Should women teach?

[Judy02]

I still think you're tired, but in the interest of peace, I'll explain.

Hopefully we agree men and women are different.

Paul told women what to do, teach women and children, for one. Some things only a woman can teach a child well. Certainly women understand other women best. Teaching men instead takes time away from what they're supposed to do. If they're called to pray and prophesy, expounding to other believers, regardless of gender, takes away from that ministry. The converse of all this holds for men.

We only have a short time on this earth, why not spend it doing what the Bible tells us to do?

I wasn't tired, and what you thought I was or wasn't is pretty much irrelevant to be fair. People think lots of things it doesn't make them right. I think it was just your way of patronising me, because you didn't like what I had to say, so u just wanted to say 'shut up and go away.' If you think preaching is based on us understanding men and women perfectly that makes no sense. The same can be argued for men, so on that line of thought, neither gender can teach othe opposite gender on the truths of the gospel...right.

I disagree with the conclusions you've pulled out in regards to scripture. I don't think people who say 'women can't preach' are doing what the bible tells them to do to be fair. Don't assume you have it all right. Arrogance is what that is. All people have been inspired by God and thr Holy Spirit and alkl can be used to build one another up. I think I will use my time on earth to reach that, and not be intimidated and silenced by people like you, who have based this pretty much on 1 verse in timothy.

Men and women have some differences, but they cannot be equal, with your beliefs, because apparently the differences in male and female according to you, causes being female as some kind of deficiency in guiding , leading, building one another up, and showing the truth of the gospel, which they cannot do because of the sole basis of being female. That isn't just a pure case of women being different to men, because you're using those differences of women only to indicate subordination....how lovely. Because they're different, that stops them being empowered by God to teach his word. That is not just saying they're different, You're trying to say some innate quality in the female half of the human race, makes them not good to preach the gospel, as if it was dependent on our human capabilities, and not on the power of God and the Holy Spirit.

It is sad to see what so many churches have become today, completely closed off to letting the holy spirit do his work, on a proud and elitist attitude.

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowds that had witnessed the miracle that what they had seen was a fulfillment of prophecy about the new age. Specifically, Peter quoted Joel 2:28 - 32, which begins 'And it shall be in the last days, says God, I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophecy, and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams, and on my male slaves and on my female slvaes, in those days, I shall pour out my Spirit and they shall prophesy.' (Acts 2:17 - 18). The word 'prophesy' simply means to speak for, and express the divine will of God. It may be spaking about the future (as the popular usage of the word denotes) but more often than that, it is speaking about the here and now. It is simply telling people what God wants them to hear. It is preaching that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And the sign of the new age, according to the prophet Joel, and the apostle Peter, is the pouring out of God's Spirit so that men and women, young and old, slave and free may speak for God. The main purpose of prophecy was to communicate God's message to people, providing insight, warning, correction, and encouragement.

Some biblical references to what prophecy is:

1 Corinthians chapter 14:

vs 3 'But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strenghtening, encouragement and comfort.'

Prophesying is used to edify the church, build people up, strengthen them in their faith and walk in Christ, encourage and comfort. Again this is done through teaching as is through prophesying.

vs 24 But if an unbeliever, or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner, and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare.

Prophesying being able to bring about conviction and speak directly to a person's heart, by God speaking through another person seems to be present here. This is a way of teaching, done through prophesy.

Revelation 1: vs 3 - Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

The scriptures themselves are prophetic words. Words inspired to be said by God through writers. Again, how does one preach well if they are not inspired and empowered through the Holy Spirit. Part of preaching is prophesying. You are prophesying the truth of God. If you are not speaking and expressing God's divine will (which is what prophesy means) it is not biblical teaching. Their words should be prophetic, achieved by the Holy Spirit, for it is not us that speak, but God through us. How we can seperate 'prophesy' and 'teaching' is a mystery to me. They both work for the same task, therefore why would we need to seperate them.

It would be strange indeed, if the Church under the apostles regarded this as a sign of the new age in Christ and yet forbade women the right to give inspired messages to the Church. And in fact, it was not until later, after the age of the apostles, when the Greek attitude about women became dominant within the Church that women were forbidden to preach. Subjugation is a pagan not a Christian concept, but many greek ideas and philosophies, did filter their way into the Chruch just like they can today.

 

[Judy02]

Why don't you guys/girls take scissors to the Scriptures you don't believe apply anymore?

If you think a verse doesn't apply today, why not just cut it or tear it out of your Bible? Isn't it a bother having them there?

They are meaningless afterall - just cut them out.

To be fair dude, nobody has said parts of scripture or people's letters were meaningless. These are your conclusions, just because u look at how the text was used then, what the situation was, what the issue was that was being addressed, does not make them meaningless.

Far from reducing Paul's teaching, understanding the backdrop to his letters makes it more accessible and expands the potential breadth of its application. Once upon a time, when I arrived at Paul's letters in my daily readings, I would feel the muscles in my stomach knot. How could a great and godly man be so dismissive of half the human race? Gradually, as I developed a feeling for the world in which he lived and came to understand why he said what he said, I found I could face him with equanimity and even excitement, and positively dispute any suggestion that he was a misogynist. It is ignorance that has earned him such a bad press.
Delving into ther original meaning of the words used in the text, matching them with the same or similar words used elsewhere, and analysing the choice of language can be a fun piece of detective work. Is the translation accurate? Does the grammatical construction of the sentence have any significance? The use iof different words in different translations for the original Hebrew or Greek can even produce conflicting interpretations of the text at times.

What many would like are black and white answers, which are so much easier than facing up to apparent contradictions in the text. Yet we have no choice, our knowledge of remarkable female church leaders from the last century or so, confronts us with the issue head on. Some would say, or course that we cannot base Church doctrine on experience. But the early Church developed its doctrine by reflecting on experience, and applying theological principles. Gentiles were only accepted into membership because they had been filled with the Holy Spirit as the Jewish Christians were. Such had been his mindset against that possibility that the apostle Peter had needed a special revelation to convince him that non - Jews could be kosher.

 

[Judy02]

You have it right, Everything God does is by spiritual authority. And you have to remember who failed the very first test of leadership, it was Eve. So God gave man authority over her, so what it simply boils down to is God is our spiritual authority. Then the spiritual authority in the home is the man, and the same goes for the Church. It's fine for women to teach Sunday school class and such but never to be the pastor of a church.

No leadership over Eve was given to Adam anyway at creation, so no she didn't, because no hierarchy had been established, and still hasn't Adam knew not to eat the forbidden fruit. He sat watching Eve, in full knowledge it was wrong and joined in. He is no less guilty. Let's not try and get proud here and try and place the blame on other people.


The foundation for the often dysfunctional nature of many male - female relationships is laid out in the Genesis story in this one little verse. Commentators are very divided about what it means, but one thingis certain: despite how it may appear superficially, there is no sexual connotation in the word 'desire.' Common sense should tell us that. Which of the two genders has the biggest problem with the basic instinct? The one with the testosterone actually. Surely God knew that would be the reason, so had no reason to suggest that the woman would be permanently on heat.
Yet throughout the glorious and sorry history of the Church, woman has been cast in the role of temptress - and all because of this verse. This particular interpretation began during the period between the Old Testament and the beginning of the New, when some Jewish scholars were trying to reconcile their Scriptures with the pagan Greek and Roman tales of gods and goddesses that were an inherent part of the culture in which they lived. They began to confuse the biblical story of Eve with the mythical Pandora, a beautiful but deceitful woman sent to earthly gods with a box full of misery for the human race.

Even the KJV and RSV of the bible add an English 'yet' before 'your desire will be for your husband' establishing a tenous connection between childbirth and a woman's supposed indefatigable sexual desire. A loose interpretation would be 'Sorry girls, having babies is going to be horrible, but since you'll keep on having the hots for a man, you'll keep putting yourselves through that particular misery.' That link isn't in the original Hebrew. Nowhere in the text is there any suggestion that a woman has masochistic tendancies. So what does this verse mean?

I will greatly increase your pains [tsavon] in childbearing; with pain [etzev] you will give birth to children.' Tsavon normally means 'sorrow' and etzev 'toil.' They are not the most common words used in the Bible to describe the pain of childbirth. In fact, they are a direct parallel to the 'sorrow' and 'toil' that are Adam's lot as he struggles to make the ground productive. There is no reference here to any basic biological differences between a man and a woman that predispose women to running the home, and men running the world. Work will involve the same degree of sorrow and toil for both. Man's greater physical strength is of little relevance. In fact, I have a strong feeling childbearing probably takes more physical stamina and a higher pain threshold than any other human activity.

Hard work, pain and discomfort are not a curse. Satan is cursed. The ground is now cursed. But God will not and cannot curse the creatures he has created with such love and hope. He simply describes the inevitable consequences of their determinination to follow their own propensities. The Hebrew word used for desire in this chapter of Genesis is teshuqah.

Teshuqah was translated 'lust' by Jerome in his Latan version of the Bible known as the Vulgate published in AD 382. The first English translation in 1380 by Wycliffe, based on the Vulgate also spoke of women's 'lust.' In his fairly recent commentary on Genesis, Gordon Wenham still seems to think that the word he translates as 'urge' has sexual overtones. 'Women often allow themselves to be exploited...because of their urge troward their husband: their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable demands.' This simply doesn't ring true for me. Women submit to abusive male demands out of fear and poor self esteem for money, or in developing countries, because they have no alternative. Some may do so out of a misguided sense of love - but generally, sex is not the driving force that it is for men.

The wonder of the Scriptures for me is their ability both by text and story to transcend cultural, international and historical boundaries. If it doesn't make connections with my experience as a woman, wherever I live, whoever I am, it cannot truly be the inspired word of God. But time and time again, as I dig deeper into the text, it challenges aspects not just of my life, but of every life, with a wisdom which belies its age.

Teshuqah is only used to translate 'desire' in two other places in the Hebrew Scriptures and neither have a sexual connotation. In Genesis 4:7 God warns Cain 'Sin is crouching at the door; its desire [or pull] is for you, but you must master it' (RSV). And in Song of Songs of 7:10 the writer says 'I am my beloved's and his desire [longing] is for me.' (RSV).
Missionary doctor Katherine Bushnell (1865 - 1946) who campaigned against the white slave trade and abuse of women throughout the world, shattered preconceived stereotypes of the role of women in 1923, in her book God's Word to Women. During her time in China, she was horrified at the way culturally biased translations of the Bible brought women into greater, not lesser bondage. She was convinced that this was totally at odds with the liberating, healing power of the Gospel, and spent 40 years learning biblical languages and studying the original texts so that women everywhere would have a solid, biblical foundation for their freedom. Dr Bushnell points out that most of the ancient translations of the text, including the Septuagint of 285 BC, kept the literal translation of teshuqah which is 'turning'. In other words, Eve is told that from now on her turning or natural gravitation will tend to be towards man rather than towards God.
And what does the man do with the woman's desire?
'And he will rule over you', says God - with a long sigh I suspect. Woman's very need of man will make her vulnerable to man's domination. The relationship becomes co - dependent. The secretary needs to be trodden on to feel a sense of worth, and the boss is happy to oblige, for it gives him a sense of power. The mistress stays with a man who has no intention of leaving his wife for her, because she thinks she cannot face life without him, and any crumb of affection os better than none at all. Women, will marry, not for love, but because they cannot face the possibility of being single. Co - dependency does not lead to healthy compatibility. When two people feed on rather than feed each other, it reduces rather than releases. For God this is a sad and sorry irony.

It is the second, more detailed account of creation in Genesis 2 'I will make [Adam] a helper suitable for him" - that is often used to justify the notion that woman was an afterthought, a PS at the end of God's correspondence. That one little English word 'helper' appears to be the root of the problem - a justification for relegating woman to a supporting role. The Hebrew for helper is ezer, used fifteen times in the Hebrew Scriptures, fourteen of them refer to God himself. Ezer is used in Psalm 30:10, where the writer cries out 'O Lord, be my help,' and in Psalm, 54:4 where he proclaims God is indeed his helper. If God is our helper, is he therefore inferior to the humans he has made, a general factotum and servant?... There is no hierarchical implicatrion in the word 'helper.' It isn't man the male, but man as male and female, who is made in the image of God. God doesn't establish a primary and secondary authority over creation. Woman isn't even back up, let alone a helpless dependent. Ezer is verb as well as noun, and means 'to protect, surround, defend, cherish.'"

"Adam calls his wife Eve. In hebrew, Eve is called Chava, which means a great deal more than just plain 'life' or chai...In the Hebrew Scriptures the verb chavah is consistently translated 'to declare'. In other words, the name given to woman has a verbal implication. It actually means 'spoken word of life'. Woman not only gives, she also speaks life to the man, and therefore to all humanity...If God created woman to speak words of life, that can only be of benefit to ther whole of society, including the men, it is hardly surprising therefore, that throughout history, Satan has had a vested interest in keeping her silent and subjugated. His attempt to achieve that goal begins here."

Just some extra things for thought. If we were really meant to help our men, being commanded to be a quiet docile creature in a chair, seems very unlikely. God created woman, because he knew a better job would be done on earth, if women were also here! Many men, however throughout the sad and sorry history of the Church, have treated their 'helper' pretty appallingly.

Further information from a wise and knowledgeable christian man:
The male authority views that are unfortunately so common within sections of the Christian community have an interesting origin back in Genesis.

Gen 3:14-19
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

To Adam he said,
"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it tall the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you ,and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Here we have the consequences of the fall told to us – an unremitting conflict with evil until it is slain, a distortion of mankind’s original purposes, with both fruitfulness and survival becoming painful and difficult instead of being worshipful, creative activities. Of particular interest to this topic is the statement that fallen man will rule over his wife. This has often been taken as a divine proscription, of what must be.

Many Christians believe that Jesus inaugurated the coming of a new order, God’s kingdom here on earth. Jesus struck at the root of evil, and we now begin that process of recovery and restitution that will reach its final consummation when Christ returns. The effects of sin are not fully dealt with until then, but it is the task of the Christian community to begin that process.

For those who do not accept this view and see man’s rule over women as a divine order there are problems. They must accept the entire outcomes stated in those verses. For men this would mean only hard work on the land can be done, no eating of meat, no labour saving devices –only ones that produce sweat. For women, avoidance of medical processes to reduce pain during childbirth and of course to have her life focused on submissive service to her husband.

For those of us who do not accept such views we see Scripture teaching that male rulership over women is a continuation of the curse, and denies what Jesus has done and achieved. Paul understood this point quite clearly. That is why he wrote that the Christian community was not based an any of the old divisions of race (neither Jews nor Greeks), gender (male or female) or social status (slave nor free). Jesus has opened up the way to bring mankind back to his original purposes for his creation set out in the first chapters of Genesis. This is why we pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth …"

Any teaching that perpetuates a fallen condition has no place amongst the followers of Jesus.

John
NZ

 

[Judy02]

Never once does Paul mention a woman prophecying, teaching, preaching et al in a congregational setting. We see women witnessing to men in what is essentially a field, we see them in multiple settings but never doing the speaking. We have letters from Peter, Paul, and so on but not one from a woman. Again the church is not in public. The insturctions are clear. Again scripture is not a buffet from which we can pick and chose. We have direct commands on behaviour and not a single scripture to refute them. Do we have to like them? No! God states plainly that His thoughts are not out thoughts and our ways our not His ways. The only reason this issue ever comes up is strictly a Western mentality and nothing more. How would someone who had never been exposed to Christians and read the Bible see these verses?

Romans chapter 16

Here, Paul does speak of women and values their ministry.

16: 1 - 2 'I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a servant of the Church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the way of the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many, including me.' (NIV)

Quite a few English translations of the scriptures have used the word 'servant' but the greek word translated here is a 'deacon.' Apparently she was a wealthy person who helped support Paul's ministry. Phoebe was highly regarded in the church and she may have delivered this letter from Corinth to Rome.

Later on, Priscilla and Aquila, are mentionned, A husband and a wife described as 'fellow - workers in Christ Jesus.'

'Great Mary who worked very hard for you.'
'Great Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles and thery were in Christ before I was.' Junia is a female name, a well known female name in Roman times. She's described here as an apostle. An apostle was a follower/believer in Jesus who helped spread about his message of good news. This would have involved a form of teaching.

Also, it is worth noting the reference to Priscilla and Aquila in ministry, in chapters 18: vs 26. The husband didn't tell Priscilla to shut up and go and make the tea. Both husband and wife, explained the scriptures of God to him, where the church met at their house. In fact, just like it is customary now, to have 'mr and mrs' on a formal letter, and referring to a married couple, so it was customary then to have the male name come first. Yet in the original greek letters, when the couple are referred to in their occupation of tentmaking in chapters 18, verses 1 - 2, the usual ordering of Aquila and Priscilla is made, but when they are referred to in terms of their ministry, Priscilla is mentionned first. This is actually very unusual. It's speculation, but in this letter, and the one in Romans (chapter 16) Priscilla's name is put first, suggesting she had more of a prominent role in the church ministry.

In conclusion, I have no desire to domineer over anybody, and I am not power hungry. I may never be ready to teach in my lifetime, becauseI have growing to do, and God can work on my character. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem however with people saying I would never be able to do it for the sole reason that I'm female. Even if women were lower than men, which isn't true, to say God can't overide and superside human weakness is ridiculous. God can and does use anybody. Scripture states all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; neither is more sinful than the other. That's man trying to excuse himself, just like he did at the fall. Sinfulness is not a valid reason why someone can't teach, if they have repented. Jesus' blood has covered that, and that includes women. All are saved, all are filled, there is no reason why all can't by the power of God teach. If God was so against it, he wouldn't have given us the guft in the first place. And this whole 'women can teach children but not men' mentality. If women are so deceivable, allowing them to teach children is even more dangerous than letting them teach men. Children generally are more easily mislead, they take things in more easily, they're not generally speaking, as spiritually mature, and able to test people's calims with scripture. So that line of thought makes no sense.
Evidence today shows women can be wise, that women have been gifted with teaching the scriptures and have vast understanding, its dependant on how submitted to God you are, not what gender and sexual organs you have.

Some people really need to grow some humility here, and stop looking to get their fragile egos stroked, and putting other people down because it simply makes them feel better. That is pathetic. I'm not saying everyone who has believed a traditional interpretation is guilty of that, but some of the cold, unmoving, hostile attitudes in her, and clinging onto 1 or 2 verses and saying understanding the situation Paul was addressing means 'we're not taking scripture seriously' are very suggestive of such. It seems to stem from a fear of losing power? There shouldn't be that attitude in the Church. All are serving, and helping each other for ultimately the glory of God. No one is better or worse, but we should be open to the Holy Spirit's leadings, and see a holy, and godly child of God, for who they are, and not allow our prejudices to prevent the Spirit from doing a good work in the Church. Christ himself said if anyone wants to become great, he will ive the life of a servant. This power struggling amongst some Christians is awful, and so so sad. Going into the spiritual battlefield, with half of God's army chained to the kitchen sink is simply setting themselves up for a struggle later. A woman's voice and wisdom is needed in this world. God saw that at creation, it wasn't good for man to be alone. That certainly hasn't changed now.

Many have just taken 1 or 2 verses, blown them out of proportion and context, because they can see how they can use it to their own advantage. If it doesn't match up with the rest of scripture, and the workings of the Holy Spirit, and the reality of what is happening with Christians today, then something is not quite right with our conclusions.

Some biblical references to female prophets (there could be more, I didn't read through the entire Bible last night).

Acts 21: vs 9, 2:17
Phillippians 4:3
Exodus 15:20
Judges 4:4
2 Kings 22:14
Nehemiah 6:14
Isaiah 8:3
Luke 2:36 - 38

At the end of the day, what difference does it make whether women are allowed to preach or not? Shouldn't we be prepared to give up our right to the pulpit, our right to be leaders or even bishops in the Church, for the sake of love and unity? There is an argument that says the debate over the role of women within the Church is far less important than preaching the gospel, and since it's so contentious, let's just bury it. But that would be a denail of an essential part of God's good news for all people.
Furthermore, for the majority of young people in the West, the equality of men and women is so much the norm, that the alternative looks like an unwelcome return to the dark ages. When they see overt sexism operating within the Church, it's small wonder they caricature Christians as reactionary, out of touch, irrelevant, and turn away from the very truths of the gospel that we want to share. This is particularly sad as the Gospel spells out freedom, not restrictions for all men and women. It is a pretty appaling witness actually. I have found I've been treated with much more love and respect from my non christian male friends than some christian ones. There's something not quite right here.

Perhaps this should be our guide in all those tricky issues where there seem to be conflicting views in scripture: what is going to be the most challenging and liberating message for the society in which we live?

 

[msbojingles]

It is the second, more detailed account of creation in Genesis 2 'I will make [Adam] a helper suitable for him" - that is often used to justify the notion that woman was an afterthought, a PS at the end of God's correspondence. That one little English word 'helper' appears to be the root of the problem - a justification for relegating woman to a supporting role. The Hebrew for helper is ezer, used fifteen times in the Hebrew Scriptures, fourteen of them refer to God himself. Ezer is used in Psalm 30:10, where the writer cries out 'O Lord, be my help,' and in Psalm, 54:4 where he proclaims God is indeed his helper. If God is our helper, is he therefore inferior to the humans he has made, a general factotum and servant?... There is no hierarchical implicatrion in the word 'helper.' It isn't man the male, but man as male and female, who is made in the image of God. God doesn't establish a primary and secondary authority over creation. Woman isn't even back up, let alone a helpless dependent. Ezer is verb as well as noun, and means 'to protect, surround, defend, cherish.'"

I liked this Because of this thread I posted an in-depth look at the word "Help-meet" and what woman was created for http://www.christianforums.com/t3747377-for-ladies-only.html

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, " Ephesians 5:25
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them. " Col 3:19

Let's expound on this........ok. You men that are so quick to beat us poor lowly good for nothing women over the head with being quiet and submissive..let me ask you...are YOU treating your wives this way?? I hardly see ANY man loving his wife this way. SO lets make a deal, when you do that...us women will be quiet!!

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

You have it right, Everything God does is by spiritual authority. And you have to remember who failed the very first test of leadership, it was Eve. So God gave man authority over her, so what it simply boils down to is God is our spiritual authority. Then the spiritual authority in the home is the man, and the same goes for the Church. It's fine for women to teach Sunday school class and such but never to be the pastor of a church.

WHOA WHOA WHOA........... WOMAN failed leadership?? EVE??? COME on!! God gave that to ADAM and ADAM failed...HE did NOT protect/tell Eve what GOD told him about the tree. WOMAN had NOTHING to do with failing leadership..cause Eve WASN'T LEADING...man was. READ the scripture buddy.

 

[RockChic23]

Women should be able to teach and work, god gave them a brain for a reason, and he wants them to use it to the best of their ablities. women and men are both very smart and equal in my eyes, none is better then the other. When GOd said men to be leader he meant for them to also treat their wife with love and respect and not control them. btw. Some of the best preachers are women.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I think there is a point being missed here. I do not seeing any of the folks who believe that scripture says women cannot teach trying to subjugate women. I see those who disagree with the point claiming that is happening. No-one is repressing anyone here and especially not by force. The emotional language being thrown around is common in these debates but completely un-necessary.

A good analogy here is a hammer and a nail. A nail is not designed to do the job of the hammer and likewise the hammer is not designed to do the job of the nail but without one another they are not useful. It is the same for men and women. The western concept of equality has taken away the value of individual roles. A woman's scriptural role is in no way less important than a man's scriptural role. They are so important, in fact, that they are laid out for us in scripture.
Women and men have different roles. This does not mean that women are any less important or any more important only that there are differences. Again I go back to the hammer and nail. If you have only a nail and are trying to build a house you will get nowhere and if you have only a hammer the same will happen. The roles of both men and women are necessary for the church and are as important as anything else in scripture.

Some people cannot accept this just as some cannot accept many things. We live in a world that by and large rejects Christ. Many churches today reject that homosexuality is sinful. Many churches reject the freedom we have to consume alcohol in moderation. Rejection of Biblical concepts is nothing new and couching rejections in terms never used in scripture and not intended is nothing new.

It is likely we will never resolve this debate while here in this fallen world at least not in any fashion that satisfies those who wish for the roles of men and women to be the same. They are not the same. Their importance is equal and their necessity is equal but the roles are simply not the same.

 

[SoulFly51]

To be fair dude, nobody has said parts of scripture or people's letters were meaningless. These are your conclusions, just because u look at how the text was used then, what the situation was, what the issue was that was being addressed, does not make them meaningless.

I am not saying they're meaningless, but other people most certainly are. I've even read where some people have said we don't really need to look at Paul's writings as commands of God because Paul isn't Jesus, and I've read those comments in this thread!

Delving into ther original meaning of the words used in the text, matching them with the same or similar words used elsewhere, and analysing the choice of language can be a fun piece of detective work. Is the translation accurate? Does the grammatical construction of the sentence have any significance? The use iof different words in different translations for the original Hebrew or Greek can even produce conflicting interpretations of the text at times.

Oh - do you read Greek too? I have a hard time believing that, because if you did you wouldn't be able to honestly take the position you've taken while maintaining your intellectual integrity.

People have been trying to make the Bible what they want it to say rather than what it actually says for centuries now.

I do not believe that we must have an answer to every "why" when we're dealing with God. Read the book of Job. He learned that by the end.

Everything you've said so far has caused me to believe this about you. You read the Bible, found something you didn't agree with, and have since done a lot of work (or a little reading online) to convince yourself that the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says in that part you disagree with.

 

[Judy02]

oops double post

 

[Judy02]

I am not saying they're meaningless, but other people most certainly are. I've even read where some people have said we don't really need to look at Paul's writings as commands of God because Paul isn't Jesus, and I've read those comments in this thread!



Oh - do you read Greek too? I have a hard time believing that, because if you did you wouldn't be able to honestly take the position you've taken while maintaining your intellectual integrity.

People have been trying to make the Bible what they want it to say rather than what it actually says for centuries now.

I do not believe that we must have an answer to every "why" when we're dealing with God. Read the book of Job. He learned that by the end.

Everything you've said so far has caused me to believe this about you. You read the Bible, found something you didn't agree with, and have since done a lot of work (or a little reading online) to convince yourself that the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says in that part you disagree with.

Well it doesn't matter what your opinions of me are...not to me anyway. I'm not here to please people. I find you very narrow minded, accusing people who don't take a 100% literalist interpretation of scripture to say they are rejecting parts of it. You think to be right, we have to have black and white answers. Which isn't true. It doesn't matter anyway,I've expressed what I believe. People can read or ignore and reject it at their will. I have God on my side, and thats all that matters. I need no reassurance from anyone else.

I have presented my case by looking at it in relation to the whole of the Bible. That's what we're supposed to do. I have earnestly prayed for years, and studied the bible to be where I'm at now. You don't know me, you don't know the situation, so u don't know how I've come to the conclusions. Basically you don't like what I've got to say, so accusing me of going against the bible makes u feel better...basically

 

[talitha]

Well, Judy, at least they're responding to you. I posted on page two, a very thought-out response, and tumbleweeds blew across. Then some people came in and posted beligerant things, and they got responses......

I do very much appreciate all the reps I've gotten from women here, but I would like some of the guys to at least acknowledge that I spoke. Honestly, I think some of them think I'm less than human because of my different body parts.

oh well.
tal

 

[Judy02]

ron, your sarcasm and blatent anger towards women make me question your motive in starting a thread like this. To bash women? To hurt us? MY opinion is men are so dumb...God had to use a donkey in the OT to talk to a man, knocked a man off his horse in the NT to get his attention. IF Adam had been doing what GOD told him to in the first place..guess what??? WOMAN wouldn't of been decieved. Lets give it a rest about how 'bad' women are ok? Men are no better. I agree with Pauls teachings...but I won't use it to bash someone else, OR MISUSE it to abuse women.

I think you're right. I don't think this thread was started because of an openness/curiosity, about how true this statement is. It's basically here, as a fun excuse to put women down again...a thing some Christians do best.

 

[Judy02]

Well, Judy, at least they're responding to you. I posted on page two, a very thought-out response, and tumbleweeds blew across. Then some people came in and posted beligerant things, and they got responses......

I do very much appreciate all the reps I've gotten from women here, but I would like some of the guys to at least acknowledge that I spoke. Honestly, I think some of them think I'm less than human because of my different body parts.

oh well.
tal

Yeah, I know its hurtful hun, sometimes. I don't think what anyone says will change things. It falls on deaf ears, because people just don't want to hear anything different. You can present your case, what they do is up to them. Just take your frustrations to God, he's there for you. And it's only his approval we'll ever need. It won't be your spiritual walk it'll affect in the end. Keep praying and do what u believe to be right. You can't go wrong there. Any man that just ignores u because you're a woman isn't worth your attention in the first place! Don't let it get to you hun xx

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

I think you're right. I don't think this thread was started because of an openness/curiosity, about how true this statement is. It's basically here, as a fun excuse to put women down again...a thing some Christians do best.

yep, I have seen that the men posting here are women bashing. They STILL haven't responded to my question about how they are loving their wives like Paul states they should. HM...seems funny to me. MUST be they aren't. SO they must be drawing the same conclusions about themselves that they are accusing us of...cutting up the word to suit themselves. FUNNY how that happens!

 

[RockChic23]

female bashing and thinking they have total control over a woman turns me away from christian men. I want a guy who will let me be free, I been caged to long by family, I don't want to be in a cage when I get married. Btw, I don't think anyone should be controlled or not allowed to teach.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

I have to say in defense of my darling husband..HE DOES love me as Christ loved the church. I am truly blessed. He is a GODLY man...and has shown me unconditional love. I do submit (sometimes kicking and screaming! LOL) but we do discuss things and in the end, the decision is his. He does let me be free to be the woman of God He has called me to be. SO not ALL men are like the ones I have seen here. That is for sure.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

yep, I have seen that the men posting here are women bashing. They STILL haven't responded to my question about how they are loving their wives like Paul states they should. HM...seems funny to me. MUST be they aren't. SO they must be drawing the same conclusions about themselves that they are accusing us of...cutting up the word to suit themselves. FUNNY how that happens!

Silence does not make your statement correct. You could not be more wrong in fact. My relationship with my wife is the business of exactly three entities: Me, my wife, God. This thread is about statements in scripture. If you were to start a thread about how men should be loving to their wives in light of specific scriptures I can assure that I will participate. Your attempt to discredit those that feel the scriptures say that women should not be in authority over men with a logical fallacy is hereby soundly rejected.

I draw no conclusion at all. I strive to follow scripture with every ounce of my being. I answer questions on what scripture says based on research and prayer. I do not discuss my relationship with my, quite adorable in fact, wife in public simply to defend my views. I do not need defend them with anything save scripture and I have do so nicely.

You keep pointing out how men have avoided your question and yet there are plenty of unaswered questions by men as well. Your view is very one sided. Should I take the fact I got no responses to my asking for a scripture that plainly shows, with now outside references, that women can teach men in a congregation setting to mean that the women are starting to agree with me? Of course I should do not. You know what they say about assumptions...

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

female bashing and thinking they have total control over a woman turns me away from christian men. I want a guy who will let me be free, I been caged to long by family, I don't want to be in a cage when I get married. Btw, I don't think anyone should be controlled or not allowed to teach.

I agree with you up until the part about teaching. If we look at the scriptures concerning submission it is never once stated a man has any right to force his wife to submit. The command to submit is given to the woman only. If she does not then it is between her and God and is not her husband's place to enforce. Submission from wife to husband is laid out the same as submission from the church to Christ. Christ never forces us to submit to him or to God's word. It is a willing submission. But that is a topic for another thread.