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"
EricW,
You said:
“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…”
As one who has worked with “the deceived” in cults for many years, I can see clearly from this passage how Paul is showing how help is needed for one who is deceived. Those who are deceived rarely come of their deception by themselves. They need someone to walk with them in leaving behind the lure of the lie. If Paul is indeed referencing a particular deceived woman, and her husband, like Adam, is not deceived but allowing her to progress in the lie without correction, then the two of them walking together in the truth of God’s word will be necessary to help her stay away from the lure of the lie. There is no doubt that the deceived need help. Her salvation is tied into getting that help and having someone (in this case her husband) walk with her in the truth of Jesus.
I have yet to see a hole in that argument. It makes sense to me.
The last few points illustrate my point about the clarity of this passage perfectly. When we can’t determine what the words mean or even whether they are nouns or verbs should we really be basing our view of women’s role in the church off such a passage?
Cheryl Schatz:
I’m not arguing for what makes sense in the context of all of Scripture – e.g., Romans 5 where Paul blames Adam alone for sin and death.
I think that if one tries to use other Scriptures to say 1 Tim 2 must mean this because of such and such, and it can’t mean that because of such and such, while one may by doing so end up being able to explain (explain away?) the passage to one’s personal satisfaction, I don’t think any interpretation of the complete passage that I’ve encountered so far is fully satisfactory and clear and plain to the reader. Some of the conjectures about the woman/women, etc., that have been made sound plausible, but they are still conjectures.
The passage has numerous problems. Philip Barton Payne devotes 150 pages to 1 Tim 2 alone – that’s one-third of his entire book (Man and Woman, One in Christ). And Thomas Schreiner remains unconvinced: https://www.cbmw.org/images/jbmw_pdf/15_1/review-schreiner.pdf
– – –
And, the woman is not deceived. Eve WAS deceived, but that’s all past tense. What the woman/women is/are is “in transgression.”
“The last few points illustrate my point about the clarity of this passage perfectly. When we can’t determine what the words mean or even whether they are nouns or verbs should we really be basing our view of women’s role in the church off such a passage?”
This I think is the ultimate point. How can we forbid women from teaching in the church when it cannot be proven that Paul stopped women in general, and they are forbidden based on a passage that most cannot even understand or agree upon? Can’t it be any more unjustified? Where’s the dignity? What level of spiritual maturity prohibits women from teaching based on this hard passage?? It doesn’t get any more ridiculous, does it?
EricW,
I see your point is that we shouldn’t make a universal prohibition out of a passage that is so hard to understand that the church has struggled with understanding this passage for many years.
I agree that God makes His prohibitions clear, understandable and enforceable. 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is not clear to most nor understandable. If we were to ask a complementarian whether 1 Tim 2:12 is a “law” and why this “law” was never written in the Old Testament, they don’t seem to have any answers. It is unwise to see the passage as a universal “law” that seems to have more questions for most than answers.
The challenge is that there are a few plausible reconstructions regarding what Paul is telling Timothy. The verses are NOT clear and we need to admit we are NOT Timothy, we are reading a letter written to someone else a long time ago to the spiritual son of Paul, and simply may not know enough of the context at Ephesus and the shared context between Paul and Timothy to be able to distinguish which of the plausible reconstructions is preferred.
The Bible was written FOR us but it was NOT written TO us.
But this is enough for it NOT to be used as a restriction on women, the non-egals would need to show that the egal reconstructions are not possible, and this they have not done.
The Net Bible gives reasons from the Greek grammar of verse 15 that, in their opinion, make it unlikely that this verse is speaking of Jesus when it talks about childbearing.
http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Ti&chapter=2#n24
I would be interested in knowing what those of you that know Greek here think of their take on things.
“In other words, if I start to see some truths only applying in certain times, and others only in other times, that’s fine – but you’d better be absolutely certain that those contexts are true. If you are not absolutely certain, the Bible ceases to exist as the timeless Word of God, and passages that declare the Word of God to be “a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” mean nothing at all.” -Petermc
“Our reading and understanding of the Bible can become such a maze of uncertainty that for the average person, it can start to look completely hopeless.” cherylu
Jesus left us with 2 timeless truths to judge all things by ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
How does anything in the egal view conflict with those?
“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…” -Petermc
I realize comps are wary of cultural context arguments, but one I don’t think we can possibly ignore is that the marriages at that time were arranged by parents – they were not the 20th century Hollywood romance types we see in western culture today.
Asking for a show of hands here:
How many of you comps are in a marriage that was arranged by your parents?
“What I am saying is that culture can be a very dangerous thing.” Petermc
Yes, I agree. But to be consistant to your view we would all need to go back to arranged marriages.
Is that not true?
It is THE childbearing in the Greek, that it the definite article is used making it a very specific childbearing. And the most special childbearing is of course Mary’s virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah.
What was happening is that Ephesus had the female “goddess” Artemis of the Ephesians at it, this temple was one of the 7 wonders of the world, it could not be missed and dominated the economy and life at Ephesus. One of the things Artemis did was supposedly protect women in childbearing and childbirth, in those days it was a major killer of women, avoiding pregnancy was a way to expect to live longer.
So what I think Paul is doing is using the words that would be very familiar to Ephesians, but using them in a Godly way to refer to Christ; this is why it is so oblique. Paul is bending over backwards to point out that the very words the Ephesians used can be used in a good way, not a pagan way.
cherylu,
I’m no Greek expert, but just on the face of them, I see possibilities #5 and #6 falling by the fact that not all women are able to bear children – so it fails to be a universal truth.
The NET Bible people write:
“This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14.”
I fully agree with them re: this! This passage is a doozy.
And I think they give good reasons why “the childbearing” probably doesn’t refer to the birth of Jesus. I think Philip Barton Payne opts for this, but I wasn’t fully persuaded by him, IIRC, just because it seems so unnatural and obscure. After all, the author of 1 Timothy isn’t hesitant to refer directly to Jesus Christ, though the formulaic 3:16 doesn’t use “Christ,” so maybe “the childbirth” was a Christian tt (technical term) for Christ’s birth.
One aspect is that Paul’s use of sozo/save is always (I believe) to be in the context of salvation by believing in Jesus as Messiah, except for perhaps this puzzling verse, so it makes it consistent with his other uses to find a way to make it refer to Jesus. That is, all other possibilities are not as good.
But still women wouldn’t be saved BY childbirth even if this did refer to Christ’s being women’s saving grace in that instance, because it is the cross that establishes salvation. And to take that scripture in its most literal sense, referring to ‘women’ could mean all women, not just believers. This why I find Paul’s reference here so confusing, especially after he stated so many times that he preached only Christ crucified as the means of salvation.
One aspect is that Paul’s use of sozo/save is always (I believe) to be in the context of salvation by believing in Jesus as Messiah, except for perhaps this puzzling verse, so it makes it consistent with his other uses to find a way to make it refer to Jesus. That is, all other possibilities are not as good.
And then you have 1 Peter 3:20, in which a related word, diasôzô (= dia “through” + sôzô “to save”), is used in conjunction with “through water” where the water is a destructive, not a salvific, thing.
So here is an example where being saved through something is not “by means of” (which the birth of Christ would be) but “during” (which is what childbirth would be). Unfortunately, dia + the genitive can mean either one – i.e., a) instrumentality or b) passage through a time or place or situation.
Context is determinative of meaning, not etymology. We can see what Peter means, not so clear what Paul means.
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
Sherlock Holmes, in “The Sign of the Four”
1Ti 2:15a Yet she will be saved through THE childbearing…
Not ‘of’ but ‘through’ refering back to Eve’s seed.
I had the opportunity to converse with the president of a christian college for several months in a “dating” relationship. Although I have been in church and around Christians all my life, this is the first time I have truly personally seen male leadership modeled in a man/woman relationship. I learned that the male must be the leader for the right “dynamic” in a relationship, and when he does so, the woman responds almost effortlessly. Women are built to be responders. The way the male leads, in a nutshell, is by being first in unselfishness. The model for church leadership is tied to this model of the male role in a relationship as God designed it. It doesn’t work because it is in the Bible. It is in the Bible because it works.
anita,
The prez of a Christian college is likely to be spiritually mature. As such he would lay his life down in being Christ like. Things do work better when people are Christ like, but some of us are less so.
“I learned that the male must be the leader for the right “dynamic” in a relationship, and when he does so, the woman responds almost effortlessly. Women are built to be responders.”
Anita, thanks for the input.
Did you learn this from Scripture? Where does Scripture tell us that women are built to be responders?
And what do you mean by ‘right dynamic’. In what ways does the male lead and the woman respond. What does she respond to.
A well-known legal proverb is: “Hard cases make bad law.”
“Difficult cases cause the clarity of the law to be obscured by exceptions and strained interpretations.”
1854 G. Hayes in W. S. Holdsworth Hist. English Law (1926) IX. 423
“A hard case. But hard cases make bad law.”
1945 W. S. Churchill in Hansard (Commons) 12 June 1478
I think the same could be said about doctrines derived or created from, or based on, obscure or debatable or difficult passages of Scripture.
cherylu #1108,
As to the NET notes on 1 Tim 2:15. Here are my comments:
(a) The future tense “will be saved” may be unnatural if women are meant in general but it is not unnatural if Paul is dealing with one woman who is a deceived teacher. Her salvation is in question because of her deception and so her salvation would be spoken of in the future tense since she is still in the effects of her transgression at the present time.
(b) It would be odd if only women are singled out as recipients of salvation but it is not odd if the resultant salvation is that of a deceived teacher and the assurance that Paul gives is a balance to the dire problem that caused Paul to single her out.
…continuing comment to cherylu #1108
(c) the charge that a reference to Christ would be overly subtle is overridden by the reference to Eve. She was the first deceived woman but the seed (which is the Messiah) would come through her. The fact that another deceived woman is in view and her situation likened to the deception of the first woman, brings hope since Eve received grace to have the Messiah come through her seed. Just as the deceiver is destroyed through the seed of the one whom he deceived, so is this woman saved through the very same seed and her deception brought on through our common enemy will be dealt with by the same seed who destroyed the deceiver. The connection between two deceived woman and a common Savior is not overly subtle but brilliant.
and finally continuing with my comment to cherylu #1108
(d) THE childbearing is the Messiah promised through the one who had been destroyed through deception. The promise of the serpent’s destruction through the coming seed was looked upon with hope for centuries until Jesus and from then on it was looked upon as a fulfilled promise.
The specific noun of childbearing can refer to only one promise of salvation that came through the deceived. It is a perfect fit with the context as long as one sees a specific deceived woman instead of all women. One will see a specific woman when one pays attention to the specific grammar.
The NET’s notes saying that verse 15 is a simple shift from generic singular to generic plural is vastly overstated. There is not another example in the entire Bible of a shift from generic singular to generic plural. This would not make the passage understandable but make it a fraught with confusion since generic singular has never been morphed into a generic plural ever before by God’s word. It would make Paul writing to purposely confuse people. I think it far more wise to take the singular as referring to one specific person and the plural to the woman plus at least one other person.
Hard cases make bad law. Quite so – and that is why we need to focus on those passages which are clear before we turn to those that are less so. That is why we need to focus on the general case (what is commanded of all persons) before we turn to the specific case (items that deal with, for example, persons of one gender or the other). And that is why, in general, we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and take the whole counsel of Scripture before we come to a conclusion.
As far as comment #1118 is concerned… It only works that way if you really want it to work. But even that is not enough, actually. I am a woman who, no matter how hard I try to be respectful in my dealings with a particular man, he will still see me as ‘the boss’ – no matter how hard I try to keep him from thinking that by my words and my behavior. Even if I tell him bluntly that I view his excessive respect to my person as idolatry. And on top of this, even if the man is very traditional and anything but egalitarian.
So that model will never work no matter what I do. Indeed, a man who had to do with me would apparently, on the basis of his own experience, either conclude that that’s how it should be – that it’s right or at least just fine for the balance of power to be tilted in my direction – or determine that it is completely impossible to have a relationship with me. And it is true: I will be 46 this year and to this day I am single.
Maybe I am unmarriageable because of who I am. But I am not one to pretend I am someone I’m not, just to have a man. It is an open question whether God created me this way or has merely permitted me to be so. But He is good. He is my Creator. He is worthy of my love and worship. He is the all-wise and all-knowing, one and only God.
Caraboska, no one is unmarriageable. Just take a good look at people in general. Sometimes its a wonder! 🙂
It’s a wonder alright, I’ll say ;P
I know the president of a Christian university who was caught with his hand up his secretary’s skirt. He was initiating alright! As was king David.
The term “head pastor” is uninspired. There’s nothing biblical about it. I don’t find it in the inspired scriptures.
1129.pinklight on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:10 am #
The term “head pastor” is uninspired. There’s nothing biblical about it. I don’t find it in the inspired scriptures.
Keep looking. I’m sure you’ll find it if you search long enough.
(Or you could try looking for it in the uninspired Scriptures.)
Faster than an Accordance word search.
More powerful than Benny Hinn.
Able to leap from Scripture to Scripture in a single sermon.
Look! Up in the sky!
It’s a bird!
It’s a plane!
No, it’s… the Head Pastor!
“Keep looking. I’m sure you’ll find it if you search long enough.
(Or you could try looking for it in the uninspired Scriptures.)
Faster than an Accordance word search.”
Had me right there! ROTFLOL!!
“More powerful than Benny Hinn.
Able to leap from Scripture to Scripture in a single sermon.
Look! Up in the sky!
It’s a bird!
It’s a plane!
No, it’s… the Head Pastor!”
lol, EricW
I think it is an interesting theory that you postulate Michael. I have never heard that line of reasoning. People need to realize that it is just that, a theory..not fact …so calm down everyone…lol!
I too am a complimentarian, but because I believe that this is Gods proper order in the church. The bible say that Gods economy is God, Jesus, Man, Wife, children…this is the family order.
Why would the order in the church be any different?
Where in scripture do we see God ordaining women to have authority over men?
You can disagree with Michaels theory, but you still need to deal with the verse.
The Bible says God’s economy is the Godhead, adults, then earth, and the adults when parents are parents over their kids until they become adults.
“The bible say that Gods economy is God, Jesus, Man, Wife, children…this is the family order.
Why would the order in the church be any different?
Where in scripture do we see God ordaining women to have authority over men?”
Fitz,
The hierarchical listing you cite (for what BTW) is not in Scripture. And there are Scriptures where God has called women to do His work. It’s not about having authority over men or anyone else. It’s about bringing God’s words and truths to the world. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia. And likely countless others not so prominent, were used of God to lead His people.
The heirarchy I speak of is found in 1 corinthians chapter 11. Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
This is Gods order. Although children are not mentioned, I believe this naturally follows. This is His order in the church and I believe it is His order for the family as well.
While I do agree that God does and will continue to use women, I do not believe women are to be in positions of authority over men. The examples that you mention are certainly noteworthy, but are nonetheless rare….special circumstances that God chose to use women for leadership tasks.
The scriptures are replete with the idea that men were called by God to lead.
It is not that women cannot lead or teach, I do not see in scripture any justification for men being under the authority and headship of women.
It is merely a matter of role and function not quality.
”The heirarchy I speak of is found in 1 corinthians chapter 11. Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. This is Gods order. Although children are not mentioned, I believe this naturally follows. This is His order in the church and I believe it is His order for the family as well.”
Sorry to disagree with you Fitz, I do understand how many have assumed that is the intention of these verses. However, not only is it not in that order, and children are not mentioned, but neither is the Holy Spirit mentioned. Do you really believe that Paul is that scatterbrained that he cannot say what he means in the order he means it. As well, there is the problem of Christ being eternally lessor in authority than God.
”The examples that you mention are certainly noteworthy, but are nonetheless rare….special circumstances that God chose to use women for leadership tasks.”
Do you believe that God makes a rule and principle of truth and then violates it? I don’t. I don’t believe that God makes exceptions to what is righteous and what isn’t.
”It is merely a matter of role and function not quality.”
To those who are not personally effected by such beliefs it is merely a small matter. But to those women who God calls and equips, who are hindered from following their calling in the Lord it is entirely a matter of life, and the quality of their lives.
“I too am a complimentarian, but because I believe that this is Gods proper order in the church. The bible say that Gods economy is God, Jesus, Man, Wife, children…this is the family order.
Why would the order in the church be any different?
fitz,
Church would be different because every “single” member is not a “Man, Wife,” or a child.
Your paradigm leaves out far too many believers.
If anyone would like to interact, here is a new article I just posted with some more thoughts on Genesis 2:18-24.
Fitz,
What you are missing is that you are teleporting the word “head/kephale” from its 21st century meaning back into the 1st century. Today as a metphor it almost always means boss/leader when used as it is used in 1 Cor 11.
But the inspired order of the text is NOT in the order of a hierarchy, so that is a clue that is is NOT a hierarchy. What might the kephale/head metaphor mean in the 1st century is the question.
I think it means source and the ordering given is an ordering in time. Messiah was at creation and the (ultimate) source of all humans, the man in the garden was the source of the woman and God was the source of Messiah being born.
“The heirarchy I speak of is found in 1 corinthians chapter 11. Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.’
When Pauln uses “God” who is he refering to, fitz?
“It is not that women cannot lead or teach, I do not see in scripture any justification for men being under the authority and headship of women.”
Where in the NT, fitz, can you find/prove in the NT women being prohibited from leading the church and where do you find the bible telling us that the husband has “headship” in the home?
All,
At the onset of this post, Michael asked not to debate the issue, so out of respect for his request, I am going to end my part of the discussion here with the following…
I believe, based on scriptural reasoning and common sense that it was not intended for men to be under the spiritual headship of women..period. I believe there is stronger support in scripture for the complimentarian position as opposed to the egalitarian position…that is my position and I will not change my mind.
However, having said that, let me add that this debate is in a non-essential area, meaning, it is not relevant to our salvation!
Noone is saved or lost, based on the gender of their pastor…no pastor will be saved or lost because of their gender.
So that means that while I am a complimentarian, I am not going to spearhead a campaign to remove all women pastors.
I am not against women preachers and teachers, I just do not agree that women are to have headship over men.
It is just not that important an issue to allow division to continue. We must be careful as brothers and sisters in Christ, not to allow these in house debates to negatively impact our witness to non-believers.
We can debate this issue, but not divide over it. Debating is ok…division is not.
So if you are an egalitarian, then that is fine, I love you in Jesus name and we can agree to disagree..but since we are brothers and sisters in Christ, it is an issue that we must not allow to cause dissension….our unity around the essentials is more important.
The deity of Christ, now that is a salvific issue, worthy of defense, but not this.
Michael, I apologize for not following the rules.
1139 Don,
“I think it means source and the ordering given is an ordering in time. Messiah was at creation and the (ultimate) source of all humans, the man in the garden was the source of the woman and God was the source of Messiah being born.
That does appear to be the only way to maintain the order that Paul deliberately wrote in and make any sense of it. Otherwise, we make Paul out to be scatterbrained and confusing. Thanks for sharing that.
Fitz, 1142
I’m sure many appreciate your words here. We are all brethren (brothers and sisters) and will spend eternity together. It is time that we made good effort to appreciate one another.
It is not really necessary to stop talking for fear of debating. Frankly, I’ve a bit of trouble figuring out what is and isn’t debating. As long as we stay reasonably respectful, the conversation is enlightening and instructive for all. IMO NOT talking is more destructive. It’s rather like two brothers in a church having ought with one another and refusing to discuss it. It is not really important that it may take years of discussion to come to a place of being able to get along. The ‘getting along’ is more important that the effort it takes.
“I believe, based on scriptural reasoning and common sense that it was not intended for men to be under the spiritual headship of women..period.”
It is statements like this that I don’t understand. In places where something is forbidden God is very clear. He wants us to understand. And he never violates His rules. Yet, there is noting in Scriptures clearly forbidding women to exercise authority over men. That idea almost makes men godlike and weak at the same time. We are all just human. And God has used women to exercise authority over men. How can you think that God would forbid something and then instigate its doing at His bidding?
Don,
You wrote….
What you are missing is that you are teleporting the word “head/kephale” from its 21st century meaning back into the 1st century. Today as a metphor it almost always means boss/leader when used as it is used in 1 Cor 11.
But the inspired order of the text is NOT in the order of a hierarchy, so that is a clue that is is NOT a hierarchy. What might the kephale/head metaphor mean in the 1st century is the question.
I think it means source and the ordering given is an ordering in time. Messiah was at creation and the (ultimate) source of all humans, the man in the garden was the source of the woman and God was the source of Messiah being born.
With all due respect, I have no idea what you mean here. If the word “head” in the context of that verse does not mean what it clearly means…then what does it mean? If the order mentioned in that text is not hierarchical…then what is it?
The word is either literal or figurative….so is Christ the head of the church…literally or figuratively? If He is not the literal head of the church then in what sense is He the figurative head? I mean, i just don’t get it.
So if that word “head” in that verse does not mean authority…then God is not the head of Christ and Christ is not the head of the church.
Let’s not say what we “think” it means…let’s look at what it means.
Fitz:
I think Don might be saying that the 1st-century Greek use of kephalê did not include “authority of or over [someone or something]” in its semantic range or usage.
Hence, it’s a lexical fallacy to make the translation of kephalê mean what we mean when we say that someone is someone’s or something’s “head.”
The word “head” is never used in 1 Cor 11. The word kephalê is used. And it should be translated to mean what that word meant to its users in the time and contexts in which it was used.
This may be similar to translating logos as “word” in John 1:1. While “head” may be a proper translation of kephalê, it can be a bad translation if it causes the reader to import or impose his understanding and use of the word “head” onto the verses in which kephalê is used. Likewise, while “word” may be a valid translation of logos, it may be the best of a number of poor choices, because the meaning behind the Hebrew dabar and the Greek logos encompasses much more than a spoken or written thing.
E.g. re: logos: IIRC, I remember a discussion on B-Greek in which a person sugggested the word “soul” as a valid translation of logos in John 1:1. After someone went ballistic in response and wrote that there was no conceivable way under the sun that anyone, anywhere, at any time could ever think to translate logos as “soul,” the person who had suggested it replied with a seemingly good and reasoned and defensible argument for translating it there as “soul.”
TL….
It is not healthy debating that I fear, it is division that can be caused many times by debating…and the confusion that can be placed in the minds of unbelievers as a result of our debating…thats all.
I respect everyones opinions and positions in non-essential areas but they must have strong scriptural support. The Egal position in my opinion lacks this strong support.
With the exception of a few, rare ocassions where a woman was used for a certain leadership task the bible seems to me to show clearly that Gods intent is for men to lead. Now if men dont step up and God uses women then so be it…God can do what He wants….He’s God, but when I search the scriptures for answers to the debate, the biblical pattern I see is male leadership….thats all i’m saying. There are plenty of women out there that will agree with me.
The Bible must be the final court of arbitration when it comes to faith and practice.
If we cant rely on the “clear” teaching of verses in the bible then what do we rely on…we are left to our own opinions.
We as the church for many years now have been slowly adopting the philosophies and ideologies of the world system in the church….to me this is nothing more than feminism allowed to enter the ranks of the church.
Uh oh…that will surely set someone off…LOL!
Do we know that this lexicon entry for the Greek word translanted “head” is wrong? This is from Thayer’s which I know is outdated. But it is also used in the NetBible. Are they tranlsating in ways that are totally out of date or using a totally out of date lexicon that is not valid anymore?
metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
c) of things: the corner stone
This defininition doesn’t sound like “source” to me. Indeed, it sounds a lot more like “authority”.
Eric W….
Ok, so here we go…..
Logos does not mean word in a certain sense….and Kephale does not mean head…in certain sense.
So , then if Paul did not mean headship or authority then what did he mean? Do not tell me what you think it means but what does it mean?
Cheryl,
Just where in the Bible does this appear:
From definition (a): “master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife”?
It’s one thing to consult lexicons, and commentaries, etc; for codification; but the point being made here is that the above definition ‘master lord’ is not found in the Bible in relation to marriage or the church.
Jesus is Lord over all, which is confused by definition (b):
“of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church”
These definitions, although I’m sure unintended, make it sound like the husband is lord over the wife, and Christ is lord over the husband, not Lord of both. Perhaps one reason this lexicon definition is considered outdated regardless of it’s human source.