The CBE Scroll

Comment by Kate

April 7, 2009 @ 8:37 am

What is so interesting is that it is left out in the first place… “I am not presently permitting a woman to teach…” In “Why Not Women” Hamilton and Cunningham make a case that it was a cetain woman who was making trouble that was being spoken about, not all women, so I would not add into the text “no woman” as Tucker does. I do not see that in the text. It says “woman”, not “any woman”.

Comment by joanne

April 7, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

i wish that such a vague and unclear verse did not have so much weight in the discussion.

Comment by Sue

April 8, 2009 @ 12:39 am

I think the interlinear should say “either” “or” instead of “yet.”

Comment by David

April 8, 2009 @ 2:04 am

In all the biblical-gender issues there is only one I can’t get past that I find definitive. Jesus did not from his disciples choose any women to be part of the twelve. (A related issue is why the God of all choice chose to be born a male.) I have heard it said Jesus had to conform to the male dominated ancient world view. Yet in NO other case did he pander to the prevailing view but went out of his way to destroy their erroneous, wicked concepts. On this one issue he would slavishly adhere to the current prejudice? You have my email, I would certainly love a reply.

Comment by Kate

April 8, 2009 @ 7:32 am

maybe Jesus chose 12 men to not be scandalous… what would happen if a woman was sleeping, eating and laughing with them? He did use women as evangelists (i.e. woman at the well), preachers (Priscilla) and so on, so I do not think this is a definitive answer. More, I think he was scandalous theologically but not sexually… and women in the main group would have brought a sexual scandal. Look at all the erroneous beliefs that permeate his relationship with Mary and she was not among the 12. What if she were?

Just my thought (plus being male guarantees nothing – Judas comes to mind)

Comment by cello

April 8, 2009 @ 8:12 am

Yet in NO other case did he pander to the prevailing view

I wouldn’t necessarily call it pandering but Jesus kept silent on abolishing the practice of slavery. IMO, there are many unsavory apple carts Jesus didn’t overturn for whatever reason.

Comment by Caroline SC

April 8, 2009 @ 9:22 am

The 12 were also all Jews but this doesn’t seem to be a requirement for ministry.

Comment by joanne

April 8, 2009 @ 10:12 am

David, I am not convinced.

Women were part of his disciple mix who traveled with him and that was scandalous. Not the twelve because he was doing something symbolic regarding Israel (NT Wright). Mary also sat at the feet of Jesus instead of the kitchen… the posture of a disciple.

I am not convicnced that for all time, all women are barred from preaching, teaching the gospel and having authority in life and church. And that there is something intrinsic in their design that God would require them to be subordinate. (all disciples are to be submissive to one another and the Spirit).

Finally, I am not convinced that the church as institution was what Jesus intended to create. He created a people through whom God would continue his work through the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost. The Spirit determines and distributes gift, it is not by the flesh (male flesh or female flesh that gifts are given).

I think the people of God are together continuing the work of God and it is not institution but organism–organic and fluid, adaptable. The institution thinks in terms of organization with flow charts and hierarchial authorities. But the Spirit moves as it will and does not depend on human forms of authority.

I don’t base my views on one thing, one idea or one verse but a comphrehensive study of scripture in its whole sweep and view. We might use cultural forms for times and seasons, but such forms are not what is real. Christ is real and the main focus.

Comment by joanne

April 8, 2009 @ 10:39 am

David, To Go an make disciples, baptizing them, teaching them, has not been a call only to men but to all believers. All authority was given to Christ who sent and authorized all believers (the great commission) to baptize, instruct and make disciples. The Spirit was poured out on all flesh (not just men flesh) and the call is to all of God’s people.

Comment by tiro

April 8, 2009 @ 7:55 pm

The 12 apostles were mapped to the 12 tribes, which are mentioned in the book of revelation.

Also, being men was not all they were. :) They were Jews from a particular province/area. If one is going to use one element as if it were a requirement for all apostles (which BTW is never stated) then one must use the other elements as well. There were other apostles that did not fit those requirements including one woman, Junia.

In actuality, the ONLY stated requirements for any ministry is that they are to be Christians who are chosen and equipped by the HS.

Comment by jlp

April 8, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

All the disciples were Jews, yet today all teachers, preachers and ministers of the word are gentiles.

Comment by Liz

April 8, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

Another way of looking at it is that Jesus’ choice of the 12 was before his death and resurrection. Surely we should take our cue from Jesus’ instructions once the kingdom of God was begun and once the Holy Spirit was given ?

There has been mention of the command to “Go and make disciples etc”
One aspect of that is “teaching them to obey all I have commanded” It is an interesting exercise to list exactly what things were commanded by Jesus.

Comment by Charis

April 9, 2009 @ 6:19 am

David,

The word “Apostle” means “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders”. Post Resurrection, who is the very first one SENT with orders from Jesus Christ Himself to deliver the message to the Apostles? Who is “the Apostle to the Apostles”? see John 20:17

Comment by joanne

April 9, 2009 @ 9:43 am

my point exactly… there is such a weight of call that is extended to all disciples, men and women, in the New Testament that I cannot believe one verse in a particular context can be used to logically support the silencing of all women for all time. Definately there are gender factors for men and women in how they ethically carry out ministry functions in particular social and cultural contexts. But I am not convinced by the full weight of scripture, the gospel, and the Spirit that women may not preach and teach the gospel.

Comment by jlp

April 9, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

I think the reason the verse has such impact upon the Christian community is because it gives men power over women. If it weren’t for that, we wouldn’t hear much about the verse.

Comment by jlp

April 10, 2009 @ 10:18 am

Here’s some good information on this verse:

http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/1stTimothy212.htm

Comment by Pam

April 10, 2009 @ 10:50 am

Just a “don’t forget anyone” – some preachers and teachers of the Word are Jews – Messianic Jews!

Comment by Frank

April 10, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

The objection to women teaching in the church because Jesus chose twelve men, and them only, to be apostles really isn’t anything new. In the fourth century document, THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES, which the Catholic Church long used as an ancient source for its doctrine of “Apostolic Succession” until it was proven a forgery, it states in part:

We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church,” but only to pray and hear those who teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach….

Constitutions 3.1.6

And while Joanne, Tiro, and Charis have adequately exposed the flaws in David’s use of this old saw to restrict women in preaching, teaching, evangelizing and discipling others, which after all is the vocation and calling of all Christians according to Matt. 28:18-20, it doesn’t hurt to hear the concensus of NT scholars, such as given by Aida Besancon Spencer:

Apostleship is not synonymous with church leadership as such. At a very early stage in the church “apostles” and “elders” were distinguishable categories (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16:4). A little later (1 Cor. 12:28), along with “apostle,” Paul lists other gifts such as “prophet” (one who comforts and builds up the church, cf. 1 Cor. 14:4), “teacher” (one who leads by instructing) and “leadership” (kypernesis= “guidance”). Moreover, “apostle” is never linked directly to “overseer” (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:1).

So why did Jesus choose twelve Jewish men as the first apostles? First, he chose twelve Jews to serve as a synecdoche, representing the twelve tribes of Israel (MT 19:28; Lk. 22:30; Rev 21:12). Jesus’ call to ministry was focused on reaching Israel because the earlier covenant was made with Israel (e.g., Gen 35:10-12; 1 Kings 18:31). Jesus’ choice of the Twelve indicates the importance of the new covenant’s being founded on the old covenant. That is why at the end of the New Testament the two covenant peoples are symbolically joined in the New Jerusalem, on whose twelve foundations are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb and whose twelve gates bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:12-14)…As an integral part of the ministry of Jesus, the Twelve represented not only the twelve patriarchs/tribes of Israel but also the newly constituted Israel under the new covenant in Christ. Consequently, the Twelve cannot serve as precedents for Gentile leadership…

Comment by Frank

April 10, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

Ooops! The computer I was working on timed out before I could complete my previous comment. So let me start where I left off:

Consequently, the Twelve cannot serve as precedents for Gentile leadership, which is what prevails in the Church today (“Jesus’ Treatment of Women in The Gospels,” DISCOVERING BIBLICAL EQUALITY, pp. 135-136).

Furthermore, “apostle” is used in an important, but secondary sense of “missionary church-planter,” to use a modern English equivalent, and is used of Barnabas, Andronicus and Junia, Priscilla and Aquila, who definitely engaged in preaching, teaching, and discipling as they labored together with Paul (cf. Rom. 16:3,7, TNIV). And in the Christian literature of the second century, “apostles,” when not used in connection with the Twelve, has this meaning. For these reasons, saying that women cannot be mission teachers, preachers, or church-planters, either by themselves or as a part of a husband-wife team as were Adronicus and Junia, is a non-sequitor.

And since this is a discussion on the proper interpretation and application of 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and not Matt. 28:18-20, where such an objection might be more feasible, one wonders why David brought it up. What bearing does it have on 1 Tim. 2:11-15? None that I can see.

Comment by Liz

April 10, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

Well, I guess it would be better if David answered your thoughts, Frank, but I saw that David would think that because Jesus chose only men for the twelve, that meant that women were not to be in that type of role (inc. I Tim. etc)

It may be a thin connection to our minds, but conclusions about gender issues depend on your starting point. I prefer to start at the beginning before sin was in the equation.

Comment by jlp

April 11, 2009 @ 6:15 am

David,

It never bothered me that Jesus didn’t pick women because I always thought the 12 disciples were meant to imitate the 12 tribes of Israel, and the founding member of each tribe was male.

Anyway, back to the topic. What does everyone think of the two “And yets” in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Comment by Frank

April 11, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

Obviously, the two “yets” in 1 Tim. 2:12 act as “qualifiers” regarding the nature and manner of the teaching Paul is prohibiting in this verse. And the nature and duration of the qualifications or restraints being applied to this teaching also have to do with the proper understanding of authentano.

Many Greek lexiographers argue that this middlepassive participle, authentano, defines the nature or manner in which the teaching in v. 12 is being conducted, and that it is derived from the noun authentes, which means “someone who dominates, who domineers, who gains the mastery over others, who puts others in their place” (cf. Linda Benville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” DBE, pp. 209-217). Since it has such negative connotations, it is no wonder Paul opposes teaching of such a nature.

So taking 2:11-12 together, and taking the “yets” as qualifiers of authentano, which appears to have negative connotations in 1st century Greek, perhaps the following free translation would better express some of Paul’s intention in giving this prohibition:

“Let a woman,like all teachers-in-training, learn quietly and with full attention. But I am not going to let a woman teach who intends to domineer a man; let such would-be teachers keep quiet til they learn to teach with calm respect.”

And then, besides this little problem of translation, one has to determine the connection between these verses and the allusion to Genesis 2 and its application that Paul makes in vv. 14-15.

Now Cheryl Schatz, on her website, “Women in Ministry” is doing some very careful and thorough exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:11-15, addressing some the problems we are discussing here. You might find some insightful and helpful information there.

Comment by Sue

April 11, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

In the Greek it says de … ouk …. oude. This simply means “not even this, nor yet that.” It has no temporal meaning whatsoever. The example given in the lexicon is this, “not even the fortifications, nor yet the navy, will cause us to fear.” As you can see, this does not mean that the navy will “later” cause them to fear. There is no temporal meaning at all. It just means “not this and not that either.”

It is true, however, that there is no record of authenteo having a positive connotation within several centuries of the NT. This is a serious inaccuracy. The word authenteo was translated into Latin as dominari which is the same word used for the husband in Gen. 3:16 in the Vulgate.

It could mean to usurp authority, to take something illegally, to defraud someone of their estate. It is sad to see that the only way the term “usurp” is used today, is to say that women shall not usurp their husband’s authority. This is used by those who claim that authenteo says “to exercize leadership in the church.” But they still rant about women who are usurpers over their husbands.

If you read Alex Chedial’s post on CBMW of April 2 you will see how he uses these terms,

“The domineering woman is the usurper. Her desire is to rule over her husband or the men around her.”

This is the exact contrary to Gen. 3:16 which uses dominari for something that the husband does. He domineers, and usurps the wife’s natural authority over her own being. And then 1 Tim 2:12 does say that the wife must not usurp her husband’s authority either. But nowhere does it say that a woman may not exercise appropriate Godly leadership. That has been added to the text by humans.

I can only say now that this kind of interpretation is so innappropriate and offensive to women that I am surprised that all women do not rise up against it en masse. We have been indoctrinated into accepting little snippets of text as the gospel truth about women.

These writers are not interpreting the scripture but are inventing the scripture IMO.

Comment by Sue

April 11, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

What I am trying to say is that Gen. 3:16 is clear that it is the man who is the usurper, who has usurped the wife of her proper role as co-ruler and equal partner.

Comment by jlp

April 11, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Thanks Frank and Sue. I hear what you are both saying loud and clear.

Comment by Frank

April 13, 2009 @ 11:50 am

I need to make some corrections and clarifications regarding my previous comment (89081). I wrote this without complete notes, which I normally try to do, and, I admit, in a bit of haste to do some other errands. I confused my participles and infinitives and their use as adjectives or nouns, depending on the context. So I apologize and now wish to rectify my errors, promising to do my best in the future to maintain excellence in my comment presentation and development.

As regards the verbals in 2:12, besides the major verb, which is translated as “I am not [now]permitting,” there are the two present infinitives, didaskein (“to teach”) and authentein (“to domineer”). And the present indicative of authentein is autheneo, which according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (p.84)is derived from authentes (“someone who domineers, who seeks the mastery over another,” etc.)and this verb essentially means “one who does a thing on his own, or one who acts on his own authority.” And it is from authentes and its verbal cognates that we, in English, have derived the terms “autocrat” and “autocratic rule.” However, in my previous comment (89081), I gave a confusing account of the connection between authentes, authenteo, and authetein when I referenced participle usage. So please disregard that error.

As regards the correlative conjunction, de…oude(“Neither…nor”), which I had described as “qualifiers,” it does indeed connect the infinitives didaskein and authentein with gunaiki (“a woman”). However, this correlation of either nouns or verbals can be understood in one of five ways: 1) As a pairing of synonyms, such as in Gal.4:14, “Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt nor with scorn”; or 2) as pairing of closely related ideas, such as in 1 Thess. 5:5, “You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night nor to the darkness”; or 3)a pairing of antonyms, such as in Matt. 7:18, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit”;or 4) an indication of movement from general to particular, such as in Matt. 25:13, “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day nor the hour”; and 5)to define the goal or purpose of an acting subject, such as in Acts 17:24, “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by [human] hands.” It is the context which must determine which use of de…oude is being utilized by an author.

Now Linda Belleville argues on the basis of the historical, cultural and literary context of 1 Timothy as a whole, and of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 in particular (“Teaching and Usurping Authority,” DBE, pp. 217-223), that Paul here is defining and repudiating either a certain woman, or a certain group of women, teaching in such a way as to gain mastery over the men. And when I consulted the article on “Women” in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (p. 1066) regarding this passage, the author there suggested that Paul was repudiating a domination of the men by the women. Such activity was certainly contrary to his fundamental teaching regarding the New Creation in Christ, as he had developed it in Gal. 3:26-4:7; 2 Cor. 5:11-6:4; Rom. 4:13-17 and 8:12-25. So I agree with this understanding of 1 Tim. 2:11-15: Paul is laying down a prohibition on women who are assuming teaching positions for which they are not prepared and expressing themselves in a very domineering way. And that was part of the rationale behind my translation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12, but I don’t think I made my rationale as clear as I should have, and so may have caused some confusion or puzzlement. I hope I have corrected my errors and made my rationale more clear.

A further thought. Perhaps, as some NT scholars suggest, these women were teaching a pagan heresy that the Woman received wisdom from the Serpent and gave it to the Man, who came after her and needed the wisdom only she could give. And that is why, in vv. 13-14, in alluding to Gen 2, he is making an analogy between the disastrous effect of false teaching for the original “church” and the possible disaster awaiting the Ephesian church if these women continue to spread false teaching. But that is a topic for a separate discussion, no doubt.

Comment by jlp

April 13, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

Thanks Frank!

Comment by Joe

April 13, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

I didn’t know about the presence of “yet” but I have always taken that verse to mean that Paul was not presently allowing a woman to teach. I think that the larger problem is the tendency people have to proof text. If Christians would simply read verses like 1 Tim 2:12 in context the church would be almost united in recoginizing the truth of equality.

Comment by Liz

April 14, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

A simple, clear answer Joe so isn’t it a shame that everyone doesn’t read the verses like that. I rather suspect that people have to be guided in another direction first.

Comment by Mathlady2X

April 15, 2009 @ 9:45 am

Joe,

The church does not want women to be equal to men. It’s not that the church can’t understand 1 Timothy 2:12 correctly, it’s that it refuses to do so.

Comment by Trevor

April 15, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

Mathlady2X,

I think that it needs to be stated that perhaps many in the church MAY not want women to be equal with men and many who MAY refuse to understand 1 Timothy 2:12 correctly. We need to remember that In the minds of christians who disagree, they are the ones who are being true to scripture, as they understand it, and WE are the ones who refuse to accept its plain teaching.

As Liz has previously said, “I rather suspect that people have to be guided in another direction first.” Most christians are at the mercy of their chosen experts and will adopt the reasonings and interpretations of said experts without either feeling the need, or possessing the tools to challenge the status quo. Some are at the mercy of their denominational, or mission society position on the issue.

Most of us will agree that when it comes to challenging the beliefs of a sectarian group, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, it is the leaders who must be called to account. The followers, while parroting the teachings of the organization, are practically brainwashed into believing and repeating what they have been led to believe is the truth. Many, while having personal concerns, would sublimate them for fear of being excommunicated by the group.

In some respects it is no different for the average church person. It doesn’t necessarily cross their radar that these issues need to be questioned. It’s not that they ‘refuse’ to do so. Leaders and theologians may fall into that category but the average church person is like you and me, ordinary people. So I get concerned when we speak in such broad generalizations.

Comment by joanne

April 16, 2009 @ 8:43 am

Trevor, i like what you are saying.

I think it is a maturity issue. A mature person can listen to knowers and leaders in the church and be able to discern instead of swallowing whatever said leader says. I think we might teach better discernment skills and help folks become more mature in their thinking and spiritual life.

I remember as a young believer, I was taught not to question what the bible said. At the time I thought what the bible said and what my teachers said were synonymous. I couldn’t separate the teacher from the teacher’s interpretation of scripture. and therefore, I could not discern well because I simply accepted that the teacher knew best and that I did not. I was a very dependent knower.

Over time, I think believers hear from other teachers, notice that there are more than one or two points of view each claiming to be biblical and right. In maturity believers begin to discern better, moving away from a single point of view. Maturity brings the ability to hold some things in tension; see in more than black and white/either or terms, chew cherries and spit pits, accept differences in interpretation and develop comfort with questions. In maturity I think that believers are less controlled by knowers–which is scary for knowers. In maturity believers develop criteria and are able to pinpoint assumptions.

In maturity believers can reason.

One of my passions is to help folks learn the scripture better and set it within the whole story of God and within a Spirit directed relationship with God. We are illiterate biblically in the wider church and very dependent in knowing. Then susceptible to dependency on those who assert that they have the “truth” about any given theological aspect of the bible.

I am not saying that mature believers all agree about biblical equality…

Comment by joanne

April 16, 2009 @ 9:49 am

More thoughts on critical thinking and maturity.

I think there is a continuum of thought about the “biblical” roles of men and women that range from a very extreme feminist position in which there is support for abortion, the lesbian lifestyle, hatred of men, and an emphasis on rights, to a very extreme patriocentric position in which women cannot even vote and exist to serve the needs and call of a husband, they may not attend college or work outside the home.

Then in between those two points of view are a range of varying positions.

In between is where I fall… I believe in mutuality in marriage and gift-based leadership in the church. Both men and women can be pastors and teach in the church setting and lead in their career field or community endeavors.

Then there is the position that women may lead in the church, be pastors etc but remain under male authority in marriage. But such leadership is to be servant and responsive to the self-authority of the woman.

I think there are soft complimentarian positions in which men are pastors but women may be associates and teach and preach in the church under the authority of men and soft complimentarian views of marriage. In this view women may work, lead in the community but remain within male authority in the home.

There are patriarchial positions in which women must be silent in church and submissive in marriage. But husbands are to excercise loving leadership and consider their wives in their decisions. They may sing, teach women and children and serve as deacons in service capacities. They may not preach or teach in mixed gender settings.

I think it’s highly important to recognize the continuum within the church today and really think through the consequences of each position in the light of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

I don’t think these positions are all equal or all healthy. Some I think are seriously dangerous.

Comment by Lin

April 16, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

David, Jesus also chose Judas. We tend to forget that part. And ironically, He chose Paul, an educated Pharisee to take the Gospel to the Gentiles while He had the uneducated (therefore not respected) Apostles take the Gospel to the Jews. One was even a despised tax collector.

Of course the choice maps to the 12 Tribes but another part of this is that Jesus never tried to change the current household codes or government. He was on a higher mission. His actions sent a much louder message about women. Especially appearing to Mary M first after His resurrection. She would not even be considered a reliable witness legally at that time.

I also think that during that time, folks did not see the Apostles as we see them now. It was scandalous enough to have a bunch of women traveling with them and providing for them.

Comment by Trevor

April 16, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

Thanks Joanne for your comments. With you I believe they provide a balanced overview of how things are out there in rank and file ‘churchland.’ Perhaps another aspect of this that may well be connected to maturity and the ability to think critically is the issue of acceptance. My feeling is that a lot of our invitational preaching to encourage people to become a part of the church is based on an offer of connectedness. We are appealing to a felt need of acceptance that is not so much addressing alienation from God and the need to be reconciled to Him through the forgiveness of sin as joining a hip community of believers. The danger is that people are then not necessarily regenerated by God’s Spirit and therefore not blessed with mind renewing transformation (Romans 12:1,2). They can easily be swept up in the whole gamut of learning what is necessary to be accepted and remain connected with the group.

Perhaps that explains too why it is that people leave the church, or become disenchanted with the church, in such large numbers. The cares of the world, or other felt needs overpower the original reasons that they had for wanting to belong. It could be that they were not necessarily inwardly connected to God Himself and therefore prepared to do the hard yards that nurture and grow this precious new life within (James 1:2-4). I’m not sure who first offered the thought that, ‘if we are persuaded intellectually to accept a particular line of argument we can be just as easily be persuaded out of it’. Some embrace the Christian faith that way (intellectually) and then give up on it too easily. The question of equality can be seen in the same light. It looks too hard to think through and throws out a challenge to one’s sense of well being and security.

Comment by joanne

April 16, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

Trevor, I hear you on the regeneration insight. I think there is more… folks don’t have a non-anxious way to experience a woman in ministry or a married couple where the woman is a pastor.

… my husband and I were talking about the tipping point for people exploring women in ministry. We had an experience in which a member of our church was exploring women in ministry and asking my husband questions, honestly. This member examined both the complimentarian position and the egalitarian position and saw that each had valid arguments. The tipping point for him was the relationship my husband built with him. My husband reached out to him in friendship and patiently answered his questions. Eventually he relaxed and accepted me as a person in ministry. He may still have doubts but is in process.

Comment by Jamie

April 19, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

David said:

“In all the biblical-gender issues there is only one I can’t get past that I find definitive. Jesus did not from his disciples choose any women to be part of the twelve.”

If that’s the ONLY thing you can’t get past then I must say your point seems very weak. I could only wish that was the only objection some in the Church use.

Compare that to the many references in the Bible of women in leadership positions.

Honestly, I almost think at times people just purposely DECIDE to oppose women as equals in treatment and in leadership and use whatever they can out of the Bible as an excuse . . .

Yes, whether they realize it or not (or I should say, rationalize it or not) they’re making an excuse.

These twelve men are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28)

Historically, in this particular culture, that’s how it goes.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the status of women in general.

Why did Jesus select all Jews? Why not Africans, Asians?

We could go on and on if we dwelled on minutiae like this — which I believe is harmful since His salvation message is universal!

David also said:

(A related issue is why the God of all choice chose to be born a male.)

As the Lamb of God, Jesus had to be male because only an unblemished male lamb could be the sacrifical offering in the Jewish sacrificial system.

He was also fulfilling a specific role in the OT metaphor of priesthood and sacrifice.

His maleness also sent a strong signal to men (esp. of that time and culture) when only women were expected to serve.

I also believe God deals with us as how we are. If we believe men alone are the ones in authority — He’ll accomodate if that is what it means. He doesn’t force Himself. We have to listen to His Spirit and come around.

David continued:

I have heard it said Jesus had to conform to the male dominated ancient world view. Yet in NO other case did he pander to the prevailing view but went out of his way to destroy their erroneous, wicked concepts. On this one issue he would slavishly adhere to the current prejudice?

I wouldn’t call it pandering.

Jesus was God entering into a specific place and time in history as a flesh and blood human being.

He’s fully human, a man, but that doesn’t mean His message isn’t for women because they are women, for instance.

Jesus didn’t come to right all political wrongs (otherwise the Roman Empire would’ve then and there been crushed), nor was He there to launch a feminist movement (although He’s the greatest, feminist liberator a woman could have), nor was He to set everyone straight about science, technology, or hold discussions about whether our origins are to be taken from a literal reading of Genesis or evolution instead.

No, Jesus’ mission was to save souls, to reach the broadest number of people, which He was doing up until His very last, earthly breath on the cross. He came to save the world, not judge it.

Comment by Dr.Shirley

April 30, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

I don’t know where a translation came up with “yet” as a meaning for Gr. “de”. “De” is just a connnecting particle, indicating usually either a meaning of “but” or “and”. The major Greek lexicon of NT Greek (BAGD) does not list “yet” as a meaning. There is no time connection either. Literal trans.: “but to teach for a woman (or wife) I am not permitting, nor to dominate over a man (or make advances toward, or usurp), but to be in tranquillity.” The infinitive “authentein” does not have the meaning of “have authority”. This verb is very rare, in fact, it occurs only here in I Tim. in the Bible, and it is not clear WHAT it is intended to mean here.
Since Paul seems to have approved of Priscilla teaching, and of Philip’s daughters prophesying, and of Phoebe being a minister or deacon, and of Junia being an apostle, it appears that in I Tim. he was speaking of a local situation in Ephesus where some uneducated women got carried away. He may not have thought that future readers were going to generalize his statement to Timothy’s congregation for all time and all people!

Comment by Waneta

June 16, 2009 @ 12:15 am

I am intrigued by the possibility of “yet” being in that verse in the original. It gives credibility to an idea I’ve had for a number of years, that started from a teaching in one of Chuck Swindoll’s sermons on I Cor. 14:34-35 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Chuck pointed out that women were not told to shut up and that’s the end of it. Instead, they were told to ASK their husbands at home, which would imply the husbands were to answer the question and teach their wives. In other words, God was saying through Paul that He did not want wives to remain in ignorance about Kingdom things. This would have been a very liberating directive for women in those days, Chuck pointed out.

When I put this verse together with I Tim. 2:12, it does look like Paul’s intent was that women be temporarily educated at home in the things of God, so they would not disrupt a service where men who were more advanced in their education were also trying hard to take in concepts that were totally new to them. It would be similar to telling the kindergartener who is a visitor in the 6th grade class to keep his/her mouth shut and wait until he/she gets home to ask questions.

That thought took me on to another one. If I was trying to teach Christianity to a male-run Jewish culture, how would I do it? If I came in and completely turned things upsidedown in favor of women, (this is how the men would see it) the men would walk out in droves, and Christianity would have been reduced to a silly women’s pet ideology.

Even in Eph. 5, after telling everyone to submit to one another, when Paul goes to the specifics, he starts with women. If he had started with telling men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, many men may have walked out and not bothered to hear the rest. I speculate that when Paul told wives to submit to their husbands, the men are nodding their heads, thinking Paul is allowing men to retain the power seat. I imagine some of the men would be completely thrown off balance when they heard about the self-sacrificial love they were to show for their wives. Some would have received it as “Yes, that makes perfect sense,” while others would have totally rejected the command to husbands and went back to focus on the submission that is required of wives. This matches Paul’s other teaching to do as the Romans when in Rome, etc.

When you have a new “religion,” and you know it is the one true religion and that it is very important that as many people as possible embrace it, you can’t make it too radical or it won’t ever get off the ground but will fizzle out to nothing, or be considered “women’s babbling.” If Paul had set uneducated women in places of leadership, it would have been like allowing 3rd grade drop-outs to be church leaders in this culture.

Add to that the view of most men of the time that women were male property. A similar and more recent situation would be the slaves and owners in the early days of this country. It would not make sense for slaves to get up and teach white people. The whites would despise anything the slave said and would shut him or her up asap.

But both Jesus and Paul set the principles of equality and respect in place, so when women became educated and when men developed Christ-like character, Jesus’ new order could develop and grow toward equality, the way things were before sin came into the picture.

Comment by Don

October 27, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

On David’s question about why 12 men for the 12:

1. The 12 apostles of Jesus map to the 12 patriarchs/tribes, as pointed out above and in the NT. This can also be seen as when Judas disqualified himself, he was replaced with another so there would be 12, but when James died he was not. The 12 were also Jews and not gentiles and free and not slaves, but none of these other things that were true of the 12 are seen as requirements for being a church leader today, so why should being male?

2. But besides this, Jewish men were taught Torah and Jewish women were not; one needs to learn before one can teach, after all, disciple means learner. And women were among the disciples, which was scandalous. So the men had a head start in knowing Godly things; God and Jesus work with people where they are at, moving them step by step into the Kingdom as they allow it.

3. While the 12 knew Torah, there were NOT disciples of any Pharisee, who were generally considered the most learned of Torah, this was also surprising. Today, it would be like Jesus passing over all the seminaries and choosing some fishermen, a hated collaborator with an oppressive power, a fighting rebel, etc., in other words, totally NOT expected.