Main |
Men, Women, and the Bride of Christ I wrote this in reply to a woman who
claimed that women are not allowed in scripture to be
ministers, under the grounds that women are to be in
subjection to men. One thing I've found that Trinitarians
do, is they will tie two unconnected subjects together in
an attempt to formulate a single doctrine. For instance,
they will take the humanity of Jesus, and, based on the
human traits of Jesus, they will call Him a
"distinct person" in the Godhead. But we know
that God is not a man, and that Jesus' humanity came from
His mother, not His Father. God is the head of Christ,
not Jesus is a co-equal head with the Father. To me, it's like they have built a set
railroad tracks coming from two different directions.
They have their strong support on the left in scripture
(humanity of Christ), and their strong support on the
right in scripture (humanity is distinct from deity), but
when they bring them together, all they've really done is
to join the southernmost rail with the northernmost rail,
which would simply derail any train reaching that point.
They take the fact of the humanity of Jesus, and couple
it with the fact that humanity is not deity, and so they
say "see- two distinct persons in the godhead"!
The problem is, very simply, that the humanity of Jesus
is not deity- we are looking at two distinct subjects. In exactly the same way, you
have taken the marriage relationship, and joined it with
the ministry, when they are two separate and unrelated
subjects in scripture. The common "rail" that
you have used to join them is the word "woman."
Other than that, they are unrelated. The prime example, and evidence, of
your errors, is the bride of Christ. Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto
your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the
husband (aner) is the head of the wife (gune), even as
Christ is the head of the church: and he is the
saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives (gunes) be to their
own husbands (aners) in every thing. 25 Husbands,
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,
and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That
he might present it to himself a glorious church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to
love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his
wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own
flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord
the church: 30 For we are members of HIS body, of
his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a
man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto
his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a
great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in
particular so love his wife even as himself; and
the wife see that she reverence her husband. Do you believe this scripture? Of
course you will say you do. My question is- do you truly
believe that the body of Christ is the bride and wife of
Christ? Do you sincerely believe that one is a type of
the other? And if you believe it, are you willing to
prove your belief by acting on your faith and proving
your faith through your works? I don't think you do believe that the
body of Christ is the bride of Christ. Because if
you do, you have completely ruined, and disavowed
the empowerment that Christ, our perfect example, gave in
empowering His bride, the church. Jesus is not a bachelor. He is a
married (legally, bindingly, espoused) man. Do you
believe that? 2 Cor 11:1 Would to God ye could bear
with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I
have espoused you to one husband, that I may present
you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear,
lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through
his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ. Your interpretations must, and I do
mean must, completely nullify the
empowerment of the bride of Christ. This is because one
is a perfect type of the other. Let's start with what I see as your
foundation, which is your contention that, in the divine
order, at the top is God, under Him is Christ, under
Christ are the males, and under the males are the
females. Let me ask you this- How many gods are
there? And if there are more than one, is Christ to be in
submission to EVERY god? 1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are
called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there
be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we
in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every
man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol
unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol;
and their conscience being weak is defiled. How many "Christs" are there? And if there are more than one "Christ", is a man to be subject to all "Christs"? Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs
and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
shall deceive the very elect. Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false
prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to
seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. Now, how many husbands are there? And
since there are obviously many husbands, is a woman to be
subject to all husbands? Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto
your *OWN* husbands, as unto the Lord. Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their *OWN*
husbands in every thing. Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto
your *OWN* husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste,
keepers at home, good, obedient to their *own*
husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. 1 Pet 3:1 Likewise, ye wives (women -
gune), be in subjection to your *own* husbands;
that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the
word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While
they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of
plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting
on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the
heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the
ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the
sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in
the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God,
adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their *own*
husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him
lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well,
and are not afraid with any amazement. If Sara called her *own* husband
"Lord", and you say, over and over, that women
are to be in subjection, not to "the man"
singular, as scripture specifically says, but to
"men" plural, how does this not actually
completely refute your so-called "creation
order" that puts all women under all men? Christ is subject to one God,
the Father. Below him, man is subject to one Lord,
Jesus Christ. Even the bride of Christ is subject to one
man only. But then you have all women
subject to every man under the sun! Sorry, it doesn't fit. Your whole
foundation is built on this one concept, and it is
nothing more than the sands of your private
interpretations!… You have contended that the scriptures
don't mean "woman only under her husband" by
the contention that not only husbands are subject to
Christ. I'm afraid you've gotten your ratios
mixed up. Your question should be- Are husbands subject
to all Christs? Because your doctrine puts all women
under all men. Not all women under one man, which
would also be bigamy, and would leave all but one man
without a wife. Let's return to Sara… 1 Pet 3:1 Likewise, ye wives (women -
gune), be in subjection to your own husbands… 6
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord… See, Sara had one husband, whom
she called Lord. Do you call all men lord? Why not?
Remember Eph. 5:24 (in addition to 1 Pet 3:1,6 above).
According to your doctrine, such passages as 1 Pet 3, and
1 Tim 2, to you are saying all women are to be in
subjection to all men, plural, since all women are also
to be modest. And, if you started calling all men Lord,
wouldn't that then make all men as a husband to you,
since they would be in fact Lords over you as only the
husband is to be according to scripture? This is a form of adultery that you are
committing- spiritual adultery. Make no mistake. Do you
or don't you believe that the body of Christ is His
bride? What then does He call those who serve other
Lords? Remember, you said that under Christ
are males, and under the males are the females. You can get yourself under any man you
want, but as for me and my house, only my wife will come
under me, for I am a monogamist, in every sense of the
word. Will you even care to deny that when
God's people went and submitted themselves to the other
gods, and idols that were round about them, that He
counted that as whoredom? Hosea 4:12 My people ask counsel at
their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them: for
the spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err, and
they have gone a whoring from **under** their God.
13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and
burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and
elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your
daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall
commit adultery. Do you still want to claim that under
all males are all females? How in the world would that fit with- Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands
in every thing. Your typology would turn the bride of
Christ into a great whore indeed! Is that what you really
want to do? Let's start looking at some of your
statements… You quoted 1 Cor. 14- 1 Cor 14:35 And if they want to learn
something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for
it is shameful for women to speak in church. You interpret this to mean that the shame is this would reject the way God made things, and would shame the man, her head, which would also shame Christ. Let's take your position and apply it,
in the typology of scripture, to Jesus and His bride- the
church. It is obvious that in type, the
"husband" would be Jesus. The woman is all the
church, not just any single member of the church (lest we
get confused with our typology). That would make
everybody else in the world (those outside of the body)
represented as the "the church" when compared
to the marriage union. Here, in typology, is how your
interpretation would look, if applied to Christ and His
bride- the church… "(1 Cor 14:35) And if (the
churches) want to learn something, let them ask (Jesus)
at home; for it is shameful for (the church, the bride of
Christ) to speak in (the world)… Is it a shame for the bride to learn
from Jesus at home, but then to speak in the world? No, rather, your interpretation would
make a complete mockery of the typology of Christ and His
bride, and the marriage of one man and one woman! But, there is no problem with the
typology in the scripture you used, in allowing women in
the ministry. As it is written- Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you
power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over
all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any
means hurt you. 20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not,
that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather
rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. It is written- Eph 5:24 **AS** the church is
subject unto Christ, **SO** let the wives be TO
THEIR OWN husbands in every thing... 32 This is a
great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
church... Now, let me ask you again… DO YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE BODY
OF CHRIST IS THE BRIDE AND WIFE OF CHRIST? Do you
sincerely believe that one is a type of the other? DID OR DIDN'T JESUS CHRIST EMPOWER
HIS BRIDE WITH ALL OF HIS AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF THEIR
ONE-TO-ONE "MARRIAGE" RELATIONSHIP? IF THE BRIDE OF CHRIST SPEAKS IN THE
WORLD, (OUTSIDE OF THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP) HAS SHE
USURPED THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST? Furthermore, how does Christ head His
bride the Church and set an example for husbands to
follow? "...The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them... But ye shall not be so...
For... I am among you as he that serveth... They which
have continued with me... may eat and drink at my table
in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging..." -Luke
22:25-30. In summary, what did Christ do for His bride? -He washed her feet, John 13:5 -He came to her as a servant, Phil. 2:7, -He promised to give her desires, Matthew 18:18-20 -He laid His life down for her, Ephesians 5:25 -She rules and reigns at His side, Rev. 22:5 -He empowered her with His authority,
Luke 10:19 How would this list compare with the
interactions between you and your husband, and other men,
according to your traditions? Is Christ your example
here, or not? I think not, from what you have said. In addition to this list, did you
realize that only the bride of Christ has the duty
of preaching the gospel? Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on
him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they
believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they
preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of
peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they
have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord,
who hath believed our report? Jesus could have told Paul how to obey
the gospel, but Jesus sent Paul to hear from His bride
instead… Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou,
Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord,
what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,
Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee
what thou must do. Christ, being the husband, planted the
seed of His word in the church, and left the church to
nourish it. Nor do the angels preach the gospel,
but the bride of Christ only… Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in
Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called
the Italian band… 3 He saw in a vision evidently
about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in
to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4 And when he
looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord?
And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come
up for a memorial before God. 5 And now send men to
Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: 6
He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the
sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. Imagine the shock against your
interpretation of the roles of husbands and wives, were
your husband to send his bride to speak with ALL the
authority of his word! :-0 Even when he could have done
so himself! Even when he is there present with you! Mat 18:20 For where two or three are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them. How is this not usurping the authority
of Christ according to your tradition? For there is
Christ, in the midst of them, yet the woman has the
authority, or should I say the gall, according to your
interpretation, to speak with all the authority of Christ
Himself! Now, although He gave His bride all
this power, as joint-heir, yet He gave her no power over
Him, but under Him, and Him only. 1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not A woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to
be in silence. NO compromise of the typology of Christ
and the church here. 1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not A woman
(the church) to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
man (Jesus Christ), but to be in silence. "A woman… the
man…" Definitely not just- under
Christ are males, and under the males are the females, as
according to your interpretation. No plurals. Strictly
singular- "A woman… the
man…" This has nothing to
do with any relationships outside of the marriage. Either
of Christ and His church, or of a marriage between one
singular man and one singular woman. 1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not *A* woman
to teach, nor to usurp authority over *the* man,
but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then
Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she
shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith
and charity and holiness with sobriety. 3:1 This is a
true saying, If (tis- any man, thing, thing at all)
desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality,
apt to teach.. 11 Even so (gune - women) be grave, not
slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. I can't believe you would interpret 1
Tim. 2:15 to mean that a woman would be "saved"
by having babies and raising children! You can't accept a
spiritual application of this passage? Was Paul a woman? Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I
travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I don't think I'm going to have the
time to go over every instance you have given. I hope I
don't have to, as blatant as these instances are, where
your opinion of the scriptures would mock and completely
nullify the authority vested in the bride of Christ, and
would make spiritual adulterers of all women. Your
insinuations are against Him, since He was the first to
"liberate" and "empower" His bride.
Not within the marriage, but as to everything pertaining
to outside of the marriage. It is indeed unfortunate that
humanism is now taking credit for that which was first
and foremost the example of Christ for His own bride. But
that cannot be helped, and we that are His do
understand! Christianity was also the first
pacifist religion. Should we abandon that idea because
there are many in the world who are pacifists, and
so-called "Christianity" has a long history of
warfare? Christianity was also the first
non-racist religion. Should we abandon that idea because
there are many in the world who are non-racist, and
so-called "Christianity" has a long history of
racism? Then please don't confuse Christ's
liberation and empowerment of the woman, as is thoroughly
typified through His bride, as part of the women's lib
movement. He predated them by almost 2,000 years in
liberating His bride! But somehow, you are going to have
to either deny that, or admit that you don't really
believe that the church is the bride of Christ like A
woman is to A man. Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel
to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are
bruised, Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the
promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city
of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth
me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that
despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. 17 And the
seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the
devils are subject unto us through thy name. Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you
power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all
the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means
hurt you. These are just some of the few examples
I see in how Christ exemplifies for us how to treat a
wife. I see little or no similarity in the bride of
Christ, and your enslaved, silenced, downtrodden,
oppressive ideas of what a "helpmeet" is all
about! Why did God create women? "In the beginning... God created
man in His own image... male and female created He
them... The Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone; I will make him AN HELP MEET for
him" -Genesis 1:1, 27, 2:18. So that we may know what this
"help meet" signifies, what are some scriptural
examples of "help meet" ? (The Hebrew word is-
"ezer") "...God... mine help (ezer)...
delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh..." -Exodus
18:4, "...Hear, Lord, the voice of
Judah, and... be Thou an help (ezer) to him from his
enemies" -Deuteronomy 33:7. Would you also make God a servant to
all, being as He was found to be a "help meet"
at times? ** Another point you raised was the fact
that there are still male and females, therefore, you
contend, there must still be male and female roles in the
church, and we can't be "sons of God" NOW,
otherwise our marriages would be homosexual!! It isn't me, but the SCRIPTURES which
say- John 3:6 …that which is born of
the Spirit IS SPIRIT. 1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love
the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us
not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, **now are we
the sons** of God, and it doth not yet appear what we
shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we
shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. Gal 4:6 And because YE ARE SONS,
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your
hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no
more a servant, BUT A SON; and if a son, then
an heir of God through Christ. Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the
flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as
many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons
of God. Rom 8:23 And not only they, but
ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed (sperma…
seed includ. the male "sperm" ), and heirs
according to the promise. ** Another example where your railroad
tracks don't meet, is in your contention that since Paul,
in the book of Philemon, didn't free Onesimus the slave
from slavery,therefore you conclude, there are still the
roles of men and women, and bond and free in Christ!!! Your implication is, that since Paul
did not free Onesimus from being a slave, it is as if to
conclude that because Onesimus was a slave he couldn't be
a minister in the church? I do hope I don't have to point out to
you how bigoted and respective of persons this statement
is! I have not once argued nor stated nor affirmed there
were not roles in the marriage. Nor does our status in
the world have any bearing with our status in the
ministerial duties of the Church. I am talking about roles in the body of
Christ. You are using examples of roles outside of
the body of Christ for legitimizing roles within the
body. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed
(sperma), and heirs according to the promise. On this subject, you are
saying that women can't be ministers because they are to
be submissive to males, just as Onesimus was exhorted to
be and remain a good slave. What does being a minister of Christ
have to do with being a slave or free? Your railroad tracks simply aren't
connecting, and your train is gonna get derailed, sister!
There is NO male nor female, there is neither bond nor
free IN CHRIST. That isn't to say there is no male nor
female in marriage, nor bond nor free in the
world, or in things pertaining to the world! But you have dragged the world into
both your marriages!!! You have dragged the world into
your relationship with Christ, and you have dragged other
men into what was to have been your biblical relationship
with your own husband. You simply need to not confound the
subjects. Your confounding the subjects has led you off
into so many tangents, that I simply don't have the time
or the desire to point them all out. If you would simply start patterning
your marital and spiritual relationships to that typified
by the bride of Christ and it's body members, I am
absolutely sure you could get yourself untangled from the
web you and others have spun for yourselves. The scripture says- Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one
body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Eph 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying,
speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are
members one of another. What kind of "body members"
are we? 1 Cor 12:14 For the body is not one
member, but many. 15 If the FOOT shall say,
Because I am not the HAND, I am not of the body;
is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the EAR
shall say, Because I am not the EYE, I am not of
the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the
whole body were an EYE, where were the hearing? If
the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But
now hath God set the members every one of them in the
body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one
member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many
members, yet but one body. 21 And the EYE cannot
say unto the HAND, I have no need of thee: nor
again the HEAD to the FEET, I have no need
of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body,
which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: This body of Christ, is a spiritual
body. In this body, there is no member that is a male
member to another female member in this body. There is no
male eye to a female ear. There is no male hand to a
female foot. We can discern that by discerning the roles
of the man and woman. The man is the seed planter, and the
woman is the seed bearer, and deliverer. Which of the saints in the body of
Christ play the role of the male, and which play the role
of the female- in relationship to each other? We are one
body. There is not a male hand and a female foot.
There is not a male eye and a female ear. There is not a
member of the bride of Christ that plays a male role to
another member in the bride of Christ who plays a female
role. Christ is the male. Christ is the seed
planter. The church plays the female role, the church
travails in birth, brings forth the spiritual children,
and nourishes them. There is no minister or lay-person
that can play the role of Christ's maleness, or
femaleness to the church, because the ministers and laity
in the church are nothing more than members of the same
body in the church. Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she
brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of
a man child. 8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen
such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in
one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as
soon as zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring
forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and
shut the womb? saith thy God. 10 Rejoice ye with
Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her:
rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: 11
That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of
her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted
with the abundance of her glory. Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I
travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, Yes, the church is a woman, but the
church is a servant to none but one husband. The church
is a body, and that body is female, but the members of
that body do not play male and female to each other, any
more than YOUR body members play the roles of male and
female among each other! Your hand is not a female to
your male foot, and your eye is not a male to your female
ear. That which is female in your body is female only for
your husband's sake, just as that which is female about
the church is only female to that which is male about the
Lord. If your body parts do NOT play male and female
roles with each other, then neither do the members of the
body of Christ play male and female roles amongst
themselves either! Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of
God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise. Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in
the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit
upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and
your old men shall dream dreams: 1 Cor 14:3 But he that prophesieth
speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation,
and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue
edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the
church. 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but
rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that
prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he
interpret, that the church may receive edifying. May God bless you, and open your
understanding of the full truth, and bring you out of the
bondage you are in! Not as in the women's lib movement,
of which I am no empathizer, nor supporter of, (it being
a way to exalt the humanity of the woman, not the seed of
Christ within her,) but rather in the liberation that is
found in the FULL salvation of Jesus Christ, not of the
body, which is for the future, but in the inner man. That
I earnestly pray for you and your husband! Eph 3:16 That he would grant you,
according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened
with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That
Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being
rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend
with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and
depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ,
which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all
the fulness of God. Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of
God after the inward man: 1 Pet 3:1 Likewise, ye wives
(women)… 3 Whose adorning… 4 Let it be the
hidden **man** of the heart, in that which is not
corruptible, Yours in Christ, Tom Raddatz |