Are women inferior to men?

[Imagican]

And who was the first to preach the Good News that Christ was risen? Was it one of the twelce apostles? I don't think so...

It certainly wasn't Mary. She didn't 'preach' anything. She simply told the others that she had seen Him.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Perhaps, I used the wrong term in speaking of relevancy. It's not that Paul's handling of administrative issues is irrelevant; it is that they need to be understood in the context of the issue that he was addressing. Often the issue being addressed is one concerning cultural mores of the 1st Century Greco-Roman society. Much of Paul's concerns were about keeping the church from being destroyed as a result of confronting the greater society where that would have been a losing battle and/or where the society's values were not intrinsically unbiblical.

It could be argued that, because that culture has such a misogynistic outlook that having women in leadership positions would be an affront to that culture, so Paul cautioned against this in some, but not all contexts. We know, for example, that Paul praises several female leaders and even references prophetesses in the church. If the command to "remain silent" was a moral imperative, this would be contradictory. If it was in deference to the cultural context, then there is no contradiction.

While everyone certainly has a right to their opinion, (the ability to argue contrary objections), so far as the issue at hand, there is really nothing to argue about.

Paul didn't offer opinion or reasons other than to 'state' that what he offered were the commandments of God. So your attempt to indicate that it was a 'cultural issue' is utterly contrary to the information that exists. There is no need to guess or offer opinions, simply accept and follow what we are offered in truth.

Paul stated that anyone that considers themselves to be prophets or even 'Spiritual' is to acknowledge that the words he offered are the 'commandments of God'. Pretty simple really.

Question: Why do you think that the 'culture' in Israel at the time was what it was? Weren't the Hebrews/Jews God's chosen? And wouldn't their 'culture' have been designed and instituted by God? While it may have evolved into something different than original intended, the basic understanding of it's 'rules' would have been the same as that introduced at the time of Moses.

The Jews still read the first five books of the Bible every year. So if there are 'traits' of their culture today that resemble those of the past wouldn't those traits be attributable to God Himself if the first five books of Moses were God inspired and those that read it each year actually believe in and follow it?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Archivist]

It certainly wasn't Mary. She didn't 'preach' anything. She simply told the others that she had seen Him.

You are incorrect.

Preach, from FreeDictionary.com: "1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon:" According to the Online Etymology Dixctionary the word preach comes from Late Latin praedicare, which means "to proclaim publicly, announce."

Mary did not put anything forth in a sermon, but she certainly did proclaim publically. Therefore it was she who was the first to preach the Good News of the risen Christ.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

And who was the first to preach the Good News that Christ was risen? Was it one of the twelce apostles? I don't think so...

This is just trying poorly to avoid the fact that literally all twelve disciples and the famously called Apostle Paul were all men. It is not coincidence. Not like the rest hasn't already been addressed a thousand times so I will avoid repeating it. But as Imagician stated, Mary didn't preach, she proclaimed to the disciples what she had seen while providing no "message of the cross". Women obviously function in an essential role for preparing and advancing the Kingdom of God on earth, no Christ-minded person would argue otherwise. Neither would any Christ-minded person argue that men are established to be spiritual and familial leaders. That is men's role, but it is not the only one, nor the only essential one. But it is their one.

 

[Strong in Him]

This is just trying poorly to avoid the fact that literally all twelve disciples and the famously called Apostle Paul were all men.

They were all Jews as well. But you don't hear any Gentile men teaching mentioning that fact.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

They were all Jews as well. But you don't hear any Gentile men teaching mentioning that fact.

Except this is hardly the only argument that unarguably establishes the spiritual and familial headship of men over women. I have already demonstrated this point by using overt and repeated statements of Scripture. See above if you need to reminded of what isn't my opinion. It is tiresome to repeat what is being ignored for obvious reasons.

 

[Archivist]

This is just trying poorly to avoid the fact that literally all twelve disciples and the famously called Apostle Paul were all men. It is not coincidence. Not like the rest hasn't already been addressed a thousand times so I will avoid repeating it. But as Imagician stated, Mary didn't preach, she proclaimed to the disciples what she had seen while providing no "message of the cross". Women obviously function in an essential role for preparing and advancing the Kingdom of God on earth, no Christ-minded person would argue otherwise. Neither would any Christ-minded person argue that men are established to be spiritual and familial leaders. That is men's role, but it is not the only one, nor the only essential one. But it is their one.

No, Mary did preach. It is not up to you to decide what a word means, that is why we have things called dictionarys. She proclaimed the Good News. Whether you like it or not, according to the dictionary definition that means she preached.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

No, Mary did preach. It is not up to you to decide what a word means, that is why we have things called dictionarys. She proclaimed the Good News. According to the dictionary definition that means she preached.

This argument in consideration of all the counter-arguments (which are entirely derived and constituted from explicit Scripture), and even taken in isolation, is about as good as making an argument for the leadership of a son over his father by the fact that he is walking in front of him. In the course of events, Mary was the first to encounter the risen Christ and then report what she had seen to the disciples; Twelve men selected for the purpose of leading the mission assigned by Christ to make disciples of all nations. Women play an essential role in this. Men assume, by the assignment of God, the leadership role in this mission in both the church and the household. This is Scripturally established. Anyone who attempts to argue for this untenable position of particularly "role equity" (not intrinsic equality) will be easily exposed for their political view by no less than the Scriptures themselves. It is a rather effortless task. The only part of the effort lies in the resistance of the recipient to the overt, unequivocal commands in Scripture.

 

[Archivist]

This argument in consideration of all the counter-arguments (which are entirely derived and constituted from explicit Scripture), and even taken in isolation, is about as good as making an argument for the leadership of a son over his father by the fact that he is walking in front of him. In the course of events, Mary was the first to encounter the risen Christ and then report what she had seen to the disciples; Twelve men selected for the purpose of leading the mission assigned by Christ to make disciples of all nations. Women play an essential role in this. Men assume, by the assignment of God, the leadership role in this mission in both the church and the household. This is Scripturally established. Anyone who attempts to argue for this untenable position of particularly "role equity" (not intrinsic equality) will be easily exposed for their political view by no less than the Scriptures themselves. It is a rather effortless task. The only part of the effort lies in the resistance of the recipient to the overt, unequivocal commands in Scripture.

No, Mary was the first person to preach the Good News of the risin Christ. Words have meanings. The definition of the word "preach" says that I am right, you are wrong.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

No, Mary was the first person to preach the Good News of the risin Christ. Words have meanings. The definition of the word "preach" says that I am right, you are wrong.

I am legitimately unsure if you are being serious now(?)

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

No, Mary was the first person to preach the Good News of the risin Christ. Words have meanings. The definition of the word "preach" says that I am right, you are wrong.

The Scripture itself, to repeat, again, is what establishes the headship of man. So, using your own argument: Words have meanings. The words contained therein says that God is right and you are wrong. By the way, the definition of the word preach does not advance an argument against this and so is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Archivist]

The Scripture itself, to repeat, again, is what establishes the headship of man. So, using your own argument: Words have meanings. The words contained therein says that God is right and you are wrong. By the way, the definition of the word preach does not advance an argument against this and so is entirely irrelevant.

And Scripture is clear, it was Mary who was the first person to preach the Good News of the risen Christ. Plain words of Scripture, backed by simple dictionary definitions. I am correct on this. Words have meaning.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Scripture itself, to repeat, again, is what establishes the headship of man.

Only with regards to husbands and wives.
As has been said many times before, Deborah led, and was head of, the whole nation.

 

[Strong in Him]

Except this is hardly the only argument that unarguably establishes the spiritual and familial headship of men over women.

No, but some people put it forward as evidence that women cannot be leaders and that Jesus never wanted them to be. If someone says "the 12 were all men and that was done for a reason", then it should be equally valid to say, "the 12 were all Jews, so maybe that was done for a reason too?"

There are Scriptural examples of women being active in the early church, prophesying, teaching and proclaiming Jesus' word to others - even if the latter was only "I've met a man who could be the Messiah", John 4:29 or "Tell my brothers that I am alive and will meet them in Galilee", Luke 24:10. Acts 15 records a discussion of a problem in the early church, and there were other problems with false teachers. Nowhere though do we read that the apostles discussed, or argued about, the role of women or told some women off for doing the wrong things.

 

[SnowyMacie]

No. End of discussion.

 

[Archivist]

I am legitimately unsure if you are being serious now(?)

Very serious.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

<staff edit>

No, but some people put it forward as evidence that women cannot be leaders and that Jesus never wanted them to be. If someone says "the 12 were all men and that was done for a reason", then it should be equally valid to say, "the 12 were all Jews, so maybe that was done for a reason too?"

There are Scriptural examples of women being active in the early church, prophesying, teaching and proclaiming Jesus' word to others - even if the latter was only "I've met a man who could be the Messiah", John 4:29 or "Tell my brothers that I am alive and will meet them in Galilee", Luke 24:10. Acts 15 records a discussion of a problem in the early church, and there were other problems with false teachers. Nowhere though do we read that the apostles discussed, or argued about, the role of women or told some women off for doing the wrong things.

No, the argument is that in conjunction with the Scriptures from Old to New Covenant that explicitly indicate men are to lead the church and the household, the disciples being entirely male provides additional confirmation to the headship of men in the context of church and familial positions (if they are the husband/father), as if the confirmation was needed past the overt establishment we already have throughout the other Scriptures. I also establish two other points to my position in recognition of the Scriptural revelation: 1. Women are under the headship only of their own husbands, not men in general, and 2. Women are under the headship of male leadership in church in that only men are supposed to be assigned the highest human authority in the church (being a pastor/bishop).

Of course women were active in the early church and blessed by God with many gifts. This is just as obvious as the point I have been arguing. Women are unarguably equal in value and blessed in many ways to prepare and advance the Kingdom of God in many roles. But husbands (not males in general) are the head of their home and a man is to be assigned the highest authority in the church. This is why I prefer to use the word "headship" over leadership, because there can result some confusion from the use of the latter. There are kinds of leadership a woman can have, such as having authority over their children or being a youth/sunday school leader in the church. But these are subsidiary kinds of leadership that are still of lesser authority than the "head". A pastor is still above a youth leader, and a husband still has chief authority in his household.

 

[Archivist]

Then further discourse with you is unwarranted. I have already entirely dismantled your argument with the Scriptures. Nothing more can be said to remove you from your willing ignorance.

Willing ignorance? Are you always so rude? You have not dismantled any if my arguments.

No, the argument is that in conjunction with the Scriptures from Old to New Covenant that explicitly indicate men are to lead the church and the household, the disciples being entirely male provides additional confirmation to the headship of men in the context of church and familial positions (if they are the husband/father), as if the confirmation was needed past the overt establishment we already have throughout the other Scriptures. I also establish two other points to my position in recognition of the Scriptural revelation: 1. Women are under the headship only of their own husbands, not men in general, and 2. Women are under the headship of male leadership in church in that only men are supposed to be assigned the highest human authority in the church (being a pastor/bishop).

Of course women were active in the early church and blessed by God with many gifts. This is just as obvious as the point I have been arguing. Women are unarguably equal in value and blessed in many ways to prepare and advance the Kingdom of God in many roles. But husbands (not males in general) are the head of their home and a man is to assigned the highest authority in the church. This is why I prefer to use the word "headship" over leadership, because there can result some confusion from the use of the latter. There are kinds of leadership a woman can have, such as having authority over their children or being a youth/sunday school leader in the church. But these are subsidiary kinds of leadership that are till of lesser authority than the "head". A pastor is still above a youth leader, and a husband still has chief authority in his household.

And specifically where did I comment on any if this? The only thing I did was to point out a basic fact, that being that the first person to preach the Good News of the risen Christ was a woman. <staff edit>

 

[Brokenhill]

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

There is certainly something to say for a handful of women in scripture like Deborah or Priscilla or the prophetesses, but I think you have to take each scenario independently and look at the context.
In the case of Deborah, I see it as one of the exceptions to the ideal. If you think about it, God didn't really want any judges (male or female), like He didn't want kings. God always wanted His children to be directed by Him. Exceptions were granted, especially in the pre-Torah period--for instance, incest was acceptable at some points, even though later that became an abomination. There was the exception, but only for a time. Maybe the exception in the case of Deborah was because the male Judges were failing over and over...the people were failing over and over, drifting from God, doing "what was right in their own eyes".

But I don't think it's a coincidence that God chose Abraham, Noah, David, John the Baptist, etc., and especially Jesus, as well as the apostles--being males. Between the curse given in Genesis, and Paul's teachings about headship/women's quietness/inability to teach over males in the congregation, it's clear that the Man is to be the head of the household in the family and to take the responsibility to teach and guide in the location congregation of Christ (hence also why elders and deacons are to be men only).
That's the biblical way. It's God's way. It's not a societal matter for that time, it's an institution from the beginning that God expects us to carry out until the end of time. At that point men and women will truly be in the exact same position since we will no longer have flesh..we'll all just be spirit at that time (hence why Paul says "in Christ there is neither male nor female"). But while we are living in flesh, we must abide in the institutions of God.

But I repeat, women are not inferior, just different. And they must be appreciated, honored, respected, loved, and cared for deeply...both in the marriage home and in the local congregation for their roles.

 

[BukiRob]

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

You also have to take into context the culture in which Paul lived and the times in which he lived.

Women in that time were NOT considered credible witnesses. Yet it is women who first discover that Messiah has risen.

In a family the man is the spiritual head of the family. He is accountable and responsible for leading the family towards being a light and being an example of righteousness in his family. Women are not inferior spiritually by any means and Proverbs chapter 31 speaks in detail of the righteous woman.

Scripture clearly states she is the trusted ally of her husband giving wise council. She runs the home, makes business decisions for the benefit of the family 16-18. In fact Proverbs 31 speaking GLOWINGLY of the woman who is righteous and praise is laden on her by the members of her family including her husband.

Paul is citing the mantle of LEADERSHIP in the assembly. This is not the woman's domain spiritually speaking. The problem is that the VAST majority of believing men have abdicated their responsibility. It does not mean that a woman can not be gifted in wisdom and all that goes with being in leadership. The perfect model is the wise, spirit led man who leads first at home in his family and then leads others... far too often, men do not exercise in their domain responsibly and G-d then uses the wife to fill that role.