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,
The question hasn’t been answered – if it’s been tried, it’s been such a remote, weak answer with a counter-question. So, if you wouldn’t mind, answer mine, or refer to the post that attempts to answer it.
Your questions:
1. God didn’t establish anything in silence. And he certainly never said that woman couldn’t be Christians who honored him. That is why, thankfully, there are numerous examples of women who did wonderful things for the Kingdom of God. I will gladly take my place in heaven to thank Deborah, Ruth, Hannah, Phoebe, and many, many others. The issue is ordained elders/overseers, specifically, and what takes place in the mixed Company of men and women. Nowhere in all of the Bible do I see women instructed to run into caves and do nothing with their lives; I do however, see a ‘boundary,’ if you will, on what specific functions men and women are to conduct inside of the Church.
2. No, I don’t think it’s proper that God does a lot of things the way that he does. I wish I could live longer and once a Christian, not have to worry about sin and declining health. But guess what: I’m not God. His ways are not our ways….sometimes, it’s a mystery, and using human logic to understand every aspect of God will never satisfy you. Ever, no matter how hard you try.
3. Nowhere did God establish an order of “primacy.” But he did choose to make Adam first, and Eve second. I suppose he could have made them “twins” if he really wanted to. You can ask Him in heaven why He did certain things the way that He did. I know that Eve sinned while deceived and Adam sinned while not deceived. Still, not sure why and what the significance is…wouldn’t have thought too much about it, except Paul cites it as a reason that he did not allow a woman (whether it was just at a certain time, or always, etc, I guess we don’t know) to teach over a man. That much I do know. I may not understand it all…but it’s actually pretty cut…
” I really have no idea and hence am not going to base my theology off of this passage.”
I agree there. Anything which is not entirely clear, such as Paul saying women shall be saved in childbirth, when he already told the churches that he preaches Christ crucified, and nothing else, simply doesn’t make sense to me either. A literal reading of that would seem to infer that only women who bear children can be saved.
I think we have enough instructions elsewhere that we don’t
to have to strictly adhere to these passages as the only hard and fast rules that apply, either in marriage or the church, especially when we are told the golden rule of Jesus Himself is “To do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Both: Marriage is nothing less than holy. You both are about to become one flesh, one unit, one body, formed out of two very different people…and as such, your individual wants/needs now become ‘our’ wants/needs. Above all else, follow Christ with all of your hearts. Let Him be your only source of help and hope.
Husband: Love your wife, and love her with the same love that Christ loved us, the Church, with. Sacrifice for her. Protect her. See to it that her worth is exalted above your own. Initiate this kind of love in all that you do, for Christ initiated this love towards us by dying on the cross for our sins. This is a great privilege, and to whom much is given, much is expected…
Wife: As your husband is called to love you, so you are called to respect him. Using the talents and gifts God has given you, strive to help your husband be the best, most Godly man that he can be, for in doing so, you will continue to grow in Christ, and your marriage as a whole will prosper greatly. This too is a high and noble calling…
That’s pretty much it. I still get a little choked up when I read it and say it. Only God could ordain such a thing as marriage…”
Peter MC,
What you wrote above is similar enough to what I would say. I wouldn’t use some of your wording such as privilege and calling. Yes, loving another is both a privilege and a calling to be more Christlike though.
MBaker,
The word “submission” is the word ‘hupotasso’, which loosely means to place oneself under. In the context of marriage, with everything else that is described by Paul and Peter elsewhere, I really see that as the wife doing what she can to help her husband be the most Godly man that He can be…
That’s my take on ‘submission.’
I honestly don’t know what 1 Tim 2 means or what Paul was getting at here and I’m not convinced that the egalitarian reading is correct anymore then the complementarian reading. I really have no idea and hence am not going to base my theology off of this passage.
Esp. since in a much clearer passage, Romans 5, Paul lays the blame for sin and death squarely on what the man (not the woman) did. I.e., if a woman is not to teach a man because the woman was deceived and fell into (lit. has come to be in) transgression, on what basis is a man any better able to lead or teach? Are men somehow no longer in transgression whereas women are somehow to this day still stuck in it, even though it was Adam’s, not Eve’s, parabasis (same word in 1 Tim 2:14 and Rom 5:14) that caused the problem that necessitated Jesus’ act of salvation/justification?
Here is one of my several comments regarding explaining 1 Tim. 2. I believe Don, Kay, and other also shared some exellent thoughts on it. It’s in 2 parts…..
”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…
continued further….
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.
“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
All this is saying is that it was Adam who willfully walked into sinning, while it was the woman (not the man) who was deceived and because she was deceived she FELL into sinning, rather than walking deliberately into it.
It’s exactly how one might correct the gnostic teaching that say contrary.
Peter, please answer my question, since I answered yours. 🙂
Micahel T,
You do have a point about God sometimes allowing things because of the people He is dealing with.
Paula,
Does the use of the present tense in Greek mean that Paul is only speaking of something happening right now? I could say in English, “I won’t let you do that.” That is spoken in the present tense, but it would not necessarily mean that I won’t let you do it right now only. It could also very well mean that it was something I would not let you do at any time. Is that also true in the Greek or is it not? All the Greek I know and understand comes from lexicons so I am asking a sincere question here.
And of course, to say again that it was the false teaching of this woman that he was not allowing, is simply not something we all agree on! That is the whole subject under question here.
The grammar is present/active/indicative, which means something that is happening at the present time, and is of limited duration. We have to remember that Greek grammar and expressions are not English, and that it has very specific ways of expressing something that should never be done.
As for the question under debate, of course both sides here are giving their personal opinion, and of course neither side can simply assert their preference as if it answers the question instead of merely posing it. What I’ve seen in this very long thread is constant assertions, not logical arguments or expertise in Greek. We might as well be discussing nuclear physics. And since the experts in Greek and history etc. disagree on almost every verse in 1 Tim., I hardly think we can do better even with another thousand posts.
My but it is hard to remember what everyone has said in these past comments. I know I am certainly not able too. And this thread has gotten way too long to keep looking back to find out.
I’m surprised we aren’t asking for repeat answers and explanations more often then we are in such a long discussion spanning multiple days.
Thanks TL, for going back and finding that and reposting it.
Thanks Paula, for the explanation of the Greek in that verse.
And since the experts in Greek and history etc. disagree on almost every verse in 1 Tim., I hardly think we can do better even with another thousand posts.
Are you saying we are past the “law of diminishing returns” here? If you are, I think I very likely agree with you wholeheartedly.
Cheryl,
Because we don’t agree on an interpretation doesn’t mean that it can’t be seen more than one way,because we have been taught all of our lives that is the only way to look at it.
For instance you said in comment #1049, regarding all of Pauls’ admonitions being a personal prescriptive for how the future church should be run, as opposed to a statement of how he believed his churches should be run:
“To me that is considerably different though then thinking that the ones God has entrusted to teach us His truths are saying things that are not inspired that could very easily lead us to wrong beliefs–specially in a book of the Bible that is a teaching book and not one that records much history–like Acts for instance.”
Here again: Let us take Romans, another important teaching book. Paul went on and on about what personal difficulty he had between doing what his body wanted and what his spirit knew was right. He even concluded with “Oh, what a wretched man am I!.” Are we then to conclude that he was teaching prescriptives or sharing a personal experience to illustrate his teaching? Big difference in speaking for God, or speaking out of personal experience and preference, for illustration or correction. One does not equal the other.
You’re very welcome, cherylu. 🙂
“Are you saying we are past the “law of diminishing returns” here? If you are, I think I very likely agree with you wholeheartedly.”
Well, I’ve seen some threads on this topic go over 2 thousand, so one never knows. But that’s why I prefer to put my thoughts in books and articles, so people can find what I believe about a given topic without having to go all over the wwworld. 😉
TL,
My biggest issue with the reasoning laid out in 1057-1059 is really on two grounds:
1. If you think about it, just as we are learning through this blog, it is not inherently obvious that there would be a created order in the story of creation. I mean, look at us…over 1,000 posts and still no agreement. My point here is that it probably was – in spite of the cultural norms of women perhaps not teaching in Paul’s day – a big “aha” moment for him to link why he didn’t permit to a created order in Genesis. Therefore, even if Jews knew Adam came first and Eve sinned while deceived, they probably didn’t automatically infer Paul’s takeaways.
2. Aside from 1 Tim 2, there still are the obvious other parallels that run into “order” in creation in other Pauline teachings. One of these is found in 1 Cor 11 – the good old ‘head coverings’ passage. This isn’t taught much or often, but I think it really is an excellent point of driving my #1, above, home. 1 Cor 11:1-22 is about women, head coverings, braided hair, etc. And I agree that much of the specifics here are cultural…but the reason why Paul lays this out, in v10, is something that I don’t think is cultural. It says to do these things “because of the angels.” A short, interesting reason…but one that I think alludes to the fact that Angels, as representatives of heaven, are watching all of this unfold on earth! In other words, the Angels are watching our conduct with regard to the created order! Now, that may sound a little bit “X-Files” to you, but think about it – why in the world is this phrase in here? This answer is, to me, a logical one…and one that compliments the teachings found in 1 Tim 2 and Eph 5.
Yea, kind of strange….but check it out! It’s actually kind of cool when you think about it!
25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” — Mt. 20:25-28
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself .. — Phil. 2:5-8a
Peter, which part does not apply between a husband and wife?
PeterMC,
“The word “submission” is the word ‘hupotasso’, which loosely means to place oneself under. In the context of marriage, with everything else that is described by Paul and Peter elsewhere, I really see that as the wife doing what she can to help her husband be the most Godly man that He can be…
That’s my take on ’submission.’”
Peter, the big question here is, voluntarily or not? Notice that scripture says that we women are to submit our husbands “as to the Lord”. Does that mean as a woman who has no choice, or a mutual non-gender specific bond servant, that serves where it is appropriate out of love for the Master Himself? That is one of the big differences I see between the comp position and the egal one, although others here may disagree.
And does a husband do what he can to help his wife be the most Godly woman that she can be?
One aspect of what non-egals teach is not so much that what they teach is wrong, but what is (potentially) missing from what they teach. A wife IS to submit to her husband, but a husband is ALSO to submit to his wife, that is what mutual submission is about. Do not just teach half the truth, teach the whole truth.
mbaker,
Because we don’t agree on an interpretation doesn’t mean that it can’t be seen more than one way, because we have been taught all of our lives that is the only way to look at it.
You are correct, it doesn’t. I kept saying it was a big stretch to me and a hard pill to swallow to see it as you see it here. It is a different way of looking at Scripture as a whole then the one I have known and basically accepted forever. It is certainly the easiest one for me to believe–it doesn’t involve trying to sort out in many places which is which! And I am not at all sure that is always easy to do. It can leave things up in the air–like this passage–without knowing what it is really meaning or how we are expected to act concerning it.
That doesn’t mean that I am right and your understanding is wrong. It would certainly not be the first time I have had to relearn something, and I am quite sure it will not be the last either.
“And does a husband do what he can to help his wife be the most Godly woman that she can be?”
I agree that in the male dominated church this has been an often overlooked subject, in favor of males only being in strict control. I, for one, think this has has been a major contribution to women’s lib, and that should not have happened in our so called “Christian’ culture. Not that I agree with their extreme views either, but had the church done its proper job in establishing the equitable role of women in our culture, as established by Christ Himself, none of this other would have been necessary in the first place.
MBaker,
Voluntary submission…yes, that’s what I would say it is. I try to really drive this point home to young people about to get married. They are so excited…so “in love,” and that’s great…
But the point of these passages about men and women within marriage, specifically is this, I think: Know what you’re getting into. It’s a holy thing. It’s not temporal; it’s eternal (or at least it should be and is for about 47% of Americans as of last year).
Quite frankly, and this may shock all of you – I’ve had several couples who came in for premarital counseling walk out of my office, either mad at each other, me, or a combination of the two. Some of them call off the marriage, and some of them work some issues out. In every case maybe save one, they’ve all told me after some time went by, “Thanks for laying this out. It’s not something we’ve addressed or talked about at all, and we needed to prior to getting married.”
Conversely, many of the couples trying to save their marriages are those who just get fed up by the behavior of their spouse and how it makes the other feel. There are some men who belittle their wives…and there are, believe it or not, many wives who make the husband feel totally worthless as a man. You’d be surprised.
In the end, yes, mutual submission is the right answer…but you MUST understand the subtle differences Paul addresses between men and women to really be able to articulate mutual submission. It is not as simple as some claim it here to be, and that’s why this discussion continues…
Cherylu,
Re: #985: Before you jump down my throat, please keep in mind that if I have ‘charged’ anyone with anything, it was first of all myself: long ago, I studied the Scriptures, found reason in them to charge myself with idolatry, and found myself guilty as charged. But yes, on the basis of my studies, I will boldly claim that complementarianism by nature places men in a position with regard to women that is to be occupied solely by God. And therefore it does not matter whether someone believes they are honoring God or not. If God says we are not to offer submission – or more properly, that there are specific reasons that are not permitted as a basis for that submission – to a particular person, then we are disobeying God. No matter how much we believe we are doing otherwise.
I have posted here:
http://caraboska.livejournal.com/1400.html
and here:
http://caraboska.livejournal.com/2361.html
on my blog the precise reasoning that led me to these conclusions, with full quotes from Scripture – where necessary in the original Greek. I will also be doing a post in the more or less immediate future on the proper relationship to governing authorities. And then, since I have been planning for some time to do a post on what constitutes a valid marriage, and this topic is quite closely related to Peter’s question about advice for engaged couples, I will also God willing do what is probably going to end up being a series of posts on this matter as well.
Peter,
Have you ever seen a relationship where the wife doing whatever the husband said, even if she thought it foolhardy, resulted in a healthy relationship??
PeterMC,
Not trying be difficult here, but by your own admission here, as to what you personally teach, it seems to be at odds with what Paul teaches ,as the husband being in authority over the wife as ‘head’ here, at least as the church now presently understands it. What is the difference here, because from you’ve actually said, you actually teach from an egalitarian form of marriage to engaged couples that is somehow at odds how you see these scriptures from the piont if view that Paul teaches. Could you tell how us where and why you seem to differ from the strictly authoritian view presented of marriage and church in the scriptures?
Thanks.
According to the Bible, the marriage covenant ends with the death of a spouse or a divorce. And in the age to come, no one is married; however I believe that what each believer will have will be better than any marriage, it is not a loss.
MBaker,
When understood properly, I think it really makes sense:
To the man: You are overall responsible for all that the marriage does or fails to do.
What this really means, man: God will hold you accountable for loving your wife and sacrificing for her with the purest of all motives; for protecting and nourishing her, and for seeing that she, in all her glory, grows to her fullest in Christ…
To the woman: You are to submit to your husband and respect him.
What this really means, woman: allow your husband the opportunity to be responsible for your marriage. He will never become the man he is called to be without your fullest measure of hope and devotion…
To the Couple: You are no longer two bodies, but one flesh.
What this really means, couple: Your one unit, but different parts. Play your part to the fullest exhortation of Scripture.
That’s really all it is…not rocket science.
We Sometimes take the short sentences without really defining what the short sentences mean…
So in the end, I don’t see this as waffling at all –
Is men the head of the wife, and overall responsible for marriage? Yes, if you ask me.
Does this mean the man is “in charge?” Well, yes…and no…
Does this mean that men and women are to act the same way in marriage? No, if you ask me…
If this means they are to be different, is that calling the women weaker than the man? No, if you ask me…
Is it really possible that a man and a woman can be happy following these guidelines? Yes…or else it wouldn’t be prescribed.
Is it possible that this is what Paul had in mind? Yes, if you ask me.
Is it really all this simple? Well, yes….and of course, no.
Have a great night, folks.
Pete
I have to say that in spite of my agreeing to answer your question, Peter, and repeating my own question several times, I’m very disappointed to see that you keep ignoring it. I also have to say that in spite of over a thousand posts, all I saw were repeated assertions and waffling on what exactly male authority over female looks like. I also saw yet again the claim of “separate but equal”, “the same only different”, “I’m in charge but it isn’t really inequality”. The fact remains that if any adult believer is held to a permanent lesser rank or authority on the basis of intrinsic qualities such as sex or skin color or any other such thing, that is an inequality of being, not a role to play.
The fact also remains that no one can justify their male-first interpretations of Paul without making him contradict both himself and the Lord Jesus, who said “not so among you” without fine print or qualification. That any believer would even wish to hold to such authority at all, regardless of perceived divine sanction, is a clear statement of a flesh-based religion that ignores Jesus’ and Paul’s examples of laying privilege down.
The kingdom of heaven is upside down to the kingdoms of the world. The under-rower does not stand at the helm, nor fight to keep to his oar. Nobody fights for the lowest rung on the ladder, so anyone who claims the position they hold is uniquely theirs does not have the slightest clue of what greatness in the kingdom is all about. How low did Jesus stoop for us, His creatures, His bride? Who will refuse to bow as low?
It is time for Christians to start learning a lesson in humility, and to stop this doublespeak about “servant leaders” and the terrible burden of “the final say”. Responsible for another adult, simply and only because of their reproductive organs? That is not Christianity; that is not of the Spirit. No more talk! Do what is humble.
Paula,
What’s your question?
I’m confused.
Pete
Paula,
I think I found it, reference Matthew 20:25-28.
I can only tell you this…take it from someone who was a Chaplain in the Army for a very long time:
Some of the very best leaders I ever worked with, the ones whom I and others respected most, were the ones who led by example. I had a boss once, a 3 star General, who, when you talked to him, you would have thought he was an 8th grader in terms of his love for life. He didn’t talk to anyone as if he was better than us (despite the fact that he was, in military terms, 4 pay ranks and one giant paycheck higher than I). In fact, this General, who was a believer, was the walking definition of humility. I learned a lot from him, and I always will appreciate the way he would serve those who worked for him. He made all of us want to perform our very best.
As humble as he was, he was still a General, and he had to do things that Generals do. Tough decisions came his way often, and he had a demanding work load. And yet, in every thing he did, I never once saw him be anything but genuinely humble. I dare to say that some will go their entire lives without ever working for or with a leader of that caliber. But, if you’re lucky enough…you’ll follow that leader for who he is, and not for the rank on his collar.
God hasn’t given us any rank. I acknowledge that. So in that sense, this is a bad example.
What I hope it illustrates to you, Paula, is that to really be a Godly leader, in any capacity – you need humility. Without it, one fails. Thank God for the examples of men like Joshua, and Moses…and women like Deborah and Ruth. Their examples should inspire leaders of any and all kinds to do what is right by serving others and walking humbly before God.
Officially – my last post.
God’s best to you all.
Pete
”1. If you think about it, just as we are learning through this blog, it is not inherently obvious that there would be a created order in the story of creation. I mean, look at us…over 1,000 posts and still no agreement. My point here is that it probably was – in spite of the cultural norms of women perhaps not teaching in Paul’s day – a big “aha” moment for him to link why he didn’t permit to a created order in Genesis. Therefore, even if Jews knew Adam came first and Eve sinned while deceived, they probably didn’t automatically infer Paul’s takeaways.”
Peter , 1067
In order for it to be obvious either Moses saying something or Moses quoting God saying something had to have happened. But we both know that the subject was not addressed in Genesis — by anyone.
What makes you think that all the cultural norms were that women didn’t teach. It seems that Jewish women didn’t teach because of the obvious misogyny of the Jews at the time. However, it seems equally obvious that gentile women did teach. And as for Paul having an aha moment it would seem that Paul’s praise of Priscilla teaching, of Synteche and Euodia teaching, and of Phoebe’s leadership and Junia’s leadership was his aha moment of the fact that God will use whomsoever He chooses. But the facts are that Paul did indeed permit women to do the work of the gospel as fellow workers and he praised them for it. The exception is that ‘the woman’ in 1 Timothy he chose to not yet or not now permit, while she was learning. Really one doesn’t or shouldn’t think to make a never before stated rule that one entire group of humanity not be allowed to do something without a legal confirmation from God. And of that we have nothing in the whole of Scripture.
“but the reason why Paul lays this out, in v10, is something that I don’t think is cultural. It says to do these things “because of the angels.” A short, interesting reason…but one that I think alludes to the fact that Angels, as representatives of heaven, are watching all of this unfold on earth! In other words, the Angels are watching our conduct with regard to the created order! “
That has been said before. But in reality it is a huge huge stretch. Angels are indeed watching everyone’s conduct, but it is likely in regard to holiness.
This is one of the sad things about this subject. Some individuals get so authority minded that everything in the world becomes about authority: who has it and who doesn’t have it. And equally, everything then is supposed to whirl around whether or not women are properly respecting that male authority.
“to really be a Godly leader, in any capacity – you need humility. Without it, one fails. Thank God for the examples of men like Joshua, and Moses…and women like Deborah and Ruth. Their examples should inspire leaders of any and all kinds to do what is right by serving others and walking humbly before God.”
And then in spite of all our differences, you manage to say something that we can all agree upon.
🙂
Someone in here made a comment that they thought marriage was eternal not temporal. I believe that point was made to Jesus and his response was that there would be no giving or taking in marriage in heaven, but we would be like the angels.
Thank you Jesus! 🙂
And officially, my last here as well…
Peter, humility is what I’ve been talking about, and it’s completely at odds with “final say” between two adult believers. This is a Body, a relationship, not an army, a machine, a business, or a government, as I’ve already said. The Biblical analogy is to one body, one substance, with only one Head. The truly godly leader does not only give lip service to humility but gladly lays aside any perceived rank or privilege, be it clergy/laity or husband/wife. There is no rank to climb up to, but only one to step down to. No mere human is a “general”, and no husband is the leader of his wife by divine mandate. How you could possibly have missed all I’ve been saying about this is beyond me.
This effectively neutralizes the whole “who’s in charge” debate because only the Holy Spirit is in charge. He has not abdicated His guiding presence in favor of male flesh. The humble Christian leader is an example, not an authority, and never leads by decree or “God gave me rank over you”. Never. So any believer who claims right or responsibility for leading by decree is not fit to lead.
“Not so among you” is at odds with the so-called “servant leader”. They who would insist that others are to follow them are unfit for the task.
I really can’t think up any more ways to say it except “give up the power trip, Christian men, and give up the idolatry of men, Christian women. The ground is level at the foot of the cross.”
Farewell.
Cherylu,
My post on ‘the powers that be’ is ready for your perusal. Others are of course welcome to join in the fun.
http://caraboska.livejournal.com/10561.html
PeterMC #1078
Comments here:
http://caraboska.livejournal.com/10999.html
Advice to engaged couples still coming. One thing I will say: If I were a pastor, I would let it be known that I expect them to appear in my office before rather than after getting engaged. It will be obvious why once my post is up.
Back in comment 879, I put up links to a series on my blog that I am currently running about the role of women. I just posted a fourth article if anyone is interested in interacting with it – Article 4 on Genesis 2:18-22.
Keep it Christ-like.
PeterMC,
In post #1044 you said:
“Walk me through that. What is plausible in your minds that happened at creation that would not allow Paul to permit a woman to teach over a man, but only for a select time/place?”
Eve’s deception.
When a person is deceived as Eve was, that person should not be teaching. They should not be offering the “fruit” of their error. Once Eve was deceived but when she experienced an opening of her eyes she was no longer deceived. A teacher who has been deceived but is now no longer is deceived is now able to teach without restriction.
Cheryl Schatz:
But Paul doesn’t say that a woman is in a state of deception. Rather, her having been deceived (participle) has put her in a state of (perfect tense) being in transgression, and that’s why a woman can’t teach or authentein a man. The contrasting finite verbs, whether stated or implied, are:
Adam: was formed first; was (not) deceived
The woman: was formed after Adam; is in transgression
So a woman cannot teach a man because she is in a state of transgression; being deceived was the way she got there, not where and how she is. However, she will be delivered/saved from her state of transgression through the act of bearing children, if she/they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sensibleness.
That, IMO, is a rather straightforward reading of the text, and as you can see, it raises as many questions as it answers. 🙂
Eric,
Reading it that way would lead one to think that Paul is addressing a particular woman who is in a state of transgression, and that she shouldn’t be allowed to teach until she has learned and continues in faith love and sanctification. Cannot conceive of her bearing children having anything to do with though.
And , I can see it as being strictly OT law, not Christ’s saving grace, being applicable to all. Which it is it? Is that where we really still want to really go regarding women? Exempting them from saving grace, as regarding teaching or anything else?
“The childbirth” – it’s a noun! It has to refer to the birth of Christ. Women are not saved through bearing children. Many of them died giving birth and some women can’t even have children.
Question – if “the woman” of v14 is a reference to a singular woman who was “Eve” then why not “a woman” of vv 11 & 12? Isn’t there consistency?
A P.S: I was addressing this comment to #1092. Let’s talk about Christian women who are married to non-Christian men. Who are you going to be loyal to first? The Lord or your husbands,when it comes to authority, and why?
EricW,
You said:
“But Paul doesn’t say that a woman is in a state of deception. Rather, her having been deceived (participle) has put her in a state of being (perfect tense) in transgression, and that’s why a woman can’t teach or authentein a man.”
That’s right but the reference is directly to a woman who is “in transgression” right now. This has a view back to Eve but because it is in the perfect tense it is seen as the reason why “a woman” is not allowed to teach. She is still in the consequence of her transgression at the very moment of Paul’s writing. Paul compares her to Eve. Just as Eve fell through deception, so the reason why there is a restriction on teaching is because there is a current ongoing transgression that results from a deception.
EricW,
You said:
“So a woman cannot teach a man because she is in a state of transgression; being deceived was the way she got there, not where and how she is.”
Paul’s letter starts with the reason why he left Timothy behind in Ephesus. There are teachers there who have been deceived and are teaching a lie. In chapter 2, Paul equates one of the deceived teachers with Eve who also fell into sin through deception. But Paul gives hope of a place of salvation for those who are right now teaching deception. In verse 15 Paul shows what is needed to come out of deception in order to stay within the boundaries of the truth. Paul also gives the assurance that the specific deceived woman who is teaching the lie will end up being saved by “the childbearing” (a definite noun). Praise God that there is hope for the deceived that they too may come into the light of the truth through Jesus Christ and staying within the safety of His light.
EricW,
You said:
” However, she will be delivered/saved from her state of transgression through the act of bearing children,”
It isn’t an “act” of bearing children. It is singular “the” childbearing and it is a noun and not a verb.
” if she/they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sensibleness. ”
This is third person plural. Her salvation in this case is dependent on help to continue in the true faith and to stay away from the error. Coming out of deception is extremely hard to do by yourself. One needs the help of others who are not deceived to pull them out of their deception. “She” needs the very one whom she is teaching but who himself is not deceived by the lie just as Adam was not deceived. With his help she can come fully into the truth and receive salvation.
Cheryl, et al:
It’s a complicated passage. I’m a confirmed egalitarian, but I find this passage difficult for both complementarians and egalitarians, and the arguments on both sides seem to have weak points, IMO. My #1091 is not exactly correct, for though Adam is mentioned twice, the first time Paul mentions/contrasts him with Eve, but then in the second contrast to Adam she’s referred to as “the woman,” not as Eve. Maybe 2:14 means: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman (= Eve), having been deceived, has now caused all women to be in transgression.” It makes no sense for “has come to be in transgression” to be a reference to Eve, since Eve is long dead and gone, so 2:14 seems to segue from Eve to the problematic woman of 2:11 and then to all women in this situation, since he then switches to a plural in 2:15 when he says “if they continue in….” To say that “the childbirth” is a reference to Christ may be the proper deduction, but it’s an eisegetical one, not an exegetical one, IMO, and is caused by trying to read out salvation by childbirth and read in salvation by Christ. The woman’s/women’s salvation (“will be saved/delivered/kept safe”) seems to be tied to behavior due to the “if they continue” conditional clause, so to try to shoehorn in salvation by faith alone in Christ alone by translating “the childbirth” to mean Christ’s birth seems to be a bit of a strain, even though it solves some problems, and Philip Barton Payne argues for it, IIRC.
YMMV
I don’t think that “the childbirth” is a noun is definitive for proving that it must refer to Christ’s birth. I suspect that if I did some morphological searches in the Greek New Testament I could come up with some articular nouns that can mean a verbal action.
EricW,
You said:
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman (= Eve), having been deceived, has now caused all women to be in transgression.”
This couldn’t be correct since the Scripture is clear that sin comes through one man, not through one woman.
” It makes no sense for “has come to be in transgression” to be a reference to Eve, since Eve is long dead and gone, so 2:14 seems to segue from Eve to the problematic woman of 2:11 and then to all women in this situation, since he then switches to a plural in 2:15 when he says “if they continue in….””
I agree that Paul segues to the problematic woman, but it also doesn’t make sense to me that all women are included in verse 15. How is one woman saved by what “all women” do? It makes more sense to me that the deceived woman will be saved if her non-deceived husband will walk with her in the process of being and staying in the truth.
EricW,
You said:
“To say that “the childbirth” is a reference to Christ may be the proper deduction, but it’s an eisegetical one, not an exegetical one, IMO, and is caused by trying to read out salvation by childbirth and read in salvation by Christ.”
What one must do is to work through the grammar on this difficult passage. “Childbearing” is a noun and not a verb and it is not plural but singular and a definite noun. Viewing it as a verb will take us away from the proper meaning.
However if we see it as the promised seed (the seed of the woman – the one birth that was promised by God as the hope of the world) it can be properly viewed as a reference to the prophetic promise of God to the serpent. For the deceiver will be destroyed by the seed of the one who was deceived. It is an ingenious plan of God to turn around what was meant for evil into a plan for bringing good to mankind. The devil thought he won by deceiving the woman and bringing her to her death. But the Messiah will come through her seed and bring destruction to satan.