Rules of Biblical Interpretation

[cowboymatt]

I quite agree with you, but let me add that I also believe Paul is regulating role distinction, that males are to be figures of authority, and women should reflect that in their attire.

True, but aren't the women in this passage doing something "leader-ish" -- praying and prophesying?

I would argue that Paul is wanting the people of the church in Corinth to maintain gender distinctions so that the gospel won't be hindered and the unity of the church won't be hurt.

 

[TCGreek]

True, but aren't the women in this passage doing something "leader-ish" -- praying and prophesying?

I would argue that Paul is wanting the people of the church in Corinth to maintain gender distinctions so that the gospel won't be hindered and the unity of the church won't be hurt.

1. True, but the women who prayed and prophesied should do so while respecting male leadership.

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (vv. 9, 10, NIV).

2. Paul is clearly making a point here of role distinctions.

 

[cowboymatt]

1. True, but the women who prayed and prophesied should do so while respecting male leadership.

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (vv. 9, 10, NIV).

2. Paul is clearly making a point here of role distinctions.

I'm just curious, then how do vv.11-12 fit with your "role distinctions" idea?

 

[TCGreek]

I'm just curious, then how do vv.11-12 fit with your "role distinctions" idea?

1. Here's the grind: If there're no role distinctions, then Paul would simply be contradicting himself.

"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God" (NIV).

2. Paul is simply stating that while there are role distinctions, both men and women are dependent on each other and are ultimately dependent on God.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Something else to consider is that Paul would be contradicting his own words in 1 Tim 2:12 if he were authorizing the Corinthian women to prophesy and pray in a mixed assembly.

 

[cowboymatt]

1. Here's the grind: If there're no role distinctions, then Paul would simply be contradicting himself.

"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God" (NIV).

2. Paul is simply stating that while there are role distinctions, both men and women are dependent on each other and are ultimately dependent on God.

I think that the way you are looking at it is valid and certainly is a faithful attempt at understanding this difficult text!

 

[BobRyan]

1. Paul affirms that when ALL come together ALL have a "prohecy, a tongue or a teaching" in 1Cor 14 and in that 1Cor 14 context he does not require that "only some men be allowed to speak".

2. Prophetess Anna speaks in synagogue at the presentation of the Messiah on the 8th day according to the gospels.

3. Deborah serves as both prophetess and judge of Israel.

But of course those two examples are before women were freed under the Gospel to remain silent if men are present in church.

Many churches today allow their women to sing in the congregation, some allow them to pray from the pulpit, many allow them to give announcements from the pulpit -- even to tell children's stories while men are still in the congregation during church!!

Hard to believe - but it happens!

And so we see that the practice of 1Cor 14 did not differ so much even from our own practice today. Particularly consistent with Paul's Eph 2 teaching that there is no spiritual distinction (in spiritual matters) between Jews and Greeks, slave and free, male and female.

The Spiritual law is that there is no difference between male and female as Paul instructs us in Eph 2.
The Bible "example" is that we have prophetess activity in the case of Deborah and Miriam and others "in scripture" (for those that have 66 books in their bibles ) and we have the NT example of Anna and Philip's daughters and all the women of Corinth.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So what we have presented so far is the estoppel of all argument concerning the role of women in the NT church and any distinction of office or duty………………or is it? Do you suppose there just might happen to be any other Scriptures that might have something to say concerning this issue?

And by the way, BR, are you certain that the “Prophetess Anna speaks in the synagogue?” Was it in the outer court or in the inner sanctuary? That might make a slight difference you know.

As for “Deborah serving as both prophetess and judge of Israel” was this not a sign of weakness concerning the men of her day? This would be like saying that because Israel had a King it must have been God’s will that it was so, but was it? Because something is allowed or done once, I say again ‘once,’ does that set a preference for all in all times, regardless of the office spoken of, whether in government or in the church, regardless of any and all other Scriptures to the contrary?

Cowboy Matt, this might be a great topic and scriptural reference (concerning head coverings for women and their role in the assembly,) for you to apply your rules of interpretation to, in a new thread of course.

 

[cowboymatt]

1. Paul affirms that when ALL come together ALL have a "prohecy, a tongue or a teaching" in 1Cor 14 and in that 1Cor 14 context he does not require that "only some men be allowed to speak".

2. Prophetess Anna speaks in synagogue at the presentation of the Messiah on the 8th day according to the gospels.

3. Deborah serves as both prophetess and judge of Israel.

But of course those two examples are before women were freed under the Gospel to remain silent if men are present in church.

Many churches today allow their women to sing in the congregation, some allow them to pray from the pulpit, many allow them to give announcements from the pulpit -- even to tell children's stories while men are still in the congregation during church!!

Hard to believe - but it happens!

And so we see that the practice of 1Cor 14 did not differ so much even from our own practice today. Particularly consistent with Paul's Eph 2 teaching that there is no spiritual distinction (in spiritual matters) between Jews and Greeks, slave and free, male and female.

The Spiritual law is that there is no difference between male and female as Paul instructs us in Eph 2.
The Bible "example" is that we have prophetess activity in the case of Deborah and Miriam and others "in scripture" (for those that have 66 books in their bibles ) and we have the NT example of Anna and Philip's daughters and all the women of Corinth.



in Christ,

Bob

It is hard for you to deny, though, that in this passage Paul speaks about women who are not being silent in public worship. They are praying and prophesying. Here, Paul never questions whether they should or shouldn't, just how they should.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: And so we see that the practice of 1Cor 14 did not differ so much even from our own practice today. Particularly consistent with Paul's Eph 2 teaching that there is no spiritual distinction (in spiritual matters) between Jews and Greeks, slave and free, male and female.

HP: What do you mean by “no spiritual distinction?” Certainly there is none in regards to who can receive salvation and the infilling of the Spirit, but that is not to say that in positions of leadership or in the role of teaching men there is not a clear distinction to be made within the assembly according to Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

HP: This seems to be a topic of at least some interest. Who on the list might desire to apply some rules of interpretation in their interpretation of it? Why does the writer tell us it is so? Is it due to a mere custom of their day, that will or should simply pass away as more enlightened or liberated successive generations come on the scene?

 

[TCGreek]

HP: This seems to be a topic of at least some interest. Who on the list might desire to apply some rules of interpretation in their interpretation of it? Why does the writer tell us it is so? Is it due to a mere custom of their day, that will or should simply pass away as more enlightened or liberated successive generations come on the scene?

HP,

This is not an easy issue. Are you Egalitarian or Complementarian? The answer to this question affects a person's interpretation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: This is not an easy issue. Are you Egalitarian or Complementarian? The answer to this question affects a persons interpretation.

HP: Are you suggesting ones private philosophy drives the truth of the passage? Can I can properly assume that there is not right way to interpret this verse, and all rules of interpretation are simply a means to a subjective end? What right does anyone have to allow for such a bias or special agenda drive ones interpretation of Scripture? Is ‘truth’ just another idea encapsulating ones personal choice as to how they desire to believe?

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Are you suggesting ones private philosophy drives the truth of the passage? Can I can properly assume that there is not right way to interpret this verse, and all rules of interpretation are simply a means to a subjective end? What right does anyone have to allow for such a bias or special agenda drive ones interpretation of Scripture? Is ‘truth’ just another idea encapsulating ones personal choice as to how they desire to believe?

If I'm Egalitarian, I see Paul as providing a temporary prohibition against some women at Ephesus who were influenced by the false teachers.

But this in no way is a permanent prohibition, since both males and females are one in Christ (Gal 3:28).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: If I'm Egalitarian, I see Paul as providing a temporary prohibition against some women at Ephesus who were influenced by the false teachers.

But this in no way is a permanent prohibition, since both males and females are one in Christ (Gal 3:28).

HP: And I suppose that if I am like the lady I met that didn’t like the epistles of Paul period, I would simply say as she did, that I am not a Paulinist. That would settle the issue in favor of what I perceive as truth would it not?

 

[TCGreek]

HP: And I suppose that if I am like the lady I met that didn’t like the epistles of Paul period, I would simply say as she did, that I am not a Paulinist. That would settle the issue in favor of what I perceive as truth would it not?

But if I'm a complementarian, I would see Paul's prohibition as permanent in the life of the church and not just because some women were influenced by the false teachers.

Then I would see that Gal 3:28 is referring to equality in salvation and not a nullification of role distinctions.

In any case, I'm a Paulinist.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: But if I'm a complementarian, I would see Paul's prohibition as permanent in the life of the church and not just because some women were influenced by the false teachers.

Then I would see that Gal 3:28 is referring to equality in salvation and not a nullification of role distinctions.

In any case, I'm a Paulinist.

HP: I am a Paulinist also. :thumbs:

The point is that that in calling their self a Complementarian or a Egalitarian, they must first be able to establish the truth of their position by some other means than by the mere stating of their chosen position. You suggest that the women were influenced by false teachers. Where is the Scriptural evidence of that? I am not saying that Scripture alone is the source of all evidence, but in this case I would believe that Scripture would either have to confirm such a position for it to be esablished in this case. I do not believe it can be established by Scripture that the women in particular were influenced by the ‘false teachers’ you speak of. I may be wrong.

I know that you are not necessarily stating your personal opinion, but can you help either group out here and give us some supportive evidence for either position? How about some sound philosophical principles of justice, or first truths of reason, or clear scriptural passages that might support either position as opposed to the other. Then, show us the principle or rule of interpretation that supports such a notion that you seem to be suggesting is a legitamate way to interpret Scripture by.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: I am a Paulinist also. :thumbs:

HP, you have given me a daunting task. raying:

The point is that that in calling their self a Complementarian or a Egalitarian, they must first be able to establish the truth of their position by some other means than by the mere stating of their chosen position. You suggest that the women were influenced by false teachers. Where is the Scriptural evidence of that? I am not saying that Scripture alone is the source of all evidence, but in this case I would believe that Scripture would either have to confirm such a position for it to be esablished in this case. I do not believe it can be established by Scripture that the women in particular were influenced by the ‘false teachers’ you speak of. I may be wrong.

1. Well, Paul makes reference to some young widows who were troublemakers ( 1 Tim 5:11-15) and then 2 Tim 3:6-9. Now, this is at Ephesus.

2. Women received the gift of prophecy and prophesied in the local assembly of mix membership (Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5).

3. Phoebe was a deaconess (Gk. diakonos; Rom 16:1-3). There have been discoveries from the 2nd cen. demonstrating that women were deaconesses.

4. Paul mentions the name of two prominent women at Philippi (4:2).

5. Therefore 1 Tim 2:11-12 must be seen as only local.

6. At the cross and in Christ, roles distinctions have been nullified.

 

[DHK]

HP, you have given me a daunting task.

The passage in question:
1 Timothy 2:11-13 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

The principle that Paul sets forth, that is the why and the reason for the commands:'
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1. Well, Paul makes reference to some young widows who were troublemakers ( 1 Tim 5:11-15) and then 2 Tim 3:6-9. Now, this is at Ephesus.

This has nothing to do with the passage in question. Women are not to have authority over men or to teach men. So what if some in another church were trouble-makers. That is a red herring.

2. Women received the gift of prophecy and prophesied in the local assembly of mix membership (Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5).

This was a fulfillment of prophecy; a unique and special event that happened during the first century. The spiritual gifts have ceased. This doesn't take place today. Even then it was not common for the women to prophecy. It was for the men to prophecy, preach, etc. Not for the women. To admit that this is a common thing for the women is a contradiction of Scripture. It contradicts the requirements of a deacon and a pastor. The word deacon is simply one that serves. It would include the one who prophesies, etc.

3. Phoebe was a deaconess (Gk. diakonos; Rom 16:1-3). There have been discoveries from the 2nd cen. demonstrating that women were deaconesses.

Phoebe was not a "deaconess" per se. The word means servant as it is correctly translated in the KJV. Diakonos simply means servant and should thus be translated also. A deacon is simply a servant, and nothing more. We put too much stress on the "office" of a deacon. Even the old English word "office" had more to do with "service" than that of holding any position.

4. Paul mentions the name of two prominent women at Philippi (4:2).

Prominent in what way? Does it say that they had authority over men or that they were teachers of men?

5. Therefore 1 Tim 2:11-12 must be seen as only local.

There is nothing that you have said to warrant such a conclusion.

6. At the cross and in Christ, roles distinctions have been nullified.

Yep! That's why I never prevented letting my wife step in the ring with Mohammed Ali.
She also plays one on one with Shaq.
She's entering the Olympics hoping to get gold in weight-lifting.

Where does the Bible say that "role distinctions" have been nullified? TC are you the one that gets pregnant in your family and gives birth to the children? Are you sure there is no role distinction??

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: HP, you have given me a daunting task.

HP: I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. I fully understand that we are NOT necessarily dealing with a position you hold, and realize that you are at this time trying to establish a point of view from Scripture ‘as if though’ it was your position.

I have to agree with DHK on this one so far. Although I have heard some of these arguments made in the past, I believe them to be lame and in no wise established by wisdom or in light of sound rules of interpretation or in accordance to any other truth God has revealed to man.

Paul clearly states that regardless of any or all positions women might or might not hold within the assembly, women were not to teach men nor to usurp authority over the man within the assembly.

If you so desire, try taking any single one of the references you gave, and again, examine it carefully in light of sound biblical rules of interpretation. Take the one that you feel might best support the notion of spiritual equality, and expound on that one reference, again in light of rules of biblical interpretation. Try to give supporting evidence, much as I attempted on the passage of Psalms 51:5, if you have kept up with that discussion at all.