What does the Bible mean about the role of women?

[Scribe]

Acts 21 gives us a snapshot of assembling with saints who prophesied women, and men. The Holy Ghost used both as it was his intention to do so and still is.

On the day of Pentecost it was declared in a powerful manner that the women were to be part of this Holy Ghost empowerment to prophesy.

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Therefore it is heremeutically impossible to interpret Paul as saying that women cannot prophesy in the assembly since we see examples in the book of the Acts of them doing so. What then did Paul mean when he said to be silent in the church? The same thing he meant when he told those speaking in tongues without an interpreter to be silent in the church.

 

[Benadam]

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

God told Adam his sin. When you think about it, it explains the reason for Paul's restrictions on women teaching.
Gen 3
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

 

[Benadam]

I feel like that morning that I go to work. Doing my hunting and gathering for my family. Yes, it is satisfying when I get home from another successful day in the workplace. It's a jungle out there, that's for sure.

Exactly.

 

[Scribe]

God told Adam his sin. When you think about it, it explains the reason for Paul's restrictions on women teaching.
Gen 3
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

I lean more toward the interpretation being that he is highlighting the origin of the woman being submissive to the husband commandment. It was after this that he said as a result her desire would be toward her husband and he would rule over her.

I do not believe Paul was saying that women are not as saved from the fall as much as men are. That Jesus cannot fix their female propensity to be deceived by satan and so they are not going to be able to preach sound doctrine because they are women. That the Holy Spirit poured out on women will not be as effective in empowering them for ministry because after all Eve was deceived. Any interpretation from the mention of Eve being deceived that suggests that women cannot be trusted to teach sound doctrine is obviously going to contradict with the rest of scriptures concerning the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to renew the minds of regenerated saints and it also puts the emphasis on the natural abilities of women or men for ministry instead of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God. To suggest that a women might be a teacher of deception because she is a woman is to suggest that a man is going to be able to grasp biblical concepts better than a woman and that the man is called because of his intellectual capacity as a male or some such nonsense similar to that. There should be an alarm that goes off in your soul whenever someone suggest that Paul said a woman cannot teach because she is easily deceived.

 

[Corban]

And yet in that context he was specifically talking about asking questions. He said that those who speak in tongues should be silent, he said that those who prophesy should be silent, then he said that the women should be silent.

Now was he talking to only women tongue talkers? So he told men to be silent in the church also.
He clearly told both men and women to be silent in the church.

But of course we understand that is not fair to not include context. If there is not an interpreter then the tongue speaker should be silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.
If the one with a prophesy understands that there is someone else who also has a prophesy he should be silent and let the other speak also.
And the women who are asking these questions out of order should be silent and ask their husbands at home.

This is not the same as saying a woman cannot teach or preach in church. The gender of the speaker at the time that women were asking their questions was not mentioned though we assume it would be a male, it could be a female speaking and still the women asking questions would be out of order and still the admonition to be silent and ask their questions at home would apply.

All I am saying here is that we should stick to the text and not insert things that are not said. We have to always ask the question, If Paul were here right now and I could ask him "Paul, what did you mean by this. Were you saying that women cannot ask questions in a disruptive manner, which I can understand would be awkward in any meeting. Or were you saying that you taught that Women were not allowed to preach or teach in churches?" and what would Paul say to us? Well we can't do that (yet) so we have to be very careful analyzing what he wrote and do our best to figure it out from the text, context, word meaning of original language, and over course all the other scriptures we can find.

The scriptures do not contradict. If it was God's intention that women, and handmaidens be allowed to prophesy (Acts 2) in the assembly and we know for certain they were included in the giving prophesy because we have other scriptures to support that. (acts 2 and Philips daughters) then a literal admonition to be silent in the assembly without qualification could not possibly be what Paul meant. Therefore we conclude that he was talking about asking questions out of order and would not be banning them from giving a prophesy one at at time in order, two or three at the most, that all may be edified.

And I am also convinced they were involved in speaking in tongues with an interpreter and giving interpretations in tongues but I cannot argue it from a scriptural example and neither can anyone say they were not.
The admonition: 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Is directed to all the saints.

Notwithstanding the arguments of the others, I like your style. We are only going to get to the bottom of a matter if we don't add or subtract from God's Word. I also think that any argument that relegates God's Word to "that time" and/or "that culture" is not allowed. The intrinsic nature of men and women has not changed over the centuries, and what was a problem in Corinth in 60 AD is just as valid today.

Your argument for both 1st Corinthians 14 and 1st Timothy 2:12 seem good to me. In 1st Corinthians 14, both from the preamble in 1:1-2 and from the immediate context in 14:23 and 26, we know undoubtedly that Paul was addressing the meetings of the Ekklesia (just to avoid those who think that a Church is a building of brick or such like). Because of this, if we are not very strict with the actual wording, we are seemingly faced with a contradiction. Paul says we may "ALL" prophesy in verse 31. Then he proceeds to seemingly ban women in the next breath, so making a mockery of the word "ALL". If we add the facts of Acts 2 and 21, where we clearly have female prophetesses furnished with the Holy Spirit for power, your understanding that Paul was addressing unnecessary talking rather than banning female prophetesses, is likely.

I would add that few Pentecostal Churches have a correct understanding of verses 21-22. They read;

21 "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

The reference is to Deuteronomy 29:49 were if God's People were unfaithful and disobedient, they would be ruled by other nations who spoke unintelligibly. This confirmed by Isaiah and Jeremiah. So, an Assembly of God who bursts forth in a cacophony of tongues must take it as a "sign" of unbelief in their ranks, even as Israel had to listen to a cacophony of Chaldean. So even these verses fit a context of Paul addressing UNNECESSARY speaking in 1st Corinthians 14. 1st Timothy, on the other hand, is written to an individual about the state of Christians as the Apostles started to die off. Paul does not make Timothy an Apostle, nor does he specifically address actions in an Assembly. It is more the moral character of men and women that is in view, and which Timothy was to propagate. Woman ARE to teach, but only their subordinates and not in DOCTRINE (Tit.2:2-4; 1st Tim.5:14). One could say that the Assembly is meant, or implied in 1st Timothy 2:12 because where else would teaching take place? But I tend to think that Paul was including the whole spectrum of a female Christian's walk. The grammar seems to indicate this. It reads;

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

The word "nor" makes the two things mentioned here different. That is, one does not qualify the other as some think. Women trying to take authority over a man is predicted for all men long before the Church is revealed (Gen.3:16). This in turn is in the midst of a call to "like manner" of pious men, how to dress and add jewelry, avoid haughty eyes, soberness, good works, bearing and raising children with faith and holiness. This is more than the Assembly. It is every day life as well. If so, then 1st Timothy 2:12 is broader than 1st Corinthians 14, but includes it. That would (1) make the two scriptures harmonious, and (2) allow female prophetesses but not teachers in the Assembly life. By not adding "in the Church", as you propose, 1st Timothy 2.12 allows for the Assembly but includes everyday life - without violating 1st Corinthians 14.

 

[jaybo]

I lean more toward the interpretation being that he is highlighting the origin of the woman being submissive to the husband commandment. It was after this that he said as a result her desire would be toward her husband and he would rule over her.

I do not believe Paul was saying that women are not as saved from the fall as much as men are. That Jesus cannot fix their female propensity to be deceived by satan and so they are not going to be able to preach sound doctrine because they are women. That the Holy Spirit poured out on women will not be as effective in empowering them for ministry because after all Eve was deceived. Any interpretation from the mention of Eve being deceived that suggests that women cannot be trusted to teach sound doctrine is obviously going to contradict with the rest of scriptures concerning the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to renew the minds of regenerated saints and it also puts the emphasis on the natural abilities of women or men for ministry instead of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God. To suggest that a women might be a teacher of deception because she is a woman is to suggest that a man is going to be able to grasp biblical concepts better than a woman and that the man is called because of his intellectual capacity as a male or some such nonsense similar to that. There should be an alarm that goes off in your soul whenever someone suggest that Paul said a woman cannot teach because she is easily deceived.

This should be required reading for all who distort Scripture, intentionally or not.

You should also mention that Paul wrote this to the Galatians, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

As far as Scripture goes, those who think that somehow men are superior in any way to women aren't paying attention.

 

[Corban]

This should be required reading for all who distort Scripture, intentionally or not.

You should also mention that Paul wrote this to the Galatians, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

As far as Scripture goes, those who think that somehow men are superior in any way to women aren't paying attention.

It is given to the Holy Spirit to inspire scripture. It is given to men to study to understand this high word. If the Holy Spirit wrote 1st Timothy 2:12, we are allowed, nay, compelled, to study it and discuss our findings with others. If the Holy Spirit said that female Christians have a certain restriction, it is so. The word "superior" comes from your mind, not from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also said that men are made "lower than the angels". This implies superiority of angels. And in most cases recorded in scripture they are superior, especially when one angels kills 185,000 men of war in one go. Are you denying their superiority because it offends? But wait ..., 1st Corinthians 6:3 says that men will judge angels in the next age. Does God take away the superiority of angels? No! But He adds to the inferior man AUTHORITY.

Your continued use of Galatians 3:28 is not helping your cause. It does not bear on 1st Timothy 2:12. You mix two different things. Galatians 3:28 deals with how Gentiles get to be heirs of Abraham's Covenant, and that those IN Christ ALL EQUALLY enjoy elevation to be Abraham's seed (v.29) for inheritance of the world when Christ returns (Rom.4:13). Is has nothing to do with Church Government in this age.

By the way. Which is superior, the lion or the eagle?

 

[Danielswtt]

I have only recently converted, and I’m unsure on what my role as a woman is. I really want to be a good Christian, and as I am now 18, I think I want to take a more active part in my faith. As a woman, am I allowed to teach and spread the faith? It appears that in 1 Timothy 2:12 this is condemned - “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet”. If I am not permitted to teach, what should I do to ensure I am an obedient believer of God? Is marriage and having a family the best option? Any replies would be greatly appreciated- I’m new to this

Hey Elizabeth my name is Daniel and I am new to this too. Everyone should share their faith especially to others who don’t know Jesus regardless if they are man or woman. In the Bible it says preach to all nations. God wants us to preach and spread the good news no matter what sex you are. I pray that he will keep you strong and spread the good news to people who need it and I pray that your faith will get stronger. How are you?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Woman ARE to teach, but only their subordinates and not in DOCTRINE (Tit.2:2-4; 1st Tim.5:14). One could say that the Assembly is meant, or implied in 1st Timothy 2:12 because where else would teaching take place? But I tend to think that Paul was including the whole spectrum of a female Christian's walk. The grammar seems to indicate this. It reads;

[note: my question isn't directed to the point re: "to teach nor to usurp authority over the man..." though I did read to the end of your post]... my question is, how do you handle 2 Timothy 2:2, which says,


[Paul, to Timothy... quoted in part for length, but keeping in mind the details therein]

1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men [G444 - anthropois ('mankind'); not G435 aner/andras ('men') like in Acts 6:3, for example ('to attend tables')] who will be competent to teach others also. [and where the women are to "teachers of good things' seems like it could include this]
[...] 7 Consider the things I am saying, for the Lord will give you understanding in all things.
8 Remember Jesus Christ, having been raised out from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel, 9 in which I suffer hardship even to chains as an evildoer. But the word of God is not bound!


Just curious your take on this verse (v.2 in particular, but also in context), in view of what you've said in the quote above ^ (and your explanation which followed). Thanks. = )

 

[Corban]

[note: my question isn't directed to the point re: "to teach nor to usurp authority over the man..." though I did read to the end of your post]... my question is, how do you handle 2 Timothy 2:2, which says,


[Paul, to Timothy... quoted in part for length, but keeping in mind the details therein]

1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men [G444 - anthropois ('mankind'); not G435 aner/andras ('men') like in Acts 6:3, for example ('to attend tables')] who will be competent to teach others also. [and where the women are to "teachers of good things' seems like it could include this]
[...] 7 Consider the things I am saying, for the Lord will give you understanding in all things.
8 Remember Jesus Christ, having been raised out from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel, 9 in which I suffer hardship even to chains as an evildoer. But the word of God is not bound!


Just curious your take on this verse (v.2 in particular, but also in context), in view of what you've said in the quote above ^ (and your explanation which followed). Thanks. = )

Thank you for your query - which I gladly answer. To settle the meaning of the text, I include four different literla translations. They are the King James, Darby, Young's Literal and the Amplified:
(KJV) And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

(Darby) And the things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, such as shall be competent to instruct others also.

(YLT) and the things that thou didst hear from me through many witnesses, these things be committing to stedfast men, who shall be sufficient also others to teach;

(AMP) And the [instructions] which you have heard from me along with many witnesses, transmit and entrust [as a deposit] to reliable and faithful men who will be competent and qualified to teach others also.

You are correct about the word for "men", but this is not the decisive qualification. The decisive qualification is the word "hikanos" rendered variously as "able", "competent", "sufficient" and/or "qualified". This makes the answer easy. Who is qualified for this job?

1. "Mankind" ( for it is not given to demons or angels to teach)
2. A believer ("faithful men" - the verse above)
3. A believer who is baptized (Act.2:38)
4. A believer who has the natural ability to teach (Matt.25:15)
5. A believer who has been given the "talent" by the Lord according to his natural ability (Matt.25:14-15)
6. A believer who has been trained by the Lord (Paul's training, after Gamaliel, took 14 years - Gal.2:1-2)
7. A believer who is a male (1st Timothy 2.12)

I hope this helps brother.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

I have only recently converted, and I’m unsure on what my role as a woman is. I really want to be a good Christian, and as I am now 18, I think I want to take a more active part in my faith. As a woman, am I allowed to teach and spread the faith? It appears that in 1 Timothy 2:12 this is condemned - “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet”. If I am not permitted to teach, what should I do to ensure I am an obedient believer of God? Is marriage and having a family the best option? Any replies would be greatly appreciated- I’m new to this

Women have their place in the church, and it ain’t the kitchen, either. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 clearly tells us who can be pastor. A woman is to help other women in the church. The elder women help the younger women(in some cases, they’re older, but newly saved and babes in Christ) as they grow in Christ. Find a solid church(if you haven’t already) and get with the women and soak up what they teach you like a sponge.

 

[jaybo]

It is given to the Holy Spirit to inspire scripture. It is given to men to study to understand this high word. If the Holy Spirit wrote 1st Timothy 2:12, we are allowed, nay, compelled, to study it and discuss our findings with others. If the Holy Spirit said that female Christians have a certain restriction, it is so. The word "superior" comes from your mind, not from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also said that men are made "lower than the angels". This implies superiority of angels. And in most cases recorded in scripture they are superior, especially when one angels kills 185,000 men of war in one go. Are you denying their superiority because it offends? But wait ..., 1st Corinthians 6:3 says that men will judge angels in the next age. Does God take away the superiority of angels? No! But He adds to the inferior man AUTHORITY.

Your continued use of Galatians 3:28 is not helping your cause. It does not bear on 1st Timothy 2:12. You mix two different things. Galatians 3:28 deals with how Gentiles get to be heirs of Abraham's Covenant, and that those IN Christ ALL EQUALLY enjoy elevation to be Abraham's seed (v.29) for inheritance of the world when Christ returns (Rom.4:13). Is has nothing to do with Church Government in this age.

By the way. Which is superior, the lion or the eagle?

One thing I don't do is mix verses, taken out of context, to prove a point.

Galatians says, "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." That clearly says that all those who are in Christ Jesus are regarded as equal: Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male, and female, and are heirs of God's promise. Nothing taken out of context; it's all there. And your interpretation that it's about Gentiles coming heirs is poor, since it's about a lot more than that.

Then you bring in a single verse from 1 Timothy, part of a direction to Paul's "son" Timothy regarding men's and women's behavior in church. By your interpretation, that is putting women (and men) universally under some sort of law instead of realizing that one passage is universal and one is very specific. How about what the whole sections says...

"
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 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, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

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

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;] she must be quiet."

By your legalistic interpretation, men should pray only with their hands lifted. (Do you do that? Is that a church rule? What happens if women lift their hands, as they do often in church? Are they violating the law? What happens if men don't lift their hands?) Paul instructs Timothy that women should be quiet, yet elsewhere, in Acts, it says ...

No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy."

So, instead of taking a single line out of context, how about paying attention to what the Scriptures actually says? Your misogyny has blinded you, I'm afraid.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This verse should not be taken out of context to dispute what the New Testament says about the roles of men and women in the home and in the church (the local church).

That verse is telling us that within the Body of Christ (the Church) there are no distinctions of any kind -- SINCE ALL ARE CHILDREN OF GOD -- by grace through faith. All are sinners saved by grace, therefore all are children of God, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.

At the same time, God Himself has clearly revealed the roles of men and women through the apostles. Indeed, the apostle Peter takes it one step further than most Christians imagine.

I PETER 3: SARAH OBEYED ABRAHAM, CALLING HIM "LORD"
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Most Christian women would not follow Sarah's example -- given by the Holy Spirit -- to show the role of men and women within the home.

 

[jaybo]

[posted in error]

 

[jaybo]

This verse should not be taken out of context to dispute what the New Testament says about the roles of men and women in the home and in the church (the local church).

That verse is telling us that within the Body of Christ (the Church) there are no distinctions of any kind -- SINCE ALL ARE CHILDREN OF GOD -- by grace through faith. All are sinners saved by grace, therefore all are children of God, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.

At the same time, God Himself has clearly revealed the roles of men and women through the apostles. Indeed, the apostle Peter takes it one step further than most Christians imagine.

I PETER 3: SARAH OBEYED ABRAHAM, CALLING HIM "LORD"
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Most Christian women would not follow Sarah's example -- given by the Holy Spirit -- to show the role of men and women within the home.

Nor should they. If you read the story of Sarah and Abraham in context, you can see that Sarah was not in subjection to Abraham but argued with him.

Genesis 16:4-5, "When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.”

Apparently Sarah, whom God blessed, didn't meekly obey her husband.

 

[jaybo]

Also, in Genesis 21:8-13, "meek" Sarah said,

"The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast.But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

 

[Corban]

One thing I don't do is mix verses, taken out of context, to prove a point.

Galatians says, "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." That clearly says that all those who are in Christ Jesus are regarded as equal: Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male, and female, and are heirs of God's promise. Nothing taken out of context; it's all there. And your interpretation that it's about Gentiles coming heirs is poor, since it's about a lot more than that.

Then you bring in a single verse from 1 Timothy, part of a direction to Paul's "son" Timothy regarding men's and women's behavior in church. By your interpretation, that is putting women (and men) universally under some sort of law instead of realizing that one passage is universal and one is very specific. How about what the whole sections says...

"
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 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, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

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

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;] she must be quiet."

By your legalistic interpretation, men should pray only with their hands lifted. (Do you do that? Is that a church rule? What happens if women lift their hands, as they do often in church? Are they violating the law? What happens if men don't lift their hands?) Paul instructs Timothy that women should be quiet, yet elsewhere, in Acts, it says ...

No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy."

So, instead of taking a single line out of context, how about paying attention to what the Scriptures actually says? Your misogyny has blinded you, I'm afraid.

1st Timothy 2:12 is written in plain language. No interpretation is needed, nor have I given any. It says what it says. What I did in my postings was to give the background why a woman may not teach nor usurp authority.

Your train of thought is well revealed in your posting. The text we discuss uses the word "TEACH". You try to overturn it with the word "PROPHECY" in quoting Joel. Not only DO YOU MIX verses, and take them out of context, but you even substitute the very words of scripture. And then, when the wording is clear and plain, you deflect the subject to the "lifting of hands" - something not under discussion by every other poster, and something which I never addressed.

Your support of Sarah convincing her husband to mate with her slave as a proof against all the scriptures requiring subjection in God's Government shows your own attitude towards this Government. Did it ever occur to you that Sarah's manipulation of the man who loved her was a grievous overthrow of her overall position where she calls Abraham "Lord" (Gen.18:12). Ishmael's offspring, though blessed by God for Abraham's sake, remain a mortal enemy of Israel to this day. Added to this, God did not speak to Abraham again for 13 years - and you think this is all fine?

Again, your contention that Galatians 3:28 shows equality overthrows the words of the same Holy Spirit Who said in Ephesians 6:5 that bond-servants are to be in full subjection to their masters. That their masters were also Christians is shown in verse 9. Equality?? I think not. And if you are not sure then Romans 13:1-3 shows God's command for Christians to be in subjection to the heathen and any Christian who defies his heathen rulers is subject to "damnation". Is this what you teach young Christian women? I would not be surprised if somebody said that is you that has a hate for women as you would teach a way that leads to damnation.

Come, let us be reconciled. 1st Timothy 2:12 does not need interpretation. It is written in plain language and supported by other scriptures. No Book, and no religion emancipates women like the Bible. Women do not suffer any more than men. Men have a HEAD (Christ) to which they must be subject to. The woman has a head that she must be subject to. And all men are subject to gravity - God's exquisite law to maintain order on earth - whether we like it or not. The grand example is Jesus Christ Himself subjecting Himself to His Father in heaven. Let us emulate Him.

 

[jaybo]

1st Timothy 2:12 is written in plain language. No interpretation is needed, nor have I given any. It says what it says. What I did in my postings was to give the background why a woman may not teach nor usurp authority.

Your train of thought is well revealed in your posting. The text we discuss uses the word "TEACH". You try to overturn it with the word "PROPHECY" in quoting Joel. Not only DO YOU MIX verses, and take them out of context, but you even substitute the very words of scripture. And then, when the wording is clear and plain, you deflect the subject to the "lifting of hands" - something not under discussion by every other poster, and something which I never addressed.

Your support of Sarah convincing her husband to mate with her slave as a proof against all the scriptures requiring subjection in God's Government shows your own attitude towards this Government. Did it ever occur to you that Sarah's manipulation of the man who loved her was a grievous overthrow of her overall position where she calls Abraham "Lord" (Gen.18:12). Ishmael's offspring, though blessed by God for Abraham's sake, remain a mortal enemy of Israel to this day. Added to this, God did not speak to Abraham again for 13 years - and you think this is all fine?

Again, your contention that Galatians 3:28 shows equality overthrows the words of the same Holy Spirit Who said in Ephesians 6:5 that bond-servants are to be in full subjection to their masters. That their masters were also Christians is shown in verse 9. Equality?? I think not. And if you are not sure then Romans 13:1-3 shows God's command for Christians to be in subjection to the heathen and any Christian who defies his heathen rulers is subject to "damnation". Is this what you teach young Christian women? I would not be surprised if somebody said that is you that has a hate for women as you would teach a way that leads to damnation.

Come, let us be reconciled. 1st Timothy 2:12 does not need interpretation. It is written in plain language and supported by other scriptures. No Book, and no religion emancipates women like the Bible. Women do not suffer any more than men. Men have a HEAD (Christ) to which they must be subject to. The woman has a head that she must be subject to. And all men are subject to gravity - God's exquisite law to maintain order on earth - whether we like it or not. The grand example is Jesus Christ Himself subjecting Himself to His Father in heaven. Let us emulate Him.

Your rambling reply -- you're all over the place -- doesn't mean much to those of us who read the Bible and accept what it plainly says. You base your whole argument on one verse -- 19 words -- remembering, of course, that division by verse came in long, long after the original texts were written. You have a predetermined agenda -- that women are supposed to be subject to men -- and fail to prove it.

I have no desire to be reconciled to you; what you really mean is that you want me to agree with your fallacious reasoning, which I will not do. You're all over the place with your exegesis, but I have news for you. The Bible is not a salad bar; you don't pick and choose what you want. Either you accept what Scripture plainly says -- the overall message -- or you don't.

Save your sophistry for someone else; I see through it.

 

[Corban]

Your rambling reply -- you're all over the place -- doesn't mean much to those of us who read the Bible and accept what it plainly says. You base your whole argument on one verse -- 19 words -- remembering, of course, that division by verse came in long, long after the original texts were written. You have a predetermined agenda -- that women are supposed to be subject to men -- and fail to prove it.

I have no desire to be reconciled to you; what you really mean is that you want me to agree with your fallacious reasoning, which I will not do. You're all over the place with your exegesis, but I have news for you. The Bible is not a salad bar; you don't pick and choose what you want. Either you accept what Scripture plainly says -- the overall message -- or you don't.

Save your sophistry for someone else; I see through it.

Thanks for the reply. Your sentiments are noted.

 

[Benadam]

I lean more toward the interpretation being that he is highlighting the origin of the woman being submissive to the husband commandment. It was after this that he said as a result her desire would be toward her husband and he would rule over her.

I do not believe Paul was saying that women are not as saved from the fall as much as men are. That Jesus cannot fix their female propensity to be deceived by satan and so they are not going to be able to preach sound doctrine because they are women. That the Holy Spirit poured out on women will not be as effective in empowering them for ministry because after all Eve was deceived. Any interpretation from the mention of Eve being deceived that suggests that women cannot be trusted to teach sound doctrine is obviously going to contradict with the rest of scriptures concerning the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to renew the minds of regenerated saints and it also puts the emphasis on the natural abilities of women or men for ministry instead of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God. To suggest that a women might be a teacher of deception because she is a woman is to suggest that a man is going to be able to grasp biblical concepts better than a woman and that the man is called because of his intellectual capacity as a male or some such nonsense similar to that. There should be an alarm that goes off in your soul whenever someone suggest that Paul said a woman cannot teach because she is easily deceived.

I don't see it as a matter of one or the other as better or more subject to deceit, but one of order. God established an order and that order was reversed when Eve became the prophetess, so to speak, of another god and Adam listened. Listening to the voice is a euphamism for believing and revelation from above.