Women ruling, a bad thing?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I don't think there are any doctrinal questions that cannot be answered by studying the women of the bible

 

[Ringo84]

I don't believe that either gender should lord it over the other. Both men and women should be equal partners - both in marriage and outside of it. If women want to be deacons, let them be deacons. If women want to be pastors, let them be pastors.
Ringo

 

[Brak]

I don't think there are any doctrinal questions that cannot be answered by studying the women of the bible

Ooooooh oh boy, I take that as a challenge. Okay: historic amillennialism. Please affirm or deny historical amillenialism through the study of the women of the Bible.

* starts the theme to Jeopardy music in the background *

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

[/color][/size][/font]

Ooooooh oh boy, I take that as a challenge. Okay: historic amillennialism. Please affirm or deny historical amillenialism through the study of the women of the Bible.

* starts the theme to Jeopardy music in the background *

Ok, I suppose I meant as pertaining to salvation thru Christ and the church. Thats not really doctrine imo, thats denominational beliefs.

 

[cubinity]

Although the OP was initiated by a verse in Isaiah, I really believe 1 Timothy 2 is at the heart of this controversial thread. So, I thought I would help relaunch an honest and respectful discussion about the topic by giving some thoughts on that chapter:

~ I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

A key expression stands out to me in telling me why Paul is writing this part of his letter: “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” This tells me that Paul is intending to address some conflict that Tim has probably written to him about.

~ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Peace and quiet, godliness and holiness: these things please God. Fair enough.

~ For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Paul makes a comment about mediation, and specifically the qualification of Jesus Christ as mediator between God and man.

~ This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

Having addressed Christ’s credibility, Paul speaks of his own credibility. This is the first indication to me that Paul’s intention is to act as some kind of mediator for his audience; plausibly as mediator between two groups that were conflicting over some doctrinal issue.

~ Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.

In a very positive expression about prayer, Paul brings up anger and disputing; no doubt a condition of his audience that he wishes to mediate. Here he specifically addresses the men, perhaps because they were the ones in charge, or perhaps because they were the ones causing the anger and disputes.

I take special note of the expression, “I want.” This tells me that Paul is saying something personal about how he manages, or would manage, things. Perhaps that means this is one of those times where he is speaking from his own opinion, without inspiration. However, he doesn’t say that exactly, so if that is the case, it is only insinuated at best. So, maybe this bit is inspired, and maybe it isn’t. It’s difficult to say for sure what exactly to take from “I want.”

~ I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Again, Paul uses that expression, “I want.” As I said, I don’t know what to make of that.

If the comments about men alluded to their anger and disputes, and addresses it without accusing, I would take these comments about women similarly. If I assume there were men in Paul’s audience that were angry and disputing, then it seems natural to also assume there were women adorned with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, and expensive clothing.

Perhaps these women that were so elaborately adorned were creating some trouble for the congregation, maybe just from what they were wearing, but maybe because of something else they were bringing to the congregation. My guess is that the next part completes this picture…

~ A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

My impression is that this line is addressing a specific characteristic of these elaborately adorned women.

Maybe they were recent converts from a cult, like the Isis cult, where they were in charge of their congregations. As priestesses in this cult, they may have grown accustomed to being recognized for their elaborate clothing hair and jewelry. They may have been used to making loud interruptions during services, similar to the ways some charismatic churches host outbursts of shouts or speaking in tongues. Doing what came naturally to them, these women may have been interrupting the Christian services, encouraging people to do the kinds of cult like things they used to do to honor Isis, or whoever their pagan god had been.

Does this verse regard all women in general, or is Paul addressing specifically those people prone to such behavior? It really is difficult for me to say for sure. If I just look at the statement, in isolation from its context, then I would say that it is a general statement applying to all women, but when I consider its context, it seems to me that he means to apply it to a specific disturbance in the congregation Tim is dealing with.

My example for why I feel justified comes from my reading of a different verse Paul wrote. Romans 14: 14 reads, “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.” If I try to argue that this, and its surrounding context, is about absolutely everything, the counterargument will likely be that the context is specifically about dietary law, so Paul means this verse to also only apply to dietary law, even though he makes this sweeping statement.

Well, if Romans 14:14 is only about food, and not actually about everything, then using that same reasoning, I have no problem understanding Paul’s statement about a woman learning in quietness and submission as referring to a specific context as well.

~ I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

This is an “I” statement. Paul tells Tim what he permits. This is a description of his practices and principles. Does he hold this standard because of some divine inspiration, or simply because this is his personal opinion about best practices?

Though I’m not trying to call all of his teachings into question as potentially just his opinion, Paul is very specifically identifying these as things he upholds in his personal practice of church leadership. Is he telling Tim that he must emulate Paul in this standard, or is he simply meaning to offer it as an example of something that works for him?

~ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Okay, well, good luck trying to figure out what Paul is up to with these statements…

I personally don’t know many Christians that are even aware Paul said this, and no church I’ve ever been to uses this part as a part of their argument for what they are upholding in their position on women, so…

 

[Ringo84]

~ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Okay, well, good luck trying to figure out what Paul is up to with these statements…

I personally don’t know many Christians that are even aware Paul said this, and no church I’ve ever been to uses this part as a part of their argument for what they are upholding in their position on women, so…

The reason no church uses those argument is that they're bad arguments.

"Adam was formed first, then Eve"

If we're going to determine hierarchy based on the stated order of creation, then why don't animals rule over us? They were, after all, created before man.

"Adam was not the one deceived"

Wrong. If Adam and Eve existed (good subject for another thread), they were both deceived, and they were equally at fault for what happened in The Garden.

And besides that, it's not very logical to deny women the ability to preach or teach based on a woman who messed up eons ago.
Ringo

 

[Johnnz]

"Adam was formed first, then Eve"

If we're going to determine hierarchy based on the stated order of creation, then why don't animals rule over us? They were, after all, created before man.

It's possible Paul was refuting some gnostic influence, some of which taught that Eve was the mother of Adam, i.e. the reverse of the genesis order.

"Adam was not the one deceived"

Wrong. If Adam and Eve existed (good subject for another thread), they were both deceived, and they were equally at fault for what happened in The Garden.

And besides that, it's not very logical to deny women the ability to preach or teach based on a woman who messed up eons ago.
Ringo

Adam was not deceived. He was just disobedient. God had told him not to eat that fruit. But God had not told Eve, so she was deceived by Satan, but was not disobedient.

That's just a detail which is contained in the actual text.

John
NZ

 

[Chaplain David]

Thanks for cleaning it up folks.

 

[BloodyRachel]

I don't think there are any doctrinal questions that cannot be answered by studying the women of the bible

I don't understand you, sister.

 

[BloodyRachel]

I am curious what gives you this impression? I hold that it is ESSENTIAL to resolve all apparent contradictions in Scripture, before we can really think we grasp any of it. (I try to convey this via my sig, which is almost quoted from somebody else.) I would think this implies that G-d is perfect, worthy of all our Praise, that His thoughts are above our own, and that His Word is likewise perfect.

So you do believe the Bible is inerrant? Yes? I'm glad. In my opinion, all true Christians believe that.

 

[BloodyRachel]

No. I do believe we need to be able to rightly divide the Word of Truth though. And I have found that I am more effective with unbelievers with my own words, than I am quoting Scripture. That is something I was NOT willing to do as a young Christian, and it has taken me decades to be able to do this w/ confidence that I present Truth. It is quite humbling, too

I really don't see how you resolved the conflict. Oh, and this topic is for Chritsians, not unbelievers.

 

[BloodyRachel]

Interesting point of Scripture:

"the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

I find if you only have ONE statement from Scripture, you may very well be twisting it to conform to your own agenda. Dangerous, I'm sure you'll agree.

I also find that if you find something the Bible really intends, you will find at least one other passage plainly agreeing with it. And there will be at least one more passage corroborating that, even if it is veiled. Some take it a step further, that these passages need to come from different authors.

Anyway, this is what is meant by "the whole of Scripture." This is a very important point! (Along with the more obvious, nothing contradicting the point you are trying to advance) Now that I understand you a little better, I can provide you with this detail which I couldn't know was needed earlier.

Please be sure that your understanding of any single passage agrees with THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE. This is a difficult process that involves suffering for a little while, but causes us to be established.

Dear brother, nothing in the New Testament is veiled. Jesus revealed all truth. The whole Bible is trustworthy and true, but only the Old Testament is veiled truth.

 

[Ringo84]

It's possible Paul was refuting some gnostic influence, some of which taught that Eve was the mother of Adam, i.e. the reverse of the genesis order.

If that's so, it doesn't prove women's lack of fitness to preach.

Adam was not deceived. He was just disobedient. God had told him not to eat that fruit. But God had not told Eve, so she was deceived by Satan, but was not disobedient.

Adam was deceived through Eve. He didn't have to take the fruit, but he did anyway.

It seems to me that if God placed this tree in the middle of the Garden and didn't tell Eve not to partake of the fruit, maybe God shares some blame for what happened.
Ringo

 

[Chaplain David]

Mod Hat On​

After thorough review, determination has been made to close this thread.

Mod Hat Off​