DescentBB

When the bible was written, man had allredy had centuries of experience of opressing females that harked back to the hunter gathering days. Men used to think (as they still do) that because they could run faster and bring food to the table, or smack their mate around they were the dominant sex. We as a species still believe that, but we're slowly changing. Unfortunatly, in my humble opinion, we still have texts such as the bible which prevents us from progressing on many social issues of which the female status is one, because of blind acceptance by millions as the truth.

Women are the dominant sex. Women are the bosses of each and every household. Men are all alpha males because women let them think they are, which is a great power. Women do not need to be placed upon a pedestal by man and be adored because they have their own self built, that man can only dream of attaining. So the quoted passages in the bible are wrong. They are sexist and archaic.

we agree to disagree, I'm done

typical argument from a christian. throw a little doubt or idea and they bail.

Women are the dominant sex. Women are the bosses of each and every household. Men are all alpha males because women let them think they are, which is a great power. Women do not need to be placed upon a pedestal by man and be adored because they have their own self built, that man can only dream of attaining. So the quoted passages in the bible are wrong. They are sexist and archaic.

Let's be honest. How many women want a man who can't handle things and take the lead in the head of household role. How many women want a man who has a lack of all Alpha male tendencies. How many women don't need to be told how beautiful and wonderful they are. Reality itself directly contradicts what you just said. Unless your dealing with one of those feminist movement women, the majority won't fit into the description of a woman that you just gave.

The bible itself is not sexist, it's merely interpreted as being so by the ignorant. Unfortunately, many of them are in religion and actually TEACH these statements from the bible in a sexist manner, which doesn't help.

OmFg ! wtf .. MGHFFPPPth !

Oh stop it please !

"Unless your dealing with one of those feminist movement women.." ... .. one of "those" women, ... not one of your kind, eh ..?

Come on Drakona, show us where you lie on this kind of absolute myopic, chauvinist, puny-eyed view... Statements like the one above clearly show the limited "EXPERIENCE" of people and WOMEN I have mentioned above...

... there are many flies on the wall here now, ... all of us capable of taking a little crap on this thread.. or just free to fly away...

Bible thumped consciousness is incurable !~ fly poop won't change Jehova's Witness' limited views, words will change nothing. Only expererience can; but try to convince or suggest this to someone who refuses to try anything else but to live within a doctrine.

I think that the best way of explaining the situation around the originally quoted passages is to simply remember their context. They weren't even written to us. One is a letter to Timothy. The other to the Church of Corinth. Neither of which are still around today.

The Church has evolved throughout the years in response to society, and rightly so. It has strived to change what it can but also know the things that it can't, because the latter is equally as important.

Flabby Chick wrote:Unfortunatly, in my humble opinion, we still have texts such as the bible which prevents us from progressing on many social issues of which the female status is one, because of blind acceptance by millions as the truth.

Out of the small minority of people today who are even familiar with what the Bible says, I believe that there is even a smaller minority of them who interpret the Bible in the way that you do, such that women are "less" than men.

I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that the Bible has been impeding the progression of your social issues, especially since civil rights have, generally, advanced more quickly in Bible-believing parts of the world. Such is no surprise from the document that advocates that "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." (Gal 3:28)

Zuruck wrote:typical argument from a christian. throw a little doubt or idea and they bail.

go away troll, we are talking about women here not the "whores" you so deeply admire.

Zuruck wrote:women are good, i love it when they dress like whores

besides there was no doubt thrown, we have diametrically opposed view points and neither one of us will convince the other, but at least he made the effort unlike you, again Zurich you pop in and again add NOTHING to the conversation and pop out,

CUDA wrote:

It was made quite clear in the tread title that this was a scripture based thread. this is a very civil discussion on scripture with a few exceptions, no one is bible thumping here. but there are always a few ppl that feel the need to hop into bible threads that clearly they have little or no knowledge about, and add little or nothing to the conversation, they feel this ornate need to try to make ppl that have faith feel somehow stupid for believing ( this is not directed at you El-Ka Bong but other posters ) or that they need a crutch in thier lives, the problem is with most of these ppl is that they spend little or no time truly researching scriptures and thier meanings so have little or no knowledge to contribute. they just feel a need to hop in and dump on us and our beliefs. now since this IS a scripture, based thread and you would like to debate what scriptures has to say about the matter then we would be more than happy to engage you in debate, but if you feel the need to critisize us our our faith, then please stay silent

as I predicted it would happen, for the most part we "Christians" do try to enlighten the non-believers but in your typical fashion you do not wish to learn what we believe and why we believe it, you have but one purpose and one purpose alone in posting in these threads, that is to make yourselves seem superior to us. keep trying because you all have a LONG way to go

i'm no biblical scholar, but i dont understand how these:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." 1 Tim 2 11-15

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." 1Corinthians 14:33-35

2 passages quoted in the first post can have different interpretations. the man who wrote it flat out said "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." he's saying, clear as day, women are not permitted to have any authority over man. "They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission...If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Again, what am i missing? he is deliberately saying women must answer to men. where are people pulling these multiple interpretations from?

kurupt wrote:i'm no biblical scholar, but i dont understand how these:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." 1 Tim 2 11-15

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." 1Corinthians 14:33-35

2 passages quoted in the first post can have different interpretations. the man who wrote it flat out said "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." he's saying, clear as day, women are not permitted to have any authority over man. "They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission...If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Again, what am i missing? he is deliberately saying women must answer to men. where are people pulling these multiple interpretations from?

I can see where the confusion comes from, but I'll elaborate. Which, I'm quite sure that some here will still find negativity.

Those charged with oversight of a congregation are described in the Bible as being males. The 12 apostles of Jesus Christ were all males, and those later appointed to be overseers and ministerial servants in Christian congregations were males. (Matt. 10:1-4; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12) Women are counseled to â??learn in silence with full submissivenessâ?

MmmmmpfffhHhh NnnHhhmmm ! agrh ! ... bzzzzz bzzz bzzzz, ... is there window I can use to get outta here !... !

oops double post

El Ka Bong wrote:MmmmmpfffhHhh NnnHhhmmm ! agrh ! ... bzzzzz bzzz bzzzz, ... is there window I can use to get outta here !... !

now there's an insightful post if I ever saw one, you and Zurich must be related


BTW excellent post Thrawn

Don't feed the trolls... defenestrate them.

Zuruck wrote:typical argument from a christian. throw a little doubt or idea and they bail.

Sh1t! Man the guy proffers a hand and you slap it away...wonderful attitude.

Upon some of these subjects there can't be any discussion, either you believe it or you don't, but that dosn't mean to say you can't be civil, have a beer and accept your differences. A little maturity wouldn't go amiss.

flabby, i think people that don't follow a religion are far more accepting of anything than those that do. i don't mind how people run their lives, it's their choice, if they want to sleep with twenty people a night, so be it.

i didnt see cuda offering a hand. do you think he's given in and seen it from a different point of view? no, that book they read so much has clouded their vision.

I apologize for my absence; ever since getting an intellectually stimulating job, I just haven't been as interested in writing online as I used to be. I probably won't be by here much, but this deserves a comment.

What you ask is a good question, Shoku, and one a lot of people have struggled with--and one I have struggled with a lot over the last few years, so let me take a stab at an answer.

As background, you need to understand that the church as a whole is very divided about women's roles. The very verses you cite are at the core of a big debate about women in leadership. At one end of the spectrum are traditionalists who think men should lead, and at the other are the egalitarians who think any role open to men should be open to women. And I've heard people argue for every possible position in between--women can be elders, but not pastors; women can teach children's Sunday School, but not adult; women can be in any position of leadership so long as somewhere up the command chain is a man; women can lead in any capacity so long as a wife doesn't overrule a husband and on and on and on. I have even heard one bible scholar argue that women can teach and study any subject except biblical hermeneutics!

I think this confusion arises from a fundamental philosophical and theological problem facing the modern church (which I won't go into here--but suffice it to say, if I go to my grave without writing a book about it I'll be very disappointed in myself). In a nutshell, I think the church is trying to extract information from the Bible that isn't there. Nobody but a scholar could seriously read the new testament and think it was cryptically intended to contain some of the messages and directions they derive from it.

So what do I think about the verses in question?

Well, one of my rules for interpretation (not just of the Bible, but of anything) is that only very stupid authors recklessly contradict themselves. Put another way, if you think you understand what someone's saying and it's totally contradictory nonsense... you probably don't understand it.

That applies here. Consider the 1 Corinthians quote:

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, wrote: Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Taken at face value, Paul is commanding that women be totally silent in church, and not speak up even to ask questions or learn things. He calls it improper for women to speak. Is this what he means?

Well, some considerations weigh against that. For starters, in the very same book he talks about women prophesying and praying in 1 Cor 11:5 (admittedly another cryptic passage), and prophesying certainly implies talking. At the very least he's closely contradicting himself.

Another thing that weighs against that interpretation is that it's found nowhere in the culture or commandment of the entire new testament--if it was the practice in the churches, it sure wasn't one they wrote about. Women play major roles in the new testament: Jesus went out of his way to teach them--from Mary who listened to all of his words, to the woman at the well, who was Jesus' messenger to an entire town. In Matthew 15:22-28, a woman challenges Jesus' decision not to help her, and he responds by complimenting her and granting her request. It was the women who first saw Jesus after his resurrection and took the news to the rest of the disciples. In the new and old testament, we have records of deaconesses and prophetesses. Paul wrote such things as the famous Gal. 3:28--"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Indeed, in the customary list of "greets" at the end of a letter, in Romans 14, many of those so greeted and complimented as servants of the church are women. It begins, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you..." Does all of this sound consistent with a church in which it was improper for women to speak?

Another consideration is Paul's citing of the law here. He writes, "Let the women keep silent ... just as the Law says." There are two problems with this: first, the law doesn't say that. Anywhere. For scholarly reasons, it's possible that the word refers to the Jewish traditions, and not the old testament law, but that makes the second problem worse--namely, since when is Paul a fan of enforcing the Jewish law in the churches? Is this the same Paul who has spent chapters upon chapters arguing for salvation by faith apart from the law--the same Paul who wrote in Galatians 2:19, "I died to the Law" and in Galatians 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law"? He literally spends most of several books arguing against the Law. Right here he likes it? And not even the scriptural law, but the Jewish traditions? What's up with that?

And if you aren't sick of the arguments yet, here's yet another one that makes that interpretation unlikely: context. If you've got a bible in front of you, start reading at the start of 1 Cor 14, and go all the way to the end of the chapter. (And if you want a better idea of the context, start at the beginning of chapter 12 instead.) I'll summarize it for those too lazy to read (and that's... everybody, right? Shoot, I bet half of you can't be bothered to do more than skim this post... ). Paul is addressing a problem with speaking in tongues (note: this refers to speaking in other languages--and apparently, here, languages which no one present understands)--he begins by arguing that speaking in tongues is an inferior spiritual gift to prophecy, since one amounts to speaking nonsense and the other edifies. He goes on to say that if the entire church is speaking in tongues, it looks bad--unbelievers will visit and simply think everyone is crazy. He then goes on to give a command: no one should speak in a tongue in church unless an interpreter is present, and only one or two people should do it, each in turn. Likewise prophets, to avoid chaos. We then come to the controversial part of the chapter:

... for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Let women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them suject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues, but let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

So... the context here is that he takes two chapters arguing about order in the church as it relates to speaking in tongues and prophesy, pauses for two verses to command women to be silent, and then goes on to recommend prophesy in an orderly manner.

This should strike any reasonable interpreter as pretty unlikely. Clearly those two verses about women are related to the teaching about tongues and prophesy and order, and probably had something specific to do with a problem at that particular church.

So what does it mean?

I'm aware of two common suggestions, both of which rely on a bit of history. Close to Corinth, in Delphi, was an oracle--a woman who, while intoxicated, would utter incoherent sounds. "Interpreters" would write interpretations of what she was saying, and people would come to inquire of her through them. The suggestion goes that perhaps the church at Corinth was influenced by this, and the women in the church started ecstatically babbling incoherently, thinking they were being spiritual and divine. Maybe it got so bad that the church meetings became chaos.

Under that theory, there are two very reasonable things Paul could be saying. First, perhaps he's commanding the women in that particular congregation to be quiet, in order to counter the problem with chaos--that is, not that it's in general wrong for women to speak in church, but the women in that church should do so in order to get the problem under control. That's a reasonable moral tradition, and the idea of giving up some personal freedom for the good of the church is quite a common one in the new testament. This interpretation doesn't completely make sense of what Paul wrote, though--after all, why is he then invoking the law? And even given the theoretical situation, it seems harsh. Still, it does fit with the context better than the earlier suggestion.

The alternate interpretation relies on fact that in the original, this letter didn't have quotations or punctuation. The thought goes that perhaps the same chaotic situation occured at Corinth, and some radical members of the congregation wanted to solve the problem by shutting all the women up all the time--the way the Jews at the time did. In this case, the two controversial verses would be a quote of their position, and then the following verse, ("Was it from you the word of God first went forth?") could be read as a rebuke. This fits well historically, and explains the reference to the law, and is very much favored by the change in "voice" in those two verses (It's very un-Paul-like to harshly command out of the blue like that), but not everyone likes this interpretation. For one thing, the supposed rebuke is fairly weak and cryptic, and for another, this sort of "quote and rebuttal" style isn't used very much elsewhere.

I'm the first to acknowledge that it's all theory anyway--it seems pretty clear to me that what's commanded there is responding to a local problem on general principle, and I suspect it would make more sense if we knew what the local problem was. Guessing that the Corinthians were imitating the oracle at Delphi seems to me like a pretty thin thread to hang an interpretation on. But I personally think the text favors the latter interpretation--I think it makes the most sense of what's written and fits in best with the rest of what Paul wrote, there and elsewhere.

For some bits of the Bible, we're clearly missing half of the conversation--and this is one of them. I think this is a case of "half the post, taken out of context, sure sounds bad, but that isn't what he meant." And I do think the "face value" interpretation clearly doesn't fit the text--even before we start talking about moral objections.

The other verse you bring up is a little harder. I could give you a run-down on the whole debate surrounding it, but it's late and I'm sleepy. It essentially amounts to the fact that the word used there for "exercise authority over" is a greek word whose meaning is hotly disputed, and the words for "woman" and "man" could as easily be translated "wife" and "husband". Add to that the various cultural issues, and there's certainly enough wiggle room that nobody's sure what it means. One thing's for sure--it doesn't really mean women can't teach men, unless Paul is trying to rebuke the entire culture of the early church.

So... I think that sort of answers the two verses. In general, it's good--when you run accross a confusing verse--to look at a bit of context, and apply the rule that whoever wrote it, while they could be wrong, probably wasn't a complete and total idiot. And keep in mind how bad things can sound when you only hear half of a phone conversation; try to figure out what the person is really getting at, and try to figure out how sure you can be of it.

Unfortunately, the issues of how men and women should relate in the church are rich and complex in the Bible. I wish I had more time to talk about it--I feel sort of like I'm cheating, giving some technical interpretations but no real content. Ah well. Maybe I'll return another day and write about that. In the mean time, I should probably sleep...

-Drak

Thank you Drakona, what a Holy semantic word play this sport can be !

..." In general, it's good--when you run accross a confusing verse--to look at a bit of context, and apply the rule that whoever wrote it, while they could be wrong, probably wasn't a complete and total idiot. And keep in mind how bad things can sound when you only hear half of a phone conversation.."

enlightening as ever Drac

that can be a major problem with Christianity, alot of "Christians" try to justify every aspect of their lives by using a single verse, this is not a flaw in the religion but a flaw in the people that practice it. because of our sin nature we will try to find any reason we can to make excuses for our actions

Drakona wrote:I apologize for my absence

Thanks for your input, Drak

The argument that Paul was referring to a local problem may be valid. But the solution should not be considered as â??local.â?

Zuruck wrote:flabby, i think people that don't follow a religion are far more accepting of anything than those that do. i don't mind how people run their lives, it's their choice, if they want to sleep with twenty people a night, so be it.

Well, if you'll accept anything, I don't necessarily see that as a plus. And you may want to ask the societies, say in today's southern Africa, if the lack of sexual restrictions hasn't caused large societal problems with the caring for the large numbers of AIDS victims, AIDS orphans, etc., etc. There's a reason "do whatever the hell you want" has not been a widespread, successful philosophy. Actions have consequences.

Drakona wrote:For some bits of the Bible, we're clearly missing half of the conversation

Which goes back to the origin of what the Church decided to include in their scriptural canon, and for what reasons. Is it reasonable to expect what Paul wrote to admonish some local churches to be normative for all individual females (and males) everywhere and for all time? It is reasonable to expect that since God gave humans the ability to reason, that there would be an expectation that they would do so - history of the last two millenia notwithstanding. You can argue all day long about what was said in the letters, gospels, etc.; the question is, what does it mean for us today.

Hmm... I find your exegesis a little odd, Shoku, so I'm going to do something I never do: respond line-by-line to what you said.

Shoku wrote:The argument that Paul was referring to a local problem may be valid. But the solution should not be considered as “local.” The reason for this is apparent from his begining phrase, which unfortunately has found a new location in the translation you quoted.

Corrected translation: “As in all the congregations of the Saints, let the women keep silent in the churches.”

Gramatically this is the preferred location for this phrase. By saying “all” Paul is reminding the Corinthians of a Christian standard all servants of God should follow.

I don't think you can make such a strong statement as, "gramattically this is the preferred location for this phrase." Though I'm no greek scholar, all the commentary I've seen indicates it can go either with the preceeding or the following verse. In fact, I know that in some early manuscriputs, verses 34 and 35 ended up at the end of the chapter, and that would have left this phrase with verse 33 (not that such scribal errors necessarily preserve Paul's intent--but they do at least demonstrate that the phrase made sense there.) So we have something here that's gramattically neutral: the phrase "As in the churches of all the saints" could either go with the, "God is a God of order" sentiment or with the "Women should keep silent" sentiment. The fact that there's ambiguity really weakens your argument--if you're wrong and Paul intended the phrase to go with the other sentence, you haven't got a case that the silence was practiced in all the churches.

Furthermore, in judging between possible interpretations, you have to deal with the objections raised against the one you favor, and give a reason for favoring ot over the alternatives. Here are some alternatives and arguments you need to address:

The verse's position in the middle of an argument about the use of tongues means it's possibly referring to speech in tongues, not all speech. That is, it's entirely possible that--in context--what he means is, "keep quiet from speaking in tongues," not to keep quiet in general. In fact, he even says something similar in verse 27--"If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church." Obviously, he means be silent from speaking in tongues, not be silent completely. The verse in question isn't so clear, but it's at least possible that he means women should be silent from speaking in tongues, not in general.

Or as another alternative, the fact that he's addressing a local dispute means it's possible the command he gives is only to serve as a resolution to that problem, and isn't intended as a general moral statement. That is, it's entirely possible that--in context--what he meant was, "Women in Corinth, in light of the problem your church is experiencing, you should keep quiet." In fact, it's even possible that this is the case even if you think the "as in all the churches" sentiment was part of the latter sentence: the universal value could be the self-sacrifice on the part of women, or order in the church. It doesn't have to be the silence.

A third alternative interpretation--and the one I prefer--is that this section is a quotation of someone else, a local teaching that Paul thinks is too extreme of a solution to the problem.

At the very least, the existence of these alternatives has to weaken the strength of the interpretation. It means yours isn't the only one, and certainly isn't automatically certain. And here are some arguments against it, as opposed to the others:

It doesn't make sense to invoke Jewish law and tradition in a universal command to the churches. Remember Paul's constant arguments that circumcision is not meaningful for a Christian, and that those who are Jews when they become Christians should remain such, and those who are Gentiles should remain such? How can he so willing to discard such a huge Jewish tradition as circumcision, yet feel compelled by Jewish traditions regaurding women's behavior in the synagogue? Remember the conference in Acts 15--just after the Gentiles began to join the church. Some among the church wanted to force them to follow the Jewish law, but the council agreed that they should only follow a few, to avoid giving offense to the Jews among them. The letter reads, "It seemed best to the holy spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well." These obviously are not moral commands, as Paul writes elsewhere that meat sacrificed to idols is still just meat--but this is the minimal set of Jewish laws that the church felt the non-Jewish Christians should observe. Conspicuously absent are any regulations about women!

Also, there's absolutely no outside evidence that the women were silent in the churches. This is the only place that apparent command is given. It's not as though ancient descriptions of church life refer to the men talking and the women being silent. On the contrary, you have to read such common statements as 1 Cor 14:26--"When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation"--as referring to men only, when it doesn't say that. That seems like too much of a stretch to me.

Finally, the mere form of the command goes against the style of Paul's teaching, and a lot of the substance of what he taught. Why give a legalistic command when the whole point of so much of what Paul writes is moral freedom--not to be evil, but to do what seems right? Isn't this the same Paul who wrote Romans 14?

Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. Who are you to pass judgement on another man's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. . . One person regaurds one day holier than other days, and another regaruds them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. . . . each of us will give an account of himself to God.

He is continuously explaining the rationale behind his commands, and saying things like Philemon 1:8-9, "Although I have quite a lot of confidence in Christ and could command you to do what is proper, I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love..." Here he's supposed to be giving a harsh, legalistic command? That's so out of character that it alone makes the interpretation unlikely.

----

In general, it isn't good to take an uncertain interpretation too far. If there is so much to weigh against it--as here--and so much historical uncertainty, and even alternative possibilities for interpretation... then that's the sort of thing you should take with a grain of salt.

One of the rules Lothar and I have for Bible study is that you shouldn't ever build an entire theology on one or two verses. This is common sense--just like you shouldn't ever try to reconstruct my view on a political subject from one sentence in my post. It's pure folly--real morals and God's real thoughts (and most people's real thoughts and opinions) are just plain more complicated than that. Single sentences are easily misunderstood, and usually only represent a tiny piece of the whole picture. This is especially true when you're missing historical or situational context or when the author doesn't further explain himself. It's even more true if the interpretation seems shaky for some reason--doesn't fit with the context, doesn't sound like the author, doesn't make sense of all of the words, doesn't fit with other teachings. All of these things make a teaching uncertain; running with such a teaching is just asking for trouble.

shoku wrote:

Drakona wrote:In the new and old testament, we have records of deaconesses and prophetesses

Well, actually we don't have deaconesses or prophetesses as an “offical” rank or position. Although the Scriptures demonstrate a vary favorable view of women, and how they would help proclaim the good news, they were not allowed to hold an offical “office” of any kind.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but let me give you a short list of some positions held by women in the new and old testament that seem pretty official to me:

Miriam was a prophetess, and one of three leaders of ancient Israel, along with Moses and Aaron. (Exodus 15:20).
Deborah was a prophetess and the leader of ancient Israel. (Judges 4:4)
Hilkiah was a prophetess who was consulted by the king and high priest to learn what the Lord wanted them to do. (2 Kings 22:14)

Off the top of my head, I can think of two queens that the old testament records. Jezebel (who was evil), and Esther (who was good--and in fact has an entire book of the old testament devoted to her)

It is true that by law women couldn't be priests. But then priesthood was highly symbolic, and featured several other restrictions.

Switching over to the new testament...

In a hotly disputed passage (Romans 16:7), we have what appears to be a female apostle, Junia. The evidence is pretty slim (based on ambiguity of the name and ancient commentary on the passage), so it isn't the sort of thing to go build a whole theology on... but the historical evidence is definitely interesting.

We don't have anyone in the new testment referred to personally as biship or elder except Peter, and the author of 2 and 3rd John. But there's some historical evidence that female elders existed in the early church. See http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem08.html, under the heading bishop/elder. (Though I'll give a warning: the author of this site tends to be very one-sided in his arguments, and I am not well enough versed in the ancient history to be able to give an independant opinion on whether his writing here is representative or misleading. Still, if the inscriptions he says exist actually exist, that seems pretty solid.)

The word for "deacon" can also be translated "servant," and appears to be used frequently in the NT of both men and women. Phoebe was called that in Romans 16:1-2, as I pointed out earlier. And we have a lot of women greeted as "servants" or "fellow workers" in Romans 16 and Phil. 4:3--and I sincerely doubt their service to the church consisted solely of baking bread.

I'm not quite sure what more you're looking for. That women were active, and spiritual leaders and teachers--both in ancient Israel and the early church--seems pretty obvious to me. Not all roles were open to them, and it's true that they were rare--there were many more men in leadership. But this seems to me more likely to come from the nature and desires of women than from official bans against their service; even a few women in positions of authority is enough to illustrate that there was no law against it.

shoku wrote: Consider the following:

For those called by God to the heavenly calling (Hebrews 3:1) to be joint heirs with Jesus Christ, there is no distinction between men and women in a spiritual sense. The apostle writes: “You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ . . . there is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28) These all must receive a change of nature at their resurrection, being made partakers together of “divine nature,” in which state none will be women, for there is no female sex among spirit creatures, sex being God’s means for reproduction of earthly creatures.—2Peter 1:4.

Whoa. "No female sex among spirit creatures"? I have no idea where you're getting that, and certainly not from the verses you cite. Hebrews 3:1 does indeed mention a heavenly calling, but there's nothing in the passage to indicate this means anything more than responding to the call from God. There's certainly nothing there to justify the idea that this heavenly calling involves transformation into sexless spirit creatures.

The Galatians 3:26-28 passage ("there is neither male nor female") is--first of all--in the present tense in my translation. It isn't talking about a future transformation at the resurrection, it's talking about the state of things now (er... then. Yeah.). Look, just read the verse in its context:

For in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God through faith. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female--for you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise.

The passage is clearly speaking in some very spiritual and metaphorical ways, not describing literal events. We are "sons of God through faith"--not literal sons of God, as Jesus was, but imitators of God, his adopted children and heirs, through faith. This theme is ubiquitous in the new testament. We were "baptized into Christ" and have "clothed [our]selves with Christ." This is not implying some future event in which we are dipped in Jesus' blood and clothed with his skin; it's speaking of spiritual occurences in the here and now! We have been immersed in his character; his nature is the 'clothing' we wear. We aren't likewise literally Abraham's offspring; there aren't literally neither Jews nor Greeks; there aren't literally neither slaves nor freemen; there aren't literally neither men nor women. These are metaphors for spiritual realities--the important thing is not our status as men or women, or as slaves or freemen--but our status before God as his children. We are Abraham's true decendants in that we were the heirs promised; the fact that we're not literal decendants is completely secondary to the fact that we've been adopted.

2 Peter 1:4 does indeed mention becoming partakers in the divine nature, but I think it's completely self-evident from the context that that means we are being transformed to act like God and imitate his character, and ultimately to enjoy being with him--not to literally become physically like him. Judge for yourself:

2 Peter 1:2-8 wrote: May grace and peace be lavished on you as you grow in the rich knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord! I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for live and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence. Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire.

For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverence; to perseverence, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately.

shoku wrote: Women, spoken of as “daughters” and “women slaves” in Joel’s prophecy, were among those receiving the gifts of holy spirit on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E. From that day forward the Christian women who were favored with these gifts talked in foreign tongues that they had not understood before, and they ‘prophesied,’ not necessarily making predictions of important future events, but speaking forth Bible truths.—Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 1:13-15; 2:1-4, 13-18.

Their speaking about Bible truths to others was not to be limited to fellow believers. Before his ascension to heaven, Jesus had told his followers: “You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) Thereafter, on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E., when holy spirit was poured out upon them, the entire group of disciples (including some women) were empowered as his witnesses (Acts 1:14, 15; 2:3, 4); and the prophecy of Joel (2:28, 29) quoted by Peter on that occasion included reference to such women. So they were numbered among those who bore the responsibility to be witnesses of Jesus “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” Consistent with that, the apostle Paul later reported that Euodia and Syntyche, in Philippi, had “striven side by side with [him] in the good news”; and Luke mentioned Priscilla as sharing with her husband Aquila in ‘expounding the way of God’ in Ephesus.—Phllipians 4:2, 3; Ac 18:26.

I agree with this, for the most part. You give some examples of how women served in spiritual leadership in the early church.

Shoku wrote: There were meetings when these women could pray or prophesy, provided they wore a head covering. (1Corinthians 11:3-16). However, at what were evidently public meetings, when “the whole congregation” as well as “unbelievers” assembled in one place (1Corinthians 14:23-25), women were to “keep silent.”

What? There's no evidence that women prophets met by themselves in special meetings. You made that up!

Regaurdness of the commandment about head coverings (a local and cultural command I'd rather not go into), it's evident that these women were praying and prophesying, which at the very least requires speaking. Assuming that they must have done so in separate meetings, in order for this to be consistent with their silence in church seems like backwards interpretation to me--since that latter interpretation is pretty shaky anyway. I'd take this one as reason for questioning that one. I certainly wouldn't make up a whole practice out of two shaky interpretations. Geez.

Shoku wrote: While not permitted to teach in congregational assembly, a woman could teach persons outside the congregation who desired to learn the truth of the Bible and the good news about Jesus Christ (compare Pslam 68:11), as well as be a ‘teacher of what is good’ to younger women (and children) within the congregation. (Titus 2:3-5) But she was not to exercise authority over a man or dispute with men, as, for example, in the meetings of the congregation. She was to remember what happened to Eve and how God expressed the matter of woman’s position after Adam and Eve had sinned.—1Timothy 2:11-14; Genesis 3:16.

Well, okay--look at the verses in 1 Timothy in question:

A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do now allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.

First of all, if you want to take that middle sentence as unrestricted in scope, it proves too much: it prohibits women from ever teaching men anything--something flatly contradicted by the practice of the early church (women prophets?).

Second, word translated "exercise authority" is one of the most hotly disputed words the entire new testament. Some argue it applies to generic authority--authority of any type. Others argue it has the connotation of abusive authority. The commentary in my NET Bible states, "this Greek verb means, "To assume a stance of independant authority, give orders to, dictate to" (c.f. JB "tell a man what to do.")" Others have written entire studies trying to extract all possible inferences of meaning out of every place where the word appears in ancient greek literature (not many). I love what Glenn Miller writes about this verse: "it is PURE FOLLY to base an entire doctrine affecting half the human race ... on the basis of ONE SINGLE VERSE, and even worse--a single verse where the most important verb is (1) unusual; (2) negative; and (3) not even understood clearly!"

Third, there's a possibility that the words translated "woman" and "man" as easily could mean "wife" and "husband" -- i.e., what Paul's prohibiting here is a wife bossing a husband around.

Fourth, the passage gets very cryptic very vast as we enter the segment about Adam and Eve and childbearing. I have no idea what he's talking about, so it's possible all of this is countering some local heresy, and would make more sense if I knew what that was.

I can't say that I know what it means, but I do think it's too cryptic and hard to interpret to put much weight on. The prosciption against women ever teaching men anything is obviously wrong, but what it does mean... is unknown. Shoku, your boundary that it means women can teach men if what they are teaching is the gospel and if the men are unbelievers is absolutely as arbitrary and unjustifed as any of the other hundred possibilities I've heard.

It is one of my major pet peeves that this passage is at the center of the debate about women's roles in the modern church. People make up all sorts of definitions for "teach" and "exercise authority" for all sorts of reasons; I think that's stupid and foolish. Certainly we have a duty to obey the word of God, but I don't think individual half-sentences were ever intended to be dissected with such pains... and I think it's obvious that, whatever Paul meant by this, he didn't include enough detail in the text for us to figure it out by linguistic dissection. So if it's unclear, it's unclear... let's move on to clearer teachings!

Shoku wrote: In the discussion of “gifts in men” given by Christ to the congregation, there is no mention of women. The words “apostles,” “prophets,” “evangelizers,” “shepherds,” and “teachers” are all in the masculine gender. (Ephesians 4:8, 11) Ephesians 4:11 is rendered by the American Translation: “And he has given us some men as apostles, some as prophets, some as missionaries, some as pastors and teachers.”—Compare Mo, NW; also Psalm 68:18.

Women aren't usually distinguished from men in the Bible, and that the technical terms are in the masculine gender doesn't mean much. Would you as quickly exclude women from any of the promises of God, just because passages like Matthew 16:24 say things like, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me" ? Most modern translations make these passages gender-neutral in accordance with modern usage, but that doesn't change the fact that the original terms were masculine. But that they were generically masculine--used to speak of mankind, not men specifically, should be obvious. So I don't think you have much of a case arguing above that masculine terms exclude women from those offices--especially not when we have examples of prophetesses and women teachers.

In full accord with this, when the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy about the qualifications for the positions of “overseers” (e·pi´sko·poi), who were also “older men” (pre·sby´te·roi), and of “ministers” (di·a´ko·noi) in the congregation, he specifically states that they must be men and, if married, ‘the husband of one wife.’ No discussion by any of the apostles discusses any office of “deaconess” (di·a·ko´nis·sa).—1Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; compare Acts 20:17, 28; Phillipians 1:1.

Let's look at the full of the 1 Timothy 3:1-13:

If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work. The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money.

He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?

He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment the devil will exact. And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil's trap.

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain, holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless.

Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect. Deacons must be the husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households.

The passage doesn't give an "if" associated with any of these requirements. It doesn't say, "if he's married, he should be the husband of one wife." It just says he should be the husband of one wife. Taken at face value, the passage implies that elders must be married, and must have children, in order to demonstrate that they can care for the church. And deacons must have a Christian, respectable wife! This seems unlikely to be his actual intent.

The interpretation of this passages as a laundry list of strict characteristics for church leaders seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely that this is intended to give general instruction on what an elder or decon should be like. Clearly these are responsible men of character; Paul gives several details, but that doesn't mean it would be okay to have a deacon who was overtly prideful and selfish, even though those things aren't on the list. Taken this way, the requirement that elder be "the husband of one wife" could easily be present to illustrate that he should be maritally faithful--after all, if it obviously should be generalized to, "if he is married, he should only have one wife," why can't it be generalized to, "he should have only one spouse and should be faithful"? Isn't that the actual, moral teaching in view here?

You'd have a better case arguing that he should have children ( to ensure he can manage a household) than that he should have a wife, and even there, I'm not sure that's the sentiment the author intends.

Some translators even think that the term translaged "their wives" should read "deaconesses," and there is some dispute over this. If so, then the argument that they must be husbands completely falls apart.

Of course, it's possible that male elders and deacons were the norm, and that's assumed here. But that's what you're trying to prove--you can't use it as an assumption in interpreting the passage. Taken by itself, I think the passage gives little to no support for the requirement that deacons and elders should be male.

Shoku wrote: Although Phoebe is mentioned (Romans 16:1) as a “minister” (di·a´ko·nos, without the Greek definite article), it is evident that she was not an appointed female “deacon” in the congregation, because the Scriptures make no provision for such. The apostle did not tell the congregation to receive instructions from her but, rather, to receive her well and to ‘assist her in any matter where she might need them.’ (Romans 16:2) Paul’s reference to her as a minister evidently has something to do with her activity in the spreading of the good news, which, as mentioned above, is the obligation of all Christian women. —Compare Acts 2:17, 18.

Fair enough, I suppose. Though it's worth noting that the term used to describe her--"servant"--is actually the same word as used for deacon, though it isn't always used in a technical sense. But to say her service to the church was restricted to spreading the good news among unbelievers is pure speculation--and anyway, for consistency shouldn't you be saying unbelieving women? Wasn't there something about women never being allowed to teach men, that didn't give an explicit and immediate restriction to believers?

More generally, if Phoebe is called a servant of the church, and Paul asks the church to assist her in any way she has need, I doubt he means that he's sending her to them because she needs food and shelter. Clearly she's ministering to the church ("servant of the church ... she has been a great help to many, including me"), and Paul is asking that she be given support in that. That sure sounds like the standard teaching, prophesying, encouraging, serving, building up the church kind of work.

Shoku wrote: Concerning the word di·a´ko·nos, D. Edmond Hiebert wrote in Bibliotheca Sacra: “It has been held that the term is a compound of the preposition [di·a´], meaning ‘through,’ and the noun [ko´nis], ‘dust,’ so that the term denotes one who hurries through the dust to carry out his service. But this suggested derivation is not generally accepted today. More probably the verbal root was [di·e´ko], ‘to reach from one place to another,’ akin to the verb [di·o´ko], ‘to hasten after, to pursue.’ Then the root idea is one who reaches out with diligence and persistence to render a service on behalf of others.”—1983, Vol. 140, p. 153. So, the term can refer to the actions and attitude of an individual apart from an offical “station” or “position”.

Hm. I'm not familiar with him, but he's one expert among many--and probably not a very trustworthy one, to judge by his linguistics. Breaking apart a word to search for roots is a well known fallacy--witness words like butterfly or hot dog. Etymology isn't generally a good guide to meaning anyway--a lot of English words used to mean very different things than their origins imply. Take spam. Or "nice" (which used to mean 'villian'). These methods of discerning meaning don't work with modern languages because language doesn't work that way. That people continue to try them on ancient languages is only evidence of the disconnect some scholars have with reality. The common usage of a word is a much, much, much, much better guide to its meaning.

Regaurdless, I'll concede the overall point if not the argument: the word for deacon, "servant", is used sometimes in a non-technical sense, to describe an attitude, not an office. I don't think that matters much for the argument, though.

Regaurding the debate around women's roles in the church, I find the commands in Paul's letters to mostly be cryptic and hard to interpret--but the fact that the narratives and culture clearly show women in leadership is hard to dispute, so I take those as the weightier evidence.

A lot of people in the modern church disagree with that, and spend a lot of time trying to extract exact principles from the two sentences we have about women and ministry. I think that's misguided, but I honor those who try to serve God that way.

-Drak

Ever notice how biblical posts here tend to grow exponentially?

Thanks again Drak. I always enjoy reading your posts â?? even if I disagree with some of your arguments

The role of women in scripture is a hotly debated topic. That's why I wanted your opinion, but please do not take my critique as a personal slight toward you because it is not meant to be.

This hot debate is mainly due to two reasons: The first is our modern point of view. Not just the viewpoint regarding equality (or the lack of equality), but how the modern world views the ancient world in general; Too often people look to the past through the clouded vision of modern perceptions, when in reality the ancient world was quite different. The second is the incessant need by some to adjust the word of God to fit their personal opinion. (I won't dwell these two things here because they're fodder for other topics).

When I read your responses I am pleasantly struck by the amount of study you've obviously done, but also disappointed at times when you resort to deriding a valid source of information, which only emphasizes your lack of knowledge in those areas. - more on that latter.

Drakona wrote: I don't think you can make such a strong statement as, "gramattically this is the preferred location for this phrase." Though I'm no greek scholar, all the commentary I've seen indicates it can go either with the preceeding or the following verse.

Regarding the alternatives to 1Cor 14:33, 34:

Stating as I did that a certain translation is â??preferredâ?

Although this isn't taken from the 1 Cor. 14 passage, it may help some understand what Paul says earlier in the book about men and women.

Linky
(Scroll down to "Men and Women: Different By Design")