The issue I raised with the OT examples was that of prophetesses (e.g. Deborah) who spoke to Israel (including men) for God. So here we have deliberate, authoritative women in ministry. But you seem to want to deny that authoritative role for OT women to have any continuing expression in the NT. At no point have I suggested an elimination of role distinctions. That's a straw man you have invented against my position.
First, being a judge was more of a civil role. I do not deny any civil roles for women in society. What you do not find is women serving as priests in the Temple or as leaders in the synagogue throughout Jewish history. Again, God made it very clear that women were not to serve in the priesthood roles but this obviously did not prevent God from using women in other capacities, such as prophecy, judges or even leading men into battle on rare occasions. So, again, I think you are setting up a false choice here. This is like arguing that because Deborah was a judge, women should be able to serve as the High Priest of Israel. No Jew would make such an argument. The Law explicitly prohibited it. Likewise, just because God uses women in various capacities in the NT does not, therefore, render meaningless explicit prohibitions made on several occasions in the NT about the roles of women in the assembly of believers. If your argument is that women can serve in any and every capacity in the church, then how is that not a removal of role distinctions in the corporate assembly? Did I misunderstand you there? If so, I am happy to be corrected.
There is a major difficulty in understanding the meaning of authentein (to have authority) as it appears only this one time in the whole NT and because it is a present tense imperative of authenteo it means that these women were continuously having authority.
I do not agree with this. First, Paul is not referring to any specific women here. He is speaking about women in general. "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man..." So it is not "these women" but any woman. There is no demonstrative pronoun here to suggest that Paul is referring to a specific scenario as you imply. Thus, it is the command, not the scenario that is present tense. Paul is not allowing this. Hence the present tense.
But what's the meaning of authenteo? Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon gives the meaning as 'have authority, domineer ... over someone' (1957:120). In the word study edited by Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 3, Brown's word study on gune (woman) points out that '1 Tim. 2:12might be interpreted not as an absolute prohibition of women teaching but as a repudiation of allowing them to domineer and lay down the law. The hapax legomenon authentein can mean both to have authority over and to domineer' (Brown 1978:1066).
I already addressed this issue. This is simply not accurate. A study was done on this word by H. Scott Baldwin. He found 82 occurrences of this word in Greek literature from the 1st century BC to the 12 century AD. He concludes that in every case, but two, the word did not carry a negative connotation. The two cases where it did have a negative connotation were both over 300 years removed from the NT usage. The fact is that the word does not carry a negative connotation. It was almost always used as authority in the general sense. (Baldwin, “Word” and “authenteo”) (See also,
George W. Knight III, “Authenteō in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in New Testament Studies, 30 (1984), 143-157. He researched all the secular uses of this verb cited in the Arndt & Gingrich lexicon; only one (of uncertain date) means “murder,” and the rest mean “to have authority” in a neutral sense.)
Adelphoi (brothers and sisters) and NOT 'brothers' only overrides nothing. In 1 Cor 14:26 (NIV) we have this statement by Paul that affirms women in teaching ministry: 'What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up'.
Again, I guess my point is that even if Paul is saying that women were involved in this teaching, words of instruction or whatever in 14:26, he clearly says this is not appropriate for women in 34 & 35. He gives zero indication that this was a temporary prohibition or that this was only due to some particular circumstance in this congregation. Paul knew and encouraged churches to circulate his letters. So I just do not know how you can say 14:26 affirms women teaching in the assembly when 34 & 35 explicitly prohibits not only prophesying in the assembly, but any kind of speech that would come across as placing them in a position of authority rather than submission (as the Law demands according to Paul).
Where did I raise Eph 5:21? I didn't. This is a straw man.
You most certainly did. Post #35 you listed it under the heading "The New Covenant and Women." Maybe you just cut an pasted it from another source and you didnt mean to use it. If that is the case though, you should examine more closely the information you are citing for your points. I can only address the information on the screen as I see it.
1. This is a false statement. Paul DOES mention the assembly of believers when referring to women who prophesy. In 1 Cor 14:4 (NIV), it states, 'Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church'.
I think you are dodging my points. Are you suggesting prophecy only took place in the church? We both know that is not the case and there are a host of texts to prove it (I can list some if you are not convinced). As I already showed, Paul is speaking of general life and Christian behavior in the onset of chapter 11 and then shifts to talking about the assembly late in chapter 11. He is explicit in this shift by talking about "when you gather together...." He also uses these phrases in 14 to show that he is talking about the assembly, and in this context he prohibits women from teaching. It seems very clear to me. It seems our only options are:
1. Paul contradicts himself (we both agree this is not true)
2. There is a specific situation in Corinth that Paul is addressing which is why he does not allow women to speak in the assembly or particular function such as house churches (as Fee argues).
3. Paul affirms women can prophesy but he does not permit them to do so in the assembly.
As I pointed out, #3 makes the most sense because a) Paul never mentions a specific situation in Corinth and certainly does not indicate the only speaking he has in mind is disruptive questions, b ) it seems a little too convenient that in both cases where Paul demands women not teach but be submissive that he just happens to be dealing with very unique situations (disruptive questions or heresy) rather than the more obvious conclusion that he consistently doesnt want women to do this (and he does mention "all the churches" and "I do not permit" which indicates anyting but specific circumstances) and c) Paul uses "the Law" as rationale for them not speaking in the assembly....not their lack of education or simply being disruptive.
We most certainly have contextual reasons to indicate women who were told to 'remain silent' were to 'inquire about something' and 'should ask their own husbands at home' (1 Cor 14:34-35 NIV).
I would encourage you to read the text again. The reference to "asking their husbands at home" is not the only kind of speech Paul is speaking about here, but an example. Otherwise, it would seem verses 33b & 34 are completely meaningless. I do not accept that.
3. You have imposed your own meaning at this point and not given what I wrote.
Can you explain how I did this? So far you have listed two Fuller articles and yourself have listed ignorance and false religions as reason for Paul's prohibition. If this is not what you believe, then please explain what you do believe. I can only assume you would cite a source because you agree with it and therefore it is reflective of your views.
4. Again, this is your imposition on what I stated. I will not continue to engage with you in discussion if you distort what I wrote like this. We can't have a responsible discussion when you invent what I wrote.
Lets not make this a semantics game. I said, "You are asking me to believe this based on your interpretation." If your view is that Paul is prohibiting women from teaching due to unique circumstances in Corinth and Ephesus, then I dont know how else to see this. Clearly, you are suggesting that Paul is prohibiting all women from teaching in this area (be it house churches or otherwise) and we both see he uses "the Law" as rationale. You are asking me to believe that Paul would prohibit all women from teaching in this area and would use the Law as rationale even though the cause is because of some unique situation in this city. How is this not accurate? You listed links that said these passages were given because of unique situations in these churches. That is what the articles said and that is what I am inferring you believe. How do you expect me to address your views if you are listing articles and pasting information that gives rationale that you do not agree with? I cannot read your mind. In fact, in your article you quote Gordon Fee who says,
If that is what is being forbidden (and certainty eludes us here), then it is probably because some of them have been so terribly deceived by false teachers, who are specifically abusing the OT (cf. 1:7; Titus 3:9). At least that is the point Paul will pick up in verses 14 and 15′ (Fee 1988:72-73, emphasis in original).
The clear implication here by Fee is that Paul is simply forbidding particular women from teaching in house churches because of their propensity to heresy (although perhaps they could teach in other settings).
Then one of the Fuller articles said:
The view that seems best to me is to understand the speaking prohibited here to women to refer only to disruptive questions that wives (usually uneducated in the culture of Paul’s time) were asking their husbands.
Thus, we must conclude that Paul singles out women from questioning because they were more ignorant and more apt to be disruptive in their questions (why not just say, men and women, dont be disruptive in your questions, but discuss them at home.)
In any event, I am not interested in trying to justify all the nuances here. I'd prefer it if you just state what you believe on the topic (as I have done) rather than just quoting a bunch of articles and then debating about what you actually believe and what you do not. Again, there is no historical evidence to prove these congregations had specific issues related to women teaching, that there was specific heresy being addressed due to the the Temple Artemus in the city, or anything of the sort. Moreover, there is no evidence that the word for authority was a specific negative term or that Paul is addressing only certain women teaching in certain situations (house churches). All of these arguments have been fabricated by egalitarians. Please show me some historical documents that show there were issues in these churches with regards to these matters if you have them. There is just a host of hypotheticals in your approach to these texts which cause the natural reading of the text to be entirely changed based on assumptions about the situation. I find it even more interesting that non of these supposed clear understandings of the Greek and historical setting behind these texts were ever in doubt until the rise of egalitarianism in the West. It is very much like all the new discoveries of Greek words related to homosexuality which now show that Paul really didnt mean homosexuality in general, but only certain abusive types. Just seems so interesting that when a culture suddenly decides a certain issue is right that we find all these new Greek words and studies that imply the texts dont really mean what they appear to say.
5. My explanation of the meaning of authentein (above) explains further why what you say about what I mean is incorrect.
And as I have already shown, there is no substance to this claim. This was an errant claim made by feminists which has later been shown to not be true. Studies have been done which show that the word is not linked to a similar negative word in the Greek. People still cite the errant work though because it proves the point that is culturally acceptable.
1. As I've demonstrated, Paul did mention women prophesying in the church - for the edification of the church (1 Cor 14:4-5 NIV). In these two verses ekklesia (church) is used. I can't understand how you are ignorant of such a basic demonstration of prophesy for the edification of the church - not the individual.
Can you show me where Paul specifically mentions women in this context? I can show you where he specifically mentions women in chapter 14 and he tells them, in the context of prophets speaking, that they should remain silent. Prophecy does edify others, but it was practiced both inside and outside the church gathering. Its like you assume that all references to prophecy include women prophesying in the church, but when he says women must be silent you say that this only refers to disruptive qeustions and not to prophesy as such. However that is not how the text reads. Paul talks about order when people prophesy. Then he says women are not allowed to speak, but must "be in submission as the Law also says." And then he goes on to say that if they have questions, they should ask their husbands at home. So, Paul is not saying, "Women should not speak, and what I mean by that is that they should not be disruptive in questioning, but they can still teach, prophesy and lead." Ive never seen such gymnastics to take a very simple statement and turn it on its head.
“If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:30–35, ESV)
I dont now how anyone can read this and conclude Paul is only referring to disruptive questions by ignorant women. He is talking about prophecy, teaching, disruptive questions and any kind of verbal activity that would suggest a lack of submission to leadership in the assembly that the Law demands.
It's 'baffling' to you because you don't seem to want to deal with the contradictions of these passages, 1 Cor 11-14.
I dont know how you can say this. I very clearly articulated how they are not contradictions. One is dealing with eating, hair length, and prophecy and so forth in general Christian life whereas the other is dealing specifically with the assembly and the importance of women showing a submissive spirit in the midst of church leadership which coincides with both the Law and creation. You may not like my view, but I dont know how you can say I havent dealt with the passages and their meaning.
