I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.
There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)
There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.
I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.
“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:
1. Intelligence
2. Wisdom
3. Love
4. Concern
5. Rational
6. Persuasiveness
While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.
The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.
Pop quiz: What did she do next?
a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.
b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.
c. Woke me up and had me go out there.
Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.
The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.
Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.
See follow-up posts here and here.
Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.
1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"
TL,
When I said, ““Thank you very much. What you have found does indeed seem to cast very large doubt on the claim made by Fleming,” I was referring specifically to his belief that “one woman man” was not gender specific and therefore more or less proved that Paul was speaking to both men and women in the passages in question.
Once that seeming error is cleared up, how these verses are interpreted is still something to be dealt with but both comps and egals.
How do you deal with 1 Tim. 3:8-12 where the same idiom was applied to both male and female deacons?
point of clarification…. Fleming in his book, thinks the idiom was used interchangeably in 1 Tim. 3 in both places (3:2 & 3:12) because of the unmistakable application to both male & female deacons in verse 12. As far as the tombstones, it seems evident that when speaking of women it would be woman of one man.
TL,
You need to go back and read what Fleming said about verse 12 where deacons are discussed and the phrase “one woman man” is again used. He says that this verse refers to MEN and is telling them to be faithful to their spouse!
Here is what he says, “Verses 8-10 concern both men and women deacons. Verse 11 has specific advice for women who are deacons. Verse 12 is specific to male deacons.” And then, speaking of the same section, “He exhorts the men to work at being faithful husbands and to be responsible at home.”
From the last chapter of the book. Again, the Kindle edition does not have page numbers.
We might also consider the fact that it hardly needed to be said in that culture that women would have to be faithful spouses. The men needed to hear this because they were the ones society granted the right to be promiscuous. Paul hardly needed to say the same thing to women.
I think an assertion that Paul’s “appeal to the creation account” in 1 Tim 2:13-14 clearly supports the subordination and/or silence of women and precludes them from being teachers or leaders of men or churches (e.g., the overseer of 1 Tim 3:1ff.) is fraught with major difficulties.
I.e., if one tries to explain in an argument that is consistent with what Paul writes elsewhere, as well as with what the Scriptures teach elsewhere, exactly what Paul means in 2:11-15 and his basis for saying these things, one inevitably comes into conflict with Genesis 1, his remarks in Romans re: Adam’s transgression, problems with the meaning of “will be saved” and “the childbearing,” etc.
It appears, I’m in error on the last point about verse 12 – Fleming thinks there is a chiasm and verse 12 tracks back to verse 8 and is speaking to the men.
I’m not so sure of that because it looks more like a conclusion than different character requirements for men and women.
EricW,
Could you elaborate a bit on what you said in your last comment? I am not at all sure I am following you.
TL, whatever Fleming might have written I would tend to agree with you that 3:12 is about male and female deacons. That would tend to confirm what you suggested on my blog, that at least in the plural mias gunaikos andres can refer to a mixed group, and not only to a group of men. It is well known that in general the plural andres, like adelphoi, can refer to a mixed group, as in Acts 1:16 where the referents are explicitly women as well as men. But I think what is true of adelphos (e.g. Matthew 18:15) is probably true of aner, that in the singular also it can be gender generic in an indefinite context, e.g. following tis. So, while I would not expect the singular mias gunaikos aner to be used of a named woman, I would not consider it safe to take it as referring only to a man in an indefinite context, and especially where this would mean it restricting an earlier and unrestricted tis. On this basis, as well as by Mounce’s argument, I would reject the idea that Paul is here teaching that elders should be male only.
508. cherylu on 01 Mar 2010 at 10:38 am
cherylu:
Do a Search/”Find on this page” of comments for the word “creation” and you’ll read what various persons have posted re: Paul basing his argument here that women can’t teach or have authority over men on the “creation order.” That seems to be one basis of the complementarian argument/position.
I’m suggesting that if one tries to make that argument from what Paul writes here and does so by addressing and explaining everything that Paul says in 2:11-15, one will end up with an unsatisfactory and perhaps incoherent argument, one that collides with things Paul and other Scriptures say elsewhere.
Thank you for that comment Peter. I’m in exact agreement with what you said, with exactly the same reasoning.
cherylu, I apologize for my confusion on who wrote what. I’m a bit challenged lately on reading. Generally, I’m reading a few books at once in addition to my Biblical studies. At present I’m doing the curriculum for church for 3 studies….. 1) going through 1 John, 2) going through Genesis, 3) coming up study on the Gifts of the Spirit which entails a varied Scriptural approach. Thus sometimes, I just need to quiet my mind or I confuse who, where and what’s. 🙂
TL,
I have been know to confuse who, where and what’s myself! Apology accepted.
EricW,
I just don’t see the difficulties that you see myself. In I Cor 11 I beleive it is, Paul says that men and women are not independent of each other but that woman was made for man and not the other way around. Also in Genesis, it says that woman was created to be a “help” to man. Those two statements to me all by themselves suggest a difference of role between the two of them right from the beginning. And I don’t think that role difference would keep them both from having dominion over the rest of creation. It might however, affect exactly how that dominion is played out by each of them as they interact with each other in their God given places or roles. Does that make any sense to you?
By the way, I have never figured out a way to do a search on an individual thread on this site. If you know how, could you please tell me?
cherylu:
If you’re using Internet Explorer, just go to the thread you’re wanting to search and at the top click on Edit – Find on this Page and type in the word(s)/phrase(s) you’re looking for. By clicking Previous and Next you can find all occurrences.
As for the “creation order” argument, some of us do see major difficulties. However, I think a back-and-forth discussion of these things and objections to or questions about particular interpretations/implications would best be handled in a live conversation where we all could flip back and forth in our Bibles and access appropriate reference materials (as well as discuss the Greek and Hebrew texts). So all I can do at this point is say what I’ve said.
And even though I was taken to task by Hodge as being “dishonest” for bringing up Greek and Hebrew issues, I really do believe that one must work with the original texts for this discussion.
YMMV.
” In I Cor 11 I beleive it is, Paul says that men and women are not independent of each other but that woman was made for man and not the other way around. Also in Genesis, it says that woman was created to be a “help” to man. Those two statements to me all by themselves suggest a difference of role between the two of them right from the beginning.”
Thus, it is highly important to consider exactly what Scripture says about woman in her creation and the exact Hebrew words used.
“18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
Here is the stated reason God created woman after the man , as well as a hint as to the delayed timing. We know that God’s plan was to create both the man and the woman, and for them to hold sway over all creation. The question is only why didn’t God create them both at the same time as He did other creatures.
1. I suspect it was important for us to know that we are of the same substance and undeniably linked to one another.
2. It is not good for us to be alone. God created the woman to allay the man’s aloneness. This was not a job or role statement. It was a community statement. We need each other. This fact is also repeated by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:11-12.
3. In English the word help has a wider range of meanings than ezer in Hebrew. In English it can mean deminuitive (sp?) assistant. The Hebrew ezer however, never means that. It is a very strong word used only 21 times, and always of God in rescuing, or of armies rescuing. I don’t recollect it used any other way, but would have to go back and look specifically. Thus, the question is only what is the rescuer rescuing the man from. She is rescuing him from aloneness because it is not good to be alone.
4. The Hebrew kenegdo, from neged is a word that means facing, or counter, or complementing. Thus, the woman is a rescuer/help equal to or similar to the man.
Eric,
“If you’re using Internet Explorer, just go to the thread you’re wanting to search and at the top click on Edit – Find on this Page and type in the word(s)/phrase(s) you’re looking for. By clicking Previous and Next you can find all occurrences”
Thanks! Much appreciated. I have been using Internet Explorer for years and have never stumbled across that feature.
TL wrote:
Which is why it’s confusing to refer to the patriarchalist position as “complementarian,” because egalitarians also view man and woman as complementing each other.
Note: Some have argued that the word means “corresponding to the front of” and that this was a reference to Eve’s sexual/genital correspondence to Adam – which is why he couldn’t find a proper mate among the animals.
In English, patriarchy refers to the father hierarchy, at least originally. To refer to masculine hierarchy, the term is “masculinist”, which is not well known.
CBMW promotes masculinism, as they believe this is what the Bible teaches.
CBE promotes egalitarianism, as they believer this is what the Bible teaches.
Part of the problem is that feminism (as originally defined) ALSO means egalitarianism, which is somewhat confusing, as it was contrasted with masculinism. But now we see some secular feminists promoting female superiority.
Ain’t English grand?
I just found out my hubby is taking the rest of the day off and we are going out and about to enjoy the sunshine. So won’t be able to interact anymore here until evening anyway.
It is a gorgeous day here–will be glad to get out in it.
Interesting note, Eric. Problem is that neged doesn’t mean corresponding “to the front of”. That would be adding to the meaning what is not inherent in it. Same problem when some try to add to teshuqua as desiring “to XXX”. A specific desire is not part of the meaning. One must look to context for further narrowing of meaning.
Good points about being precise in our language, Don.
And Cherylu, have a great day! 🙂
IIRC, it was apparently a Biblical/Hebrew scholar that made that statement about k’negdo, which I read many many years ago (1980’s?) in a now-defunct magazine called OMNI, which was largely about science, but also had other interesting tidbits.
I miss OMNI. It was a fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omni_Magazine
Nothing to contribute other than to give my thanks to everyone for the recent (very civilised) discussion. I wondered where the ‘Fleming’ discussion was headed but it makes sense now that it has more or less been resolved.
I’ve learnt a lot thanks to everyone’s gracious discussion and I’m glad I didn’t give up reading this topic a while ago. Makes me regret not sticking in with the languages at uni, but systematic theology was my main draw (that and my brain’s a bit too old to pick up such demanding stuff these days).
Here is Deiss’s footnote (I have not seen this before).
Selon les commentateurs, l’apôtre viserait l’inconduite (mais cela n’allait-il pas de soi qu’il faille s’en abstenir ?), ou bien il interdirait le remariage après veuvage, ou encore il s’en prendrait au fait de répudier sa femme pour en épouser une autre (cf. Mc 10,1-11 par.). Mais on peut aussi entendre les expressions mari d’une seule femme ou femme d’un seul mari (cf. 1 Tm 5,9), expressions que l’on rencontre dans les inscriptions juives et païennes, dans le sens d’un amour conjugal particulièrement fervant. (p.2915 of the 2004 edition)
Yahoo Babelfish translation from French to English
According to the commentators, the apostle would aim at misconduct (but didn’t that go of oneself only it is necessary to abstain from some?), or it would prohibit the remarriage after widowhood, or it would be caught some with the fact of repudiating his wife to marry some another (cf Mc 10,1-11 par.). But one can also hear the expressions husband of only one woman or woman of only one husband (cf 1 Tm 5,9), expressions which one meets in the Jewish and pagan inscriptions, in the direction of a marital love particularly fervant. (p.2915 off the 2004 edition)
Google translation
According to commentators, the Apostle would aim misconduct (but it did not it obvious that we should abstain?), Or it would prohibit remarriage after widowhood, or it would take at due to divorce his wife to marry another (cf. Mk 10,1-11 para.). But one can also hear expressions husband of one wife or woman of one husband (cf. 1 Tm 5:9), expressions that are found in Jewish and pagan inscriptions in the meaning of love marital particularly fervent. (p.2915 of the 2004 edition)
Here is Fleming:
The second qualification: “Faithful spouse” (3:2)
The second qualification in the list deals with the
overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that
this qualification means that whether one is a…
And here is my very limited understanding of gender in Greek, mostly from Nyland.
1. The grammatical masculine plural form of words can include women, as the masculine form was used when there were any males in the group. So “men” might include women but “women” would not include any males. This is similar to 1950s English, which some use today.
2. In some cases, a woman can be a “man”, but a man would never be a “woman”. Again, this is similar to 1950s English.
3. A male (one with male genitals) is Greek arsen. So there was a way to refer to males only, when that was needed and Paul uses this term sometimes.
————-
I emailed Fleming some time ago and he said that Deiss found the (only) masculine phrasing on tombs of married people, such that it referred to both. (I see this as a way to reduce the amount of carving, etc. yet it conforms to the rules of Greek grammar.) It is true that the feminine form was used only for females. Deiss has now died and as far as I know there are no pics of such tombstones. With the pics, it would be pretty conclusive. Without the pics, we have Fleming’s testimony about what Deiss said he saw, with the possibility of misunderstanding.
But there is also the situation about what to do about Phoebe, who is called a diakonos, using the masculine form. 1 Tim says that a diakonos needs to be a “mian gunaikos andres”. I have seen non-egals claim that Phoebe is simply a servant, not a church deacon, which is the literal meaning of diakonos. Egals solve this by saying the requirement should be seen as general, not specific to males.
Based on my studies, I am egal.
Here is Fleming:
The second qualification: “Faithful spouse” (3:2)
The second qualification in the list deals with the
overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that
this qualification means that whether one is a husband or
a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires
that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse
kind of person.”
According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”
When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
surprising because modern versions of the Bible
translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
not saying that oversight is “for men only.”
Pages 87-88
Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming
And here is my very limited understanding of gender in Greek, mostly from Nyland.
1. The grammatical masculine plural form of words can include women, as the masculine form was used when there were any males in the group. So “men” might include women but “women” would not include any males. This is similar to 1950s English, which some use today.
2. In some cases, a woman can be a “man”, but a man would never be a “woman”. Again, this is similar to 1950s English.
3. A male (one with male genitals) is Greek arsen. So there was a way to refer to males only, when that was needed and Paul uses this term sometimes.
————-
I emailed Fleming some time ago and he said that Deiss found the (only) masculine phrasing on tombs of married people, such that it referred to both. (I see this as a way to reduce the amount of carving, etc. yet it conforms to the rules of Greek grammar.) It is true that the feminine form was used only for females. Deiss has now died and as far as I know there are no pics of such tombstones. With the pics, it would be pretty conclusive. Without the pics, we have Fleming’s testimony about what Deiss said he saw, with the possibility of misunderstanding.
But there is also the situation about what to do about Phoebe, who is called a diakonos, using the masculine form. 1 Tim says that a diakonos needs to be a “mian gunaikos andres”. I have seen non-egals claim that Phoebe is simply a servant, not a church deacon, which is the literal meaning of diakonos. Egals solve this by saying the requirement should be seen as general, not specific to males.
Based on my studies, I am egal.
Don, it seems strange to me that you have copied the French text from my post (complete with the trailing parenthesis in exactly my wording) without any acknowledgement, but have ignored the translation I gave, of part of this text, in favour of two machine generated versions. I know I said that my translation was not “definitive”. But I consider it much better than anything any computer could produce.
But in the third of your recent comments you have provided useful new information about what Deiss said to Fleming. Would you like to post this (the second half of the comment) on my blog as well, or shall I?
Yes, I neglected to attribute my quote from Deiss to Peter. He found the online version, which I did now know existed.
The post I saw of yours only had a partial translation at the time.
You can post to your blog.
I can’t agree that “man of one woman” could refer to women. I don’t even think Paul was saying that elders had to be married.
There is nothing of the law in this. Where does Paul say that an elder has to have intact male genitalia, as was required in the priesthood?
Sue:
Some pastors I’ve had the misfortune of experiencing and/or suffering from their dysfunctional need to have respect or followers or power would fail that criterion.
[/sarcasm]
I don’t mean to be cruel. I don’t think it would be progress if every male who had a prostate operation was forced into retirement. However, I would certainly question their ability to display the kind of agression that Michael feels is needed. It might generate some sense of what is going on here.
Just a quick question for any one out there: If pictures of these tombstones were found and the inscriptions on them were worded in such a way that it was apparent that the phrase did refer to both men and women, how would we know for sure that was what Paul had in mind when he used this phrase? In other words, would finding that the phrase was actually used this way prove that it was ALWAYS (caps for emphasis) used that way?
To take up from Cheryl the matter of finding pictures etc of the relevant tombstones, here is a comment reposted (abbreviated) from my own blog:
I remember now that Ann Nyland, in her notes in The Source New Testament, has given details of where the inscriptions Deiss mentioned may have been published. She wrote the following in her notes on 1 Timothy 3:2:
Here “Keever” is a typo for “Keener”. So this is the book that Nyland refers to. Has anyone looked in this book to see what relevant evidence is in it?
“All apostles, thus, ought to be males; accordingly, all pastors ought to be males as well. This is what God’s Word here and elsewhere teaches. Therefore, even though Dr. Käßmann had occupied her episcopal office for over ten years and women’s ordination is seen by many in the Protestant church as normal, it bears repeating that she should not have held this office in the first place. “
From The Bishop Resigns, Better Late than Never?.
Keener’s comments are in his book in ch. 7 pp. 92-95 with endnotes 60-83, so it’s a bit long to write out his argument/discussion, and he doesn’t seem to have any definite conclusions, just some discussion and suppositions about the possible meaning of the phrase.
Thank you, Eric. I am not asking at the moment for Keener’s full argument, just whether he has evidence of epitaphs e.g. for couples using the wording mias gunaikos andres or similar – and whether this is singular or plural. If so, what sort of evidence? Pictures? References to scholarly journals where the inscriptions are published?
cherylu,
If pics existed of tombstones that showed the 1 Tim 3 req as applying to both men and women, then it would be valid to understand it this way. A common non-egal question is, “How can a woman be a husband?” so this question would be answered by the use of the phrase as an idiom meaning faithful spouse, assuming that is the case.
The point is that writing is just composed of marks on a background and meaningless unless you understand what those marks meant in the culture that created them. And the way one knows what they meant is by seeing how they were used.
Peter:
My book is at home, but one of the first footnotes re: this, IIRC, cites some French journals/articles re: Jewish inscriptions, I think. I think Don may have the book, too, so maybe he can look it up today and post the footnotes and/or what Keener says. I don’t think he offers what you’re looking for – i.e., evidence of this phrase on a couple’s grave. I think Keener is more arguing for the meaning of the phrase – i.e., does it mean faithful spouse; a spouse who lived unmarried after his/her spouse predeceased him/her; etc. – as opposed to whether or not it refers to males versus females.
(reposting because I mistyped my email address and it’s in “moderation”)
Peter:
My book is at home, but one of the first footnotes re: this, IIRC, cites some French journals/articles re: Jewish inscriptions, I think. I think Don may have the book, too, so maybe he can look it up today and post the footnotes and/or what Keener says. I don’t think he offers what you’re looking for – i.e., evidence of this phrase on a couple’s grave. I think Keener is more arguing for the meaning of the phrase – i.e., does it mean faithful spouse; a spouse who lived unmarried after his/her spouse predeceased him/her; etc. – as opposed to whether or not it refers to males versus females.
P.S. For those that do not know Greek, Nyland’s typo mistake in making Keener into Keever is understandable, as the Greek letter “v” is pronounced similar to an English n.
I do not recall Keener discussing women for that phrase.
Don,
I understand what you are saying here: “The point is that writing is just composed of marks on a background and meaningless unless you understand what those marks meant in the culture that created them. And the way one knows what they meant is by seeing how they were used.”
Folks have been arguing that this was maybe an idiom that referred to both men and women. My question is, even if it was an idiom, do we have proof that the phrase was never used literally?
Do we know for sure that the way they were used on a tombstone is the way they were always used in everyday conversation? In other words, in the answer you gave to me above, would we know for sure that is is the way Paul was using the words just because they were used that way on a tombstone? In English we sometimes use words literally and sometimes use them figuratively or in idioms. Could that also be the case here?
For instance we might say, “He hit the ball out of the park,” and be talking about a baseball game where the ball was literally hit over the fence. Or we may be speaking of something someone did that in an overwhelmingly good way that accomplised all they set out to and more.
Usually idioms are not used in a word for word way, which is why when heard in another language they cause confusion. And BTW this particular idiom has been going on for many centuries since and likely many centuries before it appeared in the NT. We say ‘he’s a one woman kind of guy’ or ‘she’s a one man kind of woman’. And if we want to say it to a crowd we say something akin to ‘be one women men’ and women understand that it is referring to them as well, because we understand the principle it is presenting.
cherylu,
Context determines. But usually one needs to be sure to NOT read a possible idiom AS an idiom, as taking it literally can often make no sense at all.
Recall that the NT was written in the language of the common people, and not in a special theological language for the most part. When Jesus is talking to Pharisees, we should do our best to try to understand what those words meant to Pharisees. When Paul is writing to Corinth, we need to do our best to figure out what those 1st century Corinthians would have understood him to be saying. Doing otherwise risks teleporting text from the 1st century directly into the 21th century and missing important info.
For example of context, in English, if I say, “If anyone …” then one natually does not restrict the context, we think the speaker is talking about people, and not limit it. If I say, “If any woman …” then everyone knows I am not talking about males. If I say “If any man …” then the listener needs to discern whether man is being used in an exclusive male-only sense or in an inclusive human sense. That is, is the group known to be all male or is it known to include females or what? Is the speaker young in 2010 and therefore probably using man in an exclusive sense?
Paul in 1 Tim 3:1 writes, “If anyone …”. Greek also has a feature that the more important words are placed first in the sentence. This is NOT the case in English and they can do this as Greek has parts of words that tell the reader where the word fits into the sentence which English does not have.
Don wrote:
Greek also has a feature that the more important words are placed first in the sentence.
Greek seems to have another feature, too – i.e., words can be placed in such an illogical (to us) order that it seems to some of us who speak English that it would be next to impossible for a Greek hearer to fully understand what a speaker is saying or the point he’s making until he’s completed the sentence. I suspect that was not really the case for native Koinê speakers, but it sure seems that way to me when reading certain passages in the NT or The Apostolic Fathers.
Or look, e.g., at an interlinear for Romans 1:11.
cherylu,
My thinking is that if it is directed to a particular man, it would be ‘one woman man’. If directed to a particular woman, it would be ‘one man woman’ as in chapt. 5 regarding widows. If directed at a mixed group, it could be either singular as in responding to “anyONE who desires’ in verse 2, or it could be plural as in talking about ‘let them be’ in verse 12, referring to both male and female deacons.
Thus sometimes the singular or the plural is more about how the sentence is phrased then it is about whether addressing one person or many. It can be phrased in the singular yet be addressing many and the many can be a mixed group.
Cherylu,
I think that you bring up a very important point when you ask about the burden of proof. Clearly we do not have iron clad answers for the meaning of most of the gender passages in the Bible.
What I am wondering is, on whom does the burden of proof fall. Does it fall on those who restrict women, or on those who offer women the opportunity to function with equal authority to men?
Given the powerful statement of World Vision regarding the absolute necessity for women to have equal participation in decision-making, I think that there is little in scripture that we should use to prevent this.
Sue,
I am really curious about something. You have mentioned this serveral times now. You have brought up the statement made by World Vision. It seems like you consider it a very defining statement that we should base our thinking on this issue on. How did you come to that conclusion?
I blogged about it a couple of days ago. Here is what Nicholas Kristof said about World Vision,
“World Vision now has 40,000 staff members in nearly 100 countries. That’s more staff members than CARE, Save the Children and the worldwide operations of the United States Agency for International Development — combined. … Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensible networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.”
This is important because Christians benefit from the postive impression that others have about Chrsitians because of World Vision. But World Vision is diametrically opposed to the subordination of women, and especially in Africa where it is the cause of outlandissh suffering.
Here is the link to their statement.
I have learned a lot about women in Africa from Carolyn McCulley’s blog. She blogs about women and children and poverty in Africa. She mentions Kristof and World Vision. She mentions microloans to women. However, she does not acknowledge that all of this requires that women be treated as persons who have equal rights to their husbands in order to borrow money and earn money in order to feed their hungry children.
I know of no women missionaries who went to foreign countries in order to spread the gospel of the subordination of women. If it is not worth sharing with those to whom we would want to preach the gospel, then why is it good for those who are already Christians?
Here’s a list of women whose ministries the Catholic Church has suppressed because they refuse to ordain women to the clergy:
Click Here.