Biblical Roles

[JD011089]

Hello Friends, Just a curious question to all. What are your thoughts on the roles of Men and Women when it comes to living the life god has intended for us to live?

 

[Jonaitis]

I affirm that men should be the leader, provider, and protector of the home, in the church, and in the political realm. I affirm that women should be subjected to, to support, and to help the man where she doesn't mix into his main role in the home, in the church, and in the political realm. There are still some women I've personally met that still hold true to these, but most are feminized by modern ideology to usurp the authority and roles God made each of us in.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Answer from GotQuestions.org

What are the roles of the husband and wife in a family?

Although males and females are equal in relationship to Christ, the Scriptures give specific roles to each in marriage. The husband is to assume leadership in the home (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23). This leadership should not be dictatorial, condescending, or patronizing to the wife, but should be in accordance with the example of Christ leading the church. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word” (Ephesians 5:25-26). Christ loved the church (His people) with compassion, mercy, forgiveness, respect, and selflessness. In this same way husbands are to love their wives.

Wives are to submit to the authority of their husbands. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22-24). Although women should submit to their husbands, the Bible also tells men several times how they are supposed to treat their wives. The husband is not to take on the role of the dictator, but should show respect for his wife and her opinions. In fact, Ephesians 5:28-29 exhorts men to love their wives in the same way that they love their own bodies, feeding and caring for them. A man’s love for his wife should be the same as Christ’s love for His body, the church.

“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” (Colossians 3:18-19). “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers” (1 Peter 3:7). From these verses we see that love and respect characterize the roles of both husbands and wives. If these are present, then authority, headship, love, and submission will be no problem for either partner.

In regard to the division of responsibilities in the home, the Bible instructs husbands to provide for their families. This means he works and makes enough money to sufficiently provide all the necessities of life for his wife and children. To fail to do so has definite spiritual consequences. “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). So, a man who makes no effort to provide for his family cannot rightly call himself a Christian. This does not mean that the wife cannot assist in supporting the family—Proverbs 31 demonstrates that a godly wife may surely do so—but providing for the family is not primarily her responsibility; it is her husband’s. While a husband should help with the children and with household chores (thereby fulfilling his duty to love his wife), Proverbs 31 also makes it clear that the home is to be the woman’s primary area of influence and responsibility. Even if she must stay up late and rise up early, her family is well cared for. This is not an easy lifestyle for many women—especially in affluent Western nations. However, far too many women are stressed out and stretched to the breaking point. To prevent such stress, both husband and wife should prayerfully reorder their priorities and follow the Bible’s instructions on their roles.

Conflicts regarding the division of labor in a marriage are bound to occur, but if both partners are submitted to Christ, these conflicts will be minimal. If a couple finds arguments over this issue are frequent and vehement, or if arguments seem to characterize the marriage, the problem is a spiritual one. In such an instance, the partners should recommit themselves to prayer and submission to Christ first, then to one another in an attitude of love and respect.

 

[AvgJoe]

Hello Friends, Just a curious question to all. What are your thoughts on the roles of Men and Women when it comes to living the life god has intended for us to live?

Here are links to a few articles that I hope will be helpful to you:

What is biblical manhood?
What is biblical womanhood?
Are men and women equal in God’s eyes?

 

[Paidiske]

You might like to check out the Egalitarian forum here on CF for an approach which sees men and women as truly equal.

 

[helmut]

Hello Friends, Just a curious question to all. What are your thoughts on the roles of Men and Women when it comes to living the life god has intended for us to live?

I think much of the roles are culturally determined, and the Bible gives us freedom to define them.

But as to what Scripture says:
Husband and Wife should be subjected to each other:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,
22 wives to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

This is more literal than the usual rendering, which splits the sentence into two.

After that sentence, the women are more exhorted to subject, and then the men are exhorted to love their wives. While no-one assumes that this means that women have no duty to love their husbands, the passage is often read as if husband should not be subjected to their wives (but what else does "one another" means?).

As to roles in Church, we see in Rom 16:7, that women can be apostles. In the dark middle ages, when this was deemed impossible, the name "Junias" was invented as a means to describe Junia as a man, this started, AFAIK, in the 13th century.

Other roles are prophets (Acts 21:9; 1.Cor 11:5) and deacons (Rom 16:1; Tit 3:11).

So it is a good advice to take Gal 3:28 as a basic rule about the role of man and woman.

This is not the whole picture, but I hope I could set out the basic outlines of biblical statements about that theme.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I see men and women as equal with respect to value, but they have different responsibilities as members of the Church. Specifically, I believe men have been tasked with the office of the ministry in the Church and women are to support (ordinarily, but not exclusively). In the secular realm, however, whatever position a woman may hold or pursuit is of little relevance to the Gospel. We are to respect our authorities, regardless of gender - whether it be a king or a queen - as far as it doesn't cause us to sin.

The reason men and women in Church have different responsibilities is not cultural or political (as some modern commentary may suggest), but deeply theological. That's the reason Paul gives in 1 Timothy 2. Same as with marriage, it's not only a union between a man and a woman, but a profound image of God's love and grace - the relationship between God and mankind. Ephesians 5:22-32

Point is, I believe what Paul is talking about regarding gender roles and marriage to be closely related, and they have been instituted by God as a visible sign of His grace for all generations. To put it a bit more forcefully: it's not so fruitful to ask questions like "Can a woman teach (in Church)?" but rather "What's the significance of every priestly and apostolic office in Scriptures being held by men? And why was Christ born a man?"

I think what is often considered gender issues in our day is, at its heart, perhaps more to do with individualism; a person's own "right" to do anything. Although there is freedom in Christ and all members of the Church form a royal priesthood, this kind of modern individualism does not really belong in Christian thinking. Equality does not mean having the same responsibilities.

 

[helmut]

The reason men and women in Church have different responsibilities is not cultural or political (as some modern commentary may suggest)

To avoid a misunderstanding: When I mentioned cultural determination of roles I thought of secular roles, like woman responsible to plow a field (AFAIK traditional in Serbia) or men responsible for that (traditional in Germany) ...

To put it a bit more forcefully: it's not so fruitful to ask questions like "Can a woman teach (in Church)?" but rather "What's the significance of every priestly and apostolic office in Scriptures being held by men? And why was Christ born a man?"

I miss the question "What was the purpose that the first role, that of apostles (see 1.Cor 12:28), was open to women, as we can see from Rom 16:7?"

We should not be overtaken by the spirit of our age, but we should neither be overtaken the the spirit of former ages that comes through tradition. We should look what Scripture says, whole Scripture.

 

[Daniel9v9]

To avoid a misunderstanding: When I mentioned cultural determination of roles I thought of secular roles, like woman responsible to plow a field (AFAIK traditional in Serbia) or men responsible for that (traditional in Germany) ...


I miss the question "What was the purpose that the first role, that of apostles (see 1.Cor 12:28), was open to women, as we can see from Rom 16:7?"

We should not be overtaken by the spirit of our age, but we should neither be overtaken the the spirit of former ages that comes through tradition. We should look what Scripture says, whole Scripture.

Either you’re missing what I’m saying or I’m missing what you’re saying. But to keep things short, my point is:

1. Man and woman are of equal value.

2. Man and woman, as members of the body of Christ, that is, the Church, have different responsibilities.

3. The reason for the different responsibilities are not rooted in cultural, social or political issues, but are theological.

 

[helmut]

1. Man and woman are of equal value.

Agreed (Gal 3:28; Eph 5,20-21 etc.)

2. Man and woman, as members of the body of Christ, that is, the Church, have different responsibilities.

Where does the Bible tell this?

3. The reason for the different responsibilities are not rooted in cultural, social or political issues, but are theological.

Much of this theology is based on misrepresentation of Scripture, e.g. when contrary to what Paul says in 1.Cor 11.5, the order to keep the women silent (they shall not interrupt the service by asking questions) in 1.Cor 14 is read as an order that women should generally be silent (no preaching etc.).
Can you show me a real biblical basis for such theology?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Agreed (Gal 3:28; Eph 5,20-21 etc.)

Where does the Bible tell this?

Much of this theology is based on misrepresentation of Scripture, e.g. when contrary to what Paul says in 1.Cor 11.5, the order to keep the women silent (they shall not interrupt the service by asking questions) in 1.Cor 14 is read as an order that women should generally be silent (no preaching etc.).
Can you show me a real biblical basis for such theology?

Throughout Scripture, the office of a Church ministry has been held by man. If we claim otherwise, we'd have to ignore significant portions of Scripture. cf. the Levitical priesthood and the 12 apostles - all assumed by men and women were positively excluded. Although there have been both male prophets and female prophetesses in Church history, these are extraordinary and should not be confused with the office that Paul passes onto Timothy when he explicitly explains the requirements for that particular office, which is to be held by a man, and which is not used as a genderneutral term, such as mankind, but specifically man. We can know this from the context, for further down Paul goes on to mention women.

Paul's underlying reason for the above is deeply theological: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." And then a second theological reason, closely related to the first: "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Paul points to Genesis for good reason; By God's design, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

In my previous post I mentioned the connection between Paul's teaching on gender and marriage, and I think what is written in Ephesians 5 is very explicit and perfectly in line with Genesis, when it reads: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Along with an explanation of marriage: "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."
Here again, Paul is giving a thoroughly theological reason.

There is overwhelming evidence that the pastoral or priestly office is held by man, both from Scripture itself and history. There is, scarce and ambiguous evidence at best, that women should hold this office. Though I can appreciate that many modern scholars will disagree with this; but that's at least how it's been understood for thousands of years.

In short, from Scripture, we can find that there are extraordinary cases of women being called as prophetesses, but the office of a teacher in the NT sense is ordinarily appointed to man; again, for theological reasons and not cultural, social or political.

I think to say that men and women have equal responsibilities in Scripture is not that accurate. Consider circumcision of boys, and the fact that women can bear children, for example. But what I was getting at above was (1) different responsibilities does not mean that one is more valuable or profitable than the other. And (2) there are deep theological reasons for the distinguishments Scriptures make - they are not by chance or arbitrary. Really, they all ultimately point to Christ and that's why we should take care to apply these things appropriately and in line with God's Word.

 

[helmut]

Throughout Scripture, the office of a Church ministry has been held by man.

That's not true. In the OT we have female prophets as Miriam, Deborah, or Hulda. In the NT we also have female prophets, in Acts 21:9; 1.Cor 11:5. There are female deacons (Rom 16:1; 1.Tim 3:11), and even a female apostle (Rom 16:7).

Then there are ministries where it can be debated whether they were "held" by women. When Priscilla taught Apollos (with assistance from her husband), was she a teacher? When the woman proclaimed the resurrection to the twelve, were they evangelists?

Paul's underlying reason for the above is deeply theological: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." And then a second theological reason, closely related to the first: "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Well, the second problem in this passages is the statement that a woman will be saved by childbearing. Doesn't fit well with what is elsewhere said about salvation ...The first problem is in what you not quoted: That Paul explicitly states that he does not allow a woman to teach (what did he think of Priscilla, then? Did he not know what Luke tells us?). Now a glimpse in 1.Cor 7 makes clear that Paul distinguished between what the Lord days and what he said.

Paul certainly had a reason to say he did not allow a woman to teach, and if we knew the situation these words are directed at (there are speculations by some commentators that something "gnostic" was involved) we would probably understand why he wrote this.

I don't want to use a passage in Scripture which is unclear use to obliterate passages that are clear!

Paul points to Genesis for good reason

The main reason has to do with the Greek word kephalos, rendered "head". Unlike "head" in English, it has no connotation of being a ruler or so. A "head" (kephalos) in Greek could denote the first in a row, the last in series, or some outstanding token. That has much to do with honor, but not with subordination. In Eph 5, Paul goes from "head" to Genesis, here we see what man being head means: Adam was superior because he was created first (=head). No less and no more.

I think what is written in Ephesians 5 is very explicit and perfectly in line with Genesis, when it reads: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

You are mislead by the translation you use. A more literal translation of Eph 5:22 reads: "Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord."

So, where does the "submit" come from? The answer is: from the previous verse. The submission demanded from the wives in Eph 5:22 is part of the mutual submission demanded in Eph 5:21. You may escape this conclusion if you postulate, that the submission should be as unilateral as the love, which Paul demands only from the husbands, not the wives. I think love and submission should be mutual, but we may ponder on the issue why submission is stressed for the wives and love for the husbands.

There is overwhelming evidence that the pastoral or priestly office is held by man, both from Scripture itself and history.

What is "pastoral". The pastor, priest or whatever title is used usually combines several ministries that are distinguished in the NT. Woman could be apostles (not ion the 12, but like Paul), prophets and deacons, one may argue that they could be teachers or evangelists. As to other ministries (performing miracles, admonishing fellow Christians, being "shephard" etc) there is no verse in the NT reserving them for men, and AFAIK no example of woman in such ministry. So what does this tell for offices in our churches?

And what is "priestly"? The OT word for a priest is hieros, and according to Scripture every Christian (male or female) is such a "priest", 1.Pet 2:5. Our word "priest" stems from presbuteros, which was used as the title of a member of the board of a Jewish synagogue, alongside with episcopus, the title of a member of the leading board in a hellenistic association. So the leaders of a local church were presbuteroi=episkopoi (occasionally, other terms were also used). And there is evidence that the male title was also used for woman: a tombstone of a (Christian!) presbuteros with a definitely female name. Yes, that's scarce, but it undermines the statement that the term used was definitely male (it was maskuline, but woman included).

In short, from Scripture, we can find that there are extraordinary cases of women being called as prophetesses

These "extraordinary cases" were frequent enough to be mentioned (and regulated!) by Paul in 1.Cor 11:5.

(1) different responsibilities does not mean that one is more valuable or profitable than the other.

Well, even the word "head" (gr. kephalos) implies "more value" (though no higher hierarchical status). You should reconsider what you say.

 

[Daniel9v9]

That's not true. In the OT we have female prophets as Miriam, Deborah, or Hulda. In the NT we also have female prophets, in Acts 21:9; 1.Cor 11:5. There are female deacons (Rom 16:1; 1.Tim 3:11), and even a female apostle (Rom 16:7).

Then there are ministries where it can be debated whether they were "held" by women. When Priscilla taught Apollos (with assistance from her husband), was she a teacher? When the woman proclaimed the resurrection to the twelve, were they evangelists?


Well, the second problem in this passages is the statement that a woman will be saved by childbearing. Doesn't fit well with what is elsewhere said about salvation ...The first problem is in what you not quoted: That Paul explicitly states that he does not allow a woman to teach (what did he think of Priscilla, then? Did he not know what Luke tells us?). Now a glimpse in 1.Cor 7 makes clear that Paul distinguished between what the Lord days and what he said.

Paul certainly had a reason to say he did not allow a woman to teach, and if we knew the situation these words are directed at (there are speculations by some commentators that something "gnostic" was involved) we would probably understand why he wrote this.

I don't want to use a passage in Scripture which is unclear use to obliterate passages that are clear!


The main reason has to do with the Greek word kephalos, rendered "head". Unlike "head" in English, it has no connotation of being a ruler or so. A "head" (kephalos) in Greek could denote the first in a row, the last in series, or some outstanding token. That has much to do with honor, but not with subordination. In Eph 5, Paul goes from "head" to Genesis, here we see what man being head means: Adam was superior because he was created first (=head). No less and no more.


You are mislead by the translation you use. A more literal translation of Eph 5:22 reads: "Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord."

So, where does the "submit" come from? The answer is: from the previous verse. The submission demanded from the wives in Eph 5:22 is part of the mutual submission demanded in Eph 5:21. You may escape this conclusion if you postulate, that the submission should be as unilateral as the love, which Paul demands only from the husbands, not the wives. I think love and submission should be mutual, but we may ponder on the issue why submission is stressed for the wives and love for the husbands.


What is "pastoral". The pastor, priest or whatever title is used usually combines several ministries that are distinguished in the NT. Woman could be apostles (not ion the 12, but like Paul), prophets and deacons, one may argue that they could be teachers or evangelists. As to other ministries (performing miracles, admonishing fellow Christians, being "shephard" etc) there is no verse in the NT reserving them for men, and AFAIK no example of woman in such ministry. So what does this tell for offices in our churches?

And what is "priestly"? The OT word for a priest is hieros, and according to Scripture every Christian (male or female) is such a "priest", 1.Pet 2:5. Our word "priest" stems from presbuteros, which was used as the title of a member of the board of a Jewish synagogue, alongside with episcopus, the title of a member of the leading board in a hellenistic association. So the leaders of a local church were presbuteroi=episkopoi (occasionally, other terms were also used). And there is evidence that the male title was also used for woman: a tombstone of a (Christian!) presbuteros with a definitely female name. Yes, that's scarce, but it undermines the statement that the term used was definitely male (it was maskuline, but woman included).


These "extraordinary cases" were frequent enough to be mentioned (and regulated!) by Paul in 1.Cor 11:5.


Well, even the word "head" (gr. kephalos) implies "more value" (though no higher hierarchical status). You should reconsider what you say.

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate, but I think you're confounding many issues here and you've missed quite a few key things I've said - I don't want to go in circles. The Biblical understanding of a prophet, an apostle, a priest, a pastor, a deacon and the universal priesthood, though they overlap, are distinct offices or roles, but sometimes used in a wide sense and a narrow sense. We have to carefully distinguish based on the context. In touching on issues on Church and Ministry that are taught differently in different branches of Christendom, it is not surprising that we disagree.

Final quick points for emphasis and then I'll leave this thread alone:
1. A prophetess is not the same role as the apostolic office that Paul passes onto Timothy and consequently to the Church; the ministry of the Church. We don't have prophets and prophetesses in our day uttering the word of God that is of the same authority as the Holy Scriptures (adding or deducting from Scripture), but we do have the ministry of the Church that teaches from the Word of God (and not by direct divine revelation such as was in Moses' or Miriam's case), namely the Gospel of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

2. You're missing the significance of what Paul is saying and his consistency of thought. He's not talking about alternative ways of salvation or subordination, but different roles instituted by God, for the purpose of reflecting God's love and grace, ultimately finding their culmination in the person and works of Jesus Christ.

3. Even though God used prophets, apostles and many extraordinary means for establishing the Church, that does not mean that the office of the ministry as instituted and established, first by Christ, built by the apostles, to us is the same. In short, it is clear from Paul's instructions what he expects of a minister in the Church, and that office is decidedly given to man.

 

[Charlotte2424]

I think men and women are equal, but different. They are not called to do the same things, but their roles are equally valuable.

 

[~Zao~]

I think men and women are equal, but different. They are not called to do the same things, but their roles are equally valuable.

I don’t think it’s possible to determine the roles that God calls His people to perform.

btw, welcome!. May you find love, joy and peace within these forums.

 

[helmut]

I had to think about what you said. But now ...

The Biblical understanding of a prophet, an apostle, a priest, a pastor, a deacon and the universal priesthood, though they overlap, are distinct offices or roles, but sometimes used in a wide sense and a narrow sense. We have to carefully distinguish based on the context.

It's surprising that after you said this you missed the role of prophets in the NT (see below).

In touching on issues on Church and Ministry that are taught differently in different branches of Christendom, it is not surprising that we disagree.

There are certainly differences which cannot be solved, because there is no crucial argument to decide between the different exegeses involved - you mentioned the possibility of arguing in circles. But we can try to look on the biblical arguments and learn from one another.

We don't have prophets and prophetesses in our day uttering the word of God that is of the same authority as the Holy Scriptures (adding or deducting from Scripture)

I doubt that there ever were such prophets in NT times. No book in the NT was added by prophets. The evangelists (Gospel writers) and Apostles were no prophets, and the only prophetic book in the NT was not by one who ministered in a church, but by one who was banned to Patmos island and had no opportunity to minister in a (local) church.

And the utterances of the prophets were not equal to Scripture. Prophecies should be judged (1:Cor 14:29; 1.Ts 5:20-21; cf. Acts 17:11). Your description of the role of NT prophets is wrong.

I was taught that we need the spiritual gift of those that can tell the church what God wants in the situation the church encounters. But I strongly distrust prophets that teach doctrines that are added to what Scripture teaches.

2. You're missing the significance of what Paul is saying and his consistency of thought. He's not talking about alternative ways of salvation or subordination

Of course not. There is consistency in what Paul says. As to 1.Tim 2, it is a matter of not understanding the context, but I don't think that he there teaches any "alternative ways".

3. Even though God used prophets, apostles and many extraordinary means for establishing the Church, that does not mean that the office of the ministry as instituted and established, first by Christ, built by the apostles, to us is the same. In short, it is clear from Paul's instructions what he expects of a minister in the Church, and that office is decidedly given to man.

You did not address the argument I brought that it is not "decidedly" that elders (or bishops, or whatever you may call that office) should be men. The term used is masculine, but as with deacons, women are included.

And as to the picture you present - I cannot believe that what is said in Rom 12, 1.Cor 12, Eph4 etc. is just about an exceptional initial phase, and the constituency of the established church is only to be found in the pastoral epistles. We have different lists of ministries or gifts, no two are the same. Thus the Spirit teaches that there is flexibility in the way a church may be organized. We have to look on the principles, not chose one "model" and declare it the only possible one.