I teach an adult Sunday School class in a medium sized SBC church, and I find the discussions on this site fascinating, and a useful tool in my journey. I personally thank you all for your insights. I find all of them, even those I disagree with, illuminating.

I too have struggled with these verses. I have come to the conclusion that there is a dual danger when trying to interperet Paul’s words from our “modern” perspective. Just as we can fall into the danger of revising our view of scriptural truths due to influences from our modern “enlightened” way of thinking, we have to remember that there is an historical context, and also remember that while God is speaking to us through Paul’s words, he was also addressing serious matters at hand. This was a critical time in the growth of the church, and any and all heresy had to be addressed quickly.

While I am a firm believer in the inerrency of scripture, I also know that what appears to be true from the quick read in the English translation (even ‘gasp!’ the KJV) is often a bit more complicated when viewed from the basis of the subtle possibilities in the Greek.

I believe that in light of Paul’s other words regarding the value of women in the church, which we all (I hope) believe to be God breathed, I cannot hold to the view that Paul was advocating that Men do all the talking and women all the listening. God help us if such were the case. My wife and I both believe that I have a God-given role to lead our family. She submits willingly to that authority, and I rely heavily on her as an equal partner in our marriage (a confusing little paradox to some!)

That said, there are many, many, women in my church that are much more knowledgable about scripture than I and are much more eloquent in their ability to explain doctrine. I look forward each Sunday to their input into our class discussions and look forward to the day when our church leadership sees fit to allow women to teach “mixed” adult classes.

I agree whole-heartedly with those who stated the obvious: try filling all the teaching slots in a church with only men and see how far you get….VBS would be cancelled indefinitely.

I have asked, and received great revelation as to exactly what the deception is, BECAUSE I FORST BELIEVED GOD, and I see t in every woman (Just as God said).

I will make NO attempt to use arguments.

The choice is yours. Believe God’s word JUST BECAUSE He is God, and be under His wings.

Or allow the “father of lies” to seduce you, like he did Eve, to believe God is holding you back.
When you take a stand against God’s word, GOD says He WILL give you over to your own vain imaginations.

The answer, repent, and believe God’s word even though it makes NO sense.
That’s exactly what FAITH is!

Have we forgotten that a number of women were apostles? They’re listed in the NT. This means they would teach and those they teach would include men and would most like have run churches at least for a short while before moving on to plant others. Additionally, Paul himself commends a number of women about their ministries and contributions to churches.

We would be making a mistake of canonizing the first century – as clearly they made many mistakes as we know from Paul rebuking Peter!

It would seem, to me, that distinctions become erased in Christ – no slave nor free, no jew nor gentile, no male nor female – but maintained by the cultures we’re in. Remember, when dealing with women covering their heads in prayer Paul is a man who would actually have needed to cover his head in prayer like most jews do. He actually ends the passage saying, “We have no such custom here”. Hence, though the aim is toward no sexism (yes let’s include women as leaders and teachers) let’s also respect the cultures we’re in (so perhaps we won’t let them teach or lead just yet depending on where we are), but (like Paul) let’s subvert our cultures and make every opportunity to empower, promote, and deploy women as leaders and teachers.

Has anyone read Plato and others on women? Let’s not forget that Paul instructed men to educate their women, which is a step ahead of his culture and time as women were generally not educated or considered worth educating.

I do not reject Mary as the birth mother of Jesus, nor as the source of part of the gene pool of physical Jesus (the other part was of the Holy Spirit; Mat 1:18; “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”), nor her virginity at the time of Jesus’ birth, but I question the concept of Deity as having been passed on by Mary. Through Mary? Yes. By Mary? No. Note what the author of Hebrews states;
Heb 2:16
“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” (Not Mary)

What version of Church History have you been reading? According to the Council of Chalcedon Jesus was fully man and God. That means Jesus came from Mary in everyway a normal human being is formed in the womb. He went through puberty, had to “find” himself as every adolescent does. He probably had wet dreams, he sweated, bleed, went to the bathroom, ate food, had to learn Scripture. If one denys any of these they are in some form of psuedo-Docetism/Monophytism. St Augustine said something like “The flesh of Christ is the flesh of Mary”. On all of this I would recomend EP Sanders or John P Meier.

And Islam was NOT born out of the fact they understood Mary to be the Third Person of the Trinity. Like most heretics or non-believers they struggled with the idea of the Incarnation (for a wonderful patristic idea of the Incarnation see Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation” which does not have any of the dour notions of depravity and atonement that later Fathers had).

God becoming man, you have to admit, is quite ridiculous. If anything (ask the Orthodox this) the idea of Mary being a member of the Trinity is an idea inherited from the West’s acceptance of the Filoque, the subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. And since Islam grew out of Eastern Christianity and Arabic cults, it is obvious that it did not come from some Western notion of Mariology. For this I find Vladimir Lossky’s distillation of Eastern philosophy and theology extremely illumining, “The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church”

Mary was not merely a vehicle for Christ’s birth, but the women who raised him, who taught him, kissed him good night. She was not some machine, or pawn of God. On this I can recomend another later Father “The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ” by Maximus the Confessor, who had his tongue cut out for maintaining orthodox notions of God.

And I can agree somewhat of the notion of the Holy Spirit being the feminine member of the Trinity. Although one has to remember that anything we can positively about the nature of God has to be negated by apophatic theology, because words are can never propely describe any notion of God, because he transcends all our notions of diety or sexuality. (For apophatic theology again see Lossky or Kallistos Ware “The Orthodox Way”). Lewis also talks about sexual difference in “Perelandra” as well.

Maybe this will help you to not stray into some strange interpretation of Genesis, and then a stranger interpreation of women. Gender roles are culturally conditioned and therefore relative. This does not mean there are not “roles” so to speak, just that one cannot be overly dogmatic on issues such as this.

Philippians 4:3 Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

I have some information for you. First, the idea that women can/should preach come from the New Testament. Paul writing saying that there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither male nor female, neither slave nor freeman in Christ. All are one in Christ Jesus. The second Scripture is where Pricilla and Aquila are teaching. Her name is always listed first which implies that she was more of the teacher than he was.

A question. Where did you get the idea that Mary’s ovaries had nothing to do with the incarnation. Catholics and Orthodox believe that she was very much involved in the Incarnation of Jesus the Christ. That is why she is considered the Mother of God, because she did provide His human nature.