Biblical reasons for the submission of women

[trophy33]

It would seem to me that any exception would prove that the "certain and clear" interpretation that you're putting on things is not so certain and clear after all.

But this is the impasse; each of us is looking at the Biblical evidence and drawing different conclusions.

There is the thing - the OP verses are so clear that you do not have to "interpret them", if you do not have some kind of internal disagreement with them.

While the greetings you use as doctrinal source are very ambiguous and need interpretation in every case.

I also think it would be very difficult to postulate/prove that greetings and personal closing notes of Paul (like "bring me my cloak I left in Troad") are inspired.

 

[Paidiske]

Everything is interpreted. That is the nature of human apprehension of the written word.

Especially when it comes to us, through the minds of translators and the mediatory teaching and reflection of two millennia of Christian thought. None of us comes to Scripture with a mind free of any associations or prejudices or ideas about what it "must" mean.

 

[trophy33]

Everything is interpreted. That is the nature of human apprehension of the written word.

Especially when it comes to us, through the minds of translators and the mediatory teaching and reflection of two millennia of Christian thought. None of us comes to Scripture with a mind free of any associations or prejudices or ideas about what it "must" mean.

In that case you have no solid ground, because everything is ambiguous.

But I would like to hear how you want to "interpret" my 3 OP reasons, if you wish.

 

[Paidiske]

In that case you have no solid ground, because everything is ambiguous.

We need to take responsibility for constructing a coherent and orthodox hermeneutic, yes.

 

[trophy33]

We need to take responsibility for constructing a coherent and orthodox hermeneutic, yes.

Exactly. And we should not use ambiguous greetings for a doctrine, when we have clear texts in main parts of inspired letters, right?

 

[Paidiske]

Exactly. And we should not use ambiguous greetings for a doctrine, when we have clear texts in main parts of inspired letters, right?

I'd put it the other way, and say that we shouldn't build a doctrine on one or two statements, when we have clear counter-examples from that same apostle's own practice elsewhere in Scripture.

 

[trophy33]

I'd put it the other way, and say that we shouldn't build a doctrine on one or two statements, when we have clear counter-examples from that same apostle's own practice elsewhere in Scripture.

In the OP only there are 3, which is a suitable rule for any doctrine.

The practice is just your interpretation, because the greetings are ambiguous. The only think you have is that Phoebe was called "servant" and the only fact we know about diakons in the NT era is that they helped with arrangement of tables. This is in no collision with the OP.

Thats hardly something that is enough to deny so many clear texts, if we want to be honest and truthful.

 

[Paidiske]

I strongly suggest you not accuse others of being dishonest. That tends to be taken as flaming.

It's not "just my interpretation," though. Clearly whole denominations have found this line of argument compelling enough to ordain women.

 

[trophy33]

I strongly suggest you not accuse others of being dishonest. That tends to be taken as flaming.

It's not "just my interpretation," though. Clearly whole denominations have found this line of argument compelling enough to ordain women.

Its still an interpretation of greetings, only. Why are you ignoring the OP texts like if these texts do not exist at all? Why are we still talking about greetings and not about these texts? Do you have something to say to them?

And I am sure that if we want to be honest, then the difference between 3 clear texts in main parts of doctrinal letters is visibly something generally different from ambiguous greetings that can be interpreted in various ways.

 

[Paidiske]

Its still an interpretation of greetings, only. Why are you ignoring the OP texts like if these texts do not exist at all? Why are we still talking about greetings and not about these texts? Do you have something to say to them?

I am bringing in other texts which show that the texts you have put forward cannot be interpreted in the way you have, without disregarding the clear evidence of other parts of Scripture.

I'm not ignoring the OP texts, I'm putting them in the context of the whole NT.

 

[trophy33]

I am bringing in other texts which show that the texts you have put forward cannot be interpreted in the way you have, without disregarding the clear evidence of other parts of Scripture.

I'm not ignoring the OP texts, I'm putting them in the context of the whole NT.

This is really a bad hermeneutics.

1) Greetings interpret main parts of letters? Where did you get this rule from?
2) Do you believe greetings are inspired and authoritative for doctrine?
3) How do you interpret the OP verses, then?
4) How can an ambiguous text interpret a clear text?

 

[HatGuy]

A true christian doesn't see 'prejudice' or 'social barriers' it's just Gods way or not.

God's way is to break down social barriers and prejudice.

This isn't a social justice gospel, but the thrust of the promise starting from Abraham and encapsulated in the gospel is that it's for "all nations" - it's meant to be multi-ethnic, multi-generational, and for both sexes. One group is not meant to be dominant over another, as it's one body, one baptism - one body with many parts, part of the body.

It's clear and obvious from the outset of the NT that Jesus was coming to break down social barriers and insist all have equal access to God, and the Church ought to represent that.

 

[Paidiske]

1) Greetings interpret main parts of letters? Where did you get this rule from?

The evidence of women in particular roles - deacon, apostle - can't be dismissed because it's in a greeting.

2) Do you believe greetings are inspired and authoritative for doctrine?

2 Timothy 3:16 would suggest so, no?

3) How do you interpret the OP verses, then?

Paul was making an argument for a particular community which has particular problems. In good rabbinic fashion, he drew on Torah to do so, but we can see that this was not consistent with his practice in every other community, so we can see that that argument is not determinative for all Christians everywhere in every time.

4) How can an ambiguous text interpret a clear text?

It is the reader who makes judgements about what is "ambiguous" or "clear." I don't accept your judgement on that point.

 

[trophy33]

God's way is to break down social barriers and prejudice.

This isn't a social justice gospel, but the thrust of the promise starting from Abraham and encapsulated in the gospel is that it's for "all nations" - it's meant to be multi-ethnic, multi-generational, and for both sexes. One group is not meant to be dominant over another, as it's one body, one baptism - one body with many parts, part of the body.

It's clear and obvious from the outset of the NT that Jesus was coming to break down social barriers and insist all have equal access to God, and the Church ought to represent that.

So, what will you do with the OP verses?

 

[trophy33]

The evidence of women in particular roles - deacon, apostle - can't be dismissed because it's in a greeting.

The verse does not say that Junia is female and that she/he is an apostle, repeating it over and over will not make it true.

2 Timothy 3:16 would suggest so, no?

Paul was making an argument for a particular community which has particular problems. In good rabbinic fashion, he drew on Torah to do so, but we can see that this was not consistent with his practice in every other community, so we can see that that argument is not determinative for all Christians everywhere in every time.

So, your hermeneutics is that what Paul is saying to the whole congregation is not determinative for all Christians everywhere, but what Paul might have said in some closing greetings, is determinative for all Christians everywhere?

You dismiss these verses because "it was written to a specific church", but you build on ambiguous specific greetings to one (possibly) woman?

 

[Paidiske]

The verse does not say that Junia is female and that she/he is an apostle, repeating it over and over will not make it true.

Nor will your denying it repeatedly make it untrue.

So, your hermeneutics is that what Paul is saying to the whole congregation is not determinative for all Christians everywhere, but what Paul might have said in some closing greetings, is determinative for all Christians everywhere?

You dismiss these verses because "it was written to a specific church", but you build on ambiguous specific greetings to one (possibly) woman?

My hermeneutics is that we can see, from the book of Acts and many of the epistles, that women in the early church received the gifts of the Spirit (as was foretold in Joel 2:28-29) and worked alongside their brothers in Christ , in what would later come to be recognised as clerical roles, and in more charismatic leadership roles, without that being any issue.

So what Paul says limiting that in particular circumstances cannot be used to limit all Christian women everywhere.

If you want an excuse to quench the Spirit in women, you'll need to look elsewhere than the whole testimony of the NT, which shows us anything but that.

 

[Strong in Him]

How could anyone possible misunderstand this "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness."

O.k; so let's look at it.
"I permit not ..." - who's the "I"? Paul. Paul does not permit something - but Paul is dead, so what impact does that have on us?
"a woman to teach". A woman; which woman? The word is singular. Who was this woman and why didn't he permit her to teach? It doesn't say "all women", and Paul knew that Priscilla taught Apollos.
"Nor to have dominion over a man" - how is teaching someone having dominion over them? Sharing the Gospel involves teaching; explaining that someone is a sinner, telling who Jesus is and what he came to do and how God has provided salvation. The woman at the well went to her town and told people about Jesus, Mary Magdalene told the disciples about the resurrection. In the OT Huldah gave the male priests a word from God, a servant girl advised the king to obey Elisha so he would be healed from leprosy and Esther influenced the king and stopped him from killing all the Jews. Were they "having dominion" over men? If so, maybe women shouldn't interact with men at all in case they accidentally teach them something? Maybe men shouldn't sing hymns/read books that women have written? Maybe women are exempt from obeying the Great Commission?
"but to be in quietness". Really? Not to pray or prophesy, 1 Corinthians 11, sing Psalms, hymns or spiritual songs, Colossians 3:16, or read Scripture? How then can we worship?

This is only part of one verse - yet it doesn't sound at all straightforward to me.

 

[Sparagmos]

Most of these arguments are over words:


This one has come to have some negative connotations...we should look to the original.

I don’t think it’s just semantics but feel free to share what you know of the original meaning of the word.

 

[Sparagmos]

We hear frequently these days that the reason for the submission of women was cultural, in the church of Corinth only, about a specific woman only etc.

I would like to present 3 biblical reasons for the submission. Notice, that none of them is temporal, cultural or local:

1) The creation order:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1Tm 2:11

2) Because Eve was deceived, not Adam:
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
1Tm 2:14

3) Woman was created for man, not man for woman, its her purpose:
"Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man."
1Cor 11:9

As long as what these verses state is true, the submission of women is true, too, and women are not allowed to be in a position of authority in a Christian environment.

I’m curious why you started this thread. You have already posted this argument on other threads and made your point repeatedly. You know that many women here find your view demeaning, and on those other threads women as a group have been flamed. We have been accused of being prone to deceit, unable to think rationally, not fit for meaningful work, but made for menial work, and unable to give men any advice (which is saying we are less wise and intelligent,). We have been called “weak,” in a way that is not referring to our physical strength. We have been dismissed and told we are over sensitive simply for defending our basic value and equality.
What purpose is served by starting another thread to repeat the same argument and the same handful of verses? You are just repeating what you said over and over on those other threads and no one appears to be changing their minds due to the arguments presented. At this point you are just “rubbing it in” and opening up yet another forum for men to bash women in.

 

[Daniel C]

Except he did. He commended Phoebe the deacon and Junia the apostle and others who taught and led. So clearly this isn't an absolute statement.

So Paul is in error? Writing his Gospel and epistles and then changing his mind,error?