How far, or how long and difficult would you have to go till you find a man of God all too willing to exert the heavy submissive text placed upon women in the church? Likewise, how much time would you have to invest in searching for a church whose spiritual leadership stems first and foremost from women right up to international heads of denominations? Today, not much time at all.
Today’s liberated have sailed right over a foundational truths, in this case, sealed under a “commandment” for the woman to establish her authority. But apart from what is told we still refuse to recognize. A commandment to recognize it as being a “shame”, or “disgraceful” for a woman to speak in church.
“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church, , ,If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.” (I Cor 14:34-37)
But no, they somehow didn’t get that, and many have hardened themselves fully to resist it. But it said “commandment”, did it not? Oh, so they’ve got a reasons to dismiss His design do they? Recently, an AOG woman pastor/minister told me yes saying:
"once you dig in and study the biblical hermeneutics from all points of view on this, ,"
We, without necessity of mentioning assume all earnest readers approach hermeneutical study under the full guidance of the Holy Spirit's directives, and most of these studies we can supply more than adequate confirmation of mind. But will that same reader know the difference between the authors of hermeneutical study effect and a face to face proclamation straight from the word of God to those responsible for it's handling – the authors? This just happens to be one of those instances:
"What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (I Cor 14:36).
If that is the case, and we remain under His leading, then that "commandment" would need no refreshing of proper contextualization, seeing it is a stand-alone-gate-keeper for all cultures to come thereafter.
But they choose to refuse that sound instruction out of their ignorance of the scriptures, and I’m not at all that mighty in the word to know. Apparently some today forget what woman in the Bible was wielding the Lord’s will in the House of God, having the speech of “prayers” ().
“And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” (Lk 2:36-38).
OhhhhhhhhNowww-what do we have here, a discrepancy?
Heavens, no, but I believe it to be a defining moment. What then would you say is the difference between the two; one, a commanded not to speak, yet the other, she, “Anna” did constantly?
If she spoke in the house of God by His will, why didn’t the Spirit at this time signify through Luke concerning such a dishonorable act? It wasn’t because she didn’t have a husband. It wasn’t that she “called herself a prophetess”.
In my estimation, she took the time to exercise the character of patience and grew in strength in the Lord and in the Spirit. Thereby the Lord exalted women’s role in the temple by her example in the church.
This subject hinges on that pervading issue of the “self-control” (Gal 5:22, 23) fruit of the Spirit to incorporate the same Spirit’s enablement.
Anna, who was exalted in that office of “prophetess” before the day of Pentecost had come, may also have been present at Peter’s speech, to see first-hand the Spirit poured out to possibly confess:
‘This outperforms all I ever did!’ In short, for a time in the life of the woman would heed the commandment, but, as someone once said “we should not hide the scepter” of potential in the Spirit from any woman of the Lord.
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2:17,18; Joel 2:28-32)
The scholastic and spiritual treatment found on T2O startles me nearly every time. See also: Israel Can’t Stand Weak U.S. 3-21-14 and A Question Regarding Morality in War 12-4-13
What a world it is we live in. Someone may be tempted to question the very extent of the abundant life itself in that initial Christian experience to be had just as much as how much we think it possible for a child of God to take another life away from this world and still be found in His favor/praise.
It seems to me any case for the purpose to wage war upon any falls between two camps:
· Those who “obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.” (Romans 2:8)
· And the Christian public servant “who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:4)
To consider this a leap should no longer be allowed to cloud justice’s full implementation
Take that same passage Fr. Linsinbigler used to open “just war” to see if a person has the right to self-defense:
35And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37“For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” 38They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38)
What is this? Is “two swords” “enough” for the reason to be “numbered”? Yes! It is my feeling the two swords represent the two camps, for that is all there is. One, the one he would die for, and the one His flock would resist with. The one would “bear the sword” (Rm13:4) “daily” and incidentals, and those the flock are “numbered” with receive only the latter. Latter what?
You recall the night of Jesus's arrest and His response to Peter's aggression in two passages:
"Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11)
“52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53“Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26:52, 53)
I welcome any to tell me here where our Lord said to Peter “you also” will at once put at your disposal more than so many angels? Yes, he took up the sword by defense with said consequence in that teachable moment, told of the swords end, but also told of the Godly remedy - His.
Now for persons who operate with such favor (we do hear the reports) with the heavenly Father to call upon heaven to avert given calamity, hey, I support such an appeal. Otherwise, is not that the time to apply that other text in light of Christians who might “perish by the sword”?
“There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.” (John 15:13)
But let’s continue to gather other things that discusses this
Yes, it isn’t our call to think we are doing God a service by killing others. And there are other
"My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (Jn 18:36)
Then what is that which is supplied but two for God's people, one for Church related "weapons of our warfare", and one for civil order. As I see it, the two work together.
The later, if it were in operation as God so designed it, should we assume "God's minister" a civil “terror” isn't fitting (Romans 13:3,4) for that order? If we are to maintain attention to His will found in His word without partiality (in this case, force), then it isn’t permitted to exclude attention more to one than any other (Acts 20:27).
So, once again then, if a Christian takes up the sword of “terror” knowing he may have to lay down his life also, then the question which remains begs reason why this isn’t His will?
I find it just a little curious, that in light of all those passages of tranquil intentions given to God’s people by His design to those who "do good" (v3) have nothing to fear. But, I’d like to say for added note to those wanting to maintain the full out turning of the other cheek, or yet those who choose to “Let no man despise you.” (Titus 2:15). IMO, One somewhat neutralizes the other till by whatever the case is at hand, it is still a matter of leading by the Spirit. And I think I have that Spirit, thank God.
But you see my point don’t you? If we were successful in convincing the whole body of Christ to let a city burn that is under attack while we wait for the other (Jerusalem), what is it the endure all expectation crowd wants, save as many as possible and hope God is at this time going to shorten the days? Preposterous!
Still, I know some won’t have the tools in the BOC to take up such needs, others will. It’s that friendly fire that really hurts the most, , the fire that aids in tampering that which they cannot endure. No matter what you or God has said.
Let me say here that it isn’t my intent to prove Christian passivism wrong, and to prove godly aggression right on it's own, but to look to see if there is evidence upon which we might rest more surely on the truth relating to God’s will concerning this.
How difficult, when we are to grow and follow the fruits of the Spirit? If this type of behavior isn’t permitted in any instance whatsoever, the God of peace (not of “confusion”) being able to provide us with the necessities to know that. And to know that is to finally put strong question on universal pacifism which equates itself with confusion.
Since we know that “all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution”, even might “kill” us (II Tim 3:12, Matthew 24:9), there is no need to apply the many references to this. This we fundamentally know and can agree on. They in fact appear quite often throughout the gospels and epistles with which to live by. So, if there are instances of other areas of life, and there are others, allow me to stay on course with those:
We have Christian duties and obligations,
• Rules and Commands.
• What we must do,
• Things we can do,
Furthermore, there are things:
• We should not suffer,
• Not to fellowship with,
• Nor be identified as;
As in identified as “Unrighteous” walking in the “deeds of the flesh” (Gal 5:19). If there ever was a place to condemn authority’s use of force, even to the death of the evildoer, and the offender stayed resistant to that end, it would have been prescribed in Galations 5:21 saying a soldier who might commit “murder” for instance. But I realize that is only a questionable remark. If it was the only thing left on the table, would leave the question in strong ambiguity. Is there remotely anything else to tell of further involvement of deserved personal peril at a Christian's hands? Yes, there happens to be a number of them.
But keep in mind the amount of extreme care the word of God delivered to us so we could try and repair differences with others, even when those differences were fresh. That is why so little must have been retained for those who were able to receive it.
Here are a few:
1. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:18)
Many bible scholars admit among all potential for wide opinion to swing this is one of the best. Is it any surprise that bible scholars nearly unilaterally reject any form of retaliation with the “If possible”? Trying to reverse the “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” onto permissiveness, but never on the perpetrator of evil itself and never wants to subject itself to pro-aggressive texts’, however inconvenient from peace. This is completely understandable, we have worked so very hard at and have committed everything within our power to cleave to the fruits of the Spirit, not limited to gentleness and kindness. But that is where many of us draw the line. We won’ttransfer that so-called kindness to care for others who may be struggling under some form of oppression from gov’t, community or individuals.
2 “whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews orto Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may besaved.” (I Cor 10:32, 33)
Now rightly divide that so we can see the bases here; “do all to the glory of God, , , so that they may be saved.” Saving their souls, those who have not heard, is enabled, but by what means? “All”, all what? All of what we see fit to do with “all”, or all we will allow within and being tied to a specific parameter?
Outside of that, and you are on your own, huh? Well, bid them all well on their way to an unnecessary death won’t you, as they salute you as dearly beloved!
3. “Live as free people, , “ I Peter 2:16)
Let’s say I am an outspoken critic of aggression, a poster-boy of Christian pacifism, and have been awarded certain control of low-level governmental operations. Over time, national security has been breached beyond most control. I have been just summoned that indeed one-third of the city of my residence has been overrun, torching Churches and businesses. Yet I retain a formidable detail of force at my disposal to overpower them completely though they are now going house to house in a head-lopping frenzy.
Now my pacifism is really at stake, do I take the lives of these beast refusing dialog if they resist to their own deaths resisting every available warning? Excuse me, but all transmission of these words are the result of the sacrifices and gruesome war encounters to secure me that right today (see number 2). Just as Pual may have here: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantages it me, if the dead rise not?" (I Cor 15:32) Another verdict that remains questionable among scholars.
4. “, , for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." (Luke 9:56)
Some publishers have taken it upon themselves to exclude this as reported to be missing from a number of manuscripts. But, remains with others as in it’s purity is supportive of Matthew 10:23; "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next”.
5. “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” (I Cor 7:23)
To comment here would be a dangerous comparison to our precious Lord’s worth, the priceless Lamb of God! Yet, it remains an admonition to follow for some into persecution, for others a tampering against “evil” (Comments 1-4) found in Romans ch. 13 by God’s “ministers”.
How can we think like this against those God created to be ministered to with the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ, since none of them stands a chance of knowing things as they “ought”? How can they be held responsible if they don’t know?
Which individuals are we talking about here; those whom the Spirit of God helps survey his own helplessness, or those whom are equipped to resist God’s mercy with wrath and a demonic teaching to bend creation into submission, including all aforementioned souls? That my friend is an evil teaching that rejects the sacrifice with the full, deliberate intention of forcing this doctrine against all decisions for Christ. A devil’s plan that “knows his time is short”.
“He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short." (Rev !2:12)