Women in the church

[Dee Dee Warren]

Silent prophesying is a real trick that I guess only women can do.

[RBerman]

RB, hate to tell you, but I am a complementarian. You post a lot of words that don't deal with the issues.

I am happy to hear that you consider yourself a complementarian. Since you are not finding my comments helpful, I will bow out.

[lilpixieofterror]

Dizzle, surely you are not saying that the differences between races is the same as the differences between the sexes.


In the Bible, we can see basis for different roles for the different sexes. And sure enough, creation speaks to this as well.

Like what Phat? The fact that women were often charged with taking care of the home in that time? They didn't have modern conveniences that we enjoy today and you needed somebody to take care of the house. Plus, the women of the house wasn't just sitting around watching TV or goofing off, she was a busy women taking care of the house without things like a vacuum and having to prep food from scratch. She also had to take care of the children and manage the day to day affairs of the family. If anything, when we take the context of the situation into mind, that should tell us that the roles of the sexes of the Bible are not nearly as opposite as we might believe today.

The same can not be said about race.

Shaving my legs and opposed to my face doesn't mean I can't do many of the same things you can Phat.

[RBerman]

I think this is based upon a misunderstanding of what 'learning in silence and full submission' means because in the time of Paul, that is how students learned, so Paul is telling us that women should learn in the same manner of men. This might not seem like a big deal, but in Paul's era, it was a huge deal since women were not supposed to learn and Paul said they could. That is the problem with reading the Bible like a modern, you end up pulling things out of it that are not really there and making it say something that it didn't say.

As you say, Paul is clearly authorizing women to learn, which may well have been a big deal in that culture. Surely "Women can be students, too," is not all Paul means by, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man," is it?

[lilpixieofterror]

As you say, Paul is clearly authorizing women to learn, which may well have been a big deal in that culture. Surely "Women can be students, too," is not all Paul means by, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man," is it?

And RB, the fun thing about the letters of Paul is that they are often written to a response to a question of situation that has come up and Paul is writing his response and that letter is lost to us so to a degree, we kind of have to 'guess' what just what Paul is responding to and why he said what he said. Anyway, Glenn Miller goes into a ton of details if you're interested in reading what I tend to line up in believing here, I tend to take the position that Paul is addressing an anti-male teaching and going on to refute it because remember, Paul tells us in Romans 5:12 that sin entered the world though Adam (which would imply blame to Adam), so is he contradicting himself in 1 Timothy 2:14 when he says otherwise or is he trying to say something else? See, we don't have all the details for just what Paul was talking about, so we are not 100% sure just what he is addressing. However; I doubt the most 'plain reading of the text' is the answer in this case.

[RBerman]

And RB, the fun thing about the letters of Paul is that they are often written to a response to a question of situation that has come up and Paul is writing his response and that letter is lost to us so to a degree, we kind of have to 'guess' what just what Paul is responding to and why he said what he said. Anyway, Glenn Miller goes into a ton of details if you're interested in reading what I tend to line up in believing here, I tend to take the position that Paul is addressing an anti-male teaching and going on to refute it because remember, Paul tells us in Romans 5:12 that sin entered the world though Adam (which would imply blame to Adam), so is he contradicting himself in 1 Timothy 2:14 when he says otherwise or is he trying to say something else? See, we don't have all the details for just what Paul was talking about, so we are not 100% sure just what he is addressing. However; I doubt the most 'plain reading of the text' is the answer in this case.

OK. You're correct that Romans 5 is talking about something else than 1 Timothy 2, which explains the different emphasis between Adam and Eve. Other than that, you seem to be running on wishful thinking, hoping that there's some lost context that would give you justification to follow the course you would prefer, not taking the text as it presents itself. I don't consider "100% sure" to be an attainable standard for anything; I'm content to go with a preponderance of the evidence. Of course our exegesis is always subject to revision, given new developments. But that doesn't stop us from acting on our best understanding of the text as it stands.

[lilpixieofterror]

OK. You're correct that Romans 5 is talking about something else than 1 Timothy 2, which explains the different emphasis between Adam and Eve.

And why would Paul feel the need to put an emphasis on Eve's sin in 1 Timothy 2 and on Adam's sin in Romans 5? Maybe there is something going on that Paul is addressing? Remember, the letters of Paul, in many cases, are written as a response to something that Paul was asked and I believe the evidence backs up 1 Timothy being that way and why is that? Because Paul jumps around from topic to topic, which tends to indicate that Paul is most likely giving a response to something Timothy asked him.

Other than that, you seem to be running on wishful thinking,

I do not see how any of it is 'wishful thinking' based upon the evidence we have.

hoping that there's some lost context that would give you justification to follow the course you would prefer,

So you deny that 1 Timothy was written as a response letter to something Paul was asked? Why do I believe it is? Because see in Romans, you find Paul going from point to point with a clear transmission where he shifts gears or brings up something that maybe building up in the readers mind. In letters like 1 and 2 Corinthians or 1 Timothy, we find Paul jumping around from topic to topic and really not building up on the exact reasons he is saying something. This would tell us that Paul is responding to a letter he got and telling Timothy the answer to what he was asked. We do not know what Timothy asked Paul, so to a degree, we have lost the context. Think of it this way, if you take letters you may have wrote your wife while you were dating and only gave somebody your side of the letters, would the person you gave your letters to have some "Huh, what is that?" moments. Now, I ask you this, why does Paul contradict himself between Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2?

...not taking the text as it presents itself.

'The plain reading of the text' arguments are usually contradictory and lead to some rather goofy views. IE one could create a contradiction between who is responsible for human sin, is it Adam in accordance with Romans 5 or is it Eve in accordance with 1 Timothy 2? Now if we take the idea that in 1 Timothy 2 that Paul was addressing a specific situation (possibility an anti-male teaching), it makes sense for Paul to highlight that Eve, just as Adam was, was deceived.

I don't consider "100% sure" to be an attainable standard for anything; I'm content to go with a preponderance of the evidence. Of course our exegesis is always subject to revision, given new developments. But that doesn't stop us from acting on our best understanding of the text as it stands.

Then you are welcome to present anything that proves otherwise. Glenn Miller is pretty good with his stuff and has wrote hundreds of pages of material on women in the Bible among other topics and he gives some very good reasons why the 'plain reading of the text' in the case of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 falls flat. He uses the textual clues, the language clues, and the historical clues to give us the full picture of what these verses are talking about. Remember, the city of Ephesus (as we know Timothy is at by 1 Timothy 1:3) was rather well known for being rather anti-male (legend has it that the city was founded by the Amazon in about 11-13 century BC), we know that Paul already said that Adam was responsible for sin entering the world, and we find that Paul's usage of words is unique in this passage (authenteo is only used in 1 Timothy 2:12 and no where else). Taking this into mind, it is outright silly to take the 'plain reading of the text' when the evidence simply is not there to support such a literal and simple reading.

[Phat8594]

Phat, for the subject in question that is precisely what I am placing forward as an argument

Then I would be interested to hear why you think the differences between races are the same as the differences between the sexes. Seems like a big proposition to put forward without any evidence.

[Phat8594]

Like what Phat? The fact that women were often charged with taking care of the home in that time? They didn't have modern conveniences that we enjoy today and you needed somebody to take care of the house. Plus, the women of the house wasn't just sitting around watching TV or goofing off, she was a busy women taking care of the house without things like a vacuum and having to prep food from scratch. She also had to take care of the children and manage the day to day affairs of the family. If anything, when we take the context of the situation into mind, that should tell us that the roles of the sexes of the Bible are not nearly as opposite as we might believe today

Like the excercise of authority. Men are clearly given to headship with women in submission. What context is there to take away from the idea of headship and submission?

And please do not equate submission with blind obedience, or headship with authoritarian rule.

Shaving my legs and opposed to my face doesn't mean I can't do many of the same things you can Phat

Yep. You are right. But what does shaving your legs have to do with anything....let alone creation?

When I speak of creation, I am not talking about cultural norms, but rather physiological and pyschological differences in the sexes. Unless.....you are denying any sort of differences between the sexes...??

And why would Paul feel the need to put an emphasis on Eve's sin in 1 Timothy 2 and on Adam's sin in Romans 5? Maybe there is something going on that Paul is addressing? Remember, the letters of Paul, in many cases, are written as a response to something that Paul was asked and I believe the evidence backs up 1 Timothy being that way and why is that? Because Paul jumps around from topic to topic, which tends to indicate that Paul is most likely giving a response to something Timothy asked him

Romans 5 and 1 Timothy are two completely different contexts.

1 Timothy is dealing with authority and submission.

Romans is dealing with sinful nature of all men (and women). [and thus the need for a savior]

[Dee Dee Warren]

Are you claiming that women by nature aren't leaders? That is as bigoted as saying blacks by nature ate athletes and not scholars.

Sorry dude but I feel ZERO natural impulse to submit to a man just because he is a man. What a stupid thing to say.

[Phat8594]

Are you claiming that women by nature aren't leaders? That is as bigoted as saying blacks by nature ate athletes and not scholars.

Nope. I am saying that women are different from men in important, significant and real ways. There is essentially no difference between a black man and a white man other than skin color.

Sorry dude but I feel ZERO natural impulse to submit to a man just because he is a man. What a stupid thing to say

Women are to submit to their husbands because God said so...not because men earn it. In other words, women are to submit to men, doing so unto God....

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

the idea that women are to submit to men, because men have earned it....is well...just laughable.



So really...the question is about obedience to God....not to men.


Furthermore, submission should not be confused with weakness...unless of course you want to claim that Christ was weak because He submitted to the Father. True strength is shown through submission....

[Dee Dee Warren]

You just moved the goalpost and hoped no one noticed.

In support of your biblical position you proffered nature as proof. When your natural proof was challenged you pointed to your biblical interpretation as proof, yet it is your interpretation that is the very thing under dispute.

Argumentum ad circulum isn't valid.

[Phat8594]

You just moved the goalpost and hoped no one noticed.

In support of your biblical position you proffered nature as proof. When your natural proof was challenged you pointed to your biblical interpretation as proof, yet it is your interpretation that is the very thing under dispute.

Argumentum ad circulum isn't valid.

Actually I said:

In the Bible, we can see basis for different roles for the different sexes. And sure enough, creation speaks to this as well.

The same can not be said about race.

Nature is not offered as proof; in fact nature can't be offered as proof as to what is actually said in the Bible... I merely am pointing out that the Bible speaks of different roles....and that nature shows real differences between men and women; the same can not be said about race.

The fact that God has different roles for men and women, and the fact that men and women ARE different, should not be shocking....because God is not arbitrary in His design or His commands.

So no argumentum ad circulum here....

[RBerman]

And why would Paul feel the need to put an emphasis on Eve's sin in 1 Timothy 2 and on Adam's sin in Romans 5? Maybe there is something going on that Paul is addressing? Remember, the letters of Paul, in many cases, are written as a response to something that Paul was asked and I believe the evidence backs up 1 Timothy being that way and why is that? Because Paul jumps around from topic to topic, which tends to indicate that Paul is most likely giving a response to something Timothy asked him.

Romans 5 is about the respective federal headships of Adam (over mankind as sinners, leading to death) and Jesus (over mankind as saved, leading to life). That sort of "head of household" language would have been very familiar to Romans and Jews alike, and using it of Eve would have been quite odd. 1 Timothy 2, on the other hand, is specifically about women at that point, so the example of Eve, the prototypical woman, seems very reasonable in that context, rather than Adam.

I do not see how any of it is 'wishful thinking' based upon the evidence we have...So you deny that 1 Timothy was written as a response letter to something Paul was asked? Why do I believe it is? Because see in Romans, you find Paul going from point to point with a clear transmission where he shifts gears or brings up something that maybe building up in the readers mind. In letters like 1 and 2 Corinthians or 1 Timothy, we find Paul jumping around from topic to topic and really not building up on the exact reasons he is saying something. This would tell us that Paul is responding to a letter he got and telling Timothy the answer to what he was asked. We do not know what Timothy asked Paul, so to a degree, we have lost the context. Think of it this way, if you take letters you may have wrote your wife while you were dating and only gave somebody your side of the letters, would the person you gave your letters to have some "Huh, what is that?" moments. Now, I ask you this, why does Paul contradict himself between Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2?

Certainly we don't know all the details about Paul and Timothy and what they were up to that caused this particular letter to be composed. But your argument amounts to, "What if that lost information would completely change what Paul means in verse X?" Well, what if it wouldn't? We can't argue "What if"s. That would literally be an infinite endeavor about each verse. As I said above, I don't see Romans 5 as contradicting 1 Timothy 2, though certainly they have different points and thus use different arguments.

[lilpixieofterror]

Like the excercise of authority. Men are clearly given to headship with women in submission. What context is there to take away from the idea of headship and submission?

Submission has different connotations and understandings in their era Phat then they do today and the Bible has lots to say to husbands as well. Do you think loving your wife as Christ loves the church and being willing to give your life in her defense is an act of submission or not? If you say yes, that means husbands need to submit to their wives just as wives need to submit to their husbands. It works both ways my friend. If a husband doesn't take his wife's views and opinion in mind you'll find he will not have a very lasting marriage. A husband has to know his wife and put her needs and wants before his own and a wife needs to know her husband and put his needs and wants before her own. That is what the entire context of Paul's message points out and what I've seen of my own marriage, when one of us puts the needs of ourselves above the other, that is often when issues result, but as long as we remember whom we put first, things work out great.

And please do not equate submission with blind obedience, or headship with authoritarian rule.

I wouldn't, but I also know that era has different connotations then we have today. Men were told to submit to their teachers and learn in quietness too. The head also had a bit different meaning then it does today too. Here let me let Glenn Miller explain:

1. "head" does NOT mean the same thing we mean by it in Western culture. From the standpoint of anatomical function, in Paul's day it was the 'heart' that made the decisions, guided life, etc. "Head" was much more the 'adornment department' of the body! In other words, when people wanted to make decisions, they used their heart; when they wanted to get all "gussied up" ["dressed up", for you colloquially-deprived readers ;>) ], they used their head (e.g. hair, makeup, jewelry). So, in the literature, the word translated 'head' here often shows up as 'crown' or 'excellence'. [Hence, its usefulness in the passage of I Cor 11.]
http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

He goes on to point out in the authortian passage in 1 Timothy 2:12 in saying this:

The verb translated as "exercise authority over" (authenteo) is only used here in the NT, and its meaning is HOTLY contested.

TWO things that ARE sure about its meaning--it is NOT the normal word for "authority" (exousia), "exercising authority" (exousiazo), or "power" (kyrieuo); and it is NOT a 'good' thing (suitable for ANYONE to do--even males!)...
http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

In other words, there is a little bit more to this then the 'plain reading of the text' might reveal.

Yep. You are right. But what does shaving your legs have to do with anything....let alone creation?

It is called a joke. I suggest you learn them, but perhaps you can explain how these things make a difference in teaching or leadership.

When I speak of creation, I am not talking about cultural norms, but rather physiological and pyschological differences in the sexes. Unless.....you are denying any sort of differences between the sexes...??

Oh, you are quite correct there are differences in terms of physiological and psychological there is no denying that. It is too bad that none of that magically means that women shouldn't be teachers, unless you can explain how having a vagina, less facial hair, and a more emotional bent (this is a tendency, but I've known plenty of women that are not feeling types and plenty of men that are) means women can't be teachers or leaders.

Romans 5 and 1 Timothy are two completely different contexts.

1 Timothy is dealing with authority and submission.

Romans is dealing with sinful nature of all men (and women). [and thus the need for a savior]

Or Paul is addressing something else and you're basing your entire view upon a bad interpretation of the text that quite frankly isn't as well supported as you think mainly due to the different cultural connotations that existed in the first century and today.