How do we treat women?

[ByFaythNotSight]

Seraph wrote: It's a commandment for women, so by doing so it is showing their loyalty and their love for their husbands.

What about women that attend the church that are single?

Seraph wrote: I've never heard it preached that this passage commands women never speak in church, but instead that it refers to women not being allowed to preach to the congregation.

I have heard this too....albeit it was being said by a religous fanatic (not a credible source if you ask me), so I dont know what else to say about that. Ive never heard anyone else say it. I have actually had a female minister at one church that I used to attend though. She was probably the most charismatic and understanding minister and speaker that I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. Is she not supposed to be preaching????

I think that women's "rights" have come a looong way since biblical times. Everyone should be able to worship as they see fit if you ask me. Love you guys!!!!

[Seraph]

Seraph wrote: I've never heard it preached that this passage commands women never speak in church, but instead that it refers to women not being allowed to preach to the congregation.

I have heard this too....albeit it was being said by a religous fanatic (not a credible source if you ask me), so I dont know what else to say about that. Ive never heard anyone else say it. I have actually had a female minister at one church that I used to attend though. She was probably the most charismatic and understanding minister and speaker that I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. Is she not supposed to be preaching????

According to this verse, no. Though I hate to get off topic and on to whether women can be pastors I don't want to leave it open-ended so Ill do it quickly than get back on topic. Though the Bible doesn't specifically say of a gender pastors but be it does tell us that Bishops/Deacons can ONLY be male according to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The pastor however needs to be above and in charge of the deacons, so a female Pastor would be in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. The wonderful thing about the Word of God is that there are no contradictions among the 40ish individual writers, only God could do that.

Let the original topic continue!!!

The word quiet (or silent based on translation) used in the verse in question in the Greek is Hesuchia means to be subdued, to be quiet and but not necessarily completely silent. It is also used in Acts 22:2 and 2 Thes. 3:12. Had Paul intended them to be completely silent and never speak he would have used the word Sigao like he used in 1 Cor. 14:28.

[Tactr]

I think that Paul was associating the two together. Someone who is looked at like a hooker or was one aught not teach or have a place of leadership.

[TruthPastor]

Context....

2,000 years ago, women had no rights. In many Eastern civilizations today, women have no rights. But, in the United States things are VERY different than they were 2,000 years ago.

Back in Jesus' time you would not have had a woman run for kingship, yet we had one running for president (Hillary Clinton) and another who was a vice-presidential candidate (Sarah Palin).

Now, with that being said, I want to take a position for you. I do not believe that a woman should have spiritual authority over her husband. From the very beginning in Genesis 3, the woman is under her husband.

Now, having taken that stand... allow me to share my OPINION one of the key pieces of scripture that has been used here to say that women can't be pastors.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Okay first off let's qualify that the Apostle Paul is talking to Timothy in a letter.

In verses 8 and 9, Paul comes out clearly and states: "I want..." and "I also want..." it could also be stated as "I do not allow... or permit" in the Greek.

Paul wants, doesn't allow, doesn't permit? What does that mean?

I do not see this as a command. I see this as a personal preference, a desire, of the Apostle Paul.

Now before you get all upset with that last statement, give me a minute.

Take a look at verses 1-8 in this same chapter...

1Timothy 2:1-8;

1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.
8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

Does Paul command that they prayers and intercessions and thanksgiving be made for everyone? No, he urges it though.

Paul then says it is good thing and pleases God.

In verse 8, Paul says, "I want MEN everywhere... "

First off is that going to happen? No.

Is it a preference of the Apostle Paul that men do this? Yes!

Is it wrong for him to have a preference or an desire or a want? NO!

Does it make it wrong to not give him what he wants? I don't believe it does.

Does Paul have the right to make those requests of Timothy? Sure he does! Timothy was his disciple.

Now you might argue that Paul clearly states in verse 13-14; " 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Uh... wait a minute. It says in Romans that sin entered the world through ONE MAN... that man being ADAM, all became sinners. Is says nothing about Eve's sin here?

Romans 5:12-21;

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Don't get me wrong, Eve certainly ate the fruit and sinned, but it was Adam who was held accountable.

And just for the record guys... let's look at the Genesis account: Genesis 3:8

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Uh Hello? Adam was right there, according to the verse. Now it could be argued that the "who was with her" means that he was around, but not necessarily next to her, but that is not what the context is implying. What was Adam doing? Don't know...

From my perspective Paul has observed things about the women of his time (education, prostitution, etc...) that gives him a major pause in having women take a leadership role.

So, now back to Paul's wants. Did you know there is another part of scripture where Paul issues a desire, that is not a command of the Lord?

1 Corinthians 7:1-10;

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

Notice the first 9 verses are a "concession", not a command. Verse 10 is a command of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 8:1-8;

1And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. 2Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. 3For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, 4they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints. 5And they did not do as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then to us in keeping with God's will. 6So we urged Titus, since he had earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part. 7But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us—see that you also excel in this grace of giving.
8 I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others.

There are other places where Paul expresses, desires and wishes that are not commands.

It is my personal opinion that the expressions of silence and not teaching were personal preferences of the Apostle Paul and not commands of the Lord. Certainly there are instructions regarding the orderliness of worship and other things, but the specific issue of women seems to be an issue for Paul, but you don't see that in Jesus.

Jesus gave the greatest commandment... to love the Lord with all our heart soul mind and strength and the second is as powerful, love our neighbor as ourselves.

Under the covenant relationship of MARRIAGE a woman is under her husband. Outside that covenant relationship, love is the reigning commandment. Is a woman your neighbor? Would you want something for yourself that you wouldn't want for her? Is that loving?

As a final closing note, I am sure some will disagree with my opinion. I clearly state this as my opinion based on my interpretation of the scriptures. There are clearly things that are commands, and things that are not. For me this is a desire of the Apostle Paul, not a command.

I am open to hearing other thoughts on this, just thought I would share it with you.

Love you guys!

[Red Baron]

Truth, sometimes I feel like I know your answer before you make it. lol This was one of the response I gave to Fayth in our conversation and we felt this was a great possibility, but neither of us could site enough proof.

Now I first would like to challenge one small thing:

Under the covenant relationship of MARRIAGE a woman is under her husband. Outside that covenant relationship, love is the reigning commandment. Is a woman your neighbor? Would you want something for yourself that you wouldn't want for her? Is that loving?

Why is love the reigning commandment only outside the covenant relationship of marriage? I do not recall that specification from Jesus. I do not know nearly as much scripture as you and the others, so I invite you to show me, I just do not see this as a case.

And also, do we have to follow the "suggestions" in the Bible or only the commandments? And why?


Now for some more things. You mentioned Genesis 3 as Paul mentions it in the letter to Timothy. So I think everyone would agree that what he is referring to is "the fall," the "original sin." But lets first look at things before this sin.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

"They will become ONE flesh." WOW! We don't even think of that much equality today in modern America! They are so equal, so in tranquility and "togetherness" they are ONE flesh.

Now what happened in the fall:

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

First off, I just want to make a kind of side note. When God challenges Adam on what happened, Adam does two things. First is the most obvious, he immediately and without hesitation blames the woman(Eve). But lets look a little closer: "The woman you put here with me"--Adam is BLAMING GOD! I could not believe this when I thought about it more. He had the nerve to not only throw her under the bus but say to God that its the fault of that thing HE gave him, as if to say "if YOU didn't give me her, I wouldn't have done it." The other irony is what truth pointed out, Adam was with her, he just didn't do anything.

And so what did the Lord command because of this sin:

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

So the husband is to rule over the woman. But WHY? The man is to rule over the woman as a PENALTY of SIN. So with our new Salvation in Christ, through justification that allows us to be lifted from the penalty of sin, are the woman under this penalty of sin?

Well, lets look at what Jesus seems to think about this. I am not aware of too much direct words on the matter, but there were some definite actions.

Context....

2,000 years ago, women had no rights. In many Eastern civilizations today, women have no rights. But, in the United States things are VERY different than they were 2,000 years ago.

Back in Jesus' time you would not have had a woman run for kingship, yet we had one running for president (Hillary Clinton) and another who was a vice-presidential candidate (Sarah Palin).

Now with this very basic context that is crucial to understanding some things, lets "dig in."

1After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

How did Jesus treat women? Did He tell them to be silent? No, rather He had women as disciples. Now again, so what? He made them some people under Him, so what? He made these women disciples right next to the big names we know like Paul who spoke in Timothy. When Paul walked with Jesus, he walked with women who were equal as disciples. That is HUGE to me.

Now if we look at John 4 we also see that Jesus' love knew no bounds. He spoke to the woman at the well in public without concern (vv 1-26). To show the culture of the time we can look at v27: "Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?"" Jesus knew the people around Him, He certainly was not oblivious to this, but he would obey the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself."

In John 8 we see Jesus' treatment of an adulteress.

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Now this is in compliance with Matthew 7, for how are we to judge someone's sin when we ourselves have sin? He calls upon the Pharisees and the teachers of the law to go ahead and stone her if they are without sin, but no one does. Now, HE is sinless and by the law could stone her, but He shows the love of the Lord and just commands her to leave her life of sin.

So now what does Paul say on the matter? He speaks more than what has been mentioned of course Again, we must keep in mind the context.
1 Cor 11 v3 appears to be usable to say that man are superior to women as men are the head. But v5 is sort of interesting in its own light:

5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

Again, some might say this demeaning to women, and I would agree today, but lets look a little bit more into this. Women are to stay quite is the issue at hand, and yet what does this verse speak to that issue? "every woman who prays or prophesies"-- that seems to be Paul saying he KNEW women would be prophesying and he was putting a limitation on this. Now the limitation appears to me to be a sign of the culture of the times, but in consideration to the rights of women in many areas at that time, even Paul appears to be showing love.

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Going back to what I said in regards to Genesis, we are all under ONE in Christ Jesus. "There is neither...male nor female."

So in conclusion, we are called to love God and love one another for love is the fulfillment of the law. The actions at the time were revolutionary for the culture they were being done in, but I would say we are called to act through the Holy Spirit to all be one in Christ Jesus and to return to the ways before sin and now as the penalty of sin and the power of sin are removed/being removed from our lives.

PS: I am not disagreeing with Truth in regards to the idea that Paul is making suggestions and not commandments, but I just felt this could be taken even further. I do disagree that women should not be Pastors, but I think this may come down to an opinion matter.

@Truth: I did not include the full context to all of these verses as it was getting late. I did look at that and evaluated it. If you feel I am off, feel free to question me, as I have no doubt you will and I would expect nothing less. I also have more scripture for this discussion, but I felt it provided a weak argument in relativness to what is presented.

[Seraph]

It is my personal opinion that the expressions of silence and not teaching were personal preferences of the Apostle Paul and not commands of the Lord. Certainly there are instructions regarding the orderliness of worship and other things, but the specific issue of women seems to be an issue for Paul, but you don't see that in Jesus.

But you have to take into consideration 2 Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So either it's not simply a suggestion from Paul but from God (in which case I can't remember a single 'suggestion' given by God that we can decide to follow or not), or 1 Timothy is not inspired by God.

[TruthPastor]

Why is love the reigning commandment only outside the covenant relationship of marriage? I do not recall that specification from Jesus. I do not know nearly as much scripture as you and the others, so I invite you to show me, I just do not see this as a case.

And also, do we have to follow the "suggestions" in the Bible or only the commandments? And why?

1. Love is the reigning command (even in marriage) however, the marriage covenant invokes a legally binding agreement, there is no such agreement outside marriage.

2. Typically, the suggestions are good, like getting married or not. But, they are not commands.

[TruthPastor]

It is my personal opinion that the expressions of silence and not teaching were personal preferences of the Apostle Paul and not commands of the Lord. Certainly there are instructions regarding the orderliness of worship and other things, but the specific issue of women seems to be an issue for Paul, but you don't see that in Jesus.

But you have to take into consideration 2 Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So either it's not simply a suggestion from Paul but from God (in which case I can't remember a single 'suggestion' given by God that we can decide to follow or not), or 1 Timothy is not inspired by God.

What are the scriptures Paul is talking to Timothy about when he is writing? Surely the Apostle Paul is not considering the letter he is writing is going to one day be part of the New Testament? So, what are the scriptures he is talking about?

[Seraph]

What are the scriptures Paul is talking to Timothy about when he is writing? Surely the Apostle Paul is not considering the letter he is writing is going to one day be part of the New Testament? So, what are the scriptures he is talking about?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I have a pretty good idea about what scripture he was talking about.

Paul may not have known that his letters to Timothy would one day make up the Bible, but I can guarantee God did.

[TruthPastor]

Sorry Seraph, you can't use your argument in this. Paul was referencing something specific. The "NEW TESTAMENT" was not around when Paul was alive. Yes, God knew that his letters would one day be placed in the book we call the Bible. The scriptures Paul is talking about are not his letters though.

Now, that being said, I firmly believe that when the Apostle Paul gives a command we should follow it. However, there are numerous times where Paul is not giving commands and I believe this is one of those cases.

Additionally, even if we take 2 Timothy 3:16 as being included in what Paul writes about himself:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That does not change the fact that the Apostle Paul made suggestions and considerations and did not always issue commands. I have already given examples and stated my position. The case of 1 Timothy 2:12 is clearly a case where Paul states, "I do not...", that in my opinion is a personal preference, not a command from the Lord.

As another example, take the issue of drinking alcohol or the issue of eating certain foods. Paul clearly states that for some it is okay and yet for others it may not be. In both cases it is based on a level of maturity. Many people say that drinking alcohol is wrong in any form, yet the Apostle Paul suggested that Timothy drink some for his stomach.

1Tim 5:23; Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

Is this a command or a suggestion? If it is truly a command then we have issues with other parts of scripture, but rather a suggestion (or a command specifically aimed at Timothy) would not create issues with other parts of scripture.

For many people the level of their maturity is a determining factor in what they can and cannot handle, be that physical, emotional or spiritual maturity, also that can be based on the maturity of the culture in which we live.

In other words, slavery existed during Paul's time. He did not write that slavery was wrong. Why? Because it was part of the culture, as was the subservient nature of women to men at that time. We know today that slavery is wrong, we also know that women are very capable and that the domination of women is never what God intended. Women today are educated, intelligent and wise. They are designed in a marriage to be the help-meet. Yes, according to the Apostle Peter, A HUSBAND is to honor her as unto the weaker vessel...

1 Peter 3:7; " Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."

But notice... the command is to HUSBANDS... not men. In a Biblical covenant relationship the wife is submitting herself to her husband (not to men). Be careful not to take commands aimed at husbands to mean men in general.

There is no doubt in my mind that women have throughout history been looked at as weaker, lesser, creatures to the dominant men. But, Jesus did not treat them in such a way. Jesus talked with them and spent time with them, teaching them. True, he did not have women Apostles. He did have women who followed him and were his disciples though. And, those who He chose as his Apostles were far from perfect.

The commandment of Christ was to love. If your actions demonstrate love, then I believe you are carrying out the works that Jesus called us to do, whether you are a man or a women. So, if having a woman teach causes you to stumble then don't let a woman teach you, seek out men, but if you are mature enough to learn then learn what the Lord can teach you through the women He raises up. Because remember, no one is placed in authority unless God places them there (Rom 13).

That being said, now be wise and knowledgeable about the scriptures so that you are not fooled by a woman or man who is teaching. Be like the Berean's and study to show yourself approved, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Blessings!