Genesis, how are women supposed to be treated?

[euripetelynn]

I'd suggest reading Captivating by Stasi and John Eldredge, if you're worried about the worth of women in the Bible. It's not a perfect book, but it gives some interesting insights on a lot of these questions you have. It also talks about the misinterpretation of the word ezer as meaning a wimpy follower when it is closer to meaning an essential lifesaver/rescuer, comparable to how God is our rescuer. So when Genesis says women are "helpers," it assigns women an essential role; we are lifesaving partners with men, not subjects of them.

This is one more example of how, when you read the Bible, you need to consider that it was written for a completely different culture that lived in a completely different time. So you can't just ask yourself, "What does this mean to me?" but you must also ask, "What did this mean to them?" when you consider a passage.

For example. When Genesis was written, the Israelites considered what something is made of to be indicative of it's purpose/worth, which is very different from how we think. If you're described as being made from gold, you're not necessarily literally made from gold, but you have a huge amount of worth. This becomes important when women are described as being made from man's ribs (which is perhaps better translated as his side). As they say, if woman were made of man's head, she would be above him; if made of his feet, she'd be below him; because she's made of his side, she is equal to him.

It's been a while since I studied Genesis (I took a course on it some years back), so I'm not going to remember exactly how the teacher came to this conclusion, but we discussed how this phrase also lost some meaning in the English translation: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." My teacher described this phrase as depicting more of a power struggle, where "desire" doesn't mean sexual desire, but desire for power. It's not that men rule over women; women want to rule over men too, and struggle against him, but because of physical/societal differences, men do tend to win this struggle.

But does this mean there's no hope? That we're to be ruled over men? Certainly not! We are equals. The Bible makes this clear when it describes us of being made of man's side, and when it assigns us the role of ezer. It makes this even more clear when the epistles radically shake up the current Roman/Jewish culture by suggesting that men ought to love their wives in the same way that Jesus loved the church. And how did Jesus love the church? By being its servant. By washing his disciple's feet. Men and women are called to serve each other, not rule over each other. And if man does establish a leadership role in a relationship, it's only in order to care for her, and is only to be done out of love and respect.

Look at the relationships around you. In today's culture, does it seem like men rule over their wives? Sure, in some relationships, but from what I've seen it's more of a partnership, with each listening to the other. In fact, I can't name a single couple in my own life in which the man clearly dominates and controls the woman.

That said, I personally really like the idea of men taking a leadership role in a lot of areas. They shouldn't always; sometimes the woman is better equipped to take charge, and that's okay. But, in general, I think men tend to like leading more and women tend to like supporting, and this can be a very functional set up. Society and relationships require leaders. It's just confusing when everyone does his/her own thing and doesn't have someone to make end decisions, and so it's nice to have one person focus on leadership and the other on more of a support role (which, as a video gamer will know, support is a crucial role, which we often fail to recognize).

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi,

I am a Christian man, and I have a wife. My understanding of God's word is as follows:

The bible asks us to "Submitting yourselves one to another" it does not say the husband is to boss around the wife. It says both of you submit to the others will. As the bible says else where, "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; " - Rom 12:10

Preferring one another, means doing what the other person wants, as a Christian husband I am to do as my wife wants. Does that mean then that my wife becomes boss, and bosses me around? No, that also is not "submitting to one another".

Eph 5:21-26 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

As for God's opinion on women, he dedicated a passage to it in proverbs.

To summarize, a godly woman, does good all the day of her life, she provides for and helps her family, she is involved in trade (buying and selling/is a woman of business), she helps the needy and poor, she is to be praised in public (Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. - the gates of a city were where all important transactions occurred, and the important people of the city sat). It does not sound to me like God, is wanting women to be doormats.

Now lets consider this:

(most) Women love to have families, and enjoy the family life. They want to have successful businesses and jobs, they want place of honor in public. All these things God says a woman can have.

Does that woman sound like she is being oppressed by a man? No. All God says is:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Your husband has been given the task of leadership in the family situation. This also spills over into church life, as the church should mirror what happens at home. The men generally should have the leadership roles in the church. However let me state here "I would prefer a woman to preach who spends her time in prayer with God, than a man who sits on his butt all day careless of God's commands". I believe God gives leadership roles in the church not based purely upon gender, but rather their connection to heaven, and submission to His will. God has used many godly women in the church, but as Paul said it is better for a woman to focus on raising a family than running a church.

1Ti 2:15 But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

You might disagree with this. But I know my wife, I have not made her do anything (basically I let her do what ever she desires), she naturally loves families and babies, her whole focus is on having children, and raising them, where I never give it a second thought. But she still holds down a good job, often manages others at work. As for the spiritual side, she enjoys helping me write sermons, but she has very little interest in preaching.


Pro 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
Pro 31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
Pro 31:13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
Pro 31:14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
Pro 31:15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
Pro 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
Pro 31:17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
Pro 31:18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
Pro 31:19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
Pro 31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
Pro 31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
Pro 31:22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
Pro 31:23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
Pro 31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
Pro 31:25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
Pro 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
Pro 31:27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
Pro 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
Pro 31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
Pro 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

 

[grandvizier1006]

I don't know if this helps, but I would suggest reading "man as male and female". It describes the purpose of gender in the context of Christianity, and I'd say it's quite balanced.

Btw, there are two main views regarding this topic: complimentarianism and egalitarianism. Complimentarianism believes that men and women have distinct roles, with men protecting and leading and women nurturing and supporting. They emphasize that these roles are not supposed to be "man in charge while woman stays in kitchen", but they often get interpreted that way. Complimentarians point to various verses in the New Testament.

Egalitarianism states that men and women are completely equal and that the inequality is the result of the Fall. They point to Genesis for their views.

Which one is correct? That depends on your denomination, but I think they're probably both correct in some ways. Men and women are different and have specific roles, but these are mainly just for marriage. A single man or woman has no household to manage or delegate tasks with. But those roles, as egalitarians state, are supposed to render the spouses equal. It's just that fallen human nature comes in and men historically wanted to take charge over women.

 

[Geralt]

the difference in biology or function between men and women has always been about 'fit' for the purpose and not about superiority or inferiority between them. humans do have a tendency to think that since one does something better or one's biological function is not present in the other, it is a sign of superiority generally. not so really, it's just that he/she is fit for the task in the context he/she is in.

 

[Radagast]

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

... So I suppose this is my question, are women permanently punished forevermore by being ruled over by men? OR is it that only once they are married they are to be ruled by their husband, but not by men in general?

Well, all the punishments are eased in modern Christian society. Pain in childbirth is eased by modern medicine, which arose out of Christian Europe. The curse to the man ("cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life") is eased by modern agriculture, which arose out of Christian Europe. The curse of dysfunctional human relationships is eased in Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Razare]

In scripture women are equal with men, but God believes in unity of command , so he appoints man as the head in marriage, and permitting this arrangement within marriage is up to the wife to implement. The husband can only earn his wife's respect through living as a Christian, but that's all on his end.

In the kingdom, though, a woman's inheritance does not work by gender, and God sees us in the kingdom. All corrupt things and old things, and marriage which is a type and a shadow of what is to come, passes away.

 

[Hoghead1]

In scripture women are equal with men, but God believes in unity of command , so he appoints man as the head in marriage, and permitting this arrangement within marriage is up to the wife to implement. The husband can only earn his wife's respect through living as a Christian, but that's all on his end.

In the kingdom, though, a woman's inheritance does not work by gender, and God sees us in the kingdom. All corrupt things and old things, and marriage which is a type and a shadow of what is to come, passes away.

Are you really sure you want to go with the idea that Scripture presents women as equal, to men? I sure don't see that. Certainly they were banned from the clergy. Paul told them to be silent in church. And an extra-canonical work, "Paul and the Acts of Teekel," further brings out Paul's animososty toward women preaching and leading.

 

[Razare]

Are you really sure you want to go with the idea that Scripture presents women as equal, to men? I sure don't see that. Certainly they were banned from the clergy. Paul told them to be silent in church. And an extra-canonical work, "Paul and the Acts of Teekel," further brings out Paul's animososty toward women preaching and leading.

You have to study it a great deal. Also, the equality is spiritual not physical.

Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. - Colossians 3:2

and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. - Mark 10:8

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life. - John 6:63

Also, "women keep quiet in churches" is the most unreliable statement in all scripture that I am aware of. Job's 3 friends are more reliable cannon than that statement.

First, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

The law or "Torah" does not say this. So the statement is a lie. God requires every verse in scripture be substantiated by other verses, this manner of hermeneutics is not optional but required.

This will be my third visit to you. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." - 2 Corinthians 13:1

Here then Paul directs that a rule would only be followed if it is substantiated by a 2nd witness of God. That verse mentions the 2nd witness should be found in the Torah, but it is not there. So the statement proves itself to be false.

Why is it false? Because 1 Corinthians is a letter to a church and was a response letter to a letter they wrote Paul:

1 Corinthians 7 - Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations.

So Paul is responding to a letter written to him, starting in Chapter 7. This means that we should view the remainder of the letter, up until it transitions away from Q&A, as responses to questions. The most plausible explanation to 1 Corinthians 14:34 is that it originated from the letter which was originally written to Paul. Imagine if they formatted that as slightly separate on the parchment as to denote that he was responding. A transcriber could have easily mashed it into the text as if Paul wrote it, but the context makes it clear if you look at it.
-------------------------
34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35 If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.

36 Or do you think God’s word originated with you Corinthians? Are you the only ones to whom it was given? 37 If you claim to be a prophet or think you are spiritual, you should recognize that what I am saying is a command from the Lord himself. 38 But if you do not recognize this, you yourself will not be recognized.
-------------------------
That red sentence followed by the prior sentence does not actually endear much trust that 34 & 35 are reliable statements. First, it fails the requirements of scripture to be established by God's word. Furthermore, the following statement points out, "are you the only ones who claim to know God's word?"

Almost as if the statement in red is refuting the prior statement, and he was responding to their statement, and it was quoted in the letter. It could even be someone was copying from the original Q&A, but thought that statement was Paul's when it wasn't and so copied it in. However it got in there, if it can't be validated by scripture, it's a useless statement.

As for the other verses about women, you can study those too and society has made them out to be far more negative than they should be portrayed. As a fact, established in scripture, women are in the ministry, and as a fact, they are equal heirs of God's kingdom in scripture... and only spiritual equality is what matters, carnal status counts for nothing.

And if God tells women to serve, it is because he wants women first in his kingdom: "So the last will be first, and the first will be last." - Matthew 20:16

 

[Hoghead1]

You have to study it a great deal. Also, the equality is spiritual not physical.

Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. - Colossians 3:2

and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. - Mark 10:8

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life. - John 6:63

Also, "women keep quiet in churches" is the most unreliable statement in all scripture that I am aware of. Job's 3 friends are more reliable cannon than that statement.

First, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

The law or "Torah" does not say this. So the statement is a lie. God requires every verse in scripture be substantiated by other verses, this manner of hermeneutics is not optional but required.

This will be my third visit to you. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." - 2 Corinthians 13:1

Here then Paul directs that a rule would only be followed if it is substantiated by a 2nd witness of God. That verse mentions the 2nd witness should be found in the Torah, but it is not there. So the statement proves itself to be false.

Why is it false? Because 1 Corinthians is a letter to a church and was a response letter to a letter they wrote Paul:

1 Corinthians 7 - Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations.

So Paul is responding to a letter written to him, starting in Chapter 7. This means that we should view the remainder of the letter, up until it transitions away from Q&A, as responses to questions. The most plausible explanation to 1 Corinthians 14:34 is that it originated from the letter which was originally written to Paul. Imagine if they formatted that as slightly separate on the parchment as to denote that he was responding. A transcriber could have easily mashed it into the text as if Paul wrote it, but the context makes it clear if you look at it.
-------------------------
34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35 If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.

36 Or do you think God’s word originated with you Corinthians? Are you the only ones to whom it was given? 37 If you claim to be a prophet or think you are spiritual, you should recognize that what I am saying is a command from the Lord himself. 38 But if you do not recognize this, you yourself will not be recognized.
-------------------------
That red sentence followed by the prior sentence does not actually endear much trust that 34 & 35 are reliable statements. First, it fails the requirements of scripture to be established by God's word. Furthermore, the following statement points out, "are you the only ones who claim to know God's word?"

Almost as if the statement in red is refuting the prior statement, and he was responding to their statement, and it was quoted in the letter. It could even be someone was copying from the original Q&A, but thought that statement was Paul's when it wasn't and so copied it in. However it got in there, if it can't be validated by scripture, it's a useless statement.

As for the other verses about women, you can study those too and society has made them out to be far more negative than they should be portrayed. As a fact, established in scripture, women are in the ministry, and as a fact, they are equal heirs of God's kingdom in scripture... and only spiritual equality is what matters, carnal status counts for nothing.

And if God tells women to serve, it is because he wants women first in his kingdom: "So the last will be first, and the first will be last." - Matthew 20:16

I found your post kind of rambly and hard to follow. My first reaction is that you are reading in a spirit-matter or mind-body into Scripture that is more Hellenic than biblical. My second reaction is that you seem to be supporting my point that Paul and the biblical world see women in an inferior light.

 

[aiki]

In the Bible, I believe I was reading the NASB version, once Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and God comes to the garden he says to Eve,

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

I don't understand how I can live knowing I am born simply to be ruled over by men no matter what I do. I have only read the very beginning of the Bible and it is the Old Testament so for all I know I am mistaken in how I am thinking. Maybe something is said later on in the New Testament to change this.

So I suppose this is my question, are women permanently punished forevermore by being ruled over by men? OR is it that only once they are married they are to be ruled by their husband, but not by men in general?

If this is true how am I, as a woman, supposed to ever want to get married because I am no slave to anyone and don't wish to be ruled over by a man. I don't see anything deserving in men that they would get the right to rule over women.

Why do you assume that a man "ruling over you" is automatically a punishment? What if the purpose of a man in a position of authority over the woman is intended by God as a protection, a potential safeguard against temptation, and a blessing? What if the punishment is not man being over woman, but a sin-cursed man being in such a position? Perhaps it is the proper order for man to be in a place of responsibility and authority over woman but this became a curse, a punishment, when sin entered into the mix. The punishment, then, isn't perhaps the rule of man but the sinful heart from which he rules.

If a man, however, is governed by the Spirit of God, and loves his wife sacrificially as Christ loves the Church, then his rule over her is not a burden, it is not an oppressive thing, but a blessing. In my marriage, my "rule" over my wife is not so much a matter of authority but of responsibility. I don't oppress her; I don't lord it over her; I love her. I lead by example, I pray for her, and I reason with her; I don't unilaterally coerce. As much as I can, I try to love my wife after the example of love Christ sets for me in his love of the Body of Believers, his Bride, the Church. My very independent and strong-willed wife does not find my "rule" a burden but a support and a blessing (so long as I'm walking rightly with my Maker).

Selah.

 

[ScottA]

There are quite a few forums so hopefully this is the best one for me to post this question in. If anyone thinks there is a better forum for it let me know.

I am not a new Christian but it seems like this would be a basic question so that's why I am asking it here.

I recently started reading the Bible and it's the first time I have since I was a kid. I want to take it seriously and really learn the word of God and that is why I need answers to this question. In the Bible, I believe I was reading the NASB version, once Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and God comes to the garden he says to Eve,

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

I don't understand how I can live knowing I am born simply to be ruled over by men no matter what I do. I have only read the very beginning of the Bible and it is the Old Testament so for all I know I am mistaken in how I am thinking. Maybe something is said later on in the New Testament to change this.

So I suppose this is my question, are women permanently punished forevermore by being ruled over by men? OR is it that only once they are married they are to be ruled by their husband, but not by men in general?

If this is true how am I, as a woman, supposed to ever want to get married because I am no slave to anyone and don't wish to be ruled over by a man. I don't see anything deserving in men that they would get the right to rule over women.

If the first is true (that women are permanently punished by being ruled by men) I don't see how I can stay with my religion. I believe everyone deserves punishments for their sin but for our Lord to punish all women to the point where they are born to be ruled over by men seems so wrong I cannot bear to follow Christianity with this weighing over me.

Any comments are welcomed. Thanks.

We (both men and women) are created in God's image...and for the purpose of Him revealing Himself...we have roles to play.

Remember, however, that our station in life is that of us being convicted prisoners. We are (all) fallen and sentenced to this hard labor for our crimes against God. Even so, God is gracious to assign to us roles of a loving relationship that (should) demonstrate His relationship with those who love Him: He is the Bridegroom, and we, the church, are His bride.

No man is over you, except in the role that you have been given...and no man has any authority over any women, except in the role they have been given...which roles, we should be happy to do well, emulating our love for God, and His love for us.

However, both men and women, being the church and the bride of Christ - are not male and female before God - but, rather, before humanity (only). We are a light upon a hill for every nation and people to see the great love of God for His bride, and His bride's love for her Husband.

Do you take this Man (whom stands for Christ) to wed?

 

[Hoghead1]

Why do you assume that a man "ruling over you" is automatically a punishment? What if the purpose of a man in a position of authority over the woman is intended by God as a protection, a potential safeguard against temptation, and a blessing? What if the punishment is not man being over woman, but a sin-cursed man being in such a position? Perhaps it is the proper order for man to be in a place of responsibility and authority over woman but this became a curse, a punishment, when sin entered into the mix. The punishment, then, isn't perhaps the rule of man but the sinful heart from which he rules.

If a man, however, is governed by the Spirit of God, and loves his wife sacrificially as Christ loves the Church, then his rule over her is not a burden, it is not an oppressive thing, but a blessing. In my marriage, my "rule" over my wife is not so much a matter of authority but of responsibility. I don't oppress her; I don't lord it over her; I love her. I lead by example, I pray for her, and I reason with her; I don't unilaterally coerce. As much as I can, I try to love my wife after the example of love Christ sets for me in his love of the Body of Believers, his Bride, the Church. My very independent and strong-willed wife does not find my "rule" a burden but a support and a blessing (so long as I'm walking rightly with my Maker).

Selah.

Many women, and also men today, believe in the equality of men and women, so that the woman is not the weaker sex, the one needing protection by the "stronger" male.

 

[JackRT]

Any organization, religious or secular and including marriage, that fails to include women in leadership roles right up to the very top is guilty of several evils. First, it is the insult to the women themselves by viewing them as less worthy. Second, it is the insult to God by denigrating half of God’s creation. If we continue to treat women in this way, then the human race is condemned to stand on one foot, see with one eye, hear with one ear and think with one half the human mind ---- and it shows.

 

[aiki]

Many women, and also men today, believe in the equality of men and women, so that the woman is not the weaker sex, the one needing protection by the "stronger" male.

Yes, and? What does it matter what people think if God has a differing view?

Generally, women are physically weaker than men. This is not a matter of subjective opinion, but objective fact. However "equal" woman currently think themselves to be to men, there are some physiological areas in which they are not - and likely never will be - equal (or should I say, "identical") to men (and vice versa).

The protection a husband offers his wife is not just of the physical sort. He is a spiritual "shield," I believe, for her and their children, too. This is a part of his role as the one who "rules his own house well." (1Ti. 3:4)

Selah.

 

[JackRT]

Yes, and? What does it matter what people think if God has a differing view?

Generally, women are physically weaker than men. This is not a matter of subjective opinion, but objective fact. However "equal" woman currently think themselves to be to men, there are some physiological areas in which they are not - and likely never will be - equal (or should I say, "identical") to men (and vice versa).

The protection a husband offers his wife is not just of the physical sort. He is a spiritual "shield," I believe, for her and their children, too. This is a part of his role as the one who "rules his own house well." (1Ti. 3:4)

Selah.

Although on average women are smaller and less physically powerful than men, there is a considerable overlap in both size and strength. In spite of being smaller, the average chimp could easily physically overpower the average man. Does that make the chimp superior to man?

Women are the intellectual and spiritual equals of man and might, in my opinion, be slightly superior. I prefer to deal with reality rather than the cultural attitudes of two to three millennia ago.

 

[aiki]

Although on average women are smaller and less physically powerful than men, there is a considerable overlap in both size and strength. In spite of being smaller, the average chimp could easily physically overpower the average man. Does that make the chimp superior to man?

It seems obvious to me that in the area of physical strength, the chimp is superior to the average man.

Women are the intellectual and spiritual equals of man and might, in my opinion, be slightly superior.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I think many women are exceptionally bright, and talented. As an entire gender are they superior to men intellectually and spiritually? I don't see any good evidence for that despite men being portrayed in the popular media as brainless weaklings.

I prefer to deal with reality rather than the cultural attitudes of two to three millennia ago.

It seems you're actually just exchanging one cultural attitude for another. I don't think the things the Bible communicates about women are unrealistic or merely cultural. Paul, for example, doesn't give a cultural reason for his injunctions about women being in subjection to men but writes instead,

1 Timothy 2:12-14
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul's reasoning here is scriptural, not just an expression of a cultural bias.

Selah.

 

[JackRT]

It seems obvious to me that in the area of physical strength, the chimp is superior to the average man.



Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I think many women are exceptionally bright, and talented. As an entire gender are they superior to men intellectually and spiritually? I don't see any good evidence for that despite men being portrayed in the popular media as brainless weaklings.



It seems you're actually just exchanging one cultural attitude for another. I don't think the things the Bible communicates about women are unrealistic or merely cultural. Paul, for example, doesn't give a cultural reason for his injunctions about women being in subjection to men but writes instead,

1 Timothy 2:12-14
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul's reasoning here is scriptural, not just an expression of a cultural bias.

Selah.

Just so you know. Paul did not write 1 Timothy. Not 2 Timothy or Titus either.

 

[hedrick]

My view, like others here, is that 3:14ff are part of the curse. We’re not stuck with the results. We can use labor-saving devices, and we can use anaesthetics in child birth, so we don’t have to accept the husband ruling over the wife. According to the Word Commentary, “ruling over” here is most commonly understood as abusive rule, as appropriate to the context of the curse (though not everyone agrees).

As for women leadership, there’s no explicit command except in the rather dubious 1 Tim. Paul acknowledges female leaders, though that need not mean that the types of leadership were identical. As noted, 1 Cor 14:34 is about keeping quiet in the pews, and does not speak about women leading or not leading the service. It's use to justify not ordaining women seems pretty bizarre.

However Paul does see some difference. He speaks of the man as the “head” in marriage. Most understand that as an organic symbol, not as meaning “head” as boss as we often do in English. But it still indicates some difference.

But there’s a big difference among Christians that affects how we deal with all of this: how much are we free to do things differently than Christians did in the 1st Cent? We certainly preach the same Gospel, and basic things like love and forgiveness are the same, but specific roles for men and women may not be. Some of what Paul says about hair style and dress are pretty clearly cultural, probably intended to help Christians look and behave decently. I think there are difference (at least on average) between men and women, but I think Christians are called to respect those in ways that are decent today. After all, we’re called to spread the Gospel, not to convince people to live with 1st Cent people.

 

[Hoghead1]

Just so you know. Paul did not write 1 Timothy. Not 2 Timothy or Titus either.

Good point!

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, and? What does it matter what people think if God has a differing view?

Generally, women are physically weaker than men. This is not a matter of subjective opinion, but objective fact. However "equal" woman currently think themselves to be to men, there are some physiological areas in which they are not - and likely never will be - equal (or should I say, "identical") to men (and vice versa).

The protection a husband offers his wife is not just of the physical sort. He is a spiritual "shield," I believe, for her and their children, too. This is a part of his role as the one who "rules his own house well." (1Ti. 3:4)

Selah.

Well, I sympathize with womens lib. So I don't agree with a thing you have to say. It just reflects the myths chauvinists have about women.