Women in Mininstry: A Debate

[cougan]

Hey Scott I finally got the quote from Lightfoot on Origen.

Here is the precise quotation from Lightfoot.

"In this case Jounian ... is probably a man's name, Junias contracted
from Junianus, as it is taken by Origen (on Rom. 16:21, T. iv. p. 582
D, and especially on 16:39, ib. p. 686 E) and by several modern
critics" (Lightfoot on Galatians, p. 96).

Theres the source and even the page numbers.

But anyways Scott this text here is still to unclear to say for sure one way or another and should not be used for as a proof text. I have searched and searched and find some say yes Junias is a women and others not Junuias is a man while still others say well it could be either way. The same thing holds true about them being note among the apostels. With all of this in mind this arguement of yours should be dropped due to insufficent evidence and cannot be used to prove Junias is a women nor that Junias was an apostle. I will leave with what AT Robertson states on this verse.

Fellow-prisoners (sunaicmalwtuj). Late word and rare (in
Lucian). One of Paul's frequent compounds with sun. Literally,
fellow captives in war. Perhaps they had shared one of Paul's
numerous imprisonments (2Co 11:23). In N.T. only here, Phm
1:23; Col 4:10. Of note (epishmoi). Stamped, marked (epi shma).
Old word, only here and Mt 27:16 (bad sense) in N.T. Among the
apostles (en toij apostoloij). Naturally this means that they are
counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas,
James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean
simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the
technical sense. Who have been in Christ before me (o`i kai
pro emou gegonan en Cristwi). Andronicus and Junias were
converted before Paul was. Note gegonan (Koine form by analogy)
instead of the usual second perfect active indicative form
gegonasin, which some MSS. have. The perfect tense notes that
they are still in Christ.

 

[cougan]

Ok I have been busy for a while but I want to respond to what has been said. I will try and cover the majorty of the questions and comments.

First off lets take a look and see from the God Head and the church how one can be equal with another but have differing roles. Most of the people on this thread believe in the Triune nature of God. The Father is the planner and instutor of the plan. The Son is the excuter of the Fathers plan and the HS is the revealer of the plan. The Father, Son, and HS are all one yet they have differing funtions withing the God Head. Just because they have differing roles does not make one greater than the other. The same holds true in the church. There are many people that make up the one body/church yet not ever person serves the same role. This in no way makes one person greater than another. Not everone can be a leader nor can everyone be a conforter. 1cor 12:13-27 and

Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function,

5 so we, <I>being </I>many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.

Just because a women is not to have authority over a man or teach him publically or be a leader over man in the church such as a deacon, elder, leading prayer, or leading singing does not make the women lesser than the man. Instead of focusing so much on what a women role is not maybe we should focus in on what many wonderful things a women can do in her role to God.

Now it was said that God is not a respector of persons. Oh how I do agree with this. In Gods eyes it does not matter weather your a man or female a greek or a Jew we are equal in the sight of God and he will judge us with out partiality. He is a just God and he looks at the heart and not the physical apperence.

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have refused him. For <I>the Lord does </I>not <I>see </I>as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

This thought goes right along with the following passage.

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.29 And if you <I>are </I>Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So indeed we are equal in the site of God. If fact when you look at the book of Galatians and these verses he stated this because the Jews were still haveing major problems accepting the gentiles as equals. This is also where Paul corrected Peter in this matter Gal 2:11-12. This text has absoultly nothing to do with who can teach or preach within a mixed assembly.&nbsp; The above text does not mean that one ceases to be male or female but it does mean the we recognize the equality of all before God. Again, I must point out that Father, son, and HS are one but have differing roles in the GodHead just like we are all one in Christ we still have differing roles within the church. So yes God is not a respector of person but this does not mean that everyone can serve the same funtion or role. Just a side note one thing that this does show is that the Calvinistic view is wrong. If only some are presdestined to be saved and some are presdestined to be lost that would make God a respector of person.

1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Now here Paul is clearly saying that women is not to have authority over a man. Usurp is a not a very good reflection of the word here instead when you look at the lingusitic data and etymological considerations you can clearly see that "authenteo" has the meaning "to have authorty" Paul is prohibiting posssession of postion authority over the man. Just because Paul says "I" does not make this any less binding. Paul was apostle and inspried by the HS and even if he say "I" we know that what he states is good in the sight of God and is binding to us as well. Again I would like to point out the vrs 13 tells us why women are not to have authority over man as shown by the greek word "gar".

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul here takes us back to the the day of Creation to show us this is why because this is the way God intended it from the begining. The women was created to be a helper to adam and adam even named the women. The women was the first to be deceived and she took the leadership role over Adam and gave him the fruit to eat. Adam allowed his wife to lead over him. Not only was God displeased with Adam eating the fruit but also his lack of spiritual leadership. Notice what God tells Adam.

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you...

God also seems to restate what he had in mind for the role of the women.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire <I>shall be </I>for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

The increase in pain was the first one. The second and third I belive show what God had in mind for women that she desire her husband and that her husband would rule over her that is being her spirtual leader. The mans role is to be the head of the house and to be the spirtual leader and we are to look after our women and honer them.

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with <I>them </I>according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

&nbsp;

 

[cougan]

1. Can women speak at all in your church, or once they enter the building they have to hush, "for it is shameful for women to speak in church?"

2. Do any of your women wear jewerly or braid their hair? Even a wedding ring is taboo according to a literal reading of the text.

3. Are all men required to lead in prayer, as you say Timothy reads?

4.&nbsp;Do women teach children, since this is not even allowed by Timothy?

5. Are single men and widowers allowed to be ministers in your church? Since they do not have one wife, they are not Biblically qualified, taking a strict literal view.

1TIM 2:8 I desire therefore that the men (Greek word andras which&nbsp;denotes males only) &nbsp;pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;

9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,

10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.

1. I talked about what silence in the church meant in a earlier post. This is what I had to say.

Now to <B>1 Corinthians 14</B>. The verb sigao is used three times in this chapter.

One who has the gift of tongues is to keep silence if he has no interpreter to use with his alien audience (28). If a brother is speaking, and another receives a more current revelation, the former is to keep silence (30). Finally, women are to keep silence (34).

The first two prohibitions demand silence only in the matters being discussed. They do not forbid these men to otherwise speak consistent with their divine obligations.

This does not demand that a woman be absolutely silent at church. Rather, in harmony with what the apostle taught elsewhere (<B>1 Tim. 2:12</B>), the woman is not to speak or teach in any way that violates her gender role. She is not to occupy the position of a public teacher, in such a capacity as to stand before the church and function as the teacher (or co-teacher) of a group containing adult men. In assuming this official capacity, she has stepped beyond her authorized sphere, and she violates scripture.


This does not mean that she does not pray along with the prayer leader like every one else does. This does not mean that she does not sing as everyone is suppose to sing

2.The jest of vrs 9 is for women to dress modestly and not to be dressing in a way that would show they are more concerned about the way they look than to be focused on the word of God. For instance today if it was generally known that wearing a red purse meant you were a prostitute&nbsp;a lady shoud avoid wearing a red purse. This text is not saying that a women cant wear a wedding ring but to to dress properly in away not to draw attention to self.

3. Men in general should pray everywhere. This&nbsp;does not demand that every single&nbsp;male lead in prayer as some may not possses that&nbsp;ability.&nbsp;Again the idea here is that men are to be the leaders of prayer. This by no means rules out women praying as they are to pray as well but here we see that its men that are to pray everywhere which would include&nbsp;in mixed assemblies. "Lifting up Holy Hands" is an adverbial participle denonting manner. It is a figure of speech , in which the posture of prayer is put in place of the praying itself (Is 1:15, Lam 3:41, Psm 143:6). If Paul were writting today he&nbsp;might say I want men to bow holy heads.

4.Women can teach young children and this is by no means prohibited by timothy. A women is not to teach in such a way as to have dominion over the the man. We can see several instances where the women taught are is told to teach.
Titus2:3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things --4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

2 Timothy 1:5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.


Acts 18:26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Here we see women teaching women. It seems to me that Timothy a young child was taught by his grandmother and mother. We also see that Aquila and Priscilla, HUSBAND AND WIFE NOT JUST THE WIFE took Appolos to the side that is&nbsp;they did not do this publically but privately. Here again we see a women with her husband teaching a man in priviate. So yes a women can teach young childern and other women and even teach a man in private as long as she does not teach in away where she take authority over the man.

5. I dealt with this before to. A minster or a preacher does not have to married or have children to be a minister. There are several ways a person can minister. A person can be a minster and not be a deacon or an elder such is usally the case with in my church. The qualificaton to be an elder or deacon in the offical sense and not genericly is that you must be the husband of one wife. A single person can not and should not serve as a decon or elder as they are not qualified. Of course this is just one of the qualifcations because there are many more but we are not discussing all the qualifications in this thread.

Now really quick on 1Cor 14 because I am getting really tired.

I dont belive this to be just to one church it is to church in general. 1Cort 14:33, 11:16, 7:17, 4:17. To say that the word here your women only applies to there wifes just doesnt fit. You have Paul saying keep your wifes silent but hey if theres is any single women here or the daughters can speak on out. A wife, a single women, or a daughter can disrupt a service. The word women here I belive to apply to all women and not just the wives. I have got to stop now I cant hardly keep my eyes open.

Cougan

 

[ScottEmerson]

26th February 2003 at 11:26 PM cougan said this in Post #61

Hey Scott I finally got the quote from Lightfoot on Origen.

Here is the precise quotation from Lightfoot.

"In this case Jounian ... is probably a man's name, Junias contracted
from Junianus, as it is taken by Origen (on Rom. 16:21, T. iv. p. 582
D, and especially on 16:39, ib. p. 686 E) and by several modern
critics" (Lightfoot on Galatians, p. 96).

And there is still several sources that I've shown that stress that Origen uses the feminine to describe Junia. You haven't provided a primary source - Lightfoot is still secondary. I could list many early church fathers, including Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and John Chrysostom, who insts that Junias was a woman. And point blank - which hasn't been addressed by anyone: There is no record in any history of a man nmed Junianus or Junias.

But anyways Scott this text here is still to unclear to say for sure one way or another and should not be used for as a proof text. I have searched and searched and find some say yes Junias is a women and others not Junuias is a man while still others say well it could be either way. The same thing holds true about them being note among the apostels. With all of this in mind this arguement of yours should be dropped due to insufficent evidence and cannot be used to prove Junias is a women nor that Junias was an apostle.

The historical evidence shows that Junia was a woman. The easiest way to understand this (using the principle of Occam's Razor) is that Junia was a woman and was an apostle, since this is what a clear reading shows. The burden of proof is on you to show that Junias was a man. I take it from your posts that you are unable to do so.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Yesterday at 04:22 AM cougan said this in Post #62
Just because a women is not to have authority over a man or teach him publically or be a leader over man in the church such as a deacon, elder, leading prayer, or leading singing does not make the women lesser than the man. Instead of focusing so much on what a women role is not maybe we should focus in on what many wonderful things a women can do in her role to God.

But there are many women who feel called to preach, called to minister, and called to pastor. It is therefore very important that this be addressed. Again, you're stating comments like you have done above without really addressing it - you're restating your position, but not arguing against mine.

Now it was said that God is not a respector of persons. Oh how I do agree with this. In Gods eyes it does not matter weather your a man or female a greek or a Jew we are equal in the sight of God and he will judge us with out partiality. He is a just God and he looks at the heart and not the physical apperence.

This we agree on.&nbsp;

So indeed we are equal in the site of God. If fact when you look at the book of Galatians and these verses he stated this because the Jews were still haveing major problems accepting the gentiles as equals. This is also where Paul corrected Peter in this matter Gal 2:11-12. This text has absoultly nothing to do with who can teach or preach within a mixed assembly.&nbsp; The above text does not mean that one ceases to be male or female but it does mean the we recognize the equality of all before God. Again, I must point out that Father, son, and HS are one but have differing roles in the GodHead just like we are all one in Christ we still have differing roles within the church. So yes God is not a respector of person but this does not mean that everyone can serve the same funtion or role. Just a side note one thing that this does show is that the Calvinistic view is wrong. If only some are presdestined to be saved and some are presdestined to be lost that would make God a respector of person.

I'm not here to argue for or against Calvinism, but they have a common sense answer to your objection about elect and respector of persons.

1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Now here Paul is clearly saying that women is not to have authority over a man. Usurp is a not a very good reflection of the word here instead when you look at the lingusitic data and etymological considerations you can clearly see that "authenteo" has the meaning "to have authorty" Paul is prohibiting posssession of postion authority over the man. Just because Paul says "I" does not make this any less binding. Paul was apostle and inspried by the HS and even if he say "I" we know that what he states is good in the sight of God and is binding to us as well. Again I would like to point out the vrs 13 tells us why women are not to have authority over man as shown by the greek word "gar".

You haven't answered the tense question. Paul is talking about a single woman. (Repeat that several times.) You keep ignoring that!

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul here takes us back to the the day of Creation to show us this is why because this is the way God intended it from the begining. The women was created to be a helper to adam and adam even named the women.

Please go back a few posts. You are ignoring&nbsp;what the Hebrew says. Eve was a 'ezer keneged' - in other words - God made for&nbsp;Adam "a help&nbsp;corresponding to him - equal and adequate to himself." Woman was not created to serve man, but to serve with Adam. God adds the&nbsp;word&nbsp;equal for a reason! So try to&nbsp;wrap your mind around that Truth, and see if it affects the rest of&nbsp;your theology. Woman was not created to serve man -&nbsp;she was created to serve WITH man.&nbsp;

The women was the first to be deceived and she took the leadership role over Adam and gave him the fruit to eat. Adam allowed his wife to lead over him. Not only was God displeased with Adam eating the fruit but also his lack of spiritual leadership. Notice what God tells Adam.

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you...

God also seems to restate what he had in mind for the role of the women.

You read this verse incorrectly because of your assumption that there is some sort of hierarchy with males and females, when this is not what God intended with his creation "the equal" woman. Note that the Adam is there with Eve and the serpent, since in the beginning of the chapter, "you" is plural. Eve gave the food to Adam, true, but Adam was "with her" when he ate it.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire <I>shall be </I>for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

And what does that mean? It is a curse. This is not the perfect way that God intended. It is a result of the Fall.

The increase in pain was the first one. The second and third I belive show what God had in mind for women that she desire her husband and that her husband would rule over her that is being her spirtual leader. The mans role is to be the head of the house and to be the spirtual leader and we are to look after our women and honer them.

If you understand history, you would see that this curse was fulfilled by the leading of men throughout history. However, this was not the intention of God before the Fall - He created Eve as an equal helpmate. DO you not think that we as Christians should strive to return to God's perfect plan? Reading the NT, we see that in Christ, those gender barriers were knocked down.

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with <I>them </I>according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

So what does weaker vessel mean? Figure that out and it'll help your theology.

 

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday at 06:22 PM cougan said this in Post #62 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678909#post678909)

Ok I have been busy for a while but I want to respond to what has been said.&nbsp;I will try and cover the majorty of the questions and comments.

First off lets take a look and see from the God Head and the church how one can be equal with another but have differing roles. Most of the people on this thread believe in the Triune nature of God. The Father is the planner and instutor of the plan. The Son is the excuter of the Fathers plan and the HS is the revealer of the plan. The Father, Son, and HS are all one yet they have differing funtions withing the God Head. Just because they have differing roles does not make one greater than the other. The same holds true in the church.

Now if you can just show us some scripture to back up this analogy we will be fine. Where is it written that the church, man and woman are mirrors of the relationship of the Godhead?

Just because a women is not to have authority over a man or teach him publically or be a leader over man in the church such as a deacon, elder, leading prayer, or leading singing does not make the women lesser than the man.

Begs the question! You ASSUME your view to be correct, then proceed as if that was proven. That is exactly what we are discussing here and you NEED to prove that i.e. "The man is the head of the woman."

Now it was said that God is not a respector of persons. Oh how I do agree with this. In Gods eyes it does not matter weather your a man or female a greek or a Jew we are equal in the sight of God and he will judge us with out partiality. He is a just God and he looks at the heart and not the physical apperence.

You pay lip service to these great truths then you add a BUT that is not in any of these passages. "I believe that man and woman are equal, just like it says in Genesis, BUT, because of Paul's writings many hundreds of years later, not when it comes to teaching, pastoring in the church.

• 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So indeed we are equal in the site of God. So yes God is not a respector of person but this does not mean that everyone can serve the same funtion or role.

This sounds very nice BUT it is misdirection. There are many pastors in the world, they are all serving in the same type of function or role. There are many deacons, elders, etc. Your little hocus pocus with, "this does not mean that everyone can serve the same function or role." implies but does NOT prove anything. Meanwhile thousands of different men in different churches all over the world are serving the same function or role. And now the verse in question,

• [/b]
  1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Now here Paul is clearly saying that women is not to have authority over a man. Usurp is a not a very good reflection of the word here instead when you look at the lingusitic data and etymological considerations you can clearly see that "authenteo" has the meaning "to have authorty" Paul is prohibiting posssession of postion authority over the man.

I am trying very, very hard to be objective and considerate of your views but you are making it extremely difficult by ignoring my posts. I have posted the definition for the word "autheneo" before yet you persist in presenting your own definition from heaven only knows where. Because you have listed no source. The word "authenteuo most assuredly does mean "usurp". That is its primary meaning. Here is the definition once again from Strong's and a link to my source. If you have a credible source for, "Usurp is a not a very good reflection of the word here instead when you look at the lingusitic data and etymological considerations", please share it with us because I cannot find it in any credible Greek authority. Note carefully the first three definitions in Strong's.

• 
  831 auqentehw Authenteo
  from a compound of (846) and an obsolete hentes (a worker)
  1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself
  2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
  3. an absolute master
  4. to govern, exercise dominion over one
  
  http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=831&version=kjv

Just because Paul says "I" does not make this any less binding. Paul was apostle and inspried by the HS and even if he say "I" we know that what he states is good in the sight of God and is binding to us as well.

Paul; admitted that he spoke on his own authority, NOT the Lord's, at other times.

• 
  1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Again I would like to point out the vrs 13 tells us why women are not to have authority over man as shown by the greek word "gar".

"Gar" means "for." How does that prove your point?

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul here takes us back to the the day of Creation to show us this is why because this is the way God intended it from the begining. The women was created to be a helper to adam and adam even named the women.

As Scott pointed out already you ignored the fact that the woman was created to be EQUAL to the man. PLease look up the Hebrew here. And no it was NOT what God intended from the beginning. God did NOT place the WIFE under the headship of her HUSBAND (Not as you interpret it "All women under the leadership of all men.") until AFTER they sinned. Note the verse says, "Your (sing.) desire shall be for your husband (sing.), And he (sing. NOT they) shall rule over you." Gen 3:16

The women was the first to be deceived and she took the leadership role over Adam and gave him the fruit to eat. Adam allowed his wife to lead over him. Not only was God displeased with Adam eating the fruit but also his lack of spiritual leadership.

Please show anywhere in scripture that the term leadership is used in relation to the woman, forbidden fruit, or Adam's role. I can't find it. Also let's consider the verse you posted. First, did Adam sin, yes or no? Was Adam's sin any less because of the order in which he was created or sinned? I have always been taught that sin is sin in the eyes of God. How did sin and death enter the world? Because the woman sinned or because Adam sinned?

• 
  Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[undead1]

Yesterday at 09:23 AM cougan said this in Post #63 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678910#post678910)
Now to <B>1 Corinthians 14</B>. The verb sigao is used three times in this chapter.

One who has the gift of tongues is to keep silence if he has no interpreter to use with his alien audience (28). If a brother is speaking, and another receives a more current revelation, the former is to keep silence (30). Finally, women are to keep silence (34).

The first two prohibitions demand silence only in the matters being discussed. They do not forbid these men to otherwise speak consistent with their divine obligations.

This does not demand that a woman be absolutely silent at church.

The context of the passage about women, was not in respect of tongues, or revelations, or singing or praying, but an absolute context. Silence can thus only infer complete silence. What is wrong with silence anyway?

As a side issue, it is highly debateable whether Paul would have approved of congregational singing at church, except in very small doses, or congregational praying out of books, which smacks of legalism. Both congregational singing and praying are by nature legalistic, formalistic and repetitive. In many cases, they merely occupy time in a service which could be used for more edifying and spiritual activities. In many cases both are done without sincerity and only to satisfy man's craving for self-righteousness through legalistic works.

 

[brewmama]

Today at 01:21 PM undead said this in Post #67

The context of the passage about women, was not in respect of tongues, or revelations, or singing or praying, but an absolute context. Silence can thus only infer complete silence. What is wrong with silence anyway?

As a side issue, it is highly debateable whether Paul would have approved of congregational singing at church, except in very small doses, or congregational praying out of books, which smacks of legalism. Both congregational singing and praying are by nature legalistic, formalistic and repetitive. In many cases, they merely occupy time in a service which could be used for more edifying and spiritual activities. In many cases both are done without sincerity and only to satisfy man's craving for self-righteousness through legalistic works.

Perhaps you should investigate the early Church a little more closely. Paul uses some ancient creeds, prayers and hymns in his writings, and the early Church was liturgical. Paul certainly would have used the same liturgy as everyone else. I think you seriously misrepresent him.

 

[undead1]

Today at 04:48 PM brewmama said this in Post #68 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681641#post681641)

Perhaps you should investigate the early Church a little more closely. Paul uses some ancient creeds, prayers and hymns in his writings, and the early Church was liturgical. Paul certainly would have used the same liturgy as everyone else. I think you seriously misrepresent him.

What was the liturgy in the Corinthian church? None mentioned. I really can't accept Paul instituted any form of liturgy. There is no mention of any liturgy in his epistles. The whole concept of liturgy is just a carry over of formalism from the OT.

And the early church went astray very quickly, as Rev 2,3 indicate, and as Paul indicated when he prophecied the entry of wolves into the church.

 

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday at 10:21 PM undead said this in Post #67 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681354#post681354)

The context of the passage about women, was not in respect of tongues, or revelations, or singing or praying, but an absolute context. Silence can thus only infer complete silence. What is wrong with silence anyway?

Perhaps you can explain to us, who obviously don't have your knowledge or insight, how you arrived at this conclusion. When I read 1 Cor 14 I note that verses 1 - 26 are dealing with the issue of speaking in tongues. Verses 27 - 32 rules for speaking in tongues and in verse 33 the reason for the rules for speaking in tongues because,

• 
  33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Then verses 34-35 continue with the topic of speaking and you tell us that vss. 34-35 have nothing to do with the preceding 33 verses.

As a side issue, it is highly debateable whether Paul would have approved of congregational singing at church, except in very small doses, or congregational praying out of books, which smacks of legalism. Both congregational singing and praying are by nature legalistic, formalistic and repetitive. In many cases, they merely occupy time in a service which could be used for more edifying and spiritual activities.

And how do you arrive at all these conclusions even in the passage we are discussing it mentions singing hymns. I wonder if those untold thousand of saints singing to God in Rev 15:2-3 were also occupying, "time in a service which could be used for more edifying and spiritual activities"? And just for your edification, most of the Psalms were hymns, they were written to be sung.

• 
  Rev 15:2

• And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
  3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

In many cases both are done without sincerity and only to satisfy man's craving for self-righteousness through legalistic works.

Nothing like a little self-righteous, unscriptural, unChristlike, judgement.

 

[cougan]

I am trying very, very hard to be objective and considerate of your views but you are making it extremely difficult by ignoring my posts. I have posted the definition for the word "autheneo" before yet you persist in presenting your own definition from heaven only knows where. Because you have listed no source. The word "authenteuo most assuredly does mean "usurp". That is its primary meaning. Here is the definition once again from Strong's and a link to my source. If you have a credible source for, "Usurp is a not a very good reflection of the word here instead when you look at the lingusitic data and etymological considerations", please share it with us because I cannot find it in any credible Greek authority. Note carefully the first three definitions in Strong's.


831 auqentehw Authenteo
from a compound of (846) and an obsolete hentes (a worker)
1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3. an absolute master
4. to govern, exercise dominion over one

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicon...831&amp;version=kjv

I see you want to take this discussion to level where people get lost and confused. Why do you only point out the first 3 meanings and ignore the 4th? The reason I say that "usurp" is not a great word to use is because it gives the idea that a women can't take the authorty away from the man but if the man decides to sit back or give her permission to have authority over men then its ok. This text simply means that a women is not to take &nbsp;possession or take the postion of authorty over man. Here below is what Thayer says and what you have quoted already by strongs.

Thayer
Authenteoo - [@authenteoo], [@authentoo]; (a Biblical and ecclesiastical word; from [@authentees] contracted from [@autoentees], and this from [@autos] and [@entea] arms (others, [@hentees], cf. Hesychius [@sunentees] [@sunergos]; cf. Lobeck, Technol., p. 121); hence, a. according to earlier usage, "one who with his own hand kills either others or himself. b. in later Greek writings "one who does a thing himself the author" ([@tees] [@praxeoos], Polybius 23, 14, 2, etc.); "one who acts on his own authority, autocratic," equivalent to [@autokratoor] an absolute "master"; cf. Lobeck ad Phryn., p. 120 (also as above; cf. Winer's Grammar, sec. 2, 1 c.)); "to govern" one, "exercise dominion over" one: [@tins], 1 Tim. 2:12.*
Strong
831 auvqente,w authenteo {ow-then-teh'-o} • from a compound of 846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker);; v • AV - usurp authority over 1; 1 • 1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself 2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic 3) an absolute master 4) to govern, exercise dominion over one


The following is a small clipping from the link below on how what the meaning of the greek word should be used as exerciseing authorty over.

http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/V/ValleskeyWord/ValleskeyWord.pdf

Auqentein as "Exercise Authority Over"

A study of the use of auqentein in the available Greek literature leads to the conclusion that there is no compelling reason to abandon the traditional interpretation of "exercise authority" in 1 Timothy 2:12 as the correct understanding of Paul.

1) The dominant meaning of auqentein in the Ionic/Attic of the classical age of Greekliterature (Homer to 322 BC) was indeed "murder/murderer/suicide," with one notable exceptionin Euripides where the word would appear to have its koine sense of "master, power, authority."

2) The dominant meaning began to shift with the advent of the koine, the common Greek that spread through the Mediterranean world with the conquests of Alexander the Great.

3) Paul wrote in the koine Greek, the common language of the people, who understood and used the word in an authority-related sense.

4) The centuries immediately preceding and following the Apostolic Age, are filled with witnesses to the koine use of the auqent- root with the authority-related sense in which it wasused by Paul.

5) Particularly in the handful of uses of the verb form auqentew, we find exclusive useof the authority-related meaning, with the exception of two participial usages in the scholia ofAeschylus.

6) Atticists from the first century onward opposed the use of auqenthj in the sense of"despot" or "ruler" on the grounds that it was vulgar usage, underscoring the truth that this was how the common people were speaking and understood the term at that time.

7) No interpreter of 1 Timothy 2:12 from the most ancient times ever understoodauqentein in any other than the sense that has been handed down to us of the exercise of authority.

8) The ancient versions of the Bible uniformly render auqentein in its koine, authority-related sense. These were translated very close to the time of the writing of the original Greek text, and thus carry a considerable weight.

9) Since the number of verb citations of the auqent- group are still very limited, and we are forced to rely for linguistic evidence on references to the cognate noun auqenthj, the interpreter is still heavily dependent on Scriptural context for the correct understanding of the text of 1 Timothy 2:12.

I wanted to provide even more sources but my computer is giving problems so this will have to do for now. I will respond to the other comments latter.

Cougan

 

[OldShepherd]

Today at 03:20 PM cougan said this in Post #71 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683045#post683045)

I see you want to take this discussion to level where people get lost and confused. Why do you only point out the first 3 meanings and ignore the 4th? The reason I say that "usurp" is not a great word to use is because it gives the idea that a women can't take the authorty away from the man but if the man decides to sit back or give her permission to have authority over men then its ok. This text simply means that a women is not to take &nbsp;possession or take the postion of authorty over man. Here below is what Thayer says and what you have quoted already by strongs.

Do you understand the terms "begging the question" and/or "circular reasoning"? This is a perfect example of both. You assume that a woman cannot be in any position of authority over any man and then you argue that "authenteo" which even according to the sources you posted means to take for oneself, cannot mean what it means because it would contradict your assumption.

And I just love your copout answer, "I see you want to take this discussion to level where people get lost and confused." Yeah right lets NOT discuss the truth because if we do discuss the truth people will get lost and confused. YOu did post this did yhou not?

Thayer
Authenteoo - . . .according to earlier usage, "one who with his own hand kills either others or himself. b. in later Greek writings "one who does a thing himself the author" . . . "one who acts on his own authority, autocratic," equivalent to [@autokratoor] an absolute "master";. . ."to govern" one, "exercise dominion over" one:

Let me then ask you a question about your post. What is the primary meaning of the word "authenteoo" according to your own source?

Auqentein as "Exercise Authority Over"

A study of the use of auqentein in the available Greek literature leads to the conclusion that there is no compelling reason to abandon the traditional interpretation of "exercise authority" in 1 Timothy 2:12 as the correct understanding of Paul.

Note the twisting of words here, "Abandon the traditional interpretation of "exercise authority" The traditional interpretation according to the first English version of the Bible is "usurp"!

1) The dominant meaning of auqentein in the Ionic/Attic of the classical age of Greekliterature (Homer to 322 BC) was indeed "murder/murderer/suicide," with one notable exceptionin Euripides where the word would appear to have its koine sense of "master, power, authority."

Note the DOMINANT meaning, exactly what I have been talking about. And where exactly in Homer? And did you know that "would appear" is NOT proof.

2) The dominant meaning began to shift with the advent of the koine, the common Greek that spread through the Mediterranean world with the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Sez who? What sources? If this is true then why do even the sources you cited list the previous dominant meaning?

3) Paul wrote in the koine Greek, the common language of the people, who understood and used the word in an authority-related sense.

This is double talk. Of course the word means authority, I have never questioned that, BUT the "auto" part of the words means "self".

4) The centuries immediately preceding and following the Apostolic Age, are filled with witnesses to the koine use of the auqent- root with the authority-related sense in which it was used by Paul.

More double talk. Of course the word means authority, BUT the "auto" part of the words means "self".

5) Particularly in the handful of uses of the verb form auqentew, we find exclusive useof the authority-related meaning, with the exception of two participial usages in the scholia of Aeschylus.

Still double talk. And which writings of Aeschylus does he mean?

6) Atticists from the first century onward opposed the use of auqenthj in the sense of"despot" or "ruler" on the grounds that it was vulgar usage, underscoring the truth that this was how the common people were speaking and understood the term at that time.

Attic is NOT koine! No sources cited! And note "despot" or "ruler" "was how the common people were speaking and understood the term at that time". Do you know how to say common, as in common people, in Biblical Greek? koine! Even your source documents that the word "authenteoo" meant despot in koine Greek.

7) No interpreter of 1 Timothy 2:12 from the most ancient times ever understood auqentein in any other than the sense that has been handed down to us of the exercise of authority.[/'quote]
Double talk! Of course "authenteoo" means authority, to take authority for oneself, like a dictator or a despot!

8) The ancient versions of the Bible uniformly render auqentein in its koine, authority-related sense. These were translated very close to the time of the writing of the original Greek text, and thus carry a considerable weight.

Still double talk! Which ancient versions would this be referring to? Sources?

9) Since the number of verb citations of the auqent- group are still very limited, and we are forced to rely for linguistic evidence on references to the cognate noun auqenthj, the interpreter is still heavily dependent on Scriptural context for the correct understanding of the text of 1 Timothy 2:12.

Certainly are limited, only one occurrence in entire N.T. And what does the cognate noun mean? Sources?

Referring to ancient sources, versions, translations, etc. without specifically identifying them is meaningless. My guess is this guy did not clearly identify his so-called sources because he cannot. They don't exist.

Just because something is posted on the internet or even written in a book does not make it true. I would like to see complete citations, author, writing, chapter, page, if not don't waste my time.

 

[OldShepherd]

Cougan,
Here is a quote which contradicts your post and note the author, unlike the one you quoted, cites his sources, you know exactly who he is citing.

• 
  Take just the one word, the Greek authentes, often translated "have authority" in the phrase "I do not permit women ... to have authority over a man." We need to distinquish carefully been "have authority," "exercise authority," and "usurp authority" (as the KJV has it). How do we decide? And what are the implications?
  
  The word here is not exousia (as it is in Matthew 28) but authentes, which occurs only here in the Greek New Testament. The verb authentein has an unsavory flavor:
  
  (1) "to domineer" (Arndt-Gingrich);
  (2) "th have power over... an actual murderer, esp. of murders done by those of the same family; also a self-murderer, suicide ... an absolute master or ruler" (Lidell and Scott);
  (3) "one who with his own hand kills either others or himself .. one who does a thing himself, the author ... one who acts on his own authority, autocratic" (Thayer);
  (4) "It comes from aut-hentes, a self-doer, a master, autocrat ... to domineer" (Robertson);
  (5) "The etymology of the word is also obsurce: it may come from auto-then tes, 'the self involved in killing,' or from auto-hentes, 'achieving or realizing an action on onesefl or by one's initiative" (Wilshire);
  (6) Josephus uses the noun form to describe Antipater, Herod's son, accused of killing his two brothers and attempting to kill his father, and he employs the term to translate "assassins" of a Galilean Jew on his way to a festival (Lepper).
  
  Authenein and exousia are not synonymous. The first implies authority that is self-proclaimed and gained by "muscling in" and the second [exousia] implies authority that is granted by someone else (as in John 1:12 and 2 Corinthians 10:8 and Matthew 28:18). Jesus himself addresses the innate human tendency (found in the disciples and in the church) to use any "authority" we might have in a self-serving manner: "It shall not be so among you, but whoever would be great among you must be your servant and whoever would be first among you must be your slave" (Matthew 20:25-27).
  
  Exercising authority on one's own account, doing something at one's own behest, and exercising authority generated from Christ are miles apart -- the former is selfish and the latter is always selfless.
  
  Nowhere does Jesus or Paul forbid a woman to possess exousia, which is the power Christ imparts for the work of his church.
  
  What, then, are the translation options?
  
  The usual Greek noun used by Paul for "authority" or "power" that is granted another (exousia) is not used here. Paul chooses instead a verb which has a negative connotation, "to domineer" or "to usurp" (Moffatt: "to dictate to men"; NEB: "domineer").
  
  So the thrust of the infinitive is not found in "position" or "office" but in the action someone takes independently. The thrust is not a neutral "have authority" (TEV, Jerusalem). The thrust is not a benign "exercise authority." The "hard edge" to authenein suggests that the King James Version's "usurp authority" (to take by force, acting on one's own authority) or the New English Bible's "nor must women domineer over man" are translations preferable to the neutral "to have authority over" (RSV; NIV, TEV, etc.) or the benign "exercise authority."
  
  This understanding would fit the context: men are instructed to behave in the worship setting "without anger or quarreling" (1 Timothy 2:8), and women modestly and sensibly (verse 9) should not muscle their way in, seeking to domineer the worship setting (verse 11).
  
  Authority (exousia) can also be given (Matthew 28) or acknowledged (2 Corinthians 10:8f). 1 Timothy 2:12 does not deny women possession of authority in the church. The text does not forbid these receiving authority from others, from the church, or having authority acknowledged. The text does not deny the church acknowledging or bestowing authority on women who have received from the Spirit the gifts of preaching and teaching and pastoring and have had these gifts recognized and affirmed by the church.
  
  There are no instances in Greek literature from Paul's era where authentein is associated with ecclesial authority. This, too, would suggest Paul is not here discussing guidelines for the pastoral office.
  
  The text is about obtaining authority in a process of self-promotion and arrogating it to oneself. The text is not talking about exercising authority over men with respect to the public administration of the Office of the Keys. There is here no discussion of "ordination" as we in the church today understand it. The text never mentions "office" or "position" but instead describes how Christians are to relate to and serve one another. Paul never uses the word "pastor" or "presbyter" in this passage. The text does not speak to "authority" of women whose authority is granted through gifts of the Spirit and learning and then recognized by the church.
  
  The text is a corrrection of an abuse of a priviledge already granted (compare 1 Corinthians 11:5). The text does forbid "usurping" authority, obtaining it through aggressive self-aggrandizement, in a way not compatible with the Christ-servant model. To "usurp" is the opposite of the servant ministry Jesus taught and practiced and modeled (John 13:14; Mark 10:43-44) and Paul fostered (Philippians 2:3-8). To "usurp" is to "muscle in" when one does not have the gift from the Spirit.
  
  That Paul needs to say this indicates that the opposite behavior was taking place. The text does not speak to women in offices serving men and other women with the Gospel. The text contains caution to women how to use their positions of responsibility for service and not domination. What is applicable to women regarding sin is also applicable to men.
  
  To have authority recognized requires also the discipline of learning, of submissiveness to the Word (verse 11). Verse 11 instructs women to learn with quiet, receptive spirits, instead of engaging in activities that result in "usurping authority over men" (verse 12). Not to "usurp authority" should be paired with "but to be in quietness" (receptive to learning). Verses 11 and 12 begin with "quietness" and end with "quietness." And we ask that of any new convert or any seminary student as well.
  
  http://www.concordtx.org/msnews/women.htm

 

[ScottEmerson]

Good call, OldShepherd - thanks for contributing such vital knowledge to the thread!

 

[undead1]

Nice try Old Sheperd. But completely misconceived.


1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


A woman is not permitted a teaching role over men (period).
A woman is command to be silent or quiet in the presence of men (period).
A woman is command not to have authority over men. The position of teaching clearly infers an authority, for the teacher always has authority over his pupil.

The upshot of the matter, is that it is the responsibility of all men to put this teaching into practice, by simply walking out of the presence of any woman who presumes to teach or lecture him about the bible.

Which is what I have always done. On the rare occasions I have heard a woman preaching, I can confidently assert that I learnt nothing and was edified not at all.

 

[cougan]

Old shepard heres you another one.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott

authent-eô , to have full power or authority over, tinos I Ep.Ti.2.12; pros tina BGU1208.37 (i B. C.): c. inf., Lyd.Mag.3.42.

I told you already I haveing trouble with my computer. I can't access all my data at this time. The idea of the word is for the women not to take possesion of authorty or have authority over the man. That goes hand and hand with 1 cor 14 for the women to be silent in the church. If Jesus had wanted women to serve in a leadership role over a man than why were all the apostles men? Why when Judas was replaced was it 2 men that were choosen? Why are all those serving in a leadership role in the bible men? Why did Paul tell the men to pray everywhere but then tell the women to dress modestly and to not teach or have authority over the man? I think that you are ignoring the reason Paul gives. It was because man was formed first and it was the women who sinned first. And no that does not make Adams sin an less than Eves. If women were to be elders and deacons then why oh why are the qualifications not written for them but instead states that the elder and deacon must be the HUSBAND of one wife. Just because a women opened up her home as a church does not mean that she is head of that church or a leader of that church in anyway. Mainly becasue the house is just the meeting place because it is the people that make up the church. You can harp and harp all you want to about Junias but you cannot no matter what you say prove one way or another anything from that verse. Schollars recognize this is ambigeous text that can either way yet Scott want to make a stand on it. That how desprate he is to try and push his view. There simply is not enough for you guys to stand on in bible to show that women can funtion as a leader over the man. However I have brougt out the passases that and made the anologies that show women are to be silent and not to take a postion of authority over the men in the church. The men are suppose to be the spirtual leaders. Again, this does not make the women lesser than the man because her role or funtion in Gods plan is just as important. We as church are to strive for unity just like the father, son, and HS are the perfect unity. Again they have differing funtions and roles just like men and women do but they are equal in the site of God. Yes Scoot there are elders serving the same funtion in differeing churches and such but not everybody is an elder and not everybody is a deacon. Everyone has their part and funtion with in the church.

You guys are trying conform the times and apply to the bible. The word of God does not change and we should go by what it says and not by the custom of the time. I am curious can you produce 1 well know commentary that even holds the view you are trying to proclaim. Everyone I have looked at take the view that I hold. Instead of listing all if them I want you to produce just one. I'm sure theres at least one out there or maybe more. I would just like to see how they are and what they say about the subject. I will anxiously await for your commentary references.

Cougan

 

[seebs]

I'd just like to point out that this is totally unnecessary. Outspoken mentioned, in another thread, that it is completely obvious from the Bible that women are allowed in the ministry, and always have been, and that anyone who teaches otherwise just hasn't really studied the Bible. I'm glad that's all settled, then.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Today at 06:34 PM undead said this in Post #75

Nice try Old Sheperd. But completely misconceived.


1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Again, no one has addressed that this is singular, where the passages before are plural. This is obviously one woman that was causing problems. I don't know why anyone hasn't addressed that. (I think I know why!)

A woman is not permitted a teaching role over men (period).

The woman.

A woman is command to be silent or quiet in the presence of men (period).

The specific woman.

A woman is command not to have authority over men. The position of teaching clearly infers an authority, for the teacher always has authority over his pupil.

THe specific woman that Paul is talking about.

The upshot of the matter, is that it is the responsibility of all men to put this teaching into practice, by simply walking out of the presence of any woman who presumes to teach or lecture him about the bible.

Otherwise the&nbsp;entire&nbsp;world will crumble at the feet of these "feminists," right? &nbsp;

Which is what I have always done. On the rare occasions I have heard a woman preaching, I can confidently assert that I learnt nothing and was edified not at all.

THen you have either not listened to the words of Anne Graham Lotz or Beth Moore (among others) or you were just too hard-hearted to listen.&nbsp;

 

[ScottEmerson]

That goes hand and hand with 1 cor 14 for the women to be silent in the church.

Which you have been shown is talking about a specific silence.

If Jesus had wanted women to serve in a leadership role over a man than why were all the apostles men?

If Jesus had wanted Gentiles to serve in a leadership role over Jews, then why were all the apostles Jews? This is a fair enough question, and can be answered using the same reasoning as your question.

Why when Judas was replaced was it 2 men that were choosen?

Not because they weren't women, unless you can provide evidence otherwise. Note that both of these were JEws as well. What about us Gentiles?

Why are all those serving in a leadership role in the bible men?

Deborah, Miriam, Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla, the elder from II&nbsp;John&nbsp;- not all leaders were men.

Why did Paul tell the men to pray everywhere but then tell the women to dress modestly and to not teach or have authority over the man?

He doesn't He tells the men to pray and not cause any trouble. He tells the women to also not cause any trouble. THen he tells one woman (That's right - one woman) not to teach. You've failed to address this at any time.

I think that you are ignoring the reason Paul gives. It was because man was formed first and it was the women who sinned first.

ANd he's addressing a specific woman.

&nbsp;And no that does not make Adams sin an less than Eves. If women were to be elders and deacons then why oh why are the qualifications not written for them but instead states that the elder and deacon must be the HUSBAND of one wife.

Maybe because he's addressing men who wanted to be elders? Right after, we see that "women, likewise, should be..." Isn't he addressing the women who wanted to be elders here?

Just because a women opened up her home as a church does not mean that she is head of that church or a leader of that church in anyway. Mainly becasue the house is just the meeting place because it is the people that make up the church. You can harp and harp all you want to about Junias but you cannot no matter what you say prove one way or another anything from that verse.

Then let us agree to trust what the entirety of the church leaders until 1300 agreed. That Junias was a woman.

Schollars recognize this is ambigeous text that can either way yet Scott want to make a stand on it.

No - the scholars that I have shown are pretty clear. The ones that you show say that it is ambiguous. There is a difference there. Again, no mention of a male Junias has EVER been found. Ever. Ever.

That how desprate he is to try and push his view. There simply is not enough for you guys to stand on in bible to show that women can funtion as a leader over the man.

So you're already claiming victory when you haven't addressed hardly any of the arguments? You're attacking a straw man, apparently since the rest of my arguments are much more difficult for you to answer.

However I have brougt out the passases that and made the anologies that show women are to be silent and not to take a postion of authority over the men in the church.

WHich have been refuted by both myself and OldShepherd.&nbsp;

You guys are trying conform the times and apply to the bible.

No&nbsp;- you are trying to apply&nbsp;the times of the 14th-19th century to the Bible, when women were not able to serve as ministers and elders. Reading what the&nbsp;early church fathers said about women serving in the church, you will understand that women did&nbsp;such quite often.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The word of God does not change and we should go by what it says and not by the custom of the time. I am curious can you produce 1 well know commentary that even holds the view you are trying to proclaim.

Read John Chrystotam's commentary. He was a 4th centure Church father.

Everyone I have looked at take the view that I hold. Instead of listing all if them I want you to produce just one. I'm sure theres at least one out there or maybe more. I would just like to see how they are and what they say about the subject. I will anxiously await for your commentary references.

So if there is one, you will&nbsp;concede?&nbsp; Here are five well-known commentaries that concur with my point of view.

<SPAN lang=EN-US>The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990)</SPAN>

<SPAN>The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and John Muddiman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)</SPAN>

<SPAN lang=EN-US>Newsom, Carol A. and Sharon H. Ringe, Women's Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition with Apocrypha (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998). </SPAN>

<SPAN lang=EN-US>Hermeneia: 1 Corinthians, by Hans Conzelmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)&nbsp;</SPAN>

<SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US>First Corinthians (a volume in the series Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), by Richard B. Hays (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997)</SPAN>

 

[seebs]

Once, when I asked about this passage, someone pointed out that the relevant part of 1 Cor 14 reads better if you read it as a quoted passage, and Paul's outraged response. In this reading, in response to the claim that women should be silent, he responds with the outraged "WHAT? Came the holy spirit from you, or only unto you?"

This reading (which follows a pattern repeated throughout 1 Corinthians) resolves a number of apparent contradictions. I have no idea how we would find out whether or not it's "correct"; if that was what the letter originally looked like, well, it's a bit late to go look it up now.