Kristen

Cheryl said:
“I will also work on a post along this line. I will apologize in advance for being slow. I am overworked at the present, preparing for three talks on Women in Ministry for July and I need to prioritize my efforts as best I can as I have a sick mother-in-law who may cause us to drop everything to attend to her. But the things we have been talking about are very much on my mind to provide a one-stop place for the answer to your question.”

Thank you, Cheryl. And take your time; there’s no hurry. I agree that if this is the right interpretation, it really doesn’t matter what others think of it. But I do a lot of presentation of egal interpretations on other people’s blogs– and if I’m going to argue for this view, I need to be able to defend it thoroughly. Right now I am unable to defend it thoroughly because I don’t know how to respond to these issues of context.
So I’ll be happy to read what you have to say about this, when you have time. 🙂

You all make very good points.

I think the idea that Paul is talking about an individual woman would be well-served by doing a post that makes it clearer how we know Paul is changing the subject matter from the earlier verses, and why a section about one individual woman and her husband fits in here, sandwiched between general statements about women and men as groups, and general statements about qualifications for leaders– rather than in with the specific stuff about other individuals in Chapter 1.

Context is where I’m having trouble with this view, and context is where I think this interpretation is still weakest, without further development of the argument.

Another thought: Perhaps the women in question, being used to seeing women leading in the temple of Artemis, were only “shouldering in” when it was a man doing the teaching in the Ephesus church. Perhaps when a woman was teaching in the church, they were letting her teach without resistance. Perhaps this particular situation is what Paul was addressing. It seems plausible.

Craig, I’m not quite sure in what context I would view what I have called “shouldering in on the class,” because I don’t know enough about what church gatherings looked like in Ephesus, and whether they were similar to what they looked like in Corinth (which as far as I can see is the only church we are given a picture of what the meetings looked like, in Chapter 14). But I do think it’s possible for women thinking it’s more proper to do things the way they are used to seeing them done in Artemis’ temple, “shouldering in” to impose themselves in some way.
Cheryl, I like your view; I really do. I just wish there were some way for me to get around what seems to me to be a real fact about this passage: that the context of this section is Paul talking about how groups of people conduct themselves in the church. For him to suddenly switch over to talking about one particular woman, with absolutely no transitionary words to make this clear, is just hard for me to swallow. I still admit it as a possibility– but when I have tried to present this view to others who are not already inclined to be egal, they have seen it as evidence that I want to read this sudden introduction of one woman into the text, just to bring about an egal interpretation. And I’m talking about scholarly people here, not just ones who have a knee-jerk reaction against egal interpretations in general.
In other words, introducing a single, unnamed woman here is causing more skepticism directed at egalitarianism, not less. Particularly when one interprets “she” as being “Eve representing all womankind,” in which case the use of the present tense is no longer so problematic.

So I guess I’d have to say, in order to make your reading more convincing, you’ll need to do some explanation of why Paul would switch the subject matter in the middle of the passage with no transitions and no warning. Perhaps this will help you strengthen your reading. I hope so. I would like to believe it.

Craig, Ephesus certainly was a very different town from either Rome or Corinth. Picture Rome as kind of like New York, Corinth as Las Vegas– and Ephesus more like Paducah, Kentucky.

From what I understand, Rome was the center of civilization in that part of the world, very cosmopolitan, and the upper-class women in Rome had recently sought and won a number of concessions from the Emperor granting them more education and greater freedoms. Corinth was a city containing a large number of different cultural groups, some rich but mostly poor, but with a large variety of social customs all vying with one another– it was the “sin city” of its day. Ephesus was further off the beaten track and very backwards comparatively, with the vast majority of women still held to the ancient Greek restrictions of complete seclusion within their homes and no formal education. Ephesus was most known for its temple to Artemis, who was actually a much older pagan goddess who had been conflated with the Greek diety. Artemis worship was the only place where women could have any power, as she was served mostly by female priestesses.

So whereas at Rome there were a number of wealthy, educated women among the converts, who quickly rose to positions of leadership (and were commended by Paul for doing so), and at Corinth there were various cultural groups all bringing something different to the table (which was reflected in the practice of “when you come together, each one has a psalm, a prophecy, a teaching,” and a need for the establishment of order so that everyone could hear and be edified), in Ephesus there would have been many uneducated women, accustomed to seclusion except when in worship settings, when they would expect to be able to take over. It would not be surprising to me if under the circumstances, men were the only ones doing the teaching in the main meetings (it was in those meetings that I pictured the women as “shouldering in on the class”), and that one or more groups of false teachers would challenge them– including, probably, a group of women wanting to worship in a similar way that they had worshiped Artemis.

Hope this explains better where I’m coming from.

Also, both Jesus and Paul indicated that singlehood in Christianity is not just a preparation for family-hood. Some people are called and gifted by God to remain single– men and women alike. Our high calling is not to form families, it’s to help bring the New Covenant Kingdom of God. That Kingdom is like a spiritual family with God as our Father, Jesus our Eldest Brother, and the rest of us equal-status siblings. See Galatians 4. We are all to become “as little children” when entering the Kingdom– when Jesus spoke those words, it meant to his original audience that we were all to give up any status based on fleshly considerations, like race, wealth or gender, and enter the Kingdom with no status– only to be given the new status of “adopted sons.” Gal. 4:5. That was a term referring to the full status of an adopted person as having all the rights and privileges of a male, freeborn Roman heir. We all have that status, whether male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. Gal. 3:28.

It’s time for men to let go of their male-privilege interpretations and become “as little children” too.

Jeremiah, there are other ways to explain sin coming through Adam than “federal headship.” Such a concept is never explained in the Bible. Genesis 3 and 1 Timothy 2 both say, however, that Eve sinned through deception, while Adam sinned even though he wasn’t deceived. Was not his eyes-wide-open, fully aware sin more culpable than Eve’s? Paul said that the woman “has come to be in the transgression” through being deceived.” This would mean that the transgression was Adam’s through his fully aware choice.

The rest of what you talk about appears to be a blaming of all modern social problems on the disruption of some assumed social order that you believe was God-planned and God-ordained. But there is actually nothing in the Genesis stories (especially if you read Genesis 2 in light of Genesis 1) that shows that the man was designed by God to be in charge over the woman. That state of affairs didn’t happen till Genesis 3, when the Fall resulted in the man starting to rule over the woman. In the beginning it was not so.

Nor is there any evidence that female functional equality is what has brought about modern social problems. Surely you are aware of all the historical social problems that female functional equality has addressed? Women used to be treated as mere chattel, property to be used by men and to serve men. Married women used to have no personhood in the eyes of the law– they were mere appendages of their husbands. Fathers were distant and removed from their children because interacting with children was “women’s work.”

Modern social problems are not all women’s fault, any more than Adam had any right to blame Eve for his own actions. But that is what Adam did, and that is what the sons of Adam continue to do.

Your comment about God using women just like He uses donkeys, because He can’t find a good man to use, is more than insulting. It’s unScriptural. There’s nothing in the text that says God raised up Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Esther, Abigail, Priscilla, Euodia, Syntyche, Chloe, Nympha, Lydia, Phoebe or Junia because He couldn’t find a man. He gifted and designed these women for the callings He gave them, just as He does men.

Ah, I see. That does make sense. To me, it makes sense to read it, “I do not allow a woman to teach in a way that takes over a man’s class.” And that at that time, because the women were still uneducated, the only ones teaching classes in Ephesus were men– which is why “teaching so as to authentein” was worded specifically in terms of men being “authentein”ed.

For example, it might have been possible for someone to “teach and authentein” Jesus in his sessions with his disciples, by shouldering in and taking over as rabbi, expecting Jesus to sit down and listen.

Does that make sense?

Ok, that idea makes sense to me, Craig. But there doesn’t seem to be any way to prove that the original audience would have used the words “teach” and “authentein” together like that to mean something specific, unless we have some other examples of that kind of use in ancient Greek documents. I’d have to say it’s a good conjecture and may be true, but the evidence is inconclusive.

Craig, I’m not sure that works unless a commonly understood meaning of “teach and authentein” used together, was like our commonly understood meaning of “drink and drive.” That is, that the 1st-century mind would automatically supply the word “false,” as our minds automatically supply the word “alchohol.”

Frank said:

“I was mainly thinking in terms of the Greek anthropology current in Paul’s day, in which the head (kephale) had precedence over the other members of the human body because it was the seat of reason, and so gave direction and purpose to the other members.”

I recall reading one quote from Plato where he said this sort of thing; but I have also read other quotes from Paul’s day that show an understanding of the heart as the seat of reason. The real issue is, how does Paul see it? And I think his letters make it pretty clear that he regarded the heart as the seat of reason.

Craig said:
“The husband would then be the head (origin, source of supply) of his wife, who is one flesh with him” I think that in the head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5:22, the meaning of “head” is more “source of supply” than it is “origin.” This comes from Ephesians 4, in which Christ as “head” is spoken of as the source of nourishment and growth.
In the first-century Ephesian culture, the husband was definitely the source of supply and nourishment for his wife, who was dependent on him for provision. This state of affairs is largely obsolete in the Western world today. I’m not sure Paul would use the same metaphor today.

Exactly, Craig. Paul is using a body metaphor here for the church. Elsewhere he uses a head-body metaphor for Christ’s relationship with the church. I think it’s a mistake to conflate the two metaphors or to try to make them apply interchangeably. It’s also a mistake to see some kind of mystical, literal actuality where Paul intended a metaphor. In other words, Christ is not in some real, mystical sense an actual head, and we are not in some real, mystical sense an actual body. Nor is a church leader an actual mouth, or a prophet an actual eye, or a missionary an actual pair of legs. . .

Wow, Craig, that makes a lot of sense.

Mara, Heidi’s entire tone throughout the conversation made it clear that she was not here to prove or defend her position, but to call us to order for not agreeing with it. The reason I responded strongly was not because it was, as you say, “blatant and off-balanced cherry-picking” — though it was. I responded strongly because she was lecturing us like recalcitrant children, as in this example of her words:

Why are you denying God’s word? What are you going to gain in the end? If we don’t lay aside our pride and rebellion and follow God’s plan , we are going to lose in the end. If you think being submissive to your husband makes you equal with a slave, then you know nothing of the cross.

You said that comps often call names, question motives and even question salvation. The above words do all three– except that she chooses “we” and “our” in order to soften it, but under the circumstances this comes across as mere condescension.

I for one am glad not to continue the conversation.

Heidi, what are your thoughts on the opening post? What about this part?
“I had come to believe that though it was important to understand isolated texts on their own terms, it was nevertheless futile to believe that the debate between egalitarians and traditional hierarchicalists could ever be settled by debating the exegesis and interpretation of individual texts in isolation. For me, the more significant question had become, how is the grand sweep of biblical or redemptive history to be understood? What is redemptive history all about, and how do the relevant texts fit into that?
When examined with that question in mind, it seemed to me that hierarchicalism, if consistently held and applied, was its own undoing. This view holds that women are by God’s design inherently disqualified from leading and teaching men. It goes against the creation order itself. (12.) But if that is indeed the case, scripture contradicts itself, because women throughout the biblical narrative did lead and teach men, with God’s apparent approval and blessing.”‘

Do you read your whole Bible together as one thing? Do you see its movement from Creation to Fall to New Creation? Do you take account of the cultural context? Do you understand the difference between teachings about the nature of the New Covenant Kingdom and the way believers in that Kingdom are to try to get along with the surrounding culture?
Or do you read isolated texts out of context and call them “clear,” and preach to us that we need to swallow your “clear” reading, as if that was all there was to it?
I’d rather do the former. If you want to do the latter, feel free– but I will continue to resist being pulled back under a yoke of bondage.

I submit to my husband– and he submits to me, per Eph. 5:21. I don’t see why that clear scripture is one you don’t want to accept.

If you want to submit unilaterally to your husband and make him your ruler instead of your partner, that’s fine. I’m not telling you how to live your life. But my husband and I have found what we believe is a better and more biblical way. Please let us follow our own consciences. The Holy Spirit never appointed you keeper of mine.

TaWanda, if God created Eve to be a “help” to Adam, and that meant she was subservient to him, then what do we do with a passage like this?
But here’s another passage: “I commend to you Phoebe our sister. . . that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and help her. . .” Romans 16:1-2.
If to “help” someone means to be subordinate to them, then Paul is telling the church at Rome to subordinate itself to Phoebe, isn’t he? But if to “help” does not imply becoming subordinate, then the fact that Eve was Adam’s “help” doesn’t imply subordination. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Heidi, I suppose you must believe, then, that slavery is of God and that the Emancipation Proclamation was an ungodly intrusion of the government into private affairs. Doesn’t the Bible say, “Slaves obey your masters”? It couldn’t be more clear.
Oh, but wait a minute! The entire government of the US is wrong anyway– we shouldn’t have a President, but a king! Doesn’t the Bible say, “honor the king”? Doesn’t it say, “I want prayers to be made for kings and all who are in authority”? It couldn’t be more clear.

Heidi,

My own marriage has been greatly improved since I became co-leader with my husband, side by side in our marriage. And I believe I am obeying God’s word. As for “distinct role models,” I looked and looked, and they aren’t there. Every complementarian church has it own list of what women can and can’t do– and no one can agree because it isn’t plain in the Bible. All they can agree on is that men get to tell women what they can and can’t do. And that’s not “role models.” That’s “created to be subordinate.” And this issue has nothing to do with homosexuality. The issue is much closer to the issue of slavery, which is addressed in many of the same passages that address women. The verses that address homosexuality are completely different verses.
People used to believe black people were created to be subordinate to whites. That was their interpretation. The interpretation that women are created to be subordinate is also an interpretation.

TaWanda said:
I am really not undrstanding how the scriptures that are plain or being pulled from its context. I take that back I do understand because I understand when the scripture tells us in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put with sound doctrine. instead, to suit their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

TaWanda, would you agree that the Scriptures should be read according to authorial intent? That is, what matters is what the original writers (such as Paul) intended their words to mean, and not what it might look like they mean through the layers of translators and cultural changes, right?
Rest assured that the egalitarians who post here love God and follow the Bible. But we do think it’s important to look at the original meanings of the ancient Greek words and at the historical/cultural understandings that would have been shared by Paul and his original audience, which we in the 21st-century US might be misunderstanding. We have come to believe, in all honesty, that the word “head” as Paul meant it is being misunderstood today.
If you want to go ahead and pre-judge us as being unwilling to listen to sound doctrine and with itching ears that want to hear what we want to hear, then you yourself will be unable to listen to or hear us. You will have already decided you know what we are saying. But if you want to give us the benefit of the doubt and listen to where we’re coming from, you might find out that we’re really not as off-the-wall as you think we sound.
I invite you to give us a chance, and find out why we believe what we believe about women in the church and home. I assure you, we are not trying to pull you away from your sincere devotion to Christ. We share that devotion.

Deborah is not the only judge who served in a time of moral decline. In fact, “In those days there was no king” etc., applies to the whole time of the judges, not just Deborah.
And what does the fact that she sat under a tree have to do with her supposedly not being allowed to judge from the same place the men did? Is there a verse that says all the other judges got to sit in a special seat set aside for judges? Is there a verse that says Deborah sat under the tree because she was not allowed to sit where the other judges sat?

Where are you getting these ideas?

Tawanda, if God never intended any woman to have authority over any man– if this is His hard-and-fast rule– then what about Deborah, judge of Israel, and Huldah, prophetess to kings?
I would say that Paul does say “if anyone sets his heart on being an overseer.” “Anyone” here is a gender inclusive word. Also, in the ancient Greek, the masculine case was gender-inclusive unless the text indicated otherwise. “Husband of one wife” in the Greek is an idiomatic expression, “one-woman man,” and should best be rendered in modern English “faithful spouse.” They had no gender-neutral word like “spouse” for “married person” in that language.

Here are Cheryl’s own thoughts on this passage:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/01/28/does-%e2%80%9chusband-of-one-wife%e2%80%9d-disqualify-women-from-being-a-pastor/

You are quite correct that the scriptures are being twisted to please men– but not in the way you think. They are being twisted to favor men getting to stay in charge, when no such view can be shown to be the original intent.

Rob, since there’s no way I would submit to your teaching authority, I guess we’re even.

Oh, yes. We uppity educated women who dare to challenge our betters. Our desire to be fully equal is obviously just a cover-up for our conspiracy to take over and bend men to our will.

Actually, Gengwall, I found Payne’s “middle egalitarian arguments about 1 Tim 2 being situational to Ephesis alone and not universal” to be quite persuasive. Among the arguments was a detailed examination of the word “permit” in koine Greek and why it almost always referred to a temporary, situational restriction– particularly when it is in first person indicative tense, as it is in 1 Tim 2:13.

I have no opinion on this issue, because if the Apostle Paul didn’t make a big deal out of it, neither will I. He was circumcised himself but did not even try to make Timothy be circumcised. One thing I very much disagree with, though, is calling someone a “reprobate” because he disagrees with you.

To clarify: Payne believes that Paul was in effect saying, “because authority to teach is being abused by women who are under false teaching in this church at this time, I’m going to restrict women’s teaching in the congregational setting to being subject to approval, for now.”

Jay– yes, that was my understanding from Payne’s book. Payne believes that because of the particular situation of false teaching in Ephesus at that time (false teaching that was particularly impacting women), Paul’s policy was that women should not assume authority for themselves to teach men in congregational church settings, without authority being delegated to them.

Jeremy, you said:
“I honestly haven’t heard a good argument yet, and it seems you’ve given me your best. Craig, if you let the text speak for itself, it does show the comp side explicitly.”
Actually, none of mine were actually arguments for the egal position. They were actually meant only as reasons to question the supposed “explicit” complementarian reading of the text. I had not got as far as a detailed explanation of the egalitarian view. I think Cheryl’s DVD set would be a good place to find that.

Good points, Elaine. This has been troubling me ever since Jeremy’s last response, and I have debated about saying it, but in all honesty I think I must– when he said, ” If I could see a true way of interpreting these passages that favored the egalitarian position, I would gladly shift sides,” I thought he meant he was open to egalitarian exegesis. His quick dismissal of our questions and our exegesis does not seem like openness to to me. If he were open, he would continue to ask questions and raise issues, not simply say, “I don’t agree with the arguments, but I feel like it might be pointless to go around on this.”

Jeremy, if you’re still reading– you’re never going to find any “true way of interpretating these passages that favors the egalitarian position” if you remain closed in your mind to the issues egalitarians raise and the the points they make. You did not address the points I made; you simply dismissed them. That makes your statement about being willing to switch sides, seem disingenous.