- Dec 10, 2017
- 2,317
- 2,900
- Country
- Egypt
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I believe scripture means what it says. When it talks about women not being in charge of men, I'm happy enough that I've understood what it means. But do times change?
1 Cor 14:33 - 35
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Tim 2:11 - 15
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
In Genesis, the sign of (physical) circumcision was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. But in the NT, physical circumcision and the Old Testament laws were done away with (fulfilled in Christ). Although Gentiles were still not supposed to eat meat with blood, or commit sexual immorality. I can understand this - New Testament, New Covenant.
But, wasn't part of the sign from God that the OT laws need no longer be adhered to by NT believers, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles (e.g. Cornelius and his household). What about women teachers who claim (or appear to have) the Holy Spirit poured out on them? Is this false, as there is no new covenant since the New Covenant?
So what about when women defy these verses, but are acting with genuine love to their congregations? (Not that I have seen this). What about if there are no male Christians in a newly established church, or if the only male Christians are recent converts? Is it too legalistic to say that women can never teach or have authority over a man?
Where Paul states "as the Law also says", what about Deborah, whom God specifically sent to Barack? I guess she wasn't teaching a man (or men). Is the no women rule a general good rule to follow, but when/if God wants, He would demonstrate that His exception is inspired by Him?
I'd be interested in thoughts that are consistent with scripture, but not the tired old excuses like "that was just the culture at that time" or similar, when Paul clearly links the requirement for women not to be leaders to Eve's sin (which is timeless).
(Oh - by the way - I'm probably what some might consider a somewhat (male) chauvinist. I like the idea of women getting married, staying home and being pregnant by the kitchen sink, but I know there's not a bible verse that says it that way. I also have known one or two women to be better than most men at what they do, and several online that are smarter than a roomful of rocket scientists - certainly moreso than me. I think that if scripture didn't prohibit it, I wouldn't mind the idea of women leading men).
[Edit: Just to clarify the above, so people don't take me as a complete chauvinist pig, it is the Golden Rule somewhat. If I were a woman, I would love nothing more than to get married, stay home and be barefoot and pregnant, so I'm not wishing on others something I wouldn't wish on myself. I do think I'd prefer to be a woman for this reason. But I also understand that some people - even women - really do enjoy going out to work... for some reason].
Thanks for your comments, and please be civil.
1 Cor 14:33 - 35
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Tim 2:11 - 15
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
In Genesis, the sign of (physical) circumcision was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. But in the NT, physical circumcision and the Old Testament laws were done away with (fulfilled in Christ). Although Gentiles were still not supposed to eat meat with blood, or commit sexual immorality. I can understand this - New Testament, New Covenant.
But, wasn't part of the sign from God that the OT laws need no longer be adhered to by NT believers, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles (e.g. Cornelius and his household). What about women teachers who claim (or appear to have) the Holy Spirit poured out on them? Is this false, as there is no new covenant since the New Covenant?
So what about when women defy these verses, but are acting with genuine love to their congregations? (Not that I have seen this). What about if there are no male Christians in a newly established church, or if the only male Christians are recent converts? Is it too legalistic to say that women can never teach or have authority over a man?
Where Paul states "as the Law also says", what about Deborah, whom God specifically sent to Barack? I guess she wasn't teaching a man (or men). Is the no women rule a general good rule to follow, but when/if God wants, He would demonstrate that His exception is inspired by Him?
I'd be interested in thoughts that are consistent with scripture, but not the tired old excuses like "that was just the culture at that time" or similar, when Paul clearly links the requirement for women not to be leaders to Eve's sin (which is timeless).
(Oh - by the way - I'm probably what some might consider a somewhat (male) chauvinist. I like the idea of women getting married, staying home and being pregnant by the kitchen sink, but I know there's not a bible verse that says it that way. I also have known one or two women to be better than most men at what they do, and several online that are smarter than a roomful of rocket scientists - certainly moreso than me. I think that if scripture didn't prohibit it, I wouldn't mind the idea of women leading men).
[Edit: Just to clarify the above, so people don't take me as a complete chauvinist pig, it is the Golden Rule somewhat. If I were a woman, I would love nothing more than to get married, stay home and be barefoot and pregnant, so I'm not wishing on others something I wouldn't wish on myself. I do think I'd prefer to be a woman for this reason. But I also understand that some people - even women - really do enjoy going out to work... for some reason].
Thanks for your comments, and please be civil.
Last edited: