What the Bible Really Says about Women

Helle OP,

You said in your link, "Sarah rendering hupakouo to Abraham, which means “to attend to” (same word as when a servant “answered” the door for Peter after his miraculous escape from prison in Acts 12:13)"

To argue for a secondary definition, like listen, you have to show from the context, which you have not done by the only using Acts 12:13 where servant Rodah answered or "hupakouo" the door. The primary usage begs to differ with your interpretation.

It is interesting to see that God told Abraham to hupakouo to Sarah in "Casting out this slave woman with her son," Gen 21:10. This can be a great example of Eph 5:21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

What resource are you using where Hupakouo means only "to attend to"? You seem to be selective, neglecting it's primary usage as "hearing and obeying".

Strong's
From G5259 and G191; to hear under (as a subordinate), that is, to listen attentively; by implication to heed or conform to a command or authority: - hearken, be obedient to, obey.

Also, you never discussed why Sarah would even use the term lord. From an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, that is, controller (human or divine): - lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with “Adoni-”.

The mentioning of Sarah obeying Abraham and "calling him lord" is not to be dismissed by simply saying that the message was limited to teaching women "but if they do not fear and are not dismayed."

It seems to me that in offering a solution here one has to actually neglect the clear for a more hidden insight or suppressed meaning. The solution becomes a problem when it cannot provide an adequate solution.

I still appreciate your effort. By nature, I, like you, don't like hierarchy because men, churches, governments and even women can be corrupt. They do not like to serve anybody but themselves. but it seems inescapable from scripture. So your argument that for Sarah to submit to Abraham would be "idolatry" is erroneous. Since we are told to submit to authorities outside of just God and not revile against them.

We are not to be despisers of authority but submit both male and female. Unlike those who resist.

What I discovered is that even with God, His authority is not corrupt but is used for service and the love of others. Who has a problem with that kind of authority and rule? The only problem with authority is when it is corrupted.

Within the church and family the authorities are given but flipped. There is a headship and submission but it is a loving headship and submission. God does not get rid of authority but reforms it for good.
...

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. (26) It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, (27) and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, (28) even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Amen, Sister!

I'd just like to mention that not all churches exclude women from leadership. Several denominations now ordain women to be ministers.

Thanks!

True. But my goal is not so much to see women ordained as pastors, as it is to see an end to "the pastorate" as a CEO position in a business. Whoever has the gift of "pastor" will exercise it regardless of titles or offices or compensation. In fact, Paul said he'd rather die than accept regular support for his ministry (means 'service'). He taught that it is not the place of children to support their parents, but this is precisely what churches do when "tithes" are demanded to pay a salary to a professional orator. Of course "he does so much more than speak", but so do all the people who pay his salary. They have to exercise their spiritual gifts (including visiting the sick and spreading the gospel and teaching) for free while also paying him to exercise his! A double burden, heavy and heartless, while Jesus' burden is light.

Well, for a variety of reasons, I don't share your perspective regarding the role of a pastor in a congregation. But that's ok. :)

I still applaud your efforts to explain how, according to the Bible, men and women are equal in the eyes of God.

Well, for a variety of reasons, I don't share your perspective regarding the role of a pastor in a congregation. But that's ok. :)

I still applaud your efforts to explain how, according to the Bible, men and women are equal in the eyes of God.

I think many ministers would like this to happen as well, but a lot of times congregations think that they have "hired" someone to be exactly that: their "CEO."

If someone knocks at the door they are requesting that I open it. It's implied. The servant girl Rhoda obeyed the request to open the door.

Act_12:13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer.

Thayer's and Strongs I'll grant you are dated. However, I used the online LSJ lexicon and it has within the semantic range "obey, submit to". I wonder why you excluded that? Based on your premise then all the passages should exclude obey.

"Yes, mutual submission is exactly what Paul taught."

I don't get it, if the Bible says Sarah obeyed Abraham and it also says Abraham obeyed Sarah why the textual issue here? My position is that role hierarchy can be harmonized with mutual submission, e.g.,,my boss and I can be friends submitting one to another.

Doesn't using the term lord denote hierarchy? I never mentioned deification. Even the definition said said human or divine. I see it as a special honor that does not mean a change of nature. Red herring.

So because Sarah challenged Abraham that proves that hierarchy does not exist? Your argument actually reverses what Peter is saying. You would have it saying "Sarah defied Abraham calling him lord irreverently."

It seems to me that the only mention of Abraham telling Sarah to do something is when she obeyed Abraham by saying she was his sister to the Egyptians despite failing to be honest. It doesn't say she approved only that she did what he asked. She wanted to protect him from death. She was honored for doing what he told her to do.

Your view of lord is not according to scripture here and inconsistent methodologically. The BDB lexicon has applications other than idolatry. Again you limit it's usage selectively. Positions of authority had the name lord without inferring deification. Nowhere does hierarchy demand total control. You are importing that notion as well.

Thanks for the link btw.

So all Christian authority is wrong? Everybody has an issue with "lording" over. What about parents and children in the church? Authority can't be good if used for good? How is that polishing prison cells? Our domain is not absolutely free. We are limited by the natural and moral laws God has ordained even among Christians. We have to obey secular government but not our marriage partners, parents or elders? I believe scripture supports authority as long as it's right and good. Sometimes, like the exception of Sarah, you do things you shouldn't for the greater good, like Rahab, saving a donkey on the Sabbath, being circumcised to preach to the Jews, etc...

Yes, I agree with you that hierarchy can be evil BUT hierarchy is also a force for good. God intended it that way for this fallen grasping world. I want what you describe but it will have to wait until all our hearts are purged from rebellion. What has been revealed is for this evil time where restraint and force are part of God's earthly management. Even Jesus submitted to the Father,

Luk_22:42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."

The problem is not male or female. Right and wrong rather.

@ Keeptothecode

Before I continue, I just want to say thank you for the intelligent debate. It's gives me the opportunity to test my arguments to see if they hold. The best way to see if you have truth is to try and negate it. If it can withstand the cross arguments then you can be more confident that it is the truth.

It's a figure of speech. Of course it is the door Rhoda obeyed. Inserting the idea that Peter was her boss or authority is just silly. Nice way to misrepresent my argument though. Shows paranoia of males. The door knocker could have been a woman and the servant would've been responsible to obey the knocking request coming from the door. It's just that in English we don't use that figure of speech. We have our figures of speech, we say things such as, "get the door" or "answer the door". The translators often use our equivalent phrases to correspond meaning and intent.

The role hierarchy or authority I'm arguing for, that I see in scripture, is not flesh based but Spiritually based within families. God assigned men headship regardless if they keep it. Men fail at it. So mentioning Abraham and Sarah challenging each other is not your best argument here. We see Abraham failing to lead by lying, sleeping with Hagar and not sending her out with her son. God had mercy on him and Sarah knew what was best. This is why roles can be switched.

I like you here.:D lol ...Good argument, except this as I mentioned above is an out-of-sync example of headship because Abraham was crazy for even allowing the Hagar scheme in the first place. God had mercy, correcting him by using Sarah. Mutual submission happens when the head needs help. Generally when the head leads correctly, the obedience is no problem. Since men fail the women do help men. The burger king crown is on only when the king is acting like a child you might say.

"It proves that no flesh-based, lifelong, intrinsic authority existed between Abraham and Sarah, which completely negates the claim that Peter referred to them to illustrate husbandly rule over wife (benevolent or not). Try to remember the context"

>
Saying it proves it doesn't help me see how.

What are talking about? Even the Septuagint uses the word kurios. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here. You throwing out misogyny never proves anything. I can easily refute you then by calling everything against my view as Misandry.

1. I do know that "Not so among you" must be harmonized with parental, elder, marital hierarchical relationships. This was to correct "lording over" or abusing authority. Authority was given for good not for evil. To benefit the ones under their care. Sometimes the one in spiritual charge must be obeyed even if the person doesn't want to. You even see this with Moses and the Israelites, when God protecting Moses and his authority from the people who wanted to "equalize" his authority given to him uniquely.

My only point in bringing these verses up is show that God gives authority to those within His command. Husbands have special roles. Women have special roles. Elders have special roles. Children have a special roles. They are not equal but should be respected.

2. Temporal authority is still authority. I would argue that authority must be Biblical. In other words, elders, parents, husbands are to manage only according to scripture. The authority given is limited to righteousness. Never for evil. Even government. Limitations are what Jesus and His apostles clarified.

3. Your statement, "...There is something evil and twisted about even the desire to rule over them, even benevolently,.." So, is The Father twisted for desiring to rule over Jesus

People are not evil for wanting to help others for God. Parents leading children, Elders leading young believers and Husbands leading wives. Each out of love serving the Lord. You make authority and obedience = evil and sin. Teachers, police, military, etc.. do their job because they want to do something noble with their lives. Most men don't lead but if they wanted to the task is in loving, protecting, cleansing with the Word, providing, preaching, being a strong example, rebuking and praying. If God gives us this headship what is wrong? The abuses happen in any construct even in a egalitarian view. My view is that authority is revealed and scriptural. It's also voluntary.

"whoever is your master for life is your god." This statement is an absurd either/or fallacy since there were slaves who were never freed but their masters were not considered their god. Having authority over someone does not always constitute idolatry or god. Caretakers can be distinguished from gods. smh

It doesn't prove your point because the body part analogy was emphasizing the differences that must be respected and considered. It proves my point.

Jesus in the garden submitted even when He challenged the Father. This proves my point that Godly role authority is Biblical and Godly. Your view has authority being twisted even if benevolent. I don't see that at all.

The Holy Spirit does what the Father wants Him to do.

God uses authority among Christians, the world and even among the Godhead. I'm sorry you don't like it. I understand , like I said, I've been there. So, unless you have a knock down argument I haven't considered, I think this has run its course. Whether you can see my point or not I am not seeing yours as clearly as you do. I wish I could because I like the idea. I do see this authority statute unnecessary for our eternal state. As marriage won't be necessary either. The accepted roles will not need to be sanctioned but fully innate.

And what is "headship" but a made-up word? It is not in scripture in any form, and the Greek word for "head", kephale, never meant boss or authority. It was either the literal head or the figurative "source" as in the "head of a river". Paul used the head/body analogy and twice called the head the source from which the whole body grows. I examine this issue of husband as "head" thoroughly in my other articles, esp. the Commentary on 1 Corinthians.

Exactly. I think of the term "fountainhead," which given the culture in Jesus' day is very, very true. A woman had little access to society except through a man (Husband, brother, father). They were her "source" or "fountainhead," just as Jesus should be to us.

Its pretty simple- honor your mother and father, and cleave to your wife after leaving your parents.

Exactly. Women of the time hardly needed to be told to obey their husbands, as any woman who didn't quickly died or was beaten. So either Paul had to be overstating the obvious over and over, or he is badly misunderstood, just as Peter said was the case even in that day.

So the real issue for us to examine is this: "Is Jesus really our 'source,' or is someone/something else?"

And since we continually changing the way we think about things (metanoia), perhaps a better phrasing would be, "To what extent have we submitted to Jesus being our 'Source?'"

True dat. Too many Christians have been conditioned to be co-dependents, relying on a church/pastor/spouse or whatever rather than the Holy Spirit and the Word. If our faith can't stand alone, it isn't ours.

For the past few months, I've phrased it, "To whom are you 'responsive?'" Or "becoming more fully responsive to God."

To paraphrase the familiar scripture: Faith without works, that is, without expressing our responsiveness to God, is dead, that is, dead to God.

Of course works without faith is just as "dead," just as unresponsive to God.

Many criticisms of the Bible, especially Christianity, are based upon what I believe are gross misunderstandings. The worst part is that many of these are perpetuated by Christian teachers. But truth to tell, there has been bias and tampering since the apostles died, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read their words.(1)

Many squabble over which version of ancient texts are best, or which translations. But anyone familiar with linguistics, translation, and textual transmission will tell you how ridiculous such squabbles are, and how inherently imprecise the whole exercise of understanding ancient writings truly is. There is always "something lost in translation", even when you have the originals in front of you, and even if no one disputed the content. And if this is true of the fairly technical side of things, it is much more true of the interpretation side.

With that background I'd like to focus on this one very controversial topic. Given that misogyny and patriarchy have been the overwhelming norm throughout history, bias in that direction is to be expected; it is female equality (let alone the much-rarer superiority) that is "counter-cultural" and in need of a fair trial. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, and just as teachings today may have many good points in them, the bias of the writers can still taint the teachings to some extent. We should be sure to note that God worked through and around people throughout history, rather than yanking people into line or micromanaging them. Thus some things were permitted that were never God's intent.(2)

I'm going to approach this post by listing common misconceptions and giving a concise response to each.(3)

---Adam ruled Eve because he was made first. If being first means having authority, then the animals all had authority over Adam. If being last means having authority, then Eve had authority over Adam. It is the fallacy of "special pleading" to make creation order a basis for authority only in one case.

---Adam ruled Eve because she was made from him. Adam was made from dust. Is dust therefore superior to Adam? Instead, being made of the very same "flesh and bone" as Adam made Eve his absolute equal. Adam focused on Eve's sameness, not her difference.

---Adam ruled Eve because she was his helper. The Hebrew word for "help" means "a strong ally" and is also used of God. There is no hint of inferiority on the part of the helper; in fact, it is the one being helped that lacks strength or ability. (Gen. 2:18)

---Adam ruled Eve because he called her "woman". The slave woman Hagar gave God a name. (Gen. 2:23, 16:13)

---Eve lusted after Adam's authority before she was tempted. There is not one hint in the entire Bible to back up this claim; it is a man-made myth. There is no scripture between the creation of Eve and her temptation, and neither she nor the serpent mentioned Adam during or after the temptation. No NT writer even hints at such a thing.

---Adam was unaware of the temptation or the source of the fruit. He was there with her and heard her voice as she was tempted. When she handed him the fruit he ate it even though he knew where it came from. If Eve had been tempting or tricking Adam, then it was she and not the serpent who was the real deceiver, making Adam the deceived. And there is not the slightest hint anywhere in the Bible of Eve using "feminine wiles" to seduce Adam. (Gen. 3:6, 17, 1 Tim. 2:13)

---Adam is shown to rule over Eve since God confronts him first. The confrontation is in the order of a typical philosophical argument, where statements are made leading to a central point and then traced back in reverse order. Scripture shows this to be man–woman–serpent–woman–man. So the order has nothing to do with rule but only with making a point. And the point was the serpent's curse and the accompanying prophecy of a Savior through the woman's seed alone. Eve is thus honored with truly being the "help" that Adam needed.

---Adam is charged with bringing sin into the world because he was the "federal head" of the human race. Scripture never gives Adam this title or anything like it, and does not say why sin is attributed to him alone. Yet consider these facts: both he and Eve ate the fruit and thus became mortal, but only Adam blamed the woman and God for his sin. While Eve is only said to have been deceived, Adam is said to have rebelled against God and dealt treacherously with Him. And if they base this "federal head" belief on the statement in Hebrews about Levi being credited with giving a tithe since he was "still in the body of his ancestor" Abraham when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, they need to answer the question of why any of Abraham's descendants needed to tithe, or how Levi could literally have existed in Abraham when a person is not created till sperm meets egg. Also, if Adam was Eve's "federal head" before sin, then God would not have confronted her at all but only Adam. (Hosea 6:7, Job 31:33, Heb. 7:10)

---Adam's rule over Eve was made harsh after sin. There is no hint of Adam having authority over Eve before sin, and God never told Adam he must now rule better or more strongly. In addition, the statement was made to Eve, and it was not a command but a prediction of the consequences of her choice to follow Adam out of the garden. Only Adam was ordered out, and only Adam was told he would return to the dust from which he alone was taken, which God cursed on his account alone. Neither he nor Eve were ever cursed. (Gen. 3:19-24)

---Eve was cursed with labor pain and subservience to Adam. The verse about pain in childbirth is more accurately rendered "a snare has increased your sorrow and sighing; in sorrow you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, who will rule over you." Note that she was indeed snared or tricked, and also that it would be her husband, not anything he allegedly possessed, that she would desire or turn toward. And because of this she would be ruled over by him. This was in the future tense for both her desire and his rule, proving that neither previously existed. Even in the traditional rendering, the word "curse" is not used with Eve as it was with Adam and the serpent; God never told Eve "Because you have done this…". And how could God increase her labor pains if she had not yet given birth? Even if she had, was birth supposed to have pain before sin? (Gen. 3:16)

---Adam was given rule over Eve because she was deceived. This makes no sense whatsoever. Adam sinned deliberately and without excuse, and showed no concern or responsibility for Eve while she was being tempted. If Eve had been made by God with a deceivable nature, how could she have been "a suitable helper" for Adam? And if all women are to be labeled as deceivable, then all men are to be labeled as poor leaders and rebels against God who always pass blame. To think God rewarded Adam for his rebellion and inaction, and cursed Eve for being tricked, is to turn God into Satan. And again, God never granted this rule to Adam; it was a prediction to Eve concerning the choice she would make. We must also not forget that the Savior was promised through her seed alone. Would God send His Son through the inherently deceivable? Why did He have to be born of a virgin?

---God never used women as leaders unless there were no men available. None of the references to women in leadership are ever said to be God's last resort or evidence of a divine curse or punishment. The lone verse that allegedly says so is very badly translated; even if it weren't, one verse is hardly enough to overturn the unchanging basics of the faith such as the Golden Rule and "not so among you". (Ex. 15:20, Judges 4:4-5:12, 2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22, Isaiah 3:12)

---God never condemned patriarchy. He also never condemned polygamy, slavery, rape, pedophilia, and a lot of other things. He never intended for Israel to have a human king but gave them one because they nagged him. We see throughout scripture God's pattern of making concessions, of working through and around humanity instead of immediately condemning every sin or weakness. Whenever God did intervene, we observe that He chose the young over the old, the weak over the strong, and the small and insignificant over the great and powerful. We also see His compassion and mercy, His offer to "come and reason". So His silence is not an indicator of approval but of patience and mercy. (1 Sam. 6:6-9)

---Jesus was male, and all his inner group of disciples were male. Jesus, as well as the disciples, were also all Jews, all speaking Aramaic. Why aren't these other qualities cited as proof that Christian leaders must be Jewish and speak Aramaic? And why was only Judas ever replaced among the Twelve? Why isn't a group of twelve required in every church? There is also proof that the Twelve were to be mapped to the twelve tribes of Israel, not to any sort of church structure. (Rev. 21:12-14)

---Jesus never condemned male supremacy. As with the claim about patriarchy, there were many other things Jesus never spoke out against, not even the Roman government. He also did not rebuke Mary for sitting at His feet to learn, and if male supremacists are consistent, they have to take that to mean Jesus approves of female theology students. And to be under a rabbi like that meant the student was expected to eventually take the place of a rabbi as well, so that means Jesus approves of women as pastors. Either arguments from silence are legitimate across the board, or they are not. (Luke 10:39)

---None of the Bible was written by a woman. Who is the author of Hebrews? Some historians believe there is evidence of "a conspiracy of silence" because the author was a woman, most likely Priscilla. Who wrote Esther? Ruth? We should also note that none of the Bible was written by a Gentile or a sea captain or a court jester. How many women were taught to write? How many should we expect from a patriarchal society? Does God ever say why He does things like commending the bravery of a prostitute (or possibly, an inn keeper, which in patriarchal thinking is a greater sin than prostitution since she ran a business without male oversight!) and allowing the Savior to be born of her line? So again we must ask why something like this is taken as tacit approval of male supremacy by God. (Joshua 6:25, Mt. 1:5)

---The "plain reading" of scripture says women can't teach men. That same "plain reading" also says that we should pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin, that we should take wine for our stomach problems, that we should wash each other's feet, that we should greet each other with a holy kiss, that our only debt should be love, and that "the first will be last and the last will be first". And if anyone tries to cry "context" in defense of their "plain reading" they have defeated their own argument. More questions for "plain reading" and consistency: Why does a woman need a head covering to signify male rule if she can only pray and prophecy in private or among other women? Where does God ever tell godly women they are in sin if they teach truth?

---Males must guard females from error and deception. The Holy Spirit cannot do the job? Who is guarding all those men teaching error? How many women compared to men have started false religions? How many women have been popes or imams? How many men have fallen for tricksters and embezzlers? And where is the scripture that states men must guard women from deception? Why are women allowed to teach children, who are the most easily deceived?

---Men and women are equal in being but have complementary "roles" where the man leads and the woman follows. If two people are equal in being or essence, there cannot be permanent hierarchy between them on the basis of essential qualities of being. That is, if someone is held to a permanent subservient role, based upon their flesh in some way, then that person is inferior by definition. Temporary hierarchies, such as employer/employee or parent/child, do not violate this rule because the employee can change jobs and the child can grow up. But slavery is defined as "submission to a dominating influence; the state of a person who is a chattel of another" (Webster's). A slave can be freed but is at the mercy of the owner. Though the slave is acknowledged to be as fully human as the owner, the slave is nonetheless held to be inferior in being. A "role" is, by definition, a part to play or a function to perform. The latter is held by male supremacism as meaning a woman's role is to submit permanently to a man for no other reason than the flesh (the physical). Yet because it is based upon a permanent and intrinsic quality, it defines the woman as inferior to the man. It is held that this leader/follower relationship is "complementary" between equals, but this amounts to defining equal as unequal, since the woman can never outrank the man in return. Truly equal complementation would be between friends or co-workers who each have different skills or jobs, or like the cooperation between the left and right hands.

---The man is the head of the family. Scripture never says this; it only says the husband is the head of his wife. But "head" in Greek never meant ruler or boss; the head/body metaphor was an expression of unity. If it meant boss, then the Bible would be ordering wives to "serve two masters", especially since male supremacism insists that a wife is to obey her husband "as to the Lord".

---No woman is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No man is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No NT letter is ever addressed to an individual having a title— except 2 John, which is addressed to a woman he calls "the chosen master" (lit. Greek). Many are called "apostles" (lit. "sent out"), including Junia, and many are called "servants" or "ministers" (all from the Greek word diaconos), including Phoebe. And "pastor", mentioned only once in the entire NT, is a spiritual gift, not an office or title. (Rom. 16:1, 7, Eph. 4:11)

---An elder must be a man. By the method used to determine this, then an elder must also be married, have well-behaved children, and do a good job of protecting the home. This would disqualify Paul, Timothy, and many others. Paul's list of qualities are exactly that: qualities of character, not matters of the flesh. And that same word for provide and protect in 1 Tim. 3:4, proistemi, is used of Phoebe. By this same method, the Great Commission would only be for men since it involves preaching the gospel, teaching, and baptizing. (Mt. 28:19-20, Rom. 16:2, 1 Tim. 3)

---A husband plays the role of Father to his wife's role of Son.That is blasphemy and idolatry, not to mention symbolic pedophilia. No believer is ever told to play God to another believer. The ONE passage used to teach this blasphemy (on the man's part) and idolatry (on the woman's part) is Eph. 5:22, but there is no verb there, because it goes with verse 21, not verse 23. In Greek it reads like a list starting in vs. 19, describing the "filled with the Spirit" in vs. 18: speaking, singing, thanking, and supporting. All believers are to defer (Paul always uses other words when discussing submission to authority) to one another; there are no exceptions. The man as "head" to the wife is her source, and she is his support, just as the head feeds the body and the body supports the head. In spite of the Roman law that made her attached to her father for life (instead of her husband)*, Paul tells Christian wives to be loyal to their "own" husbands. To say this as a matter of obedience would make no sense in a society where this was already presumed and encoded in law, and to treat any human as The Lord would be idolatrous. So Paul is not making "lording over" a new definition of submission.
(* The law was "marriage without hand", designed to give abused wives a way out of a bad marriage. She remained the property of her father, who at any time could give her to another man. So Paul is saying something quite radically opposed to Roman law.)

---Christian Equality is a slippery slope to homosexuality. Then male supremacism is a slippery slope to wife abuse, and clergy supremacy is a slippery slope to the cults. The "slippery slope" argument was raised to justify slavery in the pre-Civil War south, fearing the breakdown of society should slaves be freed and treated as equals. And historically (even today), homosexuality has been rampant in very patriarchal societies.

---Christian Equality bows to culture. The overwhelming cultural and religious paradigm has been that of male supremacism, so it is patriarchy which bows to culture. That modern Western society has been a rare exception to the cultural tradition does not make Christianity's acceptance of equality a case of bowing to culture, any more than the abolition of slavery was also bowing to culture.

---Men cannot give birth but they don't complain about it, so women should not complain about what they cannot do either. This is the "equivocation" fallacy, since it confuses ability with permission. Neither side believes women lack the ability to preach, teach, or lead. The absurdity of this argument is clear when we substitute the proper meanings for ‘can': "Men lack the ability to give birth, so women should not complain about lack of permission to hold authority."

---Not all men can have ecclesiastical authority, so they too must submit gladly to it. But men are not barred from such positions because they are men, but because they lack gifting or credentials. Yet women are barred from those positions solely because they are women, an intrinsic quality and thus a matter of ‘being' or ‘essence' rather than an ability or a role to play; women's gifting or ability is not even considered. And of course it is not all men who are denied authoritative positions, while it is all women who are denied. And in the home, all men are designated leaders and authorities over their wives, while no women are ever designated leaders and authorities over their husbands.

-------------------------------------------------------------​----
(1) [link to bible.cc]
see also these articles about tampering with the text:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to powerscourt.blogspot.com]
[link to www.touchstonemag.com]

(2) [link to bible.cc]

(3) [link to www.fether.net]

Articles about women:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

The Bible, Inspiration, and Inerrancy series:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

Translation and Interpretation series:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

Context and Exegesis:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

The Bible Canon:
[link to www.fether.net]

...
Genesis 18:12
12 Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself,+ saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord* being old besides?”...

... If a wife and husband are one flesh, but he is the head, she is under him.

... They know their wives better than wives know themselves sometimes because -in the case of my household, my husband is aware he has to take up the slack for things I "can't" do [according to a tacit "understanding" we seem to have], whereas I'm mostly blithely "unaware", as it suits me to be, on a day to day basis. He's like God in this respect- ...
I now believe men need to be respected... If they aren't respected, they will be passive-aggressive or worse.

I do know what you're talking about on thread is mainly '"women not supposed to teach in the congregation", but GLP isn't "the congregation".

What a bunch of PURE lies, distortions, and outright GARBAGE.

Based on what I've seen here, I wouldn't count on you to get ANYTHING right.