Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[Kerensa]

Its a good example, because its about what a gender cannot do. Not about what every individual of the gender is able to do.

Doesn't make much sense to suggest that women cannot be leaders in the church, considering that there are plenty of denominations in which women ARE leaders (including some who are participating in this discussion). Many of them are doing it very well, too.

 

[Oldmantook]

I really think that's a pretty poor reading of that verse.

The tricky word is the one translated " through" - as if it's the childbearing which causes or is somehow the instrument of salvation. But the Greek word dia has a much broader range of meaning than the English "through."

I'd suggest the best sense would actually come from translating it "during;" that is, God will keep her safe during (the life-threateningly dangerous process of) childbearing, provided they continue...

Although 1 Timothy 2:15 can have a broader range of meaning than through as you point out, it can also denote causation. The surrounding context determines its meaning as Paul has just finished his discourse about the roles and behaviors that should accompany a female follower of Jesus directly basing his teaching on the order of creation in vs.9-14. Note in particular that Paul wrote that Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived and consequently fell into transgression BUT she will be saved through childbearing. The conjunctive participle "but" at the beginning of v.15 indicates the addition of an oppositional clause whereby Eve's "transgression" does not result in a permanent separation from God provided that (if) "they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." Paul in v.15 delineates the primary role of women which would be that of a bearer of children and mother in God's design for the family unit. As women are obedient in fulfilling this role and if they continue in faith...they will be saved. Thus i believe this verse does have soteriological implications.

 

[Kerensa]

The conjunctive participle "but" at the beginning of v.15 indicates the addition of an oppositional clause whereby Eve's "transgression" does not result in a permanent separation from God provided that (if) "they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." Paul in v.15 delineates the primary role of women which would be that of a bearer of children and mother in God's design for the family unit. As women are obedient in fulfilling this role and if they continue in faith...they will be saved. Thus i believe this verse does have soteriological implications.

What about women who for reasons of personal choice, or medical issues, or simply circumstances, don't have children? Are they not saved?

Just as one example, from early on in Christianity, there have been plenty of women who have chosen to live celibate lives as part of their devotion to Christ. Are they unsaved, or are they not fulfilling God's design, just because they choose a way of life that necessarily involves not having children?

And for the umpteenth time, the two letters to Timothy are almost certainly not by Paul, but by a later author attributing his own ideas to Paul to give them authority. Therefore they can't be guaranteed to represent Paul's actual views and they aren't valid for doctrinal pronouncements on what women (or anyone else) should or should not do.

 

[Oldmantook]

What about women who for reasons of personal choice, or medical issues, or simply circumstances, don't have children? Are they not saved?

Just as one example, from early on in Christianity, there have been plenty of women who have chosen to live celibate lives as part of their devotion to Christ. Are they unsaved, or are they not fulfilling God's design, just because they choose a way of life that necessarily involves not having children?

And for the umpteenth time, the two letters to Timothy are almost certainly not by Paul, but by a later author attributing his own ideas to Paul to give them authority. Therefore they can't be guaranteed to represent Paul's actual views and they aren't valid for doctrinal pronouncements on what women (or anyone else) should or should not do.

I did not mean to state or imply that women cannot be saved if they don't have children as that would be ludicrous. 1 Tim 2:15 however is an axiomatic principle about God's design and role that women should aspire to and fulfill. If a woman for whatever cannot fulfill that role then it does not mean that she cannot be saved but that she should certainly continue in "faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

Your false notion giving attribute to another author of the Timothy epistles has no basis in fact. You pick and choose which scriptures to believe and which scriptures to ignore which is gross misrepresentation and eisegesis.

 

[Kerensa]

Your false notion giving attribute to another author of the Timothy epistles has no basis in fact. You pick and choose which scriptures to believe and which scriptures to ignore which is gross misrepresentation and eisegesis.

It's not my "false notion", I'm afraid. It's the consensus of the majority of Bible scholars.

 

[~Zao~]

Although 1 Timothy 2:15 can have a broader range of meaning than through as you point out, it can also denote causation. The surrounding context determines its meaning as Paul has just finished his discourse about the roles and behaviors that should accompany a female follower of Jesus directly basing his teaching on the order of creation in vs.9-14. Note in particular that Paul wrote that Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived and consequently fell into transgression BUT she will be saved through childbearing. The conjunctive participle "but" at the beginning of v.15 indicates the addition of an oppositional clause whereby Eve's "transgression" does not result in a permanent separation from God provided that (if) "they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." Paul in v.15 delineates the primary role of women which would be that of a bearer of children and mother in God's design for the family unit. As women are obedient in fulfilling this role and if they continue in faith...they will be saved. Thus i believe this verse does have soteriological implications.

When it’s rendered into the context of barrenness that has miracles attached then yes it has. Those were changing points in the history of God’s people. But nevertheless the part that any Christian plays in the plan of salvation is to allow Him to act freely within the believer so that He can manifest Himself thru that saint. Therein are they saved, not thru a women’s womb, which leaves out the barren. Spiritually speaking when Christ is manifest thru the believer then the seed is cast, whether on a pulpit or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you read the Old Testament you will see many times the people did not understand the purpose behind Gods commands and they often applied their own human reasoning to their own detriment

Which demonstrates why the old covenant is obsolete.

 

[RDKirk]

It's not my "false notion", I'm afraid. It's the consensus of the majority of Bible scholars.

As has already been mentioned, the authorship is irrelevant (as it is with Hebrews, for instance, and for practically all of the OT). All of the canon is received as inspired by the Holy Spirit, regardless the name of the person who actually penned it.

What is in question is whether we properly understand what the Holy Spirit intends it to mean for us.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's not my "false notion", I'm afraid. It's the consensus of the majority of Bible scholars.

I would take the majority to be significantly over 50%. Do you have data to support this ?

 

[Kerensa]

Well, no, I can't provide data on what every single scholar who's ever written about the Pauline epistles has concluded, interesting and helpful though it'd be.

I agree I shouldn't have said "majority" without a qualification. I meant the majority of Bible scholars who study the text critically and don't come from a pre-conceived doctrinal position of everything in it being infallible. The Bible, like it or not, was written by human beings — inspired ones, but subject to the same foibles and limitations as you and me and any of us. And in fact, there were disputes over the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim., 2 Tim. and Titus) early in the history of the church, before the canon was finalised. It's not just modern scholars who've picked up that these letters don't seem to match Paul's genuine writing style and concerns and ideas.

There is a very good run-down of the debate (giving perspectives from both sides) in Wikipedia, with extensive footnotes showing which scholars say these things. But as you've already rejected that without looking at it, I don't know what else I can offer.

Anyway, I need to get on here. I'm leading the upcoming mid-week service at my church (we don't have ordained clergy, but women and men have absolute equality in all roles) and I'm just working on putting together the Bible readings.

God bless

 

[ToBeLoved]

Which demonstrates why the old covenant is obsolete.

It’s still written on our hearts tho. The Law

 

[ToBeLoved]

Well, no, I can't provide data on what every single scholar who's ever written about the Pauline epistles has concluded, interesting and helpful though it'd be.

The Bible, like it or not, was written by human beings — inspired ones, but subject to the same foibles and limitations as you and me and any of us.

Throughout the Bible when prophets spoke in the Old Testament they spoke the exact words of God or a false prophet was stoned.

I fully believe the God that created the entire universe can and did dictate the Bible flawlessly.

It’s not a matter of was Paul or Moses or anyone good enough to write it.

It is whether God was in control and made sure the cannon was exact.

I think the common thought with people who don’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible think we believe the individuals were flawless.

No. Not at all. We BELIEVE God is flawless and oversaw the entire process

 

[ToBeLoved]

There is a very good run-down of the debate (giving perspectives from both sides) in Wikipedia, with extensive footnotes showing which scholars say these things. But as you've already rejected that without looking at it, I don't know what else I can offer.

Wikipedia ALWAYS shows and documents both sides. That’s the way Wikipedia is.

 

[Sam91]

So you can't even find scripture to to make your point then? Sex or gender discrimination or imagined "roles" Paul promoted are not biblical. People often dispute my research with human reasoned arguments and have no scriptural backing.

Luke 6:31
And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

James 2:8
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Romans 15:2
Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

Galatians 5:14
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Proverbs 3:29
Do not plan evil against your neighbor, who dwells trustingly beside you.

Luke 10:27
And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


But Paul may have been following local government law, which is the only law allowed by God under the new covenant. Gender discrimination is illegal now.

Romans 13:1-7
1 Peter 2:13-17

What do you think of 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first'?

 

[Sam91]

Although 1 Timothy 2:15 can have a broader range of meaning than through as you point out, it can also denote causation. The surrounding context determines its meaning as Paul has just finished his discourse about the roles and behaviors that should accompany a female follower of Jesus directly basing his teaching on the order of creation in vs.9-14. Note in particular that Paul wrote that Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived and consequently fell into transgression BUT she will be saved through childbearing. The conjunctive participle "but" at the beginning of v.15 indicates the addition of an oppositional clause whereby Eve's "transgression" does not result in a permanent separation from God provided that (if) "they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." Paul in v.15 delineates the primary role of women which would be that of a bearer of children and mother in God's design for the family unit. As women are obedient in fulfilling this role and if they continue in faith...they will be saved. Thus i believe this verse does have soteriological implications.

Are you really saying... men can not do works to save themselves... but women only get salvation through works?

 

[RDKirk]

What do you think of 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first'?

In all its scriptural permutations, it is a reference to the fact that with great authority in Christ comes great accountability to Christ.

I was taught the same ethic as a leader in the military: "Leaders eat last." It was always my responsibility to make sure my troops were taken care of before I saw to my own needs.

When I was a young man in the military, I was only concerned for myself. I only had to make sure I was squared away.

When I was put into authority over others, that made me accountable to the commander for their training and well-being.

I could not order one of my troops to mow my grass or wash my car--I still had to take care of own issues myself. But I also had to deal with their problems:

Call in the middle of a Saturday night: "Sergeant Smith works for you, correct? The police have been called to his quarters for a domestic dispute. Go over there and handle it."

Letter on my desk on Monday morning: "Your subordinate, Airman Jones, has been reported 30 days overdue in his American Express payment. Contact Airman Jones and resolve the matter."

Telephone call from the First Sergeant: "Isn't Staff Sergant Mitchell in your division? I got word that the OSI is about to open an investigation on his wife for black marketeering. You'd better get with him and clear that up before its too late."

It was my job to keep them prepared at all times and in all ways to carry out the commander's mission, and that frequently meant putting them first and myself last.

 

[ToBeLoved]

In all its scriptural permutations, it is a reference to the fact that with great authority in Christ comes great accountability to Christ.

I was taught the same ethic as a leader in the military: "Leaders eat last." It was always my responsibility to make sure my troops were taken care of before I saw to my own needs.

When I was a young man in the military, I was only concerned for myself. I only had to make sure I was squared away.

When I was put into authority over others, that made me accountable to the commander for their training and well-being.

I could not order one of my troops to mow my grass or wash my car--I still had to take care of own issues myself. But I also had to deal with their problems:

Call in the middle of a Saturday night: "Sergeant Smith works for you, correct? The police have been called to his quarters for a domestic dispute. Go over there and handle it."

Letter on my desk on Monday morning: "Your subordinate, Airman Jones, has been reported 30 days overdue in his American Express payment. Contact Airman Jones and resolve the matter."

Telephone call from the First Sergeant: "Isn't Staff Sergant Mitchell in your division? I got word that the OSI is about to open an investigation on his wife for black marketeering. You'd better get with him and clear that up before its too late."

It was my job to keep them prepared at all times and in all ways to carry out the commander's mission, and that frequently meant putting them first and myself last.

I love reading your posts.

 

[Oldmantook]

It's not my "false notion", I'm afraid. It's the consensus of the majority of Bible scholars.

An appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy. I suggest you not rely on it, particularly because these so-called "scholars" fail to acknowledge that Paul makes the same argument based on the order of creation elsewhere in his epistles. Therefore in spite of your claim (whether this is Paul's writings or not), 1 Timothy is consistent with Paul's writings that the roles of men and women differ. May I remind you that the Father, Son & Spirit are coequal, yet their roles differ.

 

[Oldmantook]

When it’s rendered into the context of barrenness that has miracles attached then yes it has. Those were changing points in the history of God’s people. But nevertheless the part that any Christian plays in the plan of salvation is to allow Him to act freely within the believer so that He can manifest Himself thru that saint. Therein are they saved, not thru a women’s womb, which leaves out the barren. Spiritually speaking when Christ is manifest thru the believer then the seed is cast, whether on a pulpit or not.

The text says what it says. You can choose to believe whatever you wish.

 

[Kerensa]

May I remind you that the Father, Son & Spirit are coequal, yet their roles differ.

Since the entire concept of the Trinity is unbiblical and contrary to what Jesus clearly taught and stated about himself and the Father, that argument won't wash. But that's getting way off topic.

Or even if it was a valid argument, the idea of "equal but with different roles" is a total fallacy with regard to the notion that men can be leaders and women can't. That is inherently unequal. I think others in this discussion (including at least one or two ordained ministers) have already explained that in some detail.