Women in the Church

[Talulah]

I posted this originally on the 'women as officers thread' in Liberal Arts but it was edited out, supposedly, because they wanted Christian only advice. Of course, despite some snide comments at the bottom, the whole post is mostly scripture. I am re-posting it because my point still stands.

First of all, according to the bible, not only was woman created second and to be a 'help' for men, sin entered the world through her.

1st Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

For those two purposes, the Christian hiearchy is God, Jesus, Man, Woman.

A woman can't hold an office, first and foremost, because the bible forbids her to speak in church. She can't be in any position that puts her in authority over a man as well.


1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Women are to ask their husbands at home if they have questions.

1st Corinthians14:34 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.14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


and WHY, see the previous verse.

1 Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Childbearing makes women worthy, removes some of the shame and stigma of causing the fall.

Woman are also to be obediant to their husbands

Titus 2:5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

...also in subjection to their husbands, with fear.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

Women are the weaker vessel

1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Men are the head of women

1st Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Women created for the glory of men as well as for men

1st corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.



Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

I am glad that your fiance doesn't like this. This is what the bible says though. Read it for yourself. Go to the bible and see if context makes any difference. It still won't quiet your opinions of 'unfair' 'cruel' and 'stupid'
The Christian church has a long history of subjection of women and casting them as evil seductresses. All based on the bible. Take a gander at revelations for much talk of 'whores'.

[Reba]

Lets see what esle the scriptures have to say. . .

Prov 31:10-31
0 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

KJV

[Reba]

Eph 5:25
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


I am honored to be a christian woman.

[Joseph Alward]

REBA


Lets see what esle the scriptures have to say. . .

Prov 31:10-31
Who can find a virtuous woman?

JOE ALWARD
This describes the ideal woman, REBA, the one the writer is wishing he could find. The author is not describing women in general, but the specific--as yet unfound--woman, evidently. I agree with Talulah: Few teachings in the Bible are clearer than the one that holds that women are inferior to men, and not to be trusted to guide or teach men. You'll find two articles dealing with treatment of women in the Bible in the "Women" section in the directory of the web page listed below.

[Talulah]

Reba,

Your post does nothing to counter my points. All it says is that you are happy with your lot.

[Bartholomew]

:cheers:

Looks like errantists are ok for tossing this one out.

~Matt

[Talulah]

That is part of the problem. You can't just toss out a few verses and it all be ok. It is woven into the theology so deeply that you have to admit that the writers of the bible were deeply misogynistic.

[Jaltus]

LOL, not really.

Those verses all teach that women cannot be elders. However, other positions of leadership were readily availible.

In Romans 16:1, Pheobe is listed as a deacon (though generally translated "servant").

Good grief, Jesus went out of His way to have female disciples, something "not done" during those times. Paul did the same thing.

For their time, they were very cutting edge. In fact, if it were not for them, there would be no women's movement whatsoever.

Miriam was a leader of the people of Israel, as was Deborah. Both held political power. The only difference is that women are not allowed to hold spiritual authority.

You really should get your ducks in a row before telling us what the Bible says.

For that matter, read Luke and Acts and then tell us how unfriendly the Bible is to women.

[Talulah]

For their time, they were very cutting edge. In fact, if it were not for them, there would be no women's movement whatsoever.

Is that so?

Somehow, telling women it was shameful for them to speak in church doesn't seem very 'cutting edge' to me.

This is same argument Xtains use for the reason why slavery isn't outlawed by the bible, and it is just as full of holes.

So, Jesus comes to earth, he brings the 'way, the truth and the light' and he forgets to say 'Hey, women, you are just as good as men, and not just in the sight of God, in the sight of everyone. I know you are practically owned by your husbands and he controls your every move, but now you are free, so why don't you just pop him in the nose and tell him to mind his own buisness when he tries to tell you what to do."

But he didn't say that, did he?

Those verses all teach that women cannot be elders. However, other positions of leadership were readily availible.
Did you read the part about women shall have no authority over a man?

[Pilgrim]

Uh oh, someone's taking on Jaltus.....I'm gonna go over here behind this wall and duck down real quiet like....

[Reba]

I have no doubt of the scriptural place of women, it is very clear. For sure Proverbs is of the ideal woman the goal is there to be achieved. Any person called of GOD is blessed.

I see the picture of marriage in scripture from the begining.

If scripture is not for you, you are correct it is not for you. GODS word is GODS word. HIS sheep know HIS voice if ya dont hear HIM your not HIS sheep.

[Talulah]

HIS sheep know HIS voice if ya dont hear HIM your not HIS sheep.

That's probably because I am not a sheep at all.

[Jaltus]

Is that so?Yup.

Somehow, telling women it was shameful for them to speak in church doesn't seem very 'cutting edge' to me.Do you know anything about how churches ran "back in the day?" Women used to sit on the opposite side of the church from their husbands and yell across questions DURING THE SERVICE. Women are not to never speak in church, for Paul specifically talks about women prophesying in church. Good grief, if you plan on reading, read it all. See I Corinthians 11:5 and realize it is talking about during church services, if one can use such an anachronistic term.

This is same argument Xtains use for the reason why slavery isn't outlawed by the bible, and it is just as full of holes. Actually, the truth is that "slavery" in the Bible is intentionally putting yourself into someone elses service in order to pay off debt, a service lasting no more than 10 years. It is nothing like what America did in its horrid history.

So, Jesus comes to earth, he brings the 'way, the truth and the light' and he forgets to say 'Hey, women, you are just as good as men, and not just in the sight of God, in the sight of everyone. I know you are practically owned by your husbands and he controls your every move, but now you are free, so why don't you just pop him in the nose and tell him to mind his own buisness when he tries to tell you what to do."Jesus did not preach social good news, but spiritual good news. Tiger Woods does not tell us about foreign policy for that is not his purpose. He is to hit golf balls, not to make political speeches. Again, you should read Luke and Acts and see how much reform for women He really did preach and accomplish. Of course, that would require you to do research instead of taking pot shots at something you obviously know little about.

But he didn't say that, did he?No, silly Him, He just lived it instead.

Did you read the part about women shall have no authority over a man?Did you read the part that said "control?" No? But that is what the text actually says. It is talking about controling men. Considering Paul then goes into his speel about elders and deacons, one could see that the context is spiritual authority specifically dealing with the church.

[diana]

03-05-2003 @ 03:05 PM
Jaltus:
Those verses all teach that women cannot be elders. However, other positions of leadership were readily availible.

And in another post, you stated:

Did you read the part that said "control?" No? But that is what the text actually says. It is talking about controling men.

Are you saying women should be put in positions of leadership--and you imply that they can lead men--but given no control over those men? So would it be more accurate to categorize your view of women's leadership roles as "advisors," then? Or those who can set a good example (which is arguably a type of leadership, I guess)?

It doesn't sound pleasant to me to be in a position of leadership, in which I am expected to get results of some sort, but not have any control over the people I lead. That's why I ask.

Good grief, Jesus went out of His way to have female disciples, something "not done" during those times. Paul did the same thing.

I thought disciples were followers, though. No?

For their time, they were very cutting edge. In fact, if it were not for them, there would be no women's movement whatsoever.

This is not unlike making the claim that if Edison hadn't invented the light bulb, we'd still be in darkness.

Miriam was a leader of the people of Israel, as was Deborah. Both held political power. The only difference is that women are not allowed to hold spiritual authority.

Oh. Now I think I understand what it is I don't understand. (Understand?)

How do you define the terms "spiritual authority," "control," and "leadership" so they can be distinguished from one another? I thought I understood the difference, but upon trying to follow everybody's reasoning, I guess I'm confused.

Thanks,

d

[Joseph Alward]

JALTUS

Do you know anything about how churches ran "back in the day?" Women used to sit on the opposite side of the church from their husbands and yell across questions DURING THE SERVICE.

JOE ALWARD

I have heard this stated many times by apologists, but no one has yet provided any information from the first century which supports this view. As far as I know, this is just speculation provided by feminist activists and their supporters who wish to mitigate Paul's comment about women speaking in church.

Now, I am totally in favor of women having as much power in any church as they can gain, but I am not in favor of suspending disbelief and pretending that Paul's words about women not speaking in church meant only that they couldn't yell during the service.

Jaltus, can you provide any evidence from the first few centuries CE that show that the type of behavior you speak of actually occurred, and was so common that Paul would have wished to speak out against it? If not, why do you believe it occurred? Isn't it true that the only ones who have made such are liberal Christians writing in the latter part of this century?

[Talulah]

Jaltus,

That is a good point you made about prophesying. Joel said that 'your Sons and your daughters' will prophesy. Obviously to do this they would have had to speak, and without any stretch of the imagination, speak in front on men in the assembly. The New Testament, like you said, mentions women prophesying.

However, while I agree that Phoebe was a deaconess, I believe that that is more of a servitude role as opposed to a leadership position. She could do that and not usurp authority from a man so that would fall within the restrictions Paul put forth.

So, why does Paul say it is a shame for a women to speak if in another place she has been told she can speak? If it is a 'shame' then it is not likely to change. He didn't just say don't do it, he didn't say, 'be a little more quiet.' He said, it is a shame for women to speak in church.

I am just curious how your explain these variations.

Also, I am curious on your position of bible teachings on the man being the head of the woman. I listed many verses in regard to that that you didn't address.

Thanks,
Talulah

[Joseph Alward]

Talulah
However, while I agree that Phoebe was a deaconess, I believe that that is more of a servitude role as opposed to a leadership position.

JOE ALWARD
I cannot agree tht Phoebe was a deaconess. She was a servant of the church, nothing more. Proponents of the notion Phoebe was a minister, not a "servant" point to the word diakonos, which they note is translated 20 times as minister or deacon in reference to men, and they suggest that it is pure chauvinism which leads the translators to render it as "servant of the church" for Phoebe. However, they often overlook the fact that the one time it's used for a woman--Phoebe--the word "ekklesia" is attached to it, which makes her "a servant of the church."

In every case where men were described as ministers or deacons with the word diakonos, the naming follows a word pattern which is absent in the case of Phoebe.

The word diakonos is used 27 times in the New Testament: 18 times it's translated as "minister", twice as "deacon", and seven times as "servant". Wherever it is translated as "minister" or "deacon", it applies to a particular man, and always with words that indicate greatness or divinity--or some sort of intimate connection to Jesus or God.

The single time diakonos is used to describe a woman--Phoebe, it means "a servant of the church" [diakonos ekklesia]; in the 20 times it refers to a man, the man is never described as a diakonos ekklesia; instead, the diakonos is qualified with words that connote divinity, or greatness. This diakonos-greatness naming pattern is absent when Phoebe is described. The evidence of this is provided in the article "Women May Not Teach Men," at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/silent_women.html.

In summary, the single place where "diakonos" is used to describe a woman, Phoebe, there is no suggestion of divinity or greatness; all that is said of Phoebe is that she gave aid and comfort to people. The phrase “servant of the church" [diakonos ekklesia] occurs only in reference to Phoebe. If the Bible writer really wanted us to believe that Phoebe was a minister or deaconess, he would have followed the minister-naming pattern used in 20 verses to describe the men as ministers or deacons; he didn’t do that, which strongly suggests that "diakonos" as applied to Phoebe didn't mean minister or deaconess; it meant "helper" or "servant".

If one wishes to advance the argument that Phoebe was a "minister", one must explain why the 20 examples of men described as "ministers" or "deacons" don't include the phrase "of the church"--a phrase which is used ONLY with Phoebe, and why the Phoebe verses don't allude to the type of greatness or divinity that is in virtually every single case attached to the verses about men.

[PuritanD]

The Christian church has a long history of subjection of women and casting them as evil seductresses. All based on the bible.

It is true that the church has a long history of subjecting women but unfortunately this was a misuse of Scripture, unless one understands that submission is not one of willing submission but oppressed. If the later of oppression then this is definitely not taught in Scripture.

As Jaltus pointed out Christ treated women better than the culture He was in. He talked with them and allowed them to sit at his feet for instruction like his male disciples.

Willful submission would not be difficult if men were practicing what Christ displayed, servant relationship. If husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church, such submission to leadership would be easy.

On Phoebe, the Greek word diakonos, is general enough to be translated as helper and does not necessarily need to be deaconess. Arguments on both sides have their merits.

It is true that women are not allowed to be elders in either Titus or Timothy. The authority in 2:15 is hard to understand how it applies. Does it prevent women from teaching Sunday school or interact in a Bible study? It is hard to say. The only thing that is for certain is that the elders of the church are male.

[Joseph Alward]

PURITAN
As Jaltus pointed out Christ treated women better than the culture He was in. He talked with them and allowed them to sit at his feet for instruction like his male disciples.

JOE ALWARD
I don't agree that Jesus treated women much better than others. If the "Jesus" the gospel writers spoke of really thought that women were of any value, he would have made at least one of them an apostle.

Now, about your point about allowing women to sit at his feet: Don't you think that this showed only that he treated women as his inferior? Furthermore, where is the evidence that he didn't allow anyone to receive his teachings at his feet? And, what's so special about women receiving teaching at the feet of Jesus? That women should be in subservience to man, and be taught by them, is what this whole thread is about.

[Talulah]

Joseph, that was an interesting look at the deaconess issue.

Now,

Let's consider this (cited is from religiontolerance.org). If this is true, then there wouldn't be as much of a contradiction between verses. Of course, the submission of women still stands, but it makes more sense.

I don't know. Sometimes it makes more sense to just think of little monks scribbling away in the margins, erasing, changing. I have read some very interesting things about scribes and ancient methods of translation.


1 Corinthians 14:34b-35: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) There are many interpretations of this short passage:
Bible scholar Hans Conzelmann concluded that this passage is a forgery*, inserted into St. Paul's original text by an unknown writer. (1) Thus, it cannot be regarded as the writing of Paul. The verses were not in the original version, and thus cannot be considered inerrant. He cites a number of reasons for this conclusion: this passage contradicts Chapter 11:5 where women are described as taking an active role in church assemblies by praying and prophesying during services. Either the above passage or 11:5 must be invalid.
there are "peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought" in this passage which are not found in the rest of the Epistle
the passage "spoils the flow of thought" and "interrupts the theme of prophesy." There is a discontinuity between verse 36 and 37. Verse 37 links up neatly with verse 33a.
If verses 34b to 36 are simply removed, then the chapter flows smoothly, as it was probably originally intended to do. The forgery* was rather crudely done.

[undead]

[i]03-06-2003 @ 08:31 AM
That women should be in subservience to man, and be taught by them, is what this whole thread is about.

I completely agree. If women are not in subjection, they have observed and marked tendency to whoredom. That some don't is not the point. The point is that most do. Women have a tendency to do the most outrageous things, and then come up with the most feeble excuses for them, if left to themselves. For their own good, temptation must be removed from them. Freedom of choice for women is not a right that the bible has much time for. It does not make them any happier.

My mother divorced her husband for no good reason. She spent the rest of her life being more miserable that before she was divorced. Crazy. And she probably went to hell as well, because she died a premature death and showed very little sigh of being a Christian. Is it really "loving" to let a woman do what the "hell" she wants? No way.

[OldShepherd]

03-06-2003 @ 04:22 PM
Joseph Alward:



JOE ALWARD
I cannot agree tht Phoebe was a deaconess. She was a servant of the church, nothing more. * * *

In summary, the single place where "diakonos" is used to describe a woman, Phoebe, there is no suggestion of divinity or greatness; all that is said of Phoebe is that she gave aid and comfort to people. The phrase “servant of the church" [diakonos ekklesia] occurs only in reference to Phoebe. If the Bible writer really wanted us to believe that Phoebe was a minister or deaconess, he would have followed the minister-naming pattern used in 20 verses to describe the men as ministers or deacons; he didn’t do that, which strongly suggests that "diakonos" as applied to Phoebe didn't mean minister or deaconess; it meant "helper" or "servant".

If one wishes to advance the argument that Phoebe was a "minister", one must explain why the 20 examples of men described as "ministers" or "deacons" don't include the phrase "of the church"--a phrase which is used ONLY with Phoebe, and why the Phoebe verses don't allude to the type of greatness or divinity that is in virtually every single case attached to the verses about men.
This all sounds very good BUT lets just forget about the various translations for minute because Paul wasn't translating. If Paul had meant that a diakonoV/"diakonos" must be a man in 1 Tim then he could NOT use that word (period) to refer to sister Phoebe. BUT Paul used the same word, the masculine NOT the feminine, diakonoV/"diakonos" to refer to Phoebe, the addition of the word ekklesia is totally irrelevant. Paul didn't have different meanings for the word diakonoV/"diakonos." If Paul had wanted to say that Phoebe was only a servant he had three other Greek words to choose from "pais", "doulos", and "oiketes" So if Paul meant that a diakonoV/"diakonos" must be man, why did he NOT use one of the other words to refer to Phoebe?

[ItalianGold]

Question for Joe:

Has anyone ever done a psychological profile of Rabbi Paul? When I left the Catholic church and began reading the Bible for myself, I was stunned to realize that Paul was so contemptuous of women. Clearly he believed that they were necessary for procreation but I had the strong impression that he would have preferred an all male universe.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

OldShepherd, I didn't mean to imply that diakonos applied only to a man. My point was that whenever it was applied to a man, and it meant "deacon or minister," then other words followed which attached greatness to the man. However, when this word was used with Phoebe, no such word pattern is present. Furthermore, never is a man referred to as a "diakonos ekklesia"; only in reference to Phoebe is "ekklesia" used. Thus, Phoebe was a "church helper or servant."

Diakonos in many places merely means "servant." The word diakonos is used 27 times in the New Testament: 18 times it's translated as minister, twice as deacon, but seven times it is used as servant. You wondered why Paul didn't use one of the other Greek words meaning servant, such as pais, doulous, and oiketes, in reference to Phoebe, but you might just as well wonder why these other words weren't used those seven other places, too. I think if you were to check the context in which these words are used you might find that they are usually in the context of a servant-master relationship, as in the following verses:

"Lord," he said, "my servant [pais] lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." (Matthew 8:6)

It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant [doulos] like his master. (Matthew 10:25)

Since Phoebe clearly wasn't a "servant" in the sense of having a master, or being a maid, these words would have been inappropriate for her. Evidently, diakonos means "one who serves or is supportive of a cause," and is the word which would have been much more appropriate for Phoebe than pais or doulos.

Note: To make this post more readable, I have intentionally not italicized the Greek words (most of the time), and have usually omitted the quotes around other words.

[Joseph Alward]

ITALIAN GOLD
Question for Joe:

Has anyone ever done a psychological profile of Rabbi Paul? When I left the Catholic church and began reading the Bible for myself, I was stunned to realize that Paul was so contemptuous of women. Clearly he believed that they were necessary for procreation but I had the strong impression that he would have preferred an all male universe.

JOE ALWARD
It's interesting you should ask about Paul in that way. On Monday I met with retired Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby (Jack) Spong, who is visiting for one month at this university. For those who don't know, Spong created a sensation about a decade ago when he went public with his views that the Bible was essentially bunk. He flat out stated to me that Paul was wrong about women, and further claimed that Paul was a homosexual. In my opinion, there is essentially zero evidence of homosexuality. Paul was just a hard-line conservative who believed what he believed with an unbending mind. One of the things he believed was that God held woman reponsible for misleading man in the Garden, and that she must never again be given the opportunity to lead men, and that includes speaking their minds in church.

Note to Talulah: Not speaking their minds in church does not include praying and prophesying (speaking in tongues, for example, or singing the praises of the Lord).

[Bill the Cat]

So to divert things over to the OT and the treatment of women, Was not Deborah a judge? A Judge ruled over Israel prior to King Saul.

Jdg 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

Easton Bible Names lists for judge:
This is the name given to those rulers who presided over the affairs of the Israelites during the interval between the death of Joshua and the accession of Saul (Jdg_2:18), a period of general anarchy and confusion. “The office of judges or regents was held during life, but it was not hereditary, neither could they appoint their successors.


Adam Clark's Commentary states:
This is, I believe, the first instance of gynaecocrasy, or female government, on record. Deborah seems to have been supreme both in civil and religious affairs; and Lapidoth, her husband, appears to have had no hand in the government.


Deborah was the absolute top authority for God and His people, so any indication that God never wants a woman to lead over men must be run by this occurance.

I believe the admonitions against women being in leadership were a cultural thing for the time and are only basic guidelines on selecting a leader. Men should be considered first, but women should not be totally excluded based on gender.

[Joseph Alward]

BILL THE CAT
So to divert things over to the OT and the treatment of women, Was not Deborah a judge? A Judge ruled over Israel prior to King Saul.

Jdg 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

Deborah was the absolute top authority for God and His people, so any indication that God never wants a woman to lead over men must be run by this occurance.

JOE ALWARD
This only shows that the author of the Deborah stories thought she did something remarkable enough that it should be reported. It doesn't have to mean that God wanted her to be a leader. Furthermore, your argument begs the question of God's existence. The skeptic points to absurdities such as the Bible's teaching that women are inferior as evidence that the writers of the Bible could not have been guided by a loving god. If the believer points to Deborah as proof that God respected women's leadership skills, then they are assuming to be true the very thing in contention: the existence of God who wanted Deborah to be a leader.

[Jaltus]

Hey, I'll get back to this tomorrow. I am not sure if I can show that type of behaviour. I only have two commentaries on the PE's, and neither deals with the issue of the recipients' culture (one is too simplistic, the other is a Greek text commentary). Actually, I do have a third commentary, but Gordon Fee argues (and I may be inclined to agree with him as I have not looked into the lexical problem yet) that it does not mean "in silence" but "quietly." The difference negates the cultural point (as he points out) and says it just strengthens the concept of learning submissively, not being totally silent (as I Corinthians directly contradicts).

Again, I'll get back to this later.

Fun discussion, guys and gals.

[OldShepherd]

03-06-2003 @ 10:26 PM
undead:

I completely agree. If women are not in subjection, they have observed and marked tendency to whoredom. That some don't is not the point. The point is that most do. Women have a tendency to do the most outrageous things, and then come up with the most feeble excuses for them, if left to themselves. For their own good, temptation must be removed from them. Freedom of choice for women is not a right that the bible has much time for. It does not make them any happier.

My mother divorced her husband for no good reason. She spent the rest of her life being more miserable that before she was divorced. Crazy. And she probably went to hell as well, because she died a premature death and showed very little sigh of being a Christian. Is it really "loving" to let a woman do what the "hell" she wants? No way.
So now we know why you hate women and think they they were put on earth to be doormats and slaves for men. And it has absolutely nothing to do with God or the Bible.

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 09:05 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
This only shows that the author of the Deborah stories thought she did something remarkable enough that it should be reported. It doesn't have to mean that God wanted her to be a leader. Furthermore, your argument begs the question of God's existence. The skeptic points to absurdities such as the Bible's teaching that women are inferior as evidence that the writers of the Bible could not have been guided by a loving god. If the believer points to Deborah as proof that God respected women's leadership skills, then they are assuming to be true the very thing in contention: the existence of God who wanted Deborah to be a leader.
I do not understand this at all. It is irrelevant what nonbelievers think about God or the Bible. As for Deborah if God did not want her as a leader then she would NOT have been a leader. He would have taken her out just as he did Saul and others.

[Jaltus]

One more thing, I totally disagree that the part of I Corinthians is not original. There is no textual evidence for that at all, and texts of I Corinthians date back to around 200. THat means that someone must have changed the text of the letter within the first 100 years or so and have it be untraceable by those who spoke Greek fluently.

In other words, highly unlikely to be a legit way of saying Paul hated women. The early church would not allow someone to change the words (see Origen, Athanasius, et al during the controversies surrounding Christology).

[Joseph Alward]

OLD SHEPHERD
As for Deborah if God did not want her as a leader then she would NOT have been a leader.

JOE ALWARD
Not necessarily. The god described in the Bible didn't always get what he wanted. For example, he didn't want man to become wicked, but man did become wicked, so God had to destroy him:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth....and it repented the Lord that he had made man, and it grieved him...And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created...both man, and beast" (Genesis 6:5-8)

So, if God didn't want man to become wicked, and he did anyway, then why isn't it possible that God didn't want the woman Deborah to become a leader but she did anyway?

[Jaltus]

Quick answer:

There is a difference between the general trend of mankind (which God allows to flow naturally, I'd argue) and the leadership of His covenant people.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 07:56 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD

OldShepherd, I didn't mean to imply that diakonos applied only to a man. My point was that whenever it was applied to a man, and it meant "deacon or minister," then other words followed which attached greatness to the man.
Such as for instance? Can you maybe quote 1-2 of these passages so we know what you are talking about?

Again you have ignored the fact that Paul used the masculine "diakonos" to refer to Phoebe, NOT the feminine, which would haved had the "alpha" ending. The same gender he used for all the times "diakonos" is translated "Deacon".
However, when this word was used with Phoebe, no such word pattern is present. Furthermore, never is a man referred to as a "diakonos ekklesia"; only in reference to Phoebe is "ekklesia" used. Thus, Phoebe was a "church helper or servant.
Another more likely interpretation of the inclusion of, not just the word ekklesia, but "the ekklesia at Cencheae." Paul was merely giving her address NOT restricting her office or function. Here are more examples, which if you are correct, must mean the elders in Acts 20:17, messengers, 2 Cor 8:23, and elders Jam 5;14, are NOT really elders and messengers because they are called "of the church" also. Or do we have a double standard or special pleading?
Ac 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church

2 Co 8:23 Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.

Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Diakonos in many places merely means "servant." The word diakonos is used 27 times in the New Testament: 18 times it's translated as minister, twice as deacon, but seven times it is used as servant.
irrelevant as I said before, English translators translated it differently, Paul and other N.T. writers were not translating they were simply writing "diakonos" and meaning "diakonos"
You wondered why Paul didn't use one of the other Greek words meaning servant, such as pais, doulous, and oiketes, in reference to Phoebe, but you might just as well wonder why these other words weren't used those seven other places, too.
Red herring those other occurrences are NOT under discussion.
I think if you were to check the context in which these words are used you might find that they are usually in the context of a servant-master relationship, as in the following verses:

"Lord," he said, "my servant [pais] lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." (Matthew 8:6)

It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant [doulos] like his master. (Matthew 10:25)
What did Paul frequently refer to himself as in his salutations? "Doulos"! Is that true for "doulos" and "pais" in every case, and you didn't even mention "oiketes"
Mt 12:18 Behold my servant pais <3816>, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Lu 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant pais <3816> David; Ac 4:25
Mt 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant doulos <1401>, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Mt 24:46 Blessed is that servant doulos <1401>, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

Ro 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant oiketes <3610>? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
I am a bit disappointed that you tried this tactic. So we can see from reviewing other scriptures that all three words are perfectly acceptable to refer to a servant of the church.
Since Phoebe clearly wasn't a &quot;servant&quot; in the sense of having a master, or being a maid, these words would have been inappropriate for her. Evidently, diakonos means &quot;one who serves or is supportive of a cause,&quot; and is the word which would have been much more appropriate for Phoebe than pais or doulos.
See above. Argues from your presuppositions, NOT from scripture!

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 09:54 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
Not necessarily. The god described in the Bible didn't always get what he wanted. For example, he didn't want man to become wicked, but man did become wicked, so God had to destroy him:

&quot;And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth....and it repented the Lord that he had made man, and it grieved him...And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created...both man, and beast&quot; (Genesis 6:5-8)

So, if God didn't want man to become wicked, and he did anyway, then why isn't it possible that God didn't want the woman Deborah to become a leader but she did anyway?
To echo what Jaltus said. Apples and potatoes. God gave man freedom of choice, he chose to disobey. But Saul was NOT the only leader that God took out. A frequent phrase in the O.T. is "and he did evil in the sight of the LORD and the LORD slew him" or words to that effect. Being skeptical is one thing being outright ludicrous something else. "Hey if it disagrees with my presuppositions then something happened that God didn't really want to happen and He was totally helpless to do anything about it."

[Reba]

03-06-2003 @ 03:54 PM
Joseph Alward:



JOE ALWARD
Not necessarily. The god described in the Bible didn't always get what he wanted. For example, he didn't want man to become wicked, but man did become wicked, so God had to destroy him:

&quot;And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth....and it repented the Lord that he had made man, and it grieved him...And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created...both man, and beast&quot; (Genesis 6:5-8)

So, if God didn't want man to become wicked, and he did anyway, then why isn't it possible that God didn't want the woman Deborah to become a leader but she did anyway?


Open thesim at its best

[OldShepherd]

Now pardon me while I spam the board. Actually these are portions of another discussion, on a different forum, same topic. And beside myself, at least one participant from the other forum is here presenting the same arguments refuted over there. These are basically in the order I posted previously but if you read through you will see that virtually all the arguments and points have been addressed.

==============================
After rereading 1 Cor 14, I have reached the conclusion that we all, myself included, have been reading those two famous verses, 34-35, out-of-context. These two verses have nothing to do with the role of women in the church, universal, Nothing! But everything to do with the disorderly display of spiritual gifts which was disrupting the church at Corinth. Note, 1 Cor 1:1-2, Paul commands the Corinthian church,
1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
The bulk of this chapter describes and gives rules for the exercise of spiritual gifts, primarily speaking in tongues, in the church. The word tongues is mentioned fourteen times between vss. 1 and 27. Verses 27-32 are the rules for the orderly exercise of spiritual gifts, prophesying and speaking in tongues, in the church. And verse 33 gives the reason,
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Thirty-three verses dealing with speaking in tongues then immediately two more verses, 34-35, about speaking in the church, which all the male supremacists, want to divorce from the preceding verses, as if they were about a completely unrelated subject.
34 Let your women (gunaikeV) (wives) 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.[Which law? See note below! OS]
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: [Widows and unmarried women cannot ask their husbands, so this verse does NOT apply to them! OS] for it is a shame for women (gunaixin) (wives) to speak in the church.
The word translated “Let”, vs. 34 sigatwsan is not a command but a permissive imperative. It is actually part of the word translated silent, siagw. The suffix “atosan” forms the present, active, permissive, imperative of “silent.” Let the gunaikeV be silent.

Both occurrences of “women”, vs. 34-35, above, should be wives, the wives of the husbands in vs. 35, not women in general. In 1Cor 14:34, which “law” was Paul referring to? The only “law”, which Paul could be referring to is Numb 30:3-13. Note, it says nothing about women speaking in the congregation but solely addresses pledges and vows, when women are living at home, married, or unmarried or widowed.
Nu 30:3 "When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or binds herself by a pledge
4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she bound herself will stand.
5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she bound herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.[The father is responsible for the unmarried young woman. OS]
6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she binds herself
7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she bound herself will stand.[When a woman marries her husband becomes responsible for her. OS]
8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that binds her or the rash promise by which she binds herself, and the LORD will release her.
9 "Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.
10 "If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or binds herself by a pledge under oath
11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she bound herself will stand.
12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her.
13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.
Fathers are responsible for young unmarried women, at home, husbands are responsible for their wives, but widows and unmarried women are responsible for themselves.

1 Tim 3:11 does not refer to “wives”, the possessive “tas”, which occurs in, e.g. Eph 5:28, “their own wives,” does not occur in this verse. It says “women in like manner.”, it is clearly referring to women deacons. Verse 10 is about deacons, vs. 12 is about deacons, and vs. 10 between those two verses is either a misplaced reference to all women or all wives in the church or women of the same class or category as in vss. 10 and 12, i.e., “diakonos”
1 Tim 3:11 gunaikaV {WOMEN} wsautwV {IN LIKE MANNER} semnaV {GRAVE,} mh {NOT} diabolouV {SLANDERERS,} nhfaleouV {SOBER,} pistaV {FAITHFUL} en {IN} pasin {ALL THINGS.}

Please read the verse it has to do with wives learning and asking questions, their husbands were responsible for answering their questions. It does not apply to all women because there were women speaking, i.e. prophesying and praying, read the other verses. A wife learned by asking her husband questions. Other mature women had no husband therefore they could ask questions and prophesy and pray. I think I see part of the problem you just don't read you just know the few "proof texts." The words translated "wives" and "women" is the same Greek word, "gunaikos". If the wives in vs. 34 want to learn anything they must ask their husbands, because it is a shame for those same wives to speak, i.e. ask questions, in church. Their husbands were responsible for the wives spiritual welfare. But as I have said before every man is NOT the head of every woman.
1 cor 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women [wives] to speak in the church.
So when do we find out who the widows and mature virgins are supposed to ask when they have a question about the faith? Are they to remain ignorant, or do they ask questions and learn?

And how pray tell do the widows and and single women elicit this help if they are to remain silent in the church? "In the church" does not mean only during the regular worship service!

I explained, I think, very throughly why the wives, and 1 Cor 14:34-35 is talking about wives, "if they will learn anything to ask their husbands at home." Because the husband, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the church, is responsible for the wife's spiritual welfare. The wife is required to defer to her husband and ask her questions of him in private, so that the two are of one mind. The widows and unmarried women have no husband to ask privately, so they are free to ask their questions publicly. And as Paul said, "thus saith the law."

Another factor that has been overlooked in this discussion is what is the main subject of 1 Cor, chapter 14? Speaking in tongues! Verses 1-26 are describing problems with speaking in tongues. Verses 27-32 rules for speaking in tongues. Verse 33 the reason for the rule, because "God is not the author of confusion." And verses 34-35 continue on with the same theme speaking and many such as yourself would have us believe that suddenly in these two verses Paul inexplicably switches and suddenly starts laying down rules prohibiting women from speaking in church.

It would appear that Corinth had a problem with speaking in tongues, that some women may have been the cause of that problem and Paul was dealing with that local problem. Whatever the case this passage cannot reasonably be interpreted as establishing a rule that ALL women must be absolutely silent in the church, at all times. After all Paul also spoke of women prophesying and praying.

[Joseph Alward]

OLD SHEPHERD

JOE ALWARD

OldShepherd, I didn't mean to imply that diakonos applied only to a man. My point was that whenever it was applied to a man, and it meant "deacon or minister," then other words followed which attached greatness to the man.

Such as for instance? Can you maybe quote 1-2 of these passages so we know what you are talking about?

JOE ALWARD

The word diakonos is used 27 times in the New Testament: 18 times it's translated as "minister", twice as "deacon", and seven times as "servant". Wherever it is translated as "minister" or "deacon", it applies to a particular man, and always with words that indicate greatness or divinity--or some sort of intimate connection to Jesus or God. The single time diakonos is used to describe a woman, it's used to describe a "servant of the church" [diakonos ekklesia]; in the 20 times it refers to a man, the man is never described as a diakonos ekklesia of the church; instead, the diakonos is qualified with words that connote divinity, or greatness. This diakonos-greatness naming pattern is absent when Phoebe is described. The evidence is given below

Diakonos Used as Minister for Men

Verse................. Greatness

Mathew 20:26..............Great among you
Mark 10:43...................Great among you
Romans 13:4................Minister of God
Romans 15:8.................Jesus
1 Corinthians 3:5...........By whom ye believed
2 Corinthians 3:6...........Of the new testament
2 Corinthians 6:4...........Of God
2 Corinthians 11:15.......Of the righteousness
2 Corinthians 11:23.......Of Christ
2 Galatians 2:17............Christ
2 Galatians 2:17............Christ
Ephesians 3:7................Grace of God
Ephesians 6:21..............Of the Lord
Colossians 1:7...............Of Christ
Colossians 1:23.............Paul
Colossians 1:25.............Paul according to God
Colossians 1:25.............Paul according to God
1 Thess 3:2...................Of God
1 Thess 3:2...................Of God
1 Timothy 4:6................Of Jesus Christ

Diakonos as Deacon

The word “diakonos” is translated as “deacon” in two places; once again, we see that the work "diakonos" is used in conjunction with descriptors that connote greatness or divinity--attributes which are lacking in the description of the "diakonos" Phoebe.

Verse.............Greatness

Philippians 1:1............Saints in Christ
1 Timothy 3:8-13.......Great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Data above excerpted from the article, "Women May Not Teach," at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/silent_women.html

[OldShepherd]

Long before Paul was born God said that He was NOT a respecter of persons. The word of God repeats that over and over again. I believe that. Others do not. I believe that God does not respect persons in any way whatsoever. Every living human being is totally, completely, absolutely equal in His sight in every situation and every circumstance. Just as these many verses say. But others do NOT believe that. If they even believe that God does not respect persons, they want to limit it to certain situations and circumstances.

"Yes women are equal in fellowship, etc. BUT I have a couple of verses Paul wrote and I interpet those verses to mean that God does, in fact, respect persons, because by a simple accident of birth, over which they had no control, one half of His creation is prohibited from any leadership in the church because of their gender."
Le 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

De 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

De 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

2Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

2 Sa 14:14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.

Pr 24:23 These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.

Pr 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress.

Ro 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Jas 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

1 Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

The word "authenteuo most assuredly does mean "usurp". That is its primary meaning. Here is the definition once again from Strong's and a link to my source. Note carefully the first three definitions in Strong's.
831 auqentehw Authenteo
from a compound of (846) and an obsolete hentes (a worker)
1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3. an absolute master
4. to govern, exercise dominion over one

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=831&version=kjv

Paul; admitted that he spoke on his own authority, NOT the Lord's, at other times.
1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

The woman was created to be EQUAL to the man. And no the wife was NOT under the headship of the husband from the beginning. God did NOT place the WIFE under the headship of her HUSBAND (Not as it is interpreted, "All women under the leadership of all men.") until AFTER they both sinned. Note the verse says, "Your (sing.) desire shall be for your husband (sing.), And he (sing. NOT they) shall rule over you. (sing.)" Gen 3:16

Also let's consider the verse 1 Tim 2:13-14. First, did Adam sin, yes or no? Was Adam's sin any less because of the order in which he was created or sinned? I have always been taught that sin is sin in the eyes of God. How did sin and death enter the world? Because the woman sinned or because Adam sinned?
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

[OldShepherd]

Take just the one word, the Greek authentes, often translated "have authority" in the phrase "I do not permit women ... to have authority over a man." We need to distinquish carefully been "have authority," "exercise authority," and "usurp authority" (as the KJV has it). How do we decide? And what are the implications?

The word here is not exousia (as it is in Matthew 28) but authentes, which occurs only here in the Greek New Testament. The verb authentein has an unsavory flavor:

(1) "to domineer" (Arndt-Gingrich);
(2) "to have power over... an actual murderer, esp. of murders done by those of the same family; also a self-murderer, suicide ... an absolute master or ruler" (Lidell and Scott);
(3) "one who with his own hand kills either others or himself .. one who does a thing himself, the author ... one who acts on his own authority, autocratic" (Thayer);
(4) "It comes from aut-hentes, a self-doer, a master, autocrat ... to domineer" (Robertson);
(5) "The etymology of the word is also obsurce: it may come from auto-then tes, 'the self involved in killing,' or from auto-hentes, 'achieving or realizing an action on onesefl or by one's initiative" (Wilshire);
(6) Josephus uses the noun form to describe Antipater, Herod's son, accused of killing his two brothers and attempting to kill his father, and he employs the term to translate "assassins" of a Galilean Jew on his way to a festival (Lepper).

Authenein and exousia are not synonymous. The first implies authority that is self-proclaimed and gained by "muscling in" and the second [exousia] implies authority that is granted by someone else (as in John 1:12 and 2 Corinthians 10:8 and Matthew 28:18). Jesus himself addresses the innate human tendency (found in the disciples and in the church) to use any "authority" we might have in a self-serving manner: "It shall not be so among you, but whoever would be great among you must be your servant and whoever would be first among you must be your slave" (Matthew 20:25-27).

Exercising authority on one's own account, doing something at one's own behest, and exercising authority generated from Christ are miles apart -- the former is selfish and the latter is always selfless.

Nowhere does Jesus or Paul forbid a woman to possess exousia, which is the power Christ imparts for the work of his church.

What, then, are the translation options?

The usual Greek noun used by Paul for "authority" or "power" that is granted another (exousia) is not used here. Paul chooses instead a verb which has a negative connotation, "to domineer" or "to usurp" (Moffatt: "to dictate to men"; NEB: "domineer").

So the thrust of the infinitive is not found in "position" or "office" but in the action someone takes independently. The thrust is not a neutral "have authority" (TEV, Jerusalem). The thrust is not a benign "exercise authority." The "hard edge" to authenein suggests that the King James Version's "usurp authority" (to take by force, acting on one's own authority) or the New English Bible's "nor must women domineer over man" are translations preferable to the neutral "to have authority over" (RSV; NIV, TEV, etc.) or the benign "exercise authority."

This understanding would fit the context: men are instructed to behave in the worship setting "without anger or quarreling" (1 Timothy 2:8), and women modestly and sensibly (verse 9) should not muscle their way in, seeking to domineer the worship setting (verse 11).

Authority (exousia) can also be given (Matthew 28) or acknowledged (2 Corinthians 10:8f). 1 Timothy 2:12 does not deny women possession of authority in the church. The text does not forbid these receiving authority from others, from the church, or having authority acknowledged. The text does not deny the church acknowledging or bestowing authority on women who have received from the Spirit the gifts of preaching and teaching and pastoring and have had these gifts recognized and affirmed by the church.

There are no instances in Greek literature from Paul's era where authentein is associated with ecclesial authority. This, too, would suggest Paul is not here discussing guidelines for the pastoral office.

The text is about obtaining authority in a process of self-promotion and arrogating it to oneself. The text is not talking about exercising authority over men with respect to the public administration of the Office of the Keys. There is here no discussion of "ordination" as we in the church today understand it. The text never mentions "office" or "position" but instead describes how Christians are to relate to and serve one another. Paul never uses the word "pastor" or "presbyter" in this passage. The text does not speak to "authority" of women whose authority is granted through gifts of the Spirit and learning and then recognized by the church.

The text is a corrrection of an abuse of a priviledge already granted (compare 1 Corinthians 11:5). The text does forbid "usurping" authority, obtaining it through aggressive self-aggrandizement, in a way not compatible with the Christ-servant model. To "usurp" is the opposite of the servant ministry Jesus taught and practiced and modeled (John 13:14; Mark 10:43-44) and Paul fostered (Philippians 2:3-8). To "usurp" is to "muscle in" when one does not have the gift from the Spirit.

That Paul needs to say this indicates that the opposite behavior was taking place. The text does not speak to women in offices serving men and other women with the Gospel. The text contains caution to women how to use their positions of responsibility for service and not domination. What is applicable to women regarding sin is also applicable to men.

To have authority recognized requires also the discipline of learning, of submissiveness to the Word (verse 11). Verse 11 instructs women to learn with quiet, receptive spirits, instead of engaging in activities that result in "usurping authority over men" (verse 12). Not to "usurp authority" should be paired with "but to be in quietness" (receptive to learning). Verses 11 and 12 begin with "quietness" and end with "quietness." And we ask that of any new convert or any seminary student as well.

http://www.concordtx.org/msnews/women.htm

Yes let's take a look at LSJ but lets us bear in mind LSJ is Classical Greek NOT Koiné. Here is a related word and a link to my source. And OBTW I notice you have ignored my references.[list]
authenthV[The part -entês is of uncertain deriv.] [contr. for authoentês ]
I. one who does anything with his own hand, an actual murderer, Hdt., Eur., etc.:--more loosely, one of a murderer's family, id=Eur.
2. an absolute master, autocrat, id=Eur.
II. as adj., authentês phonos, authentai thanatoi murder by one of the same family, Aesch.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%235521
Here are some words which appear in the N.T. which have a similar construction as "authenteoo" Note the definitions. As I said the prefix "auth", a contraction of "auto", means self.
2 Co 8:3 For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves <830>;
2 Co 8:17 For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord <830> he went unto you.

830 auqairetoV authairetos ow-thah’-ee-ret-os
from 846 and the same as 140;; adj
AV - willing of (one’s) self 2; 2
1) voluntary, of free choice, of one’s own accord

T i t 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled <829>, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

2 Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled <829>, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

829 auqadhV authades ow-thad’-ace
from 846 and the base of 2237; TDNT - 1:508,87; adj
AV - self-willed 2; 2
1) self-pleasing, self-willed, arrogant

[Joseph Alward]

OLD SHEPHERD
It would appear that Corinth had a problem with speaking in tongues, that some women may have been the cause of that problem and Paul was dealing with that local problem.

JOE ALWARD
The "local problem" argument doesn't seem very sound to me, and in fact seems ad hoc, or just made up (no insult intended, OS, since I know the argument is an old one, and isn't one you created). Here is my response:

Paul's Teachings Were Universal in Scope

Many liberal Christians insist that maybe Paul's remarks were directed only to certain women in that church, not to all women everywhere...that he was addressing a temporary problem of a local nature at the church at Corinth having to do with women chattering during services, or interrupting services with emotional outbursts, or speaking about certain specific things in church. But, where is the evidence of this?

There is no evidence from the first century that any such condition existed. If this situation had occurred, and this was what Paul was referring to, who could imagine that Paul would not choose words that would allow us to know what he really meant? If Paul was only concerned with a local problem with muttering women, he would have made that very clear to us; he would not have wanted the Bible's readers to be in any doubt about that, especially since the consequences of our misunderstanding would be that women would be kept away from the pulpit for 2000 years.. In any case, there can be no doubt that Paul's message was a universal one. Near the end of his first letter to Timothy, Paul explains (below) the purpose of his letter, and makes it clear that his comments applied not just to one church, but to "the household of God....the church of the living God", that is, all churches for all time:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought [dei ] to behave [anastrephesthai ] in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15).

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 10:57 AM
Joseph Alward:

the diakonos is qualified with words that connote divinity, or greatness. This diakonos-greatness naming pattern is absent when Phoebe is described. The evidence is given below

Diakonos Used as Minister for Men

Verse................. Greatness

Mathew 20:26..............Great among you
Mark 10:43...................Great among you * * *
I just love these blind anti-Christian anti-Bible no brainer cut and paste jobs. This list of verse which you didn't even bother to check out yourself are supposed to prove, "diakonos is qualified with words that connote divinity, or greatness.", right? Okay lets take a look at the first two "proof texts"
Mt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mr 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:.
Do these two verses prove the stated premise? NO! Exactly the opposite, the one who wants to be great must become a "diakonos". This is repeated in Mr 9:35 and Matt 22;13"

Mt 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant

Mr 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
And here are the 6-7 verses or about 1/3 of the total omitted from this list.
2 Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers

1 Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers

Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Col 4:7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord:
The so-called diakonos-greatness naming pattern is missing from a lot of verses. So this theory goes up in smoke.

[undead]

03-06-2003 @ 10:24 PM
Bill the Cat:

So to divert things over to the OT and the treatment of women, Was not Deborah a judge? A Judge ruled over Israel prior to King Saul.

Jdg 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

Easton Bible Names lists for judge:
This is the name given to those rulers who presided over the affairs of the Israelites during the interval between the death of Joshua and the accession of Saul (Jdg_2:18), a period of general anarchy and confusion. “The office of judges or regents was held during life, but it was not hereditary, neither could they appoint their successors.


Adam Clark's Commentary states:
This is, I believe, the first instance of gynaecocrasy, or female government, on record. Deborah seems to have been supreme both in civil and religious affairs; and Lapidoth, her husband, appears to have had no hand in the government.

Deborah was the absolute top authority for God and His people, o any indication that God never wants a woman to lead over men must be run by this occurance.

I believe the admonitions against women being in leadership were a cultural thing for the time and are only basic guidelines on selecting a leader. Men should be considered first, but women should not be totally excluded based on gender.


If you read the story again, you will see that it was the Israelites who elected to consult her. She did not lead them, or minister to them, other than in those things the Iraelites consulted her about. She was a kind of "wise woman", perceived to have the gift of wisdom from God. It is like they regarded her as "mother".

When you look at the conduct of the men, it was hardly surprising that they went to Deborah. They give the impression of being a bunch of craven cowards - they refused to go into battle unless Deborah accompanied them. How craven can you get!

[Joseph Alward]

OLD SHEPHERD
I just love these blind anti-Christian anti-Bible no brainer cut and paste jobs. This list of verse which you didn't even bother to check out yourself are supposed to prove, "diakonos is qualified with words that connote divinity, or greatness.", right? Okay lets take a look at the first two "proof texts"

Mt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mr 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:.

Do these two verses prove the stated premise? NO! Exactly the opposite, the one who wants to be great must become a "diakonos".

JOE ALWARD
The naming pattern I referred to--"greatness" associated with diakonos--is perfectly illustrated in these passages. Those who are diakonos are either great, or there's a reference to their becoming great is mentioned. The allusion to greatness is absent in the reference to Phoebe.

I'll comment on just one of the other verses you mentioned:

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Note that the author doesn't say, "Let the deacons be the wives of one husband...."

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 11:22 AM
Joseph Alward:



JOE ALWARD
The &quot;local problem&quot; argument doesn't seem very sound to me, and in fact seems ad hoc, or just made up (no insult intended, OS, since I know the argument is an old one, and isn't one you created). Here is my response:
Looks like another cut and paste job to me. You ignored the rest of my argument at that point, I discussed the entire chapter from vs. 1 thru 35 to show how it was, in fact, a local problem. Unless you want to claim that every church in the world had a problem with speaking in tongues all at the same time?

Do me a favor will you. If all you are going to do is cut and paste stuff from some website paste the link here so I can at least read the entire article. I would prefer that you READ my posts and respond to specific points, in turn. If you can't do that you are wasting my time. I am not interested in trying to have a discussion with a bunch of different anti-Christian websites, by proxy.

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 03:15 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
The naming pattern I referred to--&quot;greatness&quot; associated with diakonos--is perfectly illustrated in these passages. Those who are diakonos are either great, or there's a reference to their becoming great is mentioned. The allusion to greatness is absent in the reference to Phoebe.

I'll comment on just one of the other verses you mentioned:

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Note that the author doesn't say, &quot;Let the deacons be the wives of one husband....&quot;
Read my longer article where I discuss 1 Tim 3: in depth. Then comment. And I see that you have ignored the other 4-5 verses where this so-called greatness naming pattern is also missing.

No the so-called naming pattern you referred to--greatness associated with diakonos--is NOT perfectly illustrated in these passages. Are we speaking the same language here? Here are the two proof texts you posted and two almost identical passages. They do NOT say, "diakonos are either great, or there's a reference to their becoming great is mentioned."! All four say exactly the opposite. Those who want to be great must become, NOT great but "deacons"/servants. And if that is not clear enough for you Mark spells it out, NOT first but last of all.
Mt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mr 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:.

Mt 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant

Mr 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
And here are a few more verses which do NOT say "diakonos are either great, or there's a reference to their becoming great is mentioned." This makes almost half of the references in the N.T., do not have the so-called greatness naming pattern.
Mt 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Joh 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

Joh 2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Joh 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

[Joseph Alward]

OLD SHEPHERD
All four say exactly the opposite. Those who want to be great must become, NOT great but "deacons"/servants.

JOE ALWARD
I'll state it again: when the name "deacon" (diakonos) occurs, greatness is part of the naming pattern. Thus, those who become deacons will be great. Thus, when the authors are clearly talking about diakonos who are deacons or ministers, there is some immediate mention of greatness of some type. I listed many of those various types in the table. The fact that no such reference to greatness occurs when Phoebe is called a diakonos ekklesia is evidence that there was something that set her type of "diakonos" apart from that which is associated with deacons or ministers.

I won't be corresponding more tonight, Old Shepherd. I will be happy to resume this discussion tomorrow. If you will remind me about the other verses which you think I should address, I will do that.

Will you address the problem I noted with Jesus? It's been claimed that Jesus, above all others, was accepting of women as teachers. Thus, if anyone among all of the men in the Bible stories would be quick to appoint a woman as an apostle, it would have been Jesus. Why did he not do so, if women really were accepted as leaders in the church? Why were all twelve of his apostles men?

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 04:14 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I'll state it again: when the name &quot;deacon&quot; (diakonos) occurs, greatness is part of the naming pattern. Thus, those who become deacons will be great.
I see that further discussion is useless. You apparently do NOT understand the English language. I posted four verses and you keep repeating that they say exactly the opposite of what they say. They do NOT say the diakonos will become great but have to give up being great to become deacons.

Approximately half the verses which use the word "diakonos" do NOT have greatness or anything similar attached to them but you keep insisting that must prove that somehow Phoebe was different, because where she is mentioned doesn't have this so-called greatness naming pattern, which is missing from about half the references, therefore is meaningless.

You insist that because it says "of the church at Cenchrae it somehow makes her less. I listed at least three verses where "of the church" is used of messengers and elders. Ignored. Just like every other anti-Christian and Bible hater you have your little handful of proof texts and you cannot, will not see anything else. You continue to say that black is white.
Will you address the problem I noted with Jesus? It's been claimed that Jesus, above all others, was accepting of women as teachers. Thus, if anyone among all of the men in the Bible stories would be quick to appoint a woman as an apostle, it would have been Jesus. Why did he not do so, if women really were accepted as leaders in the church? Why were all twelve of his apostles men?
Women could only travel with their husband or a close relative. That is still the practice in the Arab world today. I'm sure you have heard of women being summarily executed, in Afghanistan by the Taliban, for travelling with a man who was not husband or a close relative. Even Jesus could only do so much against the customs and norms of His society. Had a woman traveled with him she would have been considered a harlot and His credibility would have been zero.

If you try reading the Bible, you know that book you hate, you will find that he was strongly criticized for simply allowing a woman to wash his feet and put ointment on him.

[Talulah]

That doesn't hold water. Jesus asked people to leave their families and follow him. He asked people to give up everything to spread the gospel. He asked people to be willing to give their lives, yet he was afraid of what people would think if he allowed a women to travel with him?

The other problem with that, is that the bible says that many people, men and women both, followed Jesus around. It doesn't say anything about women can only come if they have the appropriate relative present.

[Bill the Cat]

03-06-2003 @ 06:05 PM
Joseph Alward:



JOE ALWARD
This only shows that the author of the Deborah stories thought she did something remarkable enough that it should be reported. It doesn't have to mean that God wanted her to be a leader. Furthermore, your argument begs the question of God's existence. The skeptic points to absurdities such as the Bible's teaching that women are inferior as evidence that the writers of the Bible could not have been guided by a loving god. If the believer points to Deborah as proof that God respected women's leadership skills, then they are assuming to be true the very thing in contention: the existence of God who wanted Deborah to be a leader.


Oh how wrong you are, you ol skeptic you. :brow:
1. Deborah was called a Judge. The same title as Sampson and the others who were the undisputed rulers of Israel. See the definition I quoted from Easton. It also says:
A prophetess, fourth in the order of the “judges.”

ISBE says:
Deborah was called to deliver Israel, but was already a judge

You said It doesn't have to mean that God wanted her to be a leader

2. The Biblical historian was not content simply to narrate events. What concerned him most was the meaning lying back of them. And this meaning he was interested in, not for its own sake, but because of its application to the people of his own day. There was a theological reason behind Deborah's reign as Judge and the narrator made it clear that Judges were called by God.

You also said: Furthermore, your argument begs the question of God's existence.

Of course it does. That's what frame of mind I am speaking from. I acknowledge the existence of God and argue from that viewpoint. Silly little man!!

If the believer points to Deborah as proof that God respected women's leadership skills, then they are assuming to be true the very thing in contention: the existence of God who wanted Deborah to be a leader

No, the point of contention is whether women can be in leadership roles biblically, and my response is yes.

[Jaltus]

I would just say that "judge" was a political leader and not a spiritual one. The only exception to this would be Samuel, but he was also the first "prophet".

[Joseph Alward]

OLD SHEPHERD
You apparently do NOT understand the English language.

JOE ALWARD
I don't tolerate that type of hate-filled comment, Old Shepherd. If you don't care to correspond politely, and patiently, and recognize that sometimes communication between contenders is difficult, I don't care to read your posts, and plan not to do so.

[Bill the Cat]

03-07-2003 @ 03:03 PM
Jaltus:

I would just say that &quot;judge&quot; was a political leader and not a spiritual one. The only exception to this would be Samuel, but he was also the first &quot;prophet&quot;.

Jaltus, My quote came from the ISBE. They were the ones who said judge was a spiritual one.

[OldShepherd]

03-08-2003 @ 04:46 AM
Talulah:

That doesn't hold water. Jesus asked people to leave their families and follow him. He asked people to give up everything to spread the gospel. He asked people to be willing to give their lives, yet he was afraid of what people would think if he allowed a women to travel with him?

The other problem with that, is that the bible says that many people, men and women both, followed Jesus around. It doesn't say anything about women can only come if they have the appropriate relative present.
Quote me some scriptures on this willya? I do remember reading about crowds following Him including women and children BUT a single woman of marriagable age, as I said, would have been considered a harlot. "I don't think so." is not a whole lot of evidence against what I posted after all I did make reference to a current practice in the middle east which was widely broadcast.

Later in the N.T. we read of several house churches led by husband and wife a phenomenon totally unheard of then and now in the Jewish faith.

[OldShepherd]

03-07-2003 @ 04:14 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I'll state it again: when the name &quot;deacon&quot; (diakonos) occurs, greatness is part of the naming pattern. Thus, those who become deacons will be great. Thus, when the authors are clearly talking about diakonos who are deacons or ministers, there is some immediate mention of greatness of some type. I listed many of those various types in the table. The fact that no such reference to greatness occurs when Phoebe is called a diakonos ekklesia is evidence that there was something that set her type of &quot;diakonos&quot; apart from that which is associated with deacons or ministers.

I won't be corresponding more tonight, Old Shepherd. I will be happy to resume this discussion tomorrow. If you will remind me about the other verses which you think I should address, I will do that.
I thought I might take one last stab at showing you how you twist the scriptures and find meanings diametrically opposed to what the scriptures actually say.

Here are two verse you listed, which supposedly have the greatness naming pattern, and two related verses. You interpret e.g., Matt 20:26 as meaning becoming a deacon confers greatness. But even the verse standing alone clearly does NOT say that. Note it contrasts greatness with being a deacon by the word "BUT." If the verse said, for example, "therefore" whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;" then such an argument might be valid.

But we do not rely on that alone, note the context of the passage, v. 27, "whoever will be chief, let him be your servant “doulos”/slave. The same is true of all four verses listed. To be a deacon does not confer greatness, just the opposite, it is to become the last, a servant, a “doulos”/slave.
Matt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Another thing which you have overlooked is in Romans, Phoebe is the messenger carrying Paul's letter to Rome. In chapter 16, Phoebe is being introduced to the church at Rome and as I said before Paul is simply giving her address. In NONE of the other occurrences of deacon, is the person being introduced to a congregation which does not know them, therefore it is NOT necessary to introduce them and identify where they are from.

[undead]

03-07-2003 @ 08:06 PM
Joseph Alward:
JOE ALWARD
I don't tolerate that type of hate-filled comment, Old Shepherd. If you don't care to correspond politely, and patiently, and recognize that sometimes communication between contenders is difficult, I don't care to read your posts, and plan not to do so.

I'll complete agree with Old Sheperds disreputable debating tactics.

On "christianforums" I had a post deleted by OldSheperd which said that a confessed homosexual who called herself a Christian, was a liar.

Now that is exactly what the bible says they are:

1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.


Liberals love censoring the bible. They cannot accept it themselves, and won't let anyone else do so.

The upshot is that there can't really ever be any agreement between liberals and orthodox. The bible is plain. You either accept the bible or you don't. And those that don't and raise contentions are commanded to be excommunicated.

Deborah is an irrelevance, because those to whom she ministered were not Christians, and it was they who consulted her,

Jdg 4:5 "and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. "

rather an her setting herself up as some political leader of Israel. Further, Barak was soundly rebuked by Deborah for not having confidence of God to assume the politicial and military leadership, and for that reason, Sisera was given into the hands of a woman.

Jdg 4:8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, [then] I will not go.

Jdg 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.


The Deborah story proves nothing except the existence of female prophetesses, and since that is something the NT does not deny, it proves nothing.

[OldShepherd]

03-08-2003 @ 06:06 AM
Joseph Alward:



JOE ALWARD
I don't tolerate that type of hate-filled comment, Old Shepherd. If you don't care to correspond politely, and patiently, and recognize that sometimes communication between contenders is difficult, I don't care to read your posts, and plan not to do so.
COP OUT!

[OldShepherd]

03-08-2003 @ 09:40 PM
undead:



I'll complete agree with Old Sheperds disreputable debating tactics.

On &quot;christianforums&quot; I had a post deleted by OldSheperd which said that a confessed homosexual who called herself a Christian, was a liar.
No this post is false. Here are your exact words. This is inflammatory and not permitted on that forum.
Undead
What I find with homosexuals is that they are all liars. There is not one who is not a natural born liar.

[PuritanD]

Not to be too off base here but could we simply stick with the subject and not go off on these rabbit trails.

[OldShepherd]

03-09-2003 @ 04:37 PM
PuritanD:

Not to be too off base here but could we simply stick with the subject and not go off on these rabbit trails.
Be glad to but folks get their poor little feelings hurt and bug out, others want to, shall we say, play fast and loose with the truth. As I have been saying, there is NO valid scriptural argument which proves that Phoebe, Rom 16:1, was not a deacon.

[Andrew]

Glenn Miller has an entire series dedicated to women in the church:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

For those who fail to understand the silence issue, read the essay on Paul and Women.

[OldShepherd]

03-09-2003 @ 07:19 PM
Andrew:

Glenn Miller has an entire series dedicated to women in the church:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

For those who fail to understand the silence issue, read the essay on Paul and Women.
Great link, been reading Glenns's site for a good long time. But I think you are preaching to the choir, all them "man is the head of the woman" good ol' boys, got their 3-4 proof texts and they don't want to see what the Bible has to say about it.

[Socrates]

OK Talulah, derive the proposition "Women should have equal rights to men" from YOUR atheistic evolutionary philosophical basis, i.e. from the propositions "God does not exist" or "We're all just rearranged pond scum".

Fact is, atheistic evolutionism provides no logical basis for good treatment of women. Where would you rather be as a woman, in semi-Christianized America or in Albania when atheism was the state-established religion. Also, Darwin and his evolutionary contemporaries were very sexist, over and above any cultural norms, because of evolutionary ideas.

Conversely, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896), one of the strongest anti-slavery abolitionists (who was motivated by Biblical Christianity), also wrote in Woman in Sacred History p. 11 (1873):The object of the following pages will be to show, in a series of biographical sketches, a history of WOMANHOOD UNDER DIVINE CULTURE, tending toward the development of that high ideal of woman which we find in modern Christian countries.

[PuritanD]

Interesting thought Oldshep.

However, there is just as much evidence proving that she was not an actual deacon as there is that she actually was.

Many fine scholars debate the question as to whether to translate the Greek to mean the actual title or one of the definitions such as, 'helper, or servant.' I think the NASB has done a fine job here.

Context seems to point to helper. In verse 2 Paul uses the verb 'paristemi' which can be define as 'help' and also the noun 'prostatis' which can also be rendered as "helper."

Either way, it still does not disprove the complimentarian point of male leadership in the the church (see requirments for eldership in 1 Tim and Titus).

PuritanD

[ItalianGold]

Dear Socrates:OK Talulah, derive the proposition "Women should have equal rights to men" from YOUR atheistic evolutionary philosophical basis, i.e. from the propositions "God does not exist" or "We're all just rearranged pond scum".

What...if anything, does that mean? I have noticed a decline in the quality of your remarks lately, but this one is particularly interesting. Perhaps you'd like to define your terms?

1. What exactly is an "atheistic, evolutionary philosopical basis?"

a. Atheism is a disbelief in a supernatural creator. *footnote
b. Evolution is a scientific theory regarding the adaptation and change of species.
c. Philosophy (with regard to ethics) is a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
d. Equality for women is a social/political/moral issue.

In other words, mixing all these different aspects of human inquiry into one question, thus pretending they are inextricably related, is completely irrational.

2. Why do you believe that you can set the parameters for deriving propositions?

3. Who has ever tried to extrapolate "Women should have equality" from "God does not exist?"

4. Likewise no one is demanding that you derive "Women should have equality" from "On the third day he arose."

5. Your obsession with "pond scum" and "goo" notwithstanding, these materials are unrelated to any part of the discussion at hand. (including evolution which does not address origins, or you wouldn't be having this same fight with Christian evolutionists)
Where would you rather be as a woman, in semi-Christianized America or in Albania when atheism was the state-established religion.
I'll take the liberty of answering this although Talulah may wish to express a different opinion. I prefer modern, democratic America, thank you. And I counter with: Would you rather be a black female slave in 1800 Christian Alabama or a free black man in any state after the 15th ammendment of 1870? (Granting the right for black men to vote, a full 50 years before you would have had the right to vote as a white woman in any state.) Apples and oranges? Yes, of course.

Really, You must try harder to address issues in a more logical manner if you wish to earn the respect of other forum members.


*footnote More properly in your definition an atheist is anyone who does not subscribe to your particular theological dogma. (We've all heard you call liberal Christians Atheists)








- It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible. -

[Socrates]

I challenged:

OK Talulah, derive the proposition "Women should have equal rights to men" from YOUR atheistic evolutionary philosophical basis, i.e. from the propositions "God does not exist" or "We're all just rearranged pond scum". And once more Italian Pyrite missed the point. That is, atheism and evolution, which Talulah espouses, provide NO objective basis for treating women well, while Christianity DOES. It's PERFECTLY in order to ask an opponent to justify her claim UNDER HER OWN BELIEF SYSTEM.
(including evolution which does not address origins, or you wouldn't be having this same fight with Christian evolutionists)Which just shows that the word "Christian" is debased currency, since it can now apparently mean someone who disagrees with Christ on Creation and the Flood, and Biblical inerrancy in general.

Where would you rather be as a woman, in semi-Christianized America or in Albania when atheism was the state-established religion.
I'll take the liberty of answering this although Talulah may wish to express a different opinion. I prefer modern, democratic America, thank you. And I counter with: Would you rather be a black female slave in 1800 Christian Alabama or a free black man in any state after the 15th ammendment of 1870? (Granting the right for black men to vote, a full 50 years before you would have had the right to vote as a white woman in any state.) Apples and oranges? Yes, of course.Oh, but Talulah wishes to denounce christianity as anti-woman, although Harriet Beecher Stowe thought it was the most pro-woman philosophy around. And Talulah wants to justify atheism, but atheism has historically done nothing for women.

And guess who was one of the leaders in pushing for women's suffrage in your country? William Jennings Bryan! Ya know, the great opponent of evolution who is so vilified in that distorted mockery of history, Inherit the Wind (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2467.asp)?

[Talulah]

I believe the title of this thread is 'Women in the church.'

I started this thread to discuss the biblical position on the status of women. How atheists treat women isn't the issue at hand. If you want to start a discussion on that, be my guest.

Having said that, there are plenty of Christians today who believe in subjecting women, and denying them equal rights in society and the church. Secularists, and atheists don't. If you want to play the 'history shows' game, we can go back and compare Christians and atheists in history. You can't compare then and now equally.

[Socrates]

Talulah, it is MOST relevant to discuss the treatment of women by your alternative philosophy. When you say "Secularists, and atheists don't [deny women equal rights], you are generalising. There is nothing in atheism per se that mandates treating women well. And I and all the inerrantists on Theology Web would argue that any Christians who oppressed women were acting INCONSISTENTLY with Christ's teachings (and Harriet Beecher Stowe agreed); atheists who oppress women are acting consistently with atheism.

[Talulah]

Atheism is about nothing more than non-belief in a god. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any other belief or ideology.

'Atheism' has no stand on women at all.

[Socrates]

Talulah:
'Atheism' has no stand on women at all.That's the point! So it can't provide any basis for the proposition "women ought to be treated well."

[Talulah]

That's the point! So it can't provide any basis for the proposition "women ought to be treated well."

It's not supposed to! It is NOT an ethical system.

[OldShepherd]

03-10-2003 @ 04:28 PM
PuritanD:

Interesting thought Oldshep.

However, there is just as much evidence proving that she was not an actual deacon as there is that she actually was.
Did you post some evidence? I must have missed it.
Many fine scholars debate the question as to whether to translate the Greek to mean the actual title or one of the definitions such as, 'helper, or servant.' I think the NASB has done a fine job here.
Many people favor a version or translation which affirms their presuppositions. And those "many fine scholars" ignore the fact that a masculine title "diakonon" NOT the feminine, "diakona" was applied to a woman. I wonder why the highly educated Pharisee Paul made that grammatical blunder?
Context seems to point to helper. In verse 2 Paul uses the verb 'paristemi' which can be define as 'help' and also the noun 'prostatis' which can also be rendered as &quot;helper.&quot;
As I pointed out context does NOT seem to point to helper but a church leader.
Either way, it still does not disprove the complimentarian point of male leadership in the the church (see requirments for eldership in 1 Tim and Titus).
See my discussion of "let the 'diakonon' be the husband of one wife" in an earlier post. Paul could NOT have meant "diakonon", must be a man, and use the same word, in the same gender, for a woman. It matters not a whit how we play games and "translate" the word differently, Paul wasn't translating he was calling a "diakon" a "diakon." Ergo the exact same phrase with elder CANNOT mean that an elder must be a man, either.

[PuritanD]

03-11-2003 @ 07:45 AM
OldShepherd:


Many people favor a version or translation which affirms their presuppositions. And those &quot;many fine scholars&quot; ignore the fact that a masculine title &quot;diakonon&quot; NOT the feminine, &quot;diakona&quot; was applied to a woman. I wonder why the highly educated Pharisee Paul made that grammatical blunder?

There is scant evidence either way that Paul was giving Phoebe a title. It is all based on the context of the passage which seems to imply helper. See my last post regarding the verbs in verse 2.

I am sorry but do you not have a favorite version? I would think that if Paul was calling her an actual deacon then wouldn't he had used the female gen of the word as you state. It would have definitely strengthen your argument.

As I pointed out context does NOT seem to point to helper but a church leader.

You do not seem to refute my arguments from verse 2 on this matter, but restate yours. So, my argument still stands.

See my discussion of &quot;let the 'diakonon' be the husband of one wife&quot; in an earlier post. Paul could NOT have meant &quot;diakonon&quot;, must be a man, and use the same word, in the same gender, for a woman. It matters not a whit how we play games and &quot;translate&quot; the word differently, Paul wasn't translating he was calling a &quot;diakon&quot; a &quot;diakon.&quot;

Fascinating, so when I say "wood" in english it just must mean wood, whatever that is? I am stating that just because you have only one definition for the greek term does not mean that the greek term had several nuances. If in English, terms generally have several nuances why is it hard to believe that the Greek term doesn't. The argument that Paul wasn't translating is weak because he spoke the original language and his intial audeince would firmly pick up such an understaning of the nuance he was implying. We only have context to determine what was meant by the term which is key and not the term itself that dictates its nuance. You seem to want to do the reverse.

Diakos to you only means deacon and nothing else. In fact, you translated the term to mean deacon as understood in modern english. Therefore, whenever texts have this term, the text must be talking about your definition and nothing else. It is not fair to box in Paul like that.

Ergo the exact same phrase with elder CANNOT mean that an elder must be a man, either.

Fascinating that you based your whole premise of this on diakos and not the Greek term for elder. You cannont work backwards. The reverse of your argument is much better in this context. especially since the requirments for eldership is first not second. That since elders were all male and could only be husbands of one wife, a deacon then would only be male and not the reverse. And to further prove your point you would have to prove that diakos = elder which is impossible from the Greek text and language.

Titus 1:6-9 seems to confirm my understanding.

Again, even if she was a deacon it does not disprove the Complimentarian position of male leadership. This is why I believe that such discussions of Romans 16 are futile at best.

What surprises me is that no egalitarian scholar argues against the complimentarian understanding of eldership in the Bible. They generaly ignore the eldership requirements or go around them to get to the deacon. See I. Howard Marshall's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles ICC to see what I am talking about. Marshall does not refute that men are being talked about as elders. He just ignores the text and moves on to deacons. He may try to work backwards (I do not recall) but this is simply poor exegesis and hermeneutics at best.

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

Actually, though a complementarian, I would also argue that the "husband of one wife" part does not in fact limit elders or deacons to being male. I would say, though, that other parts of the Bible (namely I Timothy 2) limit eldership to men.

I do not believe that deacons hold any sort of spiritual authority, much as church treasurers do not, they hold "physical" authority.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
One can argue forever about what Paul might have meant by diakonos, and if one tries hard enough, there is a way to imagine that Paul thought that Phoebe was a real deacon, and not just a church servant. The smoking gun is not to be found in the the description of Phoebe, in my opinion. It is found in a letter written to Timothy:

"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 2:11-12)

Note that the reason Paul gives for not suffering women to teach is not that there was a local problem in a particular church that Paul was concerned about, as some have alleged. Instead, Paul reaches all the way back to the garden to provide a divine explanation for his dictum.

Paul is not explaining that women must not teach in a particular church, because of local problems there, as many femininist apologists argue. Instead, Paul is saying that women must not teach any ANY church because woman came second in the creation, and, if that's not reason enough, it was the woman that was deceived, not the man. It was the woman who was deceived by the serpent, and man's trust of the woman led to his fall. Thus, woman should never again be in a leadership or teaching position over a man. This is the divine teaching that goes all the way back to the opening pages of Genesis.

Few teachings in the Bible are clearer, in my opinion, than the one which holds the women are inferior to men, and that they must not teach men. This would include not teaching them in church.

[PuritanD]

03-11-2003 @ 05:56 PM
Joseph Alward:

Few teachings in the Bible are clearer, in my opinion, than the one which holds the women are inferior to men, and that they must not teach men. This would include not teaching them in church.

Joe, there is no teaching in the Bible that states women are inferior. We may have different roles but that does not make one sex inferior to another. We are both equally sinful and we are both in need of a savior for our salvation. It has always been that there is equality in need but uniqueness in roles pertaining to the family and to the body of Christ.

PuritanD

[OldShepherd]

03-12-2003 @ 08:56 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
One can argue forever about what Paul might have meant by diakonos, and if one tries hard enough, there is a way to imagine that Paul thought that Phoebe was a real deacon, and not just a church servant. The smoking gun is not to be found in the the description of Phoebe, in my opinion. It is found in a letter written to Timothy:

&quot;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.&quot; (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Note that the reason Paul gives for not suffering women to teach is not that there was a local problem in a particular church that Paul was concerned about, as some have alleged. Instead, Paul reaches all the way back to the garden to provide a divine explanation for his dictum.

Paul is not explaining that women must not teach in a particular church, because of local problems there, as many femininist apologists argue. Instead, Paul is saying that women must not teach any ANY church because woman came second in the creation, and, if that's not reason enough, it was the woman that was deceived, not the man. It was the woman who was deceived by the serpent, and man's trust of the woman led to his fall. Thus, woman should never again be in a leadership or teaching position over a man. This is the divine teaching that goes all the way back to the opening pages of Genesis.

Few teachings in the Bible are clearer, in my opinion, than the one which holds the women are inferior to men, and that they must not teach men. This would include not teaching them in church.
This entire post ignores everything that has been posted in refutation, repeats the same tired arguments over again and does NOT address any specific points mentioned by me or anyone else on the board. Everything posted here has been addressed and refuted at this link. Closing your eyes, ignoring the arguments, won't make them go away. And says a great deal about your integrity.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1584&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

[Jaltus]

Instead, Paul is saying that women must not teach any ANY church because woman came second in the creation, and, if that's not reason enough, it was the woman that was deceived, not the man. It was the woman who was deceived by the serpent, and man's trust of the woman led to his fall. Thus, woman should never again be in a leadership or teaching position over a man. This is the divine teaching that goes all the way back to the opening pages of Genesis. I think you are missing a nuance (yes, I said nuance, Solly, want to make something of it?) of what Paul is saying. He is not arguing that man fell because he trusted woman, but because he allowed the woman to take over. The verb in Genesis used for "listened" to the womn is also "obeyed" the woman. He fell into sin because he gave away his leadership role in the family (hence the curse on the woman).

Adam was not deceived, he was lazy. Eve was deceived.

Joe,

What does this debate matter to you? As an atheist, isn't it pretty much survival of the fitter to you anyway?

[Socrates]

Jaltus:
Actually, though a complementarian, I would also argue that the "husband of one wife" part does not in fact limit elders or deacons to being male.As a fellow complementarian, I can't see how it does not. The words are gender specific, something like "a one-woman man". But then you know a lot more about Greek than I do, so I'll listen to your explanation.

[OldShepherd]

03-12-2003 @ 01:50 AM
PuritanD:

There is scant evidence either way that Paul was giving Phoebe a title. It is all based on the context of the passage which seems to imply helper. See my last post regarding the verbs in verse 2.
Let us hear from a Greek scholar who taught Biblical Greek at the Phd/ThD level for 47 years.
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament{Worthily of the saints} (\axiôs tôn hagiôn\). Adverb with the genitive as in #Php 1:27 because the adjective \axios\ is used with the genitive (#Lu 3:8). "Receive her in a way worthy of the saints." This word \hagios\ had come to be the accepted term for followers of Christ. {Assist her} (\parastête\). Second aorist (intransitive) active subjunctive of \paristêmi\, to stand by, with the dative case ("beside her"), the very word used by Paul of the help of Jesus in his trial (\parestê\, #2Ti 4:17). Used with \hina\ as \prosdexêsthe {In whatsoever matter} (\en hôi pragmati\). Incorporation of the antecedent (\pragmati\) into the relative clause (\hôi\). {She may have need of you} (\an humôn chrêizêi\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the present subjunctive of \chrêizô\ with genitive. {A succourer} (\prostatis\). Old and rare feminine form for the masculine \prostatês\, from \proistêmi\ (\prostateô\, common, but not in the N.T.), here only in the N.T. and not in the papyri. The word illustrates her work as \diakonon\ and is perhaps suggested here by \parastête\, just before. {Of mine own self} (\emou autou\). "Of me myself."
I am sorry but do you not have a favorite version?
Depends on what I am doing and who is the audience. Most of my ministry is to Asians whose native language is not English, therefore I use a modern version in those instances. But since I read both Biblical languages I do NOT rely on any version.
I would think that if Paul was calling her an actual deacon then wouldn't he had used the female gen of the word as you state. It would have definitely strengthen your argument.
Your assumption is based on which Greek languages resources or historical documents?
You do not seem to refute my arguments from verse 2 on this matter, but restate yours. So, my argument still stands.
Does it indeed? Please see Robertson above. In your earlier post you made this statement, "Context seems to point to helper. In verse 2 Paul uses the verb 'paristemi' which can be define as 'help' and also the noun 'prostatis' which can also be rendered as "helper."" Neither statement is true, according to Robertson and Strong's
4368 prostatiV prostatis pros-tat’-is
from a derivative of 4291;; n f
AV - succourer 1; 1
1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

3936 paristhmi paristemi par-is’-tay-mee or prolongedparistanw paristano par-is-tan’-o
from 3844 and 2476; TDNT - 5:837,788; v
AV - stand by 13, present 9, yield 5, show 2, stand 2, misc 11; 42
1) to place beside or near
1a) to set at hand
1a1) to present
1a2) to proffer
1a3) to provide
1a4) to place a person or thing at one’s disposal
1a5) to present a person for another to see and question
1a6) to present or show
1a7) to bring to, bring near
1a8) metaph. i.e to bring into one’s fellowship or intimacy
1b) to present (show) by argument, to prove
2) to stand beside, stand by or near, to be at hand, be present
2a) to stand by
2a1) to stand beside one, a bystander
2b) to appear
2c) to be at hand, stand ready
2d) to stand by to help, to succour
2e) to be present
2e1) to have come
2e2) of time
Even if "paristemi" could be shown to mean help or helper it would be irrelevant because it was applied to the recipients of the letter NOT to Phoebe.
Fascinating, so when I say &quot;wood&quot; in english it just must mean wood, whatever that is? I am stating that just because you have only one definition for the greek term does not mean that the greek term had several nuances.

If in English, terms generally have several nuances why is it hard to believe that the Greek term doesn't.
I don't have a problem with nuances in Greek but those are generally indicated by context, etc. But if one is arguing that Paul said in one verse that "a 'diakonon" can only be a man." Then it is going to take more than, there "MIGHT" be nuances to prove that assertion, when he uses the same word, in the same gender, to refer to a woman, in another passage. "There could be 'nuances', is NOT proof."
Fascinating that you based your whole premise of this on diakos and not the Greek term for elder. You cannont work backwards. The reverse of your argument is much better in this context. especially since the requirments for eldership is first not second.
There might be other passages relevant to the issue of elders, as Jaltus said. 1 Timothy ain't it. "The husband of one wife" cannot mean "only a man" in 1 Tim 3:2 and have a different meaning in 1 Tim 3:12, which I have already argued elsewhere and won't repeat here.
And to further prove your point you would have to prove that diakos = elder which is impossible from the Greek text and language.

Titus 1:6-9 seems to confirm my understanding.
Why would I have to prove anything about diakonos=elder. I made no such claim. Do you not understand my argument? The same writer using the same phrase, "the husband of one wife" How does this prove anything more than 1 Tim 3:2?

[Joseph Alward]

I think you are missing a nuance (yes, I said nuance, Solly, want to make something of it?) of what Paul is saying. He is not arguing that man fell because he trusted woman, but because he allowed the woman to take over. The verb in Genesis used for "listened" to the womn is also "obeyed" the woman. He fell into sin because he gave away his leadership role in the family (hence the curse on the woman).

Adam was not deceived, he was lazy. Eve was deceived.

Joe,

What does this debate matter to you? As an atheist, isn't it pretty much survival of the fitter to you anyway?

JOE ALWARD
I'm comfortable with your characterization of the events in the garden, Jaltus. I said that man trusted woman, and that led to his fall, but I prefer your description: Man listened to woman, and this was his downfall.

Thus, Paul is reminding his readers that original man got into a heap of trouble the very first time he listened to woman, and for this reason woman must never again be in a leadership position over men, and they must not teach men in church.

Jaltus, you asked why I care about this debate, and the answer is that as a skeptic I question beliefs that are based on insufficient or nonexistent evidence. I don't know what you mean by "survival of the fitter" as it applies to my skepticism.

[PuritanD]

03-11-2003 @ 09:45 PM
Socrates:

As a fellow complementarian, I can't see how it does not. The words are gender specific, something like &quot;a one-woman man&quot;. But then you know a lot more about Greek than I do, so I'll listen to your explanation.

I'm with Socrates on this one Jaltus. I would love to see your Greek gymnastics on this one :smile:

For "husband" aner is in the accusative being the direct object of dei and both mia and gune are in the genetive, describing "man" or "husband." Generally, when aner is in close proximity to gune it does refer to husband and wife which seems to fit this context.

Olshep, I will try to respond to you later today or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

Pretty much your argument is from one of silence, and therefore is not that strong. Why? Because the masculine case is the default case. In explaining a generalization, the masculine would be used.

I find it seems to point toward men only, but is in no way determinative. Besides, the assumption that men should only have a single wife does lead to the conclusion that women should only have a single husband, or do you believe in polyandrism (sp)?

I can get a more detailed argument going if needed, I just think you are overly dogmatic about something which is a general platitude, not an occasional rule.

[Jaltus]

Joe,

Sounds good to me, though I'd use "obeyed" rather than "listened to" in an argument about it.

[OldShepherd]

03-12-2003 @ 04:18 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I'm comfortable with your characterization of the events in the garden, Jaltus. I said that man trusted woman, and that led to his fall, but I prefer your description: Man listened to woman, and this was his downfall.

Thus, Paul is reminding his readers that original man got into a heap of trouble the very first time he listened to woman, and for this reason woman must never again be in a leadership position over men, and they must not teach men in church.

Jaltus, you asked why I care about this debate, and the answer is that as a skeptic I question beliefs that are based on insufficient or nonexistent evidence. I don't know what you mean by &quot;survival of the fitter&quot; as it applies to my skepticism.
Rather it is you who have "insufficient or nonexistent evidence"

Let's consider the verse 1 Tim 2:13-14.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
First, did Adam sin, yes or no? Was Adam's sin any less because of the order in which he was created or sinned? I have always been taught that sin is sin in the eyes of God. How did sin and death enter the world? Because the woman was deceived or because Adam sinned?
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Where does this minimize Adam’s sin and place all the blame on the woman?

Here is THE Bible for the “man is the head of the woman” good ol’ boy crowd. When the talk turns to women in the church, this is the first verse in their Bible, the last verse in their Bible, and the only verse in between.
1 Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Hear their mantra, “This means that ANY woman is not to “HAVE” authority over any man.” But,
The usual Greek noun used by Paul for "authority" or "power" that is granted another (exousia) is not used here. Paul chooses instead a verb which has a negative connotation, "to domineer" or "to usurp" (Moffatt: "to dictate to men"; NEB: "domineer").

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1584&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

The word &quot;authenteuo means &quot;usurp&quot;. That is its primary meaning. Here is the definition once again from Strong's and a link to my source. Note carefully the first three definitions in Strong's.
831 auqentehw Authenteo
from a compound of (846) and an obsolete hentes (a worker)
1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3. an absolute master
4. to govern, exercise dominion over one

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=831&amp;version=kjv

Paul; admitted that he spoke on his own authority, NOT the Lord's, at other times.
1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

The woman was created to be EQUAL to the man. And no the wife was NOT under the headship of the husband from the beginning. God did NOT place the WIFE under the headship of her HUSBAND (Not as it is interpreted, &quot;All women under the leadership of all men.&quot;) until AFTER they both sinned. Note the verse says, &quot;Your (sing.) desire shall be for your husband (sing.), And he (sing. NOT they) shall rule over you. (sing.)&quot; Gen 3:16

Joe, you may continue to ignore my posts, it just makes it that much easier for me, I don't have to respond to your arguments.

[Joseph Alward]

[quote]JALTUS
Sounds good to me, though I'd use "obeyed" rather than "listened to" in an argument about it.

JOE ALWARD
I think "obeyed" is too strong. I much prefer your "listened to." I don't get the sense that the Genesis writer is telling us that the woman was giving an order to man.

[Joseph Alward]

PURITAN

Joe, there is no teaching in the Bible that states women are inferior.

JOE ALWARD

I'll start a thread soon called, "Bible Teaches Woman Is Inferior," which addresses this question.

[PuritanD]

OldShep,

Finally, something worthy of debate and discussion. You must forgive me if I limit my responses only to a few quotations from your last post. I will add a new post to discuss the Greek of 1 Tim 2:12 latter due to a lack of time.

I know that you are trying to refute Joe of whom I do not now his theological positions in regard to the Bible or women's roles but from what I read it would not fit into complimentarian views which I hold and will respond to you in kind.
03-12-2003 @ 07:09 PM
OldShepherd:

Let's consider the verse 1 Tim 2:13-14.[list]

First, did Adam sin, yes or no? Was Adam's sin any less because of the order in which he was created or sinned? I have always been taught that sin is sin in the eyes of God. How did sin and death enter the world? Because the woman was deceived or because Adam sinned?[list]

Where does this minimize Adam’s sin and place all the blame on the woman?

No complimentarian would hold to or argue that Adam's sin was any less than that of Eve's. It would be ridiculous to try to conceive such a notion. Surely, Adam did sin, but what is interesting is that Eve was decieved and not Adam. This is the crux of Paul's argument, not that Adam's sin was less or that all the blame for sin belongs on women's shoulders (where do you get this stuff?), but that the deception was of Eve.

Here is THE Bible for the “man is the head of the woman” good ol’ boy crowd. When the talk turns to women in the church, this is the first verse in their Bible, the last verse in their Bible, and the only verse in between. 1 Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Hear their mantra, “This means that ANY woman is not to “HAVE” authority over any man.”

First, you are mistaken to think that Complimentarian or the hierarchical views are based soley on one verse. That is an outrageous claim that does not have much support. The complimentarian view takes in the whole breadth of the Bible and primarily would start at Creation just like Paul.

Paul; admitted that he spoke on his own authority, NOT the Lord's, at other times.
1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

I would be careful here. It looks as if you are trying to claim that though the H.S. is the author of Scripture some of it is less authorative than others. Just because Paul did not receive this directly from the Lord (which may be understood as the teachings that were there at the time or directly via a vision like in Acts 9), does not mean that the H.S. did not influence Paul to write 1 Cor 7:25. All of Scripture should have equal weight.

[b]The woman was created to be EQUAL to the man. And no the wife was NOT under the headship of the husband from the beginning. God did NOT place the WIFE under the headship of her HUSBAND (Not as it is interpreted, &amp;quot;All women under the leadership of all men.&amp;quot;) until AFTER they both sinned. Note the verse says, &amp;quot;Your (sing.) desire shall be for your husband (sing.), And he (sing. NOT they) shall rule over you. (sing.)&amp;quot; Gen 3:16

I totally agree that male and female are equal in the sense that they bear God's image equally. I define male headship according to Ray Ortlund, "In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction."

Hmmm, some bold statments made here but no evidence. Why do you think that there was no headship prior to the Fall? Let me ask the following quesitons.

1)Who was created first Adam or Eve?
2)Was Eve there when Adam named the animals?Gen 2:19-20
3) Was Adam made from Eve or vice-versa? Gen 2:21-22
4)When God created Eve from Adam's rib, did He name her or present her to Adam to be named?Gen. 2:23
5)When God gave the command not to eat of the fruit was it to both or to Adam? Gen. 2:16-18
6)When the Fall happen, did God go to both or Adam first?

These are important questions that need to be answered. An important aspect is that Adam named her, "woman," and not God. Naming someone or something signifies that this person has the responsiblity/authority for that other individual or thing. Since Adam named Eve, it would be clear that he had the moral responsibility for her. Also, it was his spiritual responsiblity to inform her of the prohibition correctly. I am assuming that it was incorrect based on Eve's response to the serpent.

The above is hard to refute.

Before Eve ate the fruit, she should have gone to her husband, Adam, and let him decide what should be done, because he was the one who passed along the command and named her. Before Adam ate the fruit, he had a decision to make. He should have judged both Eve and the serpent at that time and not taken the fruit.

The reason the Lord came to Adam first is because Adam was morally and spiritually obligated to fulfill the command given by the Lord to him. Adam should have judged the snake and spared his wife but gave up his moral obligation and was snookered in.

There is a better way in understanding Gen. 3:16. I can go into that argument later. This should do for now to prove that male headship existed prior to the Fall.

Pragmatically, how many institutions do you know of that has more than one person who holds the responsibility for the actions? How many countries have two presidents? Most institutions have one person who holds the primary responsibility for the actions taken place within the institution.

Since this is true, why would the institution of marriage be any different? One person needs to lead and by design God bestowed this leadership to the male. It is Paul's argument from this understanding of Creation that allows him to see that the spiritual leaders, elders, are male.

PuritanD

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
That was a fairly insightful post, Puritan. Some of the points you made I had already used in the thread I just started, "Bible: Women Are Inferior."

I hope to see you there.

[PuritanD]

Old Shephard,

Where art thou, sir??? I hope that I did not scare you away :smile:

I would like to see your response to my previous post. I think that you will be :argh:

PuritanD :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

[PuritanD]

Is there any egalitarian out there willing to respond to the above post on March 12?

Just curious.

PuritanD