Should women be pastors?

[NorrinRadd]

Another question.


Someone becomes a Christian, and are told that it is important to read the Bible but best to start with the New Testament. They read through the Gospels and see how Jesus treated women; they discover from Acts that women met with the disciples for prayer, held church gatherings in their home, and of women like Dorcas, Lydia, Priscilla, they read the long list in Romans of people Paul considered invaluable to him in his ministry - including a number of women, discover from Corinthians that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to everyone, and learn that there were female helpers in the Philippian church, then come to a verse in Timothy that says that Paul did not let a woman teach or have authority over a man; what would he/she make of it?...

This is an excellent point that calls for a slight tangent.

New believers are often told to start by reading John's Gospel, then maybe the other Gospels, to learn about Jesus. They are then told to read Paul's letters for instructions on how to "be" Christians.

One thing that can happen is that you can easily come to different conclusions depending on the order in which you read things. I will again pound on the point that if one read Col. 4:15 with no preconceptions, the natural understanding would be that Paul was greeting the female leader of that church. However, if you get there after having read that women are not to be in "authority" over men, are to be "silent," etc., you are less likely to accept the verse as written.

There are also some "hidden" assumptions:

-- That the historical records in the Gospels and Acts are *merely* DEscriptive, and it is almost exclusively the Epistles that are PREscriptive and PROscriptive.

-- That all of those prescriptions and proscriptions applied identically to each individual church and believer then, and continue to do so now.

These are to some extent "starting points." They are "assumed," and are difficult to test and prove or disprove. Those who don't them will probably never agree with the conclusions of those who do, and vice-versa; and those who are not even aware of their existence will barely even be able to carry on sensible discussions with their opponents.

 

[Zeena]

Those who don't them will probably never agree with the conclusions of those who do, and vice-versa; and those who are not even aware of their existence will barely even be able to carry on sensible discussions with their opponents.

I was like that.. devoid of reason, for I was queching my spirit, denying my soul.

When I saw the verses in contention, I was incapable of responding, construding the Word given from my Father AS IS, without any interpretation necessary, nor warranted.

So I shut my mouth, and put my head in the sand like an ostridge.
I became a coward, afraid to speak anything for fear of speaking falsely and leading astray.

This spirit is not of God. And the more I learned of His Loving and kind Nature, the more apt I became to receiving instruction from His lips .

He's broken down a lot of walls, this was a biggie, to say the least.

I trust the Lord to lead every man in Christ to the Truth, by His Spirit as we abide in His Love.

If not here, then there.

Better here.

.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Hi Macrina,

You're right, I haven't been fully up-to-date on this thread. It's so long, I was just interjecting my biblical interpretation.

With that said, you asked my biblical basis for conclusions. There are two passages that come to mind, but only one of them is probably contextually correct to use:

The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
~ 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
~ 1 Timothy 2:11-15

The first quote, in my estimation is contextually incorrect to use as a basis for women not being allowed to teach (or speak at all, for that matter). Firstly, Paul mentions that this command is given according to the Law. This Law is not actually a Torah-quote, but seems to be more a matter of Jewish tradition. As such, it may not be valid today in a worldwide body of Christ to continue hanging on to Jewish traditions.

Several NT scholars -- "inerrantists," even -- have noted that there are persuasive text-critical reasons for concluding that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 are not even genuinely Pauline, but are most likely a very early scribal margin gloss.

Furthermore, there are cultural considerations that were specific to the early years of Christianity. Women were (generally speaking) less educated than the men. So when Christianity gave them new unprecedented Rights to congregate with men at homes and in church meetings together, they were exposed to new teachings. This led to women being naturally curious to ask for clarification on issues during meetings, interrupting either the speaker, or simply asking their husbands (or friends). I read a report once (don't remember where) that said the chatter in the Church at Corinth was so loud that it often drowned out the voice of the preacher.

So naturally a command was given to keep silent in church - if you have questions, ask later when it won't disturb others. For example, let's say I went into a physics lecture at university (I know almost nothing on this topic), and continuously interrupted the lecturer to seek clarification, would he not be within his right to ask me to keep silent until afterwards and ask questions at an appropriate time.

Similarly, this is the same reasoning behind not allowing women to teach. To continue with the Physics lecture analogy, if I wanted to actually go up and give the lecture myself, how could I teach it such when those listening to me knew more than I did.

That's plausible, and similar reasoning applies if we assume that many church meetings were not the typical "one-man-show" starring the "preacher" that we see today, but rather the more interactive, group-participatory, question-answer-discussion format sometimes employed both by rabbis and Greek philosophers. Attempts by those with drastically lower educational levels to participate as equals would easily lead to strife and chaos.

Considering today that women and men are both educated equally, it is reasonable to suggest that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 no longer apply directly to us in modern society. In many ways, 1 Timothy runs along very similar lines - the same principles apply to his comments on not teaching but keeping silent (reference again the Physics analogy). However, 1 Timothy adds a critical point - he states that the reasons for not allowing women to teach is because of the order of creation (Adam created first).

Two things:

1) Assuming the common translation is correct, with "gar" translated as "for" in 1 Tim. 2:13, implying what follows is the "reason" for the commands, it is not just that Adam was created first, but also that Eve was "deceived." That could mean that all women are unsuited for teaching, because like Eve they are easily deceived; or it could mean that some particular women at Ephesus had been deceived and were spreading their deception, and Paul was using Eve as a negative example.

Given that the whole of 1 Tim. relentlessly struggles against the problem of false teachers in Ephesus; that being "easily deceived" would make women unsuitable for teaching *anyone*, not just men (contrary to Tit. 2:3-4); and would be inconsistent with the implication in 2 Tim. 1:5 that Timothy himself was taught the Scriptures by his mother and grandmother.


2) At least one New Testament scholar (Linda Belleville) has suggested that "gar" does not always precede a "reason," but can also be used to introduce an "explanation," such as a refutation of false teaching. In this case, she suggests that the allusion to the Creation Order is a direct refutation to a known belief of the Artemis cult: That women have priority, and that woman was created first, as acted out symbolically in the Lord of the Streets celebration. (And we know from both Acts and extra-Biblical accounts that there was an active Artemis cult in the Ephesus region.)

While not directly related, it is also important to note the order of creation as it applies to relationships (Ephesians 5:20-28) which sets up the husband as the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. Though being head of the house does not give the husband universal authority to treat the woman as trash, since the commands in this passage dictate how husbands should love their wives in the same way Christ loved the church - that is, he humbled himself and set others above himself and eventually died for us all. After all, though wives are to submit to husbands, so are we all to submit one to another (as verse 21 suggests).

The problem is that those "marital relations" verses are part of a larger context known a table of "house codes." There are four in the NT of which I am aware, and all of them include in the same context commands for Xian slaves to obey Xian masters. And as one can make the "headship" argument in regard to Christ and the Church / husbands and wives, one can also defend slavery on the principle that all believers are servants of Christ, therefore it is appropriate that some believers model this by being slaves of other believers. There is no solid reason for saying one part of the house codes -- slavery -- is obsolete, but the rest are not.

But we are still left with the order of creation that 1 Timothy sets forth - and that suggests that a man should take on the role of "overseer" (not to be confused with the role of "preacher" or "teacher"). The role of the overseer in early Christianity did involve extensive teaching, since they were the ones who were most-educated. But today, as education levels improve, men and women who are not the overseer can teach and preach and evangelise and engage in many diverse church roles and various ministries.

But, according to the order of creation, the role of the overseer must go to that of a man.

That's kind of a slim basis.

Hopefully I haven't bored you to death by now through this lengthy post (I have a tendency to be as thorough as possible when discussing these topics - I once wrote a four-page essay on a single verse in Mark's Gospel, lol). To put the question back on you now, could you point me to alternative explanations of the passage. I'm always willing to listen to alternatives (provided they are contextually accurate).

As you can see, I provided a couple possibilities.

I've even been known to change my beliefs accordingly when the Bible has led me to a conclusion different to the one I held.

I changed from the "leadership is male" position. It's very hard to get me to change, and once I do, virtually impossible to turn me back.


Friendly challenge: I know it's impossible to totally rid oneself of preconceptions. Still, as much as possible, push out of your head your notions from 1 Tim. 2 and Eph. 5 that women can't be overseers. Then look at Col. 4:15 and see what you find the most "natural" interpretation to be in regard to Nympha's role. Look back at the OT, at Jdg. 4:4-5 and
2 Ki. 22:12-15 / 2 Chr. 34:21-23, and see whether or not it seems as though Deborah and Huldah are exercising "oversight" over the people of God, and/or speaking "authoritatively" from God.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Another question.


Someone becomes a Christian, and are told that it is important to read the Bible but best to start with the New Testament. They read through the Gospels and see how Jesus treated women; they discover from Acts that women met with the disciples for prayer, held church gatherings in their home, and of women like Dorcas, Lydia, Priscilla, they read the long list in Romans of people Paul considered invaluable to him in his ministry - including a number of women, discover from Corinthians that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to everyone, and learn that there were female helpers in the Philippian church, then come to a verse in Timothy that says that Paul did not let a woman teach or have authority over a man; what would he/she make of it?

• that something must have happened before Paul wrote the letter to Timothy to make him change his mind about women?
• that this is a divine command and God has changed HIS mind about women?
• that something was going on in that church which caused Paul to write those words, and if they were to read a commentary, and the verse in context they might find out what it was?
• that it doesn't really matter as they are saved and the important thing is to find a supportive, caring church where they can learn, grow and find how God wants them to serve him?

None of them. The simple answer is; they supported the Church and helped Paul's ministry, but they never preached from the pulpit. Comparable to what nuns do in the Church. There is obvious authoritative differences, head-coverings also, which Paul brings up, shows a sign of women being under this authority. Paul considered it a disgrace for a woman to pray without her head covered, just as Paul considered it a disgrace for a man to have long hair like a girl. To deny that Paul speaks of obvious authoritative differences is almost willful ignorance.

1 Cor. 11:8-12 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [9] nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; [10] for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11]

And if you continue to read the verse, like you say, you will find that St. Paul gives reason and why woman cannot usurp authority over a man. You will find out that it is because of the Fall and that woman was created for man; "and Adam not being deceived, but the woman being deceived and transgressed". Eve tried to direct her husband to partake in sin with her, hence she was put under her husband due to her concupiscence. Humans today still suffer the effects from the fall, hence woman's subjection will be until the final resurrection.

In Christian marriage the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is head of the Church. This is also St. Paul's message in Eph. 5:21-33, in which he enunciates the supernatural meaning of Christian marriage as a sacramental sign of Christ's union with the Church. St. Paul then goes on in Corinthians to recall the creation of man and woman, pointing out that woman was taken from man, not vice versa. As Pope John Paul II so clearly taught in his catechesis on Genesis, marriage is not only a Christian sacrament, it is a natural sacrament of the Communion of Persons within the Trinity. What this tells us is that the equality of persons within a communion does not destroy the hierarchical order of the nature in which it exists.

 

[Archivist]

None of them. The simple answer is; they supported the Church and helped Paul's ministry, but they never preached from the pulpit. Comparable to what nuns do in the Church. There is obvious authoritative differences, head-coverings also, which Paul brings up, shows a sign of women being under this authority. Paul considered it a disgrace for a woman to pray without her head covered, just as Paul considered it a disgrace for a man to have long hair like a girl. To deny that Paul speaks of obvious authoritative differences is almost willful ignorance.

Given that churches were often meeting in private homes in Paul's time, it is highly doubtful that anyone, male or female, was preaching "from the pulpit." As to exactly what the women did in the church of the day, you are only speculating.

Paul considered it a disgrace for a man to have long hair because short hair was the norm in the Roman world. Elsewhere in Scripture we are told that long hair is appropriate for men.

1 Cor. 11:8-12 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [9] nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; [10] for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11]

And if you continue to read the verse, like you say, you will find that St. Paul gives reason and why woman cannot usurp authority over a man. You will find out that it is because of the Fall and that woman was created for man; "and Adam not being deceived, but the woman being deceived and transgressed". Eve tried to direct her husband to partake in sin with her, hence she was put under her husband due to her concupiscence. Humans today still suffer the effects from the fall, hence woman's subjection will be until the final resurrection.

And you are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

In Christian marriage the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is head of the Church. This is also St. Paul's message in Eph. 5:21-33, in which he enunciates the supernatural meaning of Christian marriage as a sacramental sign of Christ's union with the Church. St. Paul then goes on in Corinthians to recall the creation of man and woman, pointing out that woman was taken from man, not vice versa. As Pope John Paul II so clearly taught in his catechesis on Genesis, marriage is not only a Christian sacrament, it is a natural sacrament of the Communion of Persons within the Trinity. What this tells us is that the equality of persons within a communion does not destroy the hierarchical order of the nature in which it exists.

Again, you are entitled to your interpretation, just as Pope John Paul II was entitled to his interpretation.

 

[Strong in Him]

None of them. The simple answer is; they supported the Church and helped Paul's ministry, but they never preached from the pulpit.

And how do you know that when,
a) Scripture never says whether they preached or not
b) they didn't have "pulpits"; they met in people's homes, as Archivist has just said (Acts 12:12; Rom 16:3-5;Col 4:15).

Comparable to what nuns do in the Church.

And yet my understanding is that nuns can speak in a service, which would appear to contradict the verse about women not speaking in church.

There is obvious authoritative differences, head-coverings also, which Paul brings up, shows a sign of women being under this authority. Paul considered it a disgrace for a woman to pray without her head covered, just as Paul considered it a disgrace for a man to have long hair

Ah yes, head coverings!
1 Cor 11:7 says that a man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God; so bishops wear mitres because ......?

like a girl.

Now Paul never used the words "like a girl", that is simply an addition on your part.

1 Cor. 11:8-12 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [9] nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; [10] for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11]

So a woman should have a sign of authority on her head? So any woman who covers her head has this sign of authority, and can speak and teach?

And v 11-12 say,
"in the Lord however, woman is not independant of man, nor is man independant of woman. For as woman came from man, so man also is born of woman. But everything comes from God".

Eve tried to direct her husband to partake in sin with her, hence she was put under her husband due to her concupiscence.

No she didn't; Eve gave some of the fruit to her husband who was with her - not in another part of the garden, ignorant of the fact that his wife was being tempted - WITH her. He CHOSE to take the fruit and wilfully disobey the command he had been given by God. Paul himself says in Romans that sin came into the world through ADAM. One man bought sin and death to the world; one man brought eternal life and release form sin. The first Adam brought the former; Jesus was the second Adam.

If he has changed his mind, is now trying to blame Eve for being decieved (which isn't a sin, rather a reason for being allowed to learn), and saying that Adam sinned because of her - then he is misleading people.

Humans today still suffer the effects from the fall,

Which came about through Adam, as Paul has previously said.

hence woman's subjection will be until the final resurrection.

And has it not occurred to you that maybe the reason Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness of his - the second Adam's - resurrection was so that woman could be restored from the her part in the fall, by Christ who makes all things new.

Eve lost God in a garden - the relationship between them was broken because of the part she played in sin entering the world, although it still came in through Adam.
Mary Magdalene found God in a garden. Jesus chose to appear to her first of all and made her the messenger of his Good News; that he had risen, sin and death had been destroyed, the curse reversed and reconciliation with God made possible.

 

[Macrina]

...And has it not occurred to you that maybe the reason Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness of his - the second Adam's - resurrection was so that woman could be restored from the her part in the fall, by Christ who makes all things new.

Eve lost God in a garden - the relationship between them was broken because of the part she played in sin entering the world, although it still came in through Adam.
Mary Magdalene found God in a garden. Jesus chose to appear to her first of all and made her the messenger of his Good News; that he had risen, sin and death had been destroyed, the curse reversed and reconciliation with God made possible.

Wow, this is a very interesting point, and one which I hadn't considered. Instead of spreading deception, as Eve did, Mary Magdalene spread truth. There is a certain redemptive beauty to that.

 

[Macrina]

I made a very long post earlier in this thread, and I doubt many people will read all the way through it, so here is a boiled-down version of the point I find most important:


In Ephesus (where Timothy was), there was a false belief that woman was the originator of man and therefore had some special power. So when Paul gives the oft-cited instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12-13, he is basically telling pagan-influenced, proto-gnostic women that they are not permitted to claim any originating authority over man, and that they weren't the ones who came first -- man was. At least, that's the way it seems to me, given how well it fits the context and how it fits in with the rest of scripture.

 

[angelmom01]

Symbolism


Eph 5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

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

Eph 5:26
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Eph 5:27
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Eph 5:28
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Eph 5:29
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Eph 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Eph 5:31
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:32
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

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

Please note the portion I put in red.

Paul was not addressing husbands/wives, in particular, but Christ and the church by using the husband/wife relationship to teach a spiritual truth that was relevant to Christ and the church.

NEVERTHELESS... let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Above is the order which scripture gives for the relationship of Christ, man, woman. Marriage is representative of the relationship that Christ has with the Church. As we are married to Christ and reverence him, and, he in turn loves us with a protective, passionate, love, even willing to die for us: the wive is to show reverence to the husband and the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church.

Again we must always remember the example Jesus gave us. Often this is utterly ignored. A leader must first be a servant and must lead with humility. Leadership is an act of humble service not an act of demanding dictatorship.

It is a mutual love/submission. The husband to the wife and the wife to the husband (ref verse 33). The rest of the passage, though addressed as it was to husband/wives, was actually about Christ and the church (ref verse 32).

 

[angelmom01]

PEACE AND LOVE TO ALL IN CHRIST.

I just got word there's been a death in my family. I'll have to make a long trip and likely won't be back here for several days.

Your prayers for myself and my family are most appreciated!

PEACE,
JWN

Sorry to hear that; my condolences.

 

[angelmom01]

Please be truthful...

Truthful?? How in the world is saying that "a woman can represent Christ" (she being a part of HIS BODY) the same things as saying "Christ is a woman"?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Truthful?? How in the world is saying that "a woman can represent Christ" (she being a part of HIS BODY) the same things as saying "Christ is a woman"?

exactly . talk about an author of confusion .

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

The reason that I see the husband as the overseer because of being created first is the same reason that I see the law being a governer of grace. It's a prototype and outline of the true meaning that is spiritual. Below is an explaination of why Christ is the better covenent when the Levitical is past. I believe this applies to marraige also in that the 'law' of 'created first' is overshadowed by the new covenent.


"prototype," "outline." The Greek word ὑπόδειγμα (Jupodeigma) does not mean “copy,” as it is often translated; it means “something to be copied,” a basis for imitation. BDAG 1037 s.v. 2 lists both Heb 8:5 and 9:23 under the second category of usage, “an indication of someth. that appears at a subsequent time,” emphasizing the temporal progression between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries.
sn There are two main options for understanding the conceptual background of the heavenly sanctuary imagery. The first is to understand the imagery to be functioning on a vertical plane. This background is Hellenistic, philosophical, and spatial in orientation and sees the earthly sanctuary as a copy of the heavenly reality. The other option is to see the imagery functioning on a horizontal plane. This background is Jewish, eschatological, and temporal and sees the heavenly sanctuary as the fulfillment and true form of the earthly sanctuary which preceded it. The second option is preferred, both for lexical reasons (see tn above) and because it fits the Jewish context of the book (although many scholars prefer to emphasize the relationship the book has to Hellenistic thought).

Hi maid in His image,

Sorry it's taken a couple of days to get back to this response, I've only had limited time to respond.

After reading this response, I do see what you're saying in the sense of the Law being overshadowed now by Grace (through Faith in Christ). However, I'm not sure one can say the same thing for relationships. The husband/wife relationship outlined in Ephesians 5 is intended to mirror the Christ/Church relationship. Hence the husband as the head of the house and Christ as the head of the Church go hand-in-hand (the husband/wife relationship copies that of Christ/Church) .

In this sense, when looking at the church structure itself, the head of the Church is ultimately Christ, but the head (overseer) of each church should also have some bearing on this mirror. As I said in reference to 1 Timothy, Paul gives reasons as to why it should be a man, and this has to do with the order of creation (not in the sense of "what came first", but rather "the way God has designed it to be" - it is possibly my fault for not being so clear in this distinction). Thus, as per the order of creation, the overseer of a church should be a man (this does not disqualify women from teaching or preaching, as per the reasons I suggested before in my earlier post, of course). To compare a small cross-section:

~ Christ Head of the Global Church
~ Overseer Head of the Local Church
~ Husband Head of the House (wife).

By this short summary, the overseer should also be a man, to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church and in turn, husband to the wife.

I hope that clarifies my position.

~ Regards, PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hi PA, that was a very thoughtful post; thank you for writing it.

Just wanted to comment on one thing;



I know this is what is written, in English, I don't know what the Greek says, but this doesn't actually make sense.

As someone has said, if we were going by the order in which things were created, then earwigs would have authority over men. And why does being created a short while before someone else give an automatic teaching qualification and ability?

Hi Strong in Him,

As above, my apologies for the delay in this response. As I also responded to that post about animals (earwigs being your example, lol) in the sense that animals may have been created first, but only humans were created in God's Image.

This ultimately doesn't come down to simply "Man created slightly before woman". This is to do with the order of creation - the way God has decided that his Creation should be structured.

This is where the next part of your post comes into play:

This idea of women not teaching men doesn't seem to have been practised in the OT; women brought God's word to men - Huldah, Deborah, Miriam; Deborah was judge over ALL Israel, Esther was queen, spoke to the king without his permission and persuaded him to reverse a previous law. She was instrumental in saving the nation, and the feast of Purim is still celebrated today.
Someone previously said, when I raised this before, "but Deborah's was a political appointment not a religious one". That doesn't matter; if the principle is that women can't teach men because men were created first, then that's the principle for everyone. And God still appointed Deborah anyway; she was his choice of judge.

I am not advocating a woman should be disqualified from teaching. Indeed, as you have pointed out, the testimony of women in the Bible is well-known. I even addressed this comment specifically in my first post in response to the reasons for the original command being given - simply a matter of education (which no longer directly applies to us).

What does directly apply to us though is the order of creation - as Christ is the head of the Church, so is the husband the head of the house. This relationship mirrors the relationship between the church and Christ, and therefore cannot be used to subjugate and dehumanise women.

Likewise, while Christ is the head of the overall church, who is the head (overseer) of localised churches around the world? Going by the current order of creation outlined, it can only be a man - and as noted, this does not impact a woman's ability to engage in other ministries (including preaching and teaching, if necessary), nor does it say women are incapable of acting as overseer (anymore than women are incapable of being head of the house). But doing so would pervert the order of creation as given by God.

When I was a child, there were a number of pressures, partly from other people but mostly from myself, that I should do, or be better at doing, certain things because I was the eldest. My feeling was, "I will be the first to take exams, I should 'set a standard', I should be the first to get married, I should be the first to pass my driving test." etc. (I was certainly the first to take it, I still can't drive.)
These were unrealistic expectations - I WAS the first to take exams, but there was no reason why "being the eldest" meant that I had to get better grades than some of my more academic brothers. And I didn't HAVE to be the first to get married just because of my age, (I wasn't anyway.)

Surely this is the same sort of thing. Why do overseers have to be men just because they were created first?
I guess I could partly answer that because my parents used to say to me, "if anything happens to us, you will keep the family together, won't you?" - but then, I'm the only girl, so maybe they would have said it. Certainly my "role" used to be to ring my brothers and remind them when there were various birthdays and anniversaries coming up - but now their wives get them organised on that score. (They've all learned to forge their signitures beautifully!)

I see what you're saying, but the question of overseers goes well beyond simply "Man was created slightly sooner". It's a very simplified (indeed I'd say simplistic use of the term). Perhaps it is partly my fault for not expanding on that when I first brought it up (now I hope you know why I try to be as thorough in my posts as possibl, lol). It's not just about being created first, but about God's ordained order of creation:

~ Christ/Global Church
~ Overseer/Local Church
~ Husband/Wife

The order of creation is still applicable, at least I think it should be

Does that make sense?

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

There is a reason why women should not preach, just look at what they are teaching! lol

Ouch, I wouldn't have said that. Though I see what you're trying to say (you think they're trying to justify something that can't be justified), you're also implying that women are incapable of this job, which is plain wrong - there is no sense that women are less capable than men. Indeed, as suggested by others on this thread, there are many cases where women were teaching and great leaders, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

However, I also have no problem with women "teaching" (for that very same reason). This command was given in the cultural times because women were, generally speaking, less educated than men, and given the time that women were being granted unprecedented new Rights, Paul drew a line on this. However, Paul's reasons in 1 Timothy regarding the order of creation (see my two posts above this) suggest no other alternative - as Christ is the head of the entire Church, and the man is the head of the wife (individual lives), so the local churches should also be governed by a head overseer, which by the same reasoning as Christ and Husband, should be a male.

Best wisehs, CiC

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

And either way you have to take the context of Genesis 3:16 "and he will rule over you", "your desire will be for your husband"

The husband clearly is shown to have dominion over the wife, has authority, is in charge, is master and ruler of his household. When you add this with the words of Paul it really is concrete and obvious. That's why everyone opposed to it is resorting to semantics or culture.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with this particular verse. The reason Paul opposed women teaching was not Genesis 3:16, but simply the order of creation (though to play Devil's Advocate this might be implied by his bringing up of the woman sinning first - but I think the evidence is too shaky to make such an assertion, particularly considering the context of not only this passage but 1 Corinthians 14).

Remembering that Genesis 3:16 was a punishment for breaking God's word. As such, it is clear that before the Fall, men did not "rule over" their women. I would argue that Ephesians' commands about husbands and wives to no longer "rule over", but instead submit to each other in love, partially restores the pre-Fall state of male/female relationships.

It is still reflected in the order of creation - Christ as head of Church is reflected and mirrored by Husband as head of the Wife, and thus it is still only a partial restoration (just as living in Christ today is only a partial restoration into God's Kingdom) but the implications of the husband's duties no longer suggest "ruling over her" as they did in Genesis 3:16.

Just a thought to perhaps consider

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

so are you gonna actually answer the question? or are you unable to? I can claim probably hundreds of other people, who claim to speak by the Spirit, and probably have much more biblical knowledge, who would totally disagree with you.


In my opinion I think the Anglican community is a good example of what happens when the ordination of women happens and a clear example why Paul was so bold about it. When a woman is put in the place of priest or bishop it perverts the authority that the position is suspossed to hold. A woman is unable to hold the office of bishop, and by forcing herself on it she perverts her position and causes schism and doctrinal error. Today the Anglican community has gone so far as to deny the divinity of Christ, allow abortion and divorce, birth control, gay marriage. All this happened when ordination of women started. The point being is a woman is not able to hold an office of such a high authoritative position. A woman cannot proclaim on the issues of doctrine and dogma because it was never her position to begin with, nor can she handle such a task, and to try to force themselves unto that position they cause doctrinal error and schism. Eve tried to teach Adam, and she woefully failed. Just as a woman who is a bishop or priest trying to teach a congregation will fail too, all we have to do is look at this thread and the organizations that allow womens ordination as proof of this..

Try as I might, I can't help but interpret this as anything but misogynist. Nothing in the Bible suggests that women cannot perform the duties of a teacher.

The problem with ordaining women is not that women are incapable, but that the system has already admitted one non-biblical point of view. To use a phrase, you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

It is not that women are incapable, but more the point that when women are ordained, the church has now opened the door to compromise on other doctrines (gays, abortion, etc). Whereas if the Church did not compromise to begin with, the issue would never have arisen.

See the difference between these views, CiC? I hope others do, because I can't believe I'm the only one to step into the breach.

Best wisehs,

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

PA: First off, your tone is refreshing and I very much appreciate it. You raise valid points -- ones I've considered myself -- and have honed in on an important passage for this discussion. I'll try to sum up my understanding of the passage here, but fleshes things out more thoroughly. I've used it to help gather my thoughts here, although my opinion was informed by a variety of sources. A good book on this topic is by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger; it elaborates well on the pagan and gnostic beliefs relevant to the false teachings in Timothy's church.

"Have/Usurp Authority"
The Greek word authentein is the word which is translated "exercise authority" in the version you quoted. It is also sometimes translated "domineer" or "usurp authority." The Vulgate, Geneva Bible, and the King James are examples of translations that use this latter sense of the word, implying a negative, "taking-control" kind of action.

The reason why there is some ambiguity about the meaning of authentein is that it only occurs once -- here -- in the New Testament. So one of the most useful tools of translation (looking at the word in another scriptural context) isn't available. Therefore, one turns to other Greek texts in order to figure out the nuances of the word. Ancient texts prior to the writing of the New Testament most often do not use the word in a neutral sense of "have authority," but use it to refer to domination or crime -- even murder. It carries with it strongly the notion of one grabbing power over another, often unjustly. In a much later period, this word came to be used in the more neutral sense, but this was significantly after the New Testament was written, and is therefore given less weight than the usage which was in place in the earlier period.

Paul's choice of authentein is interesting, since he does not use it elsewhere in his known writings. There are other Greek words which he could have used to denote simple authority without negative connotations. Proistemi is a word for leadership which he uses several times and would have been natural to use here if Paul were concerned solely about ordinary standards for leadership.

Therefore, many scholars conclude that there are contextual concerns which informs Paul's choice of word here. Paul knew the specific concerns of the Ephesian church and the difficulties which Timothy would have to address there; given indications that the church was experiencing a particular problem with women, these scholars believe the evidence points to a specific, localized application of this principle, not a broad, universal one.


Adam Was Created First
If I understand you correctly, the aspect of this passage which you find most compelling is Paul's use of the creation account to defend the position. This does give one pause, certainly -- who would want to go against the created order? However, once again there are contextual issues not readily apparent to us, but which are rendered no less legitimate for the fact that it requires study to learn them.

John Davis, the author of the article linked above, does a good job of laying out examples of Paul's use of the creation account in various epistles to make various points. Paul drew imagery and analogy from Genesis to form particular applications in particular congregations. At times, he uses Genesis differently than at other times -- but that is not contradictory, as he is speaking to different situations which require a different pastoral response. This was a frequently-employed rhetorical method of the time, although it isn't as common today.

Distinct circumstances existed in Ephesus which makes it extremely likely that Paul was particularly concerned with false teaching coming from the women of that community, relating to women in general. The book cited above gives a more detailed explanation, but I'll sketch the outlines.

Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, who among other things was celebrated as the goddess of birth. In that region, there was a strong emphasis on motherhood as the source/originator of life. There was a proto-gnostic teaching there that woman was the originator of man; therefore, some scholars (the Kroegers, for example) think that the prohibited authentein may refer to women teaching that they are the originator of man.

As these pagan beliefs blended with bits of Christianity to form the beginnings of gnosticism, the idea emerged that Eve pre-existed Adam, and that he came into existence through her. This led to a multitude of false teachings, because it privileged one gender (female) over the other (male). Women influenced by such thought must have created a disturbance when they tried to share such teachings in Timothy's church. Therefore, it was important to correct this idea that that the woman came first. Paul's words are a sort of "putting women in their place," but only inasmuch as these particular women were trying to elevate themselves above their brothers. Read with knowledge of ancient Ephesus and gnostic beliefs -- namely, that Eve was created first, and women therefore had a special power which men lacked -- Paul's words become a very pointed rebuke to a specific false teaching.


Other Scriptures
This post has already gotten pretty long, so I'll just make a brief mention of one other thing which informs my interpretation of this passage: Other parts of the Bible. I believe, as I'm sure you do, too, that scripture will not contradict itself. Therefore, if something seems contradictory, then I look deeper to see if there are any contextual issues which explain that. As I see evidence in scripture of God blessing women in authority (Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, and Nympha are the ones who first spring to mind), I believe that God would not elsewhere state an absolute principle which would condemn the work of these women. That means that the contextual issues I've mentioned are especially valuable as I try to understand the whole of scriptural teaching regarding gender roles and women in leadership.


I hope this has been helpful... as long as this post is, still I feel like I've only scratched the surface. I hope this helps you (and anyone else who has read all the way through it) to understand why someone might consider my position to be a legitimate and biblical one. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these points.

Hi Macrina,

Thanks for the detailed response. Don't worry about apologising for length, I'm famous for making long posts, lol. And thank you for your input, particularly about the Ephesus congregation having a Temple of Artemis (this was new knowledge to me). The teaching that Eve was created first reminds me of the Alphabet of ben Sira, a 10th Century AD work which parodied the Jewish beliefs, and included the existence of a woman before Eve (Lilith) who was condemned by God because she was too "independent" and so God created a new submissive woman for Adam to dominate.

Of course, the only evidence of this Lilith being in Eden is from said parody (The Hebrew term is used once in Isaiah as a night-bird of some kind, perhaps a screech owl, and in Jewish mythology, Lilith is a night demon, but clearly neither relate to Adam and Eve).

Anyhow, back to the comments (sorry for the aside, lol). Considering the Temple of Artemis, and the possible emergence of a pre-Adamic Eve, it makes sense that Paul would confirm in 1 Timothy that Adam was created first.

However, the argument I have presented is not solely the fact that Adam was created first. Rather it has to do with the order of creation (of which Adam being created first is only the first sign of this), and how this is mirrored in other aspects of life (hence my use of Ephesians 5 to discuss the role of the husband/wife and Christ/church).

I guess I didn't completely explain this in my previous post, and I think I've clarified it in recent posts to other members, but if you haven't had a chance to read them, my commentary should be pretty clear. By the order of creation, God set Christ as the Head of the Church, and according to Ephesians 5, this order of creation is mirrored in the role of the Husband being the head of the wife (but both the roles of christ and church are also mirrored here, so take that into consideration). So if Christ is the head of our global church, and on an individual level, the husband is the head of the wife, on a localised level, who would be the head overseer of a local church?

I would submit that logic dictates a man should also fill this role.

Your thoughts are appreciated, and I hope you can provide further input into this insight. Thanks for the dialogue, it's been great

~ Regards, PA

edit: Gah, I can't wait until I reach 50 posts. Every time I quote someone who has a link in their post, I have to go back and delete it or else the system won't let me make my post, lol

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Ah, I forgot to respond to the second part of your post -- sorry about that.

Genesis 3:16 is part of the curse. It relates tragic consequences of sin. One of these consequences is the painful struggle that emerged between the sexes and which interferes with the harmony of pre-Fall existence. Man's domination of woman is a result of sin, not God's original design for creation. Through the cross and the resurrection, Jesus has given us victory over the curse; we are no longer bound to the sinful, fallen state, as we are being re-formed in God's new creation.

Only partially, Macrina (hi again, btw) *waves*

While what you say is technically true, men still work the land for food (though today some of us are lucky enough have desk jobs), and women still have pain in childbirth. As such, we cannot just dismiss the punishments of the Fall on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice.

However, if you read Ephesians 5, the domination of man "ruling over" woman has been tempered by the Love of Christ, the love that Christ had for the Church (and I don't think I need to describe what he did for us).

The punishment is only partially tempered - the husband is still the head of the woman (though as Christ, tempered by His sacrificial Love), just as the punishment of separation from God is only partially tempered by the gift of the Holy Spirit and the deposit in God's eternal Kingdom.

All the best,

~ PA

 

[Strong in Him]

Wow, this is a very interesting point, and one which I hadn't considered. Instead of spreading deception, as Eve did, Mary Magdalene spread truth. There is a certain redemptive beauty to that.

Thank you - yes, I agree there is. It came to me a few years ago when I was preparing a sermon on Mary Magdalene.