Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women

[Trapped]

A while back I had to dig into some of the known cringey verses about women in the church....you know the "be silent, it's shameful for you to speak" ones. I know there are many people who have tripped over these verses, and in some cases they have been partly responsible for their leaving the faith.

I came across this simple, unassuming video on YouTube, and frankly......I've found it to be the absolute best explanation so far that 1) makes sense, 2) jives with other parts of scripture, 3) doesn't crush women, and 4) doesn't make me shut up my conscience to consider it as a real possibility.

What is additionally cool for me about this interpretation is that it also makes sense of a few verses that used to drive me up the wall......the ones where Paul says tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and then turns around and says that if unbelievers walked in to a meeting and heard tongues they would think everyone was insane. Two totally contradictory irreconcilable statements.....and they get cleared up when read in this interpretation.

The video is about 20 minutes long, but I frankly think it's worth the time. She speaks slowly enough that you could probably play it on slightly faster speed and listen to it quicker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRZQcuq70E

Curious about people's thoughts.

Trapped

[countmeworthy]

Great stuff Trapped. Much appreciate you sharing this video with us.
Sure cleared questions I had. Still not clear on the matter of “supernatural” tongues. Is it man made or not?

Another matter I struggle understanding is the “5 fold ministry” mentioned in Ephesians.. the one that names some apostles, some prophets, pastors, teachers etc....

It seems to me the clergy-laity system which God clearly hates was birthed from these scriptures. Would like thoughts on those passages too. Thanks

[Nell]

Yes! Good stuff, Trapped

Nell

[Awoken]

I did listen. I was kind of on board for the first section but definitely not when she got to 1 Timothy 2. My feeling is that she is REALLY stretching to make this interpretation about "the" woman and this supposed individual's erroneous commandments, which leads me to believe I should also be leery about her interpretation in the first part of the video.

I am actually really suspicious about inserting grammatical redefinitions of the meaning of the written word in this way. Just recently I visited (in person) with a pastor and his wife and we had a long chat about doctrinal heresy and false teachings, largely because I was relating to him my experience in the local churches. One of the things he pointed out to me by way of anecdote was that there was a false teacher he'd heard who twisted Scripture specifically by saying "if you just insert a comma here, it totally changes the meaning of the verse!". Keep in mind this conversation had absolutely no relation to this present forum post at all as this hadn't even been posted yet.

Another thing; Eve, who was deceived (not Adam), changed Scripture when the serpent tempted her: "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" That's not what God said - the additional material was inserted by Eve.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Awoken

Another thing; Eve, who was deceived (not Adam), changed Scripture when the serpent tempted her: "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" That's not what God said - the additional material was inserted by Eve.

So, Awoken. Which do you think is worse: Eve was deceived and she admitted it. This was her confession. Adam was not deceived...his disobedience was willful. He knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. He was standing beside Eve when she was being confronted by the serpent, but did nothing to rescue the woman from being deceived. Which is worse? Being deceived by the serpent, or willful disobedience?

Through the ages men point their fingers at Eve because she was deceived by the serpent, but Adam's willful disobedience somehow escapes their notice.

Nell

[Awoken]

Adam's willful disobedience was definitely worse. Nevertheless we also need to be careful not to be deceived.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks much for sharing that, Trapped! Those verses were in my "set-aside" file . . . that is scripture I read that don't make good sense to me and I just set aside my understanding until the Lord chooses to give me light. But this seems to make pretty good sense, considering the full context of those passages!

We've been going through Colossians in my fellowship and have been looking more at what the Gnostic teachings were, so the last part did actually make better sense to me regarding those heretical teachings and how Paul was addressing them.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

A while back I had to dig into some of the known cringey verses about women in the church....you know the "be silent, it's shameful for you to speak" ones. I know there are many people who have tripped over these verses, and in some cases they have been partly responsible for their leaving the faith.

I came across this simple, unassuming video on YouTube, and frankly......I've found it to be the absolute best explanation so far that 1) makes sense, 2) jives with other parts of scripture, 3) doesn't crush women, and 4) doesn't make me shut up my conscience to consider it as a real possibility.

What is additionally cool for me about this interpretation is that it also makes sense of a few verses that used to drive me up the wall......the ones where Paul says tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and then turns around and says that if unbelievers walked in to a meeting and heard tongues they would think everyone was insane. Two totally contradictory irreconcilable statements.....and they get cleared up when read in this interpretation.
...
Trapped

Here is another perspective on Paul's uncomfortable verses about women, from Katherine Bushnell and her research of the matter.

To be sure, one should not carelessly assume that anything in the Bible is of exceptional and temporary import only. Yet we are now dealing with a personal letter, and advice given to one individual, and given in a time of exceptional peril, and these facts ought to count for a great deal. Again, while we should not thoughtlessly assume that the Bible is to be read in the light of *profane history, and corrected by it; nevertheless, the Bible, when carefully tested by well-known ancient customs or conditions set forth in reliable profane history, will be found to ring true to contemporary facts. We might have suffered a stagger to our faith in Paul’s tenderness and prudence, if not a stagger to our faith in the Bible, if, in a time of such supreme peril to Christian women, Paul could be represented as urging women to the front of the fight, and putting on them equal ecclesiastical responsibilities with men, when he knew that the cost to them would be far heavier than to men.

Rather, we find in Paul’s letter to Timothy precisely that sort of natural advice that a tender over-pastor under such conditions would give to one in charge of a church in his jurisdiction: “I should not allow a woman to teach or control a man. They (Roman adversaries of the day) are attacking our reputation for common decency, and we must meet it by separating the women from the men, and having them keep very quiet.”

All history testifies that women did not shirk martyrdom for Christ’s sake, but Paul says: “However willing they may be, I do not permit it. We men must take the lead: Adam was first formed, then Eve, and besides, Eve, being immature, got involved, unwittingly, in transgression through her immaturity and inexperience. So are our women immature and inexperienced; they do not even understand fully the terrible dangers that confront them.” Thus might the Apostle, who, ten years before, wrote to the Corinthians about women “praying and prophesying,” and to the Galatians about the same time, to the effect that there could be no distinctions as regards sex in the Christian body, now consistently write after this manner to Timothy, for he must have regard for the situation under Nero, and the relations of Christian to the social order about them. It seems to us far more sensible, then, to ascribe Paul’s precautionary advice to the then existent perilous times, especially for women, than to go back to Eve, or to creation to find a reason. God's Word to Women, by Katherine Bushnell, Lesson 42, Para. 326.

*Profane history: the history of secular affairs as opposed to Sacred history, which deals with the events in the Bible narrative.)

Nell

[HERn]

To me the fiasco of Adam failing Eve in her hour of need with the tree and the serpent shows that wives should ultimately look to and trust in their God rather than their husbands. Wives may be to their husbands as Christ is to His Father, but the Father never demanded anything from the Son, the Son freely submitted to His Father. Husbands can demand nothing from their wives. But where the wife freely offers her love and respect to her husband (who does not deserve it) there you will find a little bit of heaven on earth.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by HERn

To me the fiasco of Adam failing Eve in her hour of need with the tree and the serpent shows that wives should ultimately look to and trust in their God rather than their husbands. Wives may be to their husbands as Christ is to His Father, but the Father never demanded anything from the Son, the Son freely submitted to His Father. Husbands can demand nothing from their wives. But where the wife freely offers her love and respect to her husband (who does not deserve it) there you will find a little bit of heaven on earth.

Good point, HERn. Bushnell agrees with you. Regarding Gen. 3:16:

Lesson 16, Para. 124: God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her. The correct rendering of the next phrase of Genesis 3:16 is this: "Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,"—not as it has been rendered, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband."

God's Word to Women is available in .pdf format if you're interested. Fair warning: It's like gnawing a bone. Written in the writing style of her day in the early 1900's, you may find yourself with a dictionary. On the other hand, I really like its format: 100 Lessons with each paragraph numbered. Each lesson is only 2-3 pages long. One Lesson a day will get you through it in 2-3 years! :-)

Nell

[aron]

Certainly it's an important topic, one of the most important in the church today, and worth a lot of consideration. And this entry is also worth serious consideration.

My own take is this: it would be very helpful if the author of the video gave more information. There's the suggestion that Paul, a usually careful writer, makes a writing faux pas that causes 2,000 years of misunderstanding and oppression. Does Paul do this elsewhere? Or does he carefully couch inflammatory rhetoric that he disagrees with, in some kind of warning wrapper?

Romans 3:5,8 "But if our unrighteousness highlights the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict His wrath on us? I am speaking in human terms... Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, 'Let us do evil that good may result?' Their condemnation is deserved!" . Paul is willing to let other voices in, even those that he disagrees with, but he takes pains to show what is the correct interpretation and what is not. Can you imagine the damage that would occur if he mis-identified the voice in his letter to the Romans? Yet this is what's alleged, here.

Also, note what's not stressed in the quoted texts, labeled "Paul's 'new' teaching": the "submission" part. The quoted text not only says, "quiet" but says "submission". And that word isn't unknown in apostolic text. It's not a new teaching.

Originally Posted by 1 Peter Chapters 2 and 3

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22 “He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 25 For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

There's an extensive section on respecting earthly positions, and women's submission in 1 Peter 3:1 is part of a set that's consistent with the apostle's teaching. (Note also Paul in Ephesians 5). None of this is novel. So if the Corinthian leaders are abusing this apostolically-established relationship to wrongly silence women that's one thing, but the video passes over this without comment.

So my question is this: Are other sections of Paul not phrased well enough, such that translators historically misunderstand them as well as these two supposedly "new teachings"? Do any of Paul's contemporaries suffer the same problem - I think of Livy, Pliny, Josephus etc? How common was this misunderstood voice issue in the first centuries, writing in Koine Greek? If it's common with Paul and others, that's one thing. But if we can't see this issue elsewhere, of unclear and/or misunderstood voice in the text, then there's a challenge to overturn centuries of understanding. There must be some precedent for this argument; if it stands alone it stands weakly.

I don't say that I disagree, just that the author of the video doesn't give it the kind of support it needs. She spends a lot of time on extraneous stuff that isn't central to the argument. And then she doesn't sufficiently support the core argument.

[Nell]

Aron, my post #14 offers another perspective, quoting K. Bushnell. Can you please take a look?

Thanks-
Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

Also, note what's not stressed in the quoted texts, labeled "Paul's 'new' teaching": the "submission" part. The quoted text not only says, "quiet" but says "submission". And that word isn't unknown in apostolic text. It's not a new teaching.

There's an extensive section on respecting earthly positions, and women's submission in 1 Peter 3:1 is part of a set that's consistent with the apostle's teaching. (Note also Paul in Ephesians 5). None of this is novel. So if the Corinthian leaders are abusing this apostolically-established relationship to wrongly silence women that's one thing, but the video passes over this without comment.

aron, would you be able to point more specifically to what part(s) of the video you are referring to? I'm trying to find it but am having trouble finding it and following your train of thought too.

Ephesians 5 speaks of wives submitting to their husbands, yes. It also speaks of husbands sacrificing themselves by laying down their life for their wife. Submission for one, sacrifice for the other!

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Nell

So, Awoken. Which do you think is worse: Eve was deceived and she admitted it. This was her confession. Adam was not deceived...his disobedience was willful. He knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. He was standing beside Eve when she was being confronted by the serpent, but did nothing to rescue the woman from being deceived. Which is worse? Being deceived by the serpent, or willful disobedience?

Through the ages men point their fingers at Eve because she was deceived by the serpent, but Adam's willful disobedience somehow escapes their notice.

Nell

Nell,

I was reading through pretty much all the threads that were previously posted here on this forum, and what cut my eye was few posts that were made by some members (which I don’t see them posting anymore), but I saw this post here and wanted to see if you can clarify something. Is there anywhere in the Bible that there is a verse that confirms that Adam was present at the time when serpent tempted Eve? Gen 3:6? Or where?
If that’s the case, then why did God say that Adam is cursed because he listed to his wife in 3:17, and not the serpent? Notice the Eve never mentioned that the serpent deceived “us”, if they were together at the time, she said he deceived “me”. Then why Paul says that Eve was decived first. So I’m interested how did you get to this conclusion.

I’m not by the way defending what Adam did or didn’t do, it just the conclusions that make you do a double take on things now days.

Thanks

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Nell,

I was reading through pretty much all the threads that were previously posted here on this forum, and what cut my eye was few posts that were made by some members (which I don’t see them posting anymore), but I saw this post here and wanted to see if you can clarify something. Is there anywhere in the Bible that there is a verse that confirms that Adam was present at the time when serpent tempted Eve? Gen 3:6? Or where?

Yes. There is a verse that confirms that Adam was present when the serpent tempted Eve. You referenced it. Genesis 3:6.

Gen. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

If that’s the case, then why did God say that Adam is cursed because he listed to his wife in 3:17, and not the serpent? Notice the Eve never mentioned that the serpent deceived “us”, if they were together at the time, she said he deceived “me”. Then why Paul says that Eve was decived first. So I’m interested how did you get to this conclusion.

"If" that's the case? It seems clear that Adam was with her. Where did God say that Adam is cursed because he listened to his wife? Verse please.

Paul says that the woman was deceived first because she was. Although, it has been speculated that for Adam to stand and watch his wife disobey God and eat the fruit without protecting her, then eat the fruit himself, he may have already been under the influence of the serpent...that is...the fall.

Was the woman obligated to use certain verbiage? "Us", etc.? As is appropriate, the woman spoke for herself. She didn't presume her husband's deception.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Adam was not deceived, yet he disobeyed God. If Adam was not deceived, he made a choice to disobey God.

Also, please show us the verse that says God cursed Adam because he listened to his wife. In v. 14 God cursed the serpent and in v. 17, God cursed the ground. Where is the verse that says God cursed Adam?

More significant perhaps than Adam listening to his wife, I believe, is that even though he was not deceived, Adam disobeyed God. Eve admitted she was deceived, but Adam did not. Adam instead blamed God. This is possibly why God held Adam responsible for his deception. By admitting or confessing she was deceived, the woman obtained forgiveness.

What is the relevence of the woman being deceived first? Other than the fact of the matter, what does it mean? Adam revealed his condition when he didn't help his wife, he disobeyed God, then he blamed God but never admitted to his sin.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The serpent was cursed.

Gen. 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

The ground was cursed.

I’m not by the way defending what Adam did or didn’t do, it just the conclusions that make you do a double take on things now days.
Thanks

Your conclusions need some scrutiny also...

Nell

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Nell

Yes. There is a verse that confirms that Adam was present when the serpent tempted Eve. You referenced it. Genesis 3:6.

Gen. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.



"If" that's the case? It seems clear that Adam was with her. Where did God say that Adam is cursed because he listened to his wife? Verse please.

Paul says that the woman was deceived first because she was. Although, it has been speculated that for Adam to stand and watch his wife disobey God and eat the fruit without protecting her, then eat the fruit himself, he may have already been under the influence of the serpent...that is...the fall.

Was the woman obligated to use certain verbiage? "Us", etc.? As is appropriate, the woman spoke for herself. She didn't presume her husband's deception.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Adam was not deceived, yet he disobeyed God. If Adam was not deceived, he made a choice to disobey God.

Also, please show us the verse that says God cursed Adam because he listened to his wife. In v. 14 God cursed the serpent and in v. 17, God cursed the ground. Where is the verse that says God cursed Adam?

More significant perhaps than Adam listening to his wife, I believe, is that even though he was not deceived, Adam disobeyed God. Eve admitted she was deceived, but Adam did not. Adam instead blamed God. This is possibly why God held Adam responsible for his deception. By admitting or confessing she was deceived, the woman obtained forgiveness.

What is the relevence of the woman being deceived first? Other than the fact of the matter, what does it mean? Adam revealed his condition when he didn't help his wife, he disobeyed God, then he blamed God but never admitted to his sin.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The serpent was cursed.

Gen. 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

The ground was cursed.



Your conclusions need some scrutiny also...

Nell

Genesis 3:17
King James Version
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Nell

The ground was cursed.
Nell

You are correct that the ground was cursed, not Adam. The reason that I wanted to ask a question about it, was that’s the first time over my almost 40 years that I listen to sermons I heard that statement being made. The point about this whole discourse was just clarifying if Adam was present at the time when the serpent approached Eve, in Gen 3:1.

I don’t believe he was, if you read the whole chapter in context and other references to it in the Bible, some of which you mentioned.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

You are correct that the ground was cursed, not Adam. The reason that I wanted to ask a question about it, was that’s the first time over my almost 40 years that I listen to sermons I heard that statement being made. The point about this whole discourse was just clarifying if Adam was present at the time when the serpent approached Eve, in Gen 3:1.

I don’t believe he was, if you read the whole chapter in context and other references to it in the Bible, some of which you mentioned.

While I disagree with you, because I think it's pretty clear that Adam was with her given that the verse literally says "...to her husband who was with her..." rather than something like "...to her husband who had just returned from tending to a portion of the garden", I can see that we are not forced to conclude Adam was there when the serpent was there.

However, in reading the verses, even if someone thinks Adam was not there when the serpent was there (which seems plainly obvious, but is not stated explicitly), it DOES seem like, at a minimum, Adam was there when Eve ate the fruit, would you agree there, or no?

I just went through and read numerous commentaries on this verse, Genesis 3:6. The amount of people who say things like, "there's no way Adam could have been there otherwise he obviously would have spoken up against the serpent's lies" and also say things like, "see how Eve wanted to bring Adam into her sin and she lead him into it? We will never know if Adam was wilfully sinning or not"....is a little sad. It's amazing that what are supposed to be impartial BIBLE commentaries read all the best, noble intent into Adam and all the worst, evil intent into Eve.

Trapped

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

…It's amazing that what are supposed to be impartial BIBLE commentaries read all the best, noble intent into Adam and all the worst, evil intent into Eve.

Trapped

My amazement as well!!! Even though Paul holds Adam responsible.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

It's amazing that what are supposed to be impartial BIBLE commentaries read all the best, noble intent into Adam and all the worst, evil intent into Eve.

Perhaps a little writer bias there?

Personally I think it's safe to assume there are no victims In Gen 3.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

You are correct that the ground was cursed, not Adam. The reason that I wanted to ask a question about it, was that’s the first time over my almost 40 years that I listen to sermons I heard that statement being made. The point about this whole discourse was just clarifying if Adam was present at the time when the serpent approached Eve, in Gen 3:1.

I don’t believe he was, if you read the whole chapter in context and other references to it in the Bible, some of which you mentioned.

How do you explain the obvious in Genesis 3:6? “and gave also unto her husband with her;”?

Nell