|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 2, 2010 14:25:08 GMT -5
Hey Guys and Gals,
Several years ago my wife's sister-in-law Barbara was to be ordained as a chaplain and we were invited to attend the ceremony at Barbara's church. My wife and I are Reformed and the Reformed are against the ordination of women on what they think is biblical grounds.
I did not attend Barbara's ordination. But if Barbara was being ordained today I would attend. It is the consistent application Full Preterist principles that has caused me to change on this matter. I feel that the greatest strength of Full Preterism is it's belief that the old covenant it completely gone. The apostle Paul said that the woman was under the man according to the law. This is the key for me. Paul said that the woman was under the man according to the law. This means that the subjection of the woman to the man was Mosaic. This cannot be applicable today because the whole Mosaic code has been entirely abolished in Christ.
Paul may have kept that code in effect temporarily out of necessity because of problems. We do know that he was abolishing the Mosaic code little by little as the infant church could handle it. As the chief administrator of the new covenant Paul gradually transformed the infant church from the image of Moses to the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:1-18). This transformation meant for them that they would cease from the letter of the law and adopt the spirit of it. Paul said that the letter KILLS but the spirit gives life.
I now believe that the woman is no longer under the man. Not in the church and not even in the family unit.
Reformed pastors have argued that there is no example of a woman being ordained in the scripture. However, there is no example of a non apostle ordaining a man. Yet men are ordained today by non apostles in Reformed churches. This is inconsistent in my thinking especially because the Reformed deny the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. Wouldn't the practice of ordination today be a form of apostolic succession?
Therefore, I now deny the validity of ordination altogether. First, only apostles ordained men and there are no apostles today. Second, ordination occurred through the laying on of hands and the laying on of hands is to be abandoned (Hebrews 6:1-3).
I said that I would attend the ceremony if Barbara was being ordained today. I would do this not because I believe in ordination or in the laying on of hands but to minister to Barbara and my wife's brother. I wish I had it to do all over again. My wife's brother was offended by my stance. But I acted out of the convictions I had at that time. I wish also that I had never asserted what I erroneously thought was my 'headship' over my wife. Paul said that when he was a child he thought as a child and understood as a child. But when he became a man he put away childish things. Those childish things were the Mosaic codes and the letter of the law. If I would have realized the spirit of things early on I would have loved my wife so much more.
I am thankful to God for helping me see that the whole letter of the law has been abolished. My wife is not under my headship because I have no headship. I am just a peon anyway.
blessings,
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 3, 2010 2:29:19 GMT -5
...Second, ordination occurred through the laying on of hands and the laying on of hands is to be abandoned (Hebrews 6:1-3). ... Then so is the resurrection of the dead to be abandoned, right? I'd still like to point out that the Hebrews passage mentioned refers to the teaching about those things, not those things themselves. But more along the lines of the primary subject of your post, that new edition of the NIV has what I think is an interesting change to a passage in 1 Corinthians 11: |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 3, 2010 10:58:09 GMT -5
Bev:
The apostle was not speaking about the resurrection of the dead in the sense you are probably thinking. Christ and His apostles had the power and authority to raise the dead. This was one of those 'elementary principles' which no longer applies today. The apostle to the Hebrews was warning his readers not to covet such ability because it was not intended to be perpetual.
Bev:
To leave the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ amounts to leaving the practice of those principles. Note that they were told to leave the discussion of those things "not laying again the foundation of reformation through dead works." Raising the dead, the laying on of hands and cleansing rites are now 'dead works.'
Raising the dead and imparting authority to men by the laying on of hands was how the reformation from the old covenant to the new covenant began. Those things were not meant to be perpetual. When the reformation fully came all those regulations ceased (Hebrews 9:10).
Bev:
This does not prove that the woman is under the man today. It was the law of Moses which made the woman subject to the man. Paul was gradually leading them from the image of Moses to the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:4-18). Those in Christ's image would not even desire to live under such a rule.
Back to Hebrews. They thought that the change over from the old covenant to the new covenant was to continue by raising the dead and by the laying on of hands and by cleansing rites. Christ set up those 'elementary principles' to be temporary. The time was soon to come upon them that the reformation would to occur by their embracing the word alone. The apostle repeatedly told them that it was all about the word (Hebrews 4:2; 4:12; 5:13; 6:5; 7:28; 12:27; 13:7; 13:22).
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 3, 2010 13:02:29 GMT -5
Bev: The apostle was not speaking about the resurrection of the dead in the sense you are probably thinking. Christ and His apostles had the power and authority to raise the dead. This was one of those 'elementary principles' which no longer applies today. The apostle to the Hebrews was warning his readers not to covet such ability because it was not intended to be perpetual. Then they were also being instructed to no longer repent or desire faith toward God? Come on, Roo. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 3, 2010 13:33:25 GMT -5
Bev: This does not prove that the woman is under the man today. It was the law of Moses which made the woman subject to the man. Paul was gradually leading them from the image of Moses to the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:4-18). Those in Christ's image would not even desire to live under such a rule.Hi Roo. I think you missed what I thought to be the point of this change. The verse reads, "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head." They explain that a woman having "authority over her own head" means that the woman has the authority to "to control what they do or do not have on their heads." In other words, the "covering" is not the authority on the woman's head, it is about the woman having authority (having control over) HOW she covers her head, whether it be with a hat, a veil, or long hair. "Ladies' choice!" |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 3, 2010 13:51:12 GMT -5
Bev: This does not prove that the woman is under the man today. It was the law of Moses which made the woman subject to the man. Paul was gradually leading them from the image of Moses to the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:4-18). Those in Christ's image would not even desire to live under such a rule.Hi Roo. I think you missed what I thought to be the point of this change. The verse reads, "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head." They explain that a woman having "authority over her own head" means that the woman has the authority to "to control what they do or do not have on their heads." In other words, the "covering" is not the authority on the woman's head, it is about the woman having authority (having control over) HOW she covers her head, whether it be with a hat, a veil, or long hair. "Ladies' choice!" Sorry Bev but I still don't know what you are saying. Please be patient with me. Do you think the man is the head of the woman today? I think not. Not in the church or in the family unit. The man and the woman have been restored to the economical equality they enjoyed before sin entered into the picture. Only their roles may be different. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Nov 3, 2010 14:55:14 GMT -5
Hi Roo. I think you missed what I thought to be the point of this change. The verse reads, "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head." They explain that a woman having "authority over her own head" means that the woman has the authority to "to control what they do or do not have on their heads." In other words, the "covering" is not the authority on the woman's head, it is about the woman having authority (having control over) HOW she covers her head, whether it be with a hat, a veil, or long hair. "Ladies' choice!" Sorry Bev but I still don't know what you are saying. Please be patient with me. Do you think the man is the head of the woman today? I think not. Not in the church or in the family unit. The man and the woman have been restored to the economical equality they enjoyed before sin entered into the picture. Only their roles may be different. Roo I don't fully agree with this as far as in the sight of God. In practice I do believe the two are equal but with the fact that God made woman to desire her husband I think this means that God has put man over the woman (always with love) to provide, decide, protect her. This is not a pecking order but a created order for harmony and self-disipline. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 3, 2010 17:00:40 GMT -5
Just to clarify, I wasn't posting agreement (nor disagreement) with the NIV text regarding head coverings, I was simply sharing it! You men obviously are missing the point, and maybe that post isn't right for this topic. So I've begun another topic on head coverings in the Bible Questions and Study forum. Maybe the women among us will comment about the interpretation in that thread. The NIV translators' interpretation is one I've never even considered before, but maybe others have always understood it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 4, 2010 4:02:40 GMT -5
Sorry Bev but I still don't know what you are saying. Please be patient with me. Do you think the man is the head of the woman today? I think not. Not in the church or in the family unit. The man and the woman have been restored to the economical equality they enjoyed before sin entered into the picture. Only their roles may be different. Roo Allyn, Wasn't the desire for her husband a post fall thing? Hasn't this been reversed? Roo I don't fully agree with this as far as in the sight of God. In practice I do believe the two are equal but with the fact that God made woman to desire her husband I think this means that God has put man over the woman (always with love) to provide, decide, protect her. This is not a pecking order but a created order for harmony and self-disipline. Allyn, Wasn't the desire for her husband a post fall thing? Hasn't this been reversed in Christ? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Nov 4, 2010 7:07:51 GMT -5
Allyn, Wasn't the desire for her husband a post fall thing? Hasn't this been reversed? Roo I don't fully agree with this as far as in the sight of God. In practice I do believe the two are equal but with the fact that God made woman to desire her husband I think this means that God has put man over the woman (always with love) to provide, decide, protect her. This is not a pecking order but a created order for harmony and self-disipline. Allyn, Wasn't the desire for her husband a post fall thing? Hasn't this been reversed in Christ? Hi Roo, You didn't mean to say reversed, did you? But no, I believe it is still the same order while we are still physically alive. Jesus is and always be the head but then we all are subject to Him but in the order the Apostle Paul laid out. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 4, 2010 8:23:33 GMT -5
Allyn, Wasn't the desire for her husband a post fall thing? Hasn't this been reversed in Christ? Hi Roo, You didn't mean to say reversed, did you? But no, I believe it is still the same order while we are still physically alive. Jesus is and always be the head but then we all are subject to Him but in the order the Apostle Paul laid out. Allyn, The woman was not originally created to desire her husband if by this you mean that she was created to be in subjection to him. The subjection of the woman to the man was Mosaic in origin. Paul said that the woman was bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives (1 Corinthians 7:39). It was not the other way around. He said that the woman must keep silent and be submissive in the church as the law says. He said that is shameful for the woman to even ask a question in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). How can these Mosaic codes be in effect today? Paul said that he was an administrator of the new covenant "not of the letter but of the spirit; For the letter KILLS" (2 Corinthians 3:6). Then he said that the letter is the ministration 'of death' and that the glory of the letter which was engraved in stone was inferior in glory of the spirit. He said that it was his objective to transform them from the image of Moses to the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:7-17). So what person who has been transformed into the image of Christ would want to live by Moses? How could a man who is in the image of Christ entertain for a moment that his wife is under his subjection? It seems to me that Paul enforced the Mosaic code regarding the subjection of women out of necessity to deal with problems in the infant church but that clearly was not his ideal. As an administrator of the new covenant he felt his calling was to transform them from the image of Moses to the image of Christ. So I ask this question to you and to all: Is the Reformed Church or any church living according to the spirit when it enforces the law of Moses regarding the subjection of women? Are such people living up to Paul's ideal to be transformed into the image of Christ? I feel that I am applying Preterist principles consistently. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 4, 2010 12:24:24 GMT -5
Hi Roo,
Well the so called Reformed church is not operating any differently than its predecessor the Catholic church - who thinks it is their job to rule over 'sinning/carnal saints'.
In the fall, Eve's curse was partly that her desire would be for her husband - to rule over him. This is why the Mosaic law put women in subjection to their husbands. Or have you not ever observed any Jewish households? Where the hen rules the rooster & chicks...and that formidably so!
Paul was addressing certain cultural observances in his day - both Jewish and Gentile. Women were not allowed to read from the law in the synagogue. They sat in a separate section from the men and were to keep silent and listen under this patriarchal society. These early Christians were called to bear a testimony to the Jews and not offend them in their own worship services, lest they be considered 'lawless' by them.
I don't see how such observances need be practiced today, unless of course it is sin we need to continue to address because the worshippers who gather together have no abiding relationship with Christ or His Spirit to teach them. And because unbelievers are still present in our assemblies today, some order must be established. And an heirarchal rule is not a bad one to follow. Leaders and followers necessitates that those who have the practice of godliness provide the example for those who don't yet. And a godly woman certainly ought to be able to take the lead in that!
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 4, 2010 12:44:26 GMT -5
Hi Roo, Well the so called Reformed church is not operating any differently than its predecessor the Catholic church - who thinks it is their job to rule over 'sinning/carnal saints'. In the fall, Eve's curse was partly that her desire would be for her husband - to rule over him. This is why the Mosaic law put women in subjection to their husbands. Hi Robin, I have always believed that Eve's post fall desire for her husband meant that she was made to be under his subjection. This is why I said to Allyn that that had been reversed. It seemed that Allyn did not understand what I was saying. Now I understand why Allyn said that I did not mean to say 'reversed' though I did. Now you say that it means that she desired to be over her husband. This is an interesting angle and I will have to look into it. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by ehihanoqo on Jul 27, 2019 23:28:25 GMT -5
|
|
