quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul5388

Kenya,

Thank you for your input! I have tried to avoid using the word "feminist" just to give the benefit of a doubt, and yet, that surely seems to be an appropriate description even though it may be totally unintentional. The liberal mindset is at odds with what God says and has to try every way possible to explain away the offensive parts. Christ being submissive to the Father is offensive, because it means there is someone in authority over everyone on this earth and we are supposed to emulate Christ, and His submission, in our lives. Even though numerous scriptures can be quoted referring to the woman's role as being under the headship of her husband/father, the spirit of the world won't let the scriptures mean what they say. Part of the curse on woman was the pronouncement that HE WILL RULE OVER YOU, but the liberals won't accept God's authority any more than they accept a husband's authority.

---

quote:

---

St. John Chrysostom (in his 1st Corinthians Homily XXXIX


[7.] Ver. 27. "For He hath put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He saith, All things are put in subjection, it is manifest that He is excepted who did subject all things unto Him."

Ver. 28. "And when all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected unto Him that did subject all things unto Him."

And yet before he said not that it was the Father who "put things under Him," but He Himself who "abolishes." For "when He shall have abolished," saith he, "all rule and authority:" and again, "for He must reign until He hath put all His enemies under His feet." How then doth he here say, "the Father?"

And not only is there this apparent perplexity, but also that he is afraid with a very unaccountable fear, and uses a correction, saying, "He is excepted, who did subject all things unto Him," as though some would suspect, whether the Father might Himself not be subject unto the Son; than which what can be more irrational? nevertheless, he fears this.

How then is it? for in truth there are many questions following one upon another. Well, give me then your earnest attention; since in fact it is necessary for us first to speak of the scope of Paul and his mind, which one may find everywhere shining forth, and then to subjoin our solution: this being itself an ingredient in our solution.

What then is Paul's mind, and what is his custom? He speaks in one way when he discourses of the Godhead alone, and in another when he falls into the argument of the economy. Thus having once taken hold of our Lord's Flesh, he freely thereafter uses all the sayings that humiliate Him; without fear as though that were able to bear all such expressions. Let us see therefore here also, whether his discourse is of the simple Godhead, or whether in view of the incarnation he asserts of Him those things which he saith: or rather let us first point out where he did this of which I have spoken. Where then did he this? Writing to the Philippians he saith, "Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself ofno reputation, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore hathGod highly exalted Him." (Philippians chapter 2, verse 6-Philippians chapter 2, verse 9)

Seest thou how when he was discoursing of the Godhead alone, he uttered those great things, that He "was in the form of God" and that He "was equal with" Him that begat Him, and to Him refers the whole? But when He showed Him to thee made flesh, he lowered again the discourse. For except thou distinguish these things, there is great variance between the things spoken. Since, if He were "equal with God," how did He highly exalt one equal with Himself? If He were "in the form of God," how "gave" He Him "a name?" for he that giveth, giveth to one that hath not, and he that exalteth, exalteth one that is before abased. He will be found then to be imperfect and in need, before He hath received the "exaltation" and "the Name;" and many other absurd corollaries will hence follow. But if thou shouldest add the incarnation, thou wilt not err in saying these things. These things then here also consider, and with this mind receive thou the expressions.



[8.] Now together with these we will state also other reasons why this pericope of Scripture was thus composed. But at present it is necessary to mention this: first, that Paul's discourse was of the resurrection, a thing counted to be impossible and greatly disbelieved: next, he was writing to Corinthians among whom there were many philosophers who mocked at such things always. For although in other things wrangling one with another, in this they all, as with one mouth, conspired, dogmatically declaring that there is no resurrection. Contending therefore for such a subject so disbelieved and ridiculed, both on account of the prejudice which had been formed, and on account of the difficulty of the thing; and wishing to demonstrate its possibility, he first effects this from the resurrection of Christ. And having proved it both from the prophets, and from those who had seen, and from those who believed: when he had obtained an admitted reductio ad absurdum, he proves in what follows the resurrection of mankind also. "For if the dead rise not," saith he, "neither has Christ been raised."

Further; having closely urged these converse arguments in the former verses, he tries it again in another way, calling Him the "first-fruits," and pointing to His "abolishing all rule and authority and power, and death last." "How then should death be put down," saith he, "unless he first loose the bodies which heheld?" Since then he had spoken great things of the Only-Begotten, that He "gives up the kingdom," i.e., that He Himself brings these things to pass, and Himself is victor in the war, and "putteth all things under His feet," he adds, to correct the unbelief of the multitude, "for He must reign till He hath put all His enemies under His feet." Not as putting an end to the kingdom, did he use the expression "until," but to render what was said worthy of credit, and induce them to be confident. For "do not," saith he, "because thou hast heard that He will abolish all rule, and authority and power," to wit, the devil, and the bands of demons, (many as there are,) and the multitudes of unbelievers, and the tyranny of death, and all evils: do not thou fear as though His strength was exhausted. For until He shall have done all these things, "He must reign;" not saying this, that after He hath brought it to pass He doth not reign; but establishing this other, that even if it be not now, undoubtedly it will be. For His kingdom is not cut off: yea, He rules and prevails and abides until He shall have set to right all things.

And this manner of speech one might find also in the Old Testament; as when it is said, "But the word of the Lord abideth for ever;" (Psalms chapter 119, verse 89) and, "Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail." (Psalms chapter 102, verse 27) Now these and such-like things the Prophet saith, when he is telling of things which a long space of time must achieve and which must by all means come to pass; casting out the fearfulness of the duller sort of hearers.

But that the expression, "until," spoken of God, and "unto," do not signify an end, hear what one saith: "From everlasting unto everlasting Thou art God:" (Psalms chapter 90, verse 2) and again, "I am, I am," and "Even to your old age I am He." (Isaiah chapter 46, verse 4)

For this cause indeed doth he set death last, that from the victory over the rest this also might be easily admitted by the unbeliever. For when He destroys the devil who brought in death, much more will He put an end to His work.

[9.] Since then he referred all to Him, the "abolishing rule and authority," the perfecting of His kingdom, (I mean the salvation of the faithful, the peace of the world, the taking away of evils, for this is to perfect His kingdom,) the putting an end to death; and he said not, "the Father by Him," but, "Himself shall put down, and Himself shall put under His feet," and he no where mentioned Him that begat Him; he was afraid afterward, lest on this account among some of the more irrational persons, either the Son might seem to be greater than the Father, or to be a certain distinct principle, unbegotten. And therefore, gently guarding himself, he qualifies the magnitude of his expressions, saying, "for He put all things in subjection under His feet," again referring to the Father these high achievements; not as though the Son were without power. For how could He be, of whom he testified so great things before, and referred to Him all that was said? But it was for the reason which I mentioned, and that he might show all things to be common to Father and Son which were done in our behalf. For that Himself alone was sufficient to "put all things in subjection under Him," hear again Paul saying, (Philippians chapter 3, verse 21) "Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things unto Himself."

Then also he uses a correction, saying, "But when He saith, all things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject all things unto Him," testifying even thence no small glory to the Only-Begotten. For if He were less and much inferior, this fear would never have been entertained by him. Neither is he content with this, but also adds another thing, as follows. I say, lest any should doubtingly ask, "And what if the Father hath not been `put under Him?' this doth not at all hinder the Son from being the more mighty;" fearing this impious supposition, because that expression was not sufficient to point out this also, he added, going very much beyond it, "But when all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected;" showing His great concord with the Father, and that He is the principle of all other good things and the first Cause, who hath begotten One so great in power and in achievements.

[10.] But if he said more than the subject-matter demanded, marvel not. For in imitation of his Master he doeth this: since He too purposing to show His concord with Him that begat Him, and that He hath not come without His mind, descends so far, I say not, as the proof of concord demanded, but as the weakness of the persons present required. For He prays to His Father for no other cause but this; and stating the reason He saith, "that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." (John chapter 11, verse 42) In imitation therefore of Him, Paul here in his manner of speech goes beyond what was required; not that thou mightest have any suspicion of a forced servitude, far from it; but that he might the more entirely cast out those impious doctrines. For so when he is minded to pull up any thing by the roots, he is wont to do it, and abundantly more with it. Thus too, for example, when he spake of a believing wife and an unbelieving husband, companying with one another by the law of marriage, that the wife might not consider herself defiled by that intercourse and the embraces of the unbeliever, he said not, "the wife is not unclean," nor, "she is no wise harmed by the unbeliever," but, which was much more, "the unbeliever is even `sanctified' by her," not meaning to signify that the heathen was made holy through her, but by the very great strength of the expression anxious to remove her fear. So also here, his zeal to take away that impious doctrine by a very strong utterance was the cause of his expressing himself as he did. For as to suspect the Son of weakness is extreme impiety: (wherefore he corrects it, saying, "He shall put all enemies under His feet:") so on the other hand is it more impious to consider the Father inferior to Him. Wherefore he takes it also away with exceeding force. And observe how he puts it. For he said not simply, "He is excepted which put all things under Him," but, "it is manifest," "for even if it be admitted," saith he, "nevertheless I make it sure."

And that thou mayest learn that this is the reason of the things spoken, I would ask thee this question: Doth an additional "subjection" at that time befall the Son? And how can this be other than impious and unworthy of God? For the greatest subjection and obedience is this, that He who is God took the form of a servant. How then will He be "subjected?" Seest thou, that to take away the impious notion, he used this expression? and this too in a suitable though reserved sense? For he becomes a Son and a divine Person, so He obeys; not humanly, but as one acting freely and having all authority. Otherwise how is he co-enthroned? How, "as the Father raiseth up, even so He, whom He will?" (John chapter 5, verse 21) How are "all things that the Father hath His," and all that He hath, the Father's? (John chapter 16, verse 15) For these phrases indicate to us an authority exactly measured by that of Him that begat Him.

[11.] But what is this, "When He shall deliver up the kingdom?" The Scripture acknowledges two kingdoms of God, the one by appropriation, the other by creation. Thus, He is King over all, both Greeks and Jews and devils and His adversaries, in respect of His creation: but He is King of the faithful and willing and subject, in respect of His making them His own. This is the kingdom which is said also to have a beginning. For concerning this He saith also in the second Psalm, "Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance." (Psalms chapter 2, verse 8) Touching this also, He Himself said to His disciples, "All authority hath been given unto Me by My father," (Matthew chapter 28, verse 18) referring all to Him that begat Him, notas though of Himself He were not sufficient, but to signify that He is a Son, and not unbegotten. This kingdom then He doth "deliver up," i.e., "bring to a right end."

"What then," saith one, "can be the reason why He spake nothing of the Spirit?" Because of Him he was not discoursing now, nor doth he confound all things together. Since also where he saith, "There is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus," undoubtedly not as allowing the Spirit to be inferior, is he therefore silent, but because for the time it was not urgent, he so expressed himself. For he is wont also to make mention of the Father only, yet we must not therefore cast out the Son: he is wont to speak also of the Son and of the Spirit only, yet not for this are we to deny the Father.

But what is, "that God may be all in all?" That all things may be dependent upon Him, that none may suppose two authorities without a beginning, nor another kingdom separated off; that nothing may exist independent of him. For when the enemies shall be lying under the feet of the Son, and He having them cast under His feet be at no variance with His Father, but at concord with Him in entire perfection, then He shall Himself "be all in all."

But some say that he spake this to declare the removal of wickedness, as though all would yield thenceforth and none would resist nor do iniquity. For when there is no sin, it is evident that "God shall be all in all."

[12.] But if bodies do not rise again, how are these things true? For the worst enemy of all, death, remains, having wrought whatever he listed. "Nay," saith one, "for they shall sin no more." And what of that? For he is not discoursing here of the death of the soul, but of that of the body? How then is he "put down?" For victory is this, the winning of those things which have been carried off and detained. But if men's bodies are to be detained in the earth, it follows that the tyranny of death remains, these bodies for their part being holden, and there being no other body for him to be vanquished in. But if this which Paul spake of, ensue, as undoubtedly it will ensue, God's victory will appear, and that a glorious one, in His being able to raise again the bodies which were holden thereby. Since an enemy too is then vanquished, when a man takes the spoils, not when he suffers them to remain in the other's possession: but unless one venture to take what is his, how can we say that he is vanquished? After this manner of victory doth Christ Himself say in the Gospels that He hath been victorious, thus speaking, "When he shall bind the strong man, then shall he also spoil his goods." (Matthew chapter 12, verse 29) Since if this were not so, it would not be at all a manifest victory. For as in the death of the soul, "he that hath died is justified from sin;" (Romans chapter 6, verse 7) (and yet we cannot say that this is a victory, for he is not the victor who adds no more to his wickedness, but he who hath done away the former captivity of his passions;) just so in this instance also, I should not call death's being stayed from feeding on the bodies of men a splendid victory, but rather that the bodies heretofore holden by him should be snatched away from him.

But if they should still be contentious and should say that these things were spoken of the soul's death, how is this "destroyed last?" since in the case of each one at his Baptism it hath been destroyed perfectly. If however thou speakest of the body, the expression is admissible; I mean, such a saying as that it will be "last destroyed."

But if any should doubt why discoursing of the resurrection, he did not bring forward the bodies which rose again in the time of our Lord, our answer might be the following: that this could not be alleged in behalf of the resurrection. For to point out those who after rising died again, suited not one employed in proving that death is entirely destroyed. Yea, this is the very reason why he said that he is "destroyed last," that thou mightest never more suspect his rising again. For when sin is taken away, much more shall death cease: it being out of all reason when the fountain is dried up, that the stream flowing from it should still subsist; and when the root is annihilated, that the fruit should remain.

[13.] Since then in the last day the enemies of God shall be destroyed, together with death and the devil and the evil spirits, let us not be dejected at the prosperity of the enemies of God. For the enemies of the Lord in the moment of their glory and exaltation fail; "yea, like smoke have they failed away." (Psalms chapter 37, verse 20) When thou seest any enemy of God wealthy, with armed attendants and many flatterers, be not cast down, but lament, weep, call upon God, that He may enroll him amongst His friends: and the more he prospers being God's enemy, so much the more do thou mourn for him. For sinners we ought always to bewail, but especially when they enjoy wealth and abundance of good days; even as one should the sick, when they eat and drink to excess.

But there are some, who when they hear these words are of so unhappy a disposition, as to sigh bitterly thereupon, and say, "Tears are due to me who have nothing." Thou hast well said, "who have nothing," not because thou hast not what another hath, but because thou accountest the thing such as to be called happy; yea, for this cause art thou worthy of infinite lamentations: even as, if a person living in health should count happy him that is sick and lying on a soft couch, this latter is not near so wretched and miserable as he, because he hath no sense of his own advantages. Just such a result one may observe in these men's case also: nay, and hereby our whole life is confounded and disordered. For these sayings have undone many, and betrayed them to the devil, and made them more pitiable than such as are wasted with famine. Yea, that those who long after more, are more wretched than mendicants, as being possessed with a greater and bitterer sorrow than they, is evident from what follows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul5388

Tigress,

When you said, "God was not telling them that this was how it should be." you were exactly right. He was telling them how it would be, not should be. It has, in fact, been exactly that way until the "enlightenment" of the modern age, when women have said, No more! However, it machs nichts (to use a WWII English perversion of German) what you or I or Honorman or anyone else thinks, it is what God says that counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

We shouldn't continue on in a Fallen state after all He did for us.

---