Women's role in the church

[Marcia]

This was posted by Jerome on the Baptist history forum but I couldn't answer it because it was off topic and were told to discuss this elsewhere. I am not sure what he is quoting here.

"Man and woman fell together; together they must rise. After the resurrection, it was a woman who was first commissioned to carry the glad tidings of the risen Christ; and in Europe, where woman was in future days to be set free from many of the trammels of the East, it seems fitting that a woman should be the first believer. Not only, however, was Lydia a sort of first-fruit for Europe, but she probably also became a witness in her own city of Thyatira, in Asia. We do not know how the gospel was introduced into that city; but we are informed of the existence of a church there by the message of the ascended Christ, through his servant John, to "the angel of the church in Thyatira." Very likely Lydia became the herald of the gospel in her native place. Let the women who know the truth proclaim it; for why should their influence be lost? "The Lord giveth the word; the women that publish the tidings are a great host."[Psalm 68:11]"

Jerome, none of these examples support having a woman as pastor. No one is saying women cannot give the gospel, be missionaries, witness, etc. The issue is: Can women have authority over men in the church? If so, they would be able to be pastors or elders.

I think the Bible clearly says no.

 

[Dr. Bob]

That women CAN (and did) have great ministries and work for God is without question. I've seen women preach and teach and minister in a great number of ways.

But nowhere can a woman fulfill the meanest qualifications/description of an elder/pastor without wrenching it from context.

She would have serious conflicts with the exact inspired words of God:
"HE must be . . . "
"One-woman MAN"
"Keep silent in the church"
"Not USURP authority over a man"

Those who claim otherwise have to "throw out" the clear texts and call them "cultural". And when we start down THAT road, we start cutting apart the commands of the NT and have a "holey" Bible instead of a "holy" Bible.

 

[go2church]

But there are parts of the Bible that are cultural. Why is it so awful to see a verse of scripture as applying only culturally or in a specific context? In fact I understand the Bible better when I travel down that "road" and try and understand the Bible as it was originally given.

 

[Marcia]

But there are parts of the Bible that are cultural. Why is it so awful to see a verse of scripture as applying only culturally or in a specific context? In fact I understand the Bible better when I travel down that "road" and try and understand the Bible as it was originally given.

Yes, there are parts of cultural, but it's clear when they are.

The role of women nowhere is given as a cultural thing. That has to be read into the text. Here, for example, in 1 Tim. 2, the reason is given, and it's not cultural:

12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


In fact, two reasons are given:
Adam was created before Eve.
Eve was deceived, not Adam.

If these are God's words, as I believe they are, it's an ironclad directive with no wriggling room for cultural reasons.

 

[menageriekeeper]

In fact, two reasons are given:
Adam was created before Eve.
Eve was deceived, not Adam.

Reading this makes me wonder:

Why was it worse to be deceived than to directly disobey?

 

[Jerome]

That's Spurgeon in the OP.:thumbs:

 

[Jim1999]

12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet

Some paraphrase that verse as "PERSONALLY, I don't allow women to teach, nor do I ever put them in authority over men...."J.B. Phillips

Is this an eternal requirement or is it Paul's personal opinion on the matter concerning the church being addressed in that letter?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[tinytim]

To wrench the cultural aspect from the writing and then try to apply our own cultural aspect back into it, is mishandling the Bible.

You cannot divorce culture from proper interpretation.

What did the orginal readers understand when they read the passage?
Once you find that meaning.. then apply the meaning to YOUR culture.

For instance, why did Paul tell women to keep silent in church? What was going in in Corinth to force him to give that command?

What is funny is, those that want to take the Timothy and Titus passages literally would never tell a woman to not speak in church... but that is what Paul said... either take it literally, or there is wiggle room to add the cultural aspect into it.

Have you ever been in a church where a woman was absolutly forbidden to speak? Even sing? After all it says "Silence" So to take it literally women cannot make a peep in church.

 

[Jerome]

The context is not behavior in church.

Men should pray...just in church? [v. 8]
Women should dress modestly...just in church? [v. 9]


Young's Literal Translation:

"and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,"

 

[OldRegular]

But there are parts of the Bible that are cultural. Why is it so awful to see a verse of scripture as applying only culturally or in a specific context? In fact I understand the Bible better when I travel down that "road" and try and understand the Bible as it was originally given.

Sounds as if you are saying that you understand the Bible better when you make it say what you want.

 

[Marcia]

Reading this makes me wonder:

Why was it worse to be deceived than to directly disobey?

I don't think God is saying it's worse; he's just giving it as the reason.

 

[Marcia]

12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet

Some paraphrase that verse as "PERSONALLY, I don't allow women to teach, nor do I ever put them in authority over men...."J.B. Phillips

Is this an eternal requirement or is it Paul's personal opinion on the matter concerning the church being addressed in that letter?

Cheers,

Jim

Paul was writing under the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit, so this is God's directive.

 

[go2church]

Sounds as if you are saying that you understand the Bible better when you make it say what you want.

You don't really think that is what I'm saying do? You aren't just out to pick a fight or something because nothing I said is even remotely close to your conclusion. But in case just in case I will answer the question

God forbid (to be all King Jamesy). I understand the bible better when I try to put myself in the shoes of the first audience. God inspired for a reason, what was that reason? Why did the writer use the illustrations he did? What was the shared knowledge? If I wanted to make the bible say whatever I wanted, why would I bother with any attempt at interpretation, just throw a verse out here and there and away I go.

 

[canadyjd]

Reading this makes me wonder:

Why was it worse to be deceived than to directly disobey?

Two points from the Genesis account of the fall. Eve's sin was "unintentional" in that she was deceived. Adam's was intentional. Both resulted the marring of the relationship with God and was sin. Adam, however, was singled out as being responsible for the fall.

Paul tells us in Romans that sin entered into the world and spread to all people through the sin of Adam. He doesn't mention Eve at all, even though Eve clearly sinned first. IMHO, Paul, through the inspiration of Holy Spirit, is revealing that God held Adam accountable for the fall because, as the head of his household, he was responsible for his wife.

I think Paul again points out in I Tim., that Adam was responsible (as the head of his household) for the fall. His point is that God has ordained male leadership in households, and in the church. I believe that Paul mentions the Genesis account to further illustrate the reason for the conflict over women in leadership roles.

One result of the fall is that the woman "shall desire your husband but he shall rule over you." This means that the woman shall desire to usurp the authority of her husband (abusing her God given role as a help for her husband), and the husband shall rule his wife (abusing his God given role as head of household of two equal partners).

A consequence of the fall, then, is that women will seek to usurp the authority of men in their homes and/or in the church.

It has nothing to do with whether a woman can be a good leader, or if she can be a good preacher. God has ordained male leadership. That should be the end of the conversation as to who God would call into leadership roles.

peace to youraying:

 

[Jim1999]

So, women should stay home, all marry and never work outside of the home.

For this reason we have hermeneutics!!!!

21st century!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

So, women should stay home, all marry and never work outside of the home.

For this reason we have hermeneutics!!!!

21st century!

Cheers,

Jim

Oh, Jim -- there you go again!

Is your tongue stuck inside your cheek?

 

[canadyjd]

So, women should stay home, all marry and never work outside of the home.

Well, I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. That is certainly not what I meant.

God has ordained male leadership in households and in the church. That seems pretty plain to me.

There are examples of women working outside the household throughout scripture. There are examples of women engaging in business and owning businesses. There are examples of women being effective leaders outside of homes and outside the church.

None of that changes the fact that God has ordained male leadership in the homes and in the church.

Paul, through the inspiration of Holy Spirit, refers back to the creation of Adam and Eve to lay the foundation of male leadership. Paul refers to scripture. It has nothing to do with cultural norms of the day. It has everything to do with what God has revealed in His Word.

If your hermeneutic sees something else, it might be flawed.

peace to youraying:

 

[Jim1999]

My Hebrew teacher in seminary was a Godly woman. Imagine, she taught men. Men who would be future preachers! The seminary was run directly under a church with the pastor as president.......an, can we have some fun with these straws!

Oh, and learning a biblical language includes four years of studying the very word of God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[canadyjd]

My Hebrew teacher in seminary was a Godly woman. Imagine, she taught men. Men who would be future preachers! The seminary was run directly under a church with the pastor as president.......an, can we have some fun with these straws!

Oh, and learning a biblical language includes four years of studying the very word of God.

What has any of that to do with what God has revealed to us in I Tim?

I once had a learned man tell me (concerning the passage in I Tim.) that he disagreed with Paul's interpretation of the Old Testament. You appear to be saying much the same thing.

What does it matter if your Hebrew prof was a woman? How does that address the meaning of the text in I Tim.? Does your experience determine your hermeneutic?

Does your experience as a student with a Godly female professor invalidate the Word of God?

Does your experience as a student with a Godly female professor make the biblical mandate of male leadership nothing more than chasing straws?

peace to youraying:

 

[go2church]

Two points from the Genesis account of the fall. Eve's sin was "unintentional" in that she was deceived. Adam's was intentional. Both resulted the marring of the relationship with God and was sin. Adam, however, was singled out as being responsible for the fall.

Paul tells us in Romans that sin entered into the world and spread to all people through the sin of Adam. He doesn't mention Eve at all, even though Eve clearly sinned first. IMHO, Paul, through the inspiration of Holy Spirit, is revealing that God held Adam accountable for the fall because, as the head of his household, he was responsible for his wife.

I think Paul again points out in I Tim., that Adam was responsible (as the head of his household) for the fall. His point is that God has ordained male leadership in households, and in the church. I believe that Paul mentions the Genesis account to further illustrate the reason for the conflict over women in leadership roles.

One result of the fall is that the woman "shall desire your husband but he shall rule over you." This means that the woman shall desire to usurp the authority of her husband (abusing her God given role as a help for her husband), and the husband shall rule his wife (abusing his God given role as head of household of two equal partners).

A consequence of the fall, then, is that women will seek to usurp the authority of men in their homes and/or in the church.

It has nothing to do with whether a woman can be a good leader, or if she can be a good preacher. God has ordained male leadership. That should be the end of the conversation as to who God would call into leadership roles.

peace to youraying:

Where was Adam singled out as being responsible for the fall, 1 Timothy 2, Romans 5, because reading 1 Timothy 2 it seems as though Eve is responsible?

So you are saying that Adam is responsible/ accountable for Eve's sin, in what way? 1 Timothy says she became a sinner all by herself without any help from Adam.

Male leadership is fine, especially since I am one, but does scripture exclude the possibility of females being leaders? A quick reading of the New Testament highlights many examples of females leading.

Not to forget that "silence" either means silence or it means something else that allows women the opportunity to speak in spite of the fact that Paul wants them to be quiet. Maybe there was a cultural issue Paul was addressing?