Sandy Grant has written a great post on a rarely preached chapter of Romans 16, talking about how this chapter overturns a common view that Paul was anti-women.
There are other passages from Paul that would show a similar thing; note for example the honour Paul accords Lois and Eunice.
For those forum members who have been reading their letters from Paul lately, are there any other verses that draw attention to the way Paul honours women? You can’t say Gal 3:28 because I already have. But if you mention a verse, it would be good to hear from you why you think it honours women.
Gal 3:28 honours women because it says that in the matter of salvation, they are first-class citizens alongside men. So there you go, I’ve started you off.
2 Timothy 1:5 declares that Lois and Eunice have a sincere faith, I guess that this passes for commendation of particular women, just as Paul commends the faith of a number of men.
Gal 3:28, may be used to argue that at least Paul did not view women as subhuman or some may argue that it justifies the view that distinctions based on sex are inappropriate within the body of CHrist but I am perplexed by your statement that this verse
honours women because it says that in the matter of salvation, they are first-class citizens alongside men
Are women “honoured” by being granted a status “alongside men” ?
I always think Jesus’ words in Matt 20:25-27 are important to bear in mind in considering relationships between believers but maybe if you let me know what you mean by honours, I can find some relevant verses from Paul.
Gal 3:28 honours women because it says that in the matter of salvation, they are first-class citizens alongside men. So there you go, I’ve started you off.
I think this is a great verse for those comming from religions who dont realy make salvation available to women. I.e Islam and hindu religions.
...For those forum members who have been reading their letters from Paul lately, are there any other verses that draw attention to the way Paul honours women? You can’t say Gal 3:28 because I already have. But if you mention a verse, it would be good to hear from you why you think it honours women…
How about 1Timothy 5: 1-2? Why is this honouring to women? It speaks respectfully of women and motherhood and how we are to treat both married and unmarried women who are older than us.
I find this lovely and well worth putting into practice. I have a number of ‘spiritual children,’ who greet me as their second mother or their auntie. Recently a ‘spiritual son’ turned 18 and wanted a birthday cuddle from me (his real mum lives interstate). As his ‘spiritual mum’ I pray regularly for him and his witness in the army. And there’s an elderly lady at our traditional service whom I’ve called “my Wagga mum” since arriving here 15 years ago.
I always think Jesus’ words in Matt 20:25-27 are important to bear in mind in considering relationships between believers but maybe if you let me know what you mean by honours, I can find some relevant verses from Paul.
By ‘honour’, I mean give due glory and recognition to.
Maybe next you’ll be asking what ‘glory’ means, but that is another thread!
...help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Paul doesn’t tell us exactly who “these women” are, but clearly he honours them for sharing in the gospel with him.
and 1 Cor 7:1-16 (selected verses quoted for space considerations)
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
....
8To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
....
13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. .... 16For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Paul makes no disctinction here between the role of men and women - both are to responsible for their spouse and to submit to their spouse, and both are reminded that their unbelieving spouse may be saved through the believing partner (whether male or female). Single women (unmarried or widows) are encouraged to remain single. All this in the face of both jewish and greek society where equality wasn’t the norm.
...help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Paul doesn’t tell us exactly who “these women” are, but clearly he honours them for sharing in the gospel with him.
I thought he named the women as Euodia and Syntyche, in context (view Phil. 4:2-3 passage by clicking on it)?
Gal 3:28 honours women because it says that in the matter of salvation, they are first-class citizens alongside men.
I have no trouble with Paul’s attitude to women. I do have trouble with the way some people, including people in the Sydney diocese, interpret what Paul says about women.
Galatians 3:28 indeed grants that in the matter of salvation (at least) women are “first-class citizens alongside men”. But what about all the other matters? When we women get to heaven will we be eternally subordinate to men in the same way that the Sydney diocese now says that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father? If we will be eternally subordinate to men, as the Son is said to be eternally subordinate to the Father, how will that work out? Will we women, for instance, be eternally polishing or otherwise eternally preparing the harps for the men to play, but never getting to play them ourselves? Will we be free to sing our praises while we do the harp preparation or will we have to get permission first? If the harp preparation will be eternal then when will the men ever get to play them?
These are serious questions (well, maybe except for the harp thing but not having been to heaven I can’t think of a better way of expressing myself). I do want to know what eternal subordination means to those who have thought seriously about it.
Women aren’t subordinate to men now, but they are under either their husband or their father. These relationships are a thing of this present world and won’t exist in the next. We will all be directly under the authority of Jesus.
When we women get to heaven will we be eternally subordinate to men
I would venture to suggest that this idea of heaven sounds more like the Islam paradise, where the women exist only to serve the men!
It’s certainly not Biblical to suggest all women will be subordinate to all men in the new heavens & new earth! Where in Scripture is such a ludicrous idea implied? Certainly one passage I can think of, where Jesus says there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage but all will be like the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:23-30) - well, if there is no marriage between men and women except that between the Lamb and His bride the church, then doesn’t it follow that of course women won’t continue subordinate into eternity?
There’s a lot of stigma attached to the word “subordinate” though. It has echoes of “inferior”, which is why feminist types get all defensive about it. I thought the original word meant “to order under” - to place oneself voluntarily under the authority of another (as the Son did for the Father)?
are there any other verses that draw attention to the way Paul honours women?
Acts 16 spends a bit of time on Lydia, who opened her house to Paul & Silas and to the Philippian believers.
Then of course, the enigmatic Priscilla (Prisca), the wife of Aquila - read about her in Acts 18:24-26; Paul makes reference to her & Aquila also in 1 Corinthians 16:19 and 2 Timothy 4:19.
It’s certainly not Biblical to suggest all women will be subordinate to all men in the new heavens & new earth! Where in Scripture is such a ludicrous idea implied? ... Jesus says there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage but all will be like the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:23-30) - well, if there is no marriage between men and women ... then doesn’t it follow that of course women won’t continue subordinate into eternity?
I invite you to read this article titled, Relationships and Roles in the New Creation on the website of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Remember that this organisation counts among its leaders such theological luminaries as Wayne Grudem and John Piper. Their views on the place of women in the church have significantly influenced the leaders of the Sydney diocese.
The following is from the article:
When Jesus informed the Sadducees that in the resurrection, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage” ..., there is rather broad agreement that in so doing he declared earthly marriage to be temporal - a blessing and necessity for the present age, but one that will be needed no longer in the new creation. Many feminists, evangelical and otherwise, share in this consensus. However, in a rather bold extrapolation from the text, they find in Jesus’ words here an end to male headship. ...
Although Scripture does not speak directly to the question of the effect gender will have on the lives of resurrected believers in the new creation, it does offer sufficient evidence to affirm that gender will continue to be a significant aspect of our lives in the eschaton. ...
The starting point for understanding the nature of the new creation is the original creation. Whatever else might be said of the new creation, it is fundamentally a return to and restoration of the conditions that prevailed prior to the fall of man and the consequent curse (Gen 3:17). ...
[T]here are three foundational biblical principles that must guide our interpretation of the evidence for functional distinctions in the new creation. The first is simply that the new creation is tangible and real. Resurrected saints will enjoy real life in real bodies in a real place. The second principle is that the new creation is, in essence, creation redeemed. All of creation deformed and marred by sin will be reformed as part of the completed work of Christ in redemption. Third, in the new creation, resurrected believers are perfected, confirmed in righteousness, and the image of God within them has been fully restored. ...
Given, then, that relationships between those married on earth will in some sense remain in the new creation, it remains for us to inquire regarding the nature of those relationships. To put it more directly, will husbandly headship and wifely submission still obtain in the new creation? The egalitarian response, of course, is that all traces of headship and submission will have been removed. The evidence, however, argues to the contrary.
First, consider the argument concerning man and woman as originally created. There is virtually universal agreement that man and woman are ontologically equal, equal in essence and worth, because both were created in the image of God. In the ordering of his creation, however, God formed the man first and gave him responsibility and authority as the head of the human race.41 This headship, far from being a result of the fall-feminist and egalitarian claims notwithstanding-is a central feature of the divine created order.42 Because the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation.
Second, consider that subsequent to the fall (and not as a consequence of it), the principle of headship and submission in male-female relations is clearly affirmed in the New Testament. Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is this principle replaced or rescinded. Surely within the context of biblical teaching on the church there would be an unambiguous repeal of the principle of male headship if, in fact, its end reflected the divine ideal. Such is simply not found. There is every reason to believe, then, that male headship will continue as the divine order for male-female relationships.
Finally, consider that in the new creation, those who were husbands in the former dispensation will, at last, be unencumbered by the flesh. They will be able, as never before, to genuinely love “as Christ also loved the church” (Eph 5:25). They will, as never before, have the capacity to relate to those they love “in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Pet 3:7). Consider, moreover, that in the new creation those who were wives in the former dispensation, will have the mind of Christ, “who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and . . . humbled himself” (Phil 2:6-8). They will see in the example of Christ, as never before, the beauty and glory that inheres in gracious, selfless submission. With both man and woman thus perfected and transformed, are we to suppose that the new creation will abandon the order established in God’s original creation? I think not.
I’m sure this view of heaven will appeal to many men but it makes me think of robotics and The Stepford Wives. If this is how heaven will be will I be able to recognise myself, or will I be a sort of lobotomised version of me, perhaps happily polishing harps (males, for the use of) for all eternity? If this view of heaven is true I would prefer that I’d never been born.
To put it more directly, will husbandly headship and wifely submission still obtain in the new creation? The egalitarian response, of course, is that all traces of headship and submission will have been removed. The evidence, however, argues to the contrary.
The evidence is indeed to the contrary. Given that the first will be last and the last first (Matt 19:28-30), women will evidently exercise authority over men.
An attempt at humour in case anyone was wondering.
Edit: On a more serious note, many who accept some sense of biblically ordained order between men and women believe that the scriptures limit this order to husband and wife only and not men and women in general. Given this understanding and that there is no marriage in the age to come (Matt 22:30) it seems difficult to argue that this specific order will continue in new creation.
Angus, I believe you. It was an attempt at humour. But can you understand why some people might think that the negation of themselves is not humorous?
I meant what I said. If this masculinist view of heaven is true I would prefer that I’d never been born. If it is true it seems that all that’s left to me is to be made into someone/something that I’m not or suffer eternal torment. Men, of course, will continue on as usual though a bit nicer.
I meant what I said. If this masculinist view of heaven is true I would prefer that I’d never been born. If it is true it seems that all that’s left to me is to be made into someone/something that I’m not or suffer eternal torment. Men, of course, will continue on as usual though a bit nicer.
Hi Janice,
It seems to me, from your comments, that you are coming from a certain ‘mindset’ agenda. If you truly believe that “If this masculinist view of heaven is true I would prefer that I’d never been born” - then your argument should be addressed directly to God - rather than to us mere mortals.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
