• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

authority

withfresheyes

New Member
I welll know and realize that the woman is not to usurp authority over the mans role of leadership. My Question, "Is it possible that women , without intending to, go forward with counceling or advising the man in a sense, and the end resule being, though with good intentions, usurping uthority with an attitude of "teaching" him? Should not this teaching and admonition come from another brethern?
 
Most things in life can be good or bad, depending.

The word God used when describing woman, a "help" mate, is the same word used in describing the Holy Spirit as our Helper.

Thus, I've no problem with the women in my life helping me with teaching and even with gentle reminders.

However, if those gentle reminders turn to nagging, and then to bitterness if you do not choose to follow her "wise counsel", then she's stepped away from imitating the helpful role of the Holy Spirit; and whatever spirit is driving her IS trying to usurp authority, whether SHE realizes it or not. Same with ultimatums -- "You do it my way or I'm leaving you."

Other men tend to not do that, true. We tend to offer advice then leave you to sink or swim unless more is requested. And that is comfortable to other men.

But don't slam the door on the women in your life. They're wonderfully valuable sources of wisdom and insight as well as good cooking and being fun to ... look at. *grin* God bless 'em, 'cause they sure bless us! Just ... if one is forgetting that the idea is to imitate the Holy Spirit's methods in imparting her wisdom to you, gently remind her. Hugs help.

Sir BumbleBerry says that if worse comes to worse, take your bed outside and hoist it up onto the roof, and set it in a corner. If that merely gets you odd looks, there's a passage in Proverbs that might make the point. Something about "Better the corner of a rooftop than a mansion with nagging ..." :lol:
 
Eve may have ate the fruit, but how could she have known she was sinning until she had eaten it? Did she understand what death was before death showed up? Sometimes it is translated as the tree of conscience. Also some versions have Adam right there with her as she ate.
 
There are certain things that I wish Paul had not written. Paul is, notice, prohibiting the woman to teach or to usurp authority over the man, and that would be in spiritual things and in spiritual issues. Yet in writing to Titus, Paul said let the older women teach the younger women. There is a place of teaching for women, the teaching of the younger women: how to love their husbands, how to keep their homes and to talk in godliness and righteousness. Having raised now the family and being freed from the obligation of having the children at home, she's now free to share with the younger women those secrets that she has learned in walking with God and seeking to raise a godly family.

Paul mentions to Timothy how he had been taught in the Scriptures by his mother and his grandmother. The teaching of the children was largely the responsibility of the mothers. The only thing that is prohibited here is the teaching of men and usurping authority over them in spiritual things. He is not prohibiting a woman sharing with men. Paul in writing to the Corinthians mentions the women praying or prophesying in a public assembly and he doesn't come down on them for that. He doesn't say that that's prohibited. And "he that prophesies speaks to the church for edification, for comfort, for exhortation" (I Corinthians 14:3), and I see these as areas where women can minister effectively.

In fact, I think that they really are most of them tremendous exhorters, especially if they've been married. Just the area of teaching or usurping authority over the man is the only thing that Paul mentions here. Let's be careful not to broaden out from what Paul has said.

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

a. Let a woman learn in silence: This unfortunate translation has led some to believe that it is forbidden for women to even speak in church meetings. Paul uses the same word translated silence in 1 Timothy 2:2, and it is translated peaceable there. The idea is without contention instead of total silence.

i. In other places in the New Testament, even in the writings of Paul, women are specifically mentioned as praying and speaking in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5). To learn in silence has the idea of women receiving the teaching of the men God has chosen to lead in the church, with submission instead of contention.

ii. Submission is the principle; to learn in silence describes the application of the principle.

iii. Some have said the reason for this is because in these ancient cultures (as well as some present-day cultures), men and women sat in separate sections. The thought is that women interrupted the church service by shouting questions and comments to their husbands during the service. Clarke expresses this idea: “It was lawful for men in public assemblies to ask questions, or even interrupt the speaker when there was any matter in his speech which they did not understand; but this liberty was not granted to women.”

b. With all submission: The word for submission here literally means, “To be under in rank.” It has to do with respecting an acknowledged order of authority. It certainly does not mean that men are more spiritual than women or that women are inferior to men.

i. Anyone who has served in the armed forces knows that ‘rank’ has to do with order and authority, not with value or ability. . . . Just as an army would be in confusion if there were no levels of authority, so society would be in chaos without submission.

c. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man: Paul’s meaning seems clear. Women are not to have the role of teaching authority in the church. To be under authority is the principle; not teaching is the application.

i. Paul is saying that the church should not recognize women as those having authority in the church regarding matters of doctrine and Scriptural interpretation.

ii. Not all speaking or teaching by a woman is necessarily a violation of God’s order of authority in the church. Whatever speaking or teaching is done by a woman must be done in submission to the men God has appointed to lead the church.

iii. 1 Corinthians 11:1-12 emphasizes the same principle. Women are to always act under authority in the congregation, demonstrated in Corinthian culture by the wearing of a head covering. Therefore a woman in the Corinthian church could only pray or prophesy if she demonstrated that she was under the leadership of the church, and she demonstrated this by wearing a head covering and by acting consistently with that principle.

iiii. Keep in mind that though women are to act under authority, those men in leadership are under authority to Christ[/i].

d. I do not permit: The strength of Paul’s wording here makes it challenging to obey this command in today’s society. Since the 1970’s, our culture has rejected the idea that there may be different roles for men and women in the home, in the professional world, or in the church. In this text (among others), the Holy Spirit clearly says there is a difference in roles.

i. But the cultural challenge must be seen in its true context - not just a struggle between men and women, but as a struggle with the issue of authority in general. Since the 1960’s, there has been a massive change in the way we see and accept authority.
Citizens do not have the same respect for government’s authority.
Students do not have the same respect for teacher’s authority.
Women do not have the same respect for men’s authority.
Children do not have the same respect for parental authority.
Employees do not have the same respect for their employer’s authority.
People do not have the same respect for the police’s authority.
Christians no longer have the same respect for church authority.

ii. There are not many who would say that these changes have been good. Generally, people do not feel safer and there is less confidence in the culture. Television and other entertainment get worse and worse. In fact, our society is presently in, and rushing towards, complete anarchy - the state where no authority is accepted, and the only thing that matters is what one wants to do.

iii. It is fair to describe our present moral state as one of anarchy. There is no moral authority in our culture. When it comes to morality, the only thing that matters is what one wants to do. And in a civil sense, many neighborhoods in our nation are given over to anarchy. The government’s authority is not accepted in gang-infested portions of our cities. The only thing that matters is what one wants to do.

iv. We must see the broader attack on authority as a direct Satanic strategy to destroy our society and millions of individual lives. He is accomplishing this with two main attacks. First, the corruption of authority; second, the rejection of authority.

v. This idea of authority and submission to authority are so important to God that they are part of His very being. The First Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Father; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Son. Inherent in those titles is a relationship of authority and submission to authority. The Father exercises authority over the Son, and the Son submits to the Father’s authority - and this is in the very nature and being of God. Our failure to exercise Biblical authority, and our failure to submit to Biblical authority, isn’t just wrong and sad - it sins against the very nature of God. 1 Samuel 15:23 speaks to this same principle: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

e. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man: Paul’s focus here is the public worship of the church. God has established a clear chain of authority in both the home and in the church, and in those spheres, God has ordained that men are the “head” - that is, that they have the place of authority and responsibility.

i. Our culture, having rejected the idea in a difference in role between men and women, now rejects the idea of any difference between men and women. The driving trends in our culture point towards men who are more like women, and women who are more like men. Styles, clothes, perfumes, and all the rest promote this thought.

ii. The Bible is just as specific that there is no general submission of women unto men commanded in society; only in the spheres of the home and in the church. God has not commanded in His word that men have exclusive authority in the areas of politics, business, education, and so on.

iii. It also does not mean that every woman in the church is under the authority of every man in the church. Instead it means that those who lead the church - pastors and ruling elders - must be men, and the women (and others) must respect their authority.

iv. The failure of men to lead in the home and in the church, and to lead in the way Jesus would lead, has been a chief cause of the rejection of male authority - and is inexcusable.

v. Some feel this recognition and submission to authority is an unbearable burden. They feel that it means, “I have to say that I am inferior, that I am nothing, and I have to recognize this other person as being superior.” Yet inferiority or superiority has nothing to do with this. We remember the relationship between God the Father and God the Son - they are completely equal in their being, but have different roles when it comes to authority.

vi. Some may say that the church cannot work (or cannot work well) unless we go along with the times and put women into positions of spiritual and doctrinal authority in the church. From the standpoint of what works in our culture, they may be right. Yet from the standpoint of pleasing God by doing what He says in His word, they are wrong.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

a. For Adam was formed first: The first reason for male authority in the church is order of creation. Adam (man) was created first, and given original authority on earth.

i. The first command God gave to the human race is found in Genesis 2:16-17: Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. This command was not given to woman at all. At the time that command was given, Eve was not yet created from Adam.

ii. Therefore, Adam received his command and his authority from God, and Eve received her command and authority from Adam.

b. The woman being deceived: The second reason is the difference in the sin of Adam and Eve, as connected to their difference in authority.

i. Both Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, and Eve clearly sinned first. Yet, the Bible never blames Eve for the fall of the human race, but always blames Adam (through one man sin entered the world, Romans 5:12). Adam is responsible because of there was a difference of authority. Adam had an authority Eve did not have; therefore he also had a responsibility Eve did not have. Adam failed in his responsibility in a far more significant way than Eve did.

ii. As well, Eve was deceived, and Adam was not deceived. Eve was tricked; but Adam sinned knew exactly what he was doing when he rebelled. This means that though Adam’s sin was worse, Eve’s ability to be more readily deceived made her more dangerous in a place of authority. “Eve’s reasoning faculty was at once overcome by the allegation of jealousy felt by God, an allegation plausible to a nature swayed by emotion rather than by reflection.” (White)

iii. Generally speaking, it may be observed that women seem to be more spiritually sensitive than men - but this can be true for good or evil.

iv. Adam . . . the woman: “St. Paul says woman rather than Eve, emphasizing the sex rather than the individual, because he desires to give the incident its general application, especially in view of what follows.” (White)

v. Significantly, these reasons are not dependent upon culture. Those who say “Paul was a sexist man in a sexist culture,” and discount these words, are simply not reading what the Holy Spirit says in the sacred Scriptures here.

Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

a. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing: Many people regard this as one of the most difficult passages in the whole Bible. On the surface, it could be taken to mean that if a woman continues in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control, that God will bless her with survival in childbirth – which was no small promise in the ancient world.

i. Yet this interpretation leaves many difficult questions. Is this an absolute promise? What about godly women who have died in childbirth? What about sinful women who have survived childbirth? Doesn’t this seem like just a reward for good works, and not according to God’s grace and mercy?

b. Saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self control: Some approach this passage saying saved refers to gaining eternal life. Yet this interpretation is even more difficult. Are women saved eternally by giving birth to children - but only if they continue with godly virtues? What about women who can’t have children? Are they denied salvation?

c. She will be saved in childbearing: Some say that Paul “Has mostly in mind that child-bearing, not public teaching, is the peculiar function of woman, with a glory and dignity all its own.” The idea is that one should let the men teach in church and let the women have the babies.

d. She will be saved in childbearing: A better way to approach this passage is based on the grammar in the original Greek language. In the original, it says she will be saved in the childbirth. This has the sense, “Even though women were deceived, and fell into transgression starting with Eve, women can be saved by the Messiah - whom a woman brought into the world.”

i. Probably, the idea here is that even though the “woman race” did something bad in the garden by being deceived and falling into transgression, the “woman race” also did something far greater, in being used by God to bring the saving Messiah into the world.

ii. The summary is this: Don’t blame women for the fall of the human race; the Bible doesn’t. Instead, thank women for bringing the Messiah to us.

e. Faith, love, and holiness, with self-control: Most of all, we should note these positives. They are all qualities God wants to be evident in women, and that women have effectively nurtured in their children through generations.
 
One of the lessons which stands out for me in the matter of Adam and Eve is the fact that Adam was ultimately responsible and while Eve was deceived...[Adam was at fault].

I am very fond of noting the importance of understanding Numbers chapter 30 in this regard (the crux is in verse 15).


Adam was her covering. Adam was held responsible -- whether he was "with her" at the time of her deception, or later when he ratified it. Note that Scripture is very clear: when she ate first - nothing happened immediately. But when Adam FAILED to reverse her act of rebellion, and instead joined her, and ate, "the eyes of both of them were opened."

What might have happened had Adam disavowed her action is a matter for speculation. But the fact that he, and later his descendants, "bore her guilt" is beyond doubt.

Now if her husband makes no response whatever to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all the agreements that bind her; he confirms them, because he made no response to her on the day that he heard them.

But if he does make them void after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.
 
duelingbanjos said:
i. In other places in the New Testament, even in the writings of Paul, women are specifically mentioned as praying and speaking in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5).

I don't see any reference to a woman praying or speaking in church; rather the passage seems to be speaking of private prayer.

i. But the cultural challenge must be seen in its true context - not just a struggle between men and women, but as a struggle with the issue of authority in general. Since the 1960’s, there has been a massive change in the way we see and accept authority.
Citizens do not have the same respect for government’s authority.
Students do not have the same respect for teacher’s authority.
Women do not have the same respect for men’s authority.
Children do not have the same respect for parental authority.
Employees do not have the same respect for their employer’s authority.
People do not have the same respect for the police’s authority.
Christians no longer have the same respect for church authority.

Excellent point!
ii. The Bible is just as specific that there is no general submission of women unto men commanded in society; only in the spheres of the home and in the church. God has not commanded in His word that men have exclusive authority in the areas of politics, business, education, and so on.

I believe if you look at the requirements of a Civil Magistrate in Exodus 18:21, it is clearly defined as a man's role.

iii. It also does not mean that every woman in the church is under the authority of every man in the church. Instead it means that those who lead the church - pastors and ruling elders - must be men, and the women (and others) must respect their authority.

Excellent point!

v. Some feel this recognition and submission to authority is an unbearable burden. They feel that it means, “I have to say that I am inferior, that I am nothing, and I have to recognize this other person as being superior.” Yet inferiority or superiority has nothing to do with this. We remember the relationship between God the Father and God the Son - they are completely equal in their being, but have different roles when it comes to authority.

I can understand why some women could feel this way. Society at large purposely twists the Biblical roles of husbands and wives to mean something entirely different than what God desires. Society then twists a little harder to make the man seem to be a Neanderthal if he actually takes his God-given role seriously, and makes any woman who joyfully submits to her husband's authority feel like a Stepford Wife. It takes alot of spiritual strength to battle the world's warped view of proper authority roles in marriage.

ii. The summary is this: Don’t blame women for the fall of the human race; the Bible doesn’t. Instead, thank women for bringing the Messiah to us.

Excellent point!!
 
There seems to be a trend in the modern Church to have a wife be her husband's accountability partner and I think its very destructive. It puts a woman in a position of authority over and encourages her to criticize him and grade his performance.
 
I agree with Duelingbanjos. One more point to back his analysis. When you read your bible, understand that chapter divisions were placed there in the 13th century and scripture divisions shortly after. The first english bible to have them was the Geneava bible. Sometimes a chapter division will cut a context or flow of thought. The portion in 1 Tim is clearly one of those instances. Reread it and continue beyond the chapter 3 interruption and you will see that it is contrasting a women teaching and ursurping in the later part of 2 with if a man desire the office of a bishop ( pastor ) and his qualifications in the beginning part of 3. This is speaking specifically to the authoritive office of a pastor.
 
Alright, I just read 1 Timothy chapters 2 and 3 and the chapter break seemed fine to me. What was I missing? Also, chapter two didn't say anything about the submission and not teaching being only in the church. In fact that whole concept seems ludicrous in light of the idea that our faith should be all encompassing and in every part of our lives. It all seemed very clear to me, or am I oversimplifying it?
 
withfresheyes said:
I welll know and realize that the woman is not to usurp authority over the mans role of leadership. My Question, "Is it possible that women , without intending to, go forward with counceling or advising the man in a sense, and the end resule being, though with good intentions, usurping uthority with an attitude of "teaching" him?

Yes, it is possible. I think it depend entirely on the attitude of the wife. I think the key is not to lose respect for your husband. Accepting good advice is not something to look down upon but rather a sign of wisdom. For example, Abigail gave Nabal good advice and he ignored it to his own peril. David recognized good advice and its value and married Abigail as soon as she became available.

Should not this teaching and admonition come from another brethern?

Yes, if it is good quality. The two sources are not in competition. Proverbs 20:18 for example.
 
You make a really good point here Corey.

understand that chapter divisions were placed there in the 13th century and scripture divisions shortly after.

There are a lot of people who don't know, or understand, the difference it can make. Separating the Bible into chapters and verses makes it easier to find references when studying or referring to specific text, but also makes it easier to lose the context of what is being said.

I believe that as a helpmeet, women are able to, and responsible for, pointing out to the husband that he may be straying from the path - in PRIVATE - and with respect. In turn, the husband should listen to her with respect. By doing so, and by acting as a Berean, by getting into the scriptures to review his actions in light of the Word and praying for greater understanding, they both are blessed for whenever two or more are gathered in His name, He is there. If the husband, after study and prayerful contemplation, still disagrees with her and believes he in acting in all accordance with the Word, then the wife must submit to his authority. For example, I believe, and have taught my children, that abortion is murder, and is always wrong. On the other hand, my wife believes that a woman should have the right to abort a pregnancy that result from a rape. Her feeling is that the woman should not have to bear the reminder of the trauma for 9 months. My belief is that and child is a gift from GOD and should be regarded as a blessing regardless of its origin. Because of her desire to follow His Word in our marriage, she keeps her belief in silence and does not try to make her belief a source of contention in our home. She has submitted to me, and while disagreeing with her, I respect her right to hold a different belief - although I still point out to her the scriptural references to sway her.

The point being that while I do respect her beliefs, it is my beliefs that rule in our home. Fortunately, the matter never became an issue while my daughters were in our home. If it had, they had been taught and accepted my beliefs. Now that they are married, they are under the covering and headship of their husbands.

Dave
 
Back
Top