Questions & doubts over women in Scripture

[Andrea4501]

Hello all,

Something that has been distressing me, and bringing out doubt and questions about Christianity, has been its treatment of women in Scripture.

From my understanding, the Old Testament defined women as being worth less compared to men (in monetary value), unclean most of the time, under the authority of husband/father, having no control over marriage, and being viewed as property much like animals.

Now, with the coming of Jesus, everything changes. He interacts with women, treats them as equals, and most importantly - freely opens salvation to them. He seems to be more concerned about spiritual uncleanliness on the inside, rather than the outside. He set the example for treatment of women.

But, after the gospels comes the degrading of women again. We're to be silent in church, not teach men, nor go above their authority.

It sounds like Jesus was preaching one message and both Paul and Peter were later preaching another. Jesus, obviously, would be the ultimate example. But Scripture is written by man and influenced by God, so why the discrepancy?

Also -- why are women oppressed in the New Testament? Why is it supposedly important to follow these kind of Scriptures today? Personally, I sing about God's glory at church and chat with people in church (before/after sermon, never during, out of respect for the pastor), and once in awhile during a sermon the pastor will end one of his important points with "Amen?" to which we respond with, well, "Amen!" hehe.

And, last and most important, if people are "slipping this issue under the rug" and not paying attention, don't you think this opens a slippery slope toward other topics presented in the New Testament? What else can be excused or disregarded?

I guess my main issue is reading about God's love, and wondering if it really is love, if He treats some of his human creations as second class citizens. :/ Am I fooling myself into thinking He really loves me, when he made me into a female? (Heh, there's more that goes into this love questioning, but it'll be saved for another post. )

Thank you for any kind of insight you can provide. And while I welcome feedback & thoughts from both sexes, I'm particularly interested in how women view these things in the Bible. How do you interpret Scripture on this? Are you silent in church? Do you willingly put yourself under the authority of the men in your life?

 

[Willtor]

I don't think Paul and Peter had such a drastically different understanding of the role of women, as compared with Jesus. You know the verses that are typically used to argue that women shouldn't teach men or be silent in Church, but those are woefully misinterpreted (and inconsistently interpreted, in my experience). On the contrary, do some study on Phoebe and Junia (two women referenced by Paul). I think you'll find a very different picture of women presented than what you are used to in the Church.

 

[wayseer]

Hello all,

Something that has been distressing me, and bringing out doubt and questions about Christianity, has been its treatment of women in Scripture.

I guess my main issue is reading about God's love, and wondering if it really is love, if He treats some of his human creations as second class citizens.

Hi

You have to remember that the scriptures were written anywhere between 2 - 3000 years ago. What the texts reflect is the social and cultural norms of the era. Women where less than second class citizens - they were chattel - they could be traded and sold as slaves. The only use of a women was to produce a male heir. Such was normal behaviour - it was a very patriarchal world.

What you might like to pursue is what is known as feminist theology. The direction of feminist theology is to look at those texts which circulate around women and to see what God is really saying. This is challenging stuff but the reality is that we are looking at scripture in a whole different way as to what Sunday School teaches. The question being asked is - what is God saying to us in the 21st century?

If you want to pursue this matter further you might like to consider raising the matter of the General Theology board.

 

[Bouke285]

Another thing you need to realize, scripture calls on men to treat women with respect which, in turn enables the woman to treat the man with respect. God has had a plan for the relationship of man and women from the beginning. He calls both to fulfill equal yet sometimes different roles supporting each other along the way. We have greatly twisted the idea and are focused on the wrong aspect of the woman/man equality. We as men are supposed to give you as women the respect which enables the God chosen relationship to continue in harmony through Jesus.

 

[victoryuntojesus]

But Scripture is written by man and influenced by God, so why the discrepancy?

I've highlighted certain portions of this because I believe that you've unwittingly answered your own question here. Whilst Scripture is wonderful and fantastic and God-given, it was written by just man. Man, as it were, is subject to folly, to mistake, to discrepancy.

If you'll allow for an analogy: I have a friend who loves to smell of licorice. I, personally, vomit whenever I'm exposed to the smell too long. We both smell the same smell, but have wildly different interpretations of that - does that mean that one of us is wrong? Perhaps - but what it really means is that the individual holds the greatest influence over their own perception of things.

God gives us a message, and two people interpret it wildly differently, you see. Unfortunately, there is no absolute way of stopping man from making mistakes, not even where God is concerned!

Also -- why are women oppressed in the New Testament?

Simple culture. I know that Jesus preached a fabulous message which encouraged equality, but both Jew and gentile viewed Jesus as just a man. Have you ever heard the saying "I'm just one man, I can't do a thing!"? We impress that message onto other people, too - and so when one person is trying to preach a change, people look down upon said person as "just one guy."

The culture lead to oppression of women. That isn't the fault of the Bible - the Bible isn't just a story book, it's a historical account. The birth of one man, even if he is God, simply can't change an entire culture's perception of women -- not while that pesky God-given free will is in the way!

Why is it supposedly important to follow these kind of Scriptures today? Personally, I sing about God's glory at church and chat with people in church (before/after sermon, never during, out of respect for the pastor), and once in awhile during a sermon the pastor will end one of his important points with "Amen?" to which we respond with, well, "Amen!" hehe.

I know which passages you're referring to here, but I can't recall their placement off the top of my head. Corinthians somewhere, or Timothy?

What you must understand is something you've also touched upon in your own post - this isn't Jesus' teaching, this is Paul's teaching! Paul doesn't suffer a woman to teach, Paul wants them to be silent during church.

This did come about because of women being given more freedom, though! You need to look at the cultural and historical context surrounding a passage when you read it - women were finally allowed in the synagogues!! However, they were made to sit on the opposite side of the men - as they were uneducated, and seated so far from their husbands and brothers, they would call out across the synagogue to their families to ask them to explain a point that the Rabbi made.

Women were told to keep silent to keep the peace; to keep the service flowing; so that there weren't constant interuptions.

And, last and most important, if people are "slipping this issue under the rug" and not paying attention, don't you think this opens a slippery slope toward other topics presented in the New Testament? What else can be excused or disregarded?

I heartily agree that pushing serious issues under the rug creates a slippery-slope for more things to come, and that it opens the park up for other things to be excused or disregarded - tell me, what is your view on women wearing pants? Somewhere in Deuteronomy is the reason that I've mostly stopped wearing pants, but many woman wear pants to church - is this passage in Deuteronomy being pushed under the rug?

Perhaps it is, perhaps it is! Understanding here must also be taken with cultural and historical context in place, though. Men's clothing and women's clothing, back in the day, was very set in stone and rigid. Pants were men's clothes, dresses were women's clothes. That was just how it was, full stop.

Today, though, women's pants are being manufactured - pants specifically tailored to women's physiques and women's tastes. This means that it's harder to draw the line between the clothing of a man and the clothing of a woman, and thus this passage is quite frequently 'pushed under the rug' - but in this case, where setting interpretations would be ridiculously difficult (and stupid, to be frank!), I personally feel that it would be better to leave it under the rug, and simply let it out when people choose to make their own personal calls on this.

I guess my main issue is reading about God's love, and wondering if it really is love, if He treats some of his human creations as second class citizens. :/ Am I fooling myself into thinking He really loves me, when he made me into a female? (Heh, there's more that goes into this love questioning, but it'll be saved for another post. )

Did you know that "Adam" has Hebrew roots in the equivalent for humankind, and not just for males? My point here, however loopy that question was, it that God doesn't treat you like a second-class citizen - other citizens do. God loves all creations.

If you will allow, a biology lesson: mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is something that allows our cells to respire. Without this DNA, we're unable to survive. That's just a fact. Guess what? Every single person's mtDNA can be traced back to one woman!!! If God didn't love you as much as everybody else, he wouldn't have given you such a wonderful gift - men are incapable of passing on mtDNA. It's a gift reserved solely for women.

Without women, humans cannot survive (Adam was obviously an excuse to this rule, given that God created him directly). If God didn't love you, would he really gift you with such an awesome power?

How do you interpret Scripture on this? Are you silent in church? Do you willingly put yourself under the authority of the men in your life?

My mother is the head of the household. I put myself under her authority as the head of the household. My father is the breadwinner. I put myself under his financial authority as I don't earn enough money to fully financially support myself. I'm single and so have spouse with which to consider this question. My manager is a male, and I'm thus supposed to place myself under his authority. My previous manager was female, and I rarely ever cowed to her authority, as I simply felt that she wasn't suited to a leadership position, and her decisions were difficult to understand.

I'm silent in Church when the pastor is speaking (the reason for that particular ruling), but when we stand to sing I know that I am one of the loudest voices. I'm also one of the loudest in the tea room after the service when we're all discussing the service. I giggle and shriek and trill and fuss over the children of the church before and after the services.

So, do I cow to the authority of the males in my life? Well, the ones in authoritative positions!
Do I speak up in church? By gum, I do!

I hope I've helped provide some female insight, and a fun biology lesson along the way!

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Hog Red]

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Doesn't sound like a third class citizen to me. the man should be the head of the house, anything with 2 heads is a monster and anything with no head is a freak. Problem is we have too many no account dad's and husbands but that is not God's plan (cant blame God for man's stupidity and poor choices)

 

[Peripatetic]

Now, with the coming of Jesus, everything changes. He interacts with women, treats them as equals, and most importantly - freely opens salvation to them. He seems to be more concerned about spiritual uncleanliness on the inside, rather than the outside. He set the example for treatment of women.

Exactly... it was one of the many things that made Jesus very controversial in His time on Earth. I always think of the evolution of the Church (starting in the Old Testament) as a long, carefully considered process. God, and later Jesus, slowly worked out the knots of various time periods. For example, in OT Israel, God repeatedly told His people how wrong it was to worship idols. It was one of the strongest, most repeated laws. It was needed back then because worship of carved or molded images was everywhere. I believe this is also why God put very strict rules around the traditional family unit. Homosexuality, orgies, and prostitution were much much more common... almost the norm. This posed a threat to what God wanted: a family that starts with a committed husband and wife. So He needed to make the laws very strict. Still, the book of Esther shows that even OT women could be strong and very important.

By the NT, Jesus was ready to change things, and set an example much ahead of the times. Perhaps the NT church still needed to set some guidelines to keep things moving according to plan though. As for today, I think we have to let the Holy Spirit be our guide when it comes to interpretation. Some will say that the Biblical family unit does still have the man as the leader. In my family, all of our decisions are made together, and I often defer to my wife's judgement on certain choices. I'd say that 99% of the time, we come to a mutual agreement. But in the rare case that we can't agree, it's just our understanding that I'll make the call. It's always worked for us, but I can't say with absolute certainty that it's right for everyone. But I am sure that mutual respect and love between man and woman is ultimately the key - not rules.

 

[heron]

told to keep silent to keep the peace; to keep the service flowing; so that there weren't constant interuptions.

I have been in churches that followed the early church model, and meetings can get quite chaotic and long. I agree that this was a practical response to an existing problem, more than a mandate from God.

Eventually this question gets down to whether you see the Bible as a closed representation of God's direct words, or a collection of the writings documenting God's interaction with man, with direct prophecies and continual inspiration from God... or something in between.

do some study on Phoebe and Junia

Some others --
- Anna and Hannah were prophets (who obviously could speak out)

- Athalia, Jezebel, Esther were influential queens, and the Queen of Sheba was also highly respected.

- Deborah was a prophet and judge, involved in the Israeli military.

- Several times, angels appeared to women and not to the men connected with a situation.

- Priscilla seems to me the best evidence of women treated with respect in the church. She seemed to be a team leader with her husband, and even pulled Paul aside for correction.

Interlinear Study Bible on StudyLight.org

From my understanding, the Old Testament defined women as being worth less compared to men (in monetary value), unclean most of the time, under the authority of husband/father, having no control over marriage, and being viewed as property much like animals.

with the coming of Jesus, everything changes. He interacts with women, treats them as equals, and most importantly - freely opens salvation to them. He seems to be more concerned about spiritual uncleanliness on the inside, rather than the outside.

If you look at uncleanness in the context of other Mosaic laws, uncleanness was not necessarily spiritual anathema. It was often prone to contagion.

The times of uncleanness protected women from toxic shock, pelvic inflammatory diseases, having to cook and work when they were in pain. I suspect that when a group of women got together during unclean times, there was mutual sympathy and support.

The verses implying women were property seem to me based on the inevitability that comes with no birth control. A woman with children needs support, and the law held men responsible for their actions. The declarations might not have been what every woman wants, but they ensured people would have a roof over their heads.

Also, the deals parents made (Rachel and Leah) had a similar protectiveness -- a parent was not going to allow their daughters to be used&abused, swayed by someone's emotional moment or lust. A sensible agreement was made, that a man would be responsible for what he wanted.

 

[Peripatetic]

- Priscilla seems to me the best evidence of women treated with respect in the church. She seemed to be a team leader with her husband, and even pulled Paul aside for correction.

Her name appears before her husband's when they are mentioned too.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

From the mouth of Paul:

26. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.27. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.29. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Galations 3:26-29

The rest, like wayseer pointed out, was due to cultural norms at that time. I'm sure they felt that their recommendations were in the best interest of the women of the church, all things considered at that time.

Therefore, it was society that needed to change and not the Bible. The church is very female friendly today. (And for what it's worth, I think it would have been considered very female friendly for that period of time as well.)

 

[Peripatetic]

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female;

This passage is definitely relative to the discussion. But since this thread was originally about the Biblical role of women, it's possible to confuse meanings here. I see the above passage from Gallations to be more about inclusion than sameness.

Although Jews and Greeks could both be Christians back then, they had different expectations. The early Jewish Christians still followed Jewish law and traditions (even though they no longer needed them to appease God's anger). Meanwhile, the Gentiles had a much smaller subset of OT laws that they were expected to uphold upon conversion. Similarly, if we were to infer sameness of role when reading "neither male nor female", I'm sure homosexuality would be fully accepted and integrated into the church.

While the Bible shows different roles for men and women, it doesn't have to mean that one is superior.

 

[Johnnz]

There is no conflict. Those who subordinate women to men have missed several key elements in understanding some of the verses most often used in the NT letters. Fortunately, there are now many good publications available which challenge and correct some older teaching that is well past its use by date. But there are some fundamentalists whose world would be shaken far too much if they had bothered to read such material and continue to promote what is essentially a patriarchal model within the church.

The same allegation was made against the NT and slavery, until the matter was rethought by committed Christians. We have not always got it all right, and soemtimes need to submit to a more accurate understanding on the biblical texts, even though it means some relearning and readjustments.

John
NZ

 

[heron]

Her name appears before her husband's when they are mentioned too.

Oh my, I would never have caught that.

there is neither male nor female;

That's an important one - it is more of a general statement of beliefs that the more specific recommendations in the apostolic letters.

even though it means some relearning and readjustments.

Many church members today gloss over it, and are embarrassed when they have to confront the verses... then as you say, don't take time to research it because they are afraid of what they will find.

There is a basic premise that has to be taken in -- women are going to get pregnant. Motherhood puts women into a limited situation where they are less mobile, less free to work, and more directly responsible for the care of another human being. The man can take on these duties, but the mother can't (ethically) abandon these responsibilities.

That means most societies will need to build this situation into their codes, values, interrelationships, and employment standards. Procreation is an undeniable fact of life, and it ultimately impacts everything we do.

I have been in some cultures where men hang out in public, while women scurry around with work at home. Look at how the Greco-Roman age of philosophy operated.... people spoke out in the public forums. Picture a woman bringing six children to one of these. If there was no birth control, then younger women were bound to have an infant with them a high percentage of the time.

That probably meant any separations in the church/synagogue seating had more to do with babies crying than women needing to be separate. I don't know, where were the children during services?

Maybe I have sailed way off to conjecture island.

I also think that there needs to be caution when a woman counsels a man. This has nothing to do with spiritual prowess or knowledge, but carnality. People easily slip into adoration of their mentors and leaders. They want to possess a closeness to success, and gain favor, by nature. I think men express it more sexually than women do (you can debate this), and suspect that some of the scriptural advice related to this.

Just thinking practically.

 

[Johnnz]

No real issue with children. The early Christians met in homes. Few would allow for more than a dozen people maximum. They met around a meal, so children would be part of that general environment, unless they were meeting in a home of a wealthy person in which case a slave may have attended to any children.

In Roman society men and women were kept separate apart from family life. Mixed gender meetings would have been very contrary to cultural norms - a clear indication of the new status of women held by the early church. Some of Paul's comments can be seen in light of this - new patterns of behaviour were to be learned by all, to accept women as equals and for women to cease just chattering as now they were included as equals not excluded as inferior within the new family of God.

John
NZ

 

[Sketcher]

But, after the gospels comes the degrading of women again. We're to be silent in church, not teach men, nor go above their authority.

It sounds like Jesus was preaching one message and both Paul and Peter were later preaching another. Jesus, obviously, would be the ultimate example. But Scripture is written by man and influenced by God, so why the discrepancy?

Also -- why are women oppressed in the New Testament? Why is it supposedly important to follow these kind of Scriptures today? Personally, I sing about God's glory at church and chat with people in church (before/after sermon, never during, out of respect for the pastor), and once in awhile during a sermon the pastor will end one of his important points with "Amen?" to which we respond with, well, "Amen!" hehe.

You have to take the limitations given to women in context.

Church was not the way it is today. For cultural reasons, men stood at one side of the sanctuary, while women stood at the other (which is not mandated in Scripture, BTW). Therefore, if a woman had a question, she couldn't just whisper it to her husband since he wasn't sitting next to her in a pew like we do today. She'd have to shout across the room. Since women weren't well educated, this was becoming a serious problem, so here we have the command that women are to be silent in church.

There was another reason for this command. The church was competing with paganism, and pagan priestesses would make their way into the sanctuary - perhaps to hear and observe, perhaps to disrupt. Given that church services at that point were very open, some of those pagan women would chime in and pollute the services with pagan teachings. The command forbidding women to teach or have authority over men also checked this.

So the restrictions don't mean that you shouldn't sing God's praises or share bits of your testimony or any of that. They were put in place to ensure an orderly church service. As for having authority, that would be authority to excommunicate people, appoint ministers, high level stuff like that. Talking before or after the service is fine, and singing during the worship time is encouraged. There are many ways in which a woman can use her gifts for the betterment of the church. Teaching and discipling other women, teaching children, the deacon's ministry, doing behind-the-scenes service, you name it. As long as you're not in a position of authority over men and teaching them as a pastor would, you're fine.

Finally, about what I just said: In Christianity, the higher up you go, the lower you need to go. At the Last Supper, Jesus said: "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves." (Luke 22:25-27) He also washed their feet to give them a memorable example (John 13:1-17). Those who have the authority to teach men and exercise authority over them must be the most humble and lowly of us all. It hasn't always worked out like that in practice, but if we're going to go by the Bible, that's what it's supposed to look like. This is also reflected in the command to husbands to "love [their] wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Therefore, when you go by the Bible, keeping women out of the very top positions isn't degrading them - it's giving them a bit of a reprieve, giving them a chance to be served. After all, women (traditionally) are busy enough as mothers doing the lowliest of tasks for their children. And they may be busy doing many good deeds besides that. Give them a break from the humblest of pastor's responsibilities at the very least! Christian men need to serve Christian women.

 

[shinbits]

women in the Bible are subject to men. but modern Christianity doesn't adhere to that, so new Christian women shouldn't be concerned.

 

[Johnnz]

Church was not the way it is today. For cultural reasons, men stood at one side of the sanctuary, while women stood at the other (which is not mandated in Scripture, BTW).

There were no church buildings with their sanctuary until several centuries after NT times. We must understand that and see how intimate and relatively informal by today's standards church life was then. A shared meal was at the heart of Christian gatherings.

John
NZ

 

[heron]

As long as you're not in a position of authority over men and teaching them as a pastor would, you're fine.

Some theologians would disagree with this, and I won't debate here, but just point out that there are varying viewpoints. Even though many churches teach submission of women, the biblical women cited earlier were in positions of authority over men.

Another thing to think through -- Jesus, son of God, spent most of his life accepting the authority of his mother. (With that one published exception.)

 

[JesusFreak78]

I have to pretty much disagree with everyone here. The bible speaks highly of women in both OT and new NT. One example is the woman in Proverbs 31 and she is being spoken of as worth far more than jewels.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), so to say the culture was different back then so that is what you will see in the bible is a stupid argument since it will mean we can't use the bible today. The bible may be written by men, but this is through the influence of the Holy Spirit and does not reflect man's opinion, but God's opinion.

Galatians 3:28 (neither Greek, Jew, female, male...) is taken out of context. It's not talking about marriage, but it's talking about the church, the body of Christ and who we are in Christ.

Women is not to be a pastors (1 Timothy 2:12), but this doesn't mean a woman can't talk with other people in the church before or after the sermon or that she can't evangelize on the street. This has nothing to do with man being superior to women, but it has everything to do with the order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13-14)

When it comes to marriage the man is the head of the wife and the wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord and the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Again this has nothing to do with the man being better of being superior to the woman. This has to do with the marriage being a picture/symbol of the marriage between Jesus and his bride (the church).

Jesus submit to the Father and He doesn't think this is degrading, so why would it be degrading for the wife to submit to the husband?