• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

What do you think of the NIV 2011 rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12

Discussion in 'Traditional Theology' started by Leevo, Jan 26, 2017.

  1. Leevo

    Leevo Well-Known Member

    773
    +279
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    The NIV 2011 says this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" whereas most other versions, including the 1984 have something along these lines "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (ESV)

    I have seen that this is the most controversial point in the NIV 2011 and I am wondering your thoughts on it. I understand where some people get an egalitarian interpretation of this verse due to the word "assume" instead of "exercise." For those that hold to a complementarian view of the role of men and women from the church. What do you think of the NIV 2011 rendering?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. inquiring mind

    inquiring mind associate with those you can learn from Supporter

    +2,891
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    This is why I always keep a KJV handy. It’s the oldest translation I have access to anyway. It certainly appears to preclude women from serving as pastors and teaching men. But, many point to Acts 2:17 as giving women authority to preach. Both 1 Timothy and Acts were written about the same time. Maybe Paul was referring only to the present whereas Luke was talking about the future.
     
  3. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +15,126
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    I... obviously am not a complementarian.

    But what I can tell you is that the underlying verb in that verse is not the usual word for the exercise of authority in the NT; it is a different word used nowhere else in the NT, which has a much stronger sense; something like "dictate to" or "give orders to." So I think it is proper that its translation into English should distinguish it from other instances where the word refers to the normal and healthy exercise of authority.
     
  4. inquiring mind

    inquiring mind associate with those you can learn from Supporter

    +2,891
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Sorry, I missed the “For those that hold to a complementarian view” stipulation in the OP... I was only commenting.
     
  5. outlawState

    outlawState Member

    158
    +54
    Christian
    Married
    As
    According to the concordance, "authenteo" has the specific meaning "to usurp authority over," the implication being that it is not a legitimate exercise of authority.

    I can't see that this is in any sense a controversial teaching amongst Christian heterodoxy, as it has been a teaching practised consistently since the beginning, except amongst the gnostics, such as Marcionites, who abandoned the Old Testament. This does not infer that women cannot instruct men privately about any matter. However the exercise of authority in the congregation is clearly forbidden.

    Obviously many USA and European mainline "churches" that are "Trinitarian" (and which reject "God over Christ") have adopted gnosticism as their role model and have abandoned the teaching. I have walked out of churches before when I discovered a woman was preaching or teaching. It's a sad reality of church life today that so many relegate themselves to contentment with gnosticism, when they should be preaching the true faith, which includes God's order, "God over Christ over man over woman." 1 Cor 11;3.
     
  6. All4Christ

    All4Christ ✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙ CF Senior Ambassador Supporter

    +7,061
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    First, welcome to Christian Forums!

    Could you clarify a few points of your post? When you say God over Christ, are you stating that the Trinity is false? Do you mean that there are two deities, one the Father and one the Son (born of the Father)?

    I honestly don't see how believing in the Trinity introduces Gnosticism. In Gnosticism, they don't believe Jesus was born fully man, fully God. They believe only the man, whom was filled with God when baptized, was crucified and that God left him before the crucifixion.

    There are a wide range of beliefs in Gnosticism. That said, could you clarify your perspective?
     
  7. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Handmaid of God † CF Senior Ambassador Supporter

    +16,441
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    It is my understanding that the passage refers to women seizing or usurping authority, for want of a better word.

    With that said, the ancient beliefs of the Orthodox Church might not be what some expect.

    Priests are men. Always. Only men even enter the altar area of the Church (unless there is need, such as if a woman may be given the task of maintaining the area. But from altar boys, to deacons, priests, bishops, etc. are only men.

    HOWEVER ... we recognize some women in Scripture as being "equal to the Apostles". Aside from ordained clerical roles, women can fulfill any position necessary. The evidence is that this understanding was present in the early Church. Women are not subjugated to men, and the Gospel is much more a cultural equalizer of men and women than an imposer of strict hierarchy in all things.

    Coming from a background that tended in the opposite direction, it was an eye-opener to me that nowhere are women told to be subject to men in general, only to their own husbands.

    Even that role can be misunderstood, because while men are given headship in the family, we also see an admonition that husbands and wives are to submit to one another. It is also very important to consider that husbands are to love their wives AS Christ loved the Church, giving Himself up for her. A husband's role is not meant to be that of a dictator, but of a servant leader, as Christ was.

    It can't really be taken in pieces and fully understood. And I expect this part or that will likely not set well with various persons, because of their beliefs. But taken as a whole, and fully appreciated, I believe it to be the wisdom of God. Seen in action, when faithful to the principles, it is a joy to behold.
     
  8. outlawState

    outlawState Member

    158
    +54
    Christian
    Married
    t looks like there's a problem with this listing.
    • This product cannot be listed in this category.
    I am stating that the version of the Trinity promulgated under the philosophy of the homoousious is unscriptural. It renders untrue everything Christ said about the Father being greater than himself. When Christ said that the Father is greater than himself, he meant not only on earth but also in heaven. That is a conception of hiearchical order only within the godhead, and has no connection to or links to Arianism, which is a different issue altogether.

    This is born out in all the epistles of Paul and in 1 Cor 11;3.

    No, there is one God, who is in Christ and in whom Christ is. That renders Christ divine.

    The trinity of revelation, the elements of the godhead, which is hierarchical, is nothing to do with gnosticism. Gnosticism comes when the human philosophy of the homoousious is introduced to explain how the godhead is composed. With the homoousious comes a total loss of that hierarchical order that Christ himself insisted upon. I have read Thomas Acquinas on this and he says that all members of the godhead are effectively equal. That is clearly not what the bible teaches.

    As i have said, gnosticism introduces human philosophy to explain divine things, and produces a consequent loss of the divine order, as divinity becomes confounded with the teachings of men.
     
  9. outlawState

    outlawState Member

    158
    +54
    Christian
    Married
    I don't think we do. The twelve "apostles" are above everyone because they were appointed by Christ himself, in the exercise of his authority.

    There is of course a more common use of the greek word for apostle as in Rom 16:7 which simply means a messenger of the gospel. I grant that Rom 16;7 suggests that Junia could be equated into that role, alongside her husband perhaps, but it was clearly a definition of her activity with respect to bringing the gospel message, not a definition of her equality with male apostles. That is to say, we can presume that it was inevitable that actual function was defined by gender in respect of what activities and persons were engaged with.

    Also it is completely untrue to suggest that because a woman is not under the headship of a man not her husband, that she thereby has authority to defy scripture, as in 1 Cor 14;34 and 1 Tim 2. She must be in submission within the congregation.
     
  10. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Handmaid of God † CF Senior Ambassador Supporter

    +16,441
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I apologize. You have misunderstood my statement. I did mean "we" as in the Orthodox Church, and as a matter of fact, we certainly do, and have done since the days of the early Church.

    Again I fear that you misunderstand me. No one is defying anything, and there certainly is no attitude of usurping or defiance.

    I fear that you are misunderstanding the ethos of the Orthodox Church.
     
  11. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,783
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    If you read from the original Greek, it could be interpreted as "to pray quietly" In other words, to uphold the pastor, etc in prayer while he preaches.
     
  12. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    +1,040
    Anglican
    Married
    Hi Leevo,

    One of the wonders of the plethora of translations of the Bible these days I suppose, although if you were using the NIV as a source to read in Church or for small group Bible study I really don't think that it makes much difference. That said, I would not use the NIV as a starting point for exegesis, I would be using at least 2 or 3 formal equivalence translations and a really good Greek dictionary like Low & Nida or BDAG, and a couple of different good quality commentaries.

    blessings, Gordon
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2017
  13. Ringo84

    Ringo84 Separation of Church and State expert

    +4,464
    United States
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Others
    I don't think the doctrine that women can't preach or "exercise authority" has ever made much sense.
    Ringo
     
  14. Leevo

    Leevo Well-Known Member

    773
    +279
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    Over the assembled church, I think women are forbidden to lead. At least, in a pastoral sense. However, in small group studies or choir or anything else, I disagree that women are not allowed to lead.
     
  15. Philip_B

    Philip_B all shall be well and all shall be well and ... Supporter

    +4,888
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    I have a feeling you should read the statement of purpose for the Traditional Theology Forum, as I believe this argument is outside the guidelines of this forum

    • This is a topic driven forum to bridge open discussion for those interested in all the ways traditional theology is expressed and lived around the world. Its not meant to exclude those who don't practice traditional theology but it is meant to be topic restrictive and non combative to traditional ideas and structure. If you need to prove traditional theology as unbiblical or incomplete, we respect your right to do this in the General Theology forum and not in this topical forum. This is a place to explore with in the defined topic not debate against it.
     
  16. jesse67

    jesse67 New Member

    58
    +35
    Pentecostal
    Married
    i think it means that in church a woman isn't to teach her husband or exercise authority over her husband. If it means no woman can teach any man or any men then that would require us to tell any woman to shut up. who voiced her opinion about any thing. It would mean that queens would have no authority over their kingdoms. also the example is given of Adam and Eve, which were husband and wife. So I think that's the meaning.
     
  17. com7fy8

    com7fy8 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,756
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    @Leevo I see how it says "over". She is not to be as though she is over a man . . . like how Christian leaders are not to be lording themselves over us >

    "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

    So, any time a lady proves herself to be right, I appreciate how she has power and authority to help me. I need correction; I think of how Abigail corrected David when none of his own men stood up to him. He gave the glory to the LORD, how Abigail came and helped keep him from making a major error.
     
Loading...