Women & Christianity: 1 Timothy 2:12-15

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi All,

Something has always confused me about Christianity: the way women are portrayed in the Bible. I wanted to spark some conversations about how and why such views entered the text. Main example, 1 Timothy 2:12-15 states (NIV, Paul is speaking):

Quote:

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

First of all, this in the New Testament, as I'm sure most of you recognize, so any "but that was under the old covenant" arguments cannot be valid. Secondly, I won't assume for a moment that men and women today have exactly equal standing in all areas of society - unfortunate but true. However, I'm highlighting the great strides we have made as societies to come closer to that equality - an ideal I back 100%.

But with that said, this passage is completely foreign to me. When I read it, I see it as debasing women to a rock-bottom low standard, that they are completely inferior to man. First observation:

Quote:

she must be silent

I argue that if you were to yank a young woman out of the ~ 0 A.D. time frame, plunk her into a good modern-day university for 4 years, and return her to her era, she would be 3x as intelligent as any government official afterwards. Yes obviously when it comes to the science/technology advances, but I'm also emphasizing worldly intelligence here. Understanding economies, climates, philosophy, life... (some admitted speculation here but I hope you can where I'm going...). So, the woman herself is not the problem! The problem, as I see it, is that the culture lacked the ability to notice the potential of women, because of the role she was playing in society at that time.

Second observation:

Quote:

But women will be saved through childbearing

This one is kinda self-explanatory. But basically what happens to those good, Christian women who, through no particular reason, end up not getting married and/or not having a child? This would mean they're not saved - one of the worst things a Christian could think of. A question I ask myself is, are Christian women somehow trained to think that the end-all of life is to have children? That they are nothing without a man? I mean absolutely no disrespect with these questions, they are merely what questions to which my mind is naturally led.

Finally, obviously I'm no fan of what these lines imply, but I welcome clarification. I also welcome the comments of a woman who deeply believes in these lines. And what other passages in the Bible show a clear old vs. new culture difference in terms of gender? Is this a prime example of how the Bible shows evidence the specific-culture-centered minds of its human authors?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,448 • Replies: 17

No top replies

You are pointing out something that a lot of Westerners are blind to. I was in a conversation not too long ago where a person was deriding the Muslims over their treatment of women. When I pointed out, as you have here, that Christianity sees women also as secondary beings there were howls, but I related how there were no women priests allowed in the Catholic Church, that they could not perform the sacraments (hear confessions, say Mass, marry people or even give the Last Rites), that until the late sixties a woman's head had to be covered while in church while a man's did not, and, again until recently, a woman was not allowed on the altar except to change the linens, now they are allowed to read out from the Epistles and the Psalms, but not the Gospels. A ten year old boy can read out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but not a forty year old degree-holding woman.

"What about the chadors?" someone asked.
"Ask any woman about to be married in a church if she is going to wear a veil."

Where do they think our history comes from?

Joe(There are visible things we cannot see)Nation

0 Replies

Joe- You are so right. Just think about the symbolism of a wedding. The bride's father gives his daughter to her new husband. She is passed from one man to another.

Apparently, the more religious the sect, the greater the differences in the way the the sexes are perceived. I once worked near an area that was populated by ultra orthodox Jews. The only difference between these women's clothing, and the Muslim chadors, was that the Jewish women were more fashionable to the western eye. The intent was the same.

They wore gorgeous wigs..................men who weren't their husbands were not allowed to see their hair. The clothing may have had a designer label, but had a high neckline, and long sleeves. In the synagogue, these women sat in an area separate from the men......................so that the men would not be distracted.

0 Replies

Blimey guys!!Theres a debate and a half.
It feels to me like we are still portrayed how we are in the Bible.

Obviously as a girl I am fed up of women being talked down to,not being paid as much as men for doing the same job etc

Was it men that wrote the Bible?
Was the snake that decieved Eve male?

So what if Adam was made first.He was a prototype.God got it wrong and got it right the second time round, we were the final working product.

Can you imagine it if men were told to be silent.Do you think they would put up with it?
The only argument they would have is ' no we wont be silent, because we are men'.

I see the Bible says women should bare children.I didnt see any mention of getting married first.
I am not sure if I want kids.I think thy are adorable but it doesnt mean I automatically want them and have oftened wondered if I will feel like a real woman if I end up not having them.

Joe what do you mean about your veil/history comments?

Silversturm, shall we start a movement where we treat men like women?
Shall we ban men from writing on this thread because they are men?

I think men are scared that we can achieve just as much as they can.Thats the usual reason for control and suppression.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr,rant, rave....

0 Replies

I dont think its a womans fault for being considered attractive.
Surely these rules were made because guys are easily distracted,same as if a girl doesnt want to get attacked whilst walking home at night its best to stay in.Or dont were a thong because it can be seen as a turn on to unwanted admirers.
All rules for women because men cant control themselves.

I think its nice that the father gives his daughter away at her wedding.
It represents that until that moment her father was the only important man in her life.I dont see it in a 'controlling' light.
But isnt it the brides family that is meant to pay for the wedding?

Maybe men shouldnt wear certain trousers because it could make their bum look nice.
Funny how we women manage to control ourselves.

0 Replies

Interesting discussion. I've always taken most of those to be Paul's own individual problems. However, there are other passages that speak about men/women roles in church authority, saying the men should be in control. My take on it is this: Women are very good organizers and tend to take over in group situations. Men are more than happy to let them (lazy). I believe the instructions are less about what women shouldn't do and more about what men should do (get off those butts and be a man and take on the responsibility).

0 Replies

The religion I was raised in relied heavily on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle. That particular verse was read to me many a time to explain what was wrong with my "rebellious" behavior. At one point, we were told that women were not permitted to wear pants, as it confused their gender. Women were supposed to submit to their husbands, fathers or brothers. We were not encouraged to pursue higher education.

My parents mellowed with time and now are very proud of me and of my sisters, but at the time they truly believed that the Bible was the word of God (even if some guy named Paul put his name on it) and that it was to be interpreted literally.

I recognize that they were a particularly fundamentalist kind and that most mainstream Christians are not so hung up on gender roles. But I can't sign up with those who talk of Islam as if it's very name means "we hate women" for the simple reason that I'd have to condemn all of Christianity in the process.

0 Replies

Good story Joe. I did some quick research veil thing to learn some more, you're definitely right. Common adjectives I found were submission, respect, virginity, and modesty.

So if the Bible were to be written today, would it include this same lesson? My opinion is that it would not, owing to what we know about ideas of equality. If you assume it would not include this lesson, then I believe that this has some weighty implications. Is not the Bible supposed to be able to lay down a scheme by which a person can live their life? A holy life granted, but a life. Is not the God of the Bible trying to show us how to live? Some people say that when they are having a problem in their lives they just open the Bible up to any page and there they find an answer to their dilemma. That anecdote is given just to illustrate this idea.

How can ideas like degrading women and slavery be universal? Would not Jesus (and subsequently Paul) been preaching some sort of worldly equality along with his message of love when he came? I realize he brought a message of a sort of holy equality, that we are all equal before the eyes of God, and that's where one's focus should lie. However, and I may be wrong about this, but does not accepting each other, without regard to gender and social status (and later race, etc.), contribute to a larger overall existence of love in the world? The examples are obvious throughout history where just the opposite has caused bloodshed, etc.

Feel free to point out any assumptions I've made in this line of logic. I know there is lot I'm missing (spiritual and otherwise) and that's why I'm appealing to the greater audience for input on these topics. What do you think?

0 Replies

Thanks for the invitiation, Silver.

Don't really have a lot to add to what has already been mentioned.

Christianity really doesn't stand in good stead over Islam when it comes to the treatment of women. But that is to be expected.

The books are the product of male oriented societies...and they obviously express the sentiments and sensibilities of those men...not of any gods.

If they were written today...as per your hypothetical...they more than likely would not include many items (treatment of women and slavery, for instance)...at least, not so long as the writing took place in the west.

As for Christians faulting Islam on this issue based purely on what is taught in the holy books of those two religions....the words "glass houses" and "rocks" come to mind.

0 Replies

Either way, you pack of skanks still have to make up for the criminal activities of your fore-mother Eve*. On that subject the three branches of Judiac-Christic-Muslimism are in agreement.

Prepare to meet thy firey doom ye unrepentant Jezebels........

*and possibly another one called Lilith.

0 Replies

I love the story of Lilith but again shows men trying to make out women to be the sinners.

I get the impression that white people are considered the 'superior race'(not true as there are alot of white people to be ashamed off and i wouldnt dream of believing/dictating that any race were superier)
All Gods are different colours,I believe some are blue.How does that fit that into the 'race' box?

0 Replies

Hey! Frank's back!

0 Replies

What about Frank's back?

Are you saying my butt is too big...or too skinny?

:wink:

0 Replies

What about your back? I hear it's pretty nice for an old man. :wink:

Nice to see you around. I guess you heard about our dear departed cav...

0 Replies

I too would not have assumed that a god needs to be any specific color. Even more generally speaking, when I think of what a god would look like, I think of just a cloud of ... I don't know, power? thought? In fact, if it weren't for Genesis 1:27 (NIV),

Quote:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

we would have no reason to assume anything about the god of the Bible's appearance.

* Why would such a god need two arms with two hands with ten fingers?
* Why would a god require our five senses if he is omniscient?
* Did this god look like our Neanderthal ancestors before us in the beginning, and has he evolved accordingly over the ages to keep the same visage?

0 Replies

Women are portrayed in the way you describe because of ''original sin'', Eve eating the apple, Eve being a woman. This is why women are treated like this in the Bible. And the religious ''explanation'' as to why giving birth is so damn painful! Something to do with punishment for Eve's mistake!

0 Replies

wales_rules wrote:

Women are portrayed in the way you describe because of ''original sin'', Eve eating the apple, Eve being a woman. This is why women are treated like this in the Bible. And the religious ''explanation'' as to why giving birth is so damn painful! Something to do with punishment for Eve's mistake!

Not really. If you check out the size of a baby's head and the size of the organ it has to pass through safely, I think there's a much more reasonable explanation........

0 Replies

Gosh, who would have thought that a book written by a bunch of primitive people approximately two millenia ago would contain backward moral values and barbaric principles. I'm shocked and astounded...

and I.... can't keep a straight face any more. My only response to someone pointing out the misogyny present in the bible is "well duh".

0 Replies

Women & Christianity: 1 Timothy 2:12-15

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know