Are women inferior to men?

[ViaCrucis]

This is the same Apostle who wrote "there is no male or female ... you are all one in Christ Jesus".

The complexities of gender politics in the 1st century Greco-Roman world were much different than they are now. In many ways Paul subverts the established order, a clear example of this is in Ephesians where the instruction is for husbands and wives to submit to one another. It isn't just wives submitting to their husbands, it's both submitting to one another.

Why wasn't St. Mary Magdalene one of the Twelve? I don't know, I also don't know why that should matter. St. Paul wasn't one of the Twelve either, neither were the Apostles Apollos, Barnabas, Junia and Andronicus, et al. But St. Mary is remembered as "Apostle to the Apostles" and "Equal to the Apostles", that alone should indicate her historic importance in the Church.

The title "Equal to the Apostles" is to honor a person with the same honor that is due to Christ's chosen Twelve. That's not chump change.

And in the entire drama of redemptive history, the most important person next to our Lord Jesus Himself, is His mother. No man was ever so blessed, so honored by God, so highly favored as this woman who, by God's gracious call, became Theotokos, the very Bearer and Mother of God herself. For which reason she is called blessed and highly favored one. Our father Abraham, or Moses, or the great prophets of God, neither John the Baptist or any of Christ's Holy Apostles were so blessed. And so it is a woman who is the highly favored Theotokos, she who bore God in her womb.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Righttruth]

Everyone doesn't seem to be equal in heaven: that's why there are angels, at least one archangel, cherubim, etc.

Agreed. Men and women within the same group are equal.

 

[PsychoeDial]

Angels, cherubim, etc...aren't human.

 

[Extraneous]

I have been considering this a lot lately. Paul says that in Christ there is neither male or female, but all are one in Christ. I still dont believe in following any female teachers though, because i dont believe in following any teachers. I believe, as the scriptures say, that Christ alone is the teacher. I can listen to both brothers and sisters and hear spiritual things that the Lord will use to teach me, but these folks are not teachers because they dont promote following any man, but only Christ alone. That's the spirit i look for. I believe teachers are a dangerous way to learn.

Anyway about Paul who said that there is neither male or female, i have been considering this scripture. Perhaps, its a wife's blessing to be like as symbol for the Church, and its no shame to submit to her earthly husband, but instead is a great honor. After all, Christ who is the king of Kings took on the form of a bondservant. He said whoever will be first will be last, and the last first, in the kingdom of Heaven. I don't know, its just a thought, and im unsure. I only submit it for consideration.

This scripture makes me think about how paul called himself a father to the carnal Corinthians as well. I know it refers to the Church submitting to Christ, but perhaps it has even more meaning to it than that alone, i dont know. Paul uses a lot of symbolic language to teach spiritual truth. I dont comprehend it fully, but i ponder it.


Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Galatians 5:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Psalm 27:10 When my father and my mother forsake me,
Then the Lord will take care of me.

 

[Extraneous]

Perhaps, Christ the "bondservant", leads us, by the Spirit, to follow Paul, the father of carnal babes, and by Paul's teaching then leads us (himself, us, though the spirit) to be joined to His wife, (us)

I dont know, maybe its a crazy notion, just a thought.

 

[Strong in Him]

1) Well-known passages from the Apostle Paul seem to indicate that women are not to have authority over men or even speak in church.

2) God created the man first, then the woman.

3) Every author of Scripture (that we know of) is a man.

4) All of Christ's Apostles were men.

5) Christ himself is a man, and God is clearly described as masculine in Scripture.

Thoughts?

1. They appear to and some people certainly read them that way. But Paul had female co-workers, Jesus had female disciples and was supported financially by women, and many churches do not believe that these 2 or 3 short passages exclude women from preaching and teaching.

2. God created insects first and then humans; so?

3+4. Doesn't matter. As I said, Jesus had female followers/disciples.

5. God is Spirit - so neither male nor female. But we can't call a personal God "it" and saying he/she all the time would be clumsy and time consuming.
It was a patriarchal society then; women had few rights, if any, so everything was described in male terms. For example, Scripture talks about us being sons of God, not sons and daughters. In those days, the sons inherited from their fathers; daughters didn't, and I think men might sometimes even adopt a man so that they had an heir. But this doesn't mean that only males can belong to God and become his children and heirs.

 

[Hieronymus]

A one liner popped in mind:
Lower in rank, but perhaps more precious

 

[Noxot]

spirit is before soul

 

[Widlast]

The question is somewhat misleading, as in which is better a horse or a mule?
Depends on whether you wish to ride or plow.

Men and women have different purposes and functions. In older cultures men do have a superior role, as not everybody in a household can be the leader. Not so much these days (in most cultures).
If you look at the numbers of saints through history, God seems to favor the women.

 

[Extraneous]

The question is somewhat misleading, as in which is better a horse or a mule?
Depends on whether you wish to ride or plow.

Men and women have different purposes and functions. In older cultures men do have a superior role, as not everybody in a household can be the leader. Not so much these days (in most cultures).
If you look at the numbers of saints through history, God seems to favor the women.

Mules are better for riding in mountain terrain than horses.

 

[Brokenhill]

I didn't read through all the replies, but...

Inferior? No. But yes, Paul teaches correctly God's preferred headship on earth...that the man is the head (or leader) of the woman. 1 Cor. 11 says this: "3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head ofChrist."
So to repeat the order of leadership/headship: God-->Jesus-->Man-->Woman. This still holds true today regardless of what is politically correct in modern times.

However, that doesn't make females inferior to men. Men have the leadership role & responsibility, but women have an equally important but different role.

 

[Strong in Him]

I didn't read through all the replies, but...

Inferior? No. But yes, Paul teaches correctly God's preferred headship on earth...that the man is the head (or leader) of the woman.

And yet, in the OT, he chose a woman - Deborah - to be judge over the nation and leader of men.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's kind of amazing how those that try to make women equal to men always seem to try and point out: "you know, the words offered by Paul were certainly influenced by the politics and such of the 'time'."

What do you suppose that the politics and such of that time were 'based' upon? Where do you suppose the Jews learned their behavior from as concerns the 'place' of men and women?

The Bible clearly states that because of Eve's deception, part of her punishment was that she would be under the 'rule' of her husband: Adam. He would 'rule' over her.

And I find nothing throughout the rest of the Bible in it's entirety that alters this format. Not a 'single' change from the beginning. Even the NT indicates everything it offers from this perspective. Not according to mere 'customs' of the people. But those ''customs'' being formed by the very words offered in the Bible.

God is the Head of Christ, as Christ is the Head of man, as man is the Head of woman. Isn't this what the Bible 'states'?

So is it really up to us to debate the issue? If we claim to be believers in the Bible: God's Word, is there any room for debate if God's Word clearly states that man is the Head of woman? Exactly what is there to debate other than what the word "Head" represents?

Blessings,

MEC

I have to agree, but only because I have to, as the Bible is pretty cut and dry on the subject.

Not sure if I have to like it, or that I have to think it was fair... after all, both Adam and Eve sinned, just because Eve did it first, seems to me a bit irrelevant. But in the end, I have to go with Gods choices on the, matter and assume he has his good reasons for this choice as he does in all he does.

Only other comment I have at the moment is some men need to be very careful with the rules on this, and not get carried away. But if that does happen, it's not the rules that cause problems, but the abuse thereof. To be a little less vague, I'm talking about the combination of ego and the rules, they can be a recipe for much abuse.

 

[expos4ever]

5) Christ himself is a man, and God is clearly described as masculine in Scripture

Note, however, that in Romans 8, we have the decidedly female function of childbirth used as a metaphor for the action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[expos4ever]

OK so here's my question: what do you make of the Apostle Paul's statements about women?

I know this may seem to disclose a view of the authority of scripture that some may object to, but perhaps Paul is simply revealing his culturally-conditioned view that women are inferior. Before the cries of heresy are raised, remember that Paul writes he wishes those who insist on sticking with the Law of Moses castrate themselves.

Surely, this is not "God's will". Perhaps, likewise, Paul is displaying the chauvinism of his world.

 

[Judy02]

1) Well-known passages from the Apostle Paul seem to indicate that women are not to have authority over men or even speak in church.

Paul is often a poorly understood apostle. That passage's meaning in Timothy , the only one usually referred to, for why some don't believe women are to teach men in church is widely debated by many biblical scholars, and is not as clear as some think. It also doesn't allow for the other biblical examples where women did carry authority and preach the gospel. The purpose of Paul's 1st letter to Timothy was to provide encouragement and instruction to Timothy, and to warn against false teachings. It wasn't to discuss "gender roles" in the church. The word translated as "authority" (authentein) in that passage also wasn't the ordinary greek word that Paul usually used for authority. It was, in fact the only time that word was used throughout the whole of the New Testament. It actually had no suggestion of usurping authority until the 3rd or 4th century.

[/QUOTE] 2) God created the man first, then the woman. [/QUOTE]

Yes. No mention of it indicating dominance or hierarchy though in the relationship. The only mentioning of ruling over is Genesis 3, which isn't God's ideal for male/female relationships, that chapter is an outline of what became the sad marked consequences of a fallen world. Ruling over people. The opposite of how Jesus later teaches how we are to relate to other people. Matthew 20:26 "whoever wants to become great among you must be his servant". A Christian wouldn't advocate for male rulership any more than they would advocate to deny a woman painkillers in childbirth, or labour saving devices. Genesis 3 also talks about the ground being cursed and "through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." Scripture talks about how it isn't good for man to be alone and how he created a "helper" suitable for him. There's nothing insubordinate or "less than" in the word helper. In fact, every other time it is used throughout the Old Testament, it refers to God himself.

[/QUOTE] 3) Every author of Scripture (that we know of) is a man. [/QUOTE]

That is debateable and not completely agreed, but even if it were so, could be a reflection of the society at the time, and isn't an indicator of what our values and attitude towards women should be from the teaching of the scriptures themselves or the character of Jesus.

[/QUOTE] 4) All of Christ's Apostles were men.

The symbolism to do with the 12 apostles was to do with Jesus making a relation between the old covenant people represented by the 12 tribes of Israel in the OT, and the people of the new community represented by the 12 apostles, with the latter taking precedence over the former (Luke 22:29-30) The 12 Apostles were also exclusively Jewish as well, there were no Gentiles, but we don't exclude non Jews from preaching in the Christian church now. It was not a model on how all church leadership is to look now or about "gender roles". More on this here:http://godswordtowomen.org/Apostles.htm

5) Christ himself is a man, and God is clearly described as masculine in Scripture. [/QUOTE]

There are some feminine metaphors used in the Bible to describe God as well. Luke 13:34 and 1 Peter 2:2-3 are a couple of examples. Men and women are both described as being created in the image of God, and God's creation was not complete until he had created both. Both were commissioned to look after and fill the earth. God is described as spirit. John 4:24

 

[Strong in Him]

Note, however, that in Romans 8, we have the decidedly female function of childbirth used as a metaphor for the action of the Holy Spirit.

Not to mention that the word for Holy Spirit is feminine.

 

[Extraneous]

Everyone seems obsessed with having position. Teachers want status, woman want status, denominations want status. Whatever happened to being of One mind?

 

[Extraneous]

Democrats and Republicans too. I wonder if im reading the bible wrong.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

The only grounds for debate on this topic are not Biblical, but political. All this talk about cultural milieus and yet it is only our cultural milieu that is causing the overtly obvious (that equality of worth and hierarchy can exist concurrently) to become confusing and rouse counter-biblical conclusions. The conflation of inferiority with submission is the root of the problem here, not a clear understanding of Scripture which will always lead one to the conclusion of man's headship. It is rather interesting that we can recognize the truth that submission/lesser authority does not translate into inferiority in multiple contexts (employer over employee, parent over child, government over citizen, etc.), but because of our cultural milieu we are exclusively unable to recognize this truth in the spousal relationship.

There have been some horrible attempts to counter the authority of God reflected in the male half of His image. It is interesting to note that though God is literally genderless, He chose to identify as the Father/Him/He and is head over Christ, who also assumed the literal flesh of a man and is head over us. It is not just the authors who use this designation either, but also Jesus Christ Himself. Additionally, it is laughable that some have tried to argue that the prophets of God and authors of Scripture were male because of their culture. If you recognize that the Scriptures are the Word of God developed in His providential decree of human history and authorship, then you must recognize that the prophets and authors who were male were selected specifically by God to reveal His will (as though there is some ritual we can perform to achieve prophethood apart from God's decree). Thus, using the cultural milieu as an argument is at best an amusing effort to deny God's selection of the male to be the spiritual and familial leaders.

It is also hypocritical that many who deny Paul's confirmation of male leadership use His own words to attempt to combat this affirmed reality with the "all in Christ are one; There is no Jew nor Greek" argument. Taken in it's obvious context with the broad consideration of Paul's other statements and the Scriptures in their entirety, this verse concerns how God judges and extends love towards each individual, not how He perceived them functionally and humanly. The truth is "...in the image of God He created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27)." We were created male and female, distinct reflections of God's image in both body and mind that compliment each other to produce the complete image of God in unison. The Father and the Son beautifully convey the reality of equality and hierarchy in concurrence in their own relationship in Philippians 2:6-8 among many other verses.

Lastly, the Scriptures have already been provided but apparently need to be again concerning the headship of man from the beginning to our modern times. In Genesis we are told that Adam was created first, then Eve created to be His helper suitable for him (Genesis 2:18). In 1 Corinthians it is affirmed that the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man. It is repeated in Ephesians 5:23 that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the church. There is no way to circumvent the obvious biblical testament that man has intrinsic authority in His male nature. Anyone who submits, ironically, to the contrary is merely prioritizing political delusions over the truth revealed by God