PDA

View Full Version : Discussion What is a woman's role in the church?



JesusMySavior
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:43 AM
I was reading some of 1 Corinthians today and I stumbled across this portion in chapter 14 :

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

etc etc.

I know 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says about the same thing,

"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."

Now, I am definitely NOT the macho type. I am a Godly man who fears the LORD as a result of His grace, and if I had a wife the last thing I would want to do is keep her silent and make her fear me because "I'm the head and you're not". I respect that position, and I would remind my wife...but to have a woman remain silent in church?

So that basically means no women pastors, right? But yet speakers like Joyce Meyer are a tremendous blessing in my life.


I just had a wonderful time with the Lord tonight so I don't have any dispute - whatever He says goes. But I'm just curious if this could mean anything else and how it would apply today. It just seems a little harsh to me is all. Kinda conflicting with my spirit as God says He will pour out His spirit on ALL flesh :saint:

Ashley274
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:49 AM
I have read and heard from many pastors of many denominations that back then when they went to church the women sat in another area and would ask their husbands questions disrupting the service..so in this Paul was talking about a specific problem within that time and church..Also there are many NT women that worked with Paul....That being said I don't like being in a church with a woman pastor but I like Joyce Meyer and I am a woman :lol:

JesusMySavior
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:51 AM
So Ashley would you say that this would pertain for today? How would we apply it? I don't think one ounce of scripture can be tossed out the window, so I'm sure we'd have to apply it in one way or another. :hmm:

Ashley274
Jul 2nd 2008, 07:02 AM
I may not be understanding what you are asking me..its lol 3 AM here but I am sure God still doesn't want women yelling in the church asking questions and messing up the service. If you mean is it OK to still have women speak in the church yes...if you mean pastors I think..again I am tired ...that one was in the Bible and it said LET HIM be the husband of ONE woman.. so for me a woman pastor no...to read and teach yes

markedward
Jul 2nd 2008, 07:02 AM
http://www.intervarsity.org/mx/item/4175/

A PDF I found very helpful and interesting.

I think it would be incredibly wrong to say women can't teach or lead altogether, when Paul himself directly speaks of multiple women teachers and leaders. Just a quick read of Romans 16 shows as much:

1. Phoebe, whom Paul calls a deacon
2. Priscilla, whom he mentions before he mentions her husband Aquila
3. Mary, a hard worker
4. Junia, whom he calls an apostle
5. Tryphena, "the Lord's worker"
6. Tryphosa, "the Lord's worker"

Elsewhere he mentions Chloe, who leads a house-church.

To say Paul completely disallowed women from teaching or leading isn't consistent with the rest of his letters. Many secular scholars believe 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, and that the passage in 1 Corinthians was added into the text by a later writer who was influenced by 2 Timothy... but if we maintain that the passage in 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy are both genuinely from Paul and are of inspiration from God, then we have to reconcile Paul's apparent distaste for women leaders in those two epistles with his praises for them in other epistles. Which is where I think the PDF I linked to above comes in handy.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 2nd 2008, 07:10 AM
I'll get around to it tomorrow, but if you look to the Greek it doesn't call for them to be "silent" as in never talking or teaching. It does, however, forbid female authority within the church (at least over a man). For some reason, God has a certain economy that we are called to follow. It doesn't, however, prevent women from teaching or working or even sharing the Gospel.

markedward
Jul 2nd 2008, 07:14 AM
I'll get around to it tomorrow, but if you look to the Greek it doesn't call for them to be "silent" as in never talking or teaching. It does, however, forbid female authority within the church (at least over a man). For some reason, God has a certain economy that we are called to follow. It doesn't, however, prevent women from teaching or working or even sharing the Gospel.Both of these (the word for "silent" and the word for "authority") are mentioned in the PDF I linked to above.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 2nd 2008, 07:16 AM
Both of these (the word for "silent" and the word for "authority") are mentioned in the PDF I linked to above.

I figured so and intend to read it, but I tend to trust my own study of the Greek sometimes (at least in validating what someone says). I'm a skeptic at heart, so if someone claims something - even if I agree with it - I find myself questioning it and researching it.

However, in a cursory read I can already see he's made a mistake. He attempts to attribute the Attic (Classical) understanding of a Greek word to it's Koine understanding. Looks like a fast and loose way of dealing with it.

I'll deal with it more tomorrow when I'm not so groggy (hopefully).

JesusMySavior
Jul 2nd 2008, 07:32 AM
http://www.intervarsity.org/mx/item/4175/

A PDF I found very helpful and interesting.

I think it would be incredibly wrong to say women can't teach or lead altogether, when Paul himself directly speaks of multiple women teachers and leaders. Just a quick read of Romans 16 shows as much:

1. Phoebe, whom Paul calls a deacon
2. Priscilla, whom he mentions before he mentions her husband Aquila
3. Mary, a hard worker
4. Junia, whom he calls an apostle
5. Tryphena, "the Lord's worker"
6. Tryphosa, "the Lord's worker"

Elsewhere he mentions Chloe, who leads a house-church.

To say Paul completely disallowed women from teaching or leading isn't consistent with the rest of his letters. Many secular scholars believe 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, and that the passage in 1 Corinthians was added into the text by a later writer who was influenced by 2 Timothy... but if we maintain that the passage in 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy are both genuinely from Paul and are of inspiration from God, then we have to reconcile Paul's apparent distaste for women leaders in those two epistles with his praises for them in other epistles. Which is where I think the PDF I linked to above comes in handy.


So if I understand this PDF right,

Women should be of sound minds, with open ears and wisdom-thirsty hearts so that they may not be deceived as Eve was, thus drawn away into sin. But yet since the man is the head of the wife, he should be teaching her because wisdom is imparted to him.

Right? Wrong? it still doesn't clarify it completely it seems. So should a woman teach at all?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 2nd 2008, 02:37 PM
I have chosen to not contribute to this thread after all. I know that this topic becomes heated, gets personal, and eventually all goes to waste.

I will say that I read the article and was less than convinced. He is misapplying certain translation principles in the text (such as appealing to Classical Greek to explain a Koine Greek understanding) and that the Greek word for "exerting authority" does not mean "in an illicit manner," but simply exerting authority that has not been given. From the context of the passage, it shows that God simply hasn't given such authority to women in general.

Finally, before anyone says, "But it's chauvinistic to say only men can be leaders," this assumes two things:

(1) That God is an equal opportunity employer and cares about fairness

and (less jokingly than before)

(2) Having authority makes someone more important than the other.

Is a pastor higher than a father or a mother? Is a pastor more important than a baseball coach? Is a pastor more important than an educator? If we say yes, then we have bought into what Os Guinness calls "The Catholic distinction" which is Platonic, dividing the spiritual and physical and placing "spiritual" jobs over "physical" jobs.

If, however, the vocation of a pastor is on equal footing with all other vocations in terms of importance, then females being unable to be pastors wouldn't devalue the in any manner or equate them to being "lower" than males. It would simply mean there is a vocation they are not qualified for - much like men aren't qualified to be mothers (they lack the proper tools).

Though I said I wouldn't get involved, I guess I just did. Regardless, I probably won't respond unless asked to clarify.

Sold Out
Jul 2nd 2008, 02:43 PM
I'll get around to it tomorrow, but if you look to the Greek it doesn't call for them to be "silent" as in never talking or teaching. It does, however, forbid female authority within the church (at least over a man). For some reason, God has a certain economy that we are called to follow. It doesn't, however, prevent women from teaching or working or even sharing the Gospel.

Amen. God set up the program and we are to just follow it.

The reason is that women are easily deceived because we are emotional. I'm a woman and I know this to be true.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." I Timothy 2:12-14

threebigrocks
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:38 PM
Amen. God set up the program and we are to just follow it.

The reason is that women are easily deceived because we are emotional. I'm a woman and I know this to be true.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." I Timothy 2:12-14


Is that of the physical or spiritual? Her flesh won out over her spirit.

Honestly, there is so much more to the issue of women in the church for us to see and realize to understand the Godly order of things.

Clearly, as seen in 1 Timothy 2 and the following:

1 Timothy 3


1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,
9but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
10These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.
11Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.


Firstly, we could take men as meaning humanity, but when it specifically states that the man can only have one wife. Overseers, leaders of the flock, ought to be men. Ditto for deacons, or the assitant or "right hand man" of the overseer.

But then comes verse 11 which many take as women are included and it is switched up and twisted to be understood as "a woman of one husband, etc.". It doesn't say any such thing, and if Paul were going to be so specific about the men why would he not lay it out as plainly as he did for them? Women ought not to lead a church as a whole in any capacity.

The order of things must be understood, which does not change.

Genesis 2


18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
23The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man." 24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.


1 Corinthians 11



7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.



The Godly order of things is as such: God being over Christ, Christ the covering for man, man the covering for women, with women being submissive to the ordained order, or propriety, of God and thus being submissive to all.

Women in the Jewish culture were strong people, having and raising children, handling the affairs of the household, keeping the "cogs" in place and running smoothly as is said in Proverbs 31. As it says man and woman are far from independent of each other but dependent on each others existence. Women are to teach the younger women and children, they also receive gifts of the Spirit. Women who do their part to allow their husband to be a Godly man are doing a great thing!
Women in Christ are strong women, but they were not created to shepherd a flock. They were designed to be a helpmate, with purpose in their place within the Godly order of things.

ServantofTruth
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:54 PM
Like homosexuality, divorce, creation/ evolution and a few other topics people get very heated - including ME at times.

We can NOT ignore the teaching given to us in the bible which is given by GOD via the men who wrote it. (inspired).

Homosexuality is wrong
Divorce in most cases, perhaps all?, is wrong.
Creation/ Evolution - we can only go as far as the bible says, and then there should be no speculation or debate - this is the start of sin.

The bible says what it does and we can either look for loop holes, say times have changed - so we will follow satan's world rather than the Word of God/ bible.

However the Law/ instructions of God/ Jesus must be seen and applied with LOVE. Maturity and bible knowledge comes in here too. Some grow quickly and mature in the Word and applying it, others grow very slowly as we see in the early churches in the New Testament.

NEVER stop from pointing people to what God says to all of us believers in the bible. But encourage and help people accept that it is written to help the person, all of us, not critise or lay a heavy burden on them. May our love for eachother help us grow in faith. Love Paul/ Servant of Truth. :pray:

sunsetssplendor
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:57 PM
So if I understand this PDF right,

Women should be of sound minds, with open ears and wisdom-thirsty hearts so that they may not be deceived as Eve was, thus drawn away into sin. But yet since the man is the head of the wife, he should be teaching her because wisdom is imparted to him.

Right? Wrong? it still doesn't clarify it completely it seems. So should a woman teach at all?


And what about men who don't go to church and read their bibles?
I think as women we are to edify and encourage fellow women but
not to head the men in the church. In my home I'm the spiritual
leader in a sense for now so all of the learning/ teaching is done
through me.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:01 PM
I believe that women should be able to do the same things that men do. Including being pastors , bishops and rebrents. I know that the Bible writters were very male shovenists, but they were from a different culture. I do realize that this is an extremily controversial subject. But not for me.:)

Buck shot
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:21 PM
I believe that women should be able to do the same things that men do. Including being pastors , bishops and rebrents. I know that the Bible writters were very male shovenists, but they were from a different culture. I do realize that this is an extremily controversial subject. But not for me.:)

God is the author of the Bible and He's not chauvinistic. He has given us differant jobs within the church. This does not mean that any job is higher than any other.

To me, the Bible is clear that women are not to be preachers or deacons. This does not mean they they cannot teach kids and young teens. My wife is the children's church leader here. Some of the greatest prayer warriors I know are women. My grandmother was more knowledgable of the scriptures than anyone I know.

There are many oppritunities for service other than preaching. I don't even know any men that can handle the preschool classes :P This seems to be a field in the church that our Father has blessed women with more than men.

markedward
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:26 PM
So if I understand this PDF right,

Women should be of sound minds, with open ears and wisdom-thirsty hearts so that they may not be deceived as Eve was, thus drawn away into sin. But yet since the man is the head of the wife, he should be teaching her because wisdom is imparted to him.

Right? Wrong? it still doesn't clarify it completely it seems. So should a woman teach at all?If I'm understanding the writer correctly, he is saying that Paul taught that women can teach (this should obvious from his other letters; again, Romans 16 is a prime example), but that women are unlearned should be allowed to learn, but in order for them to learn properly they need to pay careful attention and not talk needlessly. Compare this to your average high school classroom; can the students just talk whenever they want to? Of course not, they need to quietly listen to their teacher.

Likewise, where the author shows that the original Greek says that women cannot have an improperly seized authority over the men, can a student in a classroom just stand up, shove the teacher aside and start teaching the other students just because he thinks he knows what he's talking about? Culturally speaking, the women didn't have any real learning; Paul is saying to let them learn, but they need to learn quietly so that they can learn the whole truth, not half-truths or falsehoods.

At least, this is what I'm getting from the author of that PDF.

fewarechosen
Jul 2nd 2008, 05:30 PM
just remember there is greek nor jew male nor female once you have the holy spirit.

so there is a difference between a woman who doesnt have the holy spirit and a woman who does

threebigrocks
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:09 PM
I believe that women should be able to do the same things that men do. Including being pastors , bishops and rebrents. I know that the Bible writters were very male shovenists, but they were from a different culture. I do realize that this is an extremily controversial subject. But not for me.:)

Women leading a church goes against the nature of things as set by God. Look at the scripture David. Those men in the early church were not cheuvenists - they were God fearing men doing things God's way.

markedward
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:22 PM
A. Um... not to be rude, but did you even read the PDF? It examines Scripture. In the original language. You can study an English translation of the text all you want, I'm more interested in studying the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible so I can get a more accurate meaning of the words being used, not an English-speakers interpretation. If the PDF provides an insight into the original language, that I think it is a valuable study tool over what may be a faulty English translation.

B. Women can't be deacons or overseers of churches? Yet again, look to Paul's other letters. He calls a woman a deacon. He mentions two women who are leaders of house-churches (Chloe and Nympha). Saying that it's against God's way for women to be deacons or to lead Christians isn't Scriptural, since Paul directly mentions women in both positions.

C. Now your post is missing.

Prayin_saint
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:24 PM
:-) Interesting thread! I look forward to reading more! It's been so long since I've stepped into one of these discussions, but I'll try my hand at expressing my thoughts, even though I'm pretty rusty!

I love to look at the differences between men and women. How we are similiar and different... how God gave our genders different strengths and weaknesses.

He gave control to men; in the garden, in marriage, the family and the church. To Man he gave strength to lead, to be hard-headed and stubborn at times (said with a loving smile) and keep to the beaten path or to beat new paths, as the occasion calls. He fights and works and gives all he has and then some.
To women he gave a tender strength. He gave us a place in the home and beside the heart of men. We support, encourage and build them up. We gently guide when needed and we bind up our wounded warriors when needed. We provide extra strength and courage in the face of trials. It's a beautiful role, in my eyes.

Am I saying a woman doesn't have the ability to lead? Of course not! There are amazing women leaders out there! But, if we're to follow the pattern God has given us in the Bible- the trend shows that the authority in marriage, in the home and in the church belongs to the man. (Kind of a progression, don't you think? The Married Couple and the Family Unit being the building blocks of the Church.) I have no problem with that- I rejoice in seeing the men in my life grow into leadership roles and responsibility. I do my best job to encourage them and support them as they do that, and enjoy doing my part in that. :-)

Just some of the things I've observed, especially recently.
:hug: Sarah

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:25 PM
God is the author of the Bible and He's not chauvinistic. He has given us differant jobs within the church. This does not mean that any job is higher than any other.

To me, the Bible is clear that women are not to be preachers or deacons. This does not mean they they cannot teach kids and young teens. My wife is the children's church leader here. Some of the greatest prayer warriors I know are women. My grandmother was more knowledgable of the scriptures than anyone I know.

There are many oppritunities for service other than preaching. I don't even know any men that can handle the preschool classes :P This seems to be a field in the church that our Father has blessed women with more than men.
The Bible also says that women should not enter the temple and don't even dare ask her husband a question in or around the temple. Is that true today?

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:28 PM
A. Um... not to be rude, but did you even read the PDF? It examines Scripture. In the original language. You can study an English translation of the text all you want, I'm more interested in studying the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible so I can get a more accurate meaning of the words being used, not an English-speakers interpretation. If the PDF provides an insight into the original language, that I think it is a valuable study tool over what may be a faulty English translation.

B. Women can't be deacons or overseers of churches? Yet again, look to Paul's other letters. He calls a woman a deacon. He mentions two women who are leaders of house-churches (Chloe and Nympha). Saying that it's against God's way for women to be deacons or to lead Christians isn't Scriptural, since Paul directly mentions women in both positions.

C. Now your post is missing.
I will like to know the texts that you are refering to. thanks.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:31 PM
Women leading a church goes against the nature of things as set by God. Look at the scripture David. Those men in the early church were not cheuvenists - they were God fearing men doing things God's way.
The Bible also says that women should not enter the temple and don't even dare ask her husband a question in or around the temple. Is that true today?

http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif

Buck shot
Jul 2nd 2008, 06:53 PM
The Bible also says that women should not enter the temple and don't even dare ask her husband a question in or around the temple. Is that true today?

I could be wrong but where does it say in the New Test that a women cannot enter the the Temple?

Peter even questioned a women in church here and she was exspected to speak an answer:


Acts 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. 11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:09 PM
I could be wrong but where does it say in the New Test that a women cannot enter the the Temple?

Peter even questioned a women in church here and she was exspected to speak an answer:


Acts 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. 11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Ok. I don't remember where I read about women not been able to enter the church. But I do have Bible text where women are prohibited from talking, teaching or any other form of public speaking. They couldn't even speak to ask their husbands a question. Is this true today? Please read 1 Cor 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


One more thing. God created women and men. Men (physicly stronger) invented roles. Where is the word "role" in the Bible?

threebigrocks
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:22 PM
The Bible also says that women should not enter the temple and don't even dare ask her husband a question in or around the temple. Is that true today?


http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif


As Buck Shot replied - no, hardly. It's women fufilling their God ordained role which is not the same as placed on men. Take a look at my first post here, and also the post of Prayin_Saint above. They both state the way God intended the order of men and women to be. We are both women and I agree whole heartedly with PS!

Specifically, the temple would be a Jewish place of worship. If that would hold true for them today, than that's what it is. But we are not under law but grace, thus we don't worship in the Jewish manner.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:22 PM
I'll get around to it tomorrow, but if you look to the Greek it doesn't call for them to be "silent" as in never talking or teaching. It does, however, forbid female authority within the church (at least over a man). For some reason, God has a certain economy that we are called to follow. It doesn't, however, prevent women from teaching or working or even sharing the Gospel.
I looked at the Greek word "silent" from 1 Cor 14:14 and here are the translations:
to keep silence, hold one's peace
2) to be kept in silence, be concealed

According to Henry Mattews commentary, they could not teach, talk, prophetize or pray in public. God bless.

threebigrocks
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:23 PM
Ok. I don't remember where I read about women not been able to enter the church. But I do have Bible text where women are prohibited from talking, teaching or any other form of public speaking. They couldn't even speak to ask their husbands a question. Is this true today? Please read 1 Cor 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


One more thing. God created women and men. Men (physicly stronger) invented roles. Where is the word "role" in the Bible?

David, please look above at the scripture I quoted from Genesis. That pretty much explains the God appointed roles with utmost clarity.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:34 PM
Is that of the physical or spiritual? Her flesh won out over her spirit.

Honestly, there is so much more to the issue of women in the church for us to see and realize to understand the Godly order of things.

Clearly, as seen in 1 Timothy 2 and the following:

1 Timothy 3


Firstly, we could take men as meaning humanity, but when it specifically states that the man can only have one wife. Overseers, leaders of the flock, ought to be men. Ditto for deacons, or the assitant or "right hand man" of the overseer.

But then comes verse 11 which many take as women are included and it is switched up and twisted to be understood as "a woman of one husband, etc.". It doesn't say any such thing, and if Paul were going to be so specific about the men why would he not lay it out as plainly as he did for them? Women ought not to lead a church as a whole in any capacity.

The order of things must be understood, which does not change.

Genesis 2


1 Corinthians 11



The Godly order of things is as such: God being over Christ, Christ the covering for man, man the covering for women, with women being submissive to the ordained order, or propriety, of God and thus being submissive to all.

Women in the Jewish culture were strong people, having and raising children, handling the affairs of the household, keeping the "cogs" in place and running smoothly as is said in Proverbs 31. As it says man and woman are far from independent of each other but dependent on each others existence. Women are to teach the younger women and children, they also receive gifts of the Spirit. Women who do their part to allow their husband to be a Godly man are doing a great thing!
Women in Christ are strong women, but they were not created to shepherd a flock. They were designed to be a helpmate, with purpose in their place within the Godly order of things.
God created men and women. Men, because of sin and their own culture, invented roles. Women accepted it becuase of ignorance and because they were weaker physicaly. God created a helper for Adam this is true. He didn't create a helper for Eve because the helper was already created.:) When it comes to roles and order of things between the both sexes, it is all creations of men. I do admit that these creations were sometimes necesary. But not today.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:42 PM
David, please look above at the scripture I quoted from Genesis. That pretty much explains the God appointed roles with utmost clarity.
These were rules necesary at the time. This is the 21 century. My brother was married by a women. I don't think he commited a sin. God bless.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 10:45 PM
Women leading a church goes against the nature of things as set by God. Look at the scripture David. Those men in the early church were not cheuvenists - they were God fearing men doing things God's way.
You are 100% right. But that was written for them. Not for us. Sometimes we must know the context of what has been written and apply the principles. God bless.

Oma
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:42 AM
The Lord Jesus Christ said " If you love Me, keep My commandments." One of those commandments is that women should be silent in church and not teach where men are present. If we are going to pick and choose and say that what we don't agree with belonged to a by gone time; then what part of the Bible have we got left that is a safe rule of faith and practice? May as well throw the whole Book out!

threebigrocks
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:44 AM
God created men and women. Men, because of sin and their own culture, invented roles. Women accepted it becuase of ignorance and because they were weaker physicaly. God created a helper for Adam this is true. He didn't create a helper for Eve because the helper was already created.:) When it comes to roles and order of things between the both sexes, it is all creations of men. I do admit that these creations were sometimes necesary. But not today.

How did man become enticed to sin?

So, because Eve couldn't beat the snot out of Adam is why women are seen as .... what? Certainly not less to God in terms of salvation and love for them. Man took what God created and perverted it.

God created the "chain of command" if you will, not man. Take it or leave it. It is the order God established.

threebigrocks
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:46 AM
You are 100% right. But that was written for them. Not for us. Sometimes we must know the context of what has been written and apply the principles. God bless.

Why would that not apply to us any longer? What principles do you see that I am not seeing? Please show through scripture why that order no longer applies.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 03:36 AM
If we are going to pick and choose and say that what we don't agree with belonged to a by gone time; then what part of the Bible have we got left that is a safe rule of faith and practice? May as well throw the whole Book out!

Text without context is a pretext. I don't believe in the filosophy that says "all or nothing" Specially when it applies. God bless.

TrustingFollower
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:14 AM
In order to understand the order of things we need to look at the attributes of what the pastor is to be.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 (JV)


this is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

desire th a good works= work to expand the kingdom.:hmm:
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

having only one wife.:hmm:
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

not greedy of filthy lucre.:hmm:
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

someone who honors his own parents.:hmm:
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
self explanatory.:hmm:

6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

not a novice = so someone who knows what he is talking about.:hmm:

7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

someone with a good reputation.:hmm:

Who do we see in each of these passages and the chin scratchers?

This is Christ. Now we need to look at the proprietary order God set down. First it was God, then he made man, then he made woman.

So it went God->man->woman

Then Jesus came to redeem mankind as a whole. So who is Jesus? He is God in the flesh. That did not change the proprietary order. The only difference is now we have it this way Christ, then man, then woman.

Christ covers the man and the man covers the woman. that is the order that was set down from God at the beginning of mankind. This will never change because God is the same today, as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow. You guys need to except this as fact and demonstrate your faith in God with excepting it. Twisting the scriptures to make it say what you want it to say will only get you a big surprise when the end comes around and you have to answer to God.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:45 AM
What is a woman's role in the church?To cook, clean, and run the nursery? :D

Excuse me while I run for the hills before I get properly blasted........

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/runforhills.gif

fewarechosen
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:56 AM
remember

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

LetsDrinkCoke
Jul 3rd 2008, 05:08 AM
The Bible also says that women should not enter the temple and don't even dare ask her husband a question in or around the temple. Is that true today?

http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif


there is no temple today...so yes it is true today

LetsDrinkCoke
Jul 3rd 2008, 05:09 AM
These were rules necesary at the time. This is the 21 century. My brother was married by a women. I don't think he commited a sin. God bless.

21 century or 1 century, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If God is that, and if God is the Word, then how can it be different?

LetsDrinkCoke
Jul 3rd 2008, 05:11 AM
To cook, clean, and run the nursery? :D

Excuse me while I run for the hills before I get properly blasted........

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/runforhills.gif

sadly you are not the only person who had that pop up in their mind..but you are the first (and hopefully only) one daring enough to actually say it :lol:

theothersock
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:52 AM
God created men and women. Men, because of sin and their own culture, invented roles. Women accepted it becuase of ignorance and because they were weaker physicaly. God created a helper for Adam this is true. He didn't create a helper for Eve because the helper was already created.:) When it comes to roles and order of things between the both sexes, it is all creations of men. I do admit that these creations were sometimes necesary. But not today.

Please take no offense, but the subtext of your statements implies a very troubling thing:

That the Bible was not divinely inspired

When you say that scripture, which we all agree to be the divinely inspired word of God, is influenced by the culture of the time, you remove God's transcendent wisdom from the process. When you say that the Biblical laws are outdated or allude to such, you imply that God's knowledge and rulings are dated and thus negate their infinite and timeless value.

It is not possible to hold the beliefs that you have expressed while sincerely believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

I believe that it is. I believe that you believe that it is. However, I fear that in order to satisfy the culture and women of our time, you entertain a potentially dangerous philosophy.

theothersock
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:55 AM
remember

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We are all indeed one in Christ's salvation. However this, unfortunately does not negate the statements in Corinthians.

I have even read, though I am not certain of the accuracy, that Paul wrote in Corinthians in response to women who were using the passage you mentioned as reason to teach and pray uncovered etc.

Not a chauvanist. FAR from it. Just searching for Biblical TRUTH, not rationalization.

theothersock
Jul 3rd 2008, 07:01 AM
You are 100% right. But that was written for them. Not for us. Sometimes we must know the context of what has been written and apply the principles. God bless.

As someone above said, God nor his word change.

Something about all heaven and earth passing away before one tittle of the law fails?

Believe me, I am a huge fan of women's rights, one of the most enlightened men you'll meet in that regard. However, what can I do to contradict scripture? What is clearly stated in the divinely inspired word of God I can not contradict. Nor can I go through the Bible tossing out passages all willy-nilly saying "No longer relevant, HUZZAH!"

That type of reasoning leads to arguments like:

"Laws against fornication are no longer relevant, because modern technology has provided us adequate protection from children born out of wedlock etc."

Do you believe this as well? I trust not. True, in life few things are "all or nothing", but everything in the Bible utterly SCREAMS all or nothing. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your body, all your mind. Where there is darkness there is no light, where there is light there is no darkness. He who breaks one commandment breaks the entire law. Sell all your possessions give to the poor and follow me. etc. etc. etc.

I respect your wisdom and your opinions, but I fear that in this issue your argument rests on a questionable tactic.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:43 PM
having only one wife.:hmm:








God does not interfeer with human laws as long as this laws does not interfeer with His laws. Men were the only leaders back them, and that was respected. Do you think that the Bible is going to say only one husband and cause a riot?

Christ covers the man and the man covers the woman.

I don't know where this is in the Bible but anyways, this is not a command for ever and ever. This is an ilustration of the order of things back then. The principal of this teaching still applies of course. God bless.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:59 PM
That the Bible was not divinely inspired


The Bible was inspire by the Holy Spirit but still written by men. The only thing in the Bible that was written by God himself were the 10 Commandments and the writting on the wall. Men were inspire by the Holy Spirit but it was their pen that wrote. Every man and women is influence by the culture where they lived. This is not necesarily wrong. It is up to us to recognice this. God bless.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:04 PM
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

This is talking about God's character, not about his day to day decisions base on culture and many other factors.

Brother Mark
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:06 PM
God does not interfeer with human laws as long as this laws does not interfeer with His laws. Men were the only leaders back them, and that was respected. Do you think that the Bible is going to say only one husband and cause a riot?


I don't know where this is in the Bible but anyways, this is not a command for ever and ever. This is an ilustration of the order of things back then. The principal of this teaching still applies of course. God bless.


When God was referring to authority of men in the church, he referred all the way back to creation order, Adam was made first then Eve. God's plan for authority is more than cultural.

RabbiKnife
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:08 PM
In Christ there is neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Gentile, neither bond nor free.

Brother Mark
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:13 PM
In Christ there is neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Gentile, neither bond nor free.

this is true. But does that mean that roles have been done away with? I don't think so. It simply means that one is not worth more than another or more valuable. But we still know that even "in Christ" men cannot marry men and that wives and husbands still are commanded in different ways.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:19 PM
When God was referring to authority of men in the church, he referred all the way back to creation order, Adam was made first then Eve. God's plan for authority is more than cultural.
I do respect my elders. That does not mean that they have dominion over me today. Dominion is only necesary in a world were people have to depend on others to perform certain taks. But once that task is over then that particular dominion is over to. Let's face it. We all have a boss, no matter what we do, or what sex we belong to. If you are in the army you must obey what your superiors tell you to do. But once you leave the army. That chain of command is over. At least for you. God bless.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:21 PM
this is true. But does that mean that roles have been done away with? I don't think so. It simply means that one is not worth more than another or more valuable. But we still know that even "in Christ" men cannot marry men and that wives and husbands still are commanded in different ways.
I will like to know where do you find in the Bible the words "everlasting roles"

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:29 PM
Why would that not apply to us any longer? What principles do you see that I am not seeing? Please show through scripture why that order no longer applies.
Most of these principals teach respect for the common laws of the time. Please show me in scripture where these oders still spply. God was not please with polygamy yet, He allowed it. God was not please with all the killings, yet He allowed it. I wonder if people can do these things today without some type of severe reprecussion.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:31 PM
As someone above said, God nor his word change.

Something about all heaven and earth passing away before one tittle of the law fails?

Believe me, I am a huge fan of women's rights, one of the most enlightened men you'll meet in that regard. However, what can I do to contradict scripture? What is clearly stated in the divinely inspired word of God I can not contradict. Nor can I go through the Bible tossing out passages all willy-nilly saying "No longer relevant, HUZZAH!"

That type of reasoning leads to arguments like:

"Laws against fornication are no longer relevant, because modern technology has provided us adequate protection from children born out of wedlock etc."

Do you believe this as well? I trust not. True, in life few things are "all or nothing", but everything in the Bible utterly SCREAMS all or nothing. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your body, all your mind. Where there is darkness there is no light, where there is light there is no darkness. He who breaks one commandment breaks the entire law. Sell all your possessions give to the poor and follow me. etc. etc. etc.

I respect your wisdom and your opinions, but I fear that in this issue your argument rests on a questionable tactic.
You are comparing oranges with apples.:)

Brother Mark
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:32 PM
I do respect my elders. That does not mean that they have dominion over me today. Dominion is only necesary in a world were people have to depend on others to perform certain taks. But once that task is over then that particular dominion is over to. Let's face it. We all have a boss, no matter what we do, or what sex we belong to. If you are in the army you must obey what your superiors tell you to do. But once you leave the army. That chain of command is over. At least for you. God bless.

Authority will always be with us. You are correct in that. And it doesn't matter whether we are male or female we will find ourselves under some form of authority. But even in heaven, there is authority.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:33 PM
there is no temple today...so yes it is true today
lol plus some more lol:lol:

Brother Mark
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:34 PM
I will like to know where do you find in the Bible the words "everlasting roles"

Everlasting would be wrong. For when we get to heaven we are like the angels that are neither married nor given in marriage. So marriage roles no longer exists in heaven. But we are not in heaven. As I wrote above, when God was speaking about authority, he referred back to creation order. It was outside of culture that God established the authority of men in scripture. Are there exceptions? I believe so. Debra was one. However, it is a rare thing. God meant and established that men should be the authority in the church and he referred back to creation order when he wrote about it in the new testament.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:36 PM
To cook, clean, and run the nursery? :D

Excuse me while I run for the hills before I get properly blasted........

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/runforhills.gif
You better find a good place to hide.:eek:

TrustingFollower
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:48 PM
I do respect my elders. That does not mean that they have dominion over me today. Dominion is only necesary in a world were people have to depend on others to perform certain taks. But once that task is over then that particular dominion is over to. Let's face it. We all have a boss, no matter what we do, or what sex we belong to. If you are in the army you must obey what your superiors tell you to do. But once you leave the army. That chain of command is over. At least for you. God bless.
When you became a Christian you died to yourself and were reborn in Christ's life and resurrection. So with that it means Christ is your boss forever. His word is the instructions to all of us. We can not change the word or the fact he has dominion over us. To deny this fact your are denying Christ and what he did for us. So what you are saying about the chain of command above is true, the point is the chain of command will never end for us Christians.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 3rd 2008, 03:19 PM
sadly you are not the only person who had that pop up in their mind..but you are the first (and hopefully only) one daring enough to actually say it :lol:Daring enough or stupid enough? :D

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/fear.gif

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:29 PM
The reason is that women are easily deceived because we are emotional.

That might be you. But not my boss and plenty of other women that work around me. Women and men have the same inteligence and ability to make decisions. I guess you are not a Clinton supporter. (by the way, I am not either) :kiss:

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:32 PM
Like homosexuality, divorce, creation/ evolution and a few other topics people get very heated - including ME at times.

We can NOT ignore the teaching given to us in the bible which is given by GOD via the men who wrote it. (inspired).

Homosexuality is wrong
Divorce in most cases, perhaps all?, is wrong.
Creation/ Evolution - we can only go as far as the bible says, and then there should be no speculation or debate - this is the start of sin.

The bible says what it does and we can either look for loop holes, say times have changed - so we will follow satan's world rather than the Word of God/ bible.

However the Law/ instructions of God/ Jesus must be seen and applied with LOVE. Maturity and bible knowledge comes in here too. Some grow quickly and mature in the Word and applying it, others grow very slowly as we see in the early churches in the New Testament.

NEVER stop from pointing people to what God says to all of us believers in the bible. But encourage and help people accept that it is written to help the person, all of us, not critise or lay a heavy burden on them. May our love for eachother help us grow in faith. Love Paul/ Servant of Truth. :pray:
What about slavery? Is that part of the order of things to?

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:38 PM
I have chosen to not contribute to this thread after all. I know that this topic becomes heated, gets personal, and eventually all goes to waste.


That is not true. I have learned how people think and why. By the way, I agree with the rest of your post. God bless.

Buck shot
Jul 3rd 2008, 07:44 PM
.
One more thing. God created women and men. Men (physicly stronger) invented roles. Where is the word "role" in the Bible?

The word "cat" is not in there either, did we invent them too :lol:

Brother Mark
Jul 3rd 2008, 08:45 PM
That might be you. But not my boss and plenty of other women that work around me. Women and men have the same inteligence and ability to make decisions. I guess you are not a Clinton supporter. (by the way, I am not either) :kiss:

Scripture doesn't prevent a woman from being a boss or leader of a country. However, they are not supposed to be authorities in church over men. There are exceptions, but the creation order that God referred back to pretty much latches that doctrine tight. Authority was established before the fall when Man walked with God.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 08:52 PM
The word "cat" is not in there either, did we invent them too :lol:
Not everything that was created by God, is listed in the Bible. Not every thing created by men is listed in the Bible either. God bless.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:02 PM
Scripture doesn't prevent a woman from being a boss or leader of a country. However, they are not supposed to be authorities in church over men. There are exceptions, but the creation order that God referred back to pretty much latches that doctrine tight. Authority was established before the fall when Man walked with God.
I wonder what race was Adam and Eve? according to your theory their race should have dominion over all the other races. You can argue that Adam and Eve had all the combination of races. But what if one of the desendents didn't have all the combnation of races? Would the races of Adam and Eve have dominion over people of just one race? This order of things theory remind me of an old excuse for slavary.

Brother Mark
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:06 PM
I wonder what race was Adam and Eve? according to your theory their race should have dominion over all the other races. You can argue that Adam and Eve had all the combination of races. But what if one of the desendents didn't have all the combnation of races? Would the races of Adam and Eve have dominion over people of just one race? This order of things theory remind me of an old excuse for slavary.

It's not a theory. I am basing it on this scripture.

1 Tim 2:12-13
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
NASB

Not sure why you want to try and bring race into it. All races come from Adam and Eve and further, Noah. Scripture never once addresses authority based on race. Not one time. But he does speak of authority based on gender. But the gender has to be qualified beyond gender.

The overriding point is that God here referred back to creation order. Before sin entered into the picture, authority was established. There will be authority in heaven as well.

Authority and equality are not to be confused. Jesus was completely equal with God the Father. Yet, he was under the Father's authority.

As for roles, they are found in scripture. Men, no matter how hard they try can never fill the role of giving birth. Nor can they be a mother. Roles are defined in scripture in many different ways even if scripture doesn't use that exact word.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:09 PM
Authority will always be with us. You are correct in that. And it doesn't matter whether we are male or female we will find ourselves under some form of authority. But even in heaven, there is authority.
Agree, completly. God bless.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:14 PM
When you became a Christian you died to yourself and were reborn in Christ's life and resurrection. So with that it means Christ is your boss forever. His word is the instructions to all of us. We can not change the word or the fact he has dominion over us. To deny this fact your are denying Christ and what he did for us. So what you are saying about the chain of command above is true, the point is the chain of command will never end for us Christians.
Christ will always be our boss. No matter if your are man, women, black, white, young, old, preacher, deciple, church leader, pew warmer, poor, rich, healthy, sick, tall, short. I hope my point is clear:lol:

Brother Mark
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:17 PM
Christ will always be our boss. No matter if your are man, women, black, white, young, old, preacher, deciple, church leader, pew warmer, poor, rich, healthy, sick, tall, short. I hope my point is clear:lol:

Makes perfect sense. But authority is an interesting thing in scripture. For instance, we are told to submit ourselves to Christ. Then, scripture uses the same exact verses and tells wives to submit themselves to their husbands as unto the Lord.

Authority is a good thing.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:22 PM
in the new testament.

The new testament was written about 2000 years ago. God does not change, but God's relationship towards man and women did. And no is doesn't said that specifically in the NT because the NT was not written in the 21 century.

davidandme
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:28 PM
Makes perfect sense. But authority is an interesting thing in scripture. For instance, we are told to submit ourselves to Christ. Then, scripture uses the same exact verses and tells wives to submit themselves to their husbands as unto the Lord.

Authority is a good thing.

This Bible is just making a comparison between the relationship of mankind to Him. The Bible also tells the masters of slaves that they can beat them up because slaves are their property. I hope this is not within the realms of proper behaviour today.

Prayin_saint
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:52 PM
The new testament was written about 2000 years ago. God does not change, but God's relationship towards man and women did. And no is doesn't said that specifically in the NT because the NT was not written in the 21 century.

I think you lost me, because what this seems to say is that God's relationship towards men and women has changed since the NT was written. If you are saying that- why in the world do you say that?

The NT wasn't written in the 21st Century... but the God who was God then is still the God now, you're right. He doesn't change. He's all-knowing and saw the 21st century coming. The submission of wives to husbands, while it does have a symbolic element in it, is not a figurative notion. It's a command several times in the NT. That's not a cultural thing, either... it's the way marriage is supposed to work.

I'd like to clear up a few things about submission:

Submission doesn't mean the loss of who a person is, but putting yourself in a position to be cared for, guided by and provided for by the other party. When we submit to Christ it's not a forgetting of who we are, or giving ourselves over to some dictator. Certainly not! We become a part of him, his body, and he cares for us as such. He gives us commands and we obey them. In the same way, a wife becomes a part of her husband. He is commanded to care for her like he cares for his body. Ephesians 5 says:


In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The husband is not given a place of tyranny, but of responsibility. I appreciate you defending us women like you do. It's clear that you want to make sure women are treated fairly in this. And we are- God does not make us slaves to our husbands, but gives us husbands to care for us and to care for in return. Yes, I know that history shows that this is not always what happens. Women have been mistreated in the past and the bible has been manipulated to help wrong-doers. I'm sure that still happens today. But we live in a fallen world, and things like that happen and the Bible and "cultural standards" get blamed for it.

But these verses about submission aren't an enslaving thing- they illustrate a loving, wonderful system God created in the Garden. Man is placed over woman to protect and care for her. Woman submits and becomes Man's ezer-kenegdo. (Often translated as 'Help-Meet'...but more acurately it refers to someone who helps in desperate times.)

I hope this helps give a better picture of Submission and Authority.
Sarah :hug:

TrustingFollower
Jul 4th 2008, 12:17 AM
The new testament was written about 2000 years ago. God does not change, but God's relationship towards man and women did. And no is doesn't said that specifically in the NT because the NT was not written in the 21 century.
God's relationship only changed when we (mankind) brought sin into the picture, what changed is instead of dwelling with him in the garden, we separated ourselves from him. We did it not God. God has never, I will repeat that, NEVER changed his perspective for us. He has always strive to draw us to him. This is evident from the beginning of the bible all the way to the end of the bible. If you are going to use the argument that he changed things after Jesus came to us then I would suggest you go back and do some serious study of the scriptures. God did NOT change things when Jesus came, he fulfilled what he foretold us he was going to do. Scripture is the infallible word of God. Jesus is in fact the word that became flesh and dwelt with us.

The fact that the scriptures were not written in the 21st century is a testament to itself. The scriptures still relate today just as they did back when they were written. God's word has not changed and it never will. You need to except them as they are written. That is a simple way of saying we need to take it in faith. The same way we accept Jesus' resurrection in faith, that you and I have life in him and we too will be resurrected.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 12:30 AM
The new testament was written about 2000 years ago. God does not change, but God's relationship towards man and women did. And no is doesn't said that specifically in the NT because the NT was not written in the 21 century.

The relationship God has with men changes with each century? It seems to me you are now believing man made doctrine.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 12:31 AM
This Bible is just making a comparison between the relationship of mankind to Him. The Bible also tells the masters of slaves that they can beat them up because slaves are their property. I hope this is not within the realms of proper behaviour today.

Um. No, the NT doesn't teach that one can beat his slaves. When it comes to authority, scripture is pretty plain.

davidandme
Jul 4th 2008, 12:57 AM
God's relationship only changed when we (mankind) brought sin into the picture, what changed is instead of dwelling with him in the garden, we separated ourselves from him. We did it not God. God has never, I will repeat that, NEVER changed his perspective for us. He has always strive to draw us to him. This is evident from the beginning of the bible all the way to the end of the bible. If you are going to use the argument that he changed things after Jesus came to us then I would suggest you go back and do some serious study of the scriptures. God did NOT change things when Jesus came, he fulfilled what he foretold us he was going to do. Scripture is the infallible word of God. Jesus is in fact the word that became flesh and dwelt with us.

The fact that the scriptures were not written in the 21st century is a testament to itself. The scriptures still relate today just as they did back when they were written. God's word has not changed and it never will. You need to except them as they are written. That is a simple way of saying we need to take it in faith. The same way we accept Jesus' resurrection in faith, that you and I have life in him and we too will be resurrected.
I agree 100%. I think that didn't express my self well or you missundertood my post. Either way, what I meant to say is that God accepts cultures as long as they don't contradict His will or laws. Culture laws written in the Bible are not neccesary true for us today. God bless.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 01:04 AM
I agree 100%. I think that didn't express my self well or you missundertood my post. Either way, what I meant to say is that God accepts cultures as long as they don't contradict His will or laws. Culture laws written in the Bible are not neccesary true for us today. God bless.

Except that when God established authority of men in church, he went back to a time that was pre-cultural. That's a key point not to be missed. Authority was established in creation order. IMO, the culture point is weak with authority because of this very thing. And we have the examples throughout scripture of God using men for authority. Even when God raised up a woman like Debra, she desired for a man to take authority and he would not! Barak refused and as a result, a woman was given the honor by God of killing the enemy instead of Barak.

davidandme
Jul 4th 2008, 01:06 AM
How did man become enticed to sin?

So, because Eve couldn't beat the snot out of Adam is why women are seen as .... what? Certainly not less to God in terms of salvation and love for them. Man took what God created and perverted it.

God created the "chain of command" if you will, not man. Take it or leave it. It is the order God established.

Change of command, order of things. roles, power over another adult human being just because they are diferent. Sounds like a good excuse for slavery.

I just saw a report on MSNBC over these crazy people in Texas (FLDS) They used very similar terminology they even used the Bible.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 01:10 AM
Change of command, order of things. roles, power over another adult human being just because they are diferent. Sounds like a good excuse for slavery.

I just saw a report on MSNBC over these crazy people in Texas (FLDS) They used very similar terminology they even used the Bible.

Of course, even Satan uses scripture. But when rightfully used, it brings life. There is no need to dispose of it's teachings for in them are the words of life. Authority is not meant for abuse nor for slavery. What did Jesus teach about authority?

TrustingFollower
Jul 4th 2008, 01:12 AM
I agree 100%. I think that didn't express my self well or you missundertood my post. Either way, what I meant to say is that God accepts cultures as long as they don't contradict His will or laws. Culture laws written in the Bible are not neccesary true for us today. God bless.
I guess I don't really see the culture laws that you speak of in the bible. Perhaps you could point a couple out then we can look at them and see if they are in fact really cultural laws. Keep in mind Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. So if you are referring to the Levitical laws then my previous statement throws those out.

davidandme
Jul 4th 2008, 01:17 AM
Not sure why you want to try and bring race into it.
You said that Adam should be the master because he was born before Eve. So it all comes down to who came first. Right? What was Adam skin color or race? White? maybe. Does that mean that all white people shoud have dominion over every other race?

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 01:28 AM
You said that Adam should be the master because he was born before Eve. So it all comes down to who came first. Right? What was Adam skin color or race? White? maybe. Does that mean that all white people shoud have dominion over every other race?

No. I didn't say that. God said it. Big difference. But again, there was no race then and all race came from Adam. God didn't tie authority to race as he did to gender. So it's a moot point.

Why do you resist the word of God? God laid it out to help man not to hurt him. I ask again, what does Christ teach about those in authority?

TrustingFollower
Jul 4th 2008, 01:33 AM
You said that Adam should be the master because he was born before Eve. So it all comes down to who came first. Right? What was Adam skin color or race? White? maybe. Does that mean that all white people shoud have dominion over every other race?
This is me putting on the official mod hat here. Davidandme you need to stop making this a race issue with the skin color thing and slavery. You and I both know this has nothing to do with the role of a woman in the church. So if you can't discuss the issue without trying to drag this kind of junk into the discussion then leave the thread.

cnw
Jul 4th 2008, 01:39 AM
you know even Scripture says that after the fall the woman would try to be an authority over man...this was sin. I wanted to point out to that when a woman leads, notice that men just wont. When women lead in the home a man usually becomes complacent and wont lead. From what I have noticed the men are even submersed in sin and wont follow or lead anyway. The same goes for a church. When women start to dominate there isn't room for men to lead.
I agree with many posters after much study of Scripture and living a life of sin, when I gave my life to Christ I finally came under the submission of my husband and when that happened he took over the leadership of the home. only after this, did the home become orderly.
It was the woman who was deceived in the garden-not the man so once again that is an important point also brought out.

davidandme
Jul 4th 2008, 01:41 AM
Submission doesn't mean the loss of who a person is, but putting yourself in a position to be cared for, guided by and provided for by the other party.
If that is the way you are going to define submission (and you might be right) then men should be submitted to their wives and wives to their husbands. No roles, no order of things, no one has power over the other, no one has the final authrorative word. Men and women are equal. Before the throne of God the excuse of my master (husband) made me do it will not hold any water. It didn't work for Adam or Eve, that's for sure.

TrustingFollower
Jul 4th 2008, 02:05 AM
If that is the way you are going to define submission (and you might be right) then men should be submitted to their wives and wives to their husbands. No roles, no order of things, no one has power over the other, no one has the final authrorative word. Men and women are equal. Before the throne of God the excuse of my master (husband) made me do it will not hold any water. It didn't work for Adam or Eve, that's for sure.

This whole submission thing is deeper than that. When God said let us make man in our likeness, then he made Adam. after that he looked the whole of creation over for a suitable companion for man and found none worthy. So he made Adam to go into a deep sleep and took a rib from him and closed up the flesh. From that rib he made woman, for she was formed from the man. For that reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one. (Genesis 2:24)

OK who are Adam and Eves' mother and father?:hmm:

If God tells us this in Genesis then there must be more meaning to it wouldn't you think?

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 02:09 AM
If that is the way you are going to define submission (and you might be right) then men should be submitted to their wives and wives to their husbands. No roles, no order of things, no one has power over the other, no one has the final authrorative word. Men and women are equal. Before the throne of God the excuse of my master (husband) made me do it will not hold any water. It didn't work for Adam or Eve, that's for sure.

Adam and Eve didn't do it right did they? Had Adam exorcised his authority, things might have been different. Why do you equate authority with inequality? Is that taught in scripture? What is Jesus opinion of authority and what does he teach about those in authority?

threebigrocks
Jul 4th 2008, 02:14 AM
I don't know where this is in the Bible but anyways, this is not a command for ever and ever. This is an ilustration of the order of things back then. The principal of this teaching still applies of course. God bless.

If the principle still applies then why do you fight the issue? The principle of the order of God in regards to women is what is up for discussion here. It seems you are in a bit of double speak here.



Most of these principals teach respect for the common laws of the time. Please show me in scripture where these oders still spply. God was not please with polygamy yet, He allowed it. God was not please with all the killings, yet He allowed it. I wonder if people can do these things today without some type of severe reprecussion.

That is backwards my friend. We do not make God fit this world and it's definition of acceptable, we apply God to all things. As was mentioned, there was no, none at all, culture when the order of things was established as the only people who walked in the garden was God, Adam and Eve.


Christ will always be our boss. No matter if your are man, women, black, white, young, old, preacher, deciple, church leader, pew warmer, poor, rich, healthy, sick, tall, short. I hope my point is clear:lol:

Well we have the very words from God who you say is your "boss" that lays these things out, and they say what they say. All encompassing as you said above. Take it as His instruction, as He is over you as you said. That is a portion of the order of things for man. ;)


Change of command, order of things. roles, power over another adult human being just because they are diferent. Sounds like a good excuse for slavery.

This is your cultural understanding getting in the way of "the bosses" instructions.


If that is the way you are going to define submission (and you might be right) then men should be submitted to their wives and wives to their husbands. No roles, no order of things, no one has power over the other, no one has the final authrorative word. Men and women are equal. Before the throne of God the excuse of my master (husband) made me do it will not hold any water. It didn't work for Adam or Eve, that's for sure.

You are correct that servitude is very important in a marriage relationship. But there are roles and order of things. The characteristics of a good leader are to not hold it over another, but to lead in humility and servitude as Christ did. Why? Because together a husband and wife as one body submit to Christ just as Christ did to God's will.

And there, again, is the order of things. Even Christ was totally submissive to the Father. ;) God>Christ>Man>Woman.

When this applies to the church and the role of a woman in the church women must submit to God and her husband. It's not a lesser place by any means - it shows a great love for God. Really, does anything else matter?

threebigrocks
Jul 4th 2008, 02:25 AM
To cook, clean, and run the nursery? :D

Excuse me while I run for the hills before I get properly blasted........

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/runforhills.gif

Now hold on there if you can hear me way up in them thar hills! :lol: Get back here Luke!

That is my pride, to run the home, care for my children and keep an order to things so that my husband can do what he needs to do in his role to support us. Because he understands his role, he doesn't come home and put up his feet while I wait on him. ;) We are in our marriage together! He goes insane if he's home too much, and I go nuts working full time.

God ordained order and propriety. It's in each of us.

Prayin_saint
Jul 4th 2008, 02:29 AM
Davidandme,

I have seen you talk a whole lot, but I wonder... where are your scriptures? You seem to take the world's way of looking at everything and then looking at what we are trying to say and declaring that it is wrong. Do you have any scriptures to back up your positions? Like God's commands being able to change with every culture they enter? Or any of the points you keep trying to make? I'm curious to see if such scriptures exist.

Now, in response to the one line you used from my last post... Yes, the bible does say "submit to one another", actually. But the Husband is still head over the wife.
My earlier post was aimed at trying to get you to see that the words "Authority" and "Submission" need not provoke such a heated response with you. You automatically start thinking of slavery, when that was not God's intention at all. Authority is not a bad thing. It is good. It is a God-entrusted roll of responsibility, not tyrany. Please stop to think about that for a moment before you continue to lash out at those words.

In Him,
Sarah :hug:

davidandme
Jul 5th 2008, 12:04 AM
you know even Scripture says that after the fall the woman would try to be an authority over man...this was sin.
I believe it is the other way around. Please read 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.
So we see that this situation, created by Eve's sin, resulted in her desire's becoming her husband's desires. Before they were both to rule together, equally. This is not necessarily a prophecy for all women, but for Eve's role in the eating from the tree in direct violation to God's command. There are many societies where the women are the rulers and it works for them, but the best societies are where gender equality and respect are shared in the community roles.

Brother Mark
Jul 5th 2008, 12:19 AM
I believe it is the other way around. Please read 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.
So we see that this situation, created by Eve's sin, resulted in her desire's becoming her husband's desires. Before they were both to rule together, equally. This is not necessarily a prophecy for all women, but for Eve's role in the eating from the tree in direct violation to God's command. There are many societies where the women are the rulers and it works for them, but the best societies are where gender equality and respect are shared in the community roles.

Actually, God teaches us in Timothy that authority was established at creation not after the fall. Paul himself referred back to creation order. There was equality in the garden and even now. But the equality is not in authority but rather in worth and value. When it comes to strengths and weaknesses, both have them.

davidandme
Jul 5th 2008, 01:03 AM
But the equality is not in authority but rather in worth and value. When it comes to strengths and weaknesses, both have them.

Could you please clarify what you mean by the words "worth and value," because it sounds like you are implying that only roles of authority are gender-based. If you are saying that one gender is superior from the other then I can understand your opinions and motives. God bless.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 01:06 AM
"Equality" does not mean a violation of roles or authority though. The President of the United States is equal to a pauper on the streets - they are both entitled to the same protection under the Constitution. The President, however, has a vastly bigger responsibility and far more authority than the pauper on the street. This authority, however, doesn't make him higher.

Likewise, though men and women are equal in Christ - meaning all share in the blessings and salvation - there is a difference in the authority structure. This does not make them unequal.

Just to get to the heart of the matter, because it's been bugging me, DavidandMe, you're buying into a lie that was brought about by the French postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault. Keeping true to his belief in the end of the Enlightenment (though, ironically enough, holding to many of its tenets) he taught that all authority structures were simply grabs at power in an attempt to create an inequality among people.

In the modern world we see a very big anti-authoritarian attitude - even to the point that we think "authority" is always an evil thing. Yet all of this stems from Foucault (and in a sense earlier French Enlightenment philosophers, such as Rousseau, who taught in the autonomy of man).

Other philosophers, such as Derrida, have picked up on Foucault's understanding of authority (even though Derrida ultimately criticizes Foucault). Derrida began to argue for a "religion without religion" - that is, having a religion without authority, or a God without power. Though Derrida was Jewish, he argued that many of his Christian disciples could pick up on this view. John Caputo and Gianni Vattimo did just that - and thus formed Weakness Theology.

My point on this is that if you view authority as a matter of equality, and that all authority is merely an evil power gain, then you must apply this view to the church and, ultimately, to God. After all, how can God be loving if He is merely attempting to exert authority over people?

Not to mention that by buying off this view of French postmodernity you have accepted a worldly philosophy, something the Bible expressly forbids.

Now I know that you probably have never read Foucault, Derrida, or anything else by postmoderns, but it does not mean it cannot effect your way of thinking. In this instance, it has effected your way of thinking - by equating "equality" to mean "equal in all things including authority," you have bought into the Foucault-ian way of thinking. This, of course, is not Biblical.

Biblically, as I stated at the beginning of this post, there is a structure to things where all are equal, but not in terms of authority (this even goes for vocational callings among people within the same gender). Parents are equal to their children in terms of salvation and blessings, but not in terms of authority - the parent has authority over the child; yet not one takes the time to argue against this point in the New Testament. We accept Paul's wisdom in telling parents to have authority over their children and for children to embrace and honor this authority, but we condemn Paul when he says a husband's authority is over his wife. We must be consistent and either reject all authoritarian structures in the Bible (as Foucault and Derrida would have us do) or embrace them, realizing that God has decreed such things in His wisdom.

In closing, I would implore you to consider your stance and consider if worldly philosophy has tainted your worldview - maybe you've let French philosophy infect your way of thinking and just haven't realized it. Most of all, however, I would encourage you to realize the Bible is still culturally relevant. Instead of bending the Bible to fit our culture, we should instead bend our culture to fit the Bible.

Brother Mark
Jul 5th 2008, 01:11 AM
Could you please clarify what you mean by the words "worth and value," because it sounds like you are implying that only roles of authority are gender-based. If you are saying that one gender is superior from the other then I can understand your opinions and motives. God bless.

I am saying the genders are equal. But not equal in authority. Jesus himself said he was equal with God. However, he fully submitted to God's authority in every way.

Authority is not about equality. My boss is not better than me but still he has authority over me. My president is not better than me but still he has authority over me.

TrustingFollower
Jul 5th 2008, 05:25 AM
I believe it is the other way around. Please read 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.
So we see that this situation, created by Eve's sin, resulted in her desire's becoming her husband's desires. Before they were both to rule together, equally. This is not necessarily a prophecy for all women, but for Eve's role in the eating from the tree in direct violation to God's command. There are many societies where the women are the rulers and it works for them, but the best societies are where gender equality and respect are shared in the community roles.
Oh barf, you are double talking yourself in this post. Bold black is God's words. Bold red are your words. Have you bought into the Oprah religion? You are adding to scripture with your own worldly view? God has never said that men and women would rule together equally. In fact he said just the same as is stated in the bold black. Why did he say the man would rule over the woman, because she was formed out of man.

Genesis 2:22-23 (NASB)
22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."



Study the scriptures and use them to back up your opinion on this matter not what this world tells you, this world is full of lies.

Kate
Jul 5th 2008, 09:12 AM
Okay. I'm a woman in an executive level of authority in the church. A Baptist church, even.

God created man first. He created woman second. It is contrary to God's design for a woman to exercise spiritual authority over a man as in teaching, preaching, etc. God created women and men to fill different roles in the Body. Does this make women inferior to men? No. It just makes our roles different. Women should teach and counsel other women. They may even teach a group of men in certain situations, but a woman should not fill the role of pastor as this role is a role God clearly designed for a man because of the spiritual authority involved. It is a disgrace to a man for his wife to rule over him. The Bible clearly states that the man is the head of the household, and Christ is the head of the church. If a woman is not intended to lead the home, why in the world would she lead the church?

That being said, of course women can speak in church. A lot of people miss the fact that Paul began many of these statements with "I do not permit... " Some of this was his own personal preference and there were cultural differences as to what was respectful and what was not. However, women should have respect for those around them and not usurp their position in a church setting. This was the heart of what Paul was saying.

My job in the church does not permit me to preach or teach in church because it is not my role. Women in my church don't do this, except in women's studies. However, it is my job to direct the business & finance of the church, which includes not only a large church, but a preschool, Day Care, and kinder through 12th grade school. I have to approve and deny requests made by male pastors, and male staff all the time. There are times when I have to tell them NO for something. I am exercising authority under the leadership of my pastor, more specifically acting on his behalf within the role of my position. I am careful to be respectful to the pastors and others, as well as coworkers who are female. Men are designed to be the leaders in the church. There are women leaders, too (I am one of them) but my leadership role does not stand in authority over a man, except as my job permits, again, acting under the authority of the senior pastor.

I have had what I perceive as some trouble with a couple of the men there who I believe have resented the authority I carry. I know they treat me differently because I am a woman and would treat me much differently if I were a man. It's harder to earn respect as a woman. I believe I have mostly won these situations over. I'm careful with them, and when I perceive that I will have to give news to them that would be very negative I pass it on to my pastor to communicate it. I will not berate a man, or an older woman, as the Bible commands. Sometimes the pastors break rules- such as vehicles rules for trips that have to do with safety, etc. I do have to speak up and let them know that they can't do those things. There is a way to do it, though. If it's something really bad and they need to be really reprimanded, I leave it to the senior pastor.

While I've felt at times that my authority has been resented, I have also been handled with kid gloves as a woman. I find that I receive much gentler treatment than my counterparts and am defended when something potentially hurtful or negative comes up by the same ones who I've believed have resented my authority. It's kind of interesting.

Anyway, to sum it up, I believe the Bible is clear that women do not exercise spiritual authority over a man and therefore should not be pastors.