Women in the Pulpit

[Mike S]

Wrong. But, I see you're doing exactly as I expected. You're flopping all over the place, desperately trying to twist contradictory scriptures into somehow excusing Paul's inconsistency...and failing, BTW.

Good stuff, Mark. It is inconsistent, and the people trying to put square pegs in round holes do fail.



But here's one sure thing. Maybe it's just me.

If I was a woman . . . and also a Christian . . . and I read Galatians 3:28, and I also read 1 Corinthians 14:35, I would play it safe and keep my mouth shut while in church.

But maybe that's just me.

That's fair enough, VSC. We're all trying to know God's will and do our best to live according to Jesus' message, as best we can inderstand it. I don't want to tell anyone his/her interpretation of scripture is wrong and that he's worshipping God the wrong way - he will, afterall, have to eventually answer to God, not to me - but I WILL respond very assertively to anyone presuming to tell me I'm being un-Biblical in my interpretations. There isn't anyone among us with the moral standing to lecture others about their relationshp to God.

 

[jasoncran]

I should do a thread on orthodox Judaism and how it relates and the still visable practices of separating men from the women in the temple. my dad mention that he didn't sit with his sister in the temple when he was a youth. a bat mitzvah and bar mitzvah will have a slight difference to it as one is for a boy and the other a girl.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I should do a thread on orthodox Judaism and how it relates and the still visable practices of separating men from the women in the temple. my dad mention that he didn't sit with his sister in the temple when he was a youth. a bat mitzvah and bar mitzvah will have a slight difference to it as one is for a boy and the other a girl.

You could do a thread about the various differences between men and women in the Bible, but maybe you could start off with the major stuff:

YHWH/Elohim is a "He".

Jesus is a "He".

Satan is a "He".

All angels whose names were mentioned in the Bible were male.

Of the 39 books of the Old Testament, only 2 of those books bear the name of a woman.

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, none of those books bear the name of a woman.

There are 3049 different men named in the Bible and only 188 women.

 

[Mike S]

I should do a thread on orthodox Judaism and how it relates and the still visable practices of separating men from the women in the temple. my dad mention that he didn't sit with his sister in the temple when he was a youth. a bat mitzvah and bar mitzvah will have a slight difference to it as one is for a boy and the other a girl.

You could do a thread about the various differences between men and women in the Bible, but maybe you could start off with the major stuff:

YHWH/Elohim is a "He".

Jesus is a "He".

Satan is a "He".

All angels whose names were mentioned in the Bible were male.

Of the 39 books of the Old Testament, only 2 of those books bear the name of a woman.

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, none of those books bear the name of a woman.

There are 3049 different men named in the Bible and only 188 women.

I think that kind of thread could be interesting. I believe it would show women as being less valued, and having different social roles, than men throughout the relevant cultures. I believe it would also show that the role differences are due to cultural norms and not theological doctrine.

The weakness of the "women should have no authority over men" argument is that those who make it believe it see everything Paul wrote as being doctine when much of it was just cultural comment. Cultural norms may very well be good practical reasons to restrict the role of women in ministry and church leadership in specific circumstances, but there is no core element of Christian theology, no doctrinal reason for it.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I should do a thread on orthodox Judaism and how it relates and the still visable practices of separating men from the women in the temple. my dad mention that he didn't sit with his sister in the temple when he was a youth. a bat mitzvah and bar mitzvah will have a slight difference to it as one is for a boy and the other a girl.

You could do a thread about the various differences between men and women in the Bible, but maybe you could start off with the major stuff:

YHWH/Elohim is a "He".

Jesus is a "He".

Satan is a "He".

All angels whose names were mentioned in the Bible were male.

Of the 39 books of the Old Testament, only 2 of those books bear the name of a woman.

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, none of those books bear the name of a woman.

There are 3049 different men named in the Bible and only 188 women.

I think that kind of thread could be interesting. I believe it would show women as being less valued, and having different social roles, than men throughout the relevant cultures. I believe it would also show that the role differences are due to cultural norms and not theological doctrine.

The weakness of the "women should have no authority over men" argument is that those who make it believe it see everything Paul wrote as being doctine when much of it was just cultural comment. Cultural norms may very well be good practical reasons to restrict the role of women in ministry and church leadership in specific circumstances, but there is no core element of Christian theology, no doctrinal reason for it.

Since when, may I ask, must the "Word of God" succumb to human cultural "norms"?

So, you're telling me that God floods the entire world and saves only Noah and his immediate family, but later on decides to meet male-dominated culture half-way.

"Eh, that Flood thing . . . fagett about it. We biness pahtnuhs. You men carry own wit cho bad self."

 

[Mike S]

I should do a thread on orthodox Judaism and how it relates and the still visable practices of separating men from the women in the temple. my dad mention that he didn't sit with his sister in the temple when he was a youth. a bat mitzvah and bar mitzvah will have a slight difference to it as one is for a boy and the other a girl.

You could do a thread about the various differences between men and women in the Bible, but maybe you could start off with the major stuff:

YHWH/Elohim is a "He".

Jesus is a "He".

Satan is a "He".

All angels whose names were mentioned in the Bible were male.

Of the 39 books of the Old Testament, only 2 of those books bear the name of a woman.

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, none of those books bear the name of a woman.

There are 3049 different men named in the Bible and only 188 women.

I think that kind of thread could be interesting. I believe it would show women as being less valued, and having different social roles, than men throughout the relevant cultures. I believe it would also show that the role differences are due to cultural norms and not theological doctrine.

The weakness of the "women should have no authority over men" argument is that those who make it believe it see everything Paul wrote as being doctine when much of it was just cultural comment. Cultural norms may very well be good practical reasons to restrict the role of women in ministry and church leadership in specific circumstances, but there is no core element of Christian theology, no doctrinal reason for it.

Since when, may I ask, must the "Word of God" succumb to human cultural "norms"?

So, you're telling me that God floods the entire world and saves only Noah and his immediate family, but later on decides to meet male-dominated culture half-way.

"Eh, that Flood thing . . . fagett about it. We biness pahtnuhs. You men carry own wit cho bad self."

It doesn't. But, I'm not talking about the "Word of God." I'm talking about the word of Paul, who was writing about doctrine at times, and culture at other times.

 

[evenifigoalone]

It is true that parts of Paul's letters sometimes were in response to specific and unique circumstances in the church. It's still the word of God, but in deciphering the meaning it helps to keep in mind the context.

 

[Mike S]

It is true that Paul's letters often were in response to specific circumstances in the church. It's still the word of God, but in deciphering the meaning it helps to keep in mind the context.

Yes, the cultural context.

 

[LetTheLittleChildrenCome]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the bible that denotes women not being about to serve in the pulpit. If one quotes from Paul noting that women have no authority to teach, my statement would be "do you know the context behind this letter?" The same way I can quote the gospel and say "We should eat only fish for breakfast because Jesus did so in the gospel of John."

 

[VirginShallConceive]

It is true that parts of Paul's letters sometimes were in response to specific and unique circumstances in the church. It's still the word of God, but in deciphering the meaning it helps to keep in mind the context.

If it's still the "Word of God", then here's an excerpt from the "Word of God":

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:12-14

I would like to see someone try to wedge in the "Culture of the Time of Authorship Argument" in this particular case.

Paul and/or God blatantly declare, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Then, Paul and/or God give two reasons for their reasoning:

Reason #1: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Reason #2: Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


This is stated as clear as day, whether or not you agree with him/them.

Edited out personal insult. Address issues and not personalities. Remain polite and on topic.

Edward

 

[evenifigoalone]

Deborah linked to an interesting article a page or two back that regarding that very passage (and others) offers what could be a plausible explanation based both on a study if scripture and history from around that time.
I'd do a copy/paste, but Im on my iPod right now and kinda can't. Check out the article, scroll down to the section about controversial passages.

Me? I'm not entirely sure what to think yet, but there does seem to be more than one possibility.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Deborah linked to an interesting article a page or two back that regarding that very passage (and others) offers what could be a plausible explanation based both on a study if scripture and history from around that time.
I'd do a copy/paste, but Im on my iPod right now and kinda can't. Check out the article, scroll down to the section about controversial passages.

Me? I'm not entirely sure what to think yet, but there does seem to be more than one possibility.

I admit that I clicked on the link that she provided, and somewhat only skimmed through the page.

What I saw were examples of the various roles of women in the Church throughout history, from biblical sources and early to later post-biblical Christian sources.

But please do me, yourself, and others a favor . . . . . . Please address, to the best and most honest of your ability, my post concerning 1 Timothy 2:12-14.

Please.

 

[evenifigoalone]

You have to scroll way down, but it is there.

And much of the explanation it provides was already kinda brought up in a earlier post in this thread.
The main argument that the article asserts regarding that passage, and it backs itself with scripture and history, that the passage was dealing with a cult that taught that Eve came before Adam and that Adam sinned. It says there is also evidence that the cult was very anti-men, taught that childbirth is bad, etc. (Reminds me of SOME strains of the feminist movement.) To be honest, the whole Adam/Eve thing makes a WHOLE lot more sense in that light.
The article points out that "learning in silence" also does not exactly mean what we take it to mean in today's culture. It was more to do with respect for the teacher, and considered to be a GOOD thing. Women were specifically mentioned because of the cult and they did not want the women to think this cult spoke the truth.
There was a lot more to it than that, but that's the gist of it as I understood it. The article also offers some other possibilities, I believe, but that was the main one.


As far as whether it's true or not? I'd have to do more research.

 

[evenifigoalone]

The articles' main point, even if its explanations are off (a possibility it freely admits), is that scripture, even the verses surrounding the controversial passage, doesn't seem to support what these passages seem to say at face value.
Again, Im not sure what to think myself, but this is a fair point.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

You have to scroll way down, but it is there.

And much of the explanation it provides was already kinda brought up in a earlier post in this thread.
The main argument that the article asserts regarding that passage, and it backs itself with scripture and history, that the passage was dealing with a cult that taught that Eve came before Adam and that Adam sinned. It says there is also evidence that the cult was very anti-men, taught that childbirth is bad, etc. (Reminds me of SOME strains of the feminist movement.) To be honest, the whole Adam/Eve thing makes a WHOLE lot more sense in that light.
The article points out that "learning in silence" also does not exactly mean what we take it to mean in today's culture. It was more to do with respect for the teacher, and considered to be a GOOD thing. Women were specifically mentioned because of the cult and they did not want the women to think this cult spoke the truth.
There was a lot more to it than that, but that's the gist of it as I understood it. The article also offers some other possibilities, I believe, but that was the main one.


As far as whether it's true or not? I'd have to do more research.

Well, even if it was true, it somewhat still amazes me that you would be comforted by that half-wit response to some purported claims of a cult that, in my 41 years on this earth, I have never heard of until now.

Paul and/or God could have easily declared what commandment they wanted to declare, without giving credence to some extremely uninfluential cult-- on top of never once mentioning said cult in his/their writings.

Even if they were responding to the cult, their declaration still stands-- plain and simple:

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." -1 Timothy 2:12



Do you agree, or am I out of my head and way off the mark?

And just remember, Paul and/or God gave two reasons for their clearly-spoken declaration, and not one of those reasons was "Reason #3: Some trumped-up women's cult".

Just keep that in mind.

 

[evenifigoalone]

The article has more than one explanation of that verse, one of which I already gave. (Learning in silence not meaning what we think it means at face value reading through the bias of our own culture and usage of words.) I don't remember what it was, but I do remember reading it. Admittedly, after that point, the article got harder to follow and understand. Take a look for yourself, perhaps?

And in any case, history can get to be a very complicated subject and even historians do not agree with each other much of the time.
This being a large reason as to why Im not sure what to think.
As for the cult in itself, there could be a number of reasons as to why it isn't clearly referred to elsewhere in scripture. Perhaps it wasn't important enough to have any more mention in the Bible. The Bible contains history, but it doesn't even attempt to tell us everything about it.

And it still made VERY compelling arguments regarding the passage in light of the rest of scripture. I'll see if I can go pull some of those up.

 

[Deborah13]

Then, Paul and/or God give two reasons for their reasoning:

Reason #1: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Reason #2: Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Actually, there's a third verse that goes with the other two. Maybe you could explain how about that, too.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Figured out how to copy more than one paragraph:

The women are to "learn in silence." Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders." (WS:WIC:128)
The phrase "in submission" is closely related to this notion, and together the two images call up the memory of Mary, "sitting at the feet of Jesus" in rabbinical student style (cf. Luke 10.39).
The interesting thing about this is that this was used of "future or current teachers"! Rabbincal students were generally preparing for a teaching ministry, 'wise men' and 'leaders' ALREADY were in teaching/authority roles. So, the very cast that this imperative is set in suggests a FUTURE teaching ministry for those women who learned in the proper fashion of students.

I'll respond with a few more quotes from the article.

 

[evenifigoalone]

More:

When we look at verse 12, we run into a MAJOR exegetical uncertainty:
The verb translated as "exercise authority over" (authenteo) is only used here in the NT, and its meaning is HOTLY contested.
TWO things that ARE sure about its meaning--it is NOT the normal word for "authority" (exousia), "exercising authority" (exousiazo), or "power" (kyrieuo); and it is NOT a 'good' thing (suitable for ANYONE to do--even males!)...so Scholer in WS:WAB:204-205:

Another factor basic to the interpretation of 2.11-12 concerns Paul's use of the unusual word authentein (translated "to have authority over" RSV) in the second injunction (2:12). This is the only occurrence of this word in Paul's writings and, indeed, in the entire New Testament. The word is not frequently used in ancient Greek literature. The precise meaning of authentein and its use in 2:12 cannot be completely resolved at this time; scholars are currently in an extended debate on the issue.
Traditionally, authentein has been understood to connote a sense of "domineer" or "to usurp authority" and the term is even associated with murder. Although not all of the evidence and arguments have been fully assessed, two points seem relatively certain. First, the term is unusual. If Paul were referring to the normal exercise of authority, his otherwise constant exousia/exousiazo ("authority/to exercise authority") vocabulary would most likely have been used. The choice of such an unusual term itself indicates that Paul intended a different nuance or meaning. Second,...many uses of the term seem rather clearly to carry the negative sense of "domineer" or "usurp authority." Thus I see the injunctions of 2:11-12 as directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.

It is VERY important to point out here that it is PURE FOLLY to base an entire doctrine affecting half the human race (!)--"women should not have authority over men"--on the basis of ONE SINGLE VERSE, and even worse--a single verse where the most important verb is (1) unusual; (2) negative; and (3) not even understood clearly!


(Snip...)



The word 'teach' in the verse ("neither teach nor authentein a man") has a major issue associated with it, as well...
The verb is TOO 'big" to NOT be radically restricted in scope by whatever authentein means.
The situation is this. "Teach" takes an object in the accusative case and authentein takes an object in the genitive case. "Man" is in the genitive case, and is therefore the object of authentein. That means that 'teach' (unless it is 'connected' tightly to authentein) is UNRESTRICTED in scope. Paul would be prohibiting women from teaching anybody at any time--in direct contradiction to his plentiful commands for believers to teach/instruct/train each other (e.g. Tit 2.4; 1 Cor 14.26; Col 3.16). So the scope of the application must be limited somewhat in the context.

(Snip...)



The "conjunction" data concerns the fact that there is a 'but' between verse 11 and 12. So, we have Paul saying something like "Let the women study/learn as proper students...BUT I am not (currently) letting them (the students, having been under the influence of the false teachers--cf. 1.4-7; 5.13; 2 Tim 3.6) teach nor letting them 'overthrow' their teachers (until they are ready--cf. 2 Tim 2.2)". [The fact that 'teach' is present, active, indicative is indecisive as to whether it is a short-term or long-term command--the data is very divided in the extant literature.]


(Snip....)




The word "man" in the authentein clause seems suggestive in context.
This appears to be a very gender-specific word (andros), suggesting that authentein was ONLY DIRECTED (whatever it was) at MEN--not at WOMEN. And, since the passage is apparently ABOUT women, we have women authentein-ing MEN only. Since there had been or were godly women teachers already in Ephesus (e.g. Priscilla and the deaconesses of 3.11), this would make a case that the immodest (3.9), gaudy (3.9), self-righteous (3.10b), unlearned (3.11), and disruptive (3.11) women under discussion in 2.9-15 (no doubt a subset of the women in Ephesus, 3.11; 5.2-9) were SPECIFICALLY teaching something about MEN that led them to seek to authentein them.

 

[evenifigoalone]

When we look at the passage in a bigger context, do we have anything in the text/context/historical setting that might give us a clue as to either WHAT the anti-male teaching was, or WHY there was anti-male teaching/activity?
Maybe.

That Paul is selective in his use of Eve in 1 Timothy 2:14 seems clear from at least three other Pauline texts. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Eve's deception is a negative model, warning all Corinthian believers--men and women--against false teaching. This shows that Paul did not limit Eve's deceivability to women. In both Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, the apostle attributes sin and death to Adam, not Eve. (WS:WAB:210; cf. also BBC:in. loc.)

"It seems certain from 2:9-15, 5:11-15, and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 that these [false teachers] have had considerable influence among some women, especially some younger widows, who according to 2 Timothy 3:6-7 have opened their homes to these teachings, and according to 1 Timothy 5:13 have themselves become propagators of the new teachings" (Fee, cited in WS:ISNW:62)

The false teachers are characterized by an interest in myths (I Tim 1:4; 4:7; Tit. 1:14; 2 Tim. 4:4) and genealogies (I Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9), a concern with the law or a Jewish orientation (I Tim. 1:7; Tit. 1:10, 14; 3:9), an interest in "antitheses" that they identify as "knowledge" (1 Tim. 6:20), a tendency toward controversy, argumentation, and speculation (1 Tim. 1:4, 6: 6:4, 20; Tit. 1:10; 3:9; 2 Tim. 2:14, 16,23), deceptiveness (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Tit. 1:10-13: 2 Tim 3:6ff., especially v.13), immorality ( 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; Tit. 1:15, 16; 2 Ti. 2:16, 19; ch. 3), and desire to get material gain by means of their teaching (1 Tim. 6:5; Tit. 1:11; 2 Tim. 3:2, 4).

This post will be edited to include what I feel to be the highlights of the arguments presented. Copying and pasting is difficult to do from my iPod, plus I am trying to put them into sections small enough to manage. Please bare with me.



ETA: Done. Again, this was difficult to do from my iPod, so in case I missed anything it might be a good idea to just read the article yourself.