Women in the church

[RBerman]

My apologies RB, but I have been informed by the mod that this board is restricted and I, apparently, do not meet the requirements so I will not be responding (out of respect to the mods, the tou, and the rest of you) until I get the matter reconciled. I think some of what I just read veracious, but some bears critical examination. I'd like to continue but it will have to wait. I trust you'll understand.

No problem. We can talk in Comparative Religions or Unorthodox Theology or another subforum in which you are deemed qualified to post.

[Josheb]

No problem. We can talk in Comparative Religions or Unorthodox Theology or another subforum in which you are deemed qualified to post.

LOL! I'm not sure I like the implications of either of those options but okay. Repost your post (and message me a link?) and I'll reply there.

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

We've moved the thread to Theology. Josheb is welcome to post here so long as he doesn't undermind any core doctrine of the Christian faith.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[RBerman]

LOL! I'm not sure I like the implications of either of those options but okay. Repost your post (and message me a link?) and I'll reply there.

Looks like we're good to go in this thread thanks to Bill the Cat. Also, how did you end up with the "Christian (other)" tag? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Josheb]

Looks like we're good to go in this thread thanks to Bill the Cat.

Thank you, Bill. Much abliged.

Also, how did you end up with the "Christian (other)" tag? Inquiring minds want to know!

I cannot say. I adhere to all of the points of the tWeb statement of faith. I assume it was because my comments about women/wives in the 2 Tim. passage are a little unusual. They should not be construed to mean I do not subsribe to the authenticity or the authority of scripture.

[Josheb]

Adornment was apparently not a big issue for men, given that Paul didn't mention it.

You'll understand, I trust, if I don't build doctrine on "apparently."

But he did mention it for women, and I can't think of a reason that his comments would have been more applicable to married women than unmarried ones.

That statement is the critical point of our disagreement. The translators-into-English render the word "women" but they do so in clear neglect of the context provided in the passage. I haven't read a single byte into the text; I'm not claiming anything that isn't already clealry there in the text. Because, as you wrote earlier, the word can be translated as either women or wives we look to the context to give us correct rendering and the context is explicitly and consistently that of married women. Discussing unmarried women or men is irrelevant to the text. Asking rhetorical questions like, "Don't single women need...xyz?" is a diversion because the text doesn't specify single women. Adam and Eve, pregnant women, wives of church leaders=all married. This is a consistent rendering of the passage, not the vascillation evident in our English translations.

If you know something about differences in dress habits between married and unmarried women in first century Roman/Greek/Hebrew culture, I'm open to education. But again, I suspect Paul didn't intend that only married men, but not unmarried men, lift up holy hands. Nor were only married women to be known by their good works. Paul assumes that the typical woman will be married and have children. That's not the same thing as limiting his comments to married women, however.

I completely agree with you, but all that's irrelevant to the passage since the passage is specfically about married women. Personally, I think the passage has less to do with gender attire, gender roles, or misogyny. I have to go extra-Biblical so I'll understand if what I write next is rejected. As I mentioned previously, I think the problem is one of pagan influence. I suspect Paul is speaking to the influence of women who were powerful in pagan religions where the convention was not to sit silently as me (even their men) spoke for them or on their behalf. If you're a priestess of Aphrodite you're not trained or inclined to be silent or dress modestly. If you're a temple prostitute the rules with men are much different. Coming to Christ and the ordered worship of the house church is a much different experience for those women. I think this influence is most evident in the Corinthian church where Corinth was the center of the pagan world. There in Paul's first letter to Corinth we a similar admonition for women to be silent... "they should ask their own husbands at home...(1 Cor. 14:35)" What kind of women have husbands they can ask at home? Married women.

Galatians 3:28 is about salvation, not the realities of gender roles. It appears that you're saying that Paul caters to a longstanding Hebrew paternalism which he nevertheless thinks is wrong. That doesn't sound like how Paul and Jesus operate on other matters. Regularly throughout the NT, they say what is right, even if it violates the audience's assumptions about propriety.

Yes, of course Gal. 3:28 is about salvation but that statement doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'm not saying Paul or Jesus are hypocritical. It's just the opposite. It was never God's plan to subjugate women. We see this consistently throughout scripture beginning with Eve's being formed from the rib (not the head or the toe - I'm sure you've heard that tradition). We see Deborah chosen by God to be a Judge - she most certainly spoke in authority over men and did so ceremonially. I've already touched on the matter of baptism as a sign of the new covenant - a sign that replaces baptism, which was possible only with men.Consider the Proverbs 31 woman: she works. She works hard and she works abudnantly. The notion that women shoudln't work is a myth, and indulgence we possessed for a brief period in modern upper and upper-middle class society. The Pr. 31 woman owns property, she buys it and she sells it. She conduct business in the market place and she does so at the behest of and unawares of her husband. She manages the household, including the servant (some of whom were men, no doubt), and she speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction (to men if she's buying and selling). She does all these things to the honor of her husband and he is praised before the city gates where he takes his seat amongst the elders (his headship, btw, is less about paternalistic tyranny then representative servant-leadership). The proverb ends stating her works sing her praise at the exact same gate where her husband sits as a respected elder. This is the woman God saw fit to immortalize in His revelation to us. I see no reason to argue with him or to deny women things He states they are capable of and to be commended for doing.

A single woman can stand side by side with a single man before God, each with their own voice to praise God and seek Him as their own. That's the statement of Gal. 3:28. However, the premise of a subjugation-rendering of 1 Timothy requires us to say that the moment any woman enters a church of the new covenant she must be silent. No, it makes much more sense, imo, if we are to understand that in the context of the Biblical model for familes - with the husband as the head of the houshold and his wife as his helpmete, equal in authority but unified under the headship of Christ and then under the representative servant-leadership of the husband and father. This makes much more sense when we read of the requirement for a one-wife husband and a well-managed family, because the entire local context is within marriage.

Very little is said about her [Priscilla] in particular (as distinguished from her husband) in any of those texts. Such guesswork should not be used to overrule texts which speak explicitly.

Yes, of course. We should not make too much of her being a leader when so little else is said about her but we should note it because it is noteworthy and it stands as evidence by which 1 Tim. 2 can and should be understood. The same applies to her being mentioned first - not too big a disclosure but unusual and therefore noteworthy. The fact of scripture is that Priscilla is mentioned before her husband Aquila and that fact is factually historically unusual, especially in a Jewish paradigm in that day. The church in Ephesus met at their house and Timothy was directed to see them by Paul. The guesswork lies in believing she was silent in her own home during the ekklesia's meeting because she was a woman and not because she deferred to her husband. The same applies to Andronicus and Junias, who Paul labels apostles (Rom. 16:7). According to 2 Cor. 12:12 the evidence of an apostle was "signs, wonders, and miracles." If God sees fit to have Junias perform signs, wonders, and miracles how is it I should mandate her silence - except in deferrence to her husband (assuming Andronicus was her spouse) when he acts in his role as church leader?

Surely you agree that any given sentence must be first read for what it appears to say either literally or at face value. Then the local context of surrounding sentences may inform us to a greater degree, perhaps even changing the otherwise obvious meaning of the sentence to be consistent with the surrounding text (Mt. 5:29 would be an obvious example of context changing the literal meaning of a specific sentence). Then whatever local context there is must fit within the context of the Bible as a whole. No local context can contradict the global context.

When we look at all that the Bible has to say about women... and wives... we find that women are not marginalized. Wives are directed to submit themselves (not be submitted), but only in the context of their collaborative role as wife and never as inferiors. When they are marginlaized in exploitive ways it is uniformly treated aberrantly in scripture (think of Abram's treatment of Sara, or David's treatments of his wives). 1 Timothy 2 must necessarily be reconciled with the whole of scripture. I believe understanding the 1 Timothy 2 passage to be consistently about wives and not interchangeably about all women one moment and just married women another provides that integrity.

[RBerman]

I adhere to all of the points of the tWeb statement of faith. I assume it was because my comments about women/wives in the 2 Tim. passage are a little unusual. They should not be construed to mean I do not subsribe to the authenticity or the authority of scripture.

Hm, weird. I'm sure that can be clarified.

Adornment was apparently not a big issue for men, given that Paul didn't mention it.

You'll understand, I trust, if I don't build doctrine on "apparently."

To a certain extent, I empathize with the desire to avoid arguments from silence. It seems a fairly safe inference, given that Paul gives a certain set of instructions to men and another set to women, that the particular instructions given to each group are particularly relevant to that group. I don't know how we're going to ever do exegesis of any sort if such inferences are not permissible.

But he did mention it for women, and I can't think of a reason that his comments would have been more applicable to married women than unmarried ones.

That statement is the critical point of our disagreement. The translators-into-English render the word "women" but they do so in clear neglect of the context provided in the passage. I haven't read a single byte into the text; I'm not claiming anything that isn't already clearly there in the text. Because, as you wrote earlier, the word can be translated as either women or wives we look to the context to give us correct rendering and the context is explicitly and consistently that of married women. Discussing unmarried women or men is irrelevant to the text. Asking rhetorical questions like, "Don't single women need...xyz?" is a diversion because the text doesn't specify single women. Adam and Eve, pregnant women, wives of church leaders=all married. This is a consistent rendering of the passage, not the vacillation evident in our English translations.

"Neglect" is a prejudicial word that assumes that you are correct. A more charitable description would be that the translators understand the passage in a particular way, and you beg to differ. I agree that "The text doesn't specify single women," and I didn't claim that it does. Rather, it speaks generally about men and women. The reference to childbearing does not provide constitute adequate reason that Paul intended his comments to apply only to married women. The argument about Adam and Eve does not hinge on the fact that they were "married" in their own unique way, but rather on the order of creation that man preceded woman, and that woman was deceived. The marriage bond is not even mentioned in this passage, as it is in some. Is there a particular commentator whom you're following in your assessment that this passage's instructions should be restricted to married men and women?

If you know something about differences in dress habits between married and unmarried women in first century Roman/Greek/Hebrew culture, I'm open to education. But again, I suspect Paul didn't intend that only married men, but not unmarried men, lift up holy hands. Nor were only married women to be known by their good works. Paul assumes that the typical woman will be married and have children. That's not the same thing as limiting his comments to married women, however.

I completely agree with you, but all that's irrelevant to the passage since the passage is specfically about married women. Personally, I think the passage has less to do with gender attire, gender roles, or misogyny. I have to go extra-Biblical so I'll understand if what I write next is rejected. As I mentioned previously, I think the problem is one of pagan influence. I suspect Paul is speaking to the influence of women who were powerful in pagan religions where the convention was not to sit silently as men (even their men) spoke for them or on their behalf. If you're a priestess of Aphrodite you're not trained or inclined to be silent or dress modestly. If you're a temple prostitute the rules with men are much different. Coming to Christ and the ordered worship of the house church is a much different experience for those women. I think this influence is most evident in the Corinthian church where Corinth was the center of the pagan world. There in Paul's first letter to Corinth we a similar admonition for women to be silent... "they should ask their own husbands at home...(1 Cor. 14:35)" What kind of women have husbands they can ask at home? Married women.

As usual, Paul addresses the normative adult woman, who is indeed married. But 1 Timothy certainly gives us no grounds to limit "women should dress modestly and do good works" to be an instruction only aimed at former temple prostitutes, any more than "men should lift up holy hands" is an instruction only aimed at former temple catamites. So yes, I do reject your idea simply on the ground that Paul doesn't raise those issues at all; instead his argument is based on Adam and Eve, with the implication that all men, as children of the first two people, inherit certain gender realities.

Galatians 3:28 is about salvation, not the realities of gender roles. It appears that you're saying that Paul caters to a longstanding Hebrew paternalism which he nevertheless thinks is wrong. That doesn't sound like how Paul and Jesus operate on other matters. Regularly throughout the NT, they say what is right, even if it violates the audience's assumptions about propriety.

Yes, of course Gal. 3:28 is about salvation but that statement doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'm not saying Paul or Jesus are hypocritical. It's just the opposite. It was never God's plan to subjugate women. We see this consistently throughout scripture beginning with Eve's being formed from the rib (not the head or the toe - I'm sure you've heard that tradition). We see Deborah chosen by God to be a Judge - she most certainly spoke in authority over men and did so ceremonially. I've already touched on the matter of baptism as a sign of the new covenant - a sign that replaces circumcision, which was possible only with men.Consider the Proverbs 31 woman: she works. She works hard and she works abundantly. The notion that women shoudln't work is a myth, and indulgence we possessed for a brief period in modern upper and upper-middle class society. The Pr. 31 woman owns property, she buys it and she sells it. She conduct business in the market place and she does so at the behest of and unawares of her husband. She manages the household, including the servant (some of whom were men, no doubt), and she speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction (to men if she's buying and selling). She does all these things to the honor of her husband and he is praised before the city gates where he takes his seat amongst the elders (his headship, btw, is less about paternalistic tyranny then representative servant-leadership). The proverb ends stating her works sing her praise at the exact same gate where her husband sits as a respected elder. This is the woman God saw fit to immortalize in His revelation to us. I see no reason to argue with him or to deny women things He states they are capable of and to be commended for doing.

A single woman can stand side by side with a single man before God, each with their own voice to praise God and seek Him as their own. That's the statement of Gal. 3:28. However, the premise of a subjugation-rendering of 1 Timothy requires us to say that the moment any woman enters a church of the new covenant she must be silent. No, it makes much more sense, imo, if we are to understand that in the context of the Biblical model for familes - with the husband as the head of the houshold and his wife as his helpmeet, equal in authority but unified under the headship of Christ and then under the representative servant-leadership of the husband and father. This makes much more sense when we read of the requirement for a one-wife husband and a well-managed family, because the entire local context is within marriage.

I don't know to whose beliefs you are responding, but I have never said that women should be "subjugated" below men, nor is such a proper implication or summary of my understanding of 1 Timothy 2. As to the rest of your comments, I affirm (of course, how could I do otherwise!) the managerial characteristics ascribed to the ideal woman in Proverbs 31, as well as the many times in Scripture that God uses women prominently in the life of his people. Of course, "Let her works praise her in the gates" does not mean that the woman was one of the clan elders; the distinction was maintained even while praising her performance in her crucial role under his servant-leadership.

As to the single woman, you're doubtless aware that in that culture, she remained under the authority of her father, even into adulthood. Some may propose that this was simply a cultural artifact, perhaps an unwholesome one, such that single women in our culture should be treated like men. To whatever extent that statement is true, it remains the case that the normative status of an adult (male or female) is to be married. So sure, Paul's comments in 1 Timothy 2 may be phrased in a way that assumes the women are married, but that doesn't mean he intends to restrict his comments only to the married women. If you're in the airport waiting area, and the loudspeaker says, "Please board the plane. Children must remain with their parents," the reasonable passenger without children knows how to apply the boarding instructions to his own situation, even though the part about children doesn't fit him. He doesn't say, "Oh, they must only want the families to get on board."

ry little is said about her [Priscilla] in particular (as distinguished from her husband) in any of those texts. Such guesswork should not be used to overrule texts which speak explicitly.

Yes, of course. We should not make too much of her being a leader when so little else is said about her but we should note it because it is noteworthy and it stands as evidence by which 1 Tim. 2 can and should be understood. The same applies to her being mentioned first - not too big a disclosure but unusual and therefore noteworthy. The fact of scripture is that Priscilla is mentioned before her husband Aquila and that fact is factually historically unusual, especially in a Jewish paradigm in that day. The church in Ephesus met at their house and Timothy was directed to see them by Paul. The guesswork lies in believing she was silent in her own home during the ekklesia's meeting because she was a woman and not because she deferred to her husband. The same applies to Andronicus and Junias, who Paul labels apostles (Rom. 16:7). According to 2 Cor. 12:12 the evidence of an apostle was "signs, wonders, and miracles." If God sees fit to have Junias perform signs, wonders, and miracles how is it I should mandate her silence - except in deferrence to her husband (assuming Andronicus was her spouse) when he acts in his role as church leader?

Well, that's a big "except." It would have been normative for the couples you mention to be together in the ekklesia, yes? You separate out "because she was a woman" in opposition to "in deference to her husband," when in fact they are the same reason. That is, her deference itself is predicated on the fact that he is the man and she the woman.

As for "apostle," I'm sure you're aware that the NT sometimes uses terms in purely descriptive ways (e.g. Jesus is called an ἀπόστολον in Hebrews 3:1, meaning simply "one who is sent", an emissary, a missionary), and sometimes as titles that in English we would capitalize. Not every instance of διάκονος or πρεσβύτερος refers to an office or role in the church either.

Surely you agree that any given sentence must be first read for what it appears to say either literally or at face value. Then the local context of surrounding sentences may inform us to a greater degree, perhaps even changing the otherwise obvious meaning of the sentence to be consistent with the surrounding text (Mt. 5:29 would be an obvious example of context changing the literal meaning of a specific sentence). Then whatever local context there is must fit within the context of the Bible as a whole. No local context can contradict the global context.

Yes, though it appears that we might disagree about exactly what Matthew 5:29 literally means, given that it's a hypothetical statement. But I do agree with the general principle you articulate here.

When we look at all that the Bible has to say about women... and wives... we find that women are not marginalized. Wives are directed to submit themselves (not be submitted), but only in the context of their collaborative role as wife and never as inferiors. When they are marginlaized in exploitive ways it is uniformly treated aberrantly in scripture (think of Abram's treatment of Sara, or David's treatments of his wives). 1 Timothy 2 must necessarily be reconciled with the whole of scripture. I believe understanding the 1 Timothy 2 passage to be consistently about wives and not interchangeably about all women one moment and just married women another provides that integrity.

Indeed women are not marginalized; women are absolutely crucial! I would never describe men as superior, or women as inferior. However, modern egalitarianism suffers from a fallacy of the excluded middle, such that there's no room left between "Women treated as inferior to men" and "Women treated like men." The Biblical teaching is that women are unlike men in important ways which gives them a different but not inferior role, just as a hammer is neither superior nor inferior to a screwdriver, and yet cannot be properly substituted for one.

[Josheb]

Hm, weird. I'm sure that can be clarified.

I asked. No explanation has yet been forthcoming. I'm not too bothered by it, especially since our need has been graciously met.

To a certain extent, I empathize with the desire to avoid arguments from silence. It seems a fairly safe inference, given that Paul gives a certain set of instructions to men and another set to women, that the particular instructions given to each group are particularly relevant to that group. I don't know how we're going to ever do exegesis of any sort if such inferences are not permissible.

It isn't a given. It's eisegetic. The context is specifically married men and women and the original language allows for that translation. As log as the conversation returns to "Paul tells women...," we're discussing something not actually evidenced by the text itself to the absolute and necessary exclusion of the alternative. Inferences of logic built on correct rendering of the text are certainly necessary but it is my opinion and my assertion that is not being done. Given the context of the text in question it isn;t a "safe" inference. I believe I have made my case. I have not read anything but an appeal to inference to justify the alternative perspective. Look, RB, I'm happy to be corrected; the truth is what is sought. Make the case. I'll read it. "Safe inference" is not a case.

"Neglect" is a prejudicial word that assumes that you are correct. A more charitable description would be that the translators understand the passage in a particular way, and you beg to differ.

Okay, I'll concede to that. I was not speaking to their motive, just the clear evidence that the context is not well reflected by the English rendering. It is a fact of neglect, not a motive of neglect to which I wrote. I have no way of knowing what a stranger, including you, understand or doesn't understand unless it is explicitly stated (in a post in this case).

I agree that "The text doesn't specify single women," and I didn't claim that it does.

But you do... by inference. I just read a statement that said, "Paul gives a certain set of instructions to men and another set to women." SIngle women are a subset of all women. The context of that text does not support such a generalization, but that is what is being asserted.

Rather, it speaks generally about men and women.

See, there's the unstated inference (assumption), again.

The reference to childbearing does not provide constitute adequate reason that Paul intended his comments to apply only to married women. The argument about Adam and Eve does not hinge on the fact that they were "married" in their own unique way, but rather on the order of creation that man preceded woman, and that woman was deceived. The marriage bond is not even mentioned in this passage, as it is in some.

I agree that no single part of the text makes the case all by itself but the amalgam of them do, especially in the complete absence of anything specifying single women. As I stated earlier, we must assess an individual passage in light of the global context and the global context of Adam and Eve is that they were married. Jesus treats them explicitly so in Mt. 19:4. I whole-heartedly agree that Paul is leveraging the created order but Eve's submission occurs within the context of her having been made for Adam and every other woman's submission only to her husband. There is nothing in scripture where God requires all women to submit to all men. (If you come to my house and start telling my wife she has to submit to you, then you and I are going to have a discussion about that). The marriage bond needn't be mentioned because it is a conditional fact every time Adam and Eve are mentioned. It is the necessary context of their mutual life.

Is there a particular commentator whom you're following in your assessment that this passage's instructions should be restricted to married men and women?

(grins) No, but I like the question because it gives me an opportunity to speak to something you will learn in all of our future discussions. I write from the word of God. I am not prone to appeals to authority (other than the authority of scripture). I do consider myself somewhat diversely read (samplings from Plato to Rawls, Clement and Anathasius to Grudem and McGrath). I currently have an affinity for the dutch reformed and the presuppositionalists I'm also reading theopen theology of Pinnock, the reformed Newbigin, the dispenstional works of Walvoord and Ice, and brushing up on Buddhism with Haden, the DL, and Thich Nhat Hanh, but that'll change all that in due time. I will cite my references when they are warranted but, so far, none has been needed. I need nothing other than the Biblical text itself to write what I have thus far written. I do not appreciate being labelled and I have distaste for being treated stereotypically based on another's perception(s) about the labels. If I say I have reformed leanings it does not mean I am a Calvinist. I think you will find that many of my posts won't fit neatly into preconceived categories. I hope you will also find that wherever I can make the case for what I write I do so standing firmly on the word and nothing or little else. We all have our biases. I accept that and expect that. Our goal (all of us) is to understand the turth and reduce our bias with every word we read and we come to the forums to expose ourselves to the diversity of others in that endeavor because one person sharpens another. Sometimes that's done in antithesis.

So please do not ask me for outside sources again. I won't be using them unless I explicitly say so. I don't find any of the writers who have come before have everything 100% correct. Neither do I assume I have everything correct. Three things I assert even if I am wrong: God exists, I know and am known, and His world is correct to all that it speaks and is authoritative. If I am worng in any of those matters then I am lost and nothing I read in this forum is likely to persuade me.

As usual, Paul addresses the normative adult woman, who is indeed married. But 1 Timothy certainly gives us no grounds to limit "women should dress modestly and do good works" to be an instruction only aimed at former temple prostitutes, any more than "men should lift up holy hands" is an instruction only aimed at former temple catamites. So yes, I do reject your idea simply on the ground that Paul doesn't raise those issues at all; instead his argument is based on Adam and Eve, with the implication that all men, as children of the first two people, inherit certain gender realities.

My argument doesn't rest on Paul's failure to specify single men or women. It rests on the context of the passage which is clearly and implicitly and uniformly within marriage. This doesn't precludeany other woman from modest apparel or any other man from hand raising, so yes, we could leverage the verses thusly but we do so by taking liberty with the text. Scirpture speaks in specifcs to some things and where it does not speak in specific it speaks in principle. Asserting a principle that says all women must be silent in church is not something supported by either the immediate context or the gobal context of all of scripture. This is what you will have to speak to, not the absence of Paul's specifying single women. Tell me how the text is absolutely, positively not antirely about married women (and married men) to the absolute positive and necessary exclusion of the premise that it is uniformly about married women (and men)(serving in the church).

I don't know to whose beliefs you are responding, but I have never said that women should be "subjugated" below men, nor is such a proper implication or summary of my understanding of 1 Timothy 2. As to the rest of your comments, I affirm (of course, how could I do otherwise!) the managerial characteristics ascribed to the ideal woman in Proverbs 31, as well as the many times in Scripture that God uses women prominently in the life of his people. Of course, "Let her works praise her in the gates" does not mean that the woman was one of the clan elders; the distinction was maintained even while praising her performance in her crucial role under his servant-leadership.

I appreciate the clarification and the correct. No one specifically (that I've read) mentioned "subjugation." I used it hyperbolically to emphasize the some of the (il)logical outcomes of "women must be silent." There is more context to the passage than I have cited: it is also specifically about conduct in church and about conduct in church amongst church leaders. Paul, a church leader, is writing to Timothy, a next-gen fledgling church leader, predominantly and thematically about good and bad church leaders. Go back through the preceding verses and we read about false teachers, about Hymenaeus and Alexander, about those who want to be teachers. The text is sprinkled with general statement (God wants all men to be saved - vs. 4) but the theme of an older leader teaching a younger leader to raise future leaders is the current than runs through the text in question.

As to the single woman, you're doubtless aware that in that culture, she remained under the authority of her father, even into adulthood. Some may propose that this was simply a cultural artifact, perhaps an unwholesome one, such that single women in our culture should be treated like men. To whatever extent that statement is true, it remains the case that the normative status of an adult (male or female) is to be married. So sure, Paul's comments in 1 Timothy 2 may be phrased in a way that assumes the women are married, but that doesn't mean he intends to restrict his comments only to the married women. If you're in the airport waiting area, and the loudspeaker says, "Please board the plane. Children must remain with their parents," the reasonable passenger without children knows how to apply the boarding instructions to his own situation, even though the part about children doesn't fit him. He doesn't say, "Oh, they must only want the families to get on board."

Yes, I accept and embrace the covering of fathers to daughters and do not consider it merely a cultural artifact but a spiritual principle by which to live. It’s isn’t that Paul’s comments may be construed thusly, it is that the context is specifically thus, airport announcements not withstanding.

Well, that's a big "except." It would have been normative for the couples you mention to be together in the ekklesia, yes? You separate out "because she was a woman" in opposition to "in deference to her husband," when in fact they are the same reason. That is, her deference itself is predicated on the fact that he is the man and she the woman.

Not quite. Her deference is due to her being a married woman. Men are not unilaterally over women. That is not a scripturally supportable premise, but that is the logical necessity of all women must be silent to all men. She is to defer to her father, if unmarried, wherever he is present, especially when he is acting in a capacity of authority (in either family or church roles). Now, this principle is problematic for many in modern information societies where people no longer live in nuclear relationship or even geographically close to their family of origin. When my daughter goes away to college, I do not expect my daughter to be unilaterally silent in every minute of every church. My daughter has a Godly upbringing and when she speaks from it wise will be the man who pays attention to the words that ensue from her lips. Foolish will be the man who seeks to unilaterally silence my daughter because he thinks 1 Tim 2 demands it of her.

As for "apostle," I'm sure you're aware that the NT sometimes uses terms in purely descriptive ways (e.g. Jesus is called an ἀπόστολον in Hebrews 3:1, meaning simply "one who is sent", an emissary, a missionary), and sometimes as titles that in English we would capitalize. Not every instance of διάκονος or πρεσβύτερος refers to an office or role in the church either.

Yes, I am aware. I am also aware that Paul and all of the other epistle writers treated those were thusly sent by God as agents of God, worthy of respect and honor, whether in an official formally designated office, or not and I also know that presents a conflict with the reading of 1 Tim. 2 that says all women must be silent in church.

Indeed women are not marginalized; women are absolutely crucial! I would never describe men as superior, or women as inferior. However, modern egalitarianism suffers from a fallacy of the excluded middle, such that there's no room left between "Women treated as inferior to men" and "Women treated like men." The Biblical teaching is that women are unlike men in important ways which gives them a different but not inferior role, just as a hammer is neither superior nor inferior to a screwdriver, and yet cannot be properly substituted for one.

LOL! Amen! I often say, when discussing free will and predestination that the poles and those sitting immovably therein are the problem not the solution.

The fact is, though, that the moment you say all women must be silent in church and say so without any caveats you’ve marginalized women, poles or excluded middle not withstanding. I have not asserted egalitarianism and nothing I’ve written should be thusly construed. I have spoken quite clearly and explicitly of the appropriate deference evident in scripture. In fact, in many ways I think the newer model is an upgrade and we men would do well to pay attention to the blessings bestowed upon women that we do not possess… like their improved ability to use language relationally. Paying attention to that blessing can’t happen in silence.

When the church needs a hammer it summons a hammer, but when a church needs a screwdriver it summons… a silent screwdriver? And you think that makes sense with what you yourself have just written? Isn’t it all salvaged by understanding the text within the context of marital relationships of those in leadership? Generalizing that principle is liberty. All women must be silent in church is,imo, bondage, and not what the text actually says.


My apologies for the length. I won't always parse out each claim but it seemed appropriate given my newness to the forum and the nature of the conversation.

[RBerman]

Given the increasing length and complexity of this exchange, I'm going to resort to topic summaries:

1) As far as citing commentators, I wasn't looking for an appeal to authority, or to pigeonhole you doctrinally. A commentator is useful not for his conclusions but for the argumentation he presents in support of those conclusions. Since I have not found your argumenation helpful, I was hoping you might direct me to other authors who share your understanding, in case one of them makes more sense to me.

2) I wonder whether we understand ἡσυχίᾳ in verses 11-12 the same way. "Silence" stands in opposition to "teach or hold authority" (διδάσκειν οὐκ ... οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν). It doesn't mean that the women should not sing, for instance. It doesn't mean they can't prophesy (Luke 2:36; Acts 2:8, 21:9), or can't speak within the context of their work for the church (Acts 18:26). It means that Christ has reserved the authoritative offices of his church for men, which is presumably why although many women participated fully in Jesus' ministry, and in the life of the early church, none were among the Twelve.

3) As for your main point, it may be that we'll have to agree to disagree. If I understand you properly, you seem convinced that the reference to childbearing in 1 Timothy 2:15 controls the meaning of γυναικὸς throughout the whole passage. I consider that a weak datum on which to pivot the passage, and one which doesn't even help the activities you think Priscilla (a married woman, and thus clearly subject to Paul's injunction here) must have been involved in.

4) That notwithstanding, you are articulate and a considerate conversationalist, and I hope you stick around this forum.

[Abigail]

2) I wonder whether we understand ἡσυχίᾳ in verses 11-12 the same way. "Silence" stands in opposition to "teach or hold authority" (διδάσκειν οὐκ ... οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν). It doesn't mean that the women should not sing, for instance. It doesn't mean they can't prophesy (Luke 2:36; Acts 2:8, 21:9), or can't speak within the context of their work for the church (Acts 18:26). It means that Christ has reserved the authoritative offices of his church for men, which is presumably why although many women participated fully in Jesus' ministry, and in the life of the early church, none were among the Twelve.

3) As for your main point, it may be that we'll have to agree to disagree. If I understand you properly, you seem convinced that the reference to childbearing in 1 Timothy 2:15 controls the meaning of γυναικὸς throughout the whole passage. I consider that a weak datum on which to pivot the passage, and one which doesn't even help the activities you think Priscilla (a married woman, and thus clearly subject to Paul's injunction here) must have been involved in.

I also tend towards the opinion (though still have some reservations) that the Timothy passage is about husbands and wives because the whole context seems to make more sense when using that understanding.

The letter is written to Timothy who is the product of a mixed marriage (Jewish mother, Greek father Acts 16:1) and who from what I understand was ministering at Ephesus where the cult of Artemis was big and influential (big temple which amongst other things operated as a financial centre). The points Paul addresses seem to be basically that the church was descending into chaos because of divisions and fractious bickering. These seem to have arisen from erronious notions of who was to be seen as leaders and authority figures and it seems fallicious interpretations of what was accepted as authorative in the church at that time was being used to support these views.

In the first chapter Paul mentions two people - Alexander and Hymenaeus - who were causing problems and I think if we look at the sorts of things they were getting up to then IMV the whisker seems to fall towards the husband/wife interpretation.

Alexander the Coppersmith 2 Tim 4:14
Firstly in Acts 19:24 cf we see that the silversmith Demetrius was worried that the Way was harming his and similar trades' business of producing things to do with the Artemis cult. A mob gathers and they go to the theater. In Acts 19:32-34 it seems the crowd, confusion reigning, identify Alexander as the source of the anti-Artemis sentiment. The Jews had put him forwards but on realizing that he was a Jew (and obviously remembering that Jews do not like pagan goddesses) they had thought he was the one wanting to sideline Artemis. Now assuming this is the same Alexander from Timothy then we need to ask why Alexander would want the Artemis cult to continue?. Being a Jew I am not sure if he would be making idols but perhaps with others busy making idols he got more of the regular work. Also the Artemesion did act like a financial centre and was big business in the area so if the cult shrivelled up then a lot of people stood to lose a lot. Most importantly I think that Christianity had given women freedom that they had not enjoyed and this had been taken too far and had usurped a husbands role as head and meant women were operating independently (well to the extent that they could overcome their cultural conditionings). Now we know from Timothy's own case that there were mixed marriages and so if a Jewish woman married a Gentile then if she deferred to her gentile husband the Jewish community could lose influence over her. I think this would have been a big deal for her kinsmen, especially if she had influence in her own right and so this may have been the reason why Jewish men might try to show that because Jesus was a Jew the Jews were actually closer to Him and better able to instruct in spiritual matters etc and therefore a Jewish woman married to a Gentile should still see her Jewish menfolk as the source of advice and authority rather than her Gentile husband. Paul is saying that all men are equal before God and that there is only one mediator and that is Jesus, so a Jewish woman should defer to a gentile husband. So maybe stoking up anti-Paul sentiment would have gotten rid of Paul and this problem.

Hymenaeus
This guy as we know from 2 Tim 2:17-18 was preaching that the resurrection was past. This would have undermined the traditional male/female dynamic of marriage because technically in the resurrection there is no marriage Matt 22:23-30 (which incidently does seem to tie marriage to -at the very least - the expectation of producing children). So 1 Timothy 12:15 seems to suggest that married women are a sign that the final (bodily) resurrection has not yet taken place.

So then these passages are a response to the actions of people like Alexander and Hymenaeus who it seems were both preaching things which apart from separating people from the closeness and hope in Christ were undermining marriage and so causing chaos in the church.

[RBerman]

I also tend towards the opinion (though still have some reservations) that the Timothy passage is about husbands and wives because the whole context seems to make more sense when using that understanding.

The letter is written to Timothy who is the product of a mixed marriage (Jewish mother, Greek father Acts 16:1) and who from what I understand was ministering at Ephesus where the cult of Artemis was big and influential (big temple which amongst other things operated as a financial centre). The points Paul addresses seem to be basically that the church was descending into chaos because of divisions and fractious bickering. These seem to have arisen from erronious notions of who was to be seen as leaders and authority figures and it seems fallicious interpretations of what was accepted as authorative in the church at that time was being used to support these views.

In the first chapter Paul mentions two people - Alexander and Hymenaeus - who were causing problems and I think if we look at the sorts of things they were getting up to then IMV the whisker seems to fall towards the husband/wife interpretation.

Those are interesting speculations, but the actual text of Scripture does not link the beliefs of either Alexander or Hymenaeus to anything related to marriage. As to where Timothy went, I couldn't say whether he was ever in Ephesus. Can you think of a Scripture which answers that question?

[Abigail]

As to where Timothy went, I couldn't say whether he was ever in Ephesus. Can you think of a Scripture which answers that question?

1 Tim 1:3

[RBerman]

1 Tim 1:3

Heh, that was easy! thanks.

[Josheb]

I wonder whether we understand ἡσυχίᾳ in verses 11-12 the same way. "Silence" stands in opposition to "teach or hold authority" (διδάσκειν οὐκ ... οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν). It doesn't mean that the women should not sing, for instance. It doesn't mean they can't prophesy (Luke 2:36; Acts 2:8, 21:9), or can't speak within the context of their work for the church (Acts 18:26). It means that Christ has reserved the authoritative offices of his church for men, which is presumably why although many women participated fully in Jesus' ministry, and in the life of the early church, none were among the Twelve.

I agree with that limited and contextual understanding of silence. That doesn't wholly solve the problem thought because that isn't how the church through out history has always rendered the passage, and it still stand is conflict with Deborah, Junias, Priscilla, and Lydia. They held auhtoritative offices and were decidedly verbal and in the case of one and maybe two decidedly verbal over men also in authority. Now either the whole of scripture is considered or it's not. The appeal to the twelve risks a tangent but I would venture that since Paul didn't reference the twelve to make his case we shouldn't either and I would further suggest there are completely unrelated reasons for the exclusivity of the twelve, at least some of which have changed with Christ's propitiation.

As for your main point, it may be that we'll have to agree to disagree. If I understand you properly, you seem convinced that the reference to childbearing in 1 Timothy 2:15 controls the meaning of γυναικὸς throughout the whole passage. I consider that a weak datum on which to pivot the passage, and one which doesn't even help the activities you think Priscilla (a married woman, and thus clearly subject to Paul's injunction here) must have been involved in.

Then it is clear that I have not been understood correctly. Nowhere have I written such a thing. What I did write is that we have several markers that are all exclusively married women. Paul himself uses these markers to provide context to the passage (the first two are otherwise unnecessary to the passage). The uniform totality of these markers to the exclusion of any other alternative is what leads to the conclusion the passage should correctly be rendered as pertaining to married women. If we had only one marker and that one marker had to do with pregnancy then I would probably agree with you but that isn't the case and that isn't the argument asserted. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree, but before we part ways I have not read an alternative case. I cannot be persuaded by a perspective I do not read.

That notwithstanding, you are articulate and a considerate conversationalist, and I hope you stick around this forum.

Well, thanks, the appreciation is appreciated. This place doesn't look so busy (which my wife might value), or topics abundantly playing to my interests, or my "qualifications" permitted (I don't think I've ever been told I'm not permitted in a board without an explanation) but I'll continue to visit.

[RBerman]

I agree with that limited and contextual understanding of silence. That doesn't wholly solve the problem thought because that isn't how the church through out history has always rendered the passage, and it still stand is conflict with Deborah, Junias, Priscilla, and Lydia. They held auhtoritative offices and were decidedly verbal and in the case of one and maybe two decidedly verbal over men also in authority. Now either the whole of scripture is considered or it's not. The appeal to the twelve risks a tangent but I would venture that since Paul didn't reference the twelve to make his case we shouldn't either and I would further suggest there are completely unrelated reasons for the exclusivity of the twelve, at least some of which have changed with Christ's propitiation.

I don't know why the Twelve are more of a "tangent" than the other examples that you gave, given that the Twelve were unimpeachably the actual governors of the Church, whereas Deborah was more of a political figure. It's far from clear that "Junias, Priscilla, and Lydia held authoritative offices," or any office at all for that matter.

What I did write is that we have several markers that are all exclusively married women. Paul himself uses these markers to provide context to the passage (the first two are otherwise unnecessary to the passage). The uniform totality of these markers to the exclusion of any other alternative is what leads to the conclusion the passage should correctly be rendered as pertaining to married women. If we had only one marker and that one marker had to do with pregnancy then I would probably agree with you but that isn't the case and that isn't the argument asserted. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree, but before we part ways I have not read an alternative case. I cannot be persuaded by a perspective I do not read.

Fair enough; I should not critique your position without offering a positive alternative. "Uniform totality" rather overstates the case. Here are the characteristics mentioned in the passage as a whole:

v1: Pray for all people: Applicable to all Christians, male and female, married or unmarried.
v2: Lead a peaceful, quiet, dignified, Godly life: Applicable to all Christians, male and female, married or unmarried.
v8: in every place men should pray without anger or quarreling: Applicable to all men, married or unmarried. Should not be understood as forbidding women to pray, though.
v9: women should dress modestly: Applicable to all women, married or unmarried. Should not be understood as allowing men to dress garishly.
v10: Women should do good works: Applicable to all women, married or unmarried. Should not be understood as discouraging men from good works.
v11,12: Let a woman learn quietly with submissiveness, as opposed to exercising authority in the church: Applicable to all women, married or unmarried.
v13: Adam was created before Eve: The focus is not on their interactions as a married couple, but rather on the very nature in which the representative man and woman were created.
v14: Eve was deceived, not Adam: Again a historical fact which does not appeal to their interactions as a married couple.
v15: She will be saved through child-bearing: The only time the text singles out a characteristic of a married woman as opposed to an unmarried woman. The implication for the unmarried woman is "If possible, get married so you can comply."
v15: continue in faith, love, holiness, self-control: In a callback to v10, this is applicable to all women, married or unmarried. Should not be understood as discouraging men from good works.

That's why I singled out the reference to childbearing as the only real datum in your argument; nothing else in the passage is unambiguous about married life, per se. Adam and Eve were married in their fashion, but their marriage per se is not called out in this passage; their creation and their sin is.

Well, thanks, the appreciation is appreciated. This place doesn't look so busy (which my wife might value), or topics abundantly playing to my interests, or my "qualifications" permitted (I don't think I've ever been told I'm not permitted in a board without an explanation) but I'll continue to visit.

I would definitely seek clarification from the mods as to why you're identified as nonorthodox. Nothing in our conversation so far gives me that vibe.