Women in the church

[Abigail]

Anyone want to discuss the Timothy texts ?

Abigail

[Adrift]

Anyone want to discuss the Timothy texts ?

Abigail

1 Timothy 2:9-10

likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Church isn't a fashion show. In some of the mixed or mostly black churches I used to attend some women would sometimes wear very large ornate hats. They should have kept those hats for other occasions other than a church setting where the focus ought to be on the word being preached. Women are highlighted in this passage because it was the tradition of the place and period (1st century Ephesus, a wealthy and influential port city in the Roman province of Asia) for women to wear very ornate hair styles.

But this is a general rule for everyone I think. When I was sporting a very tall mohawk, to my shame I recognized that I was drawing much unneeded attention in service. I soon made a habit not to wear my mohawk up in church settings.

1 Timothy 2:11

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

In the West the word "submission" seems to be a dirty word. We pride ourselves in Western culture for being individuals. Down with the man! But that's not how things ought to be, I don't think. The truth is that God, being a God of order, desires peace through willful submission and a recognition of authority and hiearchy. So Christ Jesus is the head of the church, and naturally we are all to be submissive to the authority granted him, but even within the body there is hierarchy so that a semblance of peace and order is maintained that extends from the family unit to the local church.

That said, though we mere mortals are certainly inferior to Christ, in Christ (as Paul states in Galatians) there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. So in the body, males are not superior, and females inferior, but for the sake of order females are to submit to Godly men, as Godly men submit to Christ.

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Paul appears to be using his apostolic authority here, so I don't think he's speaking out of personal opinion. I think this passage is a bit more complicated than the previous passages, because the nuance (I think) lays in the fact that "teaching" here seems to be related to "authority". For transparency's sake, my own mother is a church counselor, and also holds a title of "assistant pastor". As far as counseling goes, she's not actively teaching the congregation, but helping couples and singles outside the frame of a service setting (usually in a private office). However, she does (on fairly rare occasions) teach from the pulpit, but she does so with the authority granted and overseership of the the head pastor who is a male. Now some churches think even this verboten, and I can understand that. My mother is a very wise and Godly woman, in full submission to her head pastor, and if she were ever asked to rescind her title as assistant pastor or counselor, I'm sure she'd do so without hesitation. Ultimately, for me, this is an open topic and can go either way.

1 Timothy 2:13-15

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This passage basically establishes Biblical precedence for Paul's apostolic authority on the matter by pointing to the difference in gender roles. I don't think Paul means here that women are somehow evil or less than males for Eve's transgression, but that because of the order of creation, and because of Eve's transgression, God has ordained that, for practical reasons, Godly women are to submit to Godly men within the family unit, and that this family unit concept should be extended to the local church. Had men been made second, or had been the 1st transgressors, women would have likely been the head of the family, and the local church, but with a 50/50 chance either way both can't be in the authority.

That said, those who are given authority are held to higher responsibility. Luke 12:48 B "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

[RBerman]

Anyone want to discuss the Timothy texts ?

Abigail

Sure! What would you like to say about them?

[The Remonstrant]

Appropriateness & Modesty in Dress & Appearance

Anyone want to discuss the Timothy texts ?

Abigail

Alright. Below are some personal thoughts and observations.

1 Timothy 2:9 (HCSB)

Likewise, I want women 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.

I wish this apostolic command was heeded more often. There is a natural fallen human tendency to call attention to one's self through showy or flashy apparel and hairstyles. When believers are gathered together, we ought to have consideration for one another not to distract or make a show out of ourselves unnecessarily by the way we present ourselves in appearance. This could extend even with those who happen to have tattoos on their bodies, for example. If your arms are decked out with ink, wearing a long sleeve shirt could be one simple act of brotherly kindness in having consideration for fellow believers so as not to serve as a distraction. (Admittedly, it is all too easy to be distracted in church.) The basic sins to be avoided in making a show out of ourselves with clothing (and what not) are pride (in our appearance) and inconsideration for our brothers and sisters in Christ. More seriously, it can be a genuine failure to love.

The Beauty Pageant of (Purportedly) Godly Women

With women the issue is even more pressing. When it comes to a lack of modesty, females who go about in church congregations wearing immodest clothing are bringing the last thing the body of Christ needs into our gatherings. Worse than causing simple distraction, there is a tendency for it to provoke an unholy "showdown" of sorts, with women competing, as it were, in a sanctified beauty pageant week to week, inciting jealousy and vanity amongst themselves. Beyond that, females who insist on wearing tight and light clothing accentuating the breasts and everything else besides (re: immodest apparel), are inciting men to lust (which should be a ridiculously obvious implication in all this). While some women who do this may well be blissfully unaware that their style of dress has this affect on men, you can be certain that not all females (yes, even ones in the church) are so thoughtless, naive or benevolent in their inappropriate mode of appearance. Women ought to, and need, to have love for their brothers in Christ and not present themselves in a way that would lead them to stumble. An attitude of, "It's not my problem," or a basic disregard for others in your style of dress immediately reveals something is wrong in your heart. Honor your brother by the way you appear, and in so doing you will honor God.

(Relating to men, of course brothers in Christ ought to treat their fellow sisters in Christ first as sisters. Sexual inappropriateness whether through coarse joking or innuendos has no place among believers. It only brings disrepute to Christ when his alleged followers engage in sophomoric banter and the like. Unfortunately, it is all too frequent. There is guilt on both sides.)

A Lament of Immodesty & Inconsideration in the Body of Professed Believers

A few basic things make this consideration (in dress) increasingly difficult to find: (1) Presently, in the churches throughout North America, professed believers have progressively become more assimilated (and hence, less resistant) to the surrounding culture and values of the world. Which has resulted in (2), a general disinterest in the values of Scripture (as it is generally assumed the Bible more or less agrees with our prior national, social and personal attitudes and commitments). Which has resulted in (3), quite frankly, more worldlings in North American churches, i.e., more and more unregenerate people and less and less real followers of Christ. We are essentially very individualistic and as we never can increase our self-love enough, disregard for communal integrity with other believers is all too common.

Cultural assessment in short: Less and less godly people in the churches (re: more and more reprobate sinners), less and less godly values. Result? More and more skin.

[Cybelle Hawke]

1 Timothy 2:9-10

likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Church isn't a fashion show. In some of the mixed or mostly black churches I used to attend some women would sometimes wear very large ornate hats. They should have kept those hats for other occasions other than a church setting where the focus ought to be on the word being preached. Women are highlighted in this passage because it was the tradition of the place and period (1st century Ephesus, a wealthy and influential port city in the Roman province of Asia) for women to wear very ornate hair styles.

But this is a general rule for everyone I think. When I was sporting a very tall mohawk, to my shame I recognized that I was drawing much unneeded attention in service. I soon made a habit not to wear my mohawk up in church settings.

1 Timothy 2:11

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

In the West the word "submission" seems to be a dirty word. We pride ourselves in Western culture for being individuals. Down with the man! But that's not how things ought to be, I don't think. The truth is that God, being a God of order, desires peace through willful submission and a recognition of authority and hiearchy. So Christ Jesus is the head of the church, and naturally we are all to be submissive to the authority granted him, but even within the body there is hierarchy so that a semblance of peace and order is maintained that extends from the family unit to the local church.

That said, though we mere mortals are certainly inferior to Christ, in Christ (as Paul states in Galatians) there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. So in the body, males are not superior, and females inferior, but for the sake of order females are to submit to Godly men, as Godly men submit to Christ.

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Paul appears to be using his apostolic authority here, so I don't think he's speaking out of personal opinion. I think this passage is a bit more complicated than the previous passages, because the nuance (I think) lays in the fact that "teaching" here seems to be related to "authority". For transparency's sake, my own mother is a church counselor, and also holds a title of "assistant pastor". As far as counseling goes, she's not actively teaching the congregation, but helping couples and singles outside the frame of a service setting (usually in a private office). However, she does (on fairly rare occasions) teach from the pulpit, but she does so with the authority granted and overseership of the the head pastor who is a male. Now some churches think even this verboten, and I can understand that. My mother is a very wise and Godly woman, in full submission to her head pastor, and if she were ever asked to rescind her title as assistant pastor or counselor, I'm sure she'd do so without hesitation. Ultimately, for me, this is an open topic and can go either way.

1 Timothy 2:13-15

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This passage basically establishes Biblical precedence for Paul's apostolic authority on the matter by pointing to the difference in gender roles. I don't think Paul means here that women are somehow evil or less than males for Eve's transgression, but that because of the order of creation, and because of Eve's transgression, God has ordained that, for practical reasons, Godly women are to submit to Godly men within the family unit, and that this family unit concept should be extended to the local church. Had men been made second, or had been the 1st transgressors, women would have likely been the head of the family, and the local church, but with a 50/50 chance either way both can't be in the authority.

That said, those who are given authority are held to higher responsibility. Luke 12:48 B "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

Amen!

In addition, a very small observation:

I think that women who rebel against these verses do in fact not rebel against the authority of the bible but rebel against the failure of men (be it in family - fathers; be it in marriage - husbands; be it in church - brothers, council members and leaders) to submit to Christ´s authority in their being the head.... It is the experience rather then the theology so to speak.


I have no problem with men who think that women cannot teach/preach. I do have problems with men who think that a man who obviously does not submit to the authority of Christ can continue to teach/preach.

[Bill the Cat]

1 Timothy 2:9-10
likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.


I wonder why traditionally black churches do not preach on this verse... :hmm:

[RBerman]

1 Timothy 2:9-10
likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.


I wonder why traditionally black churches do not preach on this verse... :hmm:

And not just them. I once heard a prominent white SBC preacher explain this verse as: Get dressed up in fancy clothes for church. But don't forget good works either. It's striking that the only verse in the Bible that discusses church wardrobe says not to wear "costly attire." For women, anyway.

[Abigail]

Sure! What would you like to say about them?

I had posted a reply just before the crash but it seems to. Have disappeared

OK so what are the flaws in interpreting the 1 Tim 2:11-15 in this way:

Setting the context then:

Chapter 1 starts with Paul addressing the problems of strange doctrines and genealogies and I get the impression that they had strayed from what they were meant to be teaching (in fact 1 Tim 1:5-7 basically says this) and also that maybe they had become puffed up in their own importance and were perhaps acting with partiality to some folk and leaving others out. Paul reminds them that he was shown mercy while he was a sinner (1Tim1:13) and indeed that is what the abundant grace in Christ is all about that while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. I think Chapter 2 supports this interpretation if the first few verses urging them to pray for *all men* also kings and those in authority is understood in that light - that perhaps they were refusing to pray for some on request. See 1 Tim 2:5 were Paul reminds them that there is one mediator between God and men and that is Christ (not one of them making decisions about who or not is worthy).

So in effect Paul is saying that they were not there to act as judges but rather to try bring the people to sincere faith and in this way the men for their part were to pray lifting up holy hands without wrath since they were there as servants of God and the women were also to dress the part of of someone who was actually there to serve and not like some lady o the manner who perhaps a poor person might feel intimidated to approach. The context then seems to be that they were not acting like servants of Christ but they were actually acting as though they had the authority of Christ himself. The church is the bride and Christ is the groom. Now with this in mind is the context that Paul makes the statement he does in 1 Timothy. 2:11-15. Paul expects the church to act like the bride of Christ and not to go above Christ's authority . The church's primary role is child birthing ie spreading the Gospel. So the 11-15 verses are how Paul wants married couples to act as this is an example of how the church should view its own activities - the wording in 1 Tim 2:2 about leading a tranquil and quiet life (ie Paul points out that for them to just act on the fact that Christ died for all so they were to pray for all - had a tranquillity about it that all their other machinations lacked) seems to parallel the quietness requested of *a wife* in 1 Tim 2:11.

In summation then I don't think 1 Tim: 11-15 is applicable to all women but are for how wives should act as not only is this a template for the church but it gives a functional tranquility to the whole relationship and the wife has an important role.

Abigail

[RBerman]

I had posted a reply just before the crash but it seems to. Have disappeared

OK so what are the flaws in interpreting the 1 Tim 2:11-15 in this way:

Setting the context then:

Chapter 1 starts with Paul addressing the problems of strange doctrines and genealogies and I get the impression that they had strayed from what they were meant to be teaching (in fact 1 Tim 1:5-7 basically says this) and also that maybe they had become puffed up in their own importance and were perhaps acting with partiality to some folk and leaving others out. Paul reminds them that he was shown mercy while he was a sinner (1Tim1:13) and indeed that is what the abundant grace in Christ is all about that while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. I think Chapter 2 supports this interpretation if the first few verses urging them to pray for *all men* also kings and those in authority is understood in that light - that perhaps they were refusing to pray for some on request. See 1 Tim 2:5 were Paul reminds them that there is one mediator between God and men and that is Christ (not one of them making decisions about who or not is worthy).

So in effect Paul is saying that they were not there to act as judges but rather to try bring the people to sincere faith and in this way the men for their part were to pray lifting up holy hands without wrath since they were there as servants of God and the women were also to dress the part of of someone who was actually there to serve and not like some lady o the manner who perhaps a poor person might feel intimidated to approach. The context then seems to be that they were not acting like servants of Christ but they were actually acting as though they had the authority of Christ himself. The church is the bride and Christ is the groom. Now with this in mind is the context that Paul makes the statement he does in 1 Timothy. 2:11-15. Paul expects the church to act like the bride of Christ and not to go above Christ's authority . The church's primary role is child birthing ie spreading the Gospel. So the 11-15 verses are how Paul wants married couples to act as this is an example of how the church should view its own activities - the wording in 1 Tim 2:2 about leading a tranquil and quiet life (ie Paul points out that for them to just act on the fact that Christ died for all so they were to pray for all - had a tranquillity about it that all their other machinations lacked) seems to parallel the quietness requested of *a wife* in 1 Tim 2:11.

In summation then I don't think 1 Tim: 11-15 is applicable to all women but are for how wives should act as not only is this a template for the church but it gives a functional tranquility to the whole relationship and the wife has an important role.

I like much of what you say here, but I don't think that 1 Tim 2:9-15 teaches that women are to act one way until they're married, and another way after they're married. It doesn't make a distinction between married and unmarried women, using the general term gune which applied either to all adult females or particularly to married ones, depending on context (e.g. "your woman" means "your wife").

[Cybelle Hawke]

It's striking that the only verse in the Bible that discusses church wardrobe says not to wear "costly attire." For women, anyway.

I wonder if Timothy is actually referring to a dresscode for women in church...

Could it be, that this verse refers to the fact that before G-d, we all are naked to the bone and there is nothing we could possibly dress to conceal that nakedness? Knowing this, just imagine how clownesk we will look if we start to decorate our sinful-selves with gold, pearls and costly attires....

Perhaps Timothy observed, that it is the female - who in general has a tendancy wanting to correct and/or upgrade her appearance - that must be made aware of this most.

To me, it is a very valuable teaching, which I do not see only fit for women but for men as well. As too many walk around with the idea that what they have achieved in the world (salary, housing, cars, watches etc etc) could impress G-d the same way, as it impresses their friends, family & neighbours.

Also I see it very important that the church is the place, where women can find peace - away from the pressure of the world of having to be beautiful, wonderful and successful. That she may find in her congregation the appreciation and support from fellow-believers for being nothing more (nor less) for what she is. So apart from a corrective tone (thy shall not make the male stumble in impure thoughts by unmodestly dressing), I recognize a blessing tone in his teaching (in church, in the intimacy between G-d and yourself: no keeping up appearances, just the real unplugged you)

[Josheb]

Anyone want to discuss the Timothy texts? Abigail

I think the 1 Timothy 2:9-3:13 text is mistranslated. The text in English vacillates between "women" and "wives" when the clear context of the entire passage is wives. It is a profound mistake (definitely and error in logic) to treat all women as wives. The context of Adam and Eve is one of marriage (vs. 13) , as that of women having children (vs. 15)(in a Biblical paradigm). For thousands of years we have done ourselves (when women suffer men suffer and viceversa) a disservice by accepting an incorrect rendering of the epistle. Am I to believe that Juinas or Prsicilla never spoke in churches they established? 1 Timothy 2 should have been translated consistently or uniformly.

[RBerman]

I think the 1 Timothy 2:9-3:13 text is mistranslated. The text in English vacillates between "women" and "wives" when the clear context of the entire passage is wives. It is a profound mistake (definitely and error in logic) to treat all women as wives. The context of Adam and Eve is one of marriage (vs. 13) , as that of women having children (vs. 15)(in a Biblical paradigm). For thousands of years we have done ourselves (when women suffer men suffer and viceversa) a disservice by accepting an incorrect rendering of the epistle. Am I to believe that Juinas or Prsicilla never spoke in churches they established? 1 Timothy 2 should have been translated consistently or uniformly.

Welcome to TWeb! I'm having difficulty following your argument. There may be some translations which vacillate, but ESV is consistent. The Greek word here throughout this passage is γυνή, meaning "woman". It can mean "wife" as in 1 Tim 3:2 (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, meaning "one-woman man"). But why would Paul want only married women to "adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works"? Does he want only married men to "pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling" (1 Tim 2:8)? Also, Priscilla was a married woman, so whatever Paul would say about her would apply either way.

[Josheb]

Welcome to TWeb! I'm having difficulty following your argument. There may be some translations which vacillate, but ESV is consistent. The Greek word here throughout this passage is γυνή, meaning "woman". It can mean "wife" as in 1 Tim 3:2 (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, meaning "one-woman man"). But why would Paul want only married women to "adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works"? Does he want only married men to "pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling" (1 Tim 2:8)? Also, Priscilla was a married woman, so whatever Paul would say about her would apply either way.

Thank you, the greeting is appreciated. Adornment can certainly apply to any woman regardless of marital status, but husbands and pregnancy cannot. Adornment might just as easily be applicable to men, yes? Paul begins the passage specifically mentioning Adam and Eve, not Eve solo. That's our first indication of marital context. He next mentions childbearing: women aren't saved through childbearing - wives are. Single unmarried women don't bear children. Unless you're prepared to claim Paul requires every Christian woman to get married and then again requires every one of them to bear children (assertions that would directly contradict other statements Paul makes elsewhere in other epistles) then the passage cannot be applied to all women regardless of marital status.

In a worlview that sees men as the head of the household, as representative of the family, who speaks and votes as a single voice on their behalf (a dynamic that goes back the the wandering Hebrews) it makes sense for Paul to assert wives (serving with their elder husbands) to be quite and not speak instead of, or in place of, her husband and thereby be divisive (intentionally or unintentionally). It doesn't make sense in a body of believers in which women were apostles (church establishers and thereby necessarily evangelists), in a body in which there is no male or female (Gal. 3:28), where the sign of the new covenant is baptism not circumcision (the former applicable to all whereas the latter applicable to only men), to have all women silent. There are too many internal contradictions with the word.

Yes, Priscilla was married and therefore what Paul wrote to Timothy would apply to her. When she was present in a congregation in which her husband, Aquila, was a leader or otherwise acting in a position of authority it was incumbent upon her to speak in unity with him and support and defer to his position of authority. Priscilla presents an interesting query, though. She is mentioned prior to her husband in Acts 18:18-19&26 and Rom. 16:23, and 2 Tim. 4:19 indicating she may have had some pre-eminence over her husband as far as God's purposes for them in His body. It was not common practice in that day in those cultures to mention the wife first, yet there she is, repeatedly given first mention in deference to her husband. So... if she was speaking in a local body of believers perhaps it was incumbent upon Aquila to support her and speak in unison with the Holy Spirit at work in her words. Given the mention of her in scripture it is not reasonable to assume she ministered only to women.

[RBerman]

Thank you, the greeting is appreciated. Adornment can certainly apply to any woman regardless of marital status, but husbands and pregnancy cannot. Adornment might just as easily be applicable to men, yes? Paul begins the passage specifically mentioning Adam and Eve, not Eve solo. That's our first indication of marital context. He next mentions childbearing: women aren't saved through childbearing - wives are. Single unmarried women don't bear children. Unless you're prepared to claim Paul requires every Christian woman to get married and then again requires every one of them to bear children (assertions that would directly contradict other statements Paul makes elsewhere in other epistles) then the passage cannot be applied to all women regardless of marital status.

Adornment was apparently not a big issue for men, given that Paul didn't mention it. But he did mention it for women, and I can't think of a reason that his comments would have been more applicable to married women than unmarried ones. If you know something about differences in dress habits between married and unmarried women in first century Roman/Greek/Hebrew culture, I'm open to education. But again, I suspect Paul didn't intend that only married men, but not unmarried men, lift up holy hands. Nor were only married women to be known by their good works. Paul assumes that the typical woman will be married and have children. That's not the same thing as limiting his comments to married women, however.

In a worlview that sees men as the head of the household, as representative of the family, who speaks and votes as a single voice on their behalf (a dynamic that goes back the the wandering Hebrews) it makes sense for Paul to assert wives (serving with their elder husbands) to be quite and not speak instead of, or in place of, her husband and thereby be divisive (intentionally or unintentionally). It doesn't make sense in a body of believers in which women were apostles (church establishers and thereby necessarily evangelists), in a body in which there is no male or female (Gal. 3:28), where the sign of the new covenant is baptism not circumcision (the former applicable to all whereas the latter applicable to only men), to have all women silent. There are too many internal contradictions with the word.

Galatians 3:28 is about salvation, not the realities of gender roles. It appears that you're saying that Paul caters to a longstanding Hebrew paternalism which he nevertheless thinks is wrong. That doesn't sound like how Paul and Jesus operate on other matters. Regularly throughout the NT, they say what is right, even if it violates the audience's assumptions about propriety.

Yes, Priscilla was married and therefore what Paul wrote to Timothy would apply to her. When she was present in a congregation in which her husband, Aquila, was a leader or otherwise acting in a position of authority it was incumbent upon her to speak in unity with him and support and defer to his position of authority. Priscilla presents an interesting query, though. She is mentioned prior to her husband in Acts 18:18-19&26 and Rom. 16:23, and 2 Tim. 4:19 indicating she may have had some pre-eminence over her husband as far as God's purposes for them in His body. It was not common practice in that day in those cultures to mention the wife first, yet there she is, repeatedly given first mention in deference to her husband. So... if she was speaking in a local body of believers perhaps it was incumbent upon Aquila to support her and speak in unison with the Holy Spirit at work in her words. Given the mention of her in scripture it is not reasonable to assume she ministered only to women.

Very little is said about her in particular (as distinguished from her husband) in any of those texts. Such guesswork should not be used to overrule texts which speak explicitly.

[Josheb]

Adornment was apparently not a big issue for men, given that Paul didn't mention it. But he did mention it for women, and I can't think of a reason that his comments would have been more applicable to married women than unmarried ones. If you know something about differences in dress habits between married and unmarried women in first century Roman/Greek/Hebrew culture, I'm open to education. But again, I suspect Paul didn't intend that only married men, but not unmarried men, lift up holy hands. Nor were only married women to be known by their good works. Paul assumes that the typical woman will be married and have children. That's not the same thing as limiting his comments to married women, however.



Galatians 3:28 is about salvation, not the realities of gender roles. It appears that you're saying that Paul caters to a longstanding Hebrew paternalism which he nevertheless thinks is wrong. That doesn't sound like how Paul and Jesus operate on other matters. Regularly throughout the NT, they say what is right, even if it violates the audience's assumptions about propriety.



Very little is said about her in particular (as distinguished from her husband) in any of those texts. Such guesswork should not be used to overrule texts which speak explicitly.

My apologies RB, but I have been informed by the mod that this board is restricted and I, apparently, do not meet the requirements so I will not be responding (out of respect to the mods, the tou, and the rest of you) until I get the matter reconciled. I think some of what I just read veracious, but some bears critical examination. I'd like to continue but it will have to wait. I trust you'll understand.