I didn't claim it authorized women to be clergy I claimed that if it excludes women then it also excludes unmarried males and males without children.
Actually, the pastoral books of the Bible - 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul, but rather, were written about 150 years after his death - most likely by men who did not want women to have as large a part in the church as they apparently had at the time.
And neither are unmarried men or men without children. It doesn't mention women as under consideration, neither does it mention unmarried men or men without children as under consideration.
Argument from silence can be fraught, but nevertheless not inconclusive.
if you adopt the strict 'literal, devoid of any local situation' interpretation of women not teaching, then it is not unreasonable to be just as literal with men - so designated people must be married, have children and only one wife.
John
NZ
That is my point John.
And neither are unmarried men or men without children. It doesn't mention women as under consideration, neither does it mention unmarried men or men without children as under consideration.
The Greek of 1st Timothy 3 doesn't even say a man must be a husband as it is often translated. It literally says "a one woman man". I am not married, but I believe that the marital relationship is between 1 man and 1 woman and that it is till death do us part. Therefore even though I am not married and do not have a woman.. I am a one woman man. It is referring to the quality of belief and character, not a mandate that a person be married.
So you are deliberately misrepresenting that text. Not because you actually believe that, but because you want to use to dismiss what Paul says in 1st Timothy 2:12
The idea that Timothy 2:12 is not stating a universal principle but rather only a local/cultural issue is easily refuted by the justification that Paul gives immediately after the statement. The justification for it is a universal principle built into creation itself. Thus this can't be a purely local cultural issue.
Really? You are claiming to know what I believe? You can read my mind? You are absolutely incorrect in your statement. I did not deliberately misrepresent any text or my understanding of any text. I would ask that you stop assuming to know what it is that I believe. I could just as easily accuse you of knowing you are wrong but sticking to your story simply because as a Catholic you want to retain an all male clergy. That would not be true because I have no way of knowing what you truly believe. Just as you have no way of knowing precisely what it is I believe.
Admittedly I struggled with this for a very long time. I am ordained by a denomination that does ordain women. I came to the conclusion after study and prayer that Paul was writing to a particular Church with a specific problem and that he probably was not addressing the Church Universal. Can I prove this? No. If it is wrong to allow women to be ordained then I have seen God turn a bad thing and use it for his purpose as I know a number of people who have turned to Christ based upon the preaching of women. We should keep in mind that the first to proclaim the Risen Christ was an Angel, following that it was two women.
I agree with you. It seems just as likely to me that wife of one husband is as possible as a non-married man or a man without children. There are principles here. A good spouse, a good parent, a good steward these are clearly implied by the text. Logically, if this passage does not literally require a husband and father then it follows that it also does not literally require a man.
#1 - I wasn't assuming, nor claiming to magically know what you believe. I was basing my comments off what I remembered of your previous posts. Specifically I thought I remembered you stating and/or implying that you did not take either of these passages as restrictions on who can be ordained because you viewed them as local issues rather than universal..
Such as ...
and...
If your words are not a reliable indication of what you believe, then I apologize for thinking they were.
I also didn't mean to imply that there was anything wrong with rhetorically assuming a position you don't actually hold for the sake of argument and discussion. My problem is not that I think you don't agree with the interpretation you put forward as a challenge to the anti-WO interpretation of 1st Timothy 2, my problem is that I think the argument you are using is relying on twisting the text. In other words, I don't think the "literal" meaning of the text is what you are claiming it is.
I would liken the argument you are presenting to some I have heard who argue that if we want to use Old Testament passages that condemn sexual immorality or other moral commandments, then we must also adhere to the levitical codes dealing with food and clothing.
It is a blatant misuse of the text because it relies upon ignoring context, and other principles necessary in good interpretation. The only people who can use such arguments are people who don't understand what they are talking about, or people who know that they are misrepresenting it and are willing to do so to defend their viewpoint.
(for background purposes) I grew up protestant non-denom, charismatic. I was never taught about women's ordination one way or the other, but I basically defaulted to being pro-women's ordination. I was probably in my 20's before I became aware of 1st Timothy 2:12 and since my upbringing was staunchly biblical literalist, at that point I changed my mind because the bible clearly said not to do it. At that point I actually also agreed that pastors had to be married, family men, again because of the simplistic view we had of literalism. (my point is not that literal interpretation is wrong, but that we didn't understand what literal actually was)
At that time I also believed that deacons were allowed to drink some wine, but elders and overseers were absolutely prohibited from ever drinking alcohol. We based that on the fact that the text says that deacons should not be "given to much wine" but for elders it says they should not be "given to wine". Because there was a difference we assumed it meant that elders could have no wine at all.
Eventually once I learned more about understanding the bible as the authors actually intended, including the literary styles they used etc. I realized that those understandings were largely incorrect because they were based not on the actual literal meaning of the text, but rather on misrepresenting the authors intent in a false form of literalism.
Back then, because the text of 1st Timothy 2:12 says women can not teach, nor have authority over a man in the Church. I took it to literally forbid ALL teaching by a woman in Church, with the possible exception of teaching only other women or children. So I didn't just see it as a prohibition of women's ordination, but actually a prohibition of a woman ever giving any kind of teaching at all, even if she wasn't ordained.
Also, because it says 'nor to have authority over a man' I also understood that to man ANY authority at all, so I was against women worship leaders, women leading any committee of which men were also a part etc. As far as I know my brother still views it that way.
Now, because I have a different view of Church authority (specifically I have a traditional/Catholic view) and because I understand the real literal meaning of the text, rather than the false literalistic understanding, I recognize that Paul is talking specifically about what Catholics call the Magisterium, or the teaching authority of the Church. This only applies to ordained clergy and thus women are free to teach all they want even in Church groups etc, but they do not and can not speak with the authority of the Magisterium.
This is why Catholicism has had many great women teachers, and many great women leaders among the Saints. They just weren't ordained to Holy Orders.
But, again, Protestants don't really believe in any of that anyway, so I think that distorts the issue for many protestants and it almost forces an extreme, and senseless restriction against women in the spiritual life of the Church (as I used to hold) or in reaction against that it forces what I would consider a liberalization where the sacred, divinely ordained gender roles are demolished by egalitarianism.
1 Tim 2:11-14 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority (Here the Greek means to usurp authority, which makes sense in light of the local situation) over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (Some see reference to a female cult's teaching where woman was created before man, which Paul is correcting) 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. Not that women are more prone to deception (it was men leaders taking others away here in the letter, but as an example of a another woman who had been deceived.) NIV
The context of the entire letter has clear local references. Paul was addressing a specific situation. Today we can take form that letter:
Public decorum in gatherings and good character in public are essential
to counter some false teachers;
Duly recognised leaders need to be appointed, who have teaching responsibilities. The text can support women deacons at least. But The NT reveals a wider participation in all levels of the new community;
Women can be taught, they must not be disruptive when all are together, and unless well taught and mature they should not engage in public teaching themselves. They could teach (thus be silent does not mean never teach) Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. NIV
Th every obvious local situation means we cannot simply dismiss a situation specific exegesis. In fact every biblical book has its own cultural setting and original audience. We cannot properly understand the Scriptures without some knowledge.
A good commentary, such as the one by Gordon Fee, an Assemblies of God teacher and widely acknowledged and respected NT scholar, is worth reading.
John
NZ
I believe you confused an argument from logic with my personal view however re-reading the posts I can see how this could easily happen. For the record it is the comments from Paul concerning women remaining silent and not having authority that I was referring to in my initial post. The discussion with Albion concerning the logical fallacy exposed in his argument that women are not even in consideration concerned separate comments from Paul that Albion brought into the discussion.
My position is this: Looking closely at the portions of Scripture that discuss women and their place in the Church I found no reason to believe that women can not be ordained. Of course being Protestant I do not consider the "Icon of Christ" argument from Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Again it's not a deal breaker for me and I consider the matter what the Lutherans would call adiophora. I realize others come to a different conclusion with the same evidence and I humbly recognize that I am not infallible.
For what it is worth I apologize for my response to you, I made assumptions and did not respond in a Christian manner. I ask your forgiveness.
1st Timothy 2:11-15
I'll look at 11 and 12 first which are the command, and then at 13-15 which is the explanation of the command... the "why".
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
You are correct that the Greek for "exercise authority" should be translated as "usurp authority". The term means to take upon oneself authority that isn't yours. It was, in extra-biblical Greek, sometimes used to refer to murder because this was the usurpation of the power of life and death. Taking upon oneself the authority to end a life.
Agreed
The reason why the term "usurp authority" is used here is explained in Paul's next statement that women should "remain quiet".
I'm not convinced on that one. There is nothing to link directly into that line of thought eg "Therefore ..."
This is often misunderstood by those who fall into simplistic literalism. The Greek translated as "remain quiet" does not mean to not make noise, as in not speak, or not be involved etc. What it means is to be in a state of contentment with your lot in life. Paul is contrasting "usurp authority" taking something that doesn't belong to you, with the state of being content with what God has called you to.
'Called you to' is an interpretation. I see it as addressing a problem with interruptions and thus as a simple reminder to take into account the common good, something Paul often did.
This reflects back to what Paul opens with in verse 11, which is the role God gave to women (and to most men for that matter). To learn quietly with all submissiveness. This is the role of everyone who is not called to the ministerial priesthood. Paul is pointing out in this passage that women are not called to that role.
I am not onside with a ministerial priesthood, and I reckon this is one of the great contributors to resistance to women having a greater level of participation amongst God's family.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearingif they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Verse 13 begins the explanation by making appeal to the created order. In appealing to this Paul is tapping into a host of imagery and typology that most modern readers are unaware of. They all deal with the idea of spiritual headship.
I did make a comment on this recently. But adding to that Genesis 1 is about assigning order. If order was the issue that was the wrong scripture to refer to. Genesis 2 in about the joint responsibilities for humanity within the created order. Relationship is one theme. 'Naked and not ashamed' in Ch 1 refers to transparency and openness towards both God and each other. From the second account we see the basis for a couple becoming 'one flesh'. The creation of Eve from Adam's rib, following his naming of the animals follows on from 'No suitable helper was found' where suitable means fitting and helper means together fulfilling the divine mandate given in Ch 1. The 'one flesh' concept is what a married couple can experience during intercourse, an intense longing to be even closer to the other, to be absorbed into them. Nothing about spiritual headship there.
Post fall man's only designated role working the ground became distorted, from creative enjoyment to hard toil. For the woman, her only unique role, childbearing, became much more difficult. Also, there would be contention between the sexes, with men seeking to dominate women. There is ample historical record of that, and I hold that much 'Christian headship' teaching feeds of that corrupt root. Man's desire to rule over a women was implicitly no there pre-Fall. That says something pretty basic to me.
It is not mere happenstance or random unimportant fact that Adam was created first and then Eve. The relationship between Adam and Eve is going to serve as the basis for most of the theology and doctrine about God's relationship with his people through out the rest of scripture. Perhaps even more importantly though, the relationship between Adam and Eve is meant to display the very nature of God himself.
First does not necessitate preeminence. More often it was related to inheritance in Scripture. Thus, we are now 'joint heirs with Christ, as His family members.
The relationship between Adam and Eve is going to serve as the basis for most of the theology and doctrine about God's relationship with his people through out the rest of scripture.
Could you elaborate on this before I reply? I am aware of marriage as a image for our relationship with Christ.
It is a huge mistake to think that male headship of family, of the very race itself, and of faith and liturgy, was purely a cultural phenomenon. It is profoundly theological and full of meaning.
It is deeply cultural, but also inherently sinful (flesh) in my view, a fallen view of relationships. Theologically in what way, recognising the Godhead as Trinity?
Verse 14 is particularly interesting and in my opinion telling. Adam's headship of the human race, the human family, and the covenant of creation, means that every where else in the bible, Adam is held responsible for the fall of man. Paul, the same guy who wrote this passage, in his letter to the Romans spends chapter 5 of Romans telling them all about how sin and death entered through Adam... It was Adam's responsibility, he was the head, therefore it is his fault.
Headship. The sense of 'head' as 'source' fits in well here. Given that both were given the divine mandate to multiply, fill and rule over creation in Ch 1 and that is all about ordering of creation Adam's not being singled out cannot be easily dismissed.
Adam points to origin. I have no reason to dispute those who see 'Adam' as a representative humanity rather than just a single man. The Hebrew text gives some support to that view. I'm not totally onside with that as yet, but it is something to be considered.
So why in verse 14 here does Paul seem to lay the blame for original sin at Eve's feet?
Here again, Paul is tapping into a vast back-store of typology and theology. Many people understand this simply as women are more prone to sin, or women are more easily deceived etc... none of that is what Paul is getting at.
You have to begin with verse 13. Adam was the head. Adam was not deceived. So why did the sin happen?
The sin happened because Adam wasn't doing his job, he was not fulfilling his role (which is why he is blamed everywhere else). AND because Eve was trying to fill Adam's shoes.
That is a personal view only. It arises out of your preconceptions about divine order. The text clearly presents the serpent as cunning, and he approached Eve who had not been given te command directly and cleverly exploited that fact. There is no mention anywhere that Adam was deficient at the encounter with Eve. What if he was elsewhere in the garden at the time? Plus. Subsequently he fell for Eve's line. He directly disobeyed God.
Adam's job, given by God was to keep and tend the garden. In Hebrew these are the same words used to describe the duty of the priests in the tabernacle and the temple. They don't mean just weeding and pruning the plants. They mean upkeep, but also guarding. It was Adam's job to guard the garden temple.
Both meanings are there for priests. But who was Adam to guard against? The only other time God clothed people was for the priests. God's clothing of the couple can be seen as both being appointed to be priests of God in a fallen world. The world is God's temple/palace, humanity his representatives under His reign. Both were set apart by God to go out and act on His behalf.
Adam refused to step up and do that job as he was supposed to. Paul hints in Hebrews that this was because Adam was afraid of death (and the implied threat that the serpent might kill him).
Probably your views have intruded here. Nowhere in Scripture have a come across such a statement about Adam.
Consider what Paul is saying here, given what we know from the rest of scripture. Adam and Eve are standing there and the serpent comes up. The serpent starts talking to Eve, while Adam is just standing there - sheer assumption. Paul is telling us right here that Adam was not deceived. He didn't believe the Serpent for a minute. He knew the serpent was lying and yet he did nothing.
Why did the serpent chose to talk to Eve instead of Adam?
God's authority is given for our protection. Adam was the one who had the authority to respond to the Serpent. He was the the one given the Authority necessary to oppose the Serpent and to protect Eve and the Garden.
Adam didn't use his authority because he was afraid. Eve tried to step up, but the fact is she didn't have the authority. As a result she was no match for the Serpent. No human being is EVER a match for the Serpent, UNLESS they have God's Authority.
Again, where is this explicitly stated? And today, since we are Christ;s people her eon earth, are only men given authority to confront the demonic in people?
This is why the Bible says "submit yourself to God, resist the Devil and he will flee." there is no way to oppose the devil or even to resist him, without Divine authority and that requires first that we submit to God.
Both men and women, as Paul wrote those words to the entire, assembled gatherings.
The woman (Eve) was deceived not because women are more gullible or more easily tricked, but because she didn't have the Authority necessary to resist the Devil. Adam did but he refused to do it.
?
Everything Paul is saying in this passage is about authority, specifically it is about Divine Authority that God gives to man through the terms of his covenant. It ONLY operates within the terms of the covenant and any attempt to amend that or to change it fails and leaves you open to deception by the enemy.
That is not at all what I am stating. It was Albion who claimed that these passages make clear that one must be a man to be a Deacon or Bishop. It is only this argument and these two portions of Scripture that I am taking into consideration. Albion argues that since women aren't even mentioned they are not in consideration as fit to be either a Deacon or Bishop. I simply responded that IF his contention that women are not fit matter for ordination because they are not mentioned in the passages, THEN neither are unmarried men or men without children by the same measure, that they too are not mentioned. My argument is solely confined to the two portions of Scripture mentioned specifically those that list the requirements to be Deacon and Bishop which were offered by Albion as proof that women cannot be ordained.
Here is an interesting article that discuss the issue:
For the sake of the gospel, let women speak