam had done his job. Wasn’t he supposed to be her protector? Wasn’t Adam the caretaker of the garden? Instead, he did nothing…except disobey God and blame God and Eve for his own sin. Gen. 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

We know Eve was forgiven, and blessed:
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all …
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In other words, because the serpent deceived the woman, SHE will bring about his END. That is a blessing to womankind including ME.

Regardless, it is widely held that God cursed Eve. As a result, women have been insulted, persecuted, maligned, tortured, etc., especially throughout modern history. Why? Because the woman was “deceived?” Perhaps in the minds of the translators and/or men in general, but no. That's not it. Look at the bigger picture. It’s because of Satanic revenge…the serpent is out to destroy her BEFORE she destroys him! It’s because of the enmity God placed between the woman and the serpent. Why didn't God put enmity between Adam and the serpent instead of Eve? Perhaps because Adam was playing the blame game...unrepentant. God must have felt Eve was up to the task of destroying the Devil.

It would behoove men and women alike to understand that the woman is not the enemy…she was blessed. She is up to the task of destroying the enemy, that old serpent. In fact, at this point, the woman is actually the church. The Body of Christ comprised of all believers, both women and men who will bring about his final demise.

More is coming about the lemon 1 Tim. 2:8-15 in the next PDF.

Nell

[Drake]

Nell,

The Genesis narrative after the fall indicates that Adam did indeed try to throw Eve under the proverbial bus.

However, this statement: "In other words, because the serpent deceived the woman, SHE will bring about his END."

If by it what is meant is that the woman will bring forth THE SEED that will bring about the end of the serpent, the devil, then I agree. That we know was Mary, the virgin, who gave birth to Christ Who has and will ultimately defeat His and our enemy. And we may extend this female picture to the corporate bride who cooperating with her Husband will practically defeat our mutual enemy.

Other than that, if something more is meant by the statement, that is,if something is implied such as that the gender of a woman has unique capability to defeat Satan that the gender of man does not, then that is going a pace too far.

Clearly, the female gender has attributes where some things are done better. The women who followed that Lord were honored by Him and featured prominently in the Scriptures. For instance, a woman was the first to meet Him after His resurrection as a reward for her seeking. A woman was the instrument of His incarnation. Prisca was clearly a leader in the care for several churches. Timothy's mother demonstrates her godly character in infusing her son with godly instruction. There are many such references to the prominent role and contribution of women in the Bible.

Yet, the contribution of women does not negate the role of the men and the strengths they bring. Both male and female are equally important in carrying out God's purpose and will.

As mentioned, as relates to Christ our Head we are all in the female position and we are all constituents of the corporate bride.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

It would behoove men and women alike to understand that the woman is not the enemy…she was blessed. She is up to the task of destroying the enemy, that old serpent. In fact, at this point, the woman is actually the church. The Body of Christ comprised of all believers, both women and men who will bring about his final demise.

The woman was deceived. (I Timothy) The man transgressed. (Romans) There is no mention that Eve actually heard God's command directly. Both failed. Their offspring all suffered because of it. What's worse, disobeying God or being deceived by His enemy? Both became sinners, under God's judgment, needing a Savior.

It troubles me when men and women are pitted against each other, especially when this occurs in the church of God. Neither men nor women are the enemy, but Satan and his powers.

One of the things that so troubled me in the Recovery was that often times Witness Lee did not know who his enemy was. He too often made our brothers and sisters in Christianity the enemy. Hate to repeat that mistake.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the things that so troubled me in the Recovery was that often times Witness Lee did not know who his enemy was. He too often made our brothers and sisters in Christianity the enemy. Hate to repeat that mistake.

Fully agree.

But the problem in dealing with issues like this one is that the goal of the discussion is to end so much of that kind of thinking, while those that are determined to maintain the status quo are busy making that mistake in spades.

And the discussion looks so acrimonious. But the acrimony is (hopefully) only on one side of the discussion.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The woman was deceived. (I Timothy) The man transgressed. (Romans) There is no mention that Eve actually heard God's command directly. Both failed. Their offspring all suffered because of it. What's worse, disobeying God or being deceived by His enemy? Both became sinners, under God's judgment, needing a Savior.

The problem is that woman was and has been blamed and otherwise punished for the failure of both man and woman. Both are equal failures but one repented, and the other did not.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes. The woman was deceived. We know this because she confessed it to God. She admitted it. Ever since she confessed and obtained forgiveness, her words have been misused against her implying that Adam was some kind of hero because he “wasn’t deceived.” Does this mean that the woman sinned but the man didn’t? No. If Adam was not deceived, then he sinned willfully. In fact, this is the case. He knew not to eat of the tree and did it anyway. Eve was deceived by the serpent but she confessed and was forgiven. We know she was forgiven because the remainder of the Bible does not hold Eve accountable for the fall, but Adam. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam (not Eve) to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's (not Eve's) transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Where was Adam?
Gen. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Adam was standing right there with Eve when she was deceived by the serpent. Why didn’t he stop her? Why didn't he rebuke the serpent? The disobedience might not have happened if Adam had done his job. Wasn’t he supposed to be her protector? Wasn’t Adam the caretaker of the garden? Instead, he did nothing…except disobey God and blame God and Eve for his own sin. Gen. 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

We know Eve was forgiven, and blessed:
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all …
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In other words, because the serpent deceived the woman, SHE will bring about his END. That is a blessing to womankind including ME.

Regardless, it is widely held that God cursed Eve. As a result, women have been insulted, persecuted, maligned, tortured, etc., especially throughout modern history. Why? Because the woman was “deceived?” Perhaps in the minds of the translators and/or men in general, but no. That's not it. Look at the bigger picture. It’s because of Satanic revenge…the serpent is out to destroy her BEFORE she destroys him! It’s because of the enmity God placed between the woman and the serpent. Why didn't God put enmity between Adam and the serpent instead of Eve? Perhaps because Adam was playing the blame game...unrepentant. God must have felt Eve was up to the task of destroying the Devil.

It would behoove men and women alike to understand that the woman is not the enemy…she was blessed. She is up to the task of destroying the enemy, that old serpent. In fact, at this point, the woman is actually the church. The Body of Christ comprised of all believers, both women and men who will bring about his final demise.

More is coming about the lemon 1 Tim. 2:8-15 in the next PDF.

Nell

Witness Lee taught that the woman met with Satan of her own decision, she stepped out of her covering (i.e. did not consult the man about Satan's suggestion). i.e. man not at fault, woman at fault. You have stated that man was with the woman. i.e. man at fault due to complicity, not exercising his headship.

Perhaps a bit of both? Woman did not ask her husband, and husband saw Eve talking to the serpent and did not think to intervene to protect her.

I believe the Answers in Genesis group present a good article about this matter:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-c...o-the-serpent/

They consult a number of bible commentaries which seem to hold to a view that Adam was not with his wife:

e.g. John Calvin:

And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.


Of course Adam is at fault for taking the fruit at his wife's suggestion, and had ample opportunity to stop it there and then, no question about that.
But Eve is seen to be the one who was deceived in the first place.

Of course it does not help that all the bible commentaries are by men, and the answers in genesis folk are men. Gender bias is everywhere.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Witness Lee taught that the woman . . . .

Witness Lee taught a lot of things that were nowhere in the text. The were just his opinions.

And this coming from the man who claimed that everything except his teachings were just opinions. The guy was a shyster of the first degree.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

e.g. John Calvin:

And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.

Actually, based on the words in the text, it is much more credible that he was there than that he was not. It is all speculation and the only thing we have to go on it "to her husband with her" which puts him roughly there, not somewhere else.

Even John Calvin is subject to fits of opinion not base on actual evidence.