Woman can't teach in the congregation

[VARob]

Have any of you looked into the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35? If you’re KJV Only, of course you won’t question them, but for the undeluded:

https://www.google.com/search?q=1+cor+14:34-35+authentic?

 

[Dino246]

A Bishop/Pastor Is to be a "Man" the husband of one wife, and the Deacon also.

Yes a Bishop is the Pastor/Overseer, the person responsible for the church.

1 Timothy 3:1-13KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

The word is "anyone", as I have demonstrated.

You still haven't made any effort to explain why Paul commends Phoebe, a deacon but also says, "A deacon must be the husband of one wife".

Your position is self-refuting.

 

[Dino246]

Paul presents the hierarchy of authority in this way...

God | Christ | Man | Woman

The hierarchy of authority flows unidirectionally with authority flowing from God down to man, (authority never flows from the bottom up,) and obligation being given the bottom upward.

This is laughable, because the order in Scripture is NOT "God-Christ-Man-Woman". It is Christ-man, man (husband)-woman (wife), God-Christ.

Our current society has absolutely destroyed the meaning of the woman as a revealed symbol. Popular rationalism and human experience insist that the assigned symbolism of the woman in the Church is out of date, sexist, archaic, chauvinistic, demeaning, evil, and unnecessarily burdensome upon women. It is regarded as unreasonable and irrational. Submission to this divine prohibition involves an act of faith. Violation of it then is necessarily an act of faithlessness. Society has become so morally destitute that it no longer recognizes the honored position of the woman yet, they regard themselves as the enlightened ones.
By refusing to acknowledge the revealed status by refusing to be in submission, (which Paul says is exemplified here in her remaining silent in the assembly) violates this status. The woman is seen here as the terminus symbol. In this hierarchy of authority, she is the final link of symbolism, which represents the whole. When she refuses to render submission, she steps out of this reciprocal and out of revealed symbolism.

2. This status is stipulated by God who is the ultimate governing authority. God has designated the symbolism in this way...

Male/husband = “image and glory of God.”
Woman/wife = “glory of man.”

The argument from the Law shows the timelessness of this revealed principle. They are to “subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” Revealed principles never change, and they are never overturned.

Paul uses the appointed stewardship of the gospel to reinforce the symbolism. “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” If God had entrusted the woman with the gospel, or if she alone had received it, then this would have changed all the rules. But he did not. God did not entrust the word of God to the woman, but to man. This has absolutely nothing to do with superior intelligence, abilities, talents, or skills. This is in keeping with the divinely established symbolism of both the man and the woman. For the woman to assume the role of the teacher or the preacher, she is refusing to acknowledge her assigned place in the revelation continuum. When the man surrenders his place in this revelation continuum to the woman, this destroys the symbolism of the hierarchy of authority.

F. Resistance
DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE REVEALED MEANING OF SYMBOLS in order to indulge personal will or desires or to appease social norms. Revelation must be allowed to burden our behavior, and this is not related to society or culture, nor is it controlled by time.

The source of contention presented in verses 37-38 is not revelation, it is human reason that attempts to assign its own meaning to revealed symbols. Concerning this matter Paul said, “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is to be ignored.”

As many do, you assume my reasons for rejecting the traditional interpretation instead of accepting what I have told you. I'm not interested in responding to your groundless assertions.

 

[Dino246]

It isn't an interpretation Dino. I just showed you what the text says. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.

It is most definitely an interpretation, and you haven't dealt with any of the shortcomings.

 

[oldhermit]

Well, like I said, all I can do is provide you with the information. What you choose to do with it is of course, up to you.

 

[PaulChristensen]

There are several problems with your interpretation:

1. It leaves unmarried adult females without anyone to ask their questions.
2. It contradicts 1 Cor. 11:5 wherein females are expressly permitted to speak (pray and prophesy), which makes no sense if they were not in the assembly.
3. It does not cite any passage in the Law that requires women to subject themselves and/or be silent.
4. It does not deal with the "What?" at the beginning of verse 36. The word is translated "Or" in some versions, but that doesn't make good sense of the passage.
5. There is nothing in the text, anywhere, that suggests that women thought the word of God had come only from or to them. There is no reason given as to why Paul would ask the questions in verse 36.

A sound interpretation must make sense of all these issues.

Paul wrote to the Corinthian church to deal with issues brought to him in a letter from Chloe. Reading between the lines, the issue was that married women were disrupting services by questioning the content of the prophecies that were given. The context of the chapter involved tongues and prophecy, so the women who were speaking out in the meeting involved reaction to the prophecies. It is implied that they were asking questions, and that is why Paul advised that wives should ask their husbands about these prophecies at home rather than interrupt the flow of the meeting with loud questioning. This is what I see from the context. If it was a blanket prohibition on women's ministry in churches, then reference to it would be in all his letters to churches, but Corinth was the only one he mentioned it, and so it is obvious that he was dealing with a particular issue that was in that church but not in any of the others.

The Timothy reference to women also was to deal with specific issues in the Ephesian churches where some women were being dominant and usurping the role of the church elders. Paul was instructing Timothy to exercise his role of bishop to bring these women under control so that they work with respect and cooperation with the church elders instead of trying to overrule them.

Good exegesis of Scripture has to involve the culture and historical environment in which it is written. We have the examine who wrote it, who it was addressed to, how the readers understood it, and the purpose for which it was written. Before we can give a modern-day interpretation of Scripture, we must get an understanding of it as someone who actually lived in those times understood it, according to their environment and culture.

We must understand that the culture that Paul lived in was Patristic, while our modern culture is quite different. Also, we need to consider church history and see the powerful ministries that women have had through the centuries after the Reformation. Women ministries have been responsible to multitudes coming to Christ, something that could never happen unless the Holy Spirit was supporting those ministries.

You will find that those churches that ban women from having any type of ministry, are usually barren, lifeless, and don't win many souls to the Lord. They tend to be more religious than Christian, even though they label themselves "Christian". But churches that use both men and women in ministry are far more productive in winning souls for Christ and good pastoral care. But then, that is just my opinion based on my experience with churches.

 

[oyster67]

Your Church is restricting you for being single?
On what basis?

I am not the husband of one wife.

 

[PaulChristensen]

This is laughable, because the order in Scripture is NOT "God-Christ-Man-Woman". It is Christ-man, man (husband)-woman (wife), God-Christ.


As many do, you assume my reasons for rejecting the traditional interpretation instead of accepting what I have told you. I'm not interested in responding to your groundless assertions.

In addition to your correct comment, these relationships are not relationships of authority at all. Authoritarianism, as practiced by some churches, especially those with a pyramid governmental structure, is not supported in Scripture. Jesus gave His Apostles authority over sickness, disease, serpents and vipers, and demons, but never over other believers. Authoritarianism breeds bullying and spiritual abuse, and all we have to do is read church history to see that clearly.

The church is not the military. Women don't have to take "orders" from men in the church. Wives don't have to be ruled by their husbands. Marriage is a partnership between equals. We are all kings and priests before God, men and women alike. It is written in patristic language because that is how the original writers wrote it in the culture they lived in at the time. The culture of Rome was that women were subservient to men in terms of holding civil office. The Christian approach to women was radical in Roman and Jewish culture - making women equal to men in the church instead of the Roman way of subservience. But women accepted that church leadership was a man's role, because they were women of their time. But our society is much less patristic, and women have a much more equalistic role in our churches, supported by the Scripture: There is no Jew or Gentile, man or woman in the body of Christ. We are all one under Christ.

In my small Union church we have visiting preachers, mainly women, and they do a great job, and I have no problem sitting under their ministry.

 

[oyster67]

Acts 10:15

If you are literally living in fear of human reproductive parts to the point where they cannot be mentioned in your presence
that explains a lot about your bad attitude. I will presume you put the Bible down each time these things are mentioned.

But Oyster not want to talk about him little peepee!

 

[PaulChristensen]

I am not the husband of one wife.

Sounds like one of those authoritarian ones to me. You'd be better off using your skills and talents in a church that will welcome and use you in spite of you being single. There is no true church, or a true denomination. There is always a church down the road that will be better than the one you are in. Jesus was single, Paul was also single and quite happy to remain that way. RCC priests are single and many of them do a great job in their pastoral role.

When I become disillusioned with my Charismatic church, I got out and joined an Anglican one and had a couple of years of great fellowship until I moved away and joined a Baptist church in a different city. They made better use of my skills and talents. That was after my first marriage broke up (long story - my wife deserted me), and I was effectively single. For the last 23 years I was an elder in a Presbyterian church, and my gifts and talents were used to the full. When we lost our minister, and I was Session Clerk (senior elder), I effectively pastored the church for a couple of years.

I'm saying this because my last Charismatic church didn't encourage women's ministry. It was very patristic in its government. but the Anglican, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches I joined were not so, and I had a much better experience in those churches than I had with that Charismatic church.

So, if you feel as though your skills are being underused because you are single, get out of that church, and find a small church where they are crying out for "man-power" to help it do its role in the community. It's not what you get out of a church that's important, but what you put into it. I am presently in a Union church with half a dozen elderly ladies and one gentleman and my experience there is just as satisfying as any other church I have been in.

 

[oyster67]

Platosgal said, "White men ... free slaves in the West."

Seriously? White men started and maintained Western slavery for 400 years.

Yet, you are commending white men for ending a system of slavery that white men started and maintained in the first place.

White men would not have been able to free slaves in the West if white men had not started and maintained Western slavery in the first place.

White man bad to core. Black man bad to core. Yellow man bad to core. Brown man bad to core...

Romans
3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[PaulChristensen]

But Oyster not want to talk about him little peepee!

It's worse when one gets older - things tend to shrivel in some areas!

 

[Dino246]

Sounds like one of those authoritarian ones to me. You'd be better off using your skills and talents in a church that will welcome and use you in spite of you being single. There is no true church, or a true denomination. There is always a church down the road that will be better than the one you are in. Jesus was single, Paul was also single and quite happy to remain that way. RCC priests are single and many of them do a great job in their pastoral role.

When I become disillusioned with my Charismatic church, I got out and joined an Anglican one and had a couple of years of great fellowship until I moved away and joined a Baptist church in a different city. They made better use of my skills and talents. That was after my first marriage broke up (long story - my wife deserted me), and I was effectively single. For the last 23 years I was an elder in a Presbyterian church, and my gifts and talents were used to the full. When we lost our minister, and I was Session Clerk (senior elder), I effectively pastored the church for a couple of years.

I'm saying this because my last Charismatic church didn't encourage women's ministry. It was very patristic in its government. but the Anglican, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches I joined were not so, and I had a much better experience in those churches than I had with that Charismatic church.

So, if you feel as though your skills are being underused because you are single, get out of that church, and find a small church where they are crying out for "man-power" to help it do its role in the community. It's not what you get out of a church that's important, but what you put into it. I am presently in a Union church with half a dozen elderly ladies and one gentleman and my experience there is just as satisfying as any other church I have been in.

I have been in both an Anglican fellowship and a charismatic fellowship. I don't recall what the Anglican stance on this matter was. The charismatic fellowship was definitely not egalitarian. I took issue with the inconsistent manner in which they applied that belief, applying it where it suited them and ignoring it otherwise.

 

[PaulChristensen]

I have been in both an Anglican fellowship and a charismatic fellowship. I don't recall what the Anglican stance on this matter was. The charismatic fellowship was definitely not egalitarian. I took issue with the inconsistent manner in which they applied that belief, applying it where it suited them and ignoring it otherwise.

The Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches in New Zealand have ordained woman priests and ministers. I know that the AOG has women evangelists, but I haven't heard of any women pastors in that denomination.

Unfortunately, the most prominent women ministry is seen in the heretical prosperity churches run by the likes of Kenny Copeland and Joyce Meyer, and people tend to judge the Charismatic movement by them. These heretics advertise themselves as being at the cutting edge of what God is doing in the church today, but that is merely a characteristic of cultish pseudo-christian sects.

A serious, competent Bible scholar won't just take a couple of random Bible verses and build a doctrine on them, as many amateurs do. A serious scholar will ask the questions, who, what. where, how, when, and why, as part of his exegesis of the passage. For instance when reading 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the question should immediate come up: Why did Paul write that in this particular chapter context? Of course, there would be the question, Did Paul actually write it, or was it inserted by a patristic editor? This considers the question, Who?
If we decide that Paul did write it, why did he write it? Was there an issue in the church that he was correcting? Was he making a blanket instruction for all churches, seeing that the Corinthian letter was to circulated to all the regional churches?
The next question is, When did he write it? We need to look at the history and culture of the times in which he wrote it. What was 1st Century's cultural attitude to women? This also deals with the question, Where did he write it? Well, he wasn't actually at Corinth, so he was depending on the information from Chloe. How do we know that Chloe's impression of the issues was correct?

The next thing to examine as part of our exegesis of the verses, is to examine all the other references to women that we can find in the gospels and epistles. Was Jesus' attitude to women consistent with the verses? Was Paul's? Are there other references where women's ministry was accepted and even encouraged? Therefore, were the verses an indication of the general church attitude to women's ministry, or not?

The we need to look at the Timothy reference about women's ministry in the church. Does this corroborate the Corinthian verses or not? To establish anything we need to ask the same questions about the Timothy reference as we have just asked about the Corinthian verses.

What I have demonstrated is that a serious Bible scholar seeking the truth, will not just take two verses like these and say this is what the church in general should believe. He will do the painstaking comprehensive study and research that I have outlined here. Then he can arrive at the most reasonable interpretation of these verses (hermeneutics).

There are a number of Bible scholars who have done this, and you can Google "bringing order to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to access the best M.A. thesis that I have read on women's ministry in the church. There are others and Google will help you find them.

 

[oyster67]

The problem with splitting everything up into toothpicks is that we end up putting it back together in any way that tickles us pink.

 

[Scribe]

The Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches in New Zealand have ordained woman priests and ministers. I know that the AOG has women evangelists, but I haven't heard of any women pastors in that denomination.

Unfortunately, the most prominent women ministry is seen in the heretical prosperity churches run by the likes of Kenny Copeland and Joyce Meyer, and people tend to judge the Charismatic movement by them. These heretics advertise themselves as being at the cutting edge of what God is doing in the church today, but that is merely a characteristic of cultish pseudo-christian sects.

A serious, competent Bible scholar won't just take a couple of random Bible verses and build a doctrine on them, as many amateurs do. A serious scholar will ask the questions, who, what. where, how, when, and why, as part of his exegesis of the passage. For instance when reading 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the question should immediate come up: Why did Paul write that in this particular chapter context? Of course, there would be the question, Did Paul actually write it, or was it inserted by a patristic editor? This considers the question, Who?
If we decide that Paul did write it, why did he write it? Was there an issue in the church that he was correcting? Was he making a blanket instruction for all churches, seeing that the Corinthian letter was to circulated to all the regional churches?
The next question is, When did he write it? We need to look at the history and culture of the times in which he wrote it. What was 1st Century's cultural attitude to women? This also deals with the question, Where did he write it? Well, he wasn't actually at Corinth, so he was depending on the information from Chloe. How do we know that Chloe's impression of the issues was correct?

The next thing to examine as part of our exegesis of the verses, is to examine all the other references to women that we can find in the gospels and epistles. Was Jesus' attitude to women consistent with the verses? Was Paul's? Are there other references where women's ministry was accepted and even encouraged? Therefore, were the verses an indication of the general church attitude to women's ministry, or not?

The we need to look at the Timothy reference about women's ministry in the church. Does this corroborate the Corinthian verses or not? To establish anything we need to ask the same questions about the Timothy reference as we have just asked about the Corinthian verses.

What I have demonstrated is that a serious Bible scholar seeking the truth, will not just take two verses like these and say this is what the church in general should believe. He will do the painstaking comprehensive study and research that I have outlined here. Then he can arrive at the most reasonable interpretation of these verses (hermeneutics).

There are a number of Bible scholars who have done this, and you can Google "bringing order to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to access the best M.A. thesis that I have read on women's ministry in the church. There are others and Google will help you find them.

Gordon Fee recommended these two articles as one of the best presentations from each side of the argument:

Douglas J. Moo's Article, "I Timothy 2:12-15; Meaning and Significance
https://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Moo on 1 Timothy 2 vv 11-15.pdf

Philip B. Payne Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo's Article, "I Timothy 2:12-15; Meaning and Significance
https://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Philip Payne Libertarian Women.PDF

When the AOG first started in 1914 they ordained women as evangelists but not pastors. They were too late and their official position was ignored by the women in the fellowship that had already been following the pattern as they saw it in Acts 2 and were already evangelists and pastors and turning the world upside down in the power of the Holy Spirit.

In the 1930s the AOG officially started ordaining women as pastors but by then women pastors had started to decline. Many women are ordained in the AOG each year but I don't know what the number of female senior pastors are. I don't know of any personally.
I think that culturally the idea that the bible says that women cannot pastor is believed by most people in church including the AOG and they don't want a woman pastor because they think it is not biblical. In other words, even if that is not exactly what the bible says, they have heard it all their lives and it is a tradition that no one is willing to give up and therefore culturally people are not comfortable with female pastors and will not hire one. A woman who is called by God to plant a church should just obey God and not really concern herself with what people think. Those women are usually on the mission field and we call them missionaries. But they are pastoring churches until someone from among the indigenous people she is reaching is trained to take over. Not because she is a woman, but even the men missionaries operate that way. They appoint a pastor from among the people of the culture they are reaching as soon as one is qualified.

In the end, women called by God are going to obey God and let the skeptics and the critics gnash their teeth and criticize. We don't really have time to worry about that. People are dying and going to hell and the harvest is white. If a woman obeys the call she will be rewarded and the critics will be cast out into outer darkness. That's how my God operates.

 

[proverbs35]

It isn't an interpretation Dino. I just showed you what the text says. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.

Here are some generalized principles we can take away from this text.

Why is the submission of the woman such a big deal? Why does Paul spend so much time stressing this issue in so many different places? Contrary to popular belief, these two texts are not the only ones where Paul addresses the submission of women in the Church. If this is such a small matter as some argue, why is so much time dedicated to it in scripture?

What we learn about the woman's place in this hierarchy of authority is that she is the ultimate symbol of the Church and its relationship to God. I think most women either overlook this or just simply do not appreciate the significance of the symbolism of the woman in the Church. They do not seem to appreciate the fact that this is a most honored position. The woman's position in relation to man is designed to reflect the relationship of the Church to Christ.

The woman is the feminine in her relationship to man. In just the same way, the Church is always represented as feminine in its relationship to Christ. The woman is the bride just as the Church is the bride. Just as the Church must always assume the position of submission to its head – Christ, so also must the woman always assume the position of subordination to her head – the man; and this is the only position she is permitted to occupy. Man represents God and woman represents the Church. Scripture reveals a number of ways in which this symbolism is reflected such as the covering of the head while praying or prophesying, being silent in the assembly, not assuming authority over the man, not presuming to teach or preach in the assembly, and being excluded from serving as elders. When the woman fails to honor any of this, she violates the symbol.

A. Ephesians 5:22-32 speaks volumes about the symbolism of the woman.
“Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (This emphasizes the degree to which she is to be in submission.) For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, (This establishes the symbolism.) He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (This is an unqualified statement that offers NO exceptions.)

“Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So, husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. 'For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' (She is one with man just as the Church is one with Christ.) This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.”
Because the woman occupies such an honored position in her symbolism, she is to be the recipient of tenderness, love, nurturing, and supreme sacrifice (the husband must be willing to die for her). Her husband is to cherish her and regard her as holy, spotless, and blameless. When the man fails to do this, he dishonors the symbolism. This his how Christ honors the Church so, this is how the husband is to honor the wife.

B. Timothy 2:9-15 1.
“Likewise, women are to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. (A woman's beauty is not reflected in outward adornment but in her conduct, her behavior.) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”

Why is the woman to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness,” because of the symbolism, this is how the Church is to receive her instruction from the Lord – “quietly, with entiresubmissiveness.” The woman as the symbol of the Church must reflect this same attitude.

2. “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (How does she reflect the symbolism in this? Would the Church presume to instruct the Lord? Would the Church presume to exorcise authority over the Lord?) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” Restraint then, is to be self-imposed just as the Church is to exercise self-restraint in all things.

C. Titus 1:1-5
“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
Her behavior must reflect that of the Church of which she stands as a symbol.

D. Corinthians 11:3-12
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For 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. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”

Facts that the husband represents God/Christ while the wife represents church ideology conveniently fails to acknowledge:

Woman represents God too.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Gen 2:18

In Hebrew, the word for “helper” used in Genesis 2:18 is Ezer (Strong's concordance 5828). It is always used in the context of vitally important and powerful acts of rescue and support.

The noun Ezer is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament. Twice it is used in the context of the first woman. Sixteen times it is used in reference to God as a helper.

Behold, God is my helper (Ps 54:4a).

In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is also called our Helper: John 14:17, 26. God, Almighty Sovereign Lord of the Universe, is our Helper, and women are created in his image to be helpers in their marriages, families and communities. What’s the point? Women ALSO represent God. Helper is one of God’s many names and characteristics. God designed women to be Helpers like him.

Men also represent the church – bride of Christ.

After all, the church (bride of Christ) is made up of men and women – not just women. Male believers are also part of the bride of Christ (church). That symbolism isn’t restricted to women and wives. It also applies to male believers too. Christian men don’t stop representing the church when and if they become husbands.

Ephesians 5 is not a stand -alone passage of scripture. ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible (and it is not limited to Ephesians 5) teaches that BOTH men and women are supposed to be “like Jesus” (Christlike): Phi 2:5, 1 John 2:16, John 13:15, 1 Pet 2:21. Christ-likeness is not a masculine mindset or instruction given solely to men.

As Christians, BOTH men and women are admonished to be “like Jesus” (Christ-like). A woman isn’t somehow absolved of her responsibility to be “like Jesus” (Christ-like) if or when she gets married and becomes a wife.

BOTH man (in his duty to be Christlike) and woman (in her duty to be Christlike and Helper) represent God, and BOTH man and woman represent the church a.k.a the bride of Christ.

 

[Lanolin]

we women will just go elsewhere if we are not welcome. Not really digging the 'you women are dumb and always will be' vibe in some churches.

 

[proverbs35]

“Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (This emphasizes the degree to which she is to be in submission.) For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, (This establishes the symbolism.) He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

(This is an unqualified statement that offers NO exceptions.)

The Bible instructs wives to submit to their husbands.

However, there are exceptions to the rule. Wives are not obligated by God to submit to (obey) sinful, foolish (as described by the book of Proverbs) or destructive commands given to them by their husbands.

The Bible says Nabal was a fool who refused to give David and his men food and drink when they needed it. Nabal also verbally insulted David and his men. As a result of Nabal's foolishness, David decide to kill Nabal and all the other men in his house. Abigail disobeyed her foolish husband's wishes and sent David and his men food and drink. Abigail also went to see David without her husband's knowledge or permission. Abigail spoke wisdom to David and convinced him not to kill her husband or the other men in the house. 1 Samuel 25

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/when-not-to-submit-to-your-husband/

I am also reminded of a very poignant testimony.

Molly Dutton was crowned Auburn University's 100th homecoming queen.
She is the daughter of a young, married woman who survived a sexual assault in California and became pregnant, according to a news release this week from "Light up LIFE," the horticulture club-based group that ran her campaign. To compound matters, the woman’s husband gave her an ultimatum: Abort the baby or get a divorce. Rather than having the abortion, Dutton's mom chose to move to Alabama and carry the baby to term. She worked with Lifeline Children's Services, a Christian adoption group in Birmingham, Ala., to place the child in a home.
Molly used her time in the spotlight to highlight adoption and a prolife agenda.

https://www.al.com/montgomery/2013/10/auburns_100th_homecoming_queen.html

 

[proverbs35]

God did not entrust the word of God to the woman, but to man.

King Josiah (who did what was right in the eyes of God) entrusted Prophet Huldah with the word of God - the lost book of the law. 2 Kings 22:2

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/huldah

Jesus entrusted the woman at the well with the word of God. She became the first evangelist in the gospel of John.
Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." John 4:39

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/significance-of-the-woman-at-the-well.html

A wife of noble character speaks with wisdom. Proverbs 31:26
Wisdom comes from God. Proverbs 2:6

The Lord gives the command; a great company of women proclaim it.
Isaiah 68:11

God entrusted Deborah with the word of God. Deborah was a prophet. She told Barak what God commanded. Judges 4:6

God entrusted Sarah with the word of God. God gave the word to Sarah that the slave woman's son would never share in the inheritance with Isaac. God told Abraham to do whatever Sarah tells you to do. God could have given the word directly to Abraham, but God chose to have Abraham listen to and obey Sarah instead. Gen 21:4-12, Gal 4:30

God entrusted Mary with the word of God. Mary literally carried, nurtured, birthed and raised the Word of God. His name is Jesus. John 1:1,4

God entrusted Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome with the word of God about Christ's resurrection. God entrusted those ladies to give the disciples a message.

But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ” Mark 16:7

God entrusted Mary Magdalene with the word of God.
When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. Mark 16:9-14

God has entrusted his word to both men and women. Scripture tells us so.