Women ruling, a bad thing?

[Tamara224]

Show me one gnostic gospel that predates 100 A.D.When was Valentinius(the father of christian gnosticism) born? when did Paul write his epistles? do the math

Nope. Not gonna follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole.

Gnosticism was around before Valentinius. Even wikipedia will tell you that much.

Besides, I said that the particular heresy involved was probably a melding of the goddess worship and gnosticism. Some of the predominant beliefs in Ephesus at the time were somewhat unique to that area.

 

[Meepy]

Nope. Not gonna follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole.

Gnosticism was around before Valentinius. Even wikipedia will tell you that much.

Besides, I said that the particular heresy involved was probably a melding of the goddess worship and gnosticism. Some of the predominant beliefs in Ephesus at the time were somewhat unique to that area.

Stating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

So where does Paul state that in the scriptures then?(that there was a gnostic heresy in Ephesus?)

So I take it you cannot find any gnostic document that predates 100 A.D.?

 

[Johnnz]

It is widely acknowledged that gnoticism developed fully in the 2nd century, but that there were elements of it earlier. Also, so Greek thinking had some similar concepts. We also know that fertility cults and worship of feminine deities was around in NT times

John
NZ

 

[Meepy]

Ah, and the ad hominem begins.

I'm pretty sure that according to unofficial internet forum rules, you automatically lose.

FWIW, synonyms of "domineer":

be in the saddle, bend, bluster, boss around, browbeat, bulldoze, bully*, call the shots, dominate, hector, henpeck, in the driver's seat, intimidate, keep under thumb, kick around, lead by the nose, menace, overbear, predominate, preponderate, prevail, push the buttons, reign, rule, rule the roost, run the show, run things, swagger, threaten, throw weight around, tyrannize

​

Word Origin & History

domineer
1580s, from Du. domineren "to rule," from M.Fr. dominer , from L. dominari "to rule, 'lord' it over" (see domination). Shakespeare's usage is not the earliest in English.
​

When a person insists on ruling over another person, he (or she) is domineering.

And that is an accurate description of many men's attitudes toward women.

I do? Why don't you go ahead and point out which Scripture I'm "ignoring", then.

Yes, you did already say that. It wasn't true then and it still isn't.

Paul did tell us the reason he was writing the letter to Timothy. The purpose of the letter is what gives us the context we need to understand what Paul was talking about. As I previously said, take a look at the first chapter of 1 Timothy. Paul describes the type of false teaching that was going on.

There is also historical evidence that gives us insight into the context. When we know of groups promoting "myths and endless genealogies" and find out what else they believed and taught... we can put two and two together.

We have to remember that Paul was writing a personal letter to his protege concerning specific concerns. We can't assume that we can understand his meaning without any of the context.

Which makes perfect sense if Paul is saying "I am not [currently] permitting women to teach or authentien* a man" because the things the women were teaching were wrong... It especially makes sense if the error in their teaching had directly to do with Adam and Eve.


In light of the rest of Scripture, this is the more reasonable interpretation. Otherwise we have Paul the schizophrenic apostle to the gentiles, commending women for doing things forbidden to them.

*The issues surrounding authentien are another piece of a puzzling Scripture passage. The truth is, no one knows for sure what Paul meant by it and the word isn't found anywhere else in Scripture.

The "basic commentaries" are the opinions of men. That you can find men who share your opinion is irrelevant. I too can find scholars and theologians whose "basic commentaries" of Scripture support my interpretation.


Those were ALL of the commentaries ever written on Genesis 3? You're funny.

Again your 'domineering' theory is at odds with Paul and specifically 1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul clearly here states man is the head of woman, and he points as to the reasons in Genesis. Your just trying to use semantics, which shows you have little premise.

Any reason when paul is talking about endless genealogies(these were genealogies of the pharisees by the way, as Hebrews kept careful genealogical records, for this was necessary in order that the distinction of their tribes might be kept up. Of course, in the lapse of centuries these tables would become very numerous, complicated, and extended. Especially this can be seen in the Talmud. There were no genealogies in gnosticism, rather they called them Aeons, which is totally different than genealogies), they were chapters apart when he talks about the issues of women?

Seriously if you wanna argue your position, you should at least brush up on your theology and biblical history. Gnosticism didn't keep records of genealogies. They had no tribes or bloodlines. Everything they wrote was about secret knowledge, aeons, pluralism, and the plemora. There is not one writing I have even seen that talks about genealogies in gnosticism.

I have never once read one commentary that stated Genesis 3:16 is about men being "domineering" over their wives. All of early Christendom understood Adam's headship was caused by the order of creation(Eve coming from Adam and being his helpmeet) and because she was the first in transgression(which showed she was not fit to be head, due to her pliancy in character and being more emotional). I think that is the funniest interpretation I have ever heard though. But as I said before it still puts you at great odds with Paul for 1 timothy 2:13. Considering he gives specific reason why a woman is not to usurp authority which has nothing to do with gnostic teachings. But it seems in stubbornness you refuse to read the rest of the verses after 1 Timothy 2:12.

Which 'scholars' point to your interpretation? 21st century egalitarian feminists? lol

Here is one scholar that talks about your gnostic interpretation:

Some learned men suppose that the apostle alludes here to the Aeons, among the Gnostics and Valentinians, of whom there were endless numbers to make up what was called their pleroma; or to the sephiroth, or splendours of the Cabalists. But it is certain that these heresies had not arrived to any formidable head in the apostle's time; and it has long been a doubt with me whether they even existed at that time: and I think it the most simple way, and most likely to be the intention of the apostle, to refer all to the Jewish genealogies, which he calls Jewish fables

and endless genealogies; not of deities, as the Theogony of the Gentiles, or the ten Sephirot or numbers in the Cabalistic tree of the Jews, or the Aeones of the Gnostics and Valentinians, which are said to proceed from one another, as some have thought; but both the public and private genealogies of the Jews, which they kept to show of what tribe they were, or to prove themselves priests and Levites, and the like; of which there was no end, and which often produced questions and debates. By reason of their captivities and dispersions, they were much at a loss to distinguish their tribes and families. Some care Ezra took of this matter, when the Jews returned from the Babylonish captivity

Some have supposed that Paul refers to some foolish fancies of the Gnostics, but those were of later date.



As I told you before, and as stated above. Gnosticism didn't exist during those times. It seems you don't have much knowledge regarding the history of the apostolic era, as most gnostic documents didn't come till after 150 A.D and Paul no where talks in scripture about Gnostic female priests teaching errors, less alone female priests in general, or that it is because of gnostic priests. The word gnostic doesn't even exist in the scriptures. Your simply adding your gnostic theory to scripture in order to try to justify female priests. Just as other feminists try to do when they say Paul's writings were just "cultural". Whenever someone is trying to use semantics to argue their position it tends to show they have little base.

 

[Johnnz]

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3

This verse is commonly used to support hierarchy. But it has two fundamental flaws.

a) For a hierarchy the order needs to be God-Jesus-Man. But as stated it is Christ-man-God. Only a preconception ie and intragesis, not a true exegesis can derive that meaning from Paul's order.

b) That so called hierarchy does great violence to the Trinity. The classic foundation is the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

A hierarchy diminishes Jesus. The Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Father and the Son that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same being" (ὁμοούσιος) as the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one being". Wikopedia

They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. CARM site

There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in that verse. Are you suggesting yet another level where the HS is subject to Jesus? But nowhere is that in the text.

Whatever your views on women's ministry are that verse cannot be used to justify some hierarchy.

John
NZ

 

[Jerushabelle]

I like how religion and control go hand in hand, it's easy to spot out of folks.

Paul was very specific about equality,..



Funny how folks are quick to identify differences male and female when there is none with Christ.

Nope. This was about salvation being for both male and female. Has nothing to do with the priesthood.

WOW, a lot went down while I took a nappy!

 

[Meepy]

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3

This verse is commonly used to support hierarchy. But it has two fundamental flaws.

a) For a hierarchy the order needs to be God-Jesus-Man. But as stated it is Christ-man-God. Only a preconception ie and intragesis, not a true exegesis can derive that meaning from Paul's order.

b) That so called hierarchy does great violence to the Trinity. The classic foundation is the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

A hierarchy diminishes Jesus. The Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Father and the Son that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same being" (ὁμοούσιος) as the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one being". Wikopedia

They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. CARM site

There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in that verse. Are you suggesting yet another level where the HS is subject to Jesus? But nowhere is that in the text.

Whatever your views on women's ministry are that verse cannot be used to justify some hierarchy.

John
NZ

It seems you don't have much understanding of the Trinity. The father, son, and holy spirit may have the same substance. But they are not the same in authority and personhood. The Father has authority over the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

Hence as man and woman are same flesh, like the Trinity, they have different authorities. A wife must revere her husband as the Church reveres Christ. As woman proceeds from man, that why she is called WO-man(from the man). She came from the man, for the man, created as a helpmeet for him. The reason why Adam was put in authority over her, was because she was second in creation, and also first in the transgression. Sin entered through eve, and transferred to Adam because Eve compelled her husband to take part in her sin(which is another reason why she should not lead since she tried leading her husband which led him into partaking in sin with her).

 

[Jerushabelle]

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3


John
NZ

"and the head of Christ is God"...................................

"the head of every man is Christ"................................

Okay, here's man.........................................................

"and the head of the woman is man"..........................


Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Christ is diminished by this? What, are you joking? Jesus always deferred to and was obedient to God. Jesus knew His place under God.
No one justifies God's word. It is what it is. Take it or leave it.

 

[Jerushabelle]

Sure you will. It's in the same place that authorizes men to be priests in synagogues leading in worship.


Only I can't find that spot. Where is it again?

\

Actually you won't. There is no mention of women as priestesses when the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood was established. Nor is there any mention of women priestesses in Scripture regarding our High Priest, Jesus, in the order of Melchizedek.
You can't find the spot because it's not there.

 

[Jerushabelle]

Sin entered through eve, and transferred to Adam because Eve compelled her husband to take part in her sin(which is another reason why she should not lead since she tried leading her husband which led him into partaking in sin with her).

Amen! This is exactly why God finds women leading men in worship to be offensive. His words to me were, "It is a foul stench in my nostrils!" I know I'm going to reap all manner of grief over this but that's tough. I say what I am told to say.

 

[Johnnz]

It seems you don't have much understanding of the Trinity. The father, son, and holy spirit may have the same substance. But they are not the same in authority and personhood. The Father has authority over the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

A lot more than you it seems. That is sheer heresy according to orthodox Christian theology. It has echoes of Arianism against which the doctrine of the Trinity was established.

Hence as man and woman are same flesh, like the Trinity, they have different authorities.

Wrong analogy - God and Jesus are NOT seperate entities as men and women are.

A wife must revere her husband as the Church reveres Christ. As woman proceeds from man, that why she is called WO-man(from the man). She came from the man, for the man, created as a helpmeet for him.

Help meet, ( a suitable companion) not helpmeet (a servant). Poor reading of Genesis

The reason why Adam was put in authority over her, was because she was second in creation, and also first in the transgression. Sin entered through eve, and transferred to Adam because Eve compelled her husband to take part in her sin(which is another reason why she should not lead since she tried leading her husband which led him into partaking in sin with her).

That is just not taught. Here are some NT scriptures:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, ...NIV

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Adam, not Eve is the type of fallen humanity in Scripture. Again intragesis to support the conclusion you have already arrived at perhaps?

Your graphics do not follow order of the text. You are manipulating Paul's words.

John
NZ

 

[Jerushabelle]

You're making a very serious charge against your sisters and brothers in Christ who disagree with your interpretation of Scripture.

Serious charge?...gimmee a break!
Ever heard the term "Don't shoot the messenger?"

I would challenge you, therefore, to provide the Scripture references on which you base you claim.

I've asked you to please provide me with Scripture that shows women leading men in worship as priests or priestesses in the churches/synagogues.

Where, exactly, are those "parameters" set forth in Scripture?

Start in Genesis, Sister and read forward.

No, to be perfectly honest, I've not noticed that at all. Furthermore, I don't think it can be proven.

Well, it's happening. I don't have to prove it. Time will take care of that.

On the contrary, I believe the weight of the historical evidence shows that when women are allowed the freedom to operate in the Gifts and Callings with which God has gifted and called them, the fruit of their ministry is undeniably good.

I never said anything about women not having gifts of the Spirit or not being called to ministry. Women can not lead men in worship before God.


First, I think the way you've worded this is intentionally tailored narrowly so that it is impossible to answer. And so I would challenge you to provide Scripture wherein a man is a priest leading men in worship before God in church/synagogue.

Are you kidding? Jesus when He went to Nazareth. Paul in Thessalonica. Zechariah at the temple in Jerusalem. Levite priests at King Hezekiah's order in the temple.

In the meantime...

In 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses women "praying and prophesying" with their heads covered or uncovered. (1 Cor 11). Later in the same letter, Paul talks about the order and style of worship in church services. He also discussed the Body of Christ and how, and by whom, the members of the Body are assembled.

It's funny you should mention this because although Paul allows (concedes/states) that God uses women to utter prophecy, I don't find in Scripture one woman prophet uttering prophecy in the temple or any synagogue. Ana was in the temple compound however so maybe we could consider her...
A prophetess, however, is not a priestess. Prophecy is also from God's direction to the people, not from the people to God. BTW do you cover your head in worship before God? Just a question on the side.

4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
And all of which has nothing to do with women leading men in worship before God. I have yet to witness a woman speaking in tongues during worship with interpretation and without an interpreter, it's just gibberish.


27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
(1 Cor 12)

Yes, each of us is a part of the Body of Christ. Again, a prophet (man or woman) is not a priest/priestess. What goes before God from man in worship is to be pure and holy. God can use anyone He wants to deliver prophecy. After what Eve did, a woman leading a man before God is offensive to Him.

​

We learn several things from this pertinent to this topic: 1) prophecy and prophesying were gifts given by the Holy Spirit; and 2) used in worship before the entire congregation; 3) listed higher on the list than "teaching" and 4) women were doing it. Prophecy is not "used in worship". Prophecy is given by God to man. You're getting the direction confused.

Nowhere in Paul's pretty extensive discussion of the use of spiritual gifts or the placement of members in the Body of Christ does he ever say or imply that the gifts and callings would be distributed based on gender/sex.
No he doesn't. He also doesn't say that women can be priests or lead men in worship.


One from the Old Testament (before "synagogues" or "priests" existed):

19 When Pharaoh’s horses, chariots and horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought the waters of the sea back over them, but the Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground. 20 Then Miriam the prophet, Aaron’s sister, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women followed her, with timbrels and dancing. 21 Miriam sang to them: “Sing to the LORD,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea.”

And Miriam got smacked down big time for that!
​

Exodus 15

I've tried to respond to you as honestly as I can. I don't interpret Scripture. I take my Scripture straight up, not watered down or worse, on the rocks! It is what it is.

 

[Johnnz]

The issue are bigger than can be set out here. For a pro woman according to Scripture exegesis here are some excellent resources"

Craig Keener - Paul, Women and Wives. A committed Christian,scholar Pentecostal background, author of several books and commentaries

N T Wright The Doyen of NT studies and a staunch defender of the reliability of the NT documents. An outstanding Christian scholar. Visit his web site for some downloadable articles

Regent College has some excellent lectures available for purchase, either as a series or some individual lectures. Gordon Fee, the renown NT scholar has the best exegesis of the 1 Cor 11 passage that I have come across.

Their works are far more detailed and substantial than can be reproduced here.

John
NZ

 

[Strong in Him]

Divine law prevents a woman from preaching the pulpit and administering communion. A woman administering communion is absolute blasphemy and contempt for Christ's body.

In your opinion.

If it IS blasphemy, you would have thought the Lord would punish and remove them. These are sincere, Christian women who worship and want to honour and serve him. Yet God is apparently not only willing for them to continue in their "blasphemy" week by week, he even calls more to join them.

And incidentally, I personally, am not ordained and not "trying to get a priesthood." So there's no point shouting at me with your big, red letters.

 

[Strong in Him]

It seems you don't have much understanding of the Trinity. The father, son, and holy spirit may have the same substance. But they are not the same in authority and personhood.

Of course they are, since they are one. God is God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a trinity. There is one God. He is not divided, with some parts of him unequal to others.

When he was on earth, Jesus obeyed his father's will and did what his Father asked and taught. That doesn't mean he was lesser, or weaker, than his Father - how could he be; he was God. But he was also fully human, and as a man, obeyed his Father.
If you're saying that Jesus was a divinely appointed man while he was on earth, and somehow became God later, that is a heresy FAR worse than saying that a woman can preach the Gospel.

 

[Strong in Him]

God doesn't change, Sister. He's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I don't doubt God called you but Scripture doesn't lie.

Sorry, but I don't get that. You're willing to believe God called me to preach, but God's word says women can't preach?
So you're saying that God has contradicted his own word?

And God doesn't change, but he can, and does, work in new ways and do new things. Once, it was the blood of animals which saved people from their sins; now it's the blood of Christ. Once, the Holy Spirit only rested upon people occasionally; now he can live in them.

 

[Johnnz]

If you're saying that Jesus was a divinely appointed man while he was on earth, and somehow became God later, that is a heresy FAR worse than saying that a woman can preach the Gospel.

I had wondered about this too - an old heresy resurrected to support some patriarchal doctrines.

John
NZ

 

[Strong in Him]

The reason why Adam was put in authority over her, was because she was second in creation, and also first in the transgression. Sin entered through eve, and transferred to Adam because Eve compelled her husband to take part in her sin(which is another reason why she should not lead since she tried leading her husband which led him into partaking in sin with her).

This contains several errors too.

1. God created men and women in his image, (Gen 1:26.) He gave THEM authority to rule over creation. Genesis 2 tells us how woman was created; she was a helper for Adam, but that doesn't mean she was inferior to him. The Holy Spirit is our helper, God is our helper - is he inferior to us? I think not.
Neither does the fact that she was created second denote inferiority; if it did, then mankind would be inferior to the whole of creatiomn, since we were created AFTER it. But as we have already seen, God gave us authority over it and told us to care for it.

2. Genesis 2 says that God commanded Adam not to eat from a certain tree in the Garden. (Gen 2:16.) After he had given this command, Eve was created. Genesis 2 does not say that God appeared to Eve to give her the same commandment, so we don't know if she heard directly from God, as Adam had done. So how would she have known about this? Adam must have told her. Obviously something went wrong with the communication, because when the serpent said to her, "DID God say .....?" she got it wrong. She added something extra that God had not said to Adam, (Gen 3:3). Eve was deceived, probably because she had not heard directly from God himself. But Adam was just plain disobedient. He KNEW he wasn't to eat fruit from a certain tree, and he did it anyway. Eve didn't COMPEL him; Scripture does not say she sat on his chest and force fed him. She handed him the fruit and he took it. His actions, his choice. This is why Paul says that sin came into the world through Adam (Romans 5), not through Eve, and Jesus is the second Adam.

3. If women are forbidden from preaching because Eve was deceived, men should be too because Adam wilfully disobeyed the word of God. If the implication is that all women will do what Eve did, the same must be true for men - and who wants a Minister who deliberately sets out to disobey God?

4. Part of Eve's punishment from God was that her husband would rule over her - which shows that he wasn't before, at the beginning of creation. If something is already happening, there is no point saying that it WILL happen, and will be a punishment.


If you go to 1 Timothy 2 and read it in the light of this; Paul says that a woman should learn quietly and in submission. Apparently women sometimes called out to their husbands to ask them questions in the services, (which is why Paul says in Corinthians 14 that if a woman wants to know anything, she should ask her husband when they get home, not at the time.) The important thing is that Paul is saying that women SHOULD learn - in that culture, they were not allowed to. Why shpould a woman learn? So that she may hear what God is saying and what is being taught. Then she will KNOW for herself and not be deceived as Eve was.
Why should she learn in silence? So that she can hear was is being said, understand it and know the truth.
Eve was deceived; Adam wasn't, he was disobedient. The serpent didn't say, "DID God say ....?" to Adam - no point. Adam KNEW what God had said because he heard his word directly. Eve didn't. The serpent planted doubts in her mind and made her question if she had heard correctly.

And another point; have you ever considered that Adam succumbed to temptation because he had misuderstood God's teaching? God told him that on the day he ate the fruit, he would die. Supposing he took that literally - eat the fruit and drop dead - and supposing he saw Eve eating the fruit, and remaining alive? Might he have wondered if God was lying to him, maybe trying to scare him into obeying? They did both die that day - spiritually. Their relationship with God was broken and they were ejected from the garden. From then on, anyone who wanted to come to God had to sacrifice to him. Sin entered the world, one result of which was that people didn't want to know God. But Adam didn't understand that, he took God's word to mean one thing only, and got it wrong.

 

[Strong in Him]

I've tried to respond to you as honestly as I can. I don't interpret Scripture. I take my Scripture straight up, not watered down or worse, on the rocks! It is what it is.

That's why people get into a mess and we have false teachings. You do have to know how to read and understand Scripture.

It wasn't written in English, it was translated from Hebrew or Greek into Latin and THEN into English. So unless we study it, how do we know that what we are reading is what the writers actually meant? Words change, new texts have been discovered. There may be words in the orginal that have no English equivalent. We also need to read passages in context and alongside other Scriptures, or anyone can make the Bible say what they want it to say. People have used Scripture to prove/disprove Jesus' deity, the Trinity, the nature of salvation (works or faith), that we have to keep the Jewish law etc, etc.

Studying Scripture is not wrong, or weak, and does not mean we are doubting God. Just the opposite - it means we are taking his word so seriously that we want to understand exactly what the authors meant when they wrote it, and what the audiences/congregations would have understood by their words at the time. THEN we ask what God is saying to us through it, and how we apply it today.

 

[Yab Yum]

Women are unfit to rule because they are too good looking.