Women in authority

[SandyU]

Reading all of 1 timothy 2 this chapter seems to me about keeping women modest and safe in their society.

[Littlelambseativy]

But, and I go back to this one issue, If we believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and God said that He is the Lord and He does not change, can then, women be elders??

[His_disciple3]

three beings involved in the Fall of mankind, the serpent was cursed:Gen 3:14

upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

KJV

the man was cursed: Gen 3:19

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

KJV

and the woman was cursed: Gen 3:16

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

KJV

the serpent is still crawling, the man is still laboring for bread. But with some women: no way will man ever rule over them, no matter who said it! can't put all the blame on women though for man has let the woman labor for the food also.

so should it be "Women in Authority" shouldn't it be "both man and women under the Authority Of God" Christ/God over the Church, man over the home, while the whole house submits to the Lord!

[Hashe]

 

There are a number of issues which I believe are down played in this whole debate.

The first is that influence of Roman rule and law. All the New Testament was written within the Roman Empire under Roman Rule and Law. This has influenced aspects of that. For example slavery. This is allowed in the OT, but it is also foundational for Roman Rule. Within the NT we no where see writing against slavery. Rather we see comments on how slave masters should treat their slaves. Today, we understand that slavery is against God's original intention for humanity and Christian teaching for today for slave masters would be to free these slaves!

Likewise the place of women in society was influenced both by the OT and Roman Law. In Roman Law women were under the authority of their husbands. There are debates amongst scholars to the extent of women leadership in Roman society, but it seems it wasn't great. So, like slavery, it is unsurprising that we see this reflected in NT teaching. Should this also, like slavery, be something that should be understood in light of God's original intention for humanity?

 

A second issue is Paul's missionary heart for the Jews. Although Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles, Paul's desire to see Jews saved was so great, he would have given up his own salvation for it (Rom 9:13). He wanted Jews saved, and this is reflected in his teaching. A gentile gathering was very different to a Jewish synagogue in Paul's day. In the synagogue, women sat on the opposite side to men, and they were no allowed to talk or teach during the service. Paul's desire to see this reflected in church services is perhaps part of his desire to see Jewish people reached. If they walked into a religious meeting which was out of control and had should complete disregard to the way they did things, they were unlikely to stick around and hear the message of Jesus. Should this then become the norm for people today?

Hashe, ultimately, the scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is highly speculative to inject ideas about Paul's motives, particularly when He appeals to scripture to support His point, and nothing of any cultural reference. Paul used Adam and Eve as his foundation, nothing else. You have to give this serious gravity before you go looking to things outside the scripture to interpret it, and that by speculation. I am not saying that historical and cultural references do not have some utility, but one must be careful when drastically altering a clear statement or negating it altogether, simply on an assumed cultural frame of reference that has now changed. If Paul had appealed in some way to any of the things you mention as a basis of his instruction, then we can give it credence, otherwise, we are close to revisionism. I am also not saying that there are not places where Paul makes these types of "advice" but this is not one of them. The entire NT never presents a female Elder, and this is consistent with Paul's rhetoric. 

Blessings, Andy

 

No female elders, only a female apostle

[ajchurney]

 

 

There are a number of issues which I believe are down played in this whole debate.

The first is that influence of Roman rule and law. All the New Testament was written within the Roman Empire under Roman Rule and Law. This has influenced aspects of that. For example slavery. This is allowed in the OT, but it is also foundational for Roman Rule. Within the NT we no where see writing against slavery. Rather we see comments on how slave masters should treat their slaves. Today, we understand that slavery is against God's original intention for humanity and Christian teaching for today for slave masters would be to free these slaves!

Likewise the place of women in society was influenced both by the OT and Roman Law. In Roman Law women were under the authority of their husbands. There are debates amongst scholars to the extent of women leadership in Roman society, but it seems it wasn't great. So, like slavery, it is unsurprising that we see this reflected in NT teaching. Should this also, like slavery, be something that should be understood in light of God's original intention for humanity?

 

A second issue is Paul's missionary heart for the Jews. Although Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles, Paul's desire to see Jews saved was so great, he would have given up his own salvation for it (Rom 9:13). He wanted Jews saved, and this is reflected in his teaching. A gentile gathering was very different to a Jewish synagogue in Paul's day. In the synagogue, women sat on the opposite side to men, and they were no allowed to talk or teach during the service. Paul's desire to see this reflected in church services is perhaps part of his desire to see Jewish people reached. If they walked into a religious meeting which was out of control and had should complete disregard to the way they did things, they were unlikely to stick around and hear the message of Jesus. Should this then become the norm for people today?

Hashe, ultimately, the scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is highly speculative to inject ideas about Paul's motives, particularly when He appeals to scripture to support His point, and nothing of any cultural reference. Paul used Adam and Eve as his foundation, nothing else. You have to give this serious gravity before you go looking to things outside the scripture to interpret it, and that by speculation. I am not saying that historical and cultural references do not have some utility, but one must be careful when drastically altering a clear statement or negating it altogether, simply on an assumed cultural frame of reference that has now changed. If Paul had appealed in some way to any of the things you mention as a basis of his instruction, then we can give it credence, otherwise, we are close to revisionism. I am also not saying that there are not places where Paul makes these types of "advice" but this is not one of them. The entire NT never presents a female Elder, and this is consistent with Paul's rhetoric. 

Blessings, Andy

 

No female elders, only a female apostle

 

Hashe,

All I am trying to do is appeal to proper biblical theology to find the truth. You seem to ignore my entire post regarding this, then make your comment on one supporting point I made at the end. In fact, you are merely proof-texting here, and an extremely weak text at that. I assume you are referring to Rom 16:7. Not only is this verse in no context of explaining church authority and leadership in the first place, but the greek here gives no certainty whatsoever whether Paul is meaning that Junia and Andronicus have distinguished themselves as apostles or to the apostles. The phrase rendered "of note among the apostles" was rendered this way on purpose because the original language is equally ambiguous. A one verse rebuttal of ambiguous nature is poor theology. I mean none of this as an insult, please understand, but as an exhortation to love and respect truth enough to study thoroughly before presenting things. Interpolation is VERY easy to do, which is to have a pre-conceived notion that we then "proof-text" to support the idea. Proof-texting does not properly interpret by starting without agenda and understanding the text in all of the levels of context, comparing scripture with scripture, looking at all pertinent texts and allowing a unified conclusion come forth. Scripture informs us, we do not inform scripture. Another common mistake is to dig and dig to find some exception to clear scriptural norms, and then attempt to make the perceived exception the rule, or to negate whole chapters of clear exposition over one questionable verse. Proof-texting interpolation is again the device used to do this. Every cult and schism in existence improperly exegetes scripture, usually with this methodology. JW's even made their own faulty translation on top of this!! Anyways, I truly intend these comments only to lovingly correct and edify, and pray that this is how they are received.

In Christ alone, Andy

[Littlelambseativy]

Church leadership and authority is given in 1Timothy 1. Bishops, elders, deacons, ministers etc.

To me ruling elders should be men but if there  are no men to fill the positions??? deacons are servants - I accept women in that position? tho' Timothy does not mention women at all yet it was the women who served Jesus and the disciples. This is a very difficult subject due to so many circumstances. If there are not enough men or the men are not qualified (masons etc,) how does this influence the ruling eldership??

[ajchurney]

Church leadership and authority is given in 1Timothy 1. Bishops, elders, deacons, ministers etc.

To me ruling elders should be men but if there  are no men to fill the positions??? deacons are servants - I accept women in that position? tho' Timothy does not mention women at all yet it was the women who served Jesus and the disciples. This is a very difficult subject due to so many circumstances. If there are not enough men or the men are not qualified (masons etc,) how does this influence the ruling eldership??

I have posted before that there are exceptions in the OT, such as Deborah the judge, but this does not change the underlying principles of why Paul is giving the instruction here and why it seems universally practiced in the NT. Holy Spirit is the only one qualified to choose exceptions in special circumstances. We cannot try to formulate such things 

[Littlelambseativy]

 

Church leadership and authority is given in 1Timothy 1. Bishops, elders, deacons, ministers etc.

To me ruling elders should be men but if there  are no men to fill the positions??? deacons are servants - I accept women in that position? tho' Timothy does not mention women at all yet it was the women who served Jesus and the disciples. This is a very difficult subject due to so many circumstances. If there are not enough men or the men are not qualified (masons etc,) how does this influence the ruling eldership??

I have posted before that there are exceptions in the OT, such as Deborah the judge, but this does not change the underlying principles of why Paul is giving the instruction here and why it seems universally practiced in the NT. Holy Spirit is the only one qualified to choose exceptions in special circumstances. We cannot try to formulate such things 

 

A judge is not in a leadership position of a church. Apples and oranges! No comparison! Timothy is as we said inspired as are others by the Holy Spirit to make that distinction for a very clear reason. Judges interpret law and do not lead.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings ajchurney

      God Bless you & Praise our Lord! I understand exactly what you are saying in giving reference to Deborah

 

Deborah provides a picture of leadership that wasn't normally seen in the society of her time. Very few women in Scripture rose to positions of national leadership. Deborah stands out due to both her spiritual and civil leadership. She was the only woman who served as a judge during those extended years of turmoil.

simply as an"exception"to the rule,chosen by God.............yes indeed,the Holy Spirit is the Only One qualified to make those special exceptions in very special circumstances,,,,,,if Deborah was alive during the "church" era at the time Paul was teaching I am sure she would have been well respected as the prophetess of God that she was ...

      I do enjoy your posts ,Brother.....it seems apparent to me that you have a good grasp of the meaning of Scriptures in context....let us give thanks & Glory to God!

                                                                                                                                     With love-in Christ,Kwik

[ajchurney]

Blessings ajchurney

      God Bless you & Praise our Lord! I understand exactly what you are saying in giving reference to Deborah

 

Deborah provides a picture of leadership that wasn't normally seen in the society of her time. Very few women in Scripture rose to positions of national leadership. Deborah stands out due to both her spiritual and civil leadership. She was the only woman who served as a judge during those extended years of turmoil.

simply as an"exception"to the rule,chosen by God.............yes indeed,the Holy Spirit is the Only One qualified to make those special exceptions in very special circumstances,,,,,,if Deborah was alive during the "church" era at the time Paul was teaching I am sure she would have been well respected as the prophetess of God that she was ...

      I do enjoy your posts ,Brother.....it seems apparent to me that you have a good grasp of the meaning of Scriptures in context....let us give thanks & Glory to God!

                                                                                                                                     With love-in Christ,Kwik

Thanks again,Kwik!

Yes, the Judges were an odd collection of individuals anyways, weren't they!?! Gideon became a military leader, then overly-exalted politician. Sampson was basically a mess of testosterone with a great calling from God that he mostly messed up. Ehud was a lefty assassin of a hugely overweight foe. Can we just skip Jephthah and the human sacrifice (or not, depending on your interpretation!). These were not judges the way we envision them exactly (robed elders presiding over court cases), but they were the hodge-podge leadership between Joshua and the Kings. It is only fitting that Deborah also takes her place here. 

As to some of the questions others pose about female Elders filling a vacuum of male qualification.....Since the NT is silent on that, I must assume that Holy Spirit quickly fills that void or speaks to the exception as temporary measure. My guess is as good as another bible students!

Edited February 24, 2014 by ajchurney