Our world is very confused about religion these days. It’s easy to understand why: it’s become “all about me” and what I want. Ask someone about why they go here or there for church and you’ll get different answers. It’s what fits my “lifestyle”. It’s about what speaker appeals to me. About what worship services are like. About whether there are people your age or not. But little if any reference to the truth or what God commands. This leaves most thinking that where you go to church has everything to do with what I like or don’t like, because it really doesn’t matter. But it does matter.
It matters, because not every “church” is the Lord’s church. Claiming things doesn’t make them so. The Lord has described His church and when one reads Acts 2 a few fundamental things become pretty clear. Forgiveness of sins happens at baptism, forgiveness of sins is the essence of being saved, being saved is the requirement to being added to the Lord’s church. Thus, not every group that claims to be the Lord’s church are the Lord’s church. So, it matters, because you may not really be going to church at all.
It matters, also, because not every “church” worships God as God has commanded. Let me use an Old Testament example (an appropriate approach for learning—1 Cor. 10:11), King Jeroboam (1 Kings 12) was Jewish (therefore, part of God’s people) and he worshipped the God of Israel (good), but he did so through idols, through a different priesthood, with different holy days, and in different places than required. These differences were know in the rest of the Old Testament history as the “sins of Jeroboam”. Some groups that have actually been saved (are God’s people), are worshipping the Lord (as they should), but are nevertheless not worshipping the Lord as He has commanded (like Jeroboam). Some churches use musical instruments (see Eph. 5:19), let women lead in mixed worship (see 1 Cor. 14:34), or fail to partake of communion weekly (see Acts 20:7). Pleasing worship makes a difference to God, and it should also make a difference to us. Should a Christian worship like a modern Jeroboam? It matters to God.
It matters, lastly, because God intends to take only His church to Heaven. Jesus said, (Matthew 7:13, 14) ““Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” It matters if you want to get to Heaven.
Rather than attending the church of your choice, why not worship with the church of Christ’s choice?
parklinscomb 
The Samaritans weren’t very different, they worshiped God on a whole other mountain in a whole other temple. Yet Jesus told the woman at the well that a time was coming when people wouldn’t worship like that – but in Spirit and in truth. Somehow Christians have taken a page out of the pharisees’ book, and turned the New Testament teachings into a series of laws they require everyone to obey. But that’s not the spirit of Scripture that Jesus promised us would lead us in the way – but that of the Holy Spirit. He gives gifts as he wills, to men and women alike to strengthen the whole body of his church. Each of us have different parts to play. That means that even women can play a part in teaching in mixed gender groups as we are no longer first century Jews and Gentiles; but a faith community of brothers and sisters in a world striving for equality.
Respectfully, are you saying that “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 (NAS95); and “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (NAS95) don’t apply to the New Testament church? I didn’t notice a time or era limit in the texts or contexts. Could you explain?
For the same reason 1 Corinthians 11’s first half doesn’t apply. They’re culturally-anchored teachings, to keep women from the various cults who were priestesses from teaching false doctrines until they had correctly learned and understood Christian teachings. Same thing happens even these days, when a preacher switches denominations, he doesn’t just preach out of his old denomination’s text-book, but he’s silent, learning what to say, and then he teaches it.
There are a couple things to note in connection with your suggested understanding of these passages. First, if Paul intended to exclude pagan priestesses from speaking publicly, why not mention the pagan priests (men), too? Why didn’t he specify pagan priestesses. The way he expresses it twice restricts Jewish women as well as pagan priestesses. Second, Paul says women should speak in public mixed gender assemblies as the Law also says. This refers to the Genesis account of the curse upon Eve for her part in the first sin in which women were both to submit to men and suffer pain in childbirth. This command to submit is no more limited to time or eras than pain in childbirth. Third, while the wearing of a covering on the head of a woman was indeed cultural, it is on the basis of statements made in the context. The section of 1 Cor. 11 which sets out the divine order (God over Christ and man over woman) is absolutely timeless–not as superior or inferior beings (God and Christ are equal, see Php. 2:5ff) but as roles that need to be fulfilled. All these things considered, your suggested understandings of these passages do not seem to be founded on the text, God’s principles, or even good history.
Who says that just because it isn’t written, that he didn’t say it in their presence? Perhaps he specifically said it, but failed to mention the same rule applied of women, so when somebody asked him he wrote that it did.
The Law is always short for Law of Moses, i.e. ten commandments and temple worship system laws. There’s no such Law in the Old Testament that says that women must not speak nor is there one that requires the submission of women to their husbands. Though odds are good you’d find such a thing in the Talmud.
Why is it that the divine order didn’t exist in the OT? Why did it take the NT for Paul to get around to explaining it? It seems rather an odd thing to say about God given that he’s one and the same being as Father and as Christ and as the Holy Spirit who has gone missing from said divine order.
Thanks for thinking this through with me, Jamie. Respectfully, your first point about Paul’s “omission” is speculation. Moreover, it’s hard to believe that he would have made the same omission twice (1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2). And while it is true that “the Law” refers to Mosaic Law, it is not just the 10 commandments that are referenced. Take for example Matt. 7:12, Matt. 22:40, Luke 16:16, Acts 13:15, and Romans 3:21. “The Law” was short for what many call the Pentateuch and what the Jews call the Torah (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). So, yes, the command of God that women be in submission to men and their husbands is in “the Law” (i.e., Genesis). And finally, yes, the divine order given in 1 Cor. 11 did exist in the OT; Jesus has always been in submission to the Father, and as we see later, the Spirit is in submission to them both (e.g., John 14:26; John 15:26). While God is one, He is also described as three separate entities. This isn’t always easy for the human mind to grasp, but the illustration that works for me is that of marriage in which two have become one.
Considering all we have of Paul’s teachings, are letters between Paul and various churches, we can’t be entirely certain of what was preached on Sunday if it wasn’t referenced in said letters. Odds are every single iota of Christian teaching was not written down or referred to in such letters. I know that the Didache, for example, was a teaching that didn’t make it into the Bible but was used by the early churches as a stepping stone between Jewish and Gentile Christians and their practices. What do we do with such works? Ignore them as they’re not Biblical? If such a letter contains genuine Christian teachings and we don’t believe in it – then my speculation – that things were taught and not necessarily entered into Biblical record remains to be an extremely likely possibility – in which case we don’t have access to all the instruction that the early believers were given in person by Paul.
Genesis is regarded as wholly narrative, it’s not like the ten commandments or the instruction Moses gave on the laws of the temple system. There’s a big difference between “One day, God put a Man in the Garden …” and “Thou shalt not …” If you can’t tell the difference between a story and a commandment, then you create laws where none exist. There aren’t any “Thou shalts …” in Genesis 1-3 as it’s a narrative; a description and not a prescription.
The concerns I have with reading Jesus into God in the Old Testament is that every time God orders a genocide, a plague, or even a battle, Jesus stops being the suffering servant of the New Testament and his voice of compassion is lost by his soverign holiness and all the body count that goes along with it. It’s as odd as using Lord of the Rings to interpret the Hobbit as if Bilbo Baggins were an unchanging being in both stories and was the same from beginning to end. We’re actually quite fortunate that our unchanging God has changed tactics and decided not to genocide us or plague us or raise armies against us into oblivion as he did ages ago. While it is the promise of Revelation, it’s still out of step with the revelation of Jesus as a person distinct from God.
And yet the inspired Paul said, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, NAS95. And Jesus promised the apostles (and by extension us), “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” John 16:13, NAS95. While the NT was being written, the church had gifts of prophecy and knowledge, but now we have the completed revelation of God (see 1 Cor. 13:8-10). My short answer with regard to documents like the Didache are that they are interesting but not inspired and authoritative. Just because something was taught doesn’t mean it was truth. Paul wrote extensively about the existence of false prophets even in his own day in the mid first century (e.g., Gal. 1:8,9 to mention only one ref.).
And if you view Genesis as strictly narrative, you’ve missed the power of narrative. Paul said, “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” 1 Corinthians 10:11, NAS95. The stories of Genesis through Malachi teach by example and occasionally by direct command given to people in the story. As Jesus taught about divorce and remarriage, He cites the first marriage, Adam and Eve, and finds a command in it that must be obeyed. In that sense the story of Adam’s and Eve’s fall teaches and commands something for both men and women.
Lastly, the God of the OT is the same God in the NT. Paul urges us to understand the Lord this way, “Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” Romans 11:22, NAS95. God is both just and merciful all at the same time. His justice is seen in Jesus on the cross taking the punishment that we rightly deserved for our sins (2 Cor. 5:21), but we receive His mercy through Jesus’ substitutionary sacrifice on the cross that satisfies the justice of the Father. Paul puts it this way, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.” 2 Corinthians 5:10, 11, NAS95.
Did Paul know he was writing scared Scripture that would be true until the end of time? What about areas where he writes “I say, not the Lord” and “the Lord says, not I”? Does that mean that what Paul says is what the Lord says even though Paul says the Lord doesn’t say it?
When Jesus referred to Adam and Eve, he was answering a question about the debates between Rabbis Hilel and Shammai on the interpretation of the Talmud. He was not making a statement about marriage in all cultures, but only his own.
I’m told that the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not interchangeable. When Father is taking the Lead, it’s not the same thing as if it’s the Son or as if it’s the Holy Spirit calling the shots. In that light, no matter how much you might wish to do so, you really cannot read the Son into the Old Testament story before he had a part to play in it.
Paul’s obvious intention was to give encouragement and correction to the congregations or people of his day. What he wrote, however, was not merely good rhetoric; it was inspired truth, and the truths he revealed about morality, doctrine, and pattern for the church were and are applicable to congregations and individual disciples today. And because they are truth. Paul underscores this point a couple of times (1 Cor. 7:17 and 1 Cor. 14:33), when he mentions that the things he was saying in his letters were things he taught everywhere (across Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures and subcultures).
And by the way, Paul did realize and even commanded (Col. 4:16) that the letters that he wrote would be circulated That being the case, how could Paul not imagined that these letters wouldn’t be read and passed down to future generations, too. In fact, they were already being classed with inspired Scripture in Paul’s own lifetime. Peter, for example, said, “and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15, 16, NAS95.
But as Paul wrote he was careful to differentiate inspired truths from his own judgment and wisdom, and labeled it as such—as in the passage you referenced. This is just what you would expect of a man who respected the different between eternal, divine truth and his own opinion.
I’m not sure I understand your paragraph about Adam and Eve. First of all, I think that Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce is applicable to all cultures (God hates divorce then and now); but my point in my earlier response is that narrative passages of Genesis through Revelation do teach and command. And this is part of why Genesis through Deuteronomy is indeed referred to by Jew and Christian alike as “the Law”, the Torah. And this is why Paul, the former Jewish rabbi, who had studied under Gamaliel, and who certainly knew what the Law was and was not, was able to say about women being in submission to male leadership as coming from the Law.
Finally, the discussion about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a rather heavy one. You and I (I think) seem to agree that the Father does take the lead in every respect, even though the Son and Spirit are said to be His equal. The Son and Spirit voluntarily submit despite the equality—not terribly unlike the command that women submit to male leadership. You might be interested to know that there really are indications that the Son did make appearances in the OT, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Which Law, specifically in the Old Testament chapter and verse, says that women must be in submission to men and not speak in religious gatherings?
Genesis 3:16 is the basis for Paul’s inspired command.
Genesis 3:16 is the curse, isn’t it? How is it also Paul’s command?
From the curse is drawn the principle the women are to submit to make leadership. From this principle it logically follows that female leadership in the church is forbidden.
Wasn’t Junia an apostle and Phoebe a deacon? Church History refers to a great many women in leadership, deaconesses who were brought before Roman officials and pronounced guilty of being Christians, Grapte who was instructed to teach from a copy of the same letter Clement taught from, elders were told to have Marcella teach them some of the trickiest teachings out there. There was even an Order of the Widows who were in charge of an intercession ministry. If your interpretation is correct, these Greek-speaking Christians disobeyed it for centuries. Perhaps they understood it better than we do and realized it didn’t mean what we think it means.
Junta was only a friend of Paul and known among the other apostles. Phoebe was a servant, not a deaconess. Lastly, there were false teachers even during Paul’s day, some were women and others allowed women to teach in mixed assemblies. This would not have been unusual in the first century, since pagan cults everywhere did this. This makes what Judaism and Christianity did as very counter cultural. If ever there was a time introduce women into leadership, it seems like it would have been the first century. But they didn’t. Was this because Paul was just too Jewish? Not likely, since he was willing to teach against circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws—considered the pillars of the identity of God’s people. Some might answer that Paul was a misogynist, yet by anyone’s reading Paul was far more liberating in his letters than the culture of his day. The reason for women’s status today is due to New Testament teaching. Bottom line, I think is that Paul’s teaching about make leadership in the church and the home was according to God’s will and truth.
Which can never change, right? So when Scripture gives rules for slavery, and instructions for slaves to submit to their masters and masters to love their slaves and not be harsh with them – that means that God’s will and truth is that slavery is ideal right? Yet as a society, we’ve come to see it as the moral failure that it is and have banned it from most of the free world; and we’ve given it a try to do what we can about it in the not so free world.
Can’t the same be said of women’s roles? They existed in a first century time and place for them as they needed a better, kinder version; however it’s not meant to be taken as the ideal the world over until the end of time. Even church history shows that Christianity promoted women to leadership positions. After all, what they lived in was a world of gender segregation to a large extent and Paul doesn’t deny it – saying that women should teach women. If women were false teachers, why let them teach anyone at all? Now here the world has come full circle and the vast majority of false teachers have been men precisely because women were not allowed to teach. With so many men who are false teachers, why believe what anyone says anymore?
Can things ever change? No, if they are part of God’s pattern. But yes on some things. If you believe that the Bible is God word, then we must realize that what He commands is not changeable because of the calendar, or because society has changed, or because we’d like to vote on it. The psalmist said, “The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.” Psalms 119:160. Jesus said, ““Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” John 17:17. Truth remains the same; 2+2=4, the sun comes up in the east, etc.
I know that people often try to invalidate the Bible by references to slavery, but the slavery of the Bible and the slavery of early American history are like comparing apples to oranges. In fact, the Bible condemns the sort that early Americans practiced: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” and “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.” Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7. Conversely, slavery in the ancient world was a part of a world without the social safety net that we are accustomed to. Sometimes families became so poor that the only option was to sell themselves to someone so that they could eat. Even this slavery was limited in the Old Testament to 7 years (Ex. 21.2). Some slaves even chose to remain slaves at the end of seven years (Ex. 21:5ff). More often slaves sough to be free and this could always be done by the seven year command or by redemption of a near kinsman. It was not a moral failure, it was never considered ideal, and no one was ever commanded to become a slave; it was a life-sustaining safety net for the poor for which God made some provisions to avoid abuses.
In these senses, the argument comparing slavery and the command regarding women are “apples and oranges”.
While there were teachers, prophetesses, and “widows” (1 Tim. 5:3ff) in the early church, women in leadership over men is a very recent development. Nevertheless, there have been false women teachers within the last couple of centuries (e.g., Mary Baker Eddy), who (like men) teach less than the Bible teaches, different than what the Bible teaches, or more than the Bible teaches. False teaching isn’t gender specific.
The command about women not exercising leadership over men in the church or the family isn’t cultural or limited by times (eras), but is a timeless command of God.
There’s a big difference between God telling the Israelites not to kidnap their countrymen and Europeans kidnapping Africans to sell to the Americas – and it’s not just geography but thousands of years passed bwtween the two styles of slavery. By the time the Europeans were kidnapping Africans, they didn’t see themselves as Israelites, didn’t make temple sacrifices, didn’t eat kosher food. In the same way, most Christians don’t make temple sacrifices, eat kosher food, and do mix clothes of two types of fabrics. Just because there were rules written to ancient Israelites in sacred text it doesn’t mean that every single people group accepted it as if they were Israelites and carried them out literally.
Even now, there are Christians who understand the prohibition against women teaching as being a product of it’s time and culture; Paul might have been concerned about priestesses from the cult of Artemis teaching doctines more in line with their former belief system than their current one. So the idea was a temporary solution – don’t let them teach until they’ve learned what to teach. The same is often done with any random new believer – man or woman. Say I show up out of the blue and join your church. You’re not going to have me preach on day one, are you? No, you’re going to tell me it’s best to keep quiet until I learn what to teach before you let me teach anyone. You would not tell a man that he could teach on day one just because he’s a man, right?
Yes, there is a big difference between Jewish slavery and slavery as practiced by Europeans and Africans for sale to Americans. God’s allowance for this institution was not the same as the kidnapping-slavery institution of the 1700’s through the 1800’s. God says that such an institution was sinful; and this is why many religious people of the 1800’s worked hard to successfully change things. God was right and men were wrong.
Whether people decide to obey or disobey God’s commands doesn’t change it’s truth or it’s validity. To illustrate, if a teacher gives an arithmetic test and most of the class give the wrong answer to 2+2, the correct answer doesn’t change; the children are still wrong. So also with the various commands and principles of God today such as male leadership, sexual morality, God’s plan of salvation, etc., commands that tend to be so often disobeyed today by the majority; the majority are still wrong. This is because truth and right and wrong are not determined a democratic process, a majority’s opinion, or even the majority’s practice. Wouldn’t it be terribly unfair, if one person went to Hell, because he failed to obey a command of God in one era; while someone else went to Heaven despite his practice of the very same thing, because it had become popular in his day? Paul charged Timothy to “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” 2 Timothy 1:13, 14.
There are a number of problems I can see with the “priestess” proposition:
Of course, you’re correct that I wouldn’t let a brand new Christian become a teacher. But 1) there would an “until they’ve learned what to teach” (just as you said) in that principle, and 2) it would apply to men as well as women. I don’t see an until clause in Paul’s teaching, nor do I find Paul’s command to beware of former pagan male teachers.
The exception to this would be, however, when a person (man or woman) were gifted from the Holy Spirit with God-inspired prophecy or special knowledge (as in 1 Cor. 12:27ff)—a concern we don’t have today, because we have the inspired NT text to teach us. And there is nothing in those inspired NT teachings (Matthew through Revelation) that indicates that the command of male leadership had to do with a pagan problem. Instead, Paul points to the eternal principle of Genesis 3:16.
Can you finish this sentence: “He is risen …”?
If you answered “He is risen indeed.” Then you would recognize what the second part is supposed to be without mentioning the former. So it is with the prohibition; Paul only had to refer to part of a teaching he had given in person for the believers to understand the sum of it. Since we weren’t at the original lesson, only we would assume the part that is mentioned is the whole teaching.
First, let me apologize for waiting a few days before answering. Ministry gets considerably busier as the weekend approaches.
The problem with your suggestion is that there is a lot assumption involved here. Assumption 1: this was a prohibition against pagan priestesses speaking in the assembly before they were properly taught. There’s nothing in either text (1 Cor. 14:34-40 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15) that even implies your idea; no hint in either text that the concern was that false doctrine could be taught, only that women (generally, without any qualification) should not be permitted to teach or preach in the mixed assembly. Assumption 2: that Paul’s letter recipients would know to fill in a blank here. In 1 Cor. 14:35 they are told to ask their husbands about the questions that they had in the assembly. If these teachings were aimed at former pagan priestesses, were they all married to Jewish men who were well versed in proper Christian teachings? In 1 Tim. 2:12 Paul lays down the principle that women not be allowed to exercise authority over a man; how does the blank get filled in here?
Understandings of the Bible shouldn’t start with a personal preference, but with a thorough reading of the whole sacred text, letting context of passages form our understanding of those passages (just like in ordinary conversations), and letting the Scripture interpret the Scripture.
When we study Scripture apart from culture and history, we limit God to the time-frame in which it was written: from day one to roughly the year 100 a.d. – God and his church doesn’t grow beyond that point. When we reach the end of Revelation – we hit the reset button and send God back to year 0 in Genesis. (Though Moses is said to have written it in-between 1400-1200 B.C.E.) We’ve boxed God in a time and place and don’t even know it.
I was talking about this passage the other day with a friend, and I learned that this article points out that there’s quite a lot of problems with 1 Tim 2: http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/ – it explains it far better than I could. From translation, to context, to interpretation – just reading it outright in English leaves a lot of holes. How is it that we understand the dress code to be cultural, but this instruction to be literal? Why is the same word translated to mean “silence” when referring to women, but only “settle down” or “quiet” when referring to men? Is “the women” or “a woman” the best translation here – both are valid and Paul might have valued women like Junia, Phoebe, Euodia, Syntche, and others working along-side him given the gender segregation common in his culture and that they could go where he could not. Then there’s a matter of word choice – why ‘authentin’ and not ‘exousia’ – which Paul uses frequently elsewhere for authority? After all, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 that women had ‘exousia’ (authority). So how can women have authority (exousia) but not have authority (authentin)?
You’ve asked many questions. I’m glad you have. I haven’t time to write a full-blown book that it would take to answer every question that every feminist website would pose, but I’ll answer a few in brief.
Holding to the pattern of Scripture isn’t limited God, it is honoring God’s choices and pattern. This is an approved theme in God’s word over and over again; while trying to “grow” the pattern is both warned against as disobedience and disapproved of when it is tried.
Jeremiah 6:16
Exodus 25:40
Leviticus 10:1-3
1 Kings 12:28-33
Jude 1:3
1 Timothy 6:3
2 Timothy 1:13
Titus 1:9
Philippians 3:17
Romans 6:17, 18
Galatians 1:6-9
Revelation 22:18, 19
And the fact that they are settled for beyond A.D. 100 is found in places like 2 Timothy 2:2, “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
Hermeneutically, there really are some things that have some “wiggle room” and others that do not. In a nutshell, the difference boils down to whether a command is given in a generic way or a specific way. “Go get groceries” is different from “Go get bread, milk, and hamburger”. And so some parts of the pattern allow some range (within God’s parameters) of human judgment, but others do not. The command regarding gender roles in leadership in mixed assembly in the church is a specific.
You asked how one word could be translated “silence” in one passage and “settle down” in another passage. The short answer is context. The word clearly means silence, but if there is an uproar or riot going on, the context gives “silence” more “baggage”.
Finally, the language argument presented by the website link was a case of the author either knowing enough to get herself in trouble, or if she really is knowledgable,the author cherry picking facts to make the word mean what she wants it to mean. I took three years of koine Greek in college including Hellenistic Greek readings and I know that although authenin is used only once in Scripture, it is widely used in other documents of the same era. A study of how people of the era used the word makes it clear that modern translators have it right; it means exercising authority. Words means what they mean, not what we want them to mean.
So we’re an un-Biblical egalitarian democratic society because we don’t hold to God’s ‘pattern’? Are we to re-instate slavery, abolish women’s rights and teach patriarchy, then? Should we just throw out democracy entirely and create a theocracy? Look – in every which way you’re at the top of everything: as a pastor, you’re the highest ranking person, as a father your the highest ranking person, as a man, you’re the highest ranking type of man. It’s cultural and it’s biblical – in so far as patriarchy was the norm the world over for almost the whole span of recorded history. You can’t lose, you won’t lose, ever. Remember what Jesus said to his disciples, “Within minutes they were bickering over who of them would end up the greatest. But Jesus intervened: “Kings like to throw their weight around and people in authority like to give themselves fancy titles. It’s not going to be that way with you. Let the senior among you become like the junior; let the leader act the part of the servant… “Who would you rather be: the one who eats the dinner or the one who serves the dinner? You’d rather eat and be served, right? But I’ve taken my place among you as the one who serves.”
I see a lot guys in Christian leadership who back their own and throw people who aren’t like them under the bus. For millennia, women have always come in last – and still do. The way that documents are interpreted and how the church fathers are cited to back them up – it’s just to keep your power in your hands. Looking at the verses you gave me – I remembered one of them from my debates with the head-covering movement. Like the story of ‘strange fire’ playing fast and loose with Scripture could result in God punishing me accordingly. If that were the same God, then there should be no shortage of people bursting into flames, turning into salt, being swallowed up by the ground, or dropping dead for various offenses. We don’t see that. It’s possible that people are the ones that have things all wrong – particularly on making a stand on inerrancy and male-only leadership. Jesus only wanted us to serve the poor, stand up for the oppressed, visit the ill and the prisoners, feed the hungry. But we’re so busy in-fighting on Calvinism and Arminianism that we don’t have the time to solve world hunger.
Jesus said, “…‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’” John 18:36, NAS95. So, no, I’m not interested in theocracy here—only the Lord’s Kingdom not of this world. The world will stand accountable to God for what it does and doesn’t do; all I can do is obey and call others to do the same.
As you reference Jesus teaching in Luke 22, it sounds like you may be misunderstanding Jesus’ teaching about service and “greatness”. Jesus’ point was about humility, not egalitarianism. Jesus was still the Messiah, the Son of God; but He had humbled Himself (see Philippians 2:5ff) by serving the apostles.
I think that one of the great impediments to Biblical discipleship faced by feminism and others is that they want to have veto power over what the Lord has commanded. They want a God that they can agree with, not a God to obey. They don’t trust God or His way enough to simply obey. In some quarters it’s almost a dirty word, a word to be despised, a word of weakness and oppression.
But obedience is not a dirty word. Obedience is what disciples of Jesus are called to—not agreement with the Lord, but obedience to Him. For example, Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane prayed to the Father that He might avoid the cross—”but not My will, but Yours be done.” Jesus went to the cross despite not wanting to.
And modern men and women have points of disagreement with God about leadership in the church and sexual morality (to name just a couple). Instead of trying to argue our way out of obedience, we need to simply answer, “Yes, Lord, yes.” Jesus taught, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” Matthew 7:21, NAS95.
You see me as at the top of the heap and the fix is in; that’s an error. As Bob Dylan noted in a song, “You gotta serve somebody.” And so it is. I might be male, a minister at church, and husband of my family; but there are still people I have to submit to. Governments, my elders at church, and I am obligated to (Eph. 5:22-33) lead my home with my wife’s and children’s best interest at heart (not my own).
But doesn’t Jesus reference to being handed over to the Jews further reinforce the time and place in which he said that? Ancient Israel, under Roman control, a world of patriarchy and slavery and inequality? It wouldn’t mean that God wants to understand some eternal principle in that verse still applies to us here and now.
Obedience was the Pharisees specialty, and look at the reward it got them: being criticized by Jesus.
Jesus never criticized the Pharisees for obedience to God’s Law. What He criticized was the teaching of their traditions as if they were God’s commands. In fact… “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.’” Matthew 23:1-3, NAS95.
The calendar doesn’t change truth. For that reason, the that-was-then-this-is-now argument doesn’t wash. God’s word, the truth, applies across eras, cultures, social institutions, and circumstances. And God’s word changed many things in society where it was sinful, including the treatment of women. But we mustn’t go beyond God’s teachings, realizing where the “borders” are and stopping there, rather than thinking “if some is good, more is better.”
Why not? If freeing slaves is good, why not end slavery altogether? If some rights for women is good, why not grant women the same rights and as fully as men? If we’re charged with looking after widows and orphans, then why not go all the way?
Once the Bible becomes a ‘thou shalt not cross’ line, it limits what can be done. End sex trafficking? The Bible doesn’t go there, and so we can’t challenge it. End sweat shops? The Bible doesn’t go there, and so we can’t stop them. Solve world hunger? The Bible says that they’ll be famines, so we can’t stop what God wants. It would be throwing a wrench into the machine!
God hasn’t drawn a line everywhere. But where He has, the obedient person stops. The problem in the Garden of Eden was that they weren’t content to let God’s limits be the limits.
I’m not sure I buy that. A&E were innocents. They had no understanding of consequences or death. We see this with little kids – “don’t touch the stove – it’s hot! It’ll burn you!” “don’t put things into the electrical socket, you’ll get shocked!” Tell the kids not to do one thing – and it’s the first thing they’ll do. Human nature won’t be denied – but it must be challenged whenever it hurts people.
Adam and Eve were held responsible for what they did and the whole world has suffered the consequences of their sin. God was not unjust in doing what He did; they deliberately and knowingly crossed the line. Human nature can be and often is denied; we’re tempted and then we can either succumb or resist.
Is that a description or a prescription; are all women deceived and all men knowingly and and deliberately in rebellion? Is that why only men may lead the Church?
Three times the Scripture emphasizes that Eve was deceived and ate (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). And twice, Genesis says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam, and he ate (vv. 6 and 12). Once it notes that he listened to his wife (v. 17). While God clearly found them both guilty, God found something in Eve’s sin that motivated Him to give leadership to Adam. Was it that she was first to sin? Or that she believed the serpent’s slander (deception) against God? Or that she became a stumbling block to Adam, thus adding to her sin, by urging him to sin with her? All anyone can do is speculate, but the bottom line is that God said, “… ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” Genesis 3:16, NAS95.
When I said earlier that Adam and Eve knowingly and deliberately sinned, I meant, of course, that they were not ignorant of God’s will. Eve even repeated it to the serpent. When they took and ate, Eve first and then Adam, they were aware that they were being disobedient to God—it wasn’t an accident.
And yet, when the woman (I wonder what her name was before she sinned) repeated the commandment to the serpent, it was different from what God had told the man – somehow not touching it had been added. From him? From her? Who knows? It’s just a description of events in a story, not a prescription for how men are to be in charge and women must feel pain. Didn’t Jesus’ death reverse the curses? Most Complementarian I know would never use the curse as the reason for the subordination of women to men.
Not yet. Do we not still die? Do men not still labor to eat? Do women not feel pain in childbirth? Is sin not still with us? If the inspired apostle pointed to the curse as a reason, then it is relevant. The curse is taken away after the second coming, Rev. 22:3. I encourage you to believe and obey the Scripture (God’s word) rather than try to negate it through argument.
Not permanently. Men and women labor to eat. It’s not necessary to feel pain – we have painkillers that really make the process much less painful. (Though I remember reading a story about a villiage in the middle ages that burnt a woman to death when she asked for painkillers to help ease the process of childbirth. They were obeying the curse, you see.) But what you don’t see is farmers planting thistles and weeds and you’d be surprised how many women are out there that aren’t trying to usurp power or authority – but just want to be respected as a person who has ideas and opinions about things. If Jesus’ death cannot reverse the curse – if it can only disappear at the second comming, how do we know that sin is forgiven? That death has no sting? Jesus’ kingdom is upside-down and inside-out. One not built on hierarchy authority submission – but compassion mercy love. Our Gods might have published the same book, but they have two distinct ideas – mine came as servant to preach good news to the poor (not the rich), to preach freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. He’s not interested in authority and submission, in masculinity or femininity, in marriage or singleness. All he says is “the kingdom of God is at hand.” Nothing about a curse.
You’ve an over-realized eschatology.
And an imagination as profound as the depths of the sea.