This is definitely politically incorrect, but, for what it’s worth, Calvin writes in his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:12,
He [Paul] goes on to mention something closely connected wiht the office of teaching–nor to have authority over a man. The reason that women are prevented from teaching is that it is not compatible with their status, which is to be subject to men, whereas to teach implies superior authority and status. This argument may not seem to be very strong, since, it may be said, even prophets and teachers are subjdct to kings and other magistrates. My answer is that there is no absurdity in a man’s commanding and obeying at the same time in different relationships. But htis does not apply to women who by nature, (that is, by the ordinary law of God) are born to obey, for all wise men have always rejected γυναικοκρατίαν, the government of women, as an unnatural monstrosity. Thus for a woman to usurp the right to teach would be a sort of mingling of earth and heaven. Thus he bids them be silent and abide within the limits of their sex.
Laz said:
Ouch, this is going rile a lot of feathers. Seriously though, CS Lewis spoke about this in “Mere Christianity” the rule of women over men:
chuckbumgardner said:
In Isaiah 3:12, the Lord speaks of the judgment and oppression of his people thus: “My people — infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.”
I.B. Sombody said:
This is a good topic for those who think that the submission to men is “only in the church.” What do we do with a woman who will be the “Commander in Chief” of the United States military and the whole country. How could she possibly be “in submission” to her husband when she rules the country?
men fashion wholesale said:
great post! ill be checking back! do you mind if i share this?
payment gateway script said:
yesyes YES!!