Kay

Ramon,
You said you were done with this subject. What brings you back?

Mark,
Do you believe 1 Peter 2:5, 9 applies to only male believers? Or are you currently undecided?

“I agreed that diakonos can mean ‘deacon’ in certain contextual circumstances and i likewise agreed that 1 Tim 3:11 could be refering to women deacons. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBILITY so to say it is or at least assume and promote it is, is misleading, that’s all.”

Mark,
I’m glad you acknowledge that in your view, both comps and egals have viable possibilities in interpretations.

I’m not trying to mislead anyone by sharing the other options. What is the problem with getting all the information out for consideration?

Mark,
Yes, and as with any word that has multiple meanings, people typically assume one of the possible meanings which supports their current understanding, and resist any possible meaning that counters it.
I encourage you to take your own advice – “Don’t be too narrow on the definitions of greek words.”

Do you believe 1 Peter 2:5, 9 applies to only male believers?

“God’s word transcend time and culture. Just because women roles have changed in the world does not mean they change in the Body of Christ. It is apparent that the church has been influenced by the world, because of this debate.”
Ramon,
It appears you may have fallen for the myth of the stay-at-home-mother/father as sole bread winner as being the original Biblical model.
From the history I’ve read, the notion that women stay at home with their main purpose being to raise children and tend to them for all their physical needs until they were on their own, came about only after the Industrial Revolution when men started going off to work somewhere other than on the family farm or in their own cottage industry. Prior to that fathers had a major role in raising children, especially sons, who had reached an age where they were capable of helping him in his work. In the same way the daughters would help their mother in her work. Because for both sexes, that would be the work they could expect to be doing for the rest of their lives. These sorts of divisions of labor are cultural and economic responses related to the need to survive. Cultural practices change for various reasons -note the Prov. 31 woman was also a business woman who considered a field and bought it on her own, and planted a vineyard with her own earnings. She could bring home the bacon AND fry it (or have her servants cook it) and they still called her blessed. The industrious woman of Proverbs 31 was a manager, business owner, and real estate agent.
Cheryl, nor others commenting here argue for a genderless society.
Of course there are gender differences designed by God – only women can bear/nurse children and only men can impregnate women. But how does any of this apply to leadership in church or home? Both genders have advantages and disadvantages over the other, a mutual effort offers the best of both, including access to insights the other may not have. It was not good that the “adam” should be alone. That was the only aspect of creation that was not good. The woman’s ‘help’ was to allay the aloneness of the human and to be his equal. She was the “ezer kenegdo” meaning “strong help that would stand facing him.” Adam’s “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” affirms “mutuality” evident in the way that humanity functions. As long as one depends on someone else for the actualization of one’s totality, that dependence creates equality of purpose that transcends status.

Ramon,

Your interpretation would exclude widowed men from being church leaders. On the contrary, Paul says that being single enables some believers to serve God better (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well” (Rom. 16:1-2).

Paul highly commended and respected Phoebe. He called her a “sister,” “deacon,” and “benefactor” to the church at Cenchreae as well as a sister and benefactor to Paul.
The notable thing about diakonos or “deacon” being used to describe Phoebe is that it is the masculine form of the word used to describe a woman. It is the SAME word Paul uses when he calls Timothy and Titus “servants” or “deacons” of their respective churches. Another thing that makes this phrase stand out is that Phoebe is called the “deacon of the church of Cenchreae.” This is the ONLY place in the New Testament where ‘diakonos’ is followed by the name of a specific congregation. This is the only place linking a specific person’s ministry with a specific church.

At the beginning of 1 Timothy 5:1-2 “presbutiro” is used as an adjective for BOTH men and women.

Craig@57,
My opinion is that it (1Tim3) is not a “slam dunk” for comps. Also if reading it without comp glasses on you might point out to your friend that the person aspiring to be an elder/bishop/deacon is told to manage their household and children, BUT NOT their wife/spouse. Unless one wishes to believe that Paul would have lumped the wife in with “household” and given the “children” a particular mention AFTER giving first mention to marital fidelity. I find that hard to swallow – as would most other adults.

Mark,
Perhaps we could now set aside the moot 1Tim.2 and discuss the other verses comps use to keep their view. By your own admission, this one has already lost any credibility in either arsenal anyway.

Mark,
“This interpretation can be fluffed up by roses as much as it likes, but the bare facts are that it does not deal adequately with verse 15. It has as much of a problem with this verse, as do all the other interpretations i have seen.”

So, here again, you acknowledge that in your view, both comps and egals have great difficulties in “all” interpretations.
My question for you then is:
how in all honesty can you continue to use it at all to bolster your view?

Through your own declarations, it has become a moot point for you.

Cheryl,
I apologize if it seems I’m making light of looking deeply at the grammar/words/definitions, etc. But my concern for Mark is that he is really beginning to “miss the forest for the trees.”

Mark,
If you wouldn’t mind, please read my #99 to you.

Mark,

You know hermeneutical principles involve looking at the larger context of the verses in question. That is why the point about Paul’s instruction on slavery is important in the context of the discussion of women. Just as Paul is “clear” about the submission of slaves, he is “clear” about women being quiet in church in one particular verse.

1 Tim. 2:11-12 are difficult verses – it simply can’t be demontrated that Paul intended them as an *eternal directive* for all “churches” for all times. In fact, the purpose of 1 Timothy as a whole, and these verses in particular, indicate otherwise.

Paul was equally “clear” about his view on the braided style of women’s hair and expensive clothing in Timothy. Is that directive to be viewed as an eternal directive for all women or should that particular verse be viewed as addressing a local issue in the first century? I think we’d both agree it’s particular to the situation of the assembly Paul was addressing.

I realize that some people (perhaps you) see this as hermeneutical arbitrariness or capitulation to present culture, causing us to go against Scripture.

But it’s equally undeniable that our response to 6:1-2 (slaves & masters) and ch.5 (widows) is as well. (we could argue the fine points of those 2 again, but the conclusion is still the same) We don’t live them out to the “letter” of Paul’s directive.

Would you consider that perhaps the answer to the hermeneutical question lies in the area of our obedience to the ultimate concern of the entire text, even if the particulars are not carried out like “rules”?

Yes, we can’t deny that this verse is prohibiting at least one woman of “teach and authentein”-ing at least one man in Ephesus, but it is, without a doubt, a unique text. Which suggests it addresses a unique situation. And I’ve noticed that you are not dogmatically asserting that it is without question an eternal directive for all. Mutualists/egals hold that same view. So, perhaps it’s pointless to continue arguing the “grammars”???

“You can believe what Grudem says when he says that Colossians 2:10 is about Jesus being the authority over all authorities (because head means authority over)…but surely given what has just been said in chap 1 that belittles Jesus. He does not just have authority over all authority, but in 1:16 it has been clearly said that he is the source/origin/beginning of all authority. Why would 2:10 mean anything less?”

Well put, Dave! – we can’t completely sever God into 3. Comps try making God into an image of their hierarchical human pyramid. As TL said, “No matter what is being done, all are involved to some degree.”

“The entire letter of Timothy is the ‘context’. Not each verse.”

Great point, Lydia. If only folks would just realize that verse numbers and chapters were not part of the original letter and truthfully have no bearing on the intended message!

Mark,
Did you not notice the “?” mark at the end of this sentence??:
I wrote: “And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?”

You replied: “This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either. There is not one unquestioned theory on the atonement of Christ. Everything is always questioned. Look at critical scholarship, liberalism, denominationalism etc.”

…as though what I asked was an argument in opposition to your view. No, brother, I was showing that we agree about constantly checking and questioning scholarship and traditions of men.

This is why blogging can be so time consumming and frustrating! 😉

You say: “People can get any verse to say whatever they like- again, history teaches us this. It’s a matter of working out what is most consistent and backed up by evidence.”

And here again, I can agree to a point. However, I don’t hold to the traditional “evidence” perpetuated by fallible, all male clergy. That is why I’m not a Roman Catholic. (And may I presume that is why you are not either?)

I have previously pointed to the example of the Church’s stance on slavery as a prime instance of the “traditional” understanding on certain Scriptures being wrong for about 1800 years – and so once again!

Just curious – Mark, do you hold the writings of the very early Church (ie. Augustine, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome) in the same light as Calvin and those after the Reformation began?

Mark,
You said,
“I do admit that this verse is hard. But so does everybody else. It is not a weakness to admit that you don’t understand a certain verse. Since this is the case, we ought to be very cautious of people who think they have a flawless exegesis of this passage. History should tell us otherwise.”

I certainly understand your call for caution. Yet, I have to wonder why you are here to critique Cheryl’s exegesis efforts??
You admit that the verse is considered difficult by the best of exegetes – we all do. You say to Cheryl that “evidence against your interpretation is the writings of church leaders, exegetes theologians.” Yet, clearly, you have nothing concrete to offer or you would have already given THE flawless interpretation every Christian should adopt a long time back on the blog. You have no clear evidence in the verses themselves and no clear concensus among theologians, past or present, to prove her exegesis to be less trustworthy than any other.

So, is your point in commenting here to show that since, in your opinion Cheryl’s interpretation has “holes” in it just like all the others, then sticking to your favorite comp. interpretation is really o.k.?
And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?

Dave@79,
Good stuff!! So, glad you have time to add info here again. I’m still in the processing of moving and etc…so have barely have time to keep up with reading the blog, much less comment.

Cheryl@69,
I’m so sorry to hear this! May God strengthen you for these stressful times.

TL@68
It seems to me, not only difficult, but impossible. God is not 3 “Beings” the way we comprehend human beings. I think comps get away with a lot of this ESS theology because of the term “God in Three Persons” commonly used (by mere humans) trying to grasp a mystery of God. What comes to mind for most people when we hear “person” is, well, an individual human being. Comps have simply taken that and run amuck with it.

Kristin@14,
You certainly gave me pause to think (and after all, one of the major reasons I read this blog in the first place is to learn from Cheryl and all who comment here)…so, I’ve really been thinking about your perspective. Perhaps the time has come. I hope you prove correct.

Alison@17,
I really think they must be – because publishers grind out their books, etc… by the boat load. And publishers don’t do that if it’s not selling. “$$$” I’m not “Reformed,” but have friends who are and they tell me they are sick and tired of the materials offered for women’s studies. All roads on any subject they study somehow lead to “women submit and men lead.”

I have to go with the “more harm than good.” Personally, I’ve been praying for Piper…it seems that he has at least somewhat recognized problems in his own life from following a male-centered theology.

“This is why it has to be “teach and authentein” together, as one thought. It’s the kind of teaching that “authenteins” that Paul appears to be speaking of.”
Kristin@171,
The thing I see is that if the false doctrine Paul was refuting was gnostisim (Eve worshipped as a perfect, spirit being, Adam’s creator) or Artemis worship, then he may be using this in a two-fold fashion – reminding the reader that Eve was not perfect, but rather the one deceived…while Adam was not deceived.

Cheryl, your thoughts?

Kristin,
I have also read that the constuction can refer to one thing or two things, and that the direct object in Greek works so that if it is two things, “man” only applies to ‘authentein’- implying that if man is also a direct object of didaskein, then it is only one thing that is being discussed. From that, what is not possible is Paul saying, “I am not permitting *women* to teach a man nor authentein a man.” Also, if it’s two things being prohibited, then the scope of “not teaching” is unlimited – but we know from Titus, that women can teach younger women, so it must be a limited prohibition even if it’s two things being discussed. Also, comps cannot claim that it is permitted for men to ‘authentein’ other men. No Christian should be doing this.

gengwall,
I’m so sorry to hear this. Please let your wife know that our prayers are with them.

Craig & gengwall,
God bless your hearts!!

Holly,
…about Titus 2 – what comps/hierarchists miss is that it does not say “they may ONLY teach the younger to love their husbands, love their children” etc… Obviously, teaching the younger women the rudiments of the faith would be of utmost importance as well, right? But this point seems to be lost on comp/hiers.
In Acts 18:26 both Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollos: “THEY took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

Holly,
Paul, who had not yet been to Rome, sends Phoebe to deliver his letter (book of Romans). Phoebe was entrusted with the original scripture to carry to the Romans. Ancient letter carriers also were given verbal instructions to teach by explaning parts of the letter as *they* read it out loud to the recipients. Paul is clear that Phoebe was a prominent leader in the church of Cenchrea because she helped him and many others. Phoebe is referred to as ‘Prostatis’ which basically means “one who is the legal representative of the foreigner.” In Jewish communities it meant the legal representative or wealthy patron. Phoebe somehow was the legal protector of the Christians at Cenchrea.

Holly@110,
A very quick response –
Titus 2:3 – “Older women (presbutidas)…”should teach (kalodidaskalous) that which is good”

Cheryl,
Ditto gengwall@46!

Craig@36,
Sorry, I wasn’t ignoring your questions – I’m helping my “expecting any day now” daughter. Feeding son-in-laws and chasing toddlers = little blog time. 🙂