Barrd
His Humble Servant
Perhaps I am a bit over sensitive on this issue, since I am a woman who does serve in a pastoral capacity in our home church. I preach to, and teach both men and women regularly.Wormwood said: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)
I am also the mother of four beautiful and talented daughters, and the grandmother of five beautiful and talented grand daughters. I will not allow cultural bias to stand in their way as they grow in grace and wisdom in the Lord.
I know that you are not overtly sexist...you would be perfectly willing for a woman to pursue a career in medicine, or law, or business...or whatever career she pleases, yes? You have no problem with the gals earning the same wage as a man doing the same job, have you? She may own her own home, drive her own car, even have her own bank account, and credit cards.
But all of this should have been our natural right and heritage from the beginning. We should never have had to fight for the right to vote, or to get an education...but we did. I'm always reminded of that line from the Mary Poppins movie, where Mrs. Banks is singing about "votes for women"...do you remember the movie?
It goes
"Though we adore men, individually....we agree that as a group, they're rather stupid."
That line still makes me smile...
But I digress.
Tell me, WW...if this were a hundred years ago, would you be one of those who believed "a woman's place is in the home"? You need not answer that question here. But WW...be honest with yourself.
And yet, he does not give this instruction to the church in Rome.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.
Or the church in Galatia.
Or the church in Philippi.
Or the church in Colossae.
Or the church in Thessalonica.
He tells the gals in the rowdy seaport city of Corinth not to disrupt the service by calling out to their husbands, but never mentions anything about them not preaching or teaching.
When he writes to the church in Ephesus, he does not repeat this instruction, although he does talk a bit about hierarchy within the family at home, which is something quite different.
Now, WW, as you may know, I live in the deep south. I am ashamed to say that there is a great deal of racial prejudice here. I wish it were not so, but it is something I must deal with. The plain and simple fact is that there are a few neighborhoods in this small town where our white children are not safe....just as, I am even more ashamed to say, there are neighborhoods where black kids can not play safely.
Unfortunately, I have had to forbid my small ones not to go and play in a certain playground. It makes me sick to think that I am promoting bigotry, but there is no help for it...it is dangerous for them to play there. Of course, my kids are grown now...and most of them do understand that black and white, we are all just people. But, I'm afraid the damage is done. Seeds of bigotry were sown...and have borne their evil fruit. My kids would never think of themselves as being "bigots"....their Mom raised them better than that, they'd tell you pretty quick (especially if I were in the room)...but it's there.
Why do I tell you all this? Because I think this is sort of the same thing. Paul knew that it was dangerous for these newly converted Christians to play in Artemis' neighborhood, and he warned Timothy...and the seeds of ugly misogyny were planted. Sadly they have borne much fruit, being carefully watered and fertilized by the RCC...(did you ever wonder why the Catholic clergy still insists that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?), and eagerly consumed by men in an age when traditional sex roles are being questioned.
I've been skimming over it. As you know, I am no scholar...I've said as much from the beginning. I am quite convinced that the Bible was never intended for scholars, but for average, every day folks. Fishermen, carpenters, tent-makers...and women, WW. Simple little housewives and mothers...like me.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."
Still, there are other greek words Paul could have used here.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.)
He could have used this word:
G1849 (Strong)
ἐξουσία
exousia
ex-oo-see'-ah
From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: - authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.
Total KJV occurrences: 103
Or this:
G2715 (Strong)
κατεξουσιάζω
katexousiazō
kat-ex-oo-see-ad'-zo
From G2596 and G1850; to have (wield) full privilege over: - exercise authority.
Total KJV occurrences: 2
But he didn't. Why?
But he wasn't using a neutral term for authority. This is the one and only place in the entire Bible where this term is used. And I do have to wonder...why does Paul use the singular form "woman" here, if he wasn't referring to a specific woman?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.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
A small thing, to be sure...but significant?
A better question would be "Why does Paul suddenly take this sexist position with regard to women serving in the church when he does not mention this injunction anywhere else?"