# What is your guys opinion on female Bible professors?



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (May 25, 2005)

just wondering


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 25, 2005)

Not good. 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (I Tim. 2.12)


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)




----------



## alwaysreforming (May 25, 2005)

Honestly, I don't see why a woman would in any way be inherently a bad choice. One could be just as knowledgable as any man, and perhaps even a more skillful teacher. In this example, a woman is simply TEACHING people at a college (or similar). She is not administering the means of grace or in any way exercising any SPIRITUAL authority over the male students.

If this is done, not in the context of the Church, but solely in the context of Education, why would this be wrong?


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 25, 2005)

From a woman....I'm with Andrew and Mike on this one.


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> Honestly, I don't see why a woman would in any way be inherently a bad choice. One could be just as knowledgable as any man, and perhaps even a more skillful teacher. In this example, a woman is simply TEACHING people at a college (or similar). She is not administering the means of grace or in any way exercising any SPIRITUAL authority over the male students.
> 
> If this is done, not in the context of the Church, but solely in the context of Education, why would this be wrong?


To be honest, Chris, college in general isn't any different. The same scripture applies. Grade school does not involve women instructing _men_ and is therefore quite alright.

We all know that women can make skilled and wonderful teachers. They teach us all from childhood and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude for their care and affection. But it is God's purpose that they do not instruct men and this we must respect no matter how we rationalize the topic. God gives good reason for his order if you care to research the matter in the verses following Andrew's quote. We should accept his word and keep it above the opinions and trends of man.


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> From a woman....I'm with Andrew and Mike on this one.


Colleen, I must say that I have read many of your posts and I commend your example as an honorable Christian woman. Your husband and family are indeed blessed.

btw, I have shared some of your posts on headcoverings with my wife who is greatly encouraged as well by your example.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 25, 2005)

i'd say something but it would be redudant --


----------



## LawrenceU (May 25, 2005)

I'm agin it. For more reasons than I can go into right now. Suffice it to say that female instruction of men smacks against God's created order.


----------



## Augusta (May 25, 2005)

We have one woman teacher at our seminary but she only teaches the greek language class. She is a really nice gal whom I am patiently and hopefully convincing of headcovering because she knows the greek and I am getting her to take look at this passage again. 

Do you think that since this is not a scriptural class but a language class that it's ok? Is that passage speaking of teaching in general or teaching as in doctrinal teaching which I would also be against?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 26, 2005)

I don't think females should be formally instructing men in doctrine regardless of the context. But I do wonder, like Tracy, if it's acceptable for them to instruct in other areas besides doctrine... and where the line is ultimately drawn. What about subjects outside of theology within a normal university context? Is Paul speaking specifically of doctrinal instruction that is endorsed by the church? (And really, within the context of a Bible college, even if you want to rationalize that it isn't within a church, it is probably sponsored by a particular denomination--and if it isn't, it probably should be, for sake of accountability.)


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

Evie touched upon a point that needs to be expanded: the question is whether or not a woman may be a "Bible teacher." A seminary or Bible college is not the church, period. Paul's injunction in 1 Timothy 2:12, in context, refers to the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Since the Bible college or seminary is not the church it is not explicitly unbiblical or anti-biblical for a woman to teach there (unless someone can point out to me that the seminary is really an extension of the church; and I would readily grant that point if a seminary was owned and operated by a denomination).

In reality, it is because of denominationalism that we have a problem with this issue since these institutions exist outside of the ordinary parameters of church guidance and discipline, even if the professors submit (individually) to their consistories or denominations. So the question really comes down to whether or not these women teaching in these situations are rejecting the biblical command because they teach men who are in the church, or whether they are not because they are teaching men in the church outside of the context of the church (as narrowly defined by Paul). Not an easy question to answer...

I would conclude, however, by saying it is probably bad form for a woman to teach in a seminary because that is where men are being instructed to lead the church of Christ. It is a cause for offense or a stumbling block, so it could be unbiblical on these grounds alone. And then there is the question as to whether these women who teach in the Bible college/seminary context occupy the office of teacher. If so, and especially if endorsed by their denomination, it seems to me that they would be in error. Thus I would err on the side of caution and say let's not allow it for the sake of church unity in teaching (on headship) and peace. 

As far as teaching Greek, this seems to me to be outside of the parameters of a 'church' teacher. Koine Greek, as foundational as it is to the Church, is not a dogmatic or theological subject. 

For the record I am dogmatically against women ministers, elders and deacons. 

http://www.burlingtonocrc.com/headship.html

And I am not a misogynist or a feminist. 



[Edited on 5-26-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by poimen]


----------



## govols (May 26, 2005)

So:

Teaching Greek in a Seminary is okay (Yes)
Teaching Scripture in a Seminary is a No - No?


----------



## wsw201 (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Evie touched upon a point that needs to be expanded: the question is whether or not a woman may be a "Bible teacher." A seminary or Bible college is not the church, period. Paul's injunction in 1 Timothy 2:12, in context, refers to the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Since the Bible college or seminary is not the church it is not explicitly unbiblical or anti-biblical for a woman to teach there (unless someone can point out to me that the seminary is really an extension of the church; and I would readily grant that point if a seminary was owned and operated by a denomination).
> 
> In reality, it is because of denominationalism that we have a problem with this issue since these institutions exist outside of the ordinary parameters of church guidance and discipline, even if the professors submit (individually) to their consistories or denominations. So the question really comes down to whether or not these women teaching in these situations are rejecting the biblical command because they teach men who are in the church, or whether they are not because they are teaching men in the church outside of the context of the church (as narrowly defined by Paul). Not an easy question to answer...
> ...



I would agree with Daniel. A Seminary is not the Church and that is the context of the admonition. But as Daniel has also noted, I wouldn't recommend it either.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 26, 2005)

I think the same principles apply in the church as in the seminary with respect to standards of who is qualified to exercise authority. The seminary is not an institution unconnected to the church. It ought to be accountable to the church. The teaching going on in seminary is theological in nature and instruction is given to men about what the Bible teaches. That kind of authority is consistent with the intent of Paul in the passage that I cited, meaning that women should be excluded from teaching men in seminary just as well as in the church.


----------



## Augusta (May 26, 2005)

I actually tend to be very traditional. I think some of the problems we have today with women in high positions would not be there if women had kept to their original place that God created them for. 

We are to be a help meet for our Adam. (  Adam Leavelle is not dead!) In Edwards day women did not even attend college. He taught his daughters quite alot at home and they were very learned thanks to him, but women did not vote and they did not receive higher education unless at home as in the Edwards case.

I am struggling with wether I should let my girls attend college. I think I can give them alot of higher education at home thanks to their father being a very intelligent man who would not want his daughters to be lacking intelligence. 

I still think it is a bad idea letting women vote and hold public office. I personally believe this has led to some of the social problems in our modern societies.


----------



## Archlute (May 26, 2005)

1. Seminaries should be under direct ecclesiastical oversight.
2. All of the instructors should be ordained "doctors" of the church.
3. Problem eliminated.


----------



## Archlute (May 26, 2005)

Actually,

Problem eliminated only if you are Scriptural in your approach to the sexes and ordination!


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 26, 2005)

I agree that seminaries ARE an extension of the church. And therefore a woman should not be teaching in them. A woman teaching language out of her home, at a school (other than seminary) might be considered a different case. But not in a seminary. I really believe that the Lord will provide good men for these positions. Also, if a woman can lead over a man in seminary, then it is easier to accept a woman leading over a man in a church...which is totally unacceptable.


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 26, 2005)

What if we limited the discussion only to colleges in general (not a Seminary or even a Bible College), for example, a woman teaches a "Comparative Religions" class, and also teaches a class called "Bible 101: An Overview of the Christian Scriptures".

She is teaching men and women who need another 3 credit class in the "Humanities" sector, not men who are training for a ministerial calling. 

Still wrong?


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> 1. Seminaries should be under direct ecclesiastical oversight.
> 2. All of the instructors should be ordained "doctors" of the church.
> 3. Problem eliminated.



Ideally yes, but most are not (including Westminster West - my alma mater).


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> So:
> 
> Teaching Greek in a Seminary is okay (Yes)
> Teaching Scripture in a Seminary is a No - No?



Yes.


----------



## AdamM (May 26, 2005)

I agree with Pastor Kok that it depends on the subject matter being taught.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Not good.
> 
> But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (I Tim. 2.12)



I think Paul was referring to worship. 

Here's a twist, though: why is it that denominations that will NOT ordain a woman, will still send her on the mission field?


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by govols_
> ...



Of course, she would have to use extra-biblical koine or, heaven forfend, she would be teaching Scripture. 

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by kevin.carroll]


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Good question. Our denomination would do neither.


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> What about Sunday School female teachers?



Jenson, I think I've raised that one here before, and the consensus of opinion was (given the definition of sunday school as education for children and young teens, not adults like it often is in the USA)

..that women or men _can_ teach younger children of either sex, as they would in the home, but that it is preferable for men to teach boys, and ladies to teach girls, and particularly for men only to teach teenage boys who are approaching adulthood.

I think its a matter of being careful to honour scripture, and to give young men and women the role models they need - especially when so many come from broken homes. I remember the affection I got from male children at sunday school back in London - it was extraordinary - and it didn't matter what nationality they were either - many of them had no Dad, or a very poor one.

JH


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...





I think Paul was referring to the church, and I believe the seminary ought to be under the auspices and standards of the church.


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



I completely agree with you and I hope that someday seminaries will be, but for now they are not.


----------



## Peter (May 26, 2005)

Women should not be put in authority over men, in any sphere of life. Woman was created to serve and obey man, from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet 1 Cor. 11:8-10. Together they were made to take dominion over the earth. each with distinct roles in the task of dominion, and each endowed with different abilities for the execution of their roles Gen 1:26-27. The role of authority and the faculties necessary for authority were given to man. the strength of authority in woman is weakness. To try to answer the question, I would be a little uneasy about female college professors, one, because to teach implies a position of preeminence, two, society would benefit greater if women unusually gifted w/ intelligence (those capable of teaching) would serve as a helpmeet to a husband who is extraordinarily smart among men (obviously not a sine qua non, but a consideration : a man should be smarter than his wife; How foolish would it be for him to be the head of someone who is better qualified to be *his* head? if this is true then intelligent women would be assisting even more intelligent men in their vocation and wouldn't this be most beneficial for the nation, for the church and for the society as a whole?)

John Knox, First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women:
_For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered._


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Women should not be put in authority over men, in any sphere of life. Woman was created to serve and obey man, from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet 1 Cor. 11:8-10. Together they were made to take dominion over the earth. each with distinct roles in the task of dominion, and each endowed with different abilities for the execution of their roles Gen 1:26-27. The role of authority and the faculties necessary for authority were given to man. the strength of authority in woman is weakness. To try to answer the question, I would be a little uneasy about female college professors, one, because to teach implies a position of preeminence, two, society would benefit greater if women unusually gifted w/ intelligence (those capable of teaching) would serve as a helpmeet to a husband who is extraordinarily smart among men (obviously not a sine qua non, but a consideration : a man should be smarter than his wife; How foolish would it be for him to be the head of someone who is better qualified to be *his* head? if this is true then intelligent women would be assisting even more intelligent men in their vocation and wouldn't this be most beneficial for the nation, for the church and for the society as a whole?)
> 
> John Knox, First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women:
> _For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered._



Is a man's qualification for headship over his wife based on his intelligence? I don't really get this from Scripture, though I agree that a woman is asking for problems if she marries a man substantially less intelligent than herself--the biggest, I believe, that it is even more difficult for her to do her duty and submit when she knows her intellectual abilities are greater. It is easier for her to respect her husband when she also admires his intellect. I feel like male headship, however, is not based on intellect but on stronger moral and spiritual judgment. I think men and women are generally about equal in intelligence, but men are (or ought to be) less easily deceived in doctrinal matters and are wiser--or at least have the potential to be wiser, if they study and live as they ought.

But is assisting in her husband's vocation the only acceptable external outlet for a woman's intellect? What if her intellect isn't particularly useful in his vocation? And what about unmarried women?

And why is applying her intellect to her husband's vocation rather than to an individual pursuit (under the headship of her husband, of course) _necessarily_ more beneficial to society or even to her family? Not all women are gifted in the area of their husband's vocation, but they may have other talents that they can use to serve or make money for their families.

That said, it would be very nice for the women if extraordinarily intelligent men tried to find very smart wives, but this frequently isn't the case. I think sometimes smart conservative guys are a little afraid that the smarter gals are going to be too career-oriented. And that's true often enough to justify their fears. And then sometimes the smart women become career-oriented by necessity because they need a job to support themselves since they aren't married... It can be a vicious cycle.


----------



## Peters (May 27, 2005)

When does a boy become a man?


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> When does a boy become a man?



The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...

But seriously, how can we know? Its best to have male teachers for all boys over about 10-12 years, certainly... its one of those situations that calls for discretion.

JH


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



It will never happen as long as seminaries are business.


----------



## wsw201 (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> When does a boy become a man?



The only age mentioned in Scripture is 20. That was the age limit for census taking.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 27, 2005)

Thought you all might find this interesting...

The Jezebel Profile --Debi Pearl

Every day I read many letters from women who are having trouble in their marriage. I also receive letters from women testifying of the victory they have received and of healing that has occurred.

I have developed a lot of insight through reading these testimonies of successes and failures. My husband and I have searched the Scriptures to find answers for the many domestic issues that are presented to us.

The causes of marital failure are many and varied. There is no one cause or single issue. The man is at fault just as much as the woman, but it is nearly always the woman who seeks answers. Men just go to work and learn to live with it"”or flee from it. Women ask, "œWhat can I do to heal my marriage?" I am a woman. Men don´t usually ask me for advice"”which is as it should be. So I speak to women, and for that I am often accused of being one-sided. Women ask, "œWhy do you always blame the women; what about the men?" So to the women I say, you cannot change 100% of the marriage, but you can change 50% of it, and that may improve your marriage by 200%.

Our readers are a unique group. They are spiritually minded, church going, Bible believing, mostly homeschooling, and very family centered in perspective. This profile lends itself to several unique sources of irritation to the marriage. Your letters and testimonies have enabled us to identify one of the most common problem on the woman´s side. It is the Jezebel spirit.

When the name Jezebel comes to mind, most of us see the painted face of a seductively dressed woman gazing into the eyes of a man who lacks good sense. The Bible portrays Jezebel in a different light.

Revelation 2:20 says that Jezebel "œcalleth herself a prophetess," and men received her as a teacher. This was given as a warning to the church. The one whom you have received as a spirit filled teacher comes to you in the great tradition of Jezebel. We have observed that many wives have stalled their half of the marriage by assuming the spiritual headship of the home. They would teach their husbands. But consider 1 Cor. 14:34-35, "œLet your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

I went back to I Kings to see what the Bible had to say about this woman Jezebel. The first thing I noticed was that Jezebel was more religious than her husband. She was spiritually intense. The Bible says in 1 Cor 11:3, "œBut I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." As a woman, our place is under our husband, especially in the spiritual realm. Regardless of our circumstances, when we take the spiritual lead, we have stepped out from under our head. We have tried to rearrange God´s designated place for us. We are no longer in God´s will.

The second thing I observed was that Ahab was emotionally volatile"”unstable. Is your husband prone to retreat? Is he bitter, angry, or depressed? When a woman takes the lead, she is playing the masculine role. Unless her husband fights her for supremacy, he must assume second place. And men who are forced into spiritual subjection to their wives tend to be angry and retreat like Ahab.

The third thing I noticed was that she used his emotional stress to endear herself to him"”strange way of lording over the husband. Jezebel manipulated and accused an innocent man, then had him murdered so that Ahab might have the vineyard he wanted. Ahab kept his face to the wall and let her do her dark deeds. Today, if a woman is willing to play her husband´s role in directing the family, he will lose his natural drive to bear responsibility.

In the dominant role, a woman quickly becomes emotionally and physically exhausted. God made us the weaker vessels. If you are in this exhausted state, then chances are you´re carrying a load not meant for you. It is not for you to press your husband to do his duty to be spiritual. You are to live joyfully in the context he provides.

The fourth thing that jumped out at me was that Ahab could easily be manipulated by his wife to suit her purposes. Jezebel used him to set up images as aids to worship under her own prophets and to kill God´s prophets. Often, a man becomes involved in the Church, not because God has called him or because it is in his heart to do so, but because he is trying to please his wife and at least LOOK spiritual. When a husband steps into a spiritual role at his wife´s beckoning, he becomes vulnerable to her guidance in that role. This is against nature, and often brings conflict in the family and in the church.

Ahab chose not to notice when his wife worked behind the scenes. Many men turn their heads when they see their wives stepping out of their God-given role. These men would rather not have to deal with the stone-cold anger they would receive from their wives if they offered any resistance. Have you been there, done that?

Jezebel knew that she was not the rightful head, so she invoked her husband´s name to give her word authority. Did you ever say, "œOh, my husband will not let me do that," when you knew in truth he really would not care? It is a way to maintain control and stop those who would question you. When a woman does this, she stops any ministry God has to her.

Jezebel was deeply concerned about spiritual matters and took steps to help promote her spiritual leaders. In the process, she provoked her husband to destroy those in spiritual authority she did not like. Have you ever influenced your husband to think evil of those in authority because you did not like something about them? When a woman comes to this place she might as well sign her name "œJezebel."

God has a plan for women. He revealed his will in many verses in clear, concise commands. He gives a revealing picture of what he abhors in a woman by introducing us to Jezebel, then reaffirming in the New Testament just what it was about her character that he found so despicable.

He reveals his will in a positive note in the stories of the women whom he honored. The story of Ruth tells of a young girl who had known tragedy, extreme poverty, and hard menial work, yet she maintained a positive, thankful, and submissive attitude. God blessed Ruth because her own personal success and happiness were not the driving forces in her life.

Esther is the story of a girl who lost all of her family and was taken by force to become the wife of an older, divorced, heathen man. She was put (by her husband´s decree) in danger of losing her own life as well as the lives of all her people. Yet, she overcame her circumstances and her fear in order to honor her husband. The Scripture teaches that when her husband heard her honest appeal, delivered with gracious dignity, she won his heart, and he turned to save her people. God used Esther because God´s will was more important to her than her own fulfillment.

Proverbs 31 defines the virtuous woman. She is NOT a mousy, voiceless prude. She is confident, hard working, creative, and resourceful. She uses her time wisely, and contributes to the family income. Her first virtue is that the heart of her husband is safe with her. It says that she will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. That is, he can trust her with his thoughts and feelings, never fearing that she might use the private knowledge she has of him to hurt him in any way. Some men maintain a distance from their wives because if they reveal themselves, their wives will use it against them when they are out of sorts.

If this passage had been written from our modern perspective, it would have extolled her for having a "œquiet time," prayer time, fellowship time, and would have projected an image of a prayer warrior, teacher, or counselor. In all the Scriptural profiles of righteous women, including Proverbs 31, none of those concepts are even mentioned. A Proverbs 31 woman is busy helping her husband become successful. She is too busy being productive to spend time being his conscience. In our culture, we have lost a clear understanding of what constitutes a virtuous woman. We have accepted the modern concept of the "œspiritual" woman, circulating in the realm of religious power, and have forgotten that God does not see them in this same "œglorious" light. What we think is spiritual, God labels "œJezebel." "œFor my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD (Isa 55:8)."

In order to become a righteous woman, reaping the benefits of having our man adore us, we must follow God´s principles of womanhood and totally reject the Jezebel tendency.

God laid down a few simple rules that must be followed because they are consistent with our feminine nature and the nature of men. It was Ruth´s virtuous and humble, yet feminine, bold example that caused Boaz to love and admire her. It was Esther´s submission to this principle that won the King´s love and appreciation for her as a woman and as his queen. These women showed themselves womanly and lovable in the midst of extreme circumstances. God honored them with favor from the men in their lives.

Dominance and control are always masculine. It is a hormonal thing. It is the way God designed male nature. It is important for a woman to understand that she has to be feminine (devoid of dominance and control) in order for her man to view her as his exact counterpart and thus respond to her protectively, with love and gentleness.

God designed us, so he knows what our husbands need in order to function properly in their roles as men who cherish the woman in their life. By nature, men need honor (this includes not questioning their decisions). They need respect (treated as if they are wise). They need reverence (daily admired as a man who is accomplishing great things). They need to be accepted for who and what they are, just like they are. Men need to feel they are in command and doing a good job.

An important part of man is a God-given, natural instinct to bring his wife pleasure. If a woman is to be greatly treasured she will choose to find pleasure in the way the man presents himself and his care. All these traits are basic masculine needs. We were created as a helpmeet to the man we married, fulfilling who and what he is. This is God´s will for us as women. When we as women obey God by responding to the needs of our husband, we are worshipping and honoring God. "œNeither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor 11:9)."

God created you to fulfill your husband´s basic masculine needs. Only in that role will you find peace and cause your man to respond to you in loving adoration. This role of submission is totally feminine. It is the exact counterpart for his masculine needs. "œAnd the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen 2:18)."

A woman who criticizes her husband for watching too much TV no longer honors him. When a woman tries to control areas of their life together because she thinks she is right, she is usurping authority over him, and lording over him. A depressed, discontented woman, who feels that her husband does not meet her needs, is dishonoring God.

Hurt feelings are a way to control. Silence and emotional retreat are ugly, destructive ways to control both your husband and your children. Anger, sickness, exhaustion, and even fear are all used to control those you care about. Some women control their husband by having an intense spiritual hunger. Jezebel comes in many disguises.

There are many various and subtle ways to control and direct your husband. One of the ways to take control is to tell your husband that you want him to be the spiritual leader in the home and then let him know that you are waiting to follow. You can lead from behind just by clearing your throat at the right moment. Many nice homeschooling moms are the spiritual leaders in their homes. They play the masculine role spiritually. How this must grieve the Holy Spirit of God. Often the excuse is that we cannot serve two masters, and since our husband is carnal, we have to take the higher ground. Like Eve, we are so deceived. "œAnd Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (1 Tim 2:14)."

A man cannot cherish a strong woman who has expressed her displeasure with him and is holding out until he fulfills her ideal. You say he should have Christ´s love. Is that what you want? Do you want your husband to have to seek supernatural power just to find a way to love you? What most men cherish in their wives is the memory when love was fun and free, with no demands"”the time when she smiled at him with a sweet, girlish, "œI think you are wonderful" look. She was so feminine then, so much the woman. It was a time when he wanted to hold her just because she was his, a time when he wanted to give her everything. A vague memory keeps him hoping. He is as disappointed in love as you are, maybe more. He is just as lonely. He just fills up his loneliness doing things that will distract him from the reality of the emptiness he knows is there but does not know how to fix. His helpmeet is not pleased with him. He is a loser.

The very first command God gave to a woman was, "œThy desire shall be unto thy husband and he shall rule over thee (Gen. 3:16)." Is your desire toward your husband? Do you desire him as a man? Do you live to please him? Does he rule over you? This is God´s will.

Being a Jezebel is an active role"”actively controlling, actively doing our own thing. Being a Ruth or an Esther is just as active. It is a decision we make hundreds of times each day as we choose to joyfully honor our husbands.

God´s reward is without measure. Men are like clay in the hands of a woman whom they can trust with their hearts. A man, lost or saved, responds to a woman who honors him. When a woman looks to her husband with a face that is full of laughter and delight, he will look forward to being with her. If her voice speaks words of thanksgiving and joyful appreciation of him, he will want to listen to her. If her actions are full of service and creativity, and if she has goodwill towards him, he will be drawn to her as a bee is to honey. This kind of lady is altogether feminine. She is what God created and gave to Adam.

Deep in our heart we all want the same thing. We all want to be loved and cherished. We all cry out with our utmost being to be treasured in the heart of our husbands. It is the greatest honor on earth to know your husband is thrilled that you are his woman. It passes all of earth´s blessings to feel his gaze upon you and know that you are his greatest gift, his most prized possession, his best friend, his favorite pastime, his only chum, and his delight as a lover. It is a great joy to know that he is actually proud you are his. It is not remembering birthdays, opening the door of a car, or other silly customs that we crave, it is the knowledge that he is totally taken with us. We want him to want us. We simply want to be loved. It is God´s perfect will for our husbands to love us. It is God´s perfect will for us to honor, obey and reverence our husbands. God´s way works. If what you are doing this year has not worked, why not go God´s way?

1 Co 11:7 "œFor a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

1 Co 11:8 "œFor the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."

1 Co 11:9 "œNeither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the an."


----------



## Augusta (May 27, 2005)

Wow Colleen!! That is a great article that I hope will help a family member of mine if she doesn't take it wrong. That is one of the best summations I have seen of Jezebel and the corruption that is caused when that attitude takes hold in a woman.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 27, 2005)

How wonderful! I'm enjoying the single life right now, and it may be God's will that I remain single--but this kind of thing makes me kind of excited for the possibility that I could get married someday. Thanks so much for posting, Colleen!!

I find that I enjoy reading the teachings of older women about marriage and being a godly woman so much! There are definitely good reasons why God assigned women the task of teaching the younger women. While I enjoy reading analysis of this kind of thing from a man, I understand it so much better when it comes from another woman.

[Edited on 5-27-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 27, 2005)

Evie, you're in a position that I wish I had when I was younger, honey. I learned the hard way and by hurting my husband and myself early in marriage. You actually are learning BEFORE marriage...I envy you that. And if you remain single, you'll be a much wiser one than most single women. God Bless You, Sweetie!

[Edited on 5-27-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 27, 2005)

Well, I am _trying_ to learn, hehe.  I imagine it'll be difficult enough even knowing what I _ought_ to do! But hopefully a fun adventure, too.


----------



## Peter (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Evie, it is detestable and contrary to the light of nature for the weaker vessel to rule over the stronger. 1 Pe 3:7. For a stupid man to have dominion over an intelligent woman is just stupid. But scripture says that the man shall have dominion over the woman. The liberals say this is b/c women were not educated but as you know Paul uses Adam and Eve in perfection as an argument. Women are to submit to men because men generally have a stronger intellectual capacity.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 27, 2005)

Actually the idea that women were not educated...is a fallacy


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> Evie, it is detestable and contrary to the light of nature for the weaker vessel to rule over the stronger. 1 Pe 3:7. For a stupid man to have dominion over an intelligent woman is just stupid. But scripture says that the man shall have dominion over the woman. The liberals say this is b/c women were not educated but as you know Paul uses Adam and Eve in perfection as an argument. Women are to submit to men because men generally have a stronger intellectual capacity.



I'm definitely not trying to be argumentative (especially considering my own gender!), but I think the point at which I disagree is that I believe the woman is the weaker vessel regardless of whether her intellect is stronger. She is weaker in her susceptibility to spiritual deception and that is where the problem lies.

By secular intellectual testing standards, women and men are, on average, equal in intelligence, though there are more men on either end of the scale. Do you feel that these results are inaccurate or do you mean something different by "intellectual capacity"? [Edit: I personally feel that equal IQ scores prove little, since the tests are deliberately designed to prove this. Actually, it seems that males and females often have very different types of intelligence, and while males IN GENERAL are stronger in some areas, like spatial abilities, females IN GENERAL are stronger in some others, like grammar and spelling. I think this is evidence that our Creator has designed us to balance each other. On the whole, however, I don't think it can be said that men are overwhelmingly stronger across the board than women. But my main point is that I believe I could have a good relationship of submission with a man who might actually be weaker than I at, for insance, spelling, since his superiority in all things is not the basis of his authority. I might be the better speller, and I might even be better in math, but I'm still the weaker vessel.]

I guess another problem that I see is this: What if a daughter is more intelligent than her father? I believe she is still supposed to submit to his authority; his authority isn't given to him because he's smarter (the Bible never says this), but because God has decided men would be leaders and gifted them with superior judgment in moral and doctrinal issues. I don't think there would be anything detestable about that. Male authority isn't contingent on conditions; it is an inherent responsibility in being a man.

[Edited on 5-28-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 28, 2005)

Evie, I agree with you completely -- and moreover, I believe John Knox would too. The heart of male headship and authority is grounded not primarily in intellectual authority. Godly woman are capable of many things, such as business, wherein their wisdom and strength are necessary and admirable qualities (cf. Prov. 31). But the husband of such a virtuous woman is an elder in the gates, with political responsibilities. She complements him in his sphere of authority and governs the household with authority under him. 

"Behind every great man is a great woman." "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." 

Christianity does not put women down. It elevates women to their proper sphere. Isalm is another matter. So is egalitarianism. God has created roles and we all find our happiness in fulfilling those roles. 

God made us the way we are. Male and female he made them, in his image. My wife is my greatest support and best friend. Her gifts which are many bless our family greatly. We encourage one another. 

Our society today is destructive of the God-ordained institution of the family in many ways. The stars are out of course. A trumpet blast must be heard. We must attend to our duties and callings wherein we will find right relationships with one another and with God.

Ephesians 5 is a great mystery. Psalm 113 is a great joy, and Psalms 127 and 128. 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 are great counsel. 

Jenny Geddes comes to mind. The two Margarets. Isobel Weir. Katie Luther. Idelette Calvin. There are so many heroines of the faith. Mothers in Israel. Sisters in the faith. "Awake, awake, Deborah."

I am thankful for the witness of the ladies in my church and the ladies on this Board. And I am most thankful for my wonderful wife and precious daughter. 

"God setteth the solitary in families:" (Ps. 68.6)


----------



## Ex Nihilo (May 28, 2005)

Ah, women are great. :bigsmile: Thanks, Andrew!!!


----------

