The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Christian gender roles set up in the NT are contrary to the OT:

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 94861
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




1. Google docs are not a violation of conduct.
2. I will argue that the Christan version of gender roles is contrary to the Tanakh.
3. My opponent must be a Christian and must argue for the gender roles established in the NT.



"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." Ephesians 5:31.
Are the Christian gender roles set up in the NT contrary to the OT? My opponent has asked this question without explaining why it is contrary. So since the burden of proofs lies on him, I will let him explain why it is in the next round.

For this first round, I will just state my case.

Value: LDS/Christian values: Latter Day Saint and Christian values insure what is needed to have a good, eternal marriage. These values are explained by prophets in the New and Old Testament.

Definitions (as said by Merriam-Webster dictionary).

Submit: Follow

Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Role: the part that someone has in a family, society, or other group.

In both the Old and New Testament, gender roles are established so that couples and families can have good, eternal marriages. In these roles, husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. A husbands role in the family is not above a womans. They are both equal partners working to help the family.

Since I am primarily arguing for the gender roles in the NT (as established by my opponent), I will now present three scriptures that support the gender roles found in the Old and New testament. I'm going to use Ephesians chapter 5, because this chapter beautifully presents the gender roles for marriage.

Scripture 1: Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Previously, my opponent made the word "submit" sound like an action followed by total slavery. But through careful examination in definitions of submit, I have found that it simply means "follow". So in this scripture it says follow your husbands like you would follow the Lord, or Jesus Christ. Well, why would you follow your husband like a God? Well you don't have to treat him like a "God" (imagine that). But it's like I said, one of the roles of a husband is to lead and preside over the family. The husband receives revelation when the family is making an important decision. Wives should follow that revelation that is presented by the father, as they would if a prophet or Jesus Christ himself was presenting that revelation. Husbands would not receive revelation that would downplay the role of a wife. So this scripture doesn't mean that wives should be slaves to their husbands, they should just follow their husbands leadership.

Scripture 2: Ephesians 5: 25: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Love is a important factor in marriage. Love creates a strong bond between a husband, wife, and their children in the family. Without love, Families can't prosper. Love should always be included in families. LDS and Christian values support love in a family, just as this chapter in Ephesians tells us to do so.

Scripture 3: Ephesians 5: 31: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." This scripture tells us that a husband and wife should be equal partners and joined together as one. Not as master and slave, but as a loving husband and wife with different but equally as important roles. Husbands and wives are obligated to help each other out with their roles as equal partners. Husbands should never treat their wives as their slaves, and wives should never do the same. Because they should be "one flesh".

I'm going to close this first round with the last scripture in Ephesians chapter 5. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I wish him luck for the rest of it. I strongly advise the voters to vote for the negative side of this debate.

"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." Ephesians 5:33.
Debate Round No. 1


I shall now rebuttal my opponents attack.

First, my opponent took what I said out of context. He put in bold "The husband receives revelation" and argued in a way that I said only men can receive revelation. That is not true. Women, like Deborah, can have the gift of prophecy and revelation.

But even though Deborah was an amazing women, she wasn't the prophet. Moses prayed, "would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!" (Num. 11:29). "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). Thus, a woman who had an abundance of the special gift of the spirit, prophecy and testimony may have been referred to as a prophetess. The word prophetess has more depth, but i'll leave that to another debate and stick to this topic. So since she wasn't the prophet at the time, she couldn't receive revelation for Israel.

I never said women can't receive revelation. They can receive revelation for their children, for councils that they are in, and themselves. Men and women can only receive revelation for people under their jurisdiction, like family members or members in a quorum. For example, I can't say I received revelation that my opponent is lame, because he is not under my jurisdiction to receive revelation for. He obviously isn't lame either. But I won't go too far into revelation, we can save that for another debate. But the main point of this is: Women can receive revelation also.

1st Corinthians 14:34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

This verse sounds terrible doesn't it? How could the apostle Paul say such a thing? Well this might be what people think when they first see this verse. But what they don't see is the background of the verse. Why did Paul say that? Well here is why:

It is difficult to know the intent of Paul"s counsel in 1 Corinthians 14:34"35 without knowing the actual question or circumstances that prompted it. From Paul"s teachings earlier in this same epistle, it is clear that he did not forbid women from speaking in church meetings (see 1 Corinthians 11:5). Paul also reminded both men and women to be silent during meetings when others were speaking (see 1 Corinthians 14:28, 30). So why? Well looking at early Christian Church history and this chapter, we can assume the possibility that Paul was trying to correct a situation in which some Corinthian women were either being disorderly during worship services or seeking to take the lead from priesthood leaders. Women and men should never try to usurp priesthood leadership in the church whom are not called to preside.

1st Corinthians 14:34 does look pretty bad all by its self. But if you look at the entire picture (the chapter, background, and history), you can see that the apostle Paul wan't trying to demean women in the church. Paul was chastising those who were disrupting church services.

Also "Do whatever Sarah tells you" isn't an official law, but everyone should know that listening to your mothers and wives is important. Husband and wife should listen and learn from each other. Children should listen to the teachings of their mother. Ha and men can admit that their wives and mothers are often right in their teachings, whether they like it or not.;) haha. Altogether, this is an important part in creating a strong family.

My opponent hasn't supplied a solid burden of proof. I would like to ask him why the Christian version of gender roles are contrary to the Tanakh, or the Old Testament.

I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate.

Debate Round No. 2


I can see that my opponent is taking many scriptural verses out of context. My opponent is ignoring the details and background of each verse; He is taking what is being said and twisting it around to suppose that early church leaders were lying in their doctrine. This is getting very annoying as you can imagine. Taking anything out of context can make something seem evil.

I could even go to Proverbs 5:19 (in the Old Testament) which states: "let her breasts satisfy thee at all times;" I could argue that this scriptures says that women should always satisfy men with their boobs and that God commands it. Well now you see that this verse in proverbs seems pretty disgusting and it also down plays women. It contradicts Genesis 1:27 by saying that women are only pleasure servants for men with their bodies. Therefore the Tanakh contradicts itself and is not true.

Okay, everything I said in the last paragraph is completely false. I was just giving an example of the tactics that my opponent is using against my case. I completely believe that the Old Testament is the word of God. But by looking at this entire chapter, you can see that Proverbs 5:19 is not talking about women pleasuring men, it's talking about... well in modern terms... "don't mess with a girl with immoral values". So as you can see, taking anything out of context can demean the actual meaning of the chapter.

Like I said in round 2: women can receive revelation. I never said they couldn't. My opponent would like you to believe that I said women can't receive revelation, but I can firmly insure you that I didn't. For proof, just look at my rounds. As you can see, I never said women can't receive revelation. Also, I have already disproved that the title "Prophetess" is not an actual prophet.

My opponent is putting many words in my mouth. He says that I assume that "wives are automatically under the governance of their husbands", But this is completely untrue. Like I have said many times ,"Husbands and wives are equal partners". This whole debate I have shown that women are not mans slave, but that they complete each other in their roles, and are equal in God's eyes. So this statement by my opponent is false.

Also, my opponent is right in saying that whatever God says should be law. But since I already agreed with Genesis 21:12, his attack really has no affect on my case. But since we have both agreed that whatever God says or commands is law, then he should agree with my case. God said to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." "well- G-d said it didn"t he?" So my opponent agrees that men should be the leader of the family. Therefore, he has contradicted his whole argument. Yes, God did not intend women to be servants, but he did command men to protect, provide, and preside over the family like Adam did.

Yet again, my opponent took a scripture out of context and made it sound contrary to gospel belief. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 does NOT order women to wear veils. Look at the background of this scripture, Paul addressed the Corinthian Saints questions about customs for men and women when they prayed and prophesied during their worship services. These customs included the practice of women wearing head coverings. Readers of the New Testament sometimes misunderstand Paul's teachings to mean that a mans role is more important than a woman's role. We know that Paul isn't demeaning women in this chapter. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians 11:16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." So Paul discouraged the act of women wearing veils, he didn't order them.

In 1 Timothy 2:11"12, Paul said, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach." Some people have taken these verses to mean that women were not allowed to speak in church in Paul"s day. However, his recommendation that women "learn in silence" may have been an effort to correct a specific problem where some women were usurping the authority of Church leaders (1 Timothy 2:11). So Paul was not demeaning women, he was just keeping them from overtaking the divine roles of men in the church. Both genders should not try to usurp each others roles.

Well in Genesis, we can clearly see that Adam was a man. Genesis 2:5: "and there was not a man to till the ground." Genesis 2:8: "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." I could go on forever. So clearly we can see that the Adam (the first person on earth) was a man. Also, in Genesis 3 Adam and Eve are commanded to have children. You need a man and woman to create a child. Since Eve was the woman (Genesis 2:22-23), Adam was most likley the man, so that they could finish the equation of creating life. So through all of these examples we can obviously see that Adam was a man. Also, if Adam means human, that doesn't make him without gender.

My opponent arranged Titus 2:4-9 in such a way that it seemed like Paul called for women to be slaves. This is not true. By reading the whole chapter, we can see that false teachings were creeping in among the Saints on the Isle of Crete. Paul urged Titus to teach "sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). Paul then gave several examples of how true doctrine will guide the behavior of men and women, old and young, and servants. To show this, I will post Titus 2:2-9 in its entirety.

2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

So as you can see, this chapter in Titus has nothing to do with Women being slaves.

Men and Women are equal in Genesis 1:27 (like I have stated many times). Nothing that my opponent has offered has indicated that gender roles in the NT (NEW testament) is contrary to the OT (OLD testament).

I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate.

Debate Round No. 3



First, my opponent made a strawman for my argument. He is making it seem like my intentions and arguments are the same as those of Islamic culture who beat their wives. This is not true. I have not given any sources from my case to condone abuse. Do not let my opponent trick you into believing that.

Second, I have already explained Ephesians 5: 22-24. My opponent can't make a proper attack on this scripture without looking at the background and detail of it's chapter, like I have already done. He is just taking the scripture and placing his own meaning on it without backing it up with sources. Therefore, how can we believe that he has proved this wrong?

Pot calling the kettle:

My opponent seems to justify sexually abusing ones wife with proverbs 5:19. It's kind of funny: He believes that it is unjust for a Muslim to use a bible verse to have a man beat his wife but it is perfectly fine for a Jew to use the old testament for a husband to sexually assault his wife. His hypocritical attack seems to contradict his whole arguments platform. My opponent fully supports Genesis 1:27, but he also condones a man to "draw pleasure from his wife" like she is an object, or a piece of property. My opponent says that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament by demeaning women's rights, but how can he prove this when his own argument condones demeaning women's rights and contradicts itself.


Yes, I do believe that men are the leaders of the family. I have said so many times.

Genesis 3:16:

After the fall, God commanded Adam and Eve to fill the earth with their posterity. In this verse, God lays out the gender roles that Adam and Eve will now follow to build and bring their family through this fallen world. God shows Adam that he needs to be the leader of the family to fulfill his role. With his priesthood authority, Adam will now protect his family from the newly fallen world with the help of the divine power of God. The role of leadership in every family should fall upon the male, because that is how God set it up in the beginning.

Even Jewish Rabbi Michoel Reach agrees that men should have leadership over their families. "The Hebrew phrase there is "v"hu yimshol bach" " and he shall rule over you. There are two words for "rule" in Hebrew: "Melech" and "Moshel". The Vilna Gaon writes in his commentary that" Melech" means a king who rules with the consent of the governed, but a "Moshel" is a dictator: He rules by force. The leadership role comes more naturally to a man than to a woman, but it doesn"t work as smoothly now as it did then."

This also agrees with Paul that men should be the leaders of the family (Ephesians 5: 22-24). Therefore, the Old Testament, A Jewish Rabbi, and Paul in the New Testament all believe in the same thing: Men should be the leaders of their families.

Also, eating the forbidden fruit was a commandment for Adam and Eve, not a prophecy. You need to learn the difference between prophecy and commandment. "God said it didn't he?"

Man created first:

I feel that I have already proven that Adam was a man. We can see that the first person on earth was called Adam. The second person was called "woman" (female) and then later on Eve. If Adam was a woman, he wouldn't have been able to procreate and fill the earth. I think I will just go over my opponents last point by saying that through sources, I have shown that Adam was a man and Eve was a woman. He has failed to show any sources to hold his claim on Adam being a hermaphrodite besides Adam being "human" in Hebrew.

I'm not sure if my opponent is trying to say that hermaphrodites are better than individual male and female persons. All I can say is that Genesis 1:27 says: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." This scripture doesn't say: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; hermaphrodite created he them."

Gender roles:

Gender roles are not nonsense. Through my debate, I have reminded my opponent time and time again that Gender roles are essential for the fulfillment of a family. Gender roles have been established in both the Old and New testament, as I have proven. So my opponent has no reason to say that Gender roles are nonsense.

"It"s that simple, the NT says that women shouldn"t teach, while in the OT we had prophetesses..." I have proven that the NT doesn't say that women shouldn't teach, that is just your opinion and claim, not a fact. I have also shown that the title prophetess is not an actual leadership title in the gospel. No contradiction there.

"the NT says that wives should submit to their husbands while the OT says that it can go either way..." Yes, wives should follow their husbands, but you have no proof that shows that the Old Testament says that it can go either way. No contradiction here.

"the NT says that the man was created first while the OT says that the Hermaphrodite was created first." Well both New and Old Testament agree that Adam was a man, like I have shown. My opponent has made little to no attempt to prove that Adam was a hermaphrodite. Zero contradiction.

The New Testament does NOT contradict the Old Testament in gender roles. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate.

Debate Round No. 4


In this round, I shall go over my opponents debate and then conclude my own.

Context and fallacy:

Though I have used the same scripture, the context I used lead me to a completely different conclusion than a Muslim. Through your Strawman statement, you have compared and inserted the Muslim conclusion in the place of mine. This is making my use of context and even my case seem like a immoral platform. My case does not stand for this at all. Therefore, my opponent is guilty of fallacy. I would like to urge the voters to not let my opponent slide from such a crime.

Context has an affect on everything. Looking at a individual scripture can say one thing, but seeing how it corresponds with the rest of the chapter and history is another.

Pot calling the kettle:

Well of course I didn't have a source, my opponent was my source. You are obviously the one being hypocritical.

I said, ""let her breasts satisfy thee at all times;" I could argue that this scriptures says that women should always satisfy men with their boobs and that God commands it."

My opponent said, " and even if it were being said literally there wouldn"t be anything wrong with drawing pleasure from your wife, only with abusing her/mistreating her as is the case with everyone else."

So it is abusing her/mistreating her in the case of everyone else but the husband.

Men leading the household:

Well... I didn't know you were a Karaite Jew. That would have been nice to know before you started the debate.My opponent could have at least called the debate: "To a Karaite Jew, The Christian gender roles set up in the NT are contrary to the OT." Well because you haven't presented this until the final round, you have no room to refute the Jewish rabbi's teachings. My source is not discredited because of my opponent"s personal beliefs. It is valid regardless of his Karaite Judaism as he didn"t limit the resources to only Karaite approved sources. If that was the case, no one would have taken this debate.

P.S. Your P.S. statement goes on for miles to explain why you believes what you believe. However, it would have been nice to know that at the beginning of this debate so we could have had a more meaningful discussion and not at the tail end with no source.

Also, if my opponent can refute evidence with his personal bias, then I should be able to refute all of his interpretations of scriptures because my prophet didn't validate it. Hey, it's only fair.

Man created first:

I think my opponent could go on forever saying that we don't know that Adam was a man. Even though I have already proven he was a man, your attack does not offer any evidence that supports that there were no gender roles in the Old Testament. This attack has obviously strayed far away from your debate, so I will just end it now.

Gender roles:

I can't make every man and woman take on gender roles. But God created the family so that we can work together to go back to live with our heavenly father again. Assuming gender roles in the family help support the family. So you shouldn't attack me for trying to get people to assume gender roles so that they can support God's sacred gift, which is the family.

If you haven't noticed, I have already explained 1 Timothy 2:12 to you in round 3. But we have learned by looking at the background of this scripture that Paul was making an effort to correct a specific problem where some women were usurping the authority of Church leaders (1 Timothy 2:11). Therefore, this makes my claim that "the NT doesn't say that women shouldn't teach" true, and not contradictory in any way.

Gen 21:12 doesn't contradict the New Testament in any way also. Like before, I have already explained this scripture in round 2.


My opponent has failed to demonstrate the original premise of this debate. Let it be known that my opponent does not have an actual structured case to prove that the NT is contrary to the OT. He just has multiple failed attacks that are not supported by any values, sources and/or statements. He has even failed to support his burden of proof, which should fall upon him only. My opponent has contradicted himself in this debate many times because of this. Therefore, my opponent really has no case to prove me wrong.

I still have a strong argument. I have used values, sources, non biased quotes and statements and scriptures to prove my interpretation of these scriptures and gender roles. By reading my case, you can see that I have supported and proven (even though I was never given the burden of proof) that the gender roles set up in the New Testament do not contradict the gender roles in the Old Testament. I have shown how the gender roles are established in Genesis, and are then explained and taught multiple times throughout the Old and New Testament. I have proven that The Old and New testament are in harmony with each other. That is why my case still stands as a strong (and pretty much only) argument in this debate.

I will now restate my contentions/scriptures.

Scripture 1: Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Wives should follow their husbands, because one of the gender roles of husbands is to lead the family.

Scripture 2: Ephesians 5: 25: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Love is a key ingredient for marriage and family. Love helps a husband wife work together to help the family and to complement each other in their roles.

Scripture 3: Ephesians 5: 31: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." Even though men and women have different roles, they should work together as equals, or as "one flesh". They shouldn't be like master and slave, but as a loving husband and wife.

Gender roles are a important part of the family. They help create love, unity, and support to build a strong family. Both the Old and New testament agree that gender roles should be respected; for they are important for the fulfillment of a strong family. Therefore, This should ultimately conclude the statement: "The Christian gender roles set up in the NT are contrary to the OT" as false.

"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." Ephesians 5:33.

I would like to thank you for your time and harrytruman for this debate. I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by chrislee125 1 month ago
Haha ok Harrytruman I think we are already debating in the comments section. You took this scripture out of context and re-wrote it. But instead of continuing, lets just start an actual debate. Ok, I'll accept your debate now.
Posted by harrytruman 1 month ago
Your Non-Testament says in Ephesians 5:22 that wives should submit to their husbands as if he were G-d.
Posted by chrislee125 1 month ago
Good debate Harrytruman. I would love to debate this but I simply can't. Your rules for the debate require my Christian views to comply with the statement: "wives should "submit" to their husbands.". I don't believe that women should submit to their husbands; Nor do I believe that men are better than women. I believe that husbands and wives are equal partners in the family. Although they have different roles, the role of women in the family is equally as important to God's plan and the family as the roles of men. One of the roles of husbands is to preside and to protect the family. Men and women shouldn't submit to each others roles, but respect and cooperate with each other in their roles. Both roles from husbands and wives work together to create a stronger family. So that's why I can't accept this debate. Wives shouldn't submit to their husbands. But I wish you luck with whomever accepts this debate.
Posted by harrytruman 2 months ago
The subject of the debate is whether or not christian gender roles are contrary to the Tanakh, and I am supposed to debate a christian, so as far as this debate is concerned it doesn't really matter.
Posted by TheShaun 2 months ago
"I will argue that this is contrary to the Tanakh, and therefore ought to be denied."? You're implying that the Tanakh is correct. Without proof, you sound like an over-opinionated jackass. Ever stop to think the Tanakh might be wrong?
Posted by Thinkonit 2 months ago
In order to debate you must state these doctrines where gender roles are mentioned, where you found them, define morality however you like, the contradiction between the doctrines and morality, and proof it is'the Christian way. So far all you have done is made a blatant statement with no evidence.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 months ago
Define submit and I may accept this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.