Biblical reasons for the submission of women

[Daniel C]

O.k; so let's look at it.
"I permit not ..." - who's the "I"? Paul. Paul does not permit something - but Paul is dead, so what impact does that have on us?
"a woman to teach". A woman; which woman? The word is singular. Who was this woman and why didn't he permit her to teach? It doesn't say "all women", and Paul knew that Priscilla taught Apollos.
"Nor to have dominion over a man" - how is teaching someone having dominion over them? Sharing the Gospel involves teaching; explaining that someone is a sinner, telling who Jesus is and what he came to do and how God has provided salvation. The woman at the well went to her town and told people about Jesus, Mary Magdalene told the disciples about the resurrection. In the OT Huldah gave the male priests a word from God, a servant girl advised the king to obey Elisha so he would be healed from leprosy and Esther influenced the king and stopped him from killing all the Jews. Were they "having dominion" over men? If so, maybe women shouldn't interact with men at all in case they accidentally teach them something? Maybe men shouldn't sing hymns/read books that women have written? Maybe women are exempt from obeying the Great Commission?
"but to be in quietness". Really? Not to pray or prophesy, 1 Corinthians 11, sing Psalms, hymns or spiritual songs, Colossians 3:16, or read Scripture? How then can we worship?

This is only part of one verse - yet it doesn't sound at all straightforward to me.

Not much to talk about. It's unambiguous scripture,so accept it or don't.

 

[Daniel C]

God's way is to break down social barriers and prejudice.

This isn't a social justice gospel, but the thrust of the promise starting from Abraham and encapsulated in the gospel is that it's for "all nations" - it's meant to be multi-ethnic, multi-generational, and for both sexes. One group is not meant to be dominant over another, as it's one body, one baptism - one body with many parts, part of the body.

It's clear and obvious from the outset of the NT that Jesus was coming to break down social barriers and insist all have equal access to God, and the Church ought to represent that.

Why do you keep posting me these off topic messages about this stuff.

I'm starting to feel lectured at by you. Not interested.

 

[HatGuy]

So, what will you do with the OP verses?

Well, firstly I'd let scripture interpret scripture. So I would need to look at specific cases where leadership is taught in scripture, and also take into consideration the greater narrative of the Bible, and let these help me come to a reasonable interpretation of your three verses quoted. Your three verses are notoriously controversial with theologians and ordinary church folk because they seem so strikingly different, if taken on their own, to what the New Testament teaches elsewhere (and what Paul himself teaches). So in that case, when we're dealing with particularly difficult verses, we must tread carefully and let scripture interpret scripture and, yes, take context into account.

This approach in hermeneutics is not controversial or unordinary. This is certainly a common approach to hermeneutics the world over.

So, with that in mind, we can then see what we can make of your three verses in the OP.

1) The creation order:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1Tm 2:11

Firstly, we need to make sure that any reference to submission to authority has to also take into account Jesus' own teaching about authority in Matthew 20 and elsewhere. Jesus both teaches, and models, the concept of servant-leadership. God's way is that leaders serve. A president serves his country, his country does not serve him. A CEO serves his team, his team does not serve him. A husband serves his wife, she actually does not serve him - but here is the catch, that she ought to 'submit' to his service. That means that he remains the leader of the household but his leadership is one that serves those he leads (his wife and children). This creates perfect balance - he serves, she submits to his service, and both live in peace and humility before each other. Any man who wants to quote the Bible about submission but does not serve his wife is a hypocrite.

But we ought to ask the question whether submission to men is only in the context of marriage, which is actually where the concept is most of the time mentioned in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2 seems to expand this submission to church community life, but it also limits it to there. Therefore, woman should be able to lead and teach in other contexts (as they do - note the high volume of school teachers being woman, who seem to fit into this role quite naturally as opposed to men).

So given the limit being imposed here, we can see that 1 Timothy 2:11 in its immediate context has to do with living in peace with each other - and verse 2 is of particular importance, which says we submit to governing authorities "that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." This points towards living a simple life and watching your ambitions. The rest of the scripture then deals with some examples. It highlights how men should use hands for prayer and not for anger or dispute (verse 8) and talks about how woman should dress modestly and not get involved in the hype of fashion - being concerned with fashions rather than with godliness (verse 9). Incidentally, a lot of modern men should actually heed this scripture as well. There are a lot of men who are so concerned with their looks and their clothes, but aren't concerned with godliness. That's the point that Paul is making, but obviously in the context of Timothy the woman were most guilty of that.

Given this context, we can immediately interpret what it means for woman to be 'quiet' in verse 11 and 12. The Greek word means 'stillness' and 'desistance from bustle'. Paul is reiterating his instruction in verse 2 - to live a quiet life in all godliness and dignity (an instruction given to all in that verse). So ambition and having a big mouth and always having an opinion and being a busybody are obviously the kinds of things Paul is speaking about here. He is speaking about ambition and ego.

So we have a context for submission, which is in the context of servant leadership.
We have a context for 'quietness', which revolves a lot around ambition and ego.

We now need a context for what it means to 'teach'.

I haven't done deep study on these verses, but I can say outright that I find it strange that this does not prohibit a woman from teaching in the church, only from teaching a man in the church. They key, however, is to "have authority" over a man. So the implication I think could certainly be that it means to teach as one with authority. A quick cursory Google search shows much of the discussion is around this word, "authority", and I think it seems to hinge there. A quick glance also, however, indicates that this has to do with dominating over a man.

If I look at Paul's later statements about Adam and Eve, which you have quoted, I think that's important, and I think Paul is mentioning it not just in and of itself, but is also drawing out the eschatological implications of the creation narrative. As Adam fell asleep (the Hebrew implies 'dying') and his bride, Eve, was made from his very own body, so Jesus died and his Bride, the Church, is a part of his very own body. This then speaks to how the Church partners with Christ and how in the same way a husband and wife partner together for God's purposes. Once again, the dying and service is in view - but also a dual partnership in a purpose given by God. It's clear from the creation narrative that Adam was given the purpose of 'tending and keeping' the garden and both Adam and Eve were given the purpose of 'multiplying' and 'taking dominion' of the earth. Eve was created as a helper for the purpose given to Adam, and would be a key part in the taking of dominion etc. Paul is therefore saying the Adam 'came first', meaning, that Eve was a helper in the purpose God gave to Adam. Adam clearly takes a governmental role.

The Greek word authenteō ("authority") here is incredibly tricky. It appears there are very few cases of this word outside of this text. (This is a cursory glance at the material available that talks about it). If it refers to dominance, well then, that makes a lot of sense. Given that elsewhere we have already seen that a leader should not lord over or dominate others, but should serve, we could simply say that Paul is saying a woman shouldn't dominate a man, and elsewhere in his teaching he makes it clear a man should not dominate a woman. This would probably be the egalitarian view, or a leading into it.

However, given that Paul goes into the role of overseer in the next chapter, and specifically says the overseer should be the husband of one wife, we could say that it seems Paul does not envisage a wife being an overseer. But the word 'overseer' implies government. So does the word authenteō (authority) in verse 12. With the creation narrative in view, what we could draw out is that governmental authority in the church is limited to men, and that is Paul's point. He is not saying women cannot teach, only that they cannot have authority governmentally over men in the church. A very specific type teaching is in view, and that type of teaching has to do with teaching the overseer(s) of the church - it is government, not doctrine or theology, that is in view. It is a way of saying that a woman should not dominate over governmental authority in the church. (By the way, this could also be shown in verse 2, given that there government is also in view).

1. A woman therefore can teach and preach and lead numerous other ministries in the church, including apostolic ministry. (Mentioning apostolic ministry opens up another can of worms, but we would have to open up a separate thread for that.)
2. A woman therefore can hold governmental functions elsewhere, but just not in the role of overseer (lead elder / pastor).
3. A woman's submissiveness is to the government of the church, the overseers, not to every man in the church, and this submissiveness is only in the context of government - in other words, making the final decision on direction and doctrine and discipline in a local church. She is submitted to her husband first, however.

And that's how I would begin to deal with your OP.

 

[HatGuy]

Why do you keep posting me these off topic messages about this stuff.

I'm starting to feel lectured at by you. Not interested.

Sorry about that, but I've no idea why anyone would feel lectured by that.

At any rate, also can't see how it's off topic. "Breaking down social barriers" certainly has to do with gender roles in the church.

 

[Paidiske]

So Paul is in error? Writing his Gospel and epistles and then changing his mind,error?

No. Paul is, at most, making an exception to his general practice, in limiting the roles of women in certain particular local and historical situations.

 

[Daniel C]

Sorry about that, but I've no idea why anyone would feel lectured by that.

At any rate, also can't see how it's off topic. "Breaking down social barriers" certainly has to do with gender roles in the church.

I'm not actually upset.

The reason why I feel lectured is because you are projecting your own philosophical viewpoint in a manner which suggests I lack understanding and need to be taught. I didn't ask for this and the thing I resent most of all is you try to slide this view into the Bible implying it's Gods nature as well.

We clearly live in a universe and under a God that has hierarchy. God wiped out tribes in the OT because he had a chosen favoured people. The father sent the son. God,Mankind then nature. A president has more power and authority than a homeless person. A billionaire is higher up the economical ladder than the poor. And the Bible says this 1 Timothy 2:12 about the male female relationship.

So this talk you give me is not true and unbiblical. I don't bother to get into discussions about ''social barriers" because it's political not Biblical.

 

[Daniel C]

No. Paul is, at most, making an exception to his general practice, in limiting the roles of women in certain particular local and historical situations.

To be honest this is why I don't go to church and why a lot of other guys won't go to church.

The churches are changing their policies for social and political reasons and not standing on the word of God/scripture.

To let women preach is not Biblical it's 'equality' and gender equality is born out of the tenant of a political ideology-communism. This is about the most anti-theist ideology ever created.

Biblically women should submit and we have listed reasons in this thread but people challenge scripture and undermine it,so....

 

[HatGuy]

I'm not actually upset.

The reason why I feel lectured is because you are projecting your own philosophical viewpoint in a manner which suggests I lack understanding and need to be taught. I didn't ask for this and the thing I resent most of all is you try to slide this view into the Bible implying it's Gods nature as well.

We clearly live in a universe and under a God that has hierarchy. God wiped out tribes in the OT because he had a chosen favoured people. The father sent the son. God,Mankind then nature. A president has more power and authority than a homeless person. A billionaire is higher up the economical ladder than the poor. And the Bible says this 1 Timothy 2:12 about the male female relationship.

So this talk you give me is not true and unbiblical. I don't bother to get into discussions about ''social barriers" because it's political not Biblical.

Ok, I get where you're coming from.

I guess my undertone may be a little snooty as I get a bit miff when people think that any talk of 'social barriers' or 'prejudice' immediately means I'm a liberal getting all political. Perhaps it makes me a little defensive by nature, I'm not sure. I'll try to be a little more circumspect.

I'm not really coming from a political point here, at least in my mind. But I do believe there is a gospel element that many people seem to miss because politics has hijacked an aspect of the gospel for its own purposes. Politics does that.

I guess this is why you thought it was off topic, but I'll let you know why I don't think it is.

It seems clear from the outset that God's promise to Abraham was that he would be a blessing to all nations. (Genesis 22:18). That means that the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham is the Church, but 'all nations' means all ethnicities.

In other words, the Church is called to be a multi-ethnic people.

The NT showcases this theme quite clearly. From John the Baptist's preaching in Matthew 3, we can see him rebuke the Jews for thinking that simple blood alone makes them God's favoured people. Jesus' entire ministry seems to buck against the trend of prejudice. Ephesians 2, which is really all about the church, talks about how hostility is broken down between Jew and Gentile because of the gospel. "Gentile", by the way, is the same word for "nations" in Greek (ethnos). Translators use 'gentiles' for consistency as some verses might be confusing, but the thrust of the New Testament is the promise of God's Church now being a multi-ethnic people. Heck, even Romans talks a lot about this. Paul uses a lot of his arguments to show that there should be no division in the church. (All who have faith are children of Abraham, not just Jews by blood, etc.).

Your point about natural hierarchy is well noted (except the God the Father and God the Son one needs more nuance), but it appears that in God's economy this has more to do with function than with position, and certainly has nothing to do with bloodline or race or... well, gender. And the point about billionaires and poor people is not a good example either, as it does seem to be that God has a big heart for the poor over the rich, and doesn't approve of consistent poverty.

The issue of function, however, does seem to speak to gender. What function should woman play and what function should men play? But given the scripture about how there is not Jew or Gentile, or male or female, etc. in Christ, it certainly means that social barriers between people are broken down as God himself does not play any favourites. God does not favour a man over a woman or one race over another.

The gospel breaks down social barriers and prejudice, but this doesn't mean that God calls all to the same function - a fact that Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 makes clear.

So my initial point was simply to show that 'salvation' certainly includes a breaking down of prejudice and social barriers because the point in the Galatians scripture quoted is to show that salvation is for all.

None of this is strictly political, however, and I would not classify myself as a modern liberal, so I'm not coming from that point of view, either.

 

[Strong in Him]

Not much to talk about. It's unambiguous scripture,so accept it or don't.

So it means what it says?
That Paul did not permit a specific woman to teach or dominate men; she had to be silent at all times?

Nothing to do with female leadership in the 21st century then; that's ok.

 

[Daniel C]

Ok, I get where you're coming from.

I guess my undertone may be a little snooty as I get a bit miff when people think that any talk of 'social barriers' or 'prejudice' immediately means I'm a liberal getting all political. Perhaps it makes me a little defensive by nature, I'm not sure. I'll try to be a little more circumspect.

I'm not really coming from a political point here, at least in my mind. But I do believe there is a gospel element that many people seem to miss because politics has hijacked an aspect of the gospel for its own purposes. Politics does that.

I guess this is why you thought it was off topic, but I'll let you know why I don't think it is.

It seems clear from the outset that God's promise to Abraham was that he would be a blessing to all nations. (Genesis 22:18). That means that the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham is the Church, but 'all nations' means all ethnicities.

In other words, the Church is called to be a multi-ethnic people.

The NT showcases this theme quite clearly. From John the Baptist's preaching in Matthew 3, we can see him rebuke the Jews for thinking that simple blood alone makes them God's favoured people. Jesus' entire ministry seems to buck against the trend of prejudice. Ephesians 2, which is really all about the church, talks about how hostility is broken down between Jew and Gentile because of the gospel. "Gentile", by the way, is the same word for "nations" in Greek (ethnos). Translators use 'gentiles' for consistency as some verses might be confusing, but the thrust of the New Testament is the promise of God's Church now being a multi-ethnic people. Heck, even Romans talks a lot about this. Paul uses a lot of his arguments to show that there should be no division in the church. (All who have faith are children of Abraham, not just Jews by blood, etc.).

Your point about natural hierarchy is well noted (except the God the Father and God the Son one needs more nuance), but it appears that in God's economy this has more to do with function than with position, and certainly has nothing to do with bloodline or race or... well, gender. And the point about billionaires and poor people is not a good example either, as it does seem to be that God has a big heart for the poor over the rich, and doesn't approve of consistent poverty.

The issue of function, however, does seem to speak to gender. What function should woman play and what function should men play? But given the scripture about how there is not Jew or Gentile, or male or female, etc. in Christ, it certainly means that social barriers between people are broken down as God himself does not play any favourites. God does not favour a man over a woman or one race over another.

The gospel breaks down social barriers and prejudice, but this doesn't mean that God calls all to the same function - a fact that Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 makes clear.

So my initial point was simply to show that 'salvation' certainly includes a breaking down of prejudice and social barriers because the point in the Galatians scripture quoted is to show that salvation is for all.

None of this is strictly political, however, and I would not classify myself as a modern liberal, so I'm not coming from that point of view, either.

Multi-ethnic? See, this is what I was talking about. The topic can be about the male/female relationship and you try and make a comparison between race. Race and gender are different, so why the attempt to draw a similarity between the two? The Bible makes a clear distinction between man and woman so why don't you?

Trying to link things up like this to validate a belief without scripture and using very ambiguous means I think is insincere.

Trust Gods word.

 

[HatGuy]

Multi-ethnic? See, this is what I was talking about. The topic can be about the male/female relationship and you try and make a comparison between race. Race and gender are different, so why the attempt to draw a similarity between the two? The Bible makes a clear distinction between man and woman so why don't you?

Trying to link things up like this to validate a belief without scripture and using very ambiguously means I think is insincere.

Trust Gods word.

I do trust God's word dude.

I think it's not cool to say I'm being 'ambiguous' as if I'm trying to sneak something in through the back door and being dishonest or insincere. Now it's you who is lecturing and making character assumptions that are unwarranted .

The point about "multi-ethnic" is that it does relate to gender because it has to do with prejudice. Some men have a prejudice against women, and some women have a prejudice against men.

Let me state categorically that this argument ought to also be used quite strongly against a feminist Christian who has a clear prejudice against men and assumes all men are misogynists etc. Feminists are just guilty as the supposed evil they fight. Most of modern social justice has to do with demonizing another side, not with creating peace. But the gospel creates peace, it does not demonize others.

I say that to show you that I'm not some liberal pushing some liberalized feminism in the church, but I am concerned about peace in the church and prejudice.

And to accuse me of making no distinction between man and woman is unwarranted. I've said absolutely nowhere that there is no distinction. In fact, I've even used phrases like "two genders" quite deliberately so it's clear I don't support LGBTQ politics. You're projecting your beef with the liberal political arguments playing out in your American churches onto the wrong person. (By the way, I don't even live in America, and don't live by the polarized politics there.)

 

[Daniel C]

So it means what it says?
That Paul did not permit a specific woman to teach or dominate men; she had to be silent at all times?

Nothing to do with female leadership in the 21st century then; that's ok.

Are you serious? He's addressing the woman gender not an individual 1 Timothy 2:9

I would prefer it if people like yourself would just confess you are going to insist on women preaching whether it's scripture or not rather then hide it and make deliberate repetitive fallacious arguments.

 

[-Sasha-]

It seems like when Tradition in terms of historical Church practices and exegesis of the Church Fathers is out of the picture, the waters can become very murky on any topic, let alone one which has such political implications in the current time.

 

[Daniel C]

I do trust God's word dude.

I think it's not cool to say I'm being 'ambiguous' as if I'm trying to sneak something in through the back door and being dishonest or insincere. Now it's you who is lecturing and making character assumptions that are unwarranted .

The point about "multi-ethnic" is that it does relate to gender because it has to do with prejudice. Some men have a prejudice against women, and some women have a prejudice against men.

Let me state categorically that this argument ought to also be used quite strongly against a feminist Christian who has a clear prejudice against men and assumes all men are misogynists etc. Feminists are just guilty as the supposed evil they fight. Most of modern social justice has to do with demonizing another side, not with creating peace. But the gospel creates peace, it does not demonize others.

I say that to show you that I'm not some liberal pushing some liberalized feminism in the church, but I am concerned about peace in the church and prejudice.

And to accuse me of making no distinction between man and woman is unwarranted. I've said absolutely nowhere that there is no distinction. In fact, I've even used phrases like "two genders" quite deliberately so it's clear I don't support LGBTQ politics. You're projecting your beef with the liberal political arguments playing out in your American churches onto the wrong person. (By the way, I don't even live in America, and don't live by the polarized politics there.)

'My American churches' haha now you are busted. I'm not in America so you made a misjudgment on this situation.

You do keep bringing up this multi-ethnic idea, I just respond.

I'm starting to lecture myself am I? Ok well mine will be scripture based: Proverbs 3:5

 

[HatGuy]

'My American churches' haha now you are busted. I'm not in America so you made a misjudgment on this situation.

Hahaha, okay, fair enough, I did.

But have you projected your beef with modern liberalism onto me? It certainly seems so.

You do keep bringing up this multi-ethnic idea, I just respond.

I'm starting to lecture myself am I? Ok well my will be scripture based: Proverbs 3:5

I should hope we're all trying to be scripturally based and trusting in the Lord.

But you do come to a theology forum to discuss theology and pull things apart and see them from different angles and learn and stretch yourself and have conversation and banter and heated debate. Otherwise, what on earth are you doing here? I don't think simply saying, "My idea is scripturally based and I trust in the Lord, and obviously you don't because you disagree with me," is a good way to respond to anyone, especially on a forum designed for debate.

 

[Paidiske]

To be honest this is why I don't go to church and why a lot of other guys won't go to church.

The churches are changing their policies for social and political reasons and not standing on the word of God/scripture.

Whether or not you got to church is not my concern.

But I take the positions I do for the sake of the gospel, and not for social or political reasons. The radical equality of men and women is a profoundly theological position, not a worldly agenda, for many of us.

To let women preach is not Biblical it's 'equality' and gender equality is born out of the tenant of a political ideology-communism. This is about the most anti-theist ideology ever created.

Oh good grief. No, it's not a communist ideology. The reign of God is not a communist utopia.

Biblically women should submit and we have listed reasons in this thread but people challenge scripture and undermine it,so....

So here's the challenge for you. Given that you stand where you do, and others of us stand where we do, and neither of us is going to convince the other in the foreseeable future... how are you going to love your neighbours, with whom you disagree?

 

[Daniel C]

Hahaha, okay, fair enough, I did.

But have you projected your beef with modern liberalism onto me? It certainly seems so.


I should hope we're all trying to be scripturally based and trusting in the Lord.

But you do come to a theology forum to discuss theology and pull things apart and see them from different angles and learn and stretch yourself and have conversation and banter and heated debate. Otherwise, what on earth are you doing here? I don't think simply saying, "My idea is scripturally based and I trust in the Lord, and obviously you don't because you disagree with me," is a good way to respond to anyone, especially on a forum designed for debate.

A beef with liberalism and projecting it onto you? I don't know about that.

Debate is one thing but I think....

We should try to harmonize scripture,not undermine it right? So when I see people putting themselves in opposition with scripture with nothing but personal opinion, I'm not going to support that.

BE AWARE!The Pharisees tried using this strategy against Jesus. Putting him in opposition with Moses' law Matthew 19 1-8 and putting him in opposition with Caesars law, the tax law Matthew 22 15-22.

They tried to trap our lord by putting him in opposition with scripture. Are you obedient to the law like Christ or undermine it like the Pharisees?

 

[Daniel C]

Whether or not you got to church is not my concern.

But I take the positions I do for the sake of the gospel, and not for social or political reasons. The radical equality of men and women is a profoundly theological position, not a worldly agenda, for many of us.



Oh good grief. No, it's not a communist ideology. The reign of God is not a communist utopia.



So here's the challenge for you. Given that you stand where you do, and others of us stand where we do, and neither of us is going to convince the other in the foreseeable future... how are you going to love your neighbours, with whom you disagree?

This challenge.I don't have a problem with those I disagree with. So I'm not working for others downfall I simply don't agree with their ideas. I don't know what else to say.

 

[Tone]

Maybe another reason for the "submission" (I would say low profile) of women is because it is just not a pretty thing (more so than men) to see a woman being brutally and unspeakably martyred for being the leader of a group, which is what the persecuters often go for.

*Maybe if women were leaders as common as men, millions more would have been martyred...

Remember, this was right before the persecutions, when the Spirit would have forseen the need to preserve a remnant through slaughter and exile.

*I don't think all biblical reasons are a matter of arguing over the letter, but the principle of men laying down their lives for women and, therefore, being in a leadership role to do so, may be the spirit of these letters.

 

[Strong in Him]

Are you serious? He's addressing the woman gender not an individual

No, the verse says A woman - and you said it was unambiguous.

I would prefer it if people like yourself would just confess you are going to insist on women preaching whether it's scripture or not

It is Scriptural that women took God's word to men.
In the OT, Deborah, Huldah, Miriam and Isaiah's wife prophesied. In the NT Mary Magdalene and the woman at the well gave the Gospel to others, and many women helped the early church to preach the Good News - Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia, and women listed in Romans 16.
So IF 1 Timothy 2:12 is meant to be taken literally; there were many who broke it.
IF Paul wanted women to be silent, he changed his mind, because he previously taught that women could pray and prophesy.

rather then hide it and make deliberate repetitive fallacious arguments.

Talking of fallacious arguments, was it not you who said:

All of Gods elected OT prophets were men.

Yet when I showed you you were wrong, you had no answer.

IF we are meant to interpret all Scripture literally AND insist that it all applies to us today, then you could say that Paul is instructing women everywhere to be silent and not teach.
But we are not meant to read Scripture like that - and I don't believe that even you would say otherwise.
You say this verse is unambiguous - so therefore, "silence" means "silence" and you should not allow women to even say 'amen' to the prayers; never mind read the Scriptures. If you do allow that, then you are admitting that you do not apply this "unambiguous" verse literally.

And if you DO say that all Scripture should be read literally and applies to us today, I hope you tell any widows under the age of 60 that they are idle busybodies and not entitled to financial help from the church - because that is that Paul said, 1 Timothy 5:9-13. I'm sure you realise it would be inconsistent to apply one verse of Scripture literally and not others.