Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[StanJ]

Here is a very interesting article about Junia:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/27/when-the-bias-of-our-blinders-changes-the-bible/
The bulk of this article was written by Gary Wills, who is is Professor of History Emeritus at ­Northwestern. He is the author, most recently, of The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis. (February 2016)
The article also mentions Scot McKnight. He is another scholar, who is currently Professor of New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, Illinois.

It includes the words of a man named John Chrysostom, who was Archbishop of Canterbury during the late fourth and early fifth centuries:
For Junia to be included not only among the emissaries but among the outstanding (episemoi) ones was a high honor, as John Chrysostom recognized in his commentary on Romans: “How great this woman’s love ofwisdom (philosophia) must have been, to merit her inclusion among the apostles.”
Yes, Virginia, there were female apostles...

McKnight kind of contradicts himself. The quote you show above and one out of his own book on Junia that states; "Junia is a woman, but it is not entirely clear if the apostles like her or if she is actually an apostle".
As Wallace, who is BTW, a preeminent Greek Scholar and not just a professor on Pauline history, shows that the context is not showing her as an apostle, I'll stick with Wallace. No disrespect to McKnight, but it sounds like he himself is not quite convinced of whether she was an apostle of not. Seems to me, that older English versions were biased in this regard, as McKnight confirms, and the new ones show only that she was well respected BY the apostle and not AS an apostle.

That is the ONLY issue I have with this.

 

[Barrd]

McKnight kind of contradicts himself. The quote you show above and one out of his own book on Junia that states; "Junia is a woman, but it is not entirely clear if the apostles like her or if she is actually an apostle".
As Wallace, who is BTW, a preeminent Greek Scholar and not just a professor on Pauline history, shows that the context is not showing her as an apostle, I'll stick with Wallace. No disrespect to McKnight, but it sounds like he himself is not quite convinced of whether she was an apostle of not. Seems to me, that older English versions were biased in this regard, as McKnight confirms, and the new ones show only that she was well respected BY the apostle and not AS an apostle.

That is the ONLY issue I have with this.

You conveniently did not mention Gary Wills, who is a prolific author and a Pulitzer Prize winner...

But even more significantly, you totally ignored the reference to John Chrystostom, who was an important church father. Now, I would have thought a "scholar" such as yourself would be interested in hearing this voice from history. There didn't seem to be any doubt whatsoever in John's mind when he wrote:
“How great this woman’s love of wisdom (philosophia) must have been, to merit her inclusion among the apostles.”

There can be no doubt at all. Junia, who was a woman, not a man, was an apostle.

Now, I will whisper a little secret into your ear...
For a great many years, I believed that women were not to serve in the ministry, just as some here teach, based on Paul's writings.
Then one day, someone brought Junia to my attention. Like you, I was skeptical at first...but this person persisted, finally convincing me that God wants both men and women.
And here's the thing...this persistent little voice in my ear was not female.
It was a man who taught me woman's true place in the church....standing side by side with her brothers.

I owe a great deal to that wonderful man.
Thank you, Brian...where ever you are!

 

[StanJ]

You conveniently did not mention Gary Wills, who is a prolific author and a Pulitzer Prize winner...

If you mean GARRY Will, nothing to mention, as all he did was affirm Junia was female. I agree.

But even more significantly, you totally ignored the reference to John Chrystostom, who was an important church father. Now, I would have thought a "scholar" such as yourself would be interested in hearing this voice from history. There didn't seem to be any doubt whatsoever in John's mind when he wrote:
“How great this woman’s love of wisdom (philosophia) must have been, to merit her inclusion among the apostles.”

All this shows about John Chrysostom, is that he also did not understand the Greek texts in regards to HOW this was framed. He was a minority view back then, on this issue of her actually being an apostle, and is still in that minority.

There can be no doubt at all. Junia, who was a woman, not a man, was an apostle.

OBVIOUSLY, you didn't read ANY of the links I posted, even about McKnight?

Now, I will whisper a little secret into your ear...
For a great many years, I believed that women were not to serve in the ministry, just as some here teach, based on Paul's writings.
Then one day, someone brought Junia to my attention. Like you, I was skeptical at first...but this person persisted, finally convincing me that God wants both men and women.
And here's the thing...this persistent little voice in my ear was not female.
It was a man who taught me woman's true place in the church....standing side by side with her brothers.

The ISSUE here Barrd, is NOT about ministry or teaching...the ISSUE is whether she was an apostle or not. The majority evidence is that she was NOT an apostle, but obviously taught and ministered. Please try and focus.

 

[heretoeternity]

Galatians 3 makes the topic irrelevant...there will be no male or female, jew or gentile, etc in the Kingdom of Heaven

 

[Barrd]

If you mean GARRY Will, nothing to mention, as all he did was affirm Junia was female. I agree

Yeah....GARRY spells his name with two R's, like BARRD....and WILLS has an S on the end. Thank you for correcting me on that.

All this shows about John Chrysostom, is that he also did not understand the Greek texts in regards to HOW this was framed. He was a minority view back then, on this issue of her actually being an apostle, and is still in that minority.

C'mon...even I have heard of this church father.

OBVIOUSLY, you didn't read ANY of the links I posted, even about McKnight?

Melh! It's the internet...

The ISSUE here Barrd, is NOT about ministry or teaching...the ISSUE is whether she was an apostle or not. The majority evidence is that she was NOT an apostle, but obviously taught and ministered. Please try and focus.

I believe that she was an apostle.
And her story inspired me. She gave me the courage to come out of the box I'd been hiding in.
And freedom feels sooooo good, after spending so much time cooped up in that little cage...

 

[IanLC]

Growing up in an African American Pentecostal church (United Holy Church of America); my pastor growing up was a man of God yet most of the associate ministers were women and holy and MARRIED women of God. Women served as deaconess, missionaries and yes even ministers. I was used to seeing women in ministry and public ministry in the church but it was still submitted to male leadership. I still attend the same church but our former pastor retired and became the general bishop of the Church organization and now we have our first female pastor. Though she is subject to male leadership such as our district elder and district bishop. She does not try to usurp authority over men and works closely with the Deacons. She preaches the Word of God and lives in accordance with it too. She is also a married woman and is older thus not a young Christian or convert. Our church is growing and thriving in the same way as it was under our former pastor. Women in my church have historically served in very public roles in ministry we were founded by a woman yet she turned the pastorate over to a man and served as the Assistant pastor and she was succeeded by another holy woman of God serving as an assistant pastor to our male pastor. With our former pastor though we had no assistant pastor but many of his associate ministers were women.
Now with that being I said,
I do fully believe that God can, has and does call women to preach, prophesy, witness and proclaim the gospel to men and women in church and outside. For Mary bore the Word of God in her and thus women can bear the Word in their mouth. Mary and the other women at the tomb were sent by Jesus to proclaim the resurrection to the apostle the men. God called many women prophets in the bible.

Now women being pastors I can not say one to another. I believe that they should be examined and judged the same way a man in pastoral oversight over a church is. Preach the Word and live the Word and govern God's House in accordance with the Word.

My grandmother who has played a major role in my Christian walk and faith was not a minister or preacher but was a deaconess and missionary. Women play a major role in growing and raising the children up in righteousness and Christ and exemplifying holiness without being in a public Christian ministerial role. I feel sometimes we as men and women forget the role we play in our homes as ministers of Christ.

Though I do know and fellowship with other African American Pentecostal-Holiness churches where they have differing views:
Church of God In Christ- "women are called to teach the women and children and may serve the church as a deaconess, missionary and evangelist-missionary and Church Mother". While men serve as ministers, elders and pastors, etc. Though the women evangelist-missionaries can start missions, preach revivals and hold prayer and bible services they are not ecclesiastical ministers."

Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ- "women are called to teach women and children." They can serve as a missionary and thus minister the Word yet are not sacremental or ecclesiastical ministers, elders or bishops etc. And can not pastor a church.

 

[Barrd]

Growing up in an African American Pentecostal church (United Holy Church of America); my pastor growing up was a man of God yet most of the associate ministers were women and holy and MARRIED women of God. Women served as deaconess, missionaries and yes even ministers. I was used to seeing women in ministry and public ministry in the church but it was still submitted to male leadership. I still attend the same church but our former pastor retired and became the general bishop of the Church organization and now we have our first female pastor. Though she is subject to male leadership such as our district elder and district bishop. She does not try to usurp authority over men and works closely with the Deacons. She preaches the Word of God and lives in accordance with it too. She is also a married woman and is older thus not a young Christian or convert. Our church is growing and thriving in the same way as it was under our former pastor. Women in my church have historically served in very public roles in ministry we were founded by a woman yet she turned the pastorate over to a man and served as the Assistant pastor and she was succeeded by another holy woman of God serving as an assistant pastor to our male pastor. With our former pastor though we had no assistant pastor but many of his associate ministers were women.
Now with that being I said,
I do fully believe that God can, has and does call women to preach, prophesy, witness and proclaim the gospel to men and women in church and outside. For Mary bore the Word of God in her and thus women can bear the Word in their mouth. Mary and the other women at the tomb were sent by Jesus to proclaim the resurrection to the apostle the men. God called many women prophets in the bible.

Now women being pastors I can not say one to another. I believe that they should be examined and judged the same way a man in pastoral oversight over a church is. Preach the Word and live the Word and govern God's House in accordance with the Word.

My grandmother who has played a major role in my Christian walk and faith was not a minister or preacher but was a deaconess and missionary. Women play a major role in growing and raising the children up in righteousness and Christ and exemplifying holiness without being in a public Christian ministerial role. I feel sometimes we as men and women forget the role we play in our homes as ministers of Christ.

Though I do know and fellowship with other African American Pentecostal-Holiness churches where they have differing views:
Church of God In Christ- "women are called to teach the women and children and may serve the church as a deaconess, missionary and evangelist-missionary and Church Mother". While men serve as ministers, elders and pastors, etc. Though the women evangelist-missionaries can start missions, preach revivals and hold prayer and bible services they are not ecclesiastical ministers."

Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ- "women are called to teach women and children." They can serve as a missionary and thus minister the Word yet are not sacremental or ecclesiastical ministers, elders or bishops etc. And can not pastor a church.

Give your lady pastor the same respect you would give to a man, and encourage her the best you can. She is obviously a very brave woman, and very dedicated to the Lord, or she would not have taken this responsibility. Don't let our foolish traditions get in the way of God's will for this woman...and God will bless you.

 

[IanLC]

Give your lady pastor the same respect you would give to a man, and encourage her the best you can. She is obviously a very brave woman, and very dedicated to the Lord, or she would not have taken this responsibility. Don't let our foolish traditions get in the way of God's will for this woman...and God will bless you.

I totally agree! She is a very humble woman of God light in step and presence but bears the Word of God! Whether male or female we are called to respect those that serve over us in the Lord! (1 Thessalonians 5:12)

 

[StanJ]

C'mon...even I have heard of this church father.

Good for you....POINT?

Melh! It's the internet...

So basically you won't accept ANYTHING that disagrees with your POV?

I believe that she was an apostle.
And her story inspired me. She gave me the courage to come out of the box I'd been hiding in.
And freedom feels sooooo good, after spending so much time cooped up in that little cage...

Not sure what story you refer to, other than to inspire you to be an apostle when she wasn't?
You have no reason to feel caged EVER in Christ. He gives ALL of us freedom, just as He did the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. Did you know that this is the longest recorded one-on-one of Jesus in the NT?

 

[StanJ]

I totally agree! She is a very humble woman of God light in step and presence but bears the Word of God! Whether male or female we are called to respect those that serve over us in the Lord! (1 Thessalonians 5:12)

We're getting a NEW husband and wife pastoral team. By that I mean they are BOTH recognized pastors in this denom.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm on my iPad, Stan, so I cannot quote your comments.

1. Of course it addresses the corporate setting. You think Paul is assigning elders and deacons to help husbands manage their households? That is nonsense. I refer you again to 3:15 and would invite you to cross reference some commentaries to help you navigate the context as it relates to this verse.

2. Yes, I believe women should not teach an adult SS class if men are present based on the teaching of these verses and 1 Cor. 14.

3. Where do you think the "false teachers" got their platform? The local church. Just like Paul would go to a city and start teaching in the synagogue, these false teachers were setting up shop in the church in Ephesus and were leading this congregation astray. You are creating a false choice. Because Paul is concerned about certain false teachers in elements of this letter does not mean he is not addressing the local church. It is why he wants elders appointed....to keep watch over the flock of God and to protect the people from error.

4. I don't know what "credentialed" means in your mind. I have a doctorate in theology and have done more than just "dabble" in Greek. I assure you, there is nothing here in the Greek or context that suggests Paul is talking to households or exclusively to wives. Considering no translation on this earth that I am aware of renders it that way should be clear enough that this is not the intent, nor does the Greek indicate as much. Can you quote some Mounce commentaries that argue this point? I have never heard a scholar suggest that this section of Scripture is limited to the household or married couples. Perhaps one could make the argument that this includes the home and households, but it seems ridiculous to me to argue that this is ONLY the home and wives....especially considering Paul never mentioned the home and calls for the appointment of elders...literally three sentences later.

 

[StanJ]

I'm on my iPad, Stan, so I cannot quote your quotes.

1. Of course it addresses the corporate setting. You think Paul is assigning elders and deacons to help husbands manage their households? That is nonsense.

2. Yes, I believe women should not teach an adult SS class if men are present based on the teaching of these verses and 1 Cor. 14.

3. Where do you think the "false teachers" got their platform? The local church. Just like Paul would go to a city and start teaching in the synagogue, these false teachers were setting up shop in the church in Ephesus and were leading this congregation astray. You are creating a false choice. Because Paul is concerned about certain false teachers in elements of this letter does not mean he is not addressing the local church. It is why he wants elders appointed....to keep watch over the flock of God and to protect the people from error.

4. I don't know what "credentialed" means in your mind. I have a doctorate in theology and have done more than just "dabble" in Greek. I assure you, there is nothing here in the Greek or context that suggests Paul is talking to households or exclusively to wives. Considering no translation on this earth that I am aware of renders it that way should be clear enough that this is not the intent, nor does the Greek indicate as much. Can you quote some Mounce commentaries that argue this point? I have never heard a scholar suggest that this section of Scripture is limited to the household or married couples. Perhaps one could make the argument that this includes the home and households, but it seems ridiculous to me to argue that this is ONLY the home and wives....especially considering Paul never mentioned the home and calls for the appointment of elders...literally three sentences later.

Wish I could help, but I know nothing of the iPad. My son has one so I'll check it out and see if I can figure it out for you.

NOW...
1. I was referring to 1 Tim 2, NOT 3.

2. Obviously we wholly disagree on this point. I won't bother repeating myself.

3. Not the issue of where they started WW, simple of WHAT they were teaching, and Paul pointed them out particularly.

4. Yes that would be credentialed. What did you write your dissertation on? What is your degree?
Not what I have pointed out by other scholars, but then again that would involve having to repost all my links again, which I am loathe to do. I have already told you about Mounce's book on the Pastoral Epistles. The ISBN-13 # is 978-0-8499-0245-1

 

[Wormwood]

Thank you Stan.

1. I guess my point is that there is no significant shift in the language to indicate a new pericope from chapter 2 to chapter 3. I think the impetus is on you to show some significant shift where Paul clearly changes his focus and intended audience in those three sentences between where Paul is telling Timothy that women should not teach and that he should appoint elders who are able to teach.

2. Fair enough.

3. Just because Paul is addressing certain false teachers that needed to be dealt with does not mean that he is not referring to the local church. It is not one or the other. I think it is evident that these false teachers were teaching in this local church, were leading the congregation and widows astray and get rich off the congregation. So, to me, it seems that whether Paul is addressing false teachers, indicating who should teach, appointing elders, caring for widows, rebuking people, etc...that Paul is consistently talking about this local body of believers and their gatherings. (Certainly some organization was needed when caring for widows and that organization was found in the local body of believers)

4. I have a Bachelors in Biblical Lit, Master of Arts in Relgion, Masters of Divinity and a DMin. My emphasis in my dissertation was preaching. So, no, I did not specialize in Greek. However, I did more than just dabble. I have taken about 12 to 15 hours in Koine Greek and have a good enough understanding of it to read my NA27 and I have a mountain of biblical Greek resources. I think if your claims about these verses pertaining specifically to wives had substance, I would not only recognize this in my own reading of the Greek text, but also that I would have come across such arguments and there would be translations that indicated this exclusive application.

I do not reference my education on this site because I do not want to come across as bragging or trying to shut others down because I have more degrees. Certainly I am always learning from others and don't think I know it all. However, I tell you because you seem to want to indicate that I don't know what I am talking a bout when it comes to the language.

 

[StanJ]

I'm on my iPad, Stan, so I cannot quote your comments.

Well this is on my son's iPad, so you can do it. PM me and I'll 'splain it to you.

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks Stan, I messaged you. I will try to find the Word Biblical Commentary. I have some of those books, but not the one on 1 Timothy. However, I have quite a few commentaries on this passage. I will quote them below. Note: Not one of the commentators or Greek scholars indicate anything about this referring exclusively to wives. On the contrary, they make special note to say this refers to women in general.

Moo contends that “… the underlying issue in verse 11 is not just submission to the teaching of the church but the submission of women to their husbands and, perhaps, to the male leadership of the church.… The facts that verses 12–14 (and perhaps also 9–10) focus on the relationship of men to women incline us to think that the submission in view here is also this submission of women to male leadership.” Moo goes on to argue that the context points not just to husbands but to male leadership of the church in general. The call for “full submission” probably should simply be seen as a call for women to live within their God-ordained role. The key to understanding “submission” is not inferior value or worth but the recognition of one’s role in a relationship.

C. Michael Moss, 1, 2 Timothy & Titus, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994), 1 Ti 2:11.

The three ingredients of the behavior of women are: they should be learners, they should observe silence, and they should be submissive. So women should learn and not teach, since teaching in church was the exclusive function of men. This at least accents a feature of the early Christian community that makes it different from the Jewish synagogue, where instruction was reserved for men and boys. From the beginning of the Christian movement, women were included in instruction classes together with the men. But there was one condition: the women should learn in silence, which means that women were not allowed to speak at church meetings. Other ways to express learn in silence are “listen to the men’s teaching without asking questions” or “when the men are teaching them the Christian principles, the women should listen silently.” And finally, women should be submissive and should not have authority over men. Submissiveness includes the elements of recognition, subordination, and obedience; the addition of all indicates the intensity and extent of the submission; hence NRSV “learn … with full submission.” Or one may translate “be completely submissive to the authority of the men as teachers.” This perhaps means that the women should submit to the authority of the men as teachers and should accept with humility and obedience what is taught to them.

Daniel C. Arichea and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to Timothy and to Titus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 58.

Here submission is, more broadly, the norm for the relationship of women to men in authority functions within the church. The addition of πάσῃ (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ) to indicate “the highest degree” expresses in a heightened way the concern Paul has for this norm (for this sense of πάς see 4:9; 5:2; Tit. 2:15; BAGD s.v. la δ; the phrase is rendered “entire submissiveness” in NASB; “all submissiveness” in RSV; “full submission” in NIV). Paul is concerned that women’s learning not become an occasion to overturn their role in relation to the authority role that men are to exercise in the church (as apparently in Corinth; cf. 1 Cor. 14:33ff., where Paul expresses the same concern). Therefore he has added the two qualifications, ἐν ἡσυχία and ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ.
2:12 Paul carries this injunction further by indicating that he does not permit women to teach and exercise authority over men. δέ is used here to indicate the contrast, “learn but not teach” (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34, where the desire to learn is not to be used to gain the privilege of speaking, and notice the close parallel of that passage, οὐ γάρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, to our passage). ἐπιτρέπω (NT 17x) means “allow, permit” someone (dative) to do something (infinitive; BAGD).


George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 139–140.

Why would it have concerned Paul if the teacher were a woman? Two reasons may have been in his mind. The first stems from the likelihood that the women would have authority over any other elder/overseer in the congregation. If the elder/overseer were under the authority of the woman teacher in the church, it could hinder his ability to manage his household in private; and hence it could hinder his ability to manage the church of God (1 Tim 3:4–5). Barnett points out that the submission of the elder/overseer to the woman teacher would limit his ability to serve as a role model to other married men in the church and could prove to be a liability.

Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, vol. 34, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 99.

13, 14. As already indicated, these directives regarding the woman’s role in connection with public worship are based not on temporary or contemporary conditions or circumstances but on two facts that have meaning for all time, namely, the fact of creation and the fact of the entrance of sin. Accordingly, Paul writes: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but it was the woman who was indeed deceived and fell into transgression.

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, vol. 4, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 109.

 

[Wormwood]

Barrd,

Previously I saw that you noted that Junia was your rationale for teaching men. I would encourage you to rethink this rationale. Even if it were concluded that Junia was an Apostle, why would this cause you to think that 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 are not binding? Could it be that Junia was an Apostle, yet she still did not serve as an elder at the local church nor teach the men in those settings out of reference for God's design and desire? You basically have determined that Junia is an Apostle (which is not conclusive) and that based on that possibility that this idea therefore overrides any direct prohibitions about women teaching in the NT. This is a dangerous leap.

1. You dont know for sure if Junia was an Apostle (scholarship is divided on the matter).
2. Even if she was, it doesnt prove she taught men in formal church settings. She could have taught in informal settings or perhaps she spoke directly to groups of women while Paul taught the men. The fact is, nothing tells us she served as an elder or taught men in local church settings.

So, you have made two big assumptions here. On the basis of those two assumptions (Junia was an Apostle who taught men in formal gatherings), you have discounted two clear prohibitions in the NT (women are not to teach men in church gatherings, but are to learn in submissiveness). Any time we start to give hypotheticals more weight than explicit commands in the Bible, it is time to ask questions like: "What is my motivation here? Am I allowing my personal or cultural desires to override the Scriptures? If I were truly reading the NT objectively, would I conclude these commands do not apply to my life?"

 

[StanJ]

Thanks Stan, I messaged you. I will try to find the Word Biblical Commentary. I have some of those books, but not the one on 1 Timothy. However, I have quite a few commentaries on this passage. I will quote them below. Note: Not one of the commentators or Greek scholars indicate anything about this referring exclusively to wives. On the contrary, they make special note to say this refers to women in general.

Seems that the first one is Moss saying what Moo says, but I've never heard Moo say this. I have his email address, so I'll ask him his thoughts. If these indeed ARE his thoughts, I would be rather disappointed.

The others are starting at predispositions, not actually SHOWING what context Paul is speaking in. I read a lot if presumptions not really followed through on here. Male bias in scripture is well documented, and IMO, it shows itself here.

I'll look for other opinions.

 

[Barrd]

Barrd,

Previously I saw that you noted that Junia was your rationale for teaching men. I would encourage you to rethink this rationale. Even if it were concluded that Junia was an Apostle, why would this cause you to think that 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 are not binding? Could it be that Junia was an Apostle, yet she still did not serve as an elder at the local church nor teach the men in those settings out of reference for God's design and desire? You basically have determined that Junia is an Apostle (which is not conclusive) and that based on that possibility that this idea therefore overrides any direct prohibitions about women teaching in the NT. This is a dangerous leap.

1. You dont know for sure if Junia was an Apostle (scholarship is divided on the matter).
2. Even if she was, it doesnt prove she taught men in formal church settings. She could have taught in informal settings or perhaps she spoke directly to groups of women while Paul taught the men. The fact is, nothing tells us she served as an elder or taught men in local church settings.

So, you have made two big assumptions here. On the basis of those two assumptions (Junia was an Apostle who taught men in formal gatherings), you have discounted two clear prohibitions in the NT (women are not to teach men in church gatherings, but are to learn in submissiveness). Any time we start to give hypotheticals more weight than explicit commands in the Bible, it is time to ask questions like: "What is my motivation here? Am I allowing my personal or cultural desires to override the Scriptures? If I were truly reading the NT objectively, would I conclude these commands do not apply to my life?"

An apostle is an apostle is an apostle, whether male or female.
And it is obvious that there were many female apostles in the early church. There were female disciples who followed Him, just as the men did, and who supported His ministry from their own funds. Of the 120 who were in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost, how many do you think were female? And the Holy Spirit fell on all of them alike. There have been women warriors, a woman Judge, women prophetesses...most of the people Jesus spoke with on His journeys were women. It was the women who stood with Him during His crucifixion and death...the only man there was John, the Beloved Disciple. The first person He showed Himself to after His resurrection was a woman...and she was sent to the men to tell them about her experience before He showed Himself to them.

Obviously women were very important in Jesus' life and ministry. God loves His daughters just as much as He loves His sons, and chooses those whom He will, regardless of foolish cultural biases. Do not discount the ladies, WW. To do so is to frustrate the Holy Spirit of God.

As for the verses from Timothy...these were written to a young pastor with a church in a very sensitive area. The cult of Diana, or Artemis, was very powerful. Her beautiful temple, one of the wonders of the world, was built by King Croesus, famous for his wealth.

What do you actually know of the Amazon women who, according to ancient Greek mythology, founded the worship of Artemis? Greek mythology has always fascinated me. In fact, for awhile, in my teens, I toyed with the idea that perhaps the Greek gods and goddesses were actually aliens from other planets...LOL, I was very young, and full of fanciful ideas.

Here is an interesting article about Paul and Timothy and the temple of Artemis, or Diana, in Ephesus:

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html

I think you should at least consider that you might be mistaken, especially given that the writer of this article is absolutely right...the word translated "usurp authority over" in Timothy 2:12, as you see from this entry from the Strong's Concordance, is used only this one time:

G831 (Strong)

αὐθεντέω

authenteō

ow-then-teh'-o

From a compound of G846 and ἕντης hentēs (obsolete; a worker); to act of oneself, that is, (figuratively) dominate: - usurp authority over.

Total KJV occurrences: 1


WW, ask yourself "why"?

 

[Wormwood]

Hey Stan,

Let me know what Moo says. I am interested in hearing him expound on it. As you can see, I took that quote from another well-known commentary and I would be very surprised if the author was misrepresenting him.

I don't know that any of these scholars are showing and "predispositions" as it refers to the idea that these passages are referring to women in general. My point is simply to show that there is nothing here that seems to indicate any reason to see this as exclusively directed to wives in the home instead of general submissiveness to men in general, especially in the local church. Now, I agree that there seems to be some predispositions about WHY Paul would write such commands. I don't agree with some of the authors in this regard. However, I just wanted to show that these are very well known scholars and commentaries and none of them seem to suggest that this is restrictive to wives in the home.

I'll see what other commentaries I have say on the topic and relay that tomorrow if I get some time.

 

[Wormwood]

An apostle is an apostle is an apostle, whether male or female.
And it is obvious that there were many female apostles in the early church. There were female disciples who followed Him, just as the men did, and who supported His ministry from their own funds. Of the 120 who were in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost, how many do you think were female? And the Holy Spirit fell on all of them alike. There have been women warriors, a woman Judge, women prophetesses...most of the people Jesus spoke with on His journeys were women. It was the women who stood with Him during His crucifixion and death...the only man there was John, the Beloved Disciple. The first person He showed Himself to after His resurrection was a woman...and she was sent to the men to tell them about her experience before He showed Himself to them.

Obviously women were very important in Jesus' life and ministry. God loves His daughters just as much as He loves His sons, and chooses those whom He will, regardless of foolish cultural biases. Do not discount the ladies, WW. To do so is to frustrate the Holy Spirit of God.

As for the verses from Timothy...these were written to a young pastor with a church in a very sensitive area. The cult of Diana, or Artemis, was very powerful. Her beautiful temple, one of the wonders of the world, was built by King Croesus, famous for his wealth.

What do you actually know of the Amazon women who, according to ancient Greek mythology, founded the worship of Artemis? Greek mythology has always fascinated me. In fact, for awhile, in my teens, I toyed with the idea that perhaps the Greek gods and goddesses were actually aliens from other planets...LOL, I was very young, and full of fanciful ideas.

Here is an interesting article about Paul and Timothy and the temple of Artemis, or Diana, in Ephesus:

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html

I think you should at least consider that you might be mistaken, especially given that the writer of this article is absolutely right...the word translated "usurp authority over" in Timothy 2:12, as you see from this entry from the Strong's Concordance, is used only this one time:

G831 (Strong)
αὐθεντέω
authenteō
ow-then-teh'-o
From a compound of G846 and ἕντης hentēs (obsolete; a worker); to act of oneself, that is, (figuratively) dominate: - usurp authority over.
Total KJV occurrences: 1


WW, ask yourself "why"?

Barrd,

First, I do not discount women or their value in the Kingdom or their roles in history among God''s people. I think this is a very unfortunate and unfair line of reasoning you are using. Essentially you are suggesting that I hold my views because I am sexist and have a low view of women and their value. No, I believe the Bible and I try to interpret it accurately. Since the Holy Spirit penned it, I do not think my views frustrate the Spirit since I am simply striving to adhere to what He inspired. In sum, I would appreciate it if you dealt with the content of my views rather than implying that they come from impure motives (namely, a desire to oppress women).

Second, I do know about the historical background of these letters. However, I see absolutely nothing in these verses to suggest a cultural prohibition. Paul never mentions Artemis, the cults, or any particular groups that were allowing their backgrounds to cause disruptions in the church. Rather, he appeals to the unchanging nature of the Law, creation and the fall of Adam and Eve as rationale for women silence. As such, nothing in Paul's argument would cause us to infer that he is only addressing a temporal or cultural problem. On the contrary, he infers that this is the practice of all the churches and that women submissiveness in this area is commanded by the Law of God and God's design in creation.

Finally, you may not have been reading my dialogue with Stan. I will just quote a comment I made to him on this issue of the word for "authority."

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.)

So I'll ask you... "Why would Paul use the Law and creation and a neutral term for authority if he was only referring to a local issue with certain women who were being abusive with their authority?" That does not make any sense to me.