The role of a woman

[La Bonita Zorilla]

"Given that many denominations ordain female clergy, many Christians disagree with you."

Well, many denominations might disaggree, but really they would not be disaggreeing with me, they'd be disaggreing with the Bible.

No, they'd be disagreeing with your interpretation of the Bible.

A women being under a man does not mean that they are inferior in any way. But this is the way God has set it up...that should end all arguments!

The problem with that is that you are in no position whatsoever to have any iota of knowledge of God's will for others.

 

[evolisamyth]

sss: any background available on this MacArthur? What denomination is he?

Why would his "denomination" matter in an open-minded discussion? ...ANYWAY...moving on...

The summary sentence of his position in the article is this one:

"Equality of being before God does not require the elimination of all role distinctions in society. Equality of being does not rule out authority and submission in relationships. We could point to many examples of relationships in which there is equality and yet a difference in roles involving authority and submission--the Trinity, the President and U. S. citizens, parents and children, employers and employees, Elders and church members."

When he says "Equality of being before God does not require the elimination of all role distinctions in society." that may or may not be so semantically, but if it is is true, the corollary is also true: Adhering to God's will in this mortal life does not necessarily require adherence to artificial 'role distinctions' either.

He also says: "Equality of being does not rule out authority and submission in relationships." Again, only half right if at all: Adherence to God's authority does not require submission to other mortals nor acknowledgement of any authority of them, either.

Really? What about Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: The powers that be are odained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall reciceive to themselves damnation.

More specifically and to the point, I believe, with which you have the most contention:
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Do a quick word study of the phrase "they desire shall be to thy husband" and you will see that what god was telling her was that she will want to rule over him and be the boss. Sound like a certain movement in history? BUT, don't just take my word for it or dismiss this off-handedly...check it out for yourself!)

God firmly believes in a "chain of command" if you will.

He goes on: "

We could point to many examples of relationships in which there is equality and yet a difference in roles involving authority and submission--the Trinity..."

Well, the Trinity is an abstract concept in which we are not a part and we do not submit or have others submit to us, so this is an irrelevancy at best.

"...the President and U. S. citizens..."

The President has a constitutional role. He is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and has other significant authority per the Constitution and Executive Orders but he himself must submit to Congress and the Courts where there is not mutual consent for his exercise of authority. We offer respect for the President out of tradition but should one exceed our consent to his exercise of authority he is subject to removal to office, as Abraham Lincoln said "Either by our constitutional right to change the holder of the office or our revolutionary right to overthrow him" the latter which was as the government of Georgia (the former Soviet Republic, not the Peachtree State) was done yesterday.

"...parents and children..." Again while this is no doubt true for the most part there are limitations. Parents are subject to criminal penalties and loss of custody for child abuse. But the relationship between men and women cannot in any form be compared to that of parent and child in a society in which each adult individual is respected.

We give not less respect to mom as we do to dad...we just know that their ROLES are different. Also, if the roles in the Trinity are irrelevant, why then does God use it in 1 Cor 11:3????

"...

employers and employees, Elders and church members."

The last two describe voluntary relationships which can be dissolved when consent to the authority therin is withdrawn.

Again, Romans 13 appies. As well as...
Eph 6:5-8 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, with singleness in your heart, as to Christ;
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

Now before we get any confusion here...there were two types of SERVANTS in that time when this was written. The FREE-SERVANT who was paid and expected recompense, and the BOND-SERVANT who was not free, had no rights, and expected no recompense. The servant referenced here is either...note the last six words in verse 8. Verses 5-8 are clearly talking to servants(slaves and employees alike). We see also that the subsequent verses start laying into the masters (owners and employers).

In all he appears to be grasping at straws to justify a sexist position and failing at it.

Was he? Or can one easily rationalize that he was because we don't want to see that what he was saying was not what we feel comfortable with, for whatever reason?

 

[evolisamyth]

Ok...let me start by saying that I am new, so I know I could be way off base here, but...
Aren't there women in the bible that did teach?

Also, though a bit off topic, I thought we are equal, but different. Women submit to men, men love their women like Christ loves the church, or something like that. Doesn't that mean, because a man loves their wife so much and so unconditionally (like Christ and the church), women want to do things to make their men happy. Sort of like a give and take type thing...

Well put! Remember what the Bible said? 1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
Same goes with our human relationships. It works like that.

And yes, there were women who taught. There were none that led the church. None that had authority over the men in the church. Also, where women were head's, these were idolatrous and blasphemous temples of worship of other gods/goddesses.
There were women in the old testament who led. They were there while Isreal was being judged, punished for lack of faith, lack of following God's will, lack of OBEDIENCE.
Note also that it is not mentioned at any time that a woman was put in charge of any of the new testament, first-century churches.

 

[evolisamyth]

I am afraid this particular verse has beent aken way out of context and this has turned into a debate about how Paul, the Bible, and Christians are sexist against women.

The Dake's Annotated Study Bible says:

1 Timothy 2:12
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the men, but to be in silence."

The Bible clearly states that a woman may teach, prophesy, even preach in a church so long as it's under the authority of a man. She is not to take dominance over the man's position which is that of being the leader. She is still permitted to teach even preach. WHat the Bible is saying is that if a woman cannot submit to the Godly, male authority figure it's better for her to remain silent.

Yes! Now we can all see that if we do not try to rationallize or add SELF into the equasion, it's easy to understand what God's Word is telling us.
God bless you!

 

[Teh Wiccan]

Why should anybody be treated any differently? I am against people being treated as second class citizens as such.

 

[wonder111]

we are all one in Christ, there is not first or second class, however, some would like it to be that way

 

[evolisamyth]

Why should anybody be treated any differently? I am against people being treated as second class citizens as such.

How is submitting to the authority of another being treated as a second class citizen????

In the Marine Corps, a Private is subject to the Private First Class, is subject to the Lance Corporal, is subject to the Corporal, is subject to the Sergeat, is subject to the Staff Sergeant, and so on an so forth all the way up to the Comandant of the Marine Corps. Which of all of them is a second class citizen???

The are ALL first class, top notch citizens to me. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[LovingMother]

Paul, by the way, is not sexist. If you read his letters, you will see that he put men in their roles as well as women. Both husband and wife are to submit to each other. How is that sexist?

What Paul is telling us is that we each have a role to fill. Like has been mentioned, women are not forbiden from sharing God's Word. But the man is to be the leader and the woman the follower. (We often misenterperet following as being a lesser role, but I disagree with this belief.) This is true of the home. In Timothy, Paul is referring to the church making this true also of the church.

Paul puts the burden of teaching and preaching primarily on the man. As far as I am concerned, he can have it. I certainly don't want that responsibility on my shoulders!

 

[suzie]

I have read through some of the posts. I can understand why this is such a tough topic especially if you are a woman and being called by the Lord into leadership or pastorship. The issue of slavery was equally as difficult and it took many lives to be lost before we came to understand that those who championed on the side of the "clear Word of Truth" were not so clear nor were they in the "truth" when it came to this.

Thus, you can understand why there is so much controversary surrounding this. Our culture for as long as we can remember has been male dominated. It has only been recently that opportunities and avenues are opening up for women and it is with much resistance at times that this is happening. The Christian sector unfortunately is most resistant. They have in place a logical biblically supported format that they embrace from the traditional camp. These men and women are godly and believe that this is true. That God has ordained "roles" for men and women to play out due to their gender.

However, as we gain knowledge and study of God's Word with a more defined understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew, cultural climate in Biblical times,as well as other factors, we come to see that translations and interpretations can make something seem a different way than was originally meant. Hermeneutical study attempts to get inside the mind of the author and see through the persons own eyes regarding the text at hand.

The verse in Timothy that was originally held up as "the verse against women" needs to be seen in this light. It isnt that God's Word changes or is not true, for it is inerrant and all truth, however our interpretations are not always. 1 Tim 2:11-12 shows a general prohibition on teaching and authority exercised by women. It is not directed at a certain level a woman "may" have such as not ordained nor ordained, nor does it either indicate that the woman can "share" or "teach in class seminary, write theological books, etc. If this then were a command prohibiting this activity then all teaching and authority is "wrong".

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Tim 2:11-12

First it states that a woman should learn. The interpretation from the Greek would be better stated as "must learn". This in itself should give pause to the intent of this verse. In a world where women were uneducated and denied access to learning. Quietness and silent are identical in the Greek. This term is not meant as verbal silence, but better understood as proper order and attitude. The phrase, "silence and submission" was a frequent formula during this time for the Rabbinic student. Silence was seen as admirable with a teachable attitude. The Jewish thought was that students learned in order to teach others. Thus the point of teaching others were so that they too would teach.

The word "authority" appears only once in the entire NT --here--and is seldom seen in other ancient literature as well. This word "authentein" is not the normal way we think of authority but rather it denotes a very negative type of unsurping and abuse of authority. It is a very strong negative word almost to the point of strangling with ones hands....

This woman was spreading heresy in the Ephesian church.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Why would his "denomination" matter in an open-minded discussion?

Have you ever heard the term 'for identification purposes? It gives some perspective where the individual is coming from.

More specifically and to the point, I believe, with which you have the most contention:

1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Not being a fundamentalist, I do not take such passages at face value. Nor would I encourage anyone else to do the same. Scripture is such that it can be utilized to justify oppression so it is certainly not any thing to which I respond.

Do a quick word study of the phrase "they desire shall be to thy husband" and you will see that what god was telling her was that she will want to rule over him and be the boss...God firmly believes in a "chain of command" if you will.

Not God, Paul. And there is no evidence of "God's belief" on this topic. At best we should not rely on scripture regarding forms of social organization; at worst, all you are presenting is justification for oppression.

Was he? Or can one easily rationalize that he was because we don't want to see that what he was saying was not what we feel comfortable with, for whatever reason?

Most assuredly, and perhaps, but not in my case on this matter whatsoever. Perhaps it is you who are rationalizing your own desire to oppress others.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

How is submitting to the authority of another being treated as a second class citizen????

In the Marine Corps, a Private is subject to the Private First Class, is subject to the Lance Corporal, is subject to the Corporal, is subject to the Sergeat, is subject to the Staff Sergeant, and so on an so forth all the way up to the Comandant of the Marine Corps. Which of all of them is a second class citizen???

The are ALL first class, top notch citizens to me. Wouldn't you agree?

The difference is of course we are not Marines; nor is Christianity requiring an authoritarian power structure.

No one at all--no mortal person--ever, ever holds any intermediate authority between an individual Christian and God, much as some would like to

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Paul, by the way, is not sexist.


What Paul is telling us is that we each have a role to fill.

These two statements contradict each other. If he is 'telling us we each have a role to fill' based on biological gender, then, ipso facto, that is sexist.

 

[LovingMother]

These two statements contradict each other. If he is 'telling us we each have a role to fill' based on biological gender, then, ipso facto, that is sexist.

Now, now, La Bonita, you took my quote out of context. The definition of sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex. Paul did not discriminate. He stated roles for both men and women.

 

[suzie]

Paul gave no "roles" for man and woman. Paul told us that we are neither male nor female in Christ. That is the universal, transcultural command that we should be living out. Not taking the Scripture and lifting verses out to piece together a doctrine of linear submission based on nothing more than the way you happen to be born.

 

[LovingMother]

Paul gave no "roles" for man and woman. Paul told us that we are neither male nor female in Christ. That is the universal, transcultural command that we should be living out. Not taking the Scripture and lifting verses out to piece together a doctrine of linear submission based on nothing more than the way you happen to be born.

I would rather rely on more of the Word of God than one singular verse as you state here. Paul spoke often of the roles of men and women. His statement that "there is neither male nor female" is out of context. In context, in the verse to which you are referring, Paul states we are to live by faith and those that live by faith will not be discriminated against by Christ and will be "heirs according to the promise". In other words, if women live by faith, they will not be left beind simply because they are women. Likewise of the Jews and Greeks, according to the verse.

 

[suzie]

I also rely on the Word of God. Paul frequently showed equality before God in his writings. The common jewish prayer called the "beraka" was said by every pious Jewish male. It went, "Blessed is He who did not make me a Gentile; Blessed is He who did not make me a woman; Blessed is He who did not make me a slave" Some prayer, huh? What Paul was saying was not that God loves you, but stay in your "role" but there are no categories, no differences in rights and privileges in Christ. God sees us as "one" not through gender, heritage, or status.

Paul addressed "roles" but in the effort to expound beyond the cultural roles that were in place and bring them into the unity and mutuality of being in one in Christ. He often took used traditional thought and brought radical twists to it. The context of Pauls writings were to build up unity harmony and equality in Christ. We are all gifted equally, called equally and loved equally by God. We are to submit to one another, serve one another and love one another.

 

[wonder111]

here's an interesting article on how the teachings of Jesus were considered "feminist" back then.

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-modern/jesus-feminist.shtml

 

[Calvanist]

"Look around and you will see men have a harder time on their walk with God then women do."

Appreciate your comments secret dawn, but perhaps your comment may just be a tad on the naive side. Do you honestly think that? Where is the Biblical evidence to back it up? Does God actually make it easier for women to follow him? No, I do not find this anywhere.

God has appointed men to be over women, and Christ over men..period. I'm not being sexist and I'm not on an ego trip as some may say, this is Biblical!

"
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."Does this mean women should never talk or speak in church, or course not! But when it comes to teaching and preaching, the women should never be over the men. Paul knew how to run a church, he started it! As soon as we start adapting his words to suit our own needs, you no longer have anew testament church!

Hope this helps
Ben

 

[Shekinahs]

"
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."Does this mean women should never talk or speak in church, or course not! But when it comes to teaching and preaching, the women should never be over the men. Paul knew how to run a church, he started it! As soon as we start adapting his words to suit our own needs, you no longer have anew testament church!

Hope this helps
Ben

Blessings,

No it didn't. Women hear from God just like men. Women are gifted of God just like men. Women have the same authority to teach as men do. And if a man can not listen and learn from a woman's message who is made in the image of God then how does he think he has "an ear to hear" when one ear is closed? Answer: he can't and he won't.

My philosophy is for women to teach where they are welcomed. There are enough people who need God's message not to be concerned with those who will refuse God's message because the teacher is a woman. The hungry does not care the gender of the giver.

Luke 10:5,6, 10-11

"When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.

~ShekinahMoon~

 

[wonder111]

here's from an article I just read,

On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to go from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have been disorderly. And Paul emphasizes that his rules for church are given so that everything would be "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)38 Disorderly communication, such as uninterrupted speaking in tongues, was prohibited.39

On "not being permitted to teach" - Some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. However, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26).40 In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of authority in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1).8 Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6, 12).8 Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching. To understand these verses (Ephesians 2:9-15), we must understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was offering them an amazing new opportunity. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't yet have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9), because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth. In addition, some women were apparently flaunting their new-found Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (1 Timothy 3:6). The same principle applies to churches today.