Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

mbaker, I guess I hadn’t noticed that derogatory comments have been aimed mostly at women. But then again, I don’t know the gender of a good portion of the people on here, and I don’t really care. I use gender-neutral language so automatically that it even happens in situations where I am talking about a specific person of a specific gender. I just generally live beyond gender. I view people as humans, and only pay attention to their gender when it’s actually important – for example, in choice of partner, or to avoid in my behavior what would according to local cultural norms be an appearance of evil (actually, I go beyond the minimum in this matter, but that is a discussion for another blog :D). I don’t even notice if someone is discriminating against me because I am female – except maybe if they tell me plainly that that’s what they are doing or something. I just notice they are disrespecting me. Although that much less frequently than when I was younger. I guess I just assume respect for the most part, unless something really blatant is happening. Regardless of whether I am respected or not, I behave in a manner that conveys clearly that I expect respect as a matter of human dignity – which is something given to us by God. And maybe some people don’t like that. That’s their problem. I’m not going to commit idolatry by pretending to be someone I’m not just to please other people.

cherylu, It’s a pleasure to discuss the things of God among people who hold Scripture in high view and are respectful. Thank you 🙂

The Gospel Coalition has a Confessional Statement. And the authors of the TGC’s Confessional Statement deemed it important enough to include the following in their Confessional Statement.

Creation of Humanity

We believe that God created human beings, male and female, in his own image. Adam and Eve belonged to the created order that God himself declared to be very good, serving as God’s agents to care for, manage, and govern creation, living in holy and devoted fellowship with their Maker. Men and women, equally made in the image of God, enjoy equal access to God by faith in Christ Jesus and are both called to move beyond passive self-indulgence to significant private and public engagement in family, church, and civic life. Adam and Eve were made to complement each other in a one-flesh union that establishes the only normative pattern of sexual relations for men and women, such that marriage ultimately serves as a type of the union between Christ and his church. In God’s wise purposes, men and women are not simply interchangeable, but rather they complement each other in mutually enriching ways. God ordains that they assume distinctive roles which reflect the loving relationship between Christ and the church, the husband exercising headship in a way that displays the caring, sacrificial love of Christ, and the wife submitting to her husband in a way that models the love of the church for her Lord. In the ministry of the church, both men and women are encouraged to serve Christ and to be developed to their full potential in the manifold ministries of the people of God. The distinctive leadership role within the church given to qualified men is grounded in creation, fall, and redemption and must not be sidelined by appeals to cultural developments.”

Here’s a list of Council Members for The Gospel Coalition.

The Hebrew rendering of that Confessional Statement is:

Yada yada yada….

Just like if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, if you’re wedded to a complementarian Biblical anthropology and ecclesiology, every text displays a complementarian reading and understanding.

In reverse…

Just like if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, if you’re wedded to an egalitarian Biblical anthropology and ecclesiology, every text displays an egalitarian reading and understanding.

Man, you’re quick, TUAD. It took you only 3 minutes to realize and say that. I was figuring it would take at least 4 minutes. 🙂

Hi friends,

I have had a few people contact me to let me know that this post is getting out of hand once again. I have not been involved but I know how often gentleness and respect can leave the halls of this type of subject.

I haver much appreciate your participation, but I must shut this one down.

God bless.

Well, now I have gotten more complaints about closing this thread than I did about the trouble that was going on!! My fault, I attempted the easy way out.

I have sent an “admonition” to the accused party (as there was only one).

If there are any more problems, please inform me and I will be sure to take a closer look before I take any action.

Thanks folks.

Thanks, Michael. I’m glad to see the comments are open again.

Ah, so am I. I was missing my dose of comments within five minutes 🙂 So, where were we? Oh, I know. A few minutes ago I had the thought… Keep in mind, I am in principle a strict egalitarian. And I believe I have Biblical grounds for same. But what do you do if you’re a pastor (male or female – but I have in mind in particular the latter), and you suddenly find people undermining you en masse? Is there a case for saying that there are at least certain congregations where it just won’t work to have a female pastor because the congregation is full of disrespectful people who care nothing for the Scripture that is coming out of the woman’s mouth, only about her plumbing? Obviously, I am talking here about a woman who is preaching straight from the Word, not making stuff up. And how do you educate people so they learn respect for the Scriptures, regardless of the gender of the person who is expositing them at a given moment? Was Paul leaning away from women preachers because the congregations in the areas where he taught were – like it or not – full of such people?

I have heard several teachings on that very thing, Caraboska. A professor of Jewish history once told me that in that time, women were not allowed into the inner reaches of the temple. There was an outer courtyard they were confined to. They would call over insults or encouragements to their men on the other side of the walls. He felt that that was where the admonition came from. That was the first time I had ever heard that. Wondering if anyone else has heard this particular version, and can either verify it or disqualify it, or even expand upon it?

Michael, that is very gracious of you to open the comments back up. Thank you…..

I see plurality of elders having advantages over single pastor models, as then adding (or having) a woman to/on the elder team is not so challenging. This is true for any possible divides in society.

In the temple area, there was a range of levels of holiness as one approached the holy of holies. In the outermost was the court of gentiles. This would be only for God fearing gentiles. Beyond that was the court of women. Therel were plaques separating these 2 courts telling a gentile not to cross over and 2 have been found confirming this. This is one thing Paul is referring to, as this was all human tradition not in the Tanakh.

Don,
The fact that the word “role” is not found in the Bible means nothing to me. That is not a deal breaker.

I agree that the culture Paul was writing into was drastically different than ours, no question about it. But I don’t think that for me to believe what I do, that I have to be a fan of slavery as well. Nowhere is there a connection clearly painted that husbands and/or wives ought to be as slaves to each other/one another. I prefer not to go down that road, not for exegetical reasons, but because slavery was/is despicable.

What I am about to do, I acknowledge in advance that some out there might vehemently disagree with, so I proceed carefully, but sometimes we do need to look at the patterns throughout all of Scripture to get a clear picture of what God is telling us. It’s not the same thing as making an inference, but it is kind of like that…but I also add, before anyone disagrees with me for what I just said, that as you’ve brought up, we can’t just add things that aren’t there.

That said, these are facts…and the facts are indisputable, to me:
—God made Adam first, charging him and only him to name the animals (In Genesis and again in 1 Tim 2:12-14)
—God made Eve from Adam, recognizing that it was not good for Adam to be alone (Genesis and 1 Tim 2)
—God asked Adam first where he was after he and Eve sinned (Genesis)
—Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands (1 Peter and Eph 5)
—Paul tells husbands to love wives, even as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5)
—-Paul commands wives to respect their husbands (Eph 5)
—Paul tells husbands they are the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the Church (Eph 5)

(cont’d)

(resumed)

Now, before anyone hurls a stone at me…watch this: if the above are true, then I believe I can infer that:
—the roles within marriage are in fact different;
—that the roles within marriage are not only limited to one can give birth and the other can’t;
—that the man has a distinct “responsibility” for the marriage that the wife does not.

Period. End it right there. I have not inferred that males are better, more powerful, or even “in charge.” So don’t add that. There is nothing that says I am better or ‘hierarchical.’ But I say you’ve missed these passages if you don’t see an obvious, huge difference in the way we are called to function as husbands and wives.

Don, my wife is my friend…my best one. I don’t mean that to sound hokey, but she really is…and it takes work? When she wants Pizza, and I want Chinese, do I tell her to pipe down because of Ephesians 5? No…that would get me killed. But there have been times, probably in the midst of our toughest times, when both of us prayed about something, disagreed, and we had to do something…my way or hers. In those moments, I trusted Christ to either stick to my belief about what was the right thing to do, or to defer to my wife’s judgement…all the while, I believe, modeling what I think is right.

Best.

Best—

Peter,

A few questions, since there is so much human tradition taught about the Origins stories.

1. Are you aware that both the man and the woman had the name of Adam? Gen 5:2

2. Are you aware that Adam means human or groundling and that it is a word play on adamah, ground or dirt?

3. Are you aware that it is not actually correct to say Eve came from Adam, the Bible says that the woman came from Adam, and what remained was man?

4. Are you aware that the name Eve was later in the story, after the fall and was no where authorized by God?

5. Are you aware that there were 3 types of sinners in the garden? The serpent was a deceiving sinner, the woman was a deceived sinner and the man was a deliberate sinner. One can also rank this sins in severity.

6. Are you aware in Gen 2 that there was a problem (lack of water) and God formed a human to address this, but this created a new problem, the human was not functional by itself in ability to procreate. So God addressed this new problem, by splitting the Adam.

7. Are you aware there are multiple weaving chiasms that form a undulating wave in Gen 2, as a data presentation structure.

C. Michael Patton: “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.

“Often aggressive and combative” is also perceived as being “civil”, yes?

Peter,

Some questions here as well:

if Adam was the head of his wife, where was he when the serpent presented her with the temptation? Why wasn’t he with her, to protect if he was aware there was a serpent in the garden?

Why did he partake with her if he knew if was sin, and then absolve himself of responsibility?

If Eve was the one to blame why did God hold Adam responsible, and kick him out of the garden as well? Why not just get rid of her, and provide a new mate for him?

You see there are just as many questions as answers in descriptive passages such as Genesis. Jesus was the new Adam, or second Adam. It is His example that men and women go by now.

More on this later. On my way to a basketball tournament right now.

God bless.

Don and MBaker,

I don’t have quick answers to your questions…some of them are good, others I’m not so sure of. For example, Don…we can say that Adam means this and that, fine…I don’t care if Adam means “Banana Pepper.” Adam was created first. That’s all I’m establishing when I say that “Adam was created first.”

If you read my above, long statement…nowhere have I made the claims that you have made above. I did not say that when God made Adam, that Adam did not sin. I did not say that just because Adam was head of his wife, that he would be able to prevent her from sinning. And whether or not Eve took the name before or after the fall to me is also absolutely irrelevant – God created the woman after man…that’s all that I was saying.

These things in Genesis are absolutely important, and although there may be questions regarding exactly what they mean and why it is so, I submit to you that Paul and Peter both mention the creation story in many of the parallels found in Genesis that are in places discussing marriage such as 1 Tim, 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians. Read these passages….you will see over and over again, “Just as ……, so is …..” The fact that Genesis and the story there regarding Adam and Eve meant something to Paul and to Peter ought to mean that it is something to us as well, yes, even now in the 21st century in which we live, where truth is under so much scrutiny…

In the end, only you can grapple with these passages with God’s help…

Pete

“Adam was created first. That’s all I’m establishing when I say that “Adam was created first.”

PeterMC,
But so what that the man was created first. God does not attribute anything to that fact other than that the man was alone.

TL,

Man was alone, and then woman was created. It is mentioned:

–1 Corinthians 1:8-9 “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but women for the man’s sake…”
–1 Timothy 2:12-13 “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet, for it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve…”

I would argue there is more to it than Adam was just alone, or else Paul wouldn’t have mentioned it and linked it to this point on two separate occasions. Now, these verses, alone, don’t tell me much…but they certainly tell me that the order of Adam, and then Eve, is important. And when I know that, I look in Genesis and try to figure out what is so important about it…and as far as I can tell, it’s the fact that God charged Adam to name the animals (may seem small, but think about it…that’s a pretty big thing to do); it’s the fact that God, having known of Adam’s whereabouts and sin already committed, asks Adam where he is and what he has done prior to asking the woman. Again, seems small…but I think there is something to that…

I think Paul knew this…

Pete

Don rightly points out that both had the name of Adam, and then were created male and female. So it is very true that Adam (humanity) was created first, and only *after that* did we have man and woman. Indeed, only after the Fall did the name Eve appear.

However, I must take exception to the idea that God had procreation in mind as a purpose for creating Eve. He could easily have created more people, instead of setting up a procreative process. In Genesis 2, there is nothing about children at all.

What I am saying is, let’s stick to the Word: the problem was that Adam was alone. The solution was a ‘corresponding help’ – an ‘ezer’, a word used to describe God’s relationship to us. An ‘ezer kenegdo’ – so, qualifying that to one not superior, but equal. Seeing eye-to-eye, looking neither up nor down.

Even in the definition of marriage, there is not one word about children. In the Torah, a man and woman were considered husband and wife (so that divorce was necessary to dissolve the relationship) the minute betrothal took place. Long before they began cohabiting.

So even consummation of the relationship is not what is meant by ‘one flesh’. They are already such the minute the marital commitment is made. Kind of hard to make babies if you haven’t even slept together.

The problem with the ‘order of creation’ thing is that now, *just as* woman came from Adam, men are now born of women – as even Paul points out. Neither is in fact from the other, and all things come from God (see I Corinthians 11).

Nowadays, wives are not personally taken out of the rib of their husbands to be, nor are husbands borne of their wives. Saying that Adam being created first, then Eve, means something about a one-way submission relationship is equally as absurd as saying that because women give birth to men, that means men should be in a one-way submission relationship to women.

About the court of women, it is interesting to read about the archeological evidence for same. I will speculate that it had to do with the ritual purity thing – that for nearly half of every month (counting the week to be waited out after one’s period is over), a woman was considered to be ritually impure.

No one *really knows* why this would be, but the most obvious thing is this: if one becomes sexually active before that moment in a woman’s cycle, it apparently can cause ovulation to occur earlier in the cycle than it might otherwise have, which means that the uterine lining will not have had time to develop to its full extent to provide the best possible ‘bedding’ for a fertilized egg. Which means that survival conditions for said egg would be less than optimal.

Now, sex is permitted at any time after the 7 days have been waited out, right up until the next cycle. And let’s not fool ourselves – having relations right at the end of the cycle (i.e. right before one’s period) is very unlikely to result in procreation.

And yet, according to those who have studied the matter in detail from a scientific standpoint, this is in fact, along with the actual time of ovulation, one of two times of the month when women are likely to be more interested in such contacts with hubby.

So I think the takeaway from this is not that the Torah teaches that sex is to be undertaken in a manner that optimizes procreation, but that, on the one hand, if we are going to engage in procreation, we want to provide the best possible conditions for egg and embryo survival; and on the other hand, sex can be engaged in exclusively for its unitive value and still be absolutely kosher.

What it still doesn’t explain, and what no one really knows, is why it would involve ritual impurity – which is much more than just a necessity of abstaining from sex. It has to do with touching, where the impure person sits or lies down…

In Jewish thought, both a betrothal and a marriage were a covenant, this is why Joseph needed to divorce Mary even though they were only betrothed. In both cases, they were called husband and wife. The difference is that there was no wedding celebration and no consumation of the marriage when simply betrothed.

When reading Genesis one needs to try as best as one can to get back into the mindset of the original hearers. Things were more basic back then. A concern throughout Genesis is the barrenness of women and how God can mitigate that. That is, what were the concerns back then, they were for basic functional things like the seasons, the weather, the source of water, where food was coming from, and progeny. We have many more options today than they did. Jacob’s family might have starved if they had not gone to Egypt, for example. Lots of things we take for granted they could not take for granted.

We see in Gen 1 that a command to the male and female was to be fruitful and multiply. In Gen 2 a human is formed and everyone knew that it takes a male and a female to have kids, they could see this from the animals, etc. So just one human by itself is not functional in terms of having progeny, Adam was alone. Gen 1 gave a command and in Gen 2 before the split the command cannot be obeyed, so the hearers have an expectation that somehow it will be addressed. (The Torah of Moses was to be read to every Israelite every 7 years, which is why I say hearers.)

Peter,

Do you see that the man’s sin in the garder was deliberate and the woman’s was while deceived?

And do you agree that deliberate sin is more serious that sin while deceived?

Hint: One can see that the man was expelled from the garden, this uses the same term as that for divorce, God is ending the covenant with the man in a forceful manner.

Hint: The man’s actions are associated with a curse, a curse on the ground; the format of talking to the man and the serpent is similar (“Because”, “curse”), but not so God talking to the woman. There is no curse mentioned in association with the woman’s actions.

Peter,

As far as being ‘first’ what does really mean in the Genesis context? Adam was made of dust and Eve of his rib. Adam requested someone because he was alone. God honored that request by creating a woman to be his mate. Cain was their firstborn and he also sinned by killing his brother. So merely being ‘first’ doesn’t always mean a good thing, lol.

I wonder if the comments will reach 1,000.

If anyone is interested to interact, I have started a series on my blog on the role of women. I have put up 3 articles thus far:

Blog post 1 – An Introduction to the Role of Women
Blog post 2 – Some Resources
Blog post 3 – Genesis 1:26-28

About whether ‘be fruitful and multiply’ is a command: Orthodox Jews understand it to be such – but only for males. After all, the reasoning goes, the laws about levirate marriage only apply to men who die childless, and not to women who die childless.

But from a New Testament standpoint, it is very clearly taught that no one is required to marry or procreate. Indeed, it is indicated that there are weighty reasons to consider not doing so if possible.

So has God’s commandment been abrogated? No. It never was a commandment in the first place. It was a blessing. Procreation is one of the means that God puts at our disposal to in our task of filling the earth and subduing it. At an individual level, we have a choice as to what to do with our fertility. At a corporate level, God gives lots of gifts to the Body of Christ. And just like not everyone has every gift, one person is a hand, the other is an eye, etc., so too not everyone is a procreator.

I’ve spent years on this matter because I live in a country that is 95% Roman Catholic. And we all know what that means in terms of views on the proper use of one’s fertility. If I am not mistaken, they even view it (may God forgive them) as part of the material of the marriage. So I’ve had to come up with some sort of a view in order to be able to discuss the matter sensibly with them. And this is what I have come up with.

Caraboska,

Yes, the 1st century Jews viewed it as a command, and it is one of the 613 commands in the Torah of Moses they recognize. The Jews thought it was pretty much required to get married and if you did not, it was seen as a source of shame. This is one of the 3 big “shames” of Jesus, the others being his birth and death.

However, the Tanakh and the NT teaches it is possible to be fruitful and multiply without having any kids. This is because there is the possibility of spiritual children and other spiritual fruit. Elisha was the spiritual son of Elijah, and Timothy of Paul. And be fruitful for the Kingdom of God.

Don, Caraboska, MBaker,

I do see that Eve was deceived in the garden, and that Adam’s sin was deliberate.

I don’t agree that deliberate sin is “worse” than sinning while deceived. In fact — I don’t think either of the sin’s were “worse” than the other. Sin is sin. I do think that Paul knew this as well, as he wrote to Timothy in 1 TIM 2:12-14, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” So clearly there is a difference in that Eve was deceived — and I submit to you that Paul clearly used this in his explanation as to why he did not allow a woman to teach over a man. You are more than welcome to show me how I’ve interpreted this passage incorrectly, but since I’ve only quoted it, you will have a hard time doing it…

As for the order of man and woman, again…Adam was made of dust, and Eve of his rib. MBaker, you’ve correctly shown that. That’s right…Adam was made first, and Eve followed. This is simply the order ordained by God — order. Not rank, worth, or value, but order. Two personalities form one body in marriage, one flesh…and yet can only function with one head. This is what Paul tries to lay out in 1 Corinthians and 1 Tim 2. I’ve never claimed that being first is necessarily a good thing; I’ve just said that God made Adam first, and that this fact was repeated by Paul several times as well as Peter. It’s not brush-aside material.

Pete

Pete,

What you have done in 1 Tim 2 is quoted a translation, but EVERY translation involves interpretation, this simply cannot be avoided. This is one reason why it is good to list the translation used or if it is one’s own.

Also, you are extracting these verses out from their immediate context, the teaching unit or pericope and losing some important context thereby. I think the pericope is 1 Tim 2:8-3:13.

If you want to study why what you gave is not such a good translation I suggest reading Philip Payne’s new book “Man and Woman in Christ”. I do not agree with everything in it, but he does an especially good job on Eph and 1 Tim gender passages.

”I don’t agree that deliberate sin is “worse” than sinning while deceived. In fact — I don’t think either of the sin’s were “worse” than the other. Sin is sin. I do think that Paul knew this as well, as he wrote to Timothy in 1 TIM 2:12-14, “

Peter MC,
I think that Paul understood more than you think.

”1 Tim. 1:13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.”

13who before was a blasphemer and persecutor, and an insolent overbearing [man]: but mercy was shewn me because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief. Darby

In this sentence Paul understands that sinning in ignorance and unbelief is different than sinning knowingly and deliberately.

One of the fundamental teachings of the Bible is proportional consequences. This is critical to see in the Genesis account and throughout the Bible.

Paul was a Torah scholar having studied under Gamaliel, one of the greatest Torah teachers in Jewish thought. I personally see Paul as #2 after Jesus in terms of his Torah acumen.

“I don’t agree that deliberate sin is “worse” than sinning while deceived. In fact — I don’t think either of the sin’s were “worse” than the other. Sin is sin.”

PeterMc,

I must ask how you conclude that all sin is exactly the same?

As a concrete example: a little girl who is deceived into sexual favors by a man promising candy and toys. Yes, she will have engaged in sin and obviously so will have the man, but do you honestly see no difference?

Although outwardly, we see no differance between suffering the affects of sin by deception or by rebellion, there is difference between the two.

We’re getting way off of track here on this blog—

Sin is sin. Period. Whether you lie or murder, on that basis alone, you have sinned…and that’s what makes us need a Savior. That fact alone is the basis for all of the gospel.

Relating to Adam and Eve, Kay, my point was that both Adam and Eve sinned. God didn’t show favor to one or the other because one was worse than the other. What he did show, however, was that Eve’s sin was of a different nature — not necessarily severity, but nature — in that she was DECEIVED — this fact is cited by Paul as a reason why he did not allow women to teach in the company of men in 1 Timothy 2. There is a difference in Adam’s sin versus Eve’s; however, it’s not necessarily in terms of one being worse than the others. It is, however, very important in terms of consequence and what the type of sin (deception versus deliberate) did for the roles of men and women. What Paul did in these verses is outline that Eve became deceived by the serpent. This does not absolve her of responsibility.

This original blog dealt with women serving as head pastors and whether or not there is the biblical basis for one to conclude whether or not women can, in fact, serve as head pastors today. The original author of this blog more or less attributed it to behavioral differences between men and women. I agreed with him, but in so doing, tried to show where the behavioral difference is rooted throughout Scripture, and in doing so, tried to show that the roles of men and women are in fact ordained by God to be different. I have studied the Bible for many years, and no doubt many of you have as well. I acknowledge that. At the end of the day, for me, the Bible’s key passages exploring the roles of men and women still present a common, unified theme…demonstrated in Genesis, and repeated THROUGHOUT the NT.

That paraphrases message is simply this: men are no different than women in terms of worth or value, hierarchy, or being better. However, husbands have a distinct responsibility for within the marriage that wives do not. In the course of carrying out this responsibility for the marriage, the man is charged to love His wife as Christ loved the Church, and the wife ought to allow her husband the opportunity to be responsible.

That’s it…how it all happens/is supposed to happen is a mystery…everyone is different.

You can poke holes in my thinking, I’m okay with that. I am not perfect and have a long way to go.

My fear in this, as it is in a lot of spiritual topics these days, is what are we willing to sacrifice to the alter of postmodern thinking? What are we willing to look at these days in the Bible and say, “Well, that idea isn’t popular, so clearly it’s wrong.”

I wrote earlier that the church has made a lot of mistakes in the course of it’s history. It has. But as we move forward in time, truth will continually and gradually be scrutinized more and more. Doesn’t matter what the issue is…it will continue to be scrutinized to accomodate more people and to fit in with what’s popular.

The Bible must always remain our source of truth. We’re taught in 1 John 4 to “discern” what we hear…essentially, according to two questions. 1: what does what I am hearing say about Jesus? and 2: what is the source of information i.e. where did it come from?

I am sorry…I’ve read the arguments on both sides. To me, what a lot of you have said don’t pass these tests for me. I don’t mean that rudely, but sorry…it’s just not there. In the end, YOU have to grapple with the truth, and I wish you all the best as you do so. We won’t see eye to eye on everything, nor should we…

All Best-

Peter,
I would highly suggest reading this post by Michael Patton on this site concerning the issue of “all sins being equal”. I tend to agree with his view on the issue and would agree with what the others here have been saying about some being worse then others.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/09/all-sins-are-equal-in-gods-sight-and-other-stupid-statements/

Michael T,

Don’t need to read it. I agree with you…but that’s another discussion.

I think I would clear up what I meant if we talked in person, as sometimes things get muttled over electronic messaging/blogging…but since we can’t…

I was simply intending to convey that sin, any sin…separates us from God. All sin holds that in common.

Hope this clears up what I meant.

Pete

Peter,
I would not say that sin separates from God as many would understand it. The fact that you told a white lie to you’re mother about how many cookies you took out of the cookie jar is not what separates you from God. Rather what separates us from God is the fact that we are sinners. We were born in active rebellion against God and so long as we remain in such a state of rebellion we are separated from God. It is not the act of sinning that separates us for if it was Christians would be separated from God as well. Rather it is the state of still being in rebellion against God never having repented and surrendered which separates us.

“What he did show, however, was that Eve’s sin was of a different nature — not necessarily severity, but nature — in that she was DECEIVED — this fact is cited by Paul as a reason why”

PeterMc,

We both agree that Eve’s sin was of different nature – good. Now perhaps we can agree that women were not the only one’s Paul was ever concerned about being deceived like Eve:

“I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! 2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.” 2Cor.11:1-4

Now if these Corinthians were led astray by deception, do you think Paul would want them teaching anyone else either? Or would it just be the women of Corinth he would prohibit?

PeterMc,
To put it another way – the problem in both Corinth and Ephesus was deception not gender. Deceived believers of either sex will lead others astray.

Kay,

No doubt that men and women alike can be deceived…it’s something every believer, regardless of gender, must watch out for. The devil comes looking after anyone, as a roaring lion, who he can devour.

No issues with that.

But still, Paul directly linked why he did not allow a women to teach (2 Tim) over a man to the fact that she was deceived in the garden, while Adam was not deceived (deliberate).

Deceived believers of either sex will lead others astray, agreed. But still, Paul cites Eve’s deception (which happened a long time prior to Paul’s writing to Timothy) as a reason why he did not allow women to teach over men.

I won’t infer anything that I haven’t already said — but I still think you’ve failed to link what Paul is saying by boiling this down to “Everyone needs to watch out for deception.”

Pete

Peter wrote: “Relating to Adam and Eve, Kay, my point was that both Adam and Eve sinned. God didn’t show favor to one or the other because one was worse than the other.”

God DID show favor to the woman, but if one does not see this as even possible, one can fail to see it. Many translations go on the working assumption that the consequences in Gen 3 after the eating of the fruit of the TOKOGAE are bad things. And I grant that the word curse is used in the response to the serpents actions and the word curse is used in the response to the man’s actions, but it is NOT used in the response to the woman’s actions. Her actions did NOT result in a curse on anything.

If one fails to see the 3 different degrees of sin and the 3 different degress of consequences, then one just fails to see it, I guess.

And this is just the start but one needs to see that before going further.

Paul NEVER wrote that “did not allow women to teach over men” that is an interpretation and is part of what is being discussed. If you want to see why that is the WRONG interpretation, read Payne.

“Deceived believers of either sex will lead others astray, agreed. But still, Paul cites Eve’s deception (which happened a long time prior to Paul’s writing to Timothy) as a reason why he did not allow women to teach over men.”

PeterMc,
To which, I must say, “But still, Paul cites Eve’s deception (which happened a long time prior to Paul’s writing to Timothy) as a reason why he” was so concerned about the Corinthians.

Peter,

It turns out that Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) teaching said that Eve came before Adam and Eve had special knowledge. It is POSSIBLE that Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14 is directly refuting this false teaching.

Eve was a deceived sinner who abandoned her deception in pointing out the serpent deceived her.

Adam was a deliberate sinner who in addition tried to put the blame on the woman and also therefore on God. Bad move.

So somehow THIS is a reason why supposedly a woman/women cannot teach a man/men? This simply makes no sense.

This is why it is critical to see that the man continued in his sin and the woman did not, in Gen 4 she made 2 faith statements about God.

PeterMc,
You don’t think Paul would have had a problem with the deceived male Corinthians teaching? You don’t think this could apply equally to them?

So, women, whether individually deceived or not, can never teach men because Eve was deceived? But for males there could be a loop-hole? Or else how do you apply this at all?

”But still, Paul directly linked why he did not allow a women to teach (2 Tim) over a man to the fact that she was deceived in the garden, while Adam was not deceived (deliberate).” fr. 894

This is the problem with cut and paste reading. We cut off Paul’s dialogue before he is finished with what he was saying. In doing so we can reformate Paul’s point into something he wasn’t saying. Doesn’t it irritate you when someone does that to you? The following is a quick overview of the section in question.
1. men must pray instead of wrath and doubing
2. women do likewise and also dress modestly
3. SWITCHING TO SINGULAR, Paul addresses a singular woman and likely a singular issue relative to 1:3-7: some have desired to be teachers but have taught wrongly
a. PRIMARY EMPHASIS is to LET! a woman LEARN! Paul doesn’t want to silence her forever but she must learn before she is to teach again.
b. She is to learn in hEsuchis, quietness and hupotagE , subjection : as is the manner of all students. This is a temporary attitude of listening while learning.
c. Yet, de didaskein ouk epitrepO oude:I am not yet (or not now) permitting a woman (the woman in question) to be teaching. IOW while this woman is learning she should not be attempting to be teaching.
d. Or authentein — domineering or usurping authority. A word used only once for this special situation in chapter one. It’s a hint into the severity of the disputes.
e. Here Paul seemingly gives 3 reasons why she shouldn’t teach while learning…
i. Adam was formed first, then Eve. However, we know that the Jews clearly knew this fact.
ii. Eve fell into sin while in deception and Adam sinned not deceived
iii. STILL SINGULAR, this woman will be saved while childbearing IF THEY continue in proper Christian behavior

continued……

continued from above……

The question is what do these 3 reasons relate to and how do they relate to each other. These are not statement Paul would make to Jews since Jews would have known these points from their childhood. Scholars have debated this since the early church. They really do not seem to relate to each other. A more logical guess is that these statements were related to what some of the false teachings were about. Gnosticism taught things contrary to these 3 statements. It is more likely that Paul is restating and correcting some of their false teachings.

Why?
Who was born first is not a sane reason to forbid (even temporarily) someone or second born people to exercise their gifts and skills. And Paul already stated why she isn’t to teach. She needs to be in quietness and submission while learning. Furthermore, there were many women in Jewish History who taught God’s people. And the fact that the first woman sinned in deception has nothing to do with all the rest of women. The fact that the first man deliberately sinned has nothing to do with all the rest of men. AND of course this woman or any woman would be able to be saved while being a wife and mother IF THEY continue in proper Christian behavior.

Thus we are only really left with….. the fact that Gnosticism taught things contrary to these 3 statements. And It is more likely that Paul is restating and correcting some of their false teachings.