God's Male Hierarchy

[Sonbeam]

Topic came to mind from a discussion in the Head Coverings thread:

In the Spirit Christians are under no other hierarchy than that of Christ Who is the head of His body.

As Paul says in Col 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Therefore, any child of God may perform in any leadership capacity within the visible institutional church as called by God..

However, I find it very understandable how some men in the church, especially those in ministry, or even women in the church, can believe that only males are supposed to be in leadership roles in the church.

Why do I say this? Here are several well known biblical facts:

1. God created Adam first, made him the head of the human race, and made the first covenant between God and a man with him.

2. God made the woman for the man as a helper. Gen 2:18

3. God decreed that “he will rule over you.” Gen 3:16

4. God continued to make covenants with males only: Noah, Abraham, Moses (as mediator for Israel), David, etc.

5. Within the Sinai Covenant, God’s law stipulated that priests, kings and the heads of tribes, would be males.

6. God made His first born a male -- Jesus

7. Jesus in turn selected twelve male apostles, with His 13th being another male -- Paul.

8. Two angels named in the bible -- Gabriel and Michael --
are given male names.

In the end though, God calls on whoever He wants in order to accomplish His purpose, i.e. male, female, angels, and even donkeys.

Blessings,

sonbeam

[GodsStudent]

...and while not completely clear to me who they are, the 24 elders mentioned in Revelation are also presumed, I believe, to be males.....

[Abiding in His Word]

First let me say that I'm aware of the same board problem we experienced several months ago and have reported it to Holly.

Also I commend you, Sonbeam, for your interest and concern regarding what appears to be God's preference for males in scripture.

First we must begin to view the bible in it's entirety; ie. it's history of God's intent and plan, mankind's failure to follow God's "roadmap" and finally how He remedies/corrects the failures to bring His original plan to fruition.

Let me start with your #1. I notice you didn't supply a scripture for it. So here's a scripture I'd like to supply:

[/Gen 1:27  And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. 
Gen 1:28  And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth. 

Now most who prefer Gen. 2's narrative, do so in an effort to prove that "first is best" and therefore, ignore Gen. 1.

In neither Gen. 1 nor Gen. 2 do I find the word "head" or "covenant."

Are we supplying those words or that concept because we've been taught it's there? If there is a covenant, it appears to be made with Eve and her seed.

Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed;

[Abiding in His Word]

Now to your #2....

There is not a hint, not even a whisper about anything like a hierarchical order existing between man and woman in the creation account of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2. In fact, the exact opposite is clearly taught in these two chapters. Both man and woman were made in God's image (1:26-27) and they both participated in God-assigned ministries without any role distinctions (1:28).

The creation order established oneness, not hierarchy (2:24). The first indication of a hierarchical order between man and woman resulted from the entrance of sin into the world (3:16). The subordination of women to men was not part of God's original design. It resulted from the violation of God's creation order.

The use of the word "helper" for the woman reinforces the relation of non-hierarchical complementarity that existed between the man and the woman prior to the fall (2:18). In the language of the Old Testament, a "helper" is one who rescues others in situations of need. This designation is often attributed to God as our rescuer. The word denotes not domesticity or subordination but competency and superior strength (Ex. 18:4; Deut. 33:26, 29; Psalm 33:20, 70:5, etc.).[/

https://godswordtowomen.org/bilezikian.htm

[Abiding in His Word]

God decreed that “he will rule over you.” Gen 3:16]

This was not a decree but a prophetic word. God said to the serpent, "because you have done this..." and to Adam, ""Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you..." but no such "because you have...." to Eve. The reason is because Eve was guilty of an unintentional sin. One does not become deceived intentionally and God differentiates between intentional and unintentional sin.

So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his error (H7684) in which he sinned unintentionally and did not know it, and it will be forgiven him. Lev. 5:18

H7684 Strongs

From H7683; a mistake or inadvertent transgression: - error, ignorance, at unawares, unwittingly.

Scripture nowhere labels Eve's sin as anything other than being deceived.

1Tim. 2:14  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 

Adam, on the other hand, not only blamed Eve but God for giving her to him.

Gen 3:12  The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." 

I've heard many times that Adam and Eve disobeyed God or that they rebelled against God, but scripture says only Adam disobeyed (intentionally, knowingly).

Rom 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

[Jericho]

I've heard many times that Adam and Eve disobeyed God or that they rebelled against God, but scripture says only Adam disobeyed (intentionally, knowingly).

This is true, and I believe why God had to use a virgin. The sin nature seems to be passed on in the seed of a man, not the woman. Jesus had to be sinless to be a perfect sacrifice. That's why he's called the the last Adam and the second man. Using the virgin Mary was a way to bypass the sin nature of man.

Here's something to think about though. If only Eve ate the fruit she would have been expelled from the garden, and God would presumably made another woman to take her place. Could it be Adam ate the fruit, knowing the consequences, because he loved Eve and could not bear to be separated from her? That whatever her fate would be, it would be his fate also?

As far as a hierarchy, I have never given it much thought before. Historically men have always been the leaders in society, with few exceptions, though this may be more of a cultural thing and because men are physically stronger and able to take more dominate roles. Only in more recent times have women held positions of authority because we live in a modern civilization with laws and a social system to support such a structure.

Spiritually speaking I don't see a hierarchy and as Sonbeam points out, we are all one in Christ. Certainly women had prominent roles in the Bible. There have been prophetesses, a female judge, and Mary was honored above all women for she gave us the Messiah. Paul held women in esteem as his fellow workers and peers. Women outnumbered men in the early church so much that Celsus said Christianity was a religion that attracted women.

The only hierarchy that may exist in scripture is in marriage. Eve was told her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her (Gen 3:16). 1Co 11 tells us man wasn't made for woman, but woman was made for the man. Again, Ephesians 5:23 says, "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." I don't see this as something negative toward women. If men are to be the head in a marriage, then women are the neck that turns the head. One can't exist without the other.

[Abiding in His Word]

Spiritually speaking I don't see a hierarchy

The only hierarchy that may exist in scripture is in marriage.

Which is it, Jericho?

If men are to be the head in a marriage, then women are the neck that turns the head.

Well, that's a first! I've heard women called a lot of things over the years, but a "neck" never....

[Jericho]

Which is it, Jericho?

Why can't it be both?
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
"For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body."

Well, that's a first! I've heard women called a lot of things over the years, but a "neck" never....

I thought it was a compliment.
The point being is a woman has a lot of influence over a man.

[Abiding in His Word]

Why can't it be both?
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
"For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body."

I suppose it could be providing you see unity, agreement, and mutual submission one to another rather than the "head" implying some degree of authority. Again, I find no scripture that commands or even contains a hint of authority advised for husbands over their wives.

Well, that's a first! I've heard women called a lot of things over the years, but a "neck" never....

I thought it was a compliment.
The point being is a woman has a lot of influence over a man.

Well, you've created a metaphor that I'm not certain is true relative to the actual physical body but it in my limited medical knowledge, it seems that the neck is actually in control of the head. No? I'm not willing to delve into a search for that detail, but we really ought to provide solid evidence for our beliefs and that concept nowhere to be found imho.

Providing the board continues to function without causing problems, I will post what I think might clarify Paul's intended meaning of Ephesians 5.

[Sonbeam]

Abiding and all,

Again, the point I was trying to make is that it is very understandable why some in the church
believe there is a biblical basis to keep women from leadership positions in the church.

That is why I enumerated the undeniable male hierarchy God has used as recorded in the bible as being what
they base their belief on.

Trying to dispute that God in fact used this male hierarchy is useless IMO. It is written. It is what it is.

That some want to maintain this within the church, even as the Holy Spirit through Paul gave us Col 3:28, that's
their choice.

Personally, I am not bothered by it. I know the truth. But those who are encountering this in their local church
have the option to challenge this if bothered by it, put up with it, or move on.

In the end, all of us are guilty of picking and choosing what we take as literally binding, and what we don't.

So extending some grace to each other is in order IMO.

blessings,

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

...and while not completely clear to me who they are, the 24 elders mentioned in Revelation are also presumed, I believe, to be males.....

And the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation also seems like they will be male GS.

sonbeam

[Abiding in His Word]

Abiding and all,

Again, the point I was trying to make is that it is very understandable why some in the church
believe there is a biblical basis to keep women from leadership positions in the church.

I agree that "some in the church believe there is a biblical basis....." however, I do not agree that it is a biblical mandate. Some of the reasons you've enumerated are an erroneous premise for such a belief. I've refuted the first three but you've not responded to those scriptures provided that prove otherwise.

That is why I enumerated the undeniable male hierarchy God has used as recorded in the bible as being what
they base their belief on.

God did not ordain male over female hierarchy. Throughout both the OT and the NT, (outside of the priesthood) both genders are equally responsible for following the ordinances given regarding justice, responsibility, modesty, good parenting, avoiding idolatry, honoring their father and mother, keeping the Lord's day holy, etc. I can list them if you wish, but off hand I have about 26 or 27 as evidence of the same standards apply to not only male and female, but to those taken as slaves as well.

Trying to dispute that God in fact used this male hierarchy is useless IMO. It is written. It is what it is.

It is worthy of study, Sonbeam.

That some want to maintain this within the church, even as the Holy Spirit through Paul gave us Col 3:28, that's
their choice.

I don't find a Col 3:28 but I'm guessing you meant Col. 3:18. I believe I posted the list of 59 "one another" scriptures in before, but in case you missed it, check it out here and I hope you will agree that after examining those 59 verses, it should cause us to take a second look at Col. 3:18 which obviously contradicts those 59. Eph 5. 21 alone mandates mutual submission.

However, given all those scriptures about mutual/equal treatment between believers, if you can provide even one where husbands are commanded to have/or take authority over their wives. Surely if that was God's intent, we should find scriptural support for it.

Personally, I am not bothered by it. I know the truth. But those who are encountering this in their local church
have the option to challenge this if bothered by it, put up with it, or move on.

In the end, all of us are guilty of picking and choosing what we take as literally binding, and what we don't.

We are reminded in 1 Tim. to accurately handle the word of truth and to be diligent in studying. I assumed that since you posted in the Debate forum, you expected some debate and reasons for seeing your list differently with scripture as evidence for the differences.

So extending some grace to each other is in order IMO.

Agree 100% and if anyone finds me lacking in that area, please feel free to say so.

[Abiding in His Word]

That is why I enumerated the undeniable male hierarchy God has used as recorded in the bible as being what they base their belief on.

Trying to dispute that God in fact used this male hierarchy is useless IMO. It is written. It is what it is.

Just an addition here....God also used murderers, adulterers, polygamists, fisherman, a tax collector and they were not only males, but Jews as well.

[Abiding in His Word]

6. God made His first born a male -- Jesus

God's design for marriage is revealed in Genesis 3 in that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Although that design is frequently interpreted that BOTH man and woman should leave their parents, the verse is found 4 times in the NT; 3 times spoken by Christ to refute practice of putting their wives out and once by Paul in Eph.

Gen_2:24; Mat_19:5; Mar_10:7-8; Eph. 5:31

In His human maleness, He fulfilled God's design for marriage by leaving His heavenly Father (parent) and coming to cleave to His bride (the church.) This is the example Paul gives to husbands in Eph. 5. Christ is always the servant who gives the church all she needs to become his radiant Bride. So is the husband to his wife (Eph. 5:25-30), within a relationship of mutual submission (v. 21).

Jesus came unto His own (the Jews) and they did not receive Him as the Messiah. (John 1:1) ....first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. He spoke in parables to the disciples about the bridegroom and the bride. The New Jerusalem is also referred to “as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” in Revelation 21:2, another passage that alludes to Christ as a bridegroom (verse 9).

[Sonbeam]

Abiding,

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what it is that you are refuting.

I agree with you that in Christ, there is no male, female, etc.

I also agree with you. There is no mandate as in “Thou shall ... ” regarding male leadership.
Evidently though, starting with Adam, it was God’s sovereign choice to pick males.

The innumerable instances where He repeatedly used males in positions of leadership/authority is self-evident.

It is a historical fact recorded in the bible that everyone on this forum knows full well, I’m sure, without the need to reference scriptures.

Abiding, I do want to understand what it is that bothers you about God’s choice of men for positions of leadership/authority as recorded in the bible.




sonbeam

[Abiding in His Word]

Abiding,

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what it is that you are refuting.

I agree with you that in Christ, there is no male, female, etc.

I also agree with you. There is no mandate as in “Thou shall ... ” regarding male leadership.

I'm happy that we agree that scripture nowhere endorses God's preference for males rather than females nor a mandate for anyone having authority over another.

Evidently though, starting with Adam, it was God’s sovereign choice to pick males.

I'm smiling just a bit because for years I've heard the "Male and female are (of course) equal in God's eyes and are of equal value, BUT....

The innumerable instances where He repeatedly used males in positions of leadership/authority is self-evident.

It is a historical fact recorded in the bible that everyone on this forum knows full well, I’m sure, without the need to reference scriptures.

Also historical and self-evident are numerous instances of male desire for power and disobedience. Your list implies God has a preference for men as opposed to women without examining the context, culture, conditions following the Exodus from Egypt, and the overall step by step process God initiates to curb those sinful situations. In other words, the list you have provided is imo a perfect example of "selective literalism" whereby you start with a premise and build a conclusion based on it. However, if the premise is faulty or untrue, the conclusion will be faulty or untrue as well.

So, if scripture (and you and I) agree that scripture nowhere states that God prefers the male rather than the female, we must examine your list to determine why it is listed under the misleading heading that God is the author of a male hierarchy and prefers men.

That's what I have endeavored to do by correcting your assumptions and numbering them so a to clarify the context and the erroneous conclusion.

Abiding, I do want to understand what it is that bothers you about God’s choice of men for positions of leadership/authority as recorded in the bible.

I hope you understand it's not God's choice of men I object to but the elevating of men by focusing on selective instances and ignoring the negative, i.e. the disobedience, polygamy, slavery, abuse, divorce, etc. When we see the Bible in it's historic context, we see a merciful, wise, and compassionate God who never tires of cleaning up the messes made by mankind and setting boundaries to ensure justice and fair treatment for all.

[Abiding in His Word]

In other words, the list you have provided is imo a perfect example of "selective literalism" whereby you start with a premise and build a conclusion based on it. However, if the premise is faulty or untrue, the conclusion will be faulty or untrue as well.

As an example of starting with a faulty premise and arriving at a faulty/erroneous conclusion....let's look at the practice of slavery throughout scripture. The word slave/slavery is found over 200 times in scripture and 120 times in the NT alone. Therefore, should we conclude that since God allowed slavery, we can feel free to rediscover the scriptural roles for slaves and their place in a Christ-centered hierarchical society today? If we make a list of those passages and include those who had numerous slaves and elevate the practice? After all, Solomon had over 300 and God used Solomon to build the first temple! And should we elevate the practice of polygamy since David had 8 wives and he was considered a "man after God's heart?"

I hope that clarifies my objection to creating a list using faulty premises to arrive at a faulty conclusion.

[Abiding in His Word]

7. Jesus in turn selected twelve male apostles, with His 13th being another male -- Paul.

Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian wrote the answer to your #7 and it's context is very thorough, scriptural, historical and therefore accurately explained.

WHY JESUS CHOSE MALE APOSTLES

[Sonbeam]

Thank you for your response Abiding.

But we are at an impasse.

I provided a biblical list of men that God had chosen for
leadership/authority positions which indicated God had
a male hierarchy.

You disagree.

I think it is time for us now to let the Holy Spirit speak to those who have been following this thread on this subject.



sonbeam

[Mr Baldy]

Therefore, any child of God may perform in any leadership capacity within the visible institutional church as called by God..However, I find it very understandable how some men in the church, especially those in ministry, or even women in the church, can believe that only males are supposed to be in leadership roles in the church.

-

Hi Sonbeam your aforementioned comment appear to be contrary to Scripture.

Paul says

Well, Paul also wrote this:

1 Timothy 2:9-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Women Instructed

9) Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10) but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

This appears to be a very straightforward message about women being in leadership roles as it relates to the Church.

[Sonbeam]

Hi Mr. Baldy,

Here's how I opened this thread:

In the Spirit Christians are under no other hierarchy than that of Christ Who is the head of His body.

As Paul says in Col 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Do you agree with the above scripture?

Does the above scripture cover/include Christian women?

On the scripture you quoted:

1 Timothy 2:9-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Women Instructed

9) Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10) but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Notice that Paul says that he does not allow to teach or exercise authority over a man ...(I suppose going along with the culture and the legalism he was steeped in when he was under the law.)

But thanks be to God! Since under the New Covenant, Christians are not under law, so Paul's man-made law has no
binding authority over the children of God.

sonbeam

[Mr Baldy]

Hi Mr. Baldy,

Here's how I opened this thread:

In the Spirit Christians are under no other hierarchy than that of Christ Who is the head of His body.

As Paul says in Col 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Do you agree with the above scripture?

Does the above scripture cover/include Christian women?

On the scripture you quoted:

1 Timothy 2:9-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Women Instructed

9) Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10) but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Notice that Paul says that he does not allow to teach or exercise authority over a man ...(I suppose going along with the culture and the legalism he was steeped in when he was under the law.)

But thanks be to God! Since under the New Covenant, Christians are not under law, so Paul's man-made law has no
binding authority over the children of God.

sonbeam

Hi Sonbeam - first we have to get the passage of Scripture you are referring to correct:

Galatians 3:24-29 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

24) Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26) For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29) And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

The aforementioned passage of Scripture can be found in the Book of Galatians and not Colossians. I have included the rest of the verses to better understand what Paul is indicating.

You asked:

Do you agree with the above scripture? Does the above scripture cover/include Christian women?

To answer your questions - of course I agree and absolutely it includes Christian women. You opened this thread by mentioning "hierarchy."

Respectfully Sonbeam, Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with "hierarchy" but more to do with having a
Relationship with Christ. In each of the categories of those mentioned it relates to identity - and not "hierarchy" - as Paul never mentions or implies a ranking system based on status or authority in this particular passage of Scripture.

12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Notice that Paul says that he does not allow to teach or exercise authority over a man ...(I suppose going along with the culture and the legalism he was steeped in when he was under the law.)

I did notice that Paul mentioned himself when he penned this portion of Scripture - and we must put what he has written into perspective based on what has been established in Scripture.

First - Here is what is written as it relates to Scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16) All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

So, in viewing the aforementioned passage of Scripture - and an in answering your question, it doesn't matter that Paul mentions himself in what he penned about women being leaders in the Church. He was "inspired by God."

Second - In response to the question you posed - and providing Galatians 3:28 (which does not mention hierarchy) I provided 1 Timothy 2:9-14 - which most certainly establishes a hierarchy; in that Paul clearly states this in 12-14:

12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

This was mentioned earlier in this thread:

I'm happy that we agree that scripture nowhere endorses God's preference for males rather than females nor a mandate for anyone having authority over another.

Very clearly there is an established order - here is a passage of Scripture to consider as well:

1 Corinthians 11:3 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

[Abiding in His Word]

[quote="Mr Baldy]
Very clearly there is an established order - here is a passage of Scripture to consider as well:

b]1 Corinthians 11:3 - New American Standard Bible (NASB[/b])

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.[/quote]

Hello Mr Baldy,

If that scripture (to some) refers to authority....then...
1) it assumes that Christ is not the (head) authority of every woman
2) it assumes "the man" is a (head) authority of "a woman" (not only a married woman, but apparently every woman)
3) and most importantly, it assumes there is a hierarchy in the Trinity and places Jesus in a subordinate member in that Trinity.

BUT....

if that scripture refers to origin....then...
1) Christ is most assuredly the origin of every man (beginning in Eden and onward)
2) "the man" most assuredly was the origin of "the woman" (in Eden)
3) God most assuredly was the origin of Christ in His human form as the Savior of the world but is not eternally subordinate and Matt. 25:31, Matt. 19:28, and Rev. 3:21 are evidence that He sits on His own throne.

And finally:

Paul sums up the passage by supplying evidence that the word "head" refers to "origin."

1Co 11:12  For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 

[Sonbeam]

12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Notice that Paul says that he does not allow to teach or exercise authority over a man ...(I suppose going along with the culture and the legalism he was steeped in when he was under the law.)

I did notice that Paul mentioned himself when he penned this portion of Scripture - and we must put what he has written into perspective based on what has been established in Scripture.

First - Here is what is written as it relates to Scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16) All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

So, in viewing the aforementioned passage of Scripture - and an in answering your question, it doesn't matter that Paul mentions himself in what he penned about women being leaders in the Church. He was "inspired by God."

Yes, all scripture is "inspired" by God. But we the help of the Holy Spirit, we are to examine all scripture carefully to see if it accurately expresses God's Word.

For Instance, in

1 Cor 7:10 Paul made sure that his readers knew that he believed the command was from the Lord.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

Is the above a command one we should try to follow? Absolutely! It falls within the all encompassing command the Lord
gave us as recorded in John 13:34:

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

But in 1 Timothy 2:9-14 Paul in regards to authority does not add: "(not I but the Lord)"

Therefore my belief is that this is Paul's own idea because of what I previously said:

That Paul was going along with the culture and the legalism he was steeped in when he was under the law.

My comments on the inspiration of scripture would definitely get us sidetracked into another topic, but I was merely addressing the scripture you quoted.

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

Hi Sonbeam - first we have to get the passage of Scripture you are referring to correct:

Galatians 3:24-29 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

24) Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26) For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29) And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

The aforementioned passage of Scripture can be found in the Book of Galatians and not Colossians. I have included the rest of the verses to better understand what Paul is indicating.

You asked:

Do you agree with the above scripture? Does the above scripture cover/include Christian women?

To answer your questions - of course I agree and absolutely it includes Christian women. You opened this thread by mentioning "hierarchy."

Respectfully Sonbeam, Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with "hierarchy" but more to do with having a
Relationship with Christ. In each of the categories of those mentioned it relates to identity - and not "hierarchy" - as Paul never mentions or implies a ranking system based on status or authority in this particular passage of Scripture.

Mr Baldy,

I agree with you that Gal 3:28 denotes believers having a relationship with Christ. Absolutely.
Nonbelievers are not addressed here.

As for identity, Gal 3:28 spells out that ethnicity, freedom or bondage, gender, etc. (worldly identifiers) do not apply to the children of God.

In Christ, in the Spirit, all are equal.

Therefore, I agree with you. “Hierarchy” is not evident here. That is the reason I said the following in my opening statement on this thread:

In the Spirit Christians are under no other hierarchy than that of Christ Who is the head of His body.

As Paul says in Col 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Therefore, any child of God may perform in any leadership capacity within the visible institutional church as called by God..

However, like you, I do see a male hierarchy chosen by God starting with Adam as head of the human race culminating with His Son as head of the spiritual race.

BUT I see no conflict in recognizing this, and at the same time, believing that by revelation to Paul by the Holy Spirit, any child of God regardless of physical earthly gender may perform in leadership positions as called by God within the church.

sonbeam

Thank you for correcting my mistake on citing the wrong scripture.

[Mr Baldy]

BUT I see no conflict in recognizing this, and at the same time, believing that by revelation to Paul by the Holy Spirit, any child of God regardless of physical earthly gender may perform in leadership positions as called by God within the church.

Hi Sonbeam,

I think your aforementioned statement should be examined just a wee bit closer for clarification

Paul never says that women cannot perform in leadership positions as called by God within the church - however, his message is quite clear about women having leadership roles over men.

Perhaps they can be teachers, leaders, and even pastors over an all women church - just not men of the same church. Women having such a role over a co-ed congregation would clearly contradict Scripture.

[Abiding in His Word]

Wade Burleson is the Pastor at the church in Enid, OK. He has posted numerous posts refuting male hierarchy so I'm posting several in hopes you will refer to them.

5 Reasons Why Women Can Pastor God's People

"The' Woman of Error in I Timothy 2:12 Shouldn't Teach

It Honors Christ and Is Biblical for Women to Teach Men