Not a lot of respect for men

[ChubbyCherub]

Paul said that widows, specifically under the age of 60 years old, were prone to gossip, idleness etc. They needed to be steered towards marriage and not pushed onto the churches as a needless burden. They needed to have children as a way to redeem their fall thanks to Eve causing Adam to sin.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Paul fails to note that Adam was not deceived but weak enough to go along with deception. How then can men be viewed as leaders or heads of household? Why should they teach when they can't learn? Men were responsible for the death of Jesus. Men were leaders, kings and rulers who brought their people to war and sin.

Men still believe that their vote matters. They still believe in medicine. They still listen to women who gossip and are led by uneducated women. A quote, "Happy wife, happy life," springs to mind.

Men seem to have lost their authority as 'head' straight out of the gate. Was Paul speaking from a place of wishful thinking?

I have serious doubts about men leading anything because they seem weak willed and weak minded.

Don't get me wrong. I wish this weren't the case. I read the bible and see that this shouldn't be the case. But what should be isn't reality so why are we supposed to pretend something is real that, time and time again, has been proved wrong or, at the very least, flawed?

If we are all sinners and we are all saved by grace, why do we women have to shut up and give birth to correct the error of Eve in addition to the sins of Adam?

Am I missing something here?

 

[Michie]

I think this should be in a Theological section of the board?
******************

St. Paul was not anti-women. One should not misread him in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the verses that typically raise the most concern in the larger passage of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. As a leader in the early Church, Paul is not issuing a categorical ban on women in the teaching ministry. He is specifically prohibiting them from the teaching and governing ministry exclusively reserved to the ordained clergy (see 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). That would mean, for example, as it does in the present day, that women cannot give homilies at Mass, a teaching function reserved to priests, and deacons.

St. Paul clearly affirms elsewhere the equal dignity of men and women in Christ (see Galatians 3:28), as well as the fact that women can pray and prophesy otherwise within Christian worship (see 1 Corinthians 11:5). Paul adds that women provide an important service in teaching the Faith in word and deed in other contexts (see Titus 2:3-4).

For more information on the role of women in both the early Church and contemporary times, please see the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s declaration Inter Insigniores (On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood).

Is 1 Timothy Anti-Women?

One should not misread St. Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the verses that typically raise the most concern that he was anti-women. Read more here.

www.catholic.com

 

[ChubbyCherub]

St. Paul was not anti-women. One should not misread him in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the verses that typically raise the most concern in the larger passage of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. As a leader in the early Church, Paul is not issuing a categorical ban on women in the teaching ministry. He is specifically prohibiting them from the teaching and governing ministry exclusively reserved to the ordained clergy (see 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). That would mean, for example, as it does in the present day, that women cannot give homilies at Mass, a teaching function reserved to priests, and deacons.

St. Paul clearly affirms elsewhere the equal dignity of men and women in Christ (see Galatians 3:28), as well as the fact that women can pray and prophesy otherwise within Christian worship (see 1 Corinthians 11:5). Paul adds that women provide an important service in teaching the Faith in word and deed in other contexts (see Titus 2:3-4).

For more information on the role of women in both the early Church and contemporary times, please see the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s declaration Inter Insigniores (On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood).

Is 1 Timothy Anti-Women?

One should not misread St. Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the verses that typically raise the most concern that he was anti-women. Read more here.

www.catholic.com

Thank you very much for the quick response!

Church roles aside, he still states that women are prone to idleness, gossip etc and can only be redeemed through childbirth.

Why do we have to give birth to redeem ourselves of Eves sin in addition to having to redeem ourselves in the way men do?

Is this culturally specific or time specific or does he mean to apply this across all spans of time for eternity?

The point re: church roles has been brought up in my church and their view is that Paul only meant that women should be submissive and quiet in church due to the culture of Corinth, where he was teaching at the time, but I note that he says a similar thing in Timothy to those in Ephesus. So, this is where Corinth context seems to have made sense but then when off piste.

Thanks so much!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paul said that widows, specifically under the age of 60 years old, were prone to gossip, idleness etc. They needed to be steered towards marriage and not pushed onto the churches as a needless burden. They needed to have children as a way to redeem their fall thanks to Eve causing Adam to sin.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Paul fails to note that Adam was not deceived but weak enough to go along with deception. How then can men be viewed as leaders or heads of household? Why should they teach when they can't learn? Men were responsible for the death of Jesus. Men were leaders, kings and rulers who brought their people to war and sin.

Men still believe that their vote matters. They still believe in medicine. They still listen to women who gossip and are led by uneducated women. A quote, "Happy wife, happy life," springs to mind.

Men seem to have lost their authority as 'head' straight out of the gate. Was Paul speaking from a place of wishful thinking?

I have serious doubts about men leading anything because they seem weak willed and weak minded.

Don't get me wrong. I wish this weren't the case. I read the bible and see that this shouldn't be the case. But what should be isn't reality so why are we supposed to pretend something is real that, time and time again, has been proved wrong or, at the very least, flawed?

If we are all sinners and we are all saved by grace, why do we women have to shut up and give birth to correct the error of Eve in addition to the sins of Adam?

Am I missing something here?

Women in general don't have to shut-up. Keep in mind that there are multiple (and often ignored or unnoticed) historical and cultural context in which Timothy was enmeshed in the city of Ephesus, and Paul was directing Timothy how to deal with uppity Ephesian women who thought they should displace men in leadership, even within the Church.

 

[Michie]

I’ll wait and see if the powers that be move the thread first. We are not supposed to discuss God and theology here in this forum. Don’t want to push any buttons.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Women in general don't have to shut-up. Keep in mind that there are multiple (and often ignored or unnoticed) historical and cultural context in which Timothy was enmeshed in the city of Ephesus, and Paul was directing Timothy how to deal with uppity Ephesian women who thought they should displace men in leadership, even within the Church.

Thank you! This makes sense then that Corinth wasn't the only place where this was happening. Having read the bible, I don't see mention of women acting in a particular way but I know my church teaches that they were? Am I missing the verses where it is shown that women of this time were usurping men or is it just taken for granted that we all know the history of that time or, when mentioned in church, it's a 'trust me bro' moment?

I am eager to learn but would like true source material to study so thank you very much for your assistance!

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I’ll wait and see if the powers that be move the thread first. We are not supposed to discuss God and theology here in this forum. Don’t want to push any buttons.

Oh, apologies! It was stated that discussions that don't fit the other threads go here so I have misunderstood!

 

[Michie]

Oh, apologies! It was stated that discussions that don't fit the other threads go here so I have misunderstood!

It doesn’t bother me. Just don’t want to step on anyone’s toes.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Some context to this question:

I read the bible to my family most nights. They are not believers but they listen to me read because they are eager to learn. I believe they are being called but their hearts are hard, atm, according to my church elders words.

My adult daughter did not like what Paul said was the only redemption path for women. She seems to believe she will be condemned to sin if she does not have children out of choice or circumstance even if she accepts Jesus as saviour.

I have tried to show her the error in her thinking but came to a brick wall with Paul so that is where this has all stemmed from.

Modern and historic examples leave the leadership of men lacking. This is not to say that women are perfect, far from it, but we are surely guilty in sin and equally redeemable? But, I can't say for sure one way or the other given Paul's teachings.

Thanks all for your help, as always, God bless!

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Some context to this question:

I read the bible to my family most nights. They are not believers but they listen to me read because they are eager to learn. I believe they are being called but their hearts are hard, atm, according to my church elders words.

My adult daughter did not like what Paul said was the only redemption path for women. She seems to believe she will be condemned to sin if she does not have children out of choice or circumstance even if she accepts Jesus as saviour.

I have tried to show her the error in her thinking but came to a brick wall with Paul so that is where this has all stemmed from.

Modern and historic examples leave the leadership of men lacking. This is not to say that women are perfect, far from it, but we are surely guilty in sin and equally redeemable? But, I can't say for sure one way or the other given Paul's teachings.

Thanks all for your help, as always, God bless!

God throughout TNK/OT and NT teaches Patriarchy ... Paul and Peter included as you might have noticed - that's a hard pill too swallow for many Western 21st century strong-willed and highly educated women. But it's better to simply acknowledge that and find a Biblical way to deal with that in this day and age, than to theologically 'squirm' around and try to explain those verses away as local-only, cultural-dependent, etc. It won't work as you would have to dismantle the authority of the Apostles and ignore the fact they use theological arguments for their exhortations in this.

Reading between the lines I sense you have a fairly negative view of men and may even mostly come in contact with weak ones? Who wears the pants in your own marriage? Who leads? Who leads in your church? Do you listen to sermons of great speakers/pastors sometimes? Who are the men you admire in general? Can you call your husband your lord/master? If not ... how do you read 1 Peter or Ephesians 5?

It's absolutely true that if men lead this world or church then the current mess is theirs to blame - but I have no illusion that women would do any better on average; since women are active in politics I noticed in several places the mess becomes greater.

I really appreciate your contributions here sister - you'll forgive me my frank remarks in love - I just want to be clear and constructive

It's funny to observe how in this day and age most women still prefer a masculine strong man who leads .... but are not really willing/ready to surrender and be a follower.

PS: I'm far from perfect and have made massive mistakes in this area myself - so I write from a position of humility yet also with clarity and conviction

 

[ChubbyCherub]

God throughout TNK/OT and NT teaches Patriarchy ... Paul and Peter included as you might have noticed - that's a hard pill too swallow for many Western 21st century strong-willed and highly educated women. But it's better to simply acknowledge that and find a Biblical way to deal with that in this day and age, than to theologically 'squirm' around and try to explain those verses away as local-only, cultural-dependent, etc. It won't work as you would have to dismantle the authority of the Apostles and ignore the fact they use theological arguments for their exhortations in this.

Reading between the lines I sense you have a fairly negative view of men and may even mostly come in contact with weak ones? Who wears the pants in your own marriage? Who leads? Who leads in your church? Do you listen to sermons of great speakers/pastors sometimes? Who are the men you admire in general? Can you call your husband your lord/master? If not ... how do you read 1 Peter or Ephesians 5?

It's absolutely true that if men lead this world or church then the current mess is theirs to blame - but I have no illusion that women would do any better on average; since women are active in politics I noticed in several places the mess becomes greater.

I really appreciate your contributions here sister - you'll forgive me my frank remarks in love - I just want to be clear and constructive

It's funny to observe how in this day and age most women still prefer a masculine strong man who leads .... but are not really willing/ready to surrender and be a follower.

You are incorrect in your assumptions regarding who leads in my household but I understand how your arose at these assumptions. My husband is a strong leader. My dad was a coward. I see men, in society today, emasculated and using this as a reason to succumb to sin themselves including but not limited to addictions and not financially leading the family. Paul strongly states that men who do not financially support their families are worse then unbelievers (infidels).

1 Timothy 5:8

8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

I view Adam as having his sin of weakness cloaked by Eve's sin of being deceived. If Jesus Christ sat down in front of me, I would ask Him the same question and position it in the same manner, not as a challenge to the word or His commandments but as someone who is seeking to understand and learn.

I agree with everything the bible says and, in fact, told my daughter that our understanding doesn't supersede God's will or commandments. You may not be familiar with English culture but they are steadfastly anti-patriarchal and I am forever defending men. I do wish, however, they would do more to honor themselves so that there would not be so much room for doubts in their abilities but that is for another thread.

That being said, there are inconsistencies in what I read that the bible says and the way that we are being taught in church which I cannot explain and hence why I have come here for clarification.

Hope this clarifies so that you can assist and many thanks! God bless.

 

[linux.poet]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved from The Junk Drawer to General Theology.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[PloverWing]

Entire books have been written about what the Bible in general, and St Paul in particular, have to say about women. I can probably find a couple of titles, if you're interested, and the folks in the Egalitarian Christians forum would probably have some good recommendations as well.

But I did want to address this point:

My adult daughter did not like what Paul said was the only redemption path for women.

Whatever the author of I Timothy had in mind (and there's much debate about that), I Timothy 2:15 can't possibly mean that we are made right with God by having babies. It's too much at odds with the rest of the New Testament. Elsewhere in the New Testament, we see the importance of the work of Christ, and the importance of faith in God, and the importance of acting in ways that love one's neighbor as one's self. But nowhere except here is there a hint that women are saved by reproduction instead of by Jesus. The author of I Timothy would have known that, I think, since he was surrounded by the first-century church community. It's just too bizarre and foreign for 2:15 to mean that we're saved by having babies. Whatever he meant, it has to be something else.

In general (and I'm indebted to Dr. Esau McCaulley for this insight), look at the big themes of Scripture much more than tiny scraps of verses, especially if the scraps of verses seem to contrast with the big themes.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Entire books have been written about what the Bible in general, and St Paul in particular, have to say about women. I can probably find a couple of titles, if you're interested, and the folks in the Egalitarian Christians forum would probably have some good recommendations as well.

But I did want to address this point:

The author of I Timothy would have known that, I think, since he was surrounded by the first-century church community. It's just too bizarre and foreign for 2:15 to mean that we're saved by having babies. Whatever he meant, it has to be something else.

In general (and I'm indebted to Dr. Esau McCaulley for this insight), look at the big themes of Scripture much more than tiny scraps of verses, especially if the scraps of verses seem to contrast with the big themes.

Yes, I would love any recommendations regarding reading about Paul and any other apostles! It would be immensely useful for me to use in prayer and discussions with my family and the church!

And, like you, I feel like it was out of context, as a whole, but it says what it says so I am conflicted!

I can't get my head around it and have no one, whom I view as reliable enough or knowledgeable enough, to assist? It's not that people don't have good intention it's just that they give me their ideas instead of evidence, if that makes sense? That may work for those with faith but, for those not raised in Christ or learning themselves to lead others to Christ, it just doesn't help at all!!

Thanks so much!

 

[Chris35]

If we are all sinners and we are all saved by grace, why do we women have to shut up and give birth to correct the error of Eve in addition to the sins of Adam?

I believe it is moreso, the selfless love that a woman, feels towards her child, and the expression of that love.

Honestly though, I knew a lady, that did interpretation of tongues, and also had other spiritual gifts that were used in a church. She probably had more love for God then the majority of the people there.

I really don't think you will get answers here, but should go seek them out and talk to them, if you can find them.

 

[Delvianna]

I can get into the nitty gritty if you want to (and if you are interested) but I've done extensive research into Timothy and others about this topic because it bothered me so much. And what I found is that a TON of people are misunderstanding Paul. He didn't mean literally you would be saved during childbearing, and he doesn't mean women can't be leaders either. The ONLY instance where men are over women is in relationships and that had to do with one of our curses thanks to sin. In heaven, I believe that is done away with as Christ will resume as the only leader over us and we will be equal in all ways once again.

But God has requirements for someone to be a leader and most men don't meet those requirements or lead how God wants them to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you! This makes sense then that Corinth wasn't the only place where this was happening. Having read the bible, I don't see mention of women acting in a particular way but I know my church teaches that they were?

You're right, we don't see much in the way of explicit mention by Paul of exactly what the 'problem' was with some women in the churches of either Corinth or Ephesus. But this is where Hermeneutics, Historiography, Cultural History and Exegesis come into play, prompting us to ask questions about the many contexts that enfold any and every single letter and book that is in the Bible.

Am I missing the verses where it is shown that women of this time were usurping men or is it just taken for granted that we all know the history of that time or, when mentioned in church, it's a 'trust me bro' moment?

Nope, you're not missing verses, but we shouldn't expect there to be verses for every context that was circumstantially addressed by the writers of those letters, and in this case, of course, we're looking at St. Paul's writing. A number of contexts come by way of justified inference since, as you know, no human writing is ever done in a vacuum.

I never, ever tell others to simply "trust me," and I always have academic supporting material on hand for my viewpoints and interpretive praxis.

I am eager to learn but would like true source material to study so thank you very much for your assistance!

What do you consider to be "true source material," sister CC??

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Hermeneutics, Historiography, Cultural History and Exegesis

Thanks so much for the answer and comprehensive explanation. Sometimes, I feel like I am misreading everything and so reading nothing at all!

So, "true source material" would include what you have suggested i.e. the above.

It's so interesting for me because, my dad e.g., dropped out of school when he was under the age of 14. He has no reading comprehension skills, whatsoever, and believes that he doesn't need to read the bible because he has a personal relationship with Jesus that exceeds any writings given that he has declared Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior who died for his sins and has been baptized.

“For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life…” (John 6:40).

My husband has a similar view and suggests that Jesus doesn't expect us to understand the apostles who were Jewish, we are not, and although they preached to the Gentiles, they were of a different time. Like my dad, he believes in the simple words of Jesus but has many, many questions and doubts about the bible.

I know that if I suggested Hermeneutics etc my dad would think I was an arrogant show off and completely disregard anything I had to say about why we should learn about Paul and my husband might learn but still not feel it was relevant.

My husband, actually, would point out that Jesus saved the thief on the cross and the thief never read the bible.

So, sometimes, I don't know if I'm overthinking everything and should just throw my hands up and say, "BELIEVE," or what...

I'm not a church leader or expert in scripture etc. I'm just a working professional, wife, mom of a daughter and 2 dogs, ya know!

Thanks for helping me!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks so much for the answer and comprehensive explanation. Sometimes, I feel like I am misreading everything and so reading nothing at all!

So, "true source material" would include what you have suggested i.e. the above.

It's so interesting for me because, my dad e.g., dropped out of school when he was under the age of 14. He has no reading comprehension skills, whatsoever, and believes that he doesn't need to read the bible because he has a personal relationship with Jesus that exceeds any writings given that he has declared Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior who died for his sins and has been baptized.

“For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life…” (John 6:40).

My husband has a similar view and suggests that Jesus doesn't expect us to understand the apostles who were Jewish, we are not, and although they preached to the Gentiles, they were of a different time. Like my dad, he believes in the simple words of Jesus but has many, many questions and doubts about the bible.

I know that if I suggested Hermeneutics etc my dad would think I was an arrogant show off and completely disregard anything I had to say about why we should learn about Paul and my husband might learn but still not feel it was relevant.

My husband, actually, would point out that Jesus saved the thief on the cross and the thief never read the bible.

So, sometimes, I don't know if I'm overthinking everything and should just throw my hands up and say, "BELIEVE," or what...

I'm not a church leader or expert in scripture etc. I'm just a working professional, wife, mom of a daughter and 2 dogs, ya know!

Thanks for helping me!

You're welcome. But just know I'm neither attempting to upend what anyone else here in this thread may want to also share with you, nor am I presenting myself as 'The Bible Answer Man,' especially not as someone who is going to chauvinistically push answers upon an entire family. No, I consider myself a Christian philosopher and I aim to assist through clarification and explanation, if at all possible.

I see from your comments that you have several members in your family who all have their own individual concerns and viewpoints about the Christian faith or the bible, but for the moment, I'm only attempting to answer your personal concerns with 1 Timothy 2:11-15. I can offer sources, but before we get to that I'd like to know what your own pastor or church ministers said about this passage to you? I'm asking because it isn't my goal to contradict them, but rather to help fill in any questions you have which they might not have addressed.

 

[Chris35]

I thought about it some more and you may have answered your own question?

They still listen to women who gossip and are led by uneducated women. A quote, "Happy wife, happy life," springs to mind.

Like you said, there is many examples in the bible, of the influence a woman has over a man and even if you are right, it just reinforces the point of Paul.

That if a woman does talk about things apart from God then she can easily deceive and mislead a man, at which point the loving thing for a woman to do is to put others first and it is best not to do so at all, in case it would cause a man to stumble.

Perhaps this was what Paul was seeing when he wrote these verses.

I'm not sure if it's weakness though; a man has much love for a woman, and often wants to make her happy at the expense of himself.