Women in the early church

[Eidolon]

I'm reading through I Timothy 2 and am confused. What was the position of women in the early church? Was it the apostles' opinion that women were in some ways unfit for leadership? Did they think that women were inferior to men?

 

[Dunemeister]

Depends who you ask. There are passages that show women as leaders of churches and missionary teams, but 1 Timothy makes it seem that, when it comes to leadership, certainly women were not the first choice. And I assume that's the case. I think that, for the first generation of Christians, women could lead but men were expected to.

 

[Charity]

I'm reading through I Timothy 2 and am confused. What was the position of women in the early church? Was it the apostles' opinion that women were in some ways unfit for leadership? Did they think that women were inferior to men?

Some of the studies that I have done on this: There were several women that were used in the ministry: Priscilla, wife of Aquilla was a helper, Phoebe who was a deaconess, there was another woman named Mary who was mentioned only one time in the scripture and not the same as Mary Magdalene. Junias, which was a feminine name and believed to be a worker.Tryphena and Tryphosa, who were sisters. All of these were associated with Paul.....

Today most of the churches that do not use women as a dominant role, usually base their belief on the scripture telling the women to remain silent in the church....
In the course of my study I have read that due to the synagogues size, that the men being the head of the family was the first inside the temple or synagogue. Most of the women waited outside in the outer court. To keep confusion out of the service the women were told not to ask questions, but to wait and ask their husband at home.

There was writings to back this theory and I have the book, but have it packed in storage. When I find it I will furnish the information. I could see where this is true. After the resurrection, who did Jesus appear to first? Mary and the other women. :curtsy:

 

[sojourner]

There is ample evidence that women were in positions of leadership in the proto-Church. As the Church grew, and persecution became acute, the Church had to quickly back off and change direction, in order to maintain credibility and safety in largely patriarchal cultures.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is ample evidence that women were in positions of leadership in the proto-Church. As the Church grew, and persecution became acute, the Church had to quickly back off and change direction, in order to maintain credibility and safety in largely patriarchal cultures.

I don't think that persecution did this...

 

[sojourner]

I don't think that persecution did this...

Not directly. But threat doesn't encourage what would have been considered radical action.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not directly. But threat doesn't encourage what would have been considered radical action.

What radical action do you have in mind?

 

[sojourner]

What radical action do you have in mind?

The placement of women in positions of leadership, in a culture that is clearly patriarchal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The placement of women in positions of leadership, in a culture that is clearly patriarchal.

OK, on that note here are some things to consider:

1) Patricarchy does not keep women from leading, especially when the woman is a widow. Under Roman law, a married woman has full control over her property, and could support a church and therefore lead... or support any other cause that she desires. It helps to have the support of her husband, but if he is of lower status or wealth than she is, she could control him.

2) Theological and philosophical misogyny does not keep women from leadership roles. There were female students (and therefore teachers) in all branches of philosophy, from the Socratics all the way through the Stoics of the Roman period, although they pretty much hated women in varying degrees of severity.

3) Persecution did not keep women from leading. Persecution was widely celebrated, particularly of women prophets, deaconesses, and teachers.

4) The only thing that can keep a woman from leading in offices is if she cannot control her property. The only places where there is no evidence of women leading is where they were prohibited by law to own property, and even then there are some exceptions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In light of common misogyny in moral philosophy and the patronage of women (gifts to cities and churches, etc) and their participation in philosophy in spite of it, it is perfectly natural that the Bible espouse some of this philosophy and yet have female leaders.

 

[sojourner]

True, but I also think that, because women were obviously highly regarded, there has to be some other explanation for why misogyny appears in the NT, other than "because it was a cultural norm for them." If it were a cultural norm, they would not have allowed females to lead. I really think it has more to do with a desire to conform, at least somewhat, with a culture that had put pressure on them. The Church would have had no credibility with governments, if it had female leaders.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

True, but I also think that, because women were obviously highly regarded, there has to be some other explanation for why misogyny appears in the NT, other than "because it was a cultural norm for them." If it were a cultural norm, they would not have allowed females to lead.

Think about this carefully, soj:

In light of common misogyny in moral philosophy and the patronage of women (gifts to cities and churches, etc) and their participation in philosophy in spite of it, it is perfectly natural that the Bible espouse some of this philosophy and yet have female leaders.

The norm in the ancient world is explicit in the NT. There are women who follow Jesus, providing for his and the disciples' needs - just like in normal society, where women give money for cities to build aqueducts, statues, and buildings. There are women who give gifts to Paul (Philippians 4). There are female prophets. There are injuctions for women to be silent, and that they should be obedient wives, etc - just like moral philosophy.

I really think it has more to do with a desire to conform, at least somewhat, with a culture that had put pressure on them. The Church would have had no credibility with governments, if it had female leaders.

But the governments had female leaders.... powerful women had influence in many major cities... especially Rome, Corinth, and the Greek East. I don't think that the evidence supports this theory in the slightest, at least until Constantine.

 

[Heneni]

Hello everyone!

13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Very controversial statement..though the truth. A women should not have authority over her husband. She must not try to lead HIM. But if a women is in leadership in the church, she is not in a leading position over her husband. Her role as a leader in the church would certainly not infringe on her submission to her husband.

Heneni

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hello everyone!

13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Very controversial statement..though the truth. A women should not have authority over her husband. She must not try to lead HIM. But if a women is in leadership in the church, she is not in a leading position over her husband. Her role as a leader in the church would certainly not infringe on her submission to her husband.

Heneni

This is why Mrs A_E will alwayswash the dishes in my house.

And be barefooted.

Dammit.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is why Mrs A_E will alwayswash the dishes in my house.

And be barefooted.

Dammit.

He only shows his natural superiority when provoked. :yes:

"I was created first, b****."

 

[Heneni]

LOL

I dont consider submission to your husband as a bad thing. I consider it a form of trust. I believe that when a women submits to her husband, god blesses her for it.

That is why its important to marry a christian, who has a relationship with god, that way the man can lead his family with confidence, and they have confidence that since he trusts god with his life, they can trust him with the direction he wants to take them.

Of course a man is not an island either. Women are pretty good at coming up with solutions to problems.

Ill get a dishwasher for example.

Heneni

 

[angellous_evangellous]

LOL

I dont consider submission to your husband as a bad thing. I consider it a form of trust. I believe that when a women submits to her husband, god blesses her for it.

That is why its important to marry a christian, who has a relationship with god, that way the man can lead his family with confidence, and they have confidence that since he trusts god with his life, they can trust him with the direction he wants to take them.

Of course a man is not an island either. Women are pretty good at coming up with solutions to problems.

Ill get a dishwasher for example.

Heneni

Well, I don't have a husband so its not my problem.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The New Testament church was a victim of man's traditions. Ergo, a lot of that tradition was recorded in the NT and is now used by literalists imbued with a chronic case of spiritual myopia.

 

[SonOfNun]

The New Testament church was a victim of man's traditions. Ergo, a lot of that tradition was recorded in the NT and is now used by literalists imbued with a chronic case of spiritual myopia.

Who are you going to believe the Bible, or a human oppinion. Many people try to bash the Bible and say that it is filled with errors because it is a solid account of how God expects us to live our lives. If the NT is filled with errors than everything can be called into question and our religion falls apart. The basic and most fundamental purpose of the whole Bible is to call us back to that submissive state that Adam and Eve knew before they eat the fruit. God has layed down the best way to accomplish this task in the NT! Anyone who puts their beliefs ahead of it needs to think about what foundation their faith was built on.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Who are you going to believe the Bible, or a human oppinion.

They are the same thing. Scriptures are FILLED with men's opinions.

Many people try to bash the Bible and say that it is filled with errors because it is a solid account of how God expects us to live our lives.

First, I haven't bashed the Bible. I just don't deify it as you do. Now, please show me where Scripture tells us this!

If the NT is filled with errors than everything can be called into question and our religion falls apart.

Wow. You must have a Very small God. My God works best when we are weak. Nothing is perfect but God.

The basic and most fundamental purpose of the whole Bible is to call us back to that submissive state that Adam and Eve knew before they eat the fruit.

Wow! I guess you fired the Spirit? Where does it state such blasphemy in Scripture? The Spirit is our Counselor and was given the specific job of convicting us of our sin and changing our hearts. It appears that you have made a golden calf out of the Scriptures.

God has layed down the best way to accomplish this task in the NT!

Yeah, and his name is Jesus.

Anyone who puts their beliefs ahead of it needs to think about what foundation their faith was built on.

Well, your foundation is obviously not in the Spirit of God.

John 14:25 "All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. NIV

Now, don't get me wrong. The Scriptures are important and are USEFUL for teaching and rebuking, but you can't understand them without the help of the Spirit.

Now, here is your homework. Find a passage, any passage, that claims that the Scriptures are without error. Just one. Go ahead. I triple dog dare you.

Second assignment. Find one passage, any passage, that equates the Scriptures to being the Word of God. When you get tired of looking for it, read John 1 to see WHO is the Word of God.