Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[Barrd]

We actually have TWO dogs, so I bought a Dyson vacuum that specializes in pet hair. WORKS GREAT!

Does it have an attachment that will get the stuff out of furniture, drapes, my bed....

 

[StanJ]

Does it have an attachment that will get the stuff out of furniture, drapes, my bed....

YEP! I got a whole bag of attachments, the bag was free!

 

[Barrd]

YEP! I got a whole bag of attachments, the bag was free!

I gotta get me one of them.

 

[Wormwood]

Because the context is NOT about a corporate setting as 1 Cor 14 was. It is about the lives of believers, and the Greek connotes a husband and wife in this regard.

Could you expound on this? One scholar I read writes, "[SIZE=14.63px]The Greek word is gunē, which in some contexts can mean “wife” (just as the word for “man,” anēr, in some contexts means “husband).” In this text, however, neither the context nor the Greek idiom allows us to translate these words as “wife” and “husband.” Thus Paul is addressing women in general, just as he is in verses 9-11." This seems accurate to me as the NIV84, ESV, NASB, and NRSV all translate gune here, "woman." I would think if this was clearly to be seen as "wife" due to the Greek, the translations would reflect that. Instead, the same Greek word is used in verses 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14. None of these verses give any indication they are speaking specifically to married women. Rather, the context is the way women dress, and how the "woman" was deceived, not Adam. Also, gune' translated as "woman" more in the NT than it is translated "wife." The context has to specify when it has the connotation as "wife" and nothing, (other than the controversial nature of these verses and those who want to explain them away) would lead a person to view them otherwise. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.63px]And, as I mentioned previously, Paul speaks about authority and teaching in chapter 2 and goes on to discuss the appointing of elders and their ability to teach as a requirement for that position. Prior to this, in chapter 1, he is giving Timothy charge to confront certain teachers not to teach false doctrine. In fact, the whole letter is instruction to Timothy about how he is to take charge of these wayward believers, establish godly leadership and not let people despise him for his youth. To suggest that chapter two marks some ellipsis where Paul is talking about home life and is only referring to husbands and wives seems like a reach. [/SIZE]

I'm not talking about submission WW....I'm talking about the POV that women may not or should not teach in a corporate setting. IMO, that is anti women. Not sure why you would be offended by that term if you are not anti women?

[SIZE=14.63px]Because all of these texts reference "submission" as the rationale for the silence or quietness for women in the assembly. The two are clearly linked in the NT and it is the reason such command are given, to express submission. Not to be anti-woman. Moreover, looking down the ages of Church history, we do not see anything like what you and the new era of egalitarians are now teaching in regards to these passages. Essentially you are claiming that the church for about 1900 years was "anti-woman." I just find it curious that in the last 60-70 years with the rise of feminism that suddenly we have all these new ideas about the meaning of Greek words that supposedly dismiss all the texts on roles, headship and submission when these concepts were entirely foreign to the church for almost two thousand years. It seems oddly similar to the sudden new line of thinking about Greek words pertaining to homosexuality that just so happens to coincide with a culture that has declared the practice normative. Color me skeptical. [/SIZE]

 

[StanJ]

Could you expound on this? One scholar I read writes, Greek word is gunē, which in some contexts can mean “wife” (just as the word for “man,” anēr, in some contexts means “husband).” In this text, however, neither the context nor the Greek idiom allows us to translate these words as “wife” and “husband.” Thus Paul is addressing women in general, just as he is in verses 9-11." This seems accurate to me as the NIV84, ESV, NASB, and NRSV all translate gune here, "woman." I would think if this was clearly to be seen as "wife" due to the Greek, the translations would reflect that. Instead, the same Greek word is used in verses 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14. None of these verses give any indication they are speaking specifically to married women. Rather, the context is the way women dress, and how the "woman" was deceived, not Adam. Also, gune' translated as "woman" more in the NT than it is translated "wife." The context has to specify when it has the connotation as "wife" and nothing, (other than the controversial nature of these verses and those who want to explain them away) would lead a person to view them otherwise.

Mounce and Moo have both written books on this issue, but the consensus was that the referencing Adam and Eve as a couple, brings into play the husband wife relationship and the headship that exists IN marriage. There really is not other teaching by Paul or any other author that assigns women to a supposedly subordinate role in the corporate church. It's either that or Eve condemned all women, regardless of their marital status, to be subordinated to men, in which case Paul would not have called some women his co or fellow workers.

And, as I mentioned previously, Paul speaks about authority and teaching in chapter 2 and goes on to discuss the appointing of elders and their ability to teach as a requirement for that position. Prior to this, in chapter 1, he is giving Timothy charge to confront certain teachers not to teach false doctrine. In fact, the whole letter is instruction to Timothy about how he is to take charge of these wayward believers, establish godly leadership and not let people despise him for his youth. To suggest that chapter two marks some ellipsis where Paul is talking about home life and is only referring to husbands and wives seems like a reach.

Yes he does, and it ALL starts in the family and works outwards. 1 Tim deals with different issues in every chapter so I don't see how you can conclude it is all to do with corporate order?

Because all of these texts reference "submission" as the rationale for the silence or quietness for women in the assembly. The two are clearly linked in the NT and it is the reason such command are given, to express submission. Not to be anti-woman. Moreover, looking down the ages of Church history, we do not see anything like what you and the new era of egalitarians are now teaching in regards to these passages. Essentially you are claiming that the church for about 1900 years was "anti-woman." I just find it curious that in the last 60-70 years with the rise of feminism that suddenly we have all these new ideas about the meaning of Greek words that supposedly dismiss all the texts on roles, headship and submission when these concepts were entirely foreign to the church for almost two thousand years. It seems oddly similar to the sudden new line of thinking about Greek words pertaining to homosexuality that just so happens to coincide with a culture that has declared the practice normative. Color me skeptical.

They refer to headship, I'm loathe to call it submission given all the negative connotations that entails.
I don't really know what you mean by them being linked, as they are two totally different scenarios that do NOT address the same issue, unless one is willing to make a huge leap in logic to link them.
I'm not claiming anyone else in anti women, I'm saying these posts that support women NOT being allowed to teach in the corporate church are. Let's not bring in an unrelated topic such as homosexuality that has nothing to do with this topic. I find it's best to be OPEN to the leading of the Holy Spirit and NOT skeptical about being inclusive when it comes to gender IN the corporate church.

 

[Wormwood]

Mounce and Moo have both written books on this issue, but the consensus was that the referencing Adam and Eve as a couple, brings into play the husband wife relationship and the headship that exists IN marriage. There really is not other teaching by Paul or any other author that assigns women to a supposedly subordinate role in the corporate church. It's either that or Eve condemned all women, regardless of their marital status, to be subordinated to men, in which case Paul would not have called some women his co or fellow workers.

Well lots of scholars have written books on this issue. And again, Paul never mentions marriage in this context but rather references teaching, submission, and elders in the context of this passage. There is other teaching by Paul on this matter in the corporate church. We have been discussing it in 1 Cor. 14. Also, Paul makes no reference to the characteristics of women in eldership, only men in chapter 3. Moreover, there was no precedent for women leading in the local synagogue. One would think that Paul would specifically teach local congregations to allow women to lead, if in fact, the Christian fellowship was going to divert from cultural norms. Instead, we have Paul not only teaching on two occasions that women should be silent in the assembly, but also Peter and Paul giving specific instructions about how women should be in a posture of submission in the home as well and how this pleases the Lord.

The fact is, there is nothing, other than egalitarian wishful thinking, that would give any indication in 1 Cor. 14 or 1 Tim. 2 that Paul is speaking only to married women. He specifically mentions teaching in the assembly and also only references qualifications for men as leaders in the local assembly (husbands of but one wife), and gives no such instruction about the character of women elders. Not only was this consistent with the practices in the synagogues, but we see that almost 2000 years of church history also reflect this thinking with regards to women in leadership in the local assembly.

The fact is, since feminism sprouted a few decades ago, there have been tons of attempts to show that these texts are cultural, that "submission" is only mutual, and that the authority Paul is referring to is only abusive authority. However, there has been nothing to substantiate these claims. They are embraced, not because they have any historical or linguistic substance, but because it is what our culture wants to hear and it appeases modern sensibilities. Trust me, I would love to embrace this doctrine as a Western thinker and as an American. However, there is just no true Biblical warrant for it. The church never believed this and there is no real contextual or linguistic evidence that suggests we should alter 2,000 years of church understanding and practice.

They refer to headship, I'm loathe to call it submission given all the negative connotations that entails.

Paul uses the term "hupotasso." It is the epitome of the our word "submission." I dont think we should allow our modern sensibilities to determine what is negative or positive as it pertains to what God desires. I think homosexuality is a very pertinent issue in relation to this. 100 years ago no one would think that we would be arguing about women as pastors and preachers, yet now it is assumed. 100 years from now, dont be surprised if homosexual pastors is "assumed" to be right and acceptable. The fact is, thousands of years of church history is being undone and it has nothing to do with legitimate linguistic, biblical or historical evidence. it is all conjecture and hypotheticals about how a word was used once out of 100 uses in extra biblical literature. If you look at pretty much every denomination that has embraced feminism and has ordained women pastors, almost every single one of them has embraced homosexuality within the next couple decades. Coincidence? I dont think so. It has everything to do with the leaps in exegesis scholars start to take in order to embrace cultural norms.

 

[StanJ]

Well lots of scholars have written books on this issue. And again, Paul never mentions marriage in this context but rather references teaching, submission, and elders in the context of this passage. There is other teaching by Paul on this matter in the corporate church. We have been discussing it in 1 Cor. 14. Also, Paul makes no reference to the characteristics of women in eldership, only men in chapter 3. Moreover, there was no precedent for women leading in the local synagogue. One would think that Paul would specifically teach local congregations to allow women to lead, if in fact, the Christian fellowship was going to divert from cultural norms. Instead, we have Paul not only teaching on two occasions that women should be silent in the assembly, but also Peter and Paul giving specific instructions about how women should be in a posture of submission in the home as well and how this pleases the Lord.

That's because the CONTEXT is about a man/women partnership, which is marriage, just as Adam and Eve were considered married. The actual word does not need to be there to see the concept, or do you believe Adam & Eve were NOT considered married? 1 Cor 14 is NOT talking about marriage, but about a problem in that particular congregation. Please stop confusing the two as the same thing. One is directly about order in the cororate settings (1 Cor 14) and the other is about lifestyle in the different aspects of a Christian community (1 Tim 2)

The fact is, there is nothing, other than egalitarian wishful thinking, that would give any indication in 1 Cor. 14 or 1 Tim. 2 that Paul is speaking only to married women. He specifically mentions teaching in the assembly and also only references qualifications for men as leaders in the local assembly (husbands of but one wife), and gives no such instruction about the character of women elders. Not only was this consistent with the practices in the synagogues, but we see that almost 2000 years of church history also reflect this thinking with regards to women in leadership in the local assembly.

Not so. The proper exegetical POV is just that. It shows egalitarianism by ALL scripture that deals with women in the church and specifically in these two different scenarios. Taking one qualification out of a list of them does NOT mean that list refers only to men. In proper grammatical fashion, IF it did, it would start by specifically being directed at men, then going on from there. That the common overseer was a man was more a social/cultural thing, than a mandate from God or the Apostle Paul. Let's not read INTO scripture things that is does NOT emphatically state are so. There are enough examples of Paul being very direct, so we know that is common when it is meant to be. A woman cannot be a HELP mate if she does not have the ability to do everything her husband can.

The fact is, since feminism sprouted a few decades ago, there have been tons of attempts to show that these texts are cultural, that "submission" is only mutual, and that the authority Paul is referring to is only abusive authority. However, there has been nothing to substantiate these claims. They are embraced, not because they have any historical or linguistic substance, but because it is what our culture wants to hear and it appeases modern sensibilities. Trust me, I would love to embrace this doctrine as a Western thinker and as an American. However, there is just no true Biblical warrant for it. The church never believed this and there is no real contextual or linguistic evidence that suggests we should alter 2,000 years of church understanding and practice.

Feminism has never helped to properly interpret God's word. It may have given the world a better perspective on women, but the Bible has always been clear about women and their role in the family and in the body of Christ. Sadly your claim that you would LOVE to embrace this and you actual words don't jive WW.
IMO there is ample evidence that women should be treated in an egalitarian fashion, which includes teaching and leading in a corporate setting.

Paul uses the term "hupotasso." It is the epitome of the our word "submission." I dont think we should allow our modern sensibilities to determine what is negative or positive as it pertains to what God desires. I think homosexuality is a very pertinent issue in relation to this. 100 years ago no one would think that we would be arguing about women as pastors and preachers, yet now it is assumed. 100 years from now, dont be surprised if homosexual pastors is "assumed" to be right and acceptable. The fact is, thousands of years of church history is being undone and it has nothing to do with legitimate linguistic, biblical or historical evidence. it is all conjecture and hypotheticals about how a word was used once out of 100 uses in extra biblical literature. If you look at pretty much every denomination that has embraced feminism and has ordained women pastors, almost every single one of them has embraced homosexuality within the next couple decades. Coincidence? I dont think so. It has everything to do with the leaps in exegesis scholars start to take in order to embrace cultural norms.

Actually it is ὑποταγή (hypotagē), and connotes subordination here in 1 Tim 2:11, which is definitely a command of Paul, thus the LORD, but in a family/marriage setting, NOT a corporate one. You seem to keep ducking or ignoring the important difference?
Again, the issue here is NOT homosexuality so please don't add to the OP.

 

[Wormwood]

"""That's because the CONTEXT is about a man/women partnership, which is marriage, just as Adam and Eve were considered married. The actual word does not need to be there to see the concept, or do you believe Adam & Eve were NOT considered married? 1 Cor 14 is NOT talking about marriage, but about a problem in that particular congregation. Please stop confusing the two as the same thing. One is directly about order in the cororate settings (1 Cor 14) and the other is about lifestyle in the different aspects of a Christian community (1 Tim 2)"

No, it is not. It is man and woman. Paul is directly referencing Genesis 3:6 & 13. In the Septuagint, the Greek word in these texts is "γυνὴ" and the text is always translated "woman."

Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Notice how it doesn't say, "The Lord God said to the wife....The wife said..." Also, according to your reading, it doesn't matter how unmarried women dress. God is only concerned that wives dress modestly. Come on Stan, you know better than that.

It shows egalitarianism by ALL scripture that deals with women in the church and specifically in these two different scenarios. Taking one qualification out of a list of them does NOT mean that list refers only to men. In proper grammatical fashion, IF it did, it would start by specifically being directed at men, then going on from there. That the common overseer was a man was more a social/cultural thing, than a mandate from God or the Apostle Paul."

What? You mean other than 1 Cor. 12, 1 Cor. 14, Eph. 5, 1 Peter 3, 1 Tim 2, 1 Tim 3 and so on.... Again, you are confusing equal value with role distinctions. It is obvious the Bible does not teach that roles of headship and submission are eliminated by the cross. Far from it.

I cannot believe what I am hearing from you. So, if Paul mentions men, then because he is making a list (which only consists of elders and deacons so it's not really a list) then it means he is inferring women as well...even though he doesn't mention them? Smh. I cannot argue this kind of logic. It's like saying, the fact that it isn't there shows it's supposed to be there. I just am at a loss for words here...

Hupotage is the noun form of the verb hupotasso. The word is formed from two Greek words, Tasso - to place and hupo - underneath, below. Trust me, I know what I am talking about with this Greek word. It was often used as a military word to describe those of lower rank. It is dealing with subordination with regards to teaching. Nothing is said in this context about the home or marriage.

Finally, the homosexuality issue is pertinent because they use the same hermeneutics. I am not derailing the OP, I know because I started the OP. I am drawing a link between egalitarian hermeneutics and homosexual hermeneutics. Both claim it was cultural situations Paul was referring to in his prohibitions. Both claim that certain words (such as that for homosexual activity or authority) were actually referring to abusive acts only, but we're not rejecting "acceptable" homosexual acts or usage of woman authority. Both cite "love" as rationale for rejecting NT prohibitions (I.e. God is love, how could he condemn two men who love each other and We are to submit to one another in love so therefore submission is mutual and role distinctions cease). Both reject 2000 years of Church understanding in favor of "new" scholarship (which just so happens to embrace cultural norms). So, yes, there are amazing similarities and it is no wonder that almost every denomination that embraces women leadership end up embracing homosexuality usually within a decade or two. This is because the same hermeneutical principles that allow for one allow for the other. It is no coincidence. You are fooling yourself if you think it is not linked, Stan.

PS. Sorry this is not easy to read..I can't quote or use bold since I am typing on my iPad. Sorry

 

[Wormwood]

WW, every eight weeks or so, it comes around to my turn to lead the services in our little home church. I generally spend a great deal of time on making myself and my home ready for this responsibility. I also spend at least two afternoons a week doing visitations...the hospital, the old folks' home, our local jail...etc. Sometimes, these visits include a bit of preaching. Most of the time there are at least two of us doing this together, and sometimes we sing, as well, or I might recite a bit of poetry...usually my own, but not always. (For a peek at my stuff, follow the link beneath my signature...which, by the way, is also mine, and not a quote from someone else.)
Then, along comes one of my favorite internet buddies, and tells me that I have no right to do these things, even though I've been doing them successfully for several years, and even though the rest of my church...yes, including the men...all love me, and I love them.

I'm not just another pretty face, WW...

Barrd,

Sorry I do not mean to be missing your posts. I am using my iPad and it's hard to navigate. I am sorry my posts are troubling to you. You must know that I only write these things because I honestly believe this is the teaching of Scripture. Again, I don't doubt you prepare diligently and your lessons are great. That is not the issue. I do not believe God prohibits women teaching men because they are less capable, less intelligent or anything of that nature. That is not my argument nor Paul's. The issue has to do with God's desire for role distinctions and expressions of leadership and submission in ways that reflect Christ and the church. You argument is like saying that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father because he was less capable and less valuable than the other two members of the Trinity. Certainly not! What we all need to understand is that God does not need any of us. He doesn't need my teaching or yours. He doesn't need our posts, our lessons, our sermons or our churches. What he needs is our obedience.

Homosexuals make the same arguments to me that their love is genuine and they have true feelings for their partner. How could I say God condemns them for their true feelings of love that are just as real as the love I have for my family? I do not deny their feelings are genuine, but that does not change God's Word or his desires. I don't understand why God commands some of the things he commands, but it isn't for me to decide if it makes "sense" or not. It is for me (and you) to be obedient to his desires and trust that if we honor Him and His word that this is of more value than all our lessons, teaching, and abilities. Obedience is better than sacrifice. It is in our weakness and emptiness that we find Christ's strength. Believe me, I know you are not just another pretty face. You are very intelligent and well versed. I never meant to say otherwise.

 

[StanJ]

No, it is not. It is man and woman. Paul is directly referencing Genesis 3:6 & 13. In the Septuagint, the Greek word in these texts is "γυνὴ" and the text is always translated "woman."
Notice how it doesn't say, "The Lord God said to the wife....The wife said..." Also, according to your reading, it doesn't matter how unmarried women dress. God is only concerned that wives dress modestly. Come on Stan, you know better than that.

I'm afraid you are greatly mistaken here. Eve was Adam's wife, and it is in THAT context that Paul is using her as an example. The Greek is indeed γυνή/gynḗ, and based on the context used, refers to a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow. Indeed I know better, but apparently you don't?

What? You mean other than 1 Cor. 12, 1 Cor. 14, Eph. 5, 1 Peter 3, 1 Tim 2, 1 Tim 3 and so on.... Again, you are confusing equal value with role distinctions. It is obvious the Bible does not teach that roles of headship and submission are eliminated by the cross. Far from it.

That's right WW, the Bible doesn't, and we should read INTO it what it doesn't say. If you are going to bring other scripture into the discussion, then please exegete them. They don't ALL address the same issue, despite your efforts to say 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 do.

I cannot believe what I am hearing from you. So, if Paul mentions men, then because he is making a list (which only consists of elders and deacons so it's not really a list) then it means he is inferring women as well...even though he doesn't mention them? Smh. I cannot argue this kind of logic. It's like saying, the fact that it isn't there shows it's supposed to be there. I just am at a loss for words here...

I already explained this WW. Seems you're not willing to accept that? If you really GET the grammar and context, then read v11 and tell me what Paul was referring to?

Hupotage is the noun form of the verb hupotasso. The word is formed from two Greek words, Tasso - to place and hupo - underneath, below. Trust me, I know what I am talking about with this Greek word. It was often used as a military word to describe those of lower rank. It is dealing with subordination with regards to teaching. Nothing is said in this context about the home or marriage.

That does not mean the word itself retains the same meaning as the root words. YOU should know better than that. Read 2 Cor 9:13 and tell me what it means there? I'm fairy sure Paul did not use it from the perspective of military vernacular, given he was NOT a military person. You're grasping at straws now.

Finally, the homosexuality issue is pertinent because they use the same hermeneutics. I am not derailing the OP, I know because I started the OP.

It's NOT in the OP heading and IMO just serves to dilute the actual issue here, which is women in leadership. Feel free to start a thread on homosexuality, but I don't know that many will participate in something that is very clear in scripture. The two are nowhere NEAR being the same issue.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm afraid you are greatly mistaken here. Eve was Adam's wife, and it is in THAT context that Paul is using her as an example. The Greek is indeed γυνή/gynḗ, and based on the context used, refers to a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow. Indeed I know better, but apparently you don't?

Well I guess we have to agree to disagree. I am sure no Bible you have quotes Genesis 3:6 & 13 as "wife." That is the text Paul is referring to and that text is always translated as woman. The context also refers to women's dress directly prior and there is no mention of conduct at home but rather the entire letter speaks of how Timothy is to handle the false teaching, appointment of elders and leading this congregation in Paul's absence and Paul says nothing of women elders in the immediate context...which is telling since they must be "able to teach." Seeing as how the cultural practice was to not allow women to lead the local synagogue, it seems strange to me that Paul wouldnt specifically challenge this custom if he really wanted women pastors and elders. Paul and Jesus certainly didnt have any problem challenging other customs they felt were problematic.

That's right WW, the Bible doesn't, and we should read INTO it what it doesn't say. If you are going to bring other scripture into the discussion, then please exegete them. They don't ALL address the same issue, despite your efforts to say 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 do.

They all point to the same issue of submission on the part of women in the presence of male leadership and how this pleases the Lord. You should do more reading on this topic. Pretty much every egalitarian theologian that argues for the elimination of role distinctions in the church also argues for the elimination of these roles in the home. I know of very few who would say that Paul expected women to be submissive in the home but not in public or in the church. Seems like an odd argument to me.

I already explained this WW. Seems you're not willing to accept that? If you really GET the grammar and context, then read v11 and tell me what Paul was referring to?

Are you referring to verse 11 in chapter 3? If so, then yes, it is possible that Paul is referring to deaconesses here. Which I find even more compelling that he doesnt make this same statement with regards to elders. I have never argued that women could not be deaconesses. I believe they can. However, Paul gives no indication that women could be elders. Elders must be "able to teach" and Paul prohibited women from teaching just three sentences prior to this qualification for elders. So not only are you dismissing the command for women not to teach in the assembly by arbitrarily assigning the term "wife" to Paul's references to Genesis 3 (when it is never translated that way, or understood that way) You are making an argument that women can teach and be elders from silence. Dismissing a clear text and then importing an idea into another text from silence to make a section of Scripture teach the exact opposite of the clear reading is the kind of hermeneutics that should raise red flags in our minds, in my opinion.

That does not mean the word itself retains the same meaning as the root words. YOU should know better than that. Read 2 Cor 9:13 and tell me what it means there? I'm fairy sure Paul did not use it from the perspective of military vernacular, given he was NOT a military person. You're grasping at straws now.

“By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others,” (2 Corinthians 9:13, ESV)

Um, it means submission/subordination...just like everywhere else it is used. Are you really trying to argue that I dont know the meaning of this word?

ὑποταγή hupotagḗ; gen. hupotagḗs, fem. noun from hupotássō (5293), to submit. Subordination, subjection, submission, obedience (2 Cor. 9:13; Gal. 2:5, “by subjection,” so as to submit to them; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4).
Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

hypotagḗ.
1. This word means “submission” or “subordination,” as well as “slavery.”
Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1160.

ὑποταγή, ῆς, ἡ (s. ταγή, and cp. 2 aor. of ὑποτάσσω; Dionys. Hal. 3, 66, 3 act. ‘subjecting’) in our lit. only pass. the state of submissiveness, subjection, subordination, as opposed to setting oneself up as controller (Plut., Mor. 142e)

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1041.

ὑποταγή, ῆς, ἡ hypotagē subjection, subordination; obedience

Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 407.

ὑποταγή, ῆς, ἡ only passive in the NT submission, obedience, subjection

Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 393.

ὑποταγή (hypotagē), subordination.

The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Logos Bible Software, 2011).

I am not saying Paul used the term in a military sense. I am saying the word was often used this way because it clearly denotes rank. Hupotasso means "to appoint under" and has a very clear designation of one person being a lower rank or subject to a superior. This is the term Paul uses on several occasions to refer to women relating to men in the home. I just dont understand why you would argue that women are to be submissive and under authority in the home, but not in the church....especially when there is no clear teaching otherwise. Rather, if one is submissive in the privacy of their own home, how much more should that be expressed in public? This is why Paul tells women to cover their heads when they prophesy in public outside the assembly and commands women to learn in quietness in the formal gathering of believers.

 

[Wormwood]

You have denigrated the ministry of Deborah, the prophetess, to your view of a judge when this ministry included that of being a seer who spoke for God.

Oz, I have not denigrated Deborah. I have affirmed that women served in the role of prophetesses both in the NT and OT. I even am willing to accept their role as deaconesses in the local church and their capacity to teach in informal settings. However, Deborah's example does not eliminate role distinctions now or then. The fact is, women were not elders in the local synagogues or priests in the Temple. It seems you think that if a woman is used by God that this means all role distinctions therefore cease. Just a cursory overview of Jewish history shows this is not the case and no one thought this way. Women were not permitted to be priests, the High Priest, part of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Sadducees, elders of synagogues or in other positions of teaching authority and all the Jews knew about Deborah. Clearly they affirmed that women could be used by God, but that did not mean that they no longer were to be in a submissive role in the assembly. Paul goes to great lengths to affirm this submissive role as honoring to God and reflective of Christ and the Church.


How does my view go against the Didache? The Didache doesnt address the matter of women leadership. It only talks about welcoming and receiving teachers and prophets. It also uses the masculine pronoun "he" when it refers to those persons coming to give instruction and how to go about judging or not judging "him." Maybe the masculine pronoun is not restrictive, and I wouldnt base my argument on the masculine pronoun here. But neither should you try to make an argument that somehow this supports your view. As you know, it says nothing to the issue. Again, this is another argument from silence and I have yet to see anyone give any "positive" information (biblically or otherwise) that the early church embraced women as elders and teachers. Rather, other early Christian documents declare the Apostles taught that women should NOT teach in the assembly (as I have argued).

“For our master Jesus Christ sent us, the twelve, to teach all nations, but He did not command the women to teach, nor to speak in the church and address the people .... For there abode with us Mary Magdalene and the sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, and Salome and others along with them, and since he did not command them to teach alongside us, neither is it right for other women to teach ” (Didascalia XV, translated by A. Voobus).

 

[StanJ]

Well I guess we have to agree to disagree. I am sure no Bible you have quotes Genesis 3:6 & 13 as "wife." That is the text Paul is referring to and that text is always translated as woman. The context also refers to women's dress directly prior and there is no mention of conduct at home but rather the entire letter speaks of how Timothy is to handle the false teaching, appointment of elders and leading this congregation in Paul's absence and Paul says nothing of women elders in the immediate context...which is telling since they must be "able to teach." Seeing as how the cultural practice was to not allow women to lead the local synagogue, it seems strange to me that Paul wouldnt specifically challenge this custom if he really wanted women pastors and elders. Paul and Jesus certainly didnt have any problem challenging other customs they felt were problematic.

I think that goes without saying WW, but you're wrong about γυνή/gynḗ. It starts as WIFE in Gen 2:24.
You and I both know how the Greek works and how prepositions and articles influence what the word actually connotes. Can we just agree that the translators who did their job did it properly and that we need to be able to see the words within the context of how they are being used instead of relegating them to a single context?

They all point to the same issue of submission on the part of women in the presence of male leadership and how this pleases the Lord. You should do more reading on this topic. Pretty much every egalitarian theologian that argues for the elimination of role distinctions in the church also argues for the elimination of these roles in the home. I know of very few who would say that Paul expected women to be submissive in the home but not in public or in the church. Seems like an odd argument to me.

No, they point to different aspects of women in the life of the community of believers. Some are in a corporate setting and some are in a family setting. It would be blatantly stubborn to not acknowledge these differences.

Are you referring to verse 11 in chapter 3? If so, then yes, it is possible that Paul is referring to deaconesses here. Which I find even more compelling that he doesnt make this same statement with regards to elders. I have never argued that women could not be deaconesses. I believe they can. However, Paul gives no indication that women could be elders. Elders must be "able to teach" and Paul prohibited women from teaching just three sentences prior to this qualification for elders. So not only are you dismissing the command for women not to teach in the assembly by arbitrarily assigning the term "wife" to Paul's references to Genesis 3 (when it is never translated that way, or understood that way) You are making an argument that women can teach and be elders from silence. Dismissing a clear text and then importing an idea into another text from silence to make a section of Scripture teach the exact opposite of the clear reading is the kind of hermeneutics that should raise red flags in our minds, in my opinion.

Then you don't recognize that he uses these same words twice? In v8 and 11? They both apply to the qualities in 1-7.

“By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others,” (2 Corinthians 9:13, ESV)
Um, it means submission/subordination...just like everywhere else it is used. Are you really trying to argue that I dont know the meaning of this word?

Well you may accept it as rendered in the ESV and KJV, but the more accurate versions in the following link don't agree.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%209%3A13&version=NIV;NET;NLT;NRSV;MOUNCE

I am not saying Paul used the term in a military sense. I am saying the word was often used this way because it clearly denotes rank. Hupotasso means "to appoint under" and has a very clear designation of one person being a lower rank or subject to a superior. This is the term Paul uses on several occasions to refer to women relating to men in the home. I just dont understand why you would argue that women are to be submissive and under authority in the home, but not in the church....especially when there is no clear teaching otherwise. Rather, if one is submissive in the privacy of their own home, how much more should that be expressed in public? This is why Paul tells women to cover their heads when they prophesy in public outside the assembly and commands women to learn in quietness in the formal gathering of believers.

I'm saying it is NOT used that way in scripture. In fact, in non-military use, it connotes "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden"
Sounds like we may even be quoting from the same lexicon;
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotasso.html
Lets try and stick to this issue. You seem to like to introduce other issues in order to deflect from singling in on one truth?

 

[Barrd]

WW, every eight weeks or so, it comes around to my turn to lead the services in our little home church. I generally spend a great deal of time on making myself and my home ready for this responsibility. I also spend at least two afternoons a week doing visitations...the hospital, the old folks' home, our local jail...etc. Sometimes, these visits include a bit of preaching. Most of the time there are at least two of us doing this together, and sometimes we sing, as well, or I might recite a bit of poetry...usually my own, but not always. (For a peek at my stuff, follow the link beneath my signature...which, by the way, is also mine, and not a quote from someone else.)
Then, along comes one of my favorite internet buddies, and tells me that I have no right to do these things, even though I've been doing them successfully for several years, and even though the rest of my church...yes, including the men...all love me, and I love them.

I'm not just another pretty face, WW...

Barrd,

Sorry I do not mean to be missing your posts. I am using my iPad and it's hard to navigate. I am sorry my posts are troubling to you. You must know that I only write these things because I honestly believe this is the teaching of Scripture. Again, I don't doubt you prepare diligently and your lessons are great. That is not the issue. I do not believe God prohibits women teaching men because they are less capable, less intelligent or anything of that nature. That is not my argument nor Paul's. The issue has to do with God's desire for role distinctions and expressions of leadership and submission in ways that reflect Christ and the church. You argument is like saying that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father because he was less capable and less valuable than the other two members of the Trinity. Certainly not! What we all need to understand is that God does not need any of us. He doesn't need my teaching or yours. He doesn't need our posts, our lessons, our sermons or our churches. What he needs is our obedience.

Homosexuals make the same arguments to me that their love is genuine and they have true feelings for their partner. How could I say God condemns them for their true feelings of love that are just as real as the love I have for my family? I do not deny their feelings are genuine, but that does not change God's Word or his desires. I don't understand why God commands some of the things he commands, but it isn't for me to decide if it makes "sense" or not. It is for me (and you) to be obedient to his desires and trust that if we honor Him and His word that this is of more value than all our lessons, teaching, and abilities. Obedience is better than sacrifice. It is in our weakness and emptiness that we find Christ's strength. Believe me, I know you are not just another pretty face. You are very intelligent and well versed. I never meant to say otherwise.

I don't really know how to respond to this WW. I mean, thank you for realizing that I am intelligent enough and capable of doing my job. I appreciate you very much for recognizing my talents and abilities. A low curtsey to you, Sir, for that.
Do you really think the Lord "does not need" our various ministries? Have you not read:

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And this, WW:

Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Will you say, WW, that I, and women like me have not been sent?

WW...I'm sorry, but I have to ask you...are you seriously comparing women in ministry to homosexuals? Honestly?
Can a homosexual teach men in a corporate setting, WW? I would say "no"...however, I do not recall any specific prohibition against it. Yes, they are sinning...but which of us can stand and say that we are without sin? If being a sinner means a person can't teach, then we are all in the deep stuff.
My point, of course, is that we need to use a bit of what I like to call "uncommon sense".

And I think the same is true of the verses in Corinthians. Are women to keep silence in the church? So Paul seems to be saying. But wait!

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Now, it is possible, I suppose, for me to pray silently...I do it all the time. But if I'm going to prophecy, I'm going to have to make some noise.


I will follow anywhere You lead me
I will be Your servant, Precious Lord!
My banner, it will be the towel of Sacrifice
Your Blessed Calling will be my reward

Oh, Lord, let me be Your disciple
For I would do Your Blessed will, not mine
Every day, I long to be more like You
Surrendered to Your loving heart's design

I would know you in the Power of Resurrection!
Follow You Into the depths of pain
Help me, Lord, to learn of Your endurance
Till suffering turns all seeming loss to gain

Just thought you might enjoy a little sample of the kind of thing I do, WW. And for anyone else who might read this thread...like all my stuff, it's under copyright.

 

[marksman]

Junia is a woman's name. Adding an s to the end does not make her a man.
"Kinsman" is a generic term...just like "mankind". I think you know that. If you don't, I'm wasting my time on someone with no education.

All my commentaries and dictionaries say it is not a given but I realise that you have more wisdom and understanding than all the commentaries and dictionaries that are produced by people who are noted for their biblical exegesis.

 

[marksman]

Now, it is possible, I suppose, for me to pray silently...I do it all the time. But if I'm going to prophecy, I'm going to have to make some noise.

"But if I am going to prophecy..." How are you going to do that when you can't even spell it propoerly?

 

[marksman]

How does my view go against the Didache? The Didache doesnt address the matter of women leadership. It only talks about welcoming and receiving teachers and prophets. It also uses the masculine pronoun "he" when it refers to those persons coming to give instruction and how to go about judging or not judging "him." Maybe the masculine pronoun is not restrictive, and I wouldnt base my argument on the masculine pronoun here. But neither should you try to make an argument that somehow this supports your view. As you know, it says nothing to the issue. Again, this is another argument from silence and I have yet to see anyone give any "positive" information (biblically or otherwise) that the early church embraced women as elders and teachers. Rather, other early Christian documents declare the Apostles taught that women should NOT teach in the assembly (as I have argued).

​No matter what evidence you produce, you won't get anyone admitting that you are right and they are wrong. They are rusted onto feminist teaching in the church that only arose when the feminist movement got hold of society...and the church. It is a given that you can read anything into scripture like the homosexuals have done in their Queen Janes Version of the bible where God celebrates homosexuality and give it his imprimatur. The sad thing is that they really believe their lies to be the truth as they are desperate for God to approve of their sin.

I have just read that the beast in Revelation is ridden by a woman. I wonder why it is not a man?

 

[marksman]

“By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others,” (2 Corinthians 9:13, ESV)

Um, it means submission/subordination...just like everywhere else it is used. Are you really trying to argue that I dont know the meaning of this word?

​Judging by their comments overall one could easily read that they are trying to argue that you don't know the meaning of the word. In fact, if you read their posts no one knows the meaning of any word if it does agree with their meaning of a word. I wonder what perfection is. Now I know.

 

[Barrd]

"But if I am going to prophecy..." How are you going to do that when you can't even spell it propoerly?

Read that post once or twice, for yourself, Marksman.
See if you can find your spelling error.

As for my spelling:

G4394 (Strong)

προφητεία

prophēteia

prof-ay-ti'-ah

From G4396 (“prophecy”); prediction (scriptural or other): - prophecy, prophesying.

Total KJV occurrences: 19


Did you notice the term prophecy?
Just exactly the way I spelled it.
Hmmmmmm......

 

[Wormwood]

Can we just agree that the translators who did their job did it properly and that we need to be able to see the words within the context of how they are being used instead of relegating them to a single context?

Of course. That is why your argument confuses me. The NIV84, NIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, KJV, The Message, and every other version I have ever seen translates these passages as "woman" and not "wife." So I guess it is on you to show how all these translators got it wrong.

No, they point to different aspects of women in the life of the community of believers. Some are in a corporate setting and some are in a family setting. It would be blatantly stubborn to not acknowledge these differences.

Well if you could point to one sentence that specifically suggests the home life, then I would try not to be so stubborn. It is just hard for me to acknowledge an argument from silence. Paul has no problem indicating he is talking about marriage in Eph. 5 as he uses the possessive ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας (their wives/women) and γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (wives their own husbands/men). He uses no such pronouns here which is why no translation uses "wife" and he cites an OT passage that is never translated "wife." Seriously Stan, if we consider there are 50 to 100 translators for each of these major translation (not including The Message) then you need to show me why hundreds of Greek scholars got this wrong and seemingly no one got it right. I dont know how I am the one being stubborn when I am simply agreeing with the translation of every well known Bible on the market today.

Then you don't recognize that he uses these same words twice? In v8 and 11? They both apply to the qualities in 1-7.

I dont know what you are talking about here. Both verse 8 and 11 are clearly referring to deacons. "In the same way/likewise, deacons must be...." That is how verse 8 starts. It is referring to deacons, not overseers. The point is that even if the qualities in verses 1-7 apply to deacons, Paul does not say, "Wives/women must be dignified...." when referring to elders. There is no ambiguity as to whether or not Paul could be referring to women elders as there is when he speaks about deacons. So whether you view the qualifications in verses 1-7 as additional or separate, it doesnt mean the qualifications in verses 8ff revert back and refer to elders as well. I know of no one who would argue this.

Well you may accept it as rendered in the ESV and KJV, but the more accurate versions in the following link don't agree.
https://www.biblegat...NLT;NRSV;MOUNCE

Goodness, Stan. Are you trying to argue that the word means "obedience" and not "submission"? How exactly does this help your argument or make this word not one of subjection and being under the authority of another? It just seems you are deflecting at this point.

I'm saying it is NOT used that way in scripture. In fact, in non-military use, it connotes "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden"
Sounds like we may even be quoting from the same lexicon;
http://www.biblestud.../hupotasso.html
Lets try and stick to this issue. You seem to like to introduce other issues in order to deflect from singling in on one truth?

Seems to me you are deflecting from the issue of submission by trying to make the word seem like it doesnt carry that connotation. The word means submission, period. It does not NOT mean submission. There is no sense in which this word means not submitting or not being under the authority of another. No one said women were to submit involuntarily. Of course it is voluntary. We arent talking slavery here. What is your point? Do you believe women should be submissive to men or not?