Female Pastors: The feminists' view of 1 Tim 2:11-15

[Guest]

Steve or anyone else who would like to help me out with this one,

I recently heard an argument that I had never heard in relation to these verses. Basically what was claimed is that in vs. 13-15 Paul is not making an appeal to creation for the silence of women, but is addressing three views that the women in Ephesus held because of their previous worship of the goddess Diana: 1) that Eve was created first 2) that Adam was deceived and 3) that the women still needed to sacrifice to the pagan gods in order to have safe childbirth. Paul was telling them to be silent because they were teaching heresies and then goes on to correct the heresies.

I don't know where this information would have come from. I have looked on the internet for anything about the belief system of Ephesus and Diana, but haven't found anything.

Another thing they say is that the greek word that is translated "authority" is not the typical word for authority, but is a greek word that is only used once in the New Testament and is a word that means moreso a violent authority, or abusive authority.

Are these explanations of this scripture valid, or is it something that can easily be refuted?

Thanks!
-Rachel

[Guest]

i have no idea. Just posting on this so steve might see this post betteR!

I hope you find your answers you are seeking and thank you for being so honest.

In Christ,
Steven.

[Guest]

Hi Rae (and Steven),

I have read quite a few different opinions from feminist writers who have tried to explain away Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, presenting various alleged scenarios for what was going on in the culture of Ephesus. The fact that the explanations so confidently asserted by the different "authorities" are so varied and mutually contradictory goes a long way toward telling you how much authority stands behind any one of them. If there was solid historical documentation for any one of their historical reconstructions, then there would not be so many conflicting guesses among scholars in possession of the information. In other words, they are merely guessing.

This latest guess is pretty good at finding something imaginative to connect to every detail of the passage, but, before I would jettison the more obvious, historical understanding of Paul's words, I would sure hold out for some actual ancient evidence that the worshippers of Diana taught those particular things, and that the women of the church were believing them. I have serious doubts that they did, but the argument misses the point altogether.

In the passage, Paul is concerned about the proper appointment of church overseers (as is clear by the immediate context following--1 Tim.3:1ff). He is not addressing heresies being introduced in the church, but the personal qualifications for those seeking to be overseers. It is interesting that almost nothing is said about the specific doctrines that such people must hold. It is all about their character and public witness. I find no evidence of Paul's alleged concern, in this context or anywhere else in his writings, to address the heresies of the Diana cult.

I guess I would have to wonder why it was that the saints of the past 19 centuries never saw in these passages what the modern feminists tell us was always there. No one seemed to dream up such explanations until feminist philosophy came to dominate the sentiments of the popular culture and to place pressure upon biblical interpreters to bring the Bible into harmony with such sentiments.

The word "authentein," is indeed used only here in the New Testament. Its meaning has been the subject of intense discussion, but there is no etymological evidence to demand that it was used by Paul in any but the commonly translated sense of "to have authority." Feminist scholars are forever trying to prove that it is some extreme or sinful degree of domination that Paul is forbidding to women, not the mere role of church leadership. They cannot prove this from the lexical evidence, so there is no reason to assume it to be true.

You have to appreciate the desperation that the feminists feel when confronted with such plain biblical statements as those of Paul. One has to wonder why they feel so obliged to stick with the losing horse.

[Guest]

misogyny and hierarchical worldviews coming through again

[Guest]

Women in Ministry by F. F Bruce
I. In creation

The basic teaching of the creation narratives is that when God created mankind (Adam) in his own image, he created them male and female (Gen.1:27).

In the narrative of Gen. 1 no question of priority, let alone of superiority, arises. In the narrative of Gen. 2 the female is formed after the male, to be "a help answering to him"-not, as a later interpreter put it, "he for God only, she for God in him." The priority of the male in this creation narrative does not bespeak his superiority; any suggestion to this effect might be answered by the counter-argument that the last-made crowns the work-but either argument is beside the point.

II. In the fall

It is in the fall narrative, not in the creation narrative, that superiority of the one sex over the other is first mentioned. And here it is not an inherent superiority, but one that is exercised by force. The Creator's words to Eve, "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen.3:16), mean that, in our sinful human condition, the man exploits the woman's natural proclivity towards him to dominate and subjugate her. Subjugation of woman, in fact, is a symptom of man's fallen nature.

If the work of Christ involves the breaking of the entail of the fall, the implication of his work for the liberation of women is plain.

III. In the new creation

(a) The attitude and teaching of Jesus

Jesus was born into a male-dominated culture. Some of its basic presuppositions he quietly and indirectly undermined. His treatment of the divorce questions, for example, not only illustrates his constant appeal to first principles; its chief practical effect was the redressing of a balance which was heavily weighted against women. His male disciples immediately realised this, as is shown by their response. 'If a man cannot divorce his wife under any circumstances,' they meant, 'it is better not to marry' (Matt.19:10).

Unwarranted inferences have sometimes been drawn from the fact that all twelve of the original apostles were men. But in fact our Lord's male disciples cut a sorry figure alongside his female disciples, especially in his last hours; and it was two women that he first entrusted the privilege of carrying the news of his resurrection.

HE treated women in a completely natural and unselfconscious way as real persons. He imparted his teaching to the eager ears and heart of Mary and Bethany, while to the Samaritan woman (of all people) he revealed the nature of true worship. His disciples who found him thus engaged at the well surprised to find him talking to a woman: for a religious teacher to do this was at best a waste of time and at worst a spiritual danger.

(b) The attitude and teaching of Paul

No distinction in service or status is implied in Paul's many references to his fellow-workers, whether male or female. Among the latter we recall Phoebe, deacon (not deaconess!) of the church at Cenchreae (Rom.16:1f.), who by her safe delivery of the Epistle to the Romans performed an inestimable service to the church universal, and Euodia and Syntyche of Philippi, who received Paul's commendation as women who 'laboured side by side' with him in the gospel together with Clement and others (Phil.4:3). Paul uses the designation 'apostles' more comprehensively than Luke does, and he may even include at least one women among them, if the companion of Andronicus in Rom.16:7 is Junia, a woman (as Chrysostom understood), and not Junias, a man.

From the standpoint of Paul's upbringing he voices a revolutionary sentiment when he declares that in Christ Jesus...there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free, there is neither male nor female' (Gal.3:28). Already in his time the Jewish morning prayer probably included the passage where the pious man thanks God that he was made a Jew not a Gentile, a free man not a slave, a man and not a woman. All three of these privileges are hereby wiped out: real how they were in the Judaism of Paul's day, they are abolished in Christ, in Judaism it was the males only who received in their bodies the viable seal of the covenant with Abraham; it is a corollary of Paul's circumcision-free gospel that any such religious privilege enjoyed by males over females is abolished. To the present day among orthodox Jews the quorum for a synagogue congregation is ten free men; unless ten such males are present the service cannot begin. (We may, incidentally, be happy that for christian meetings we have the less stringent quorum of 'two or three', with nothing said as to whether they are men or women.) Paul, on the other hand, expects christian women to play a responsible part in church meetings, and if, out of concern for public order, he asks them to veil their heads when they pray or prophesy, the veil is the sign of their authority to exercise their christian liberty in this way, not the sign of someone else's authority over them.

Nothing that Paul says elsewhere on women's contribution to church services can be understood in a sense which conflicts with these statements of principle. This applies to the limitations apparently placed on their public liberty in 1 Cro.14:34 ('the women should keep silence in the churches') and 1 Tim.2:11 ('let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness'). Critical questions have indeed been raised about the text of 1 Cor.14:34f.(which the 'western' recension places after verse 40) or the direct authorship of the pastoral epistles. The evidence is not sufficient to extrude 1 Cor.14:34f. from the authentic text; the prohibition expressed in these verses refers to the asking of questions which imply a judgment on prophetic utterances (so, at least, their context suggests). As for the pastoral epistles, we have received them as canonical scripture, and that goes for 1 Tim.2:9-15. I am disposed to agree with Chrysostom, who read the Greek new testament in his native language, that in 1 Tim.2:9f. we have a direction (developing the teaching of 1 Cor.11:2-16) that woman's dress and demeanour should be seemly when they engage in public prayer. In verses 11 and 12 of this chapter, however, women are quite explicitly not given permission to teach or rule. The relevance of the two arguments-(a) that Adam was formed before Eve and (b) that Eve was genuinely deceived whereas Adam knew what he was doing when he broke the divine commandment-is not immediately obvious; I am not too happy with the suggestions that the former is an early instance of the principle of primogeniture, which the special rights of the firstborn are recognised.

Exegesis seeks to determine the meaning of the text in its primary setting. But when exegesis has done its work, our application of the text should avoid treating the new testament as a book of rules. In applying the new testament text to our situation, we need not treat it as the scribes of our Lord's day treated the old testament. We should not turn what were meant as guiding lines for worshippers in one situation into laws binding for all time. (it is commonly recognised that the regulations regarding widows, later in 1 Tim., need not be carried out literally today, although their essential principles should continue to be observed.) It is an ironical paradox when Paul, who was so concerned to free his converts from bondage of law, is treated as a law-giver for later generations. The freedom of the Spirit, which can be safeguarded by one set of guiding lines in a particular situation, may call for a different procedure in a new situation.

It is very naturally asked what criteria can be safely used to distinguish between those elements in the apostolic letters which are of local and temporary application and those which are of universal and permanent validity. The question is too big for a detailed discussion here. Where the writings of Paul are concerned, however, a reliable rule of thumb is suggested by his passionate emphasis on freedom-true freedom by contrast with spiritual bondage on the one hand and moral licence on the other. Here it is: whatever in Paul's teaching promotes true freedom is of universal and permanent validity; whatever seems to impose restrictions on true freedom has regard to local and temporary conditions. (For example, to go to another area, restrictions on christian's freedom in the matter of food are conditioned by the company in which he or she is at the time; and even those restrictions are manifestations of the overriding principle of always considering the well-being of others.)

An appeal to first principles in our application of the new testament might demand the recognition that when the Spirit, in his sovereign good pleasure, bestows varying gifts on individual believers, these gifts are intended to be exercised for the well-being of the whole church. If he manifestly withheld the gifts of teaching or leadership from christian women, then we should accept that as evidence of his will (1 Cor.12:11). But experience shows that he bestows these and other gifts, with 'understanding regard', on men and women alike-not on all women, of course, nor yet on all men. That being so, it is unsatisfactory to rest with a halfway house in this issue of women's ministry, where they are allowed to pray and prophesy, but not to teach or lead.

Let me add that an appeal to first principles in our application of the new testament demands nothing should be done to endanger the unity of a local church. Let those who understand the scriptures along the lines indicated in this paper have liberty to expound them thus, but let them not force the pace or try to impose their understanding of the scriptures until that understanding finds general acceptance with the church-and when it does, there will be no need to impose it.

IV The priesthood of women

The recent debates about the admission of women to the priesthood in the Church of England and similar communities arise largely from a conception of christian priesthood which we do not share. In these debates it has been freely conceded by many that women may perform in church practically all the ministries preformed by a nonconformist pastor. The one thing she may not do is to celebrate the eucharist.

The concept of priesthood implied in such a position is of a restricted order to which certain selected men are solemnly ordained. The exclusion of women from this order is defended by a variety of arguments, some of which are more unconvincing than others. Without the presence and action of such an ordained priest, it is held, a communion service is irregular, if not invalid.

Well, we may say, this is an issue which does not affect us: we believe in the priesthood of all believers; we do not recognise a restricted order of priests. Would it be all right, then, at one of our communion services for a woman to give thanks for the bread and break it, before it is distributed to the congregation? I suspect that some of our brethren would-reluctantly, it may be-concede anything to a woman rather than this. (I apologise if I am doing them an injustice; that is the impression I sometimes get.) But why? The thanksgiving and the preliminary breaking of the bread at the table are priestly acts only in so far as the person who performs them does so as representative of the other communicants who are there exercising their common priesthood, not as representative of Christ, who is really present at his table and needs no one to represent him. Why should not a christian woman who shares our common priesthood perform such a representative act on behalf of her fellow-worshippers as well as a christian man? This is not a rhetorical question; I should like to be given a scriptural answer.

At some of our women's conferences, I am told, while every other part of the programme is run very competently by women, it is thought desirable for one or two token men to be imported to conduct the communion service. This is not the fault of the conveners; they know very well, however, that some of their sisters would be discouraged from attending if their spiritual directors thought that the communion service would be conducted by women.

J. N. Darby was no feminist, but he had a strong vein of common sense. He thought it a little out of place for a woman even to start a hymn, 'but I don not object', he added, 'if she does it modestly'. But when he was asked if christian women might take the Lord's supper together in the absence of men, he said, 'If three women were on a desert island, I do not see why they should not break bread together, if they did it privately.' Herein he showed his common sense. Of course, they could scarcely do it otherwise than privately, if they were alone on a desert island; and there are other desert islands than those which are entirely surrounded by water.

V. Brethren traditions and practices

The mention of J. N. Darby may suggest that the Brethren movement-unlike (say) the Society of Friends-has tended to be male-dominated from its inception. I do not forget that elect lady, Theodosia, Viscountess Powerscourt, but even she 'knew her place'/

Two factors have perpetuated such an attitude: one, the continuing high-church tradition in our movement; the other, the scribalism (not to say legalism) of our application of scripture.

There have indeed been outstanding exceptions. The Brethren assembly on the Hohenstaufenstrasse, Berlin, was founded by Toni von Blücher (a female descendant of Wellington's comrade-in-arms at Waterloo) and some like-minded women. When in due course a man joined their fellowship, he was (unlike themselves) so utterly ungifted that his presence made no difference to their procedure. And I know of one Brethren meeting in the north-east of Scotland-at Rhynie, Aberdeenshire-which in the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century obstinately persisted in allowing liberty of ministry to women as well as men. In my boyhood I met a very old lady, Mrs. Lundin-Brown, who used to spend the summer in our part of the world. Her christian activity went back well before the revival of 1859, and she enjoyed the fellowship of the Brethren despite her assiduity in the public preaching of the gospel. By the time I knew her she was nearing her century and could no longer continue her preaching, but would not be restrained from taking part audibly in prayer-meetings in the most traditionalist Brethren assemblies in the north of Scotland. An old lay of indomitable will can get away with anything!

Such an exercise of liberty was untypical for that age in most denominations. But nineteenth-century attitudes tend to persist in quarters where they are not clearly distinguished from first-century principles.

Conclusion

What was said at the beginning of this paper about relativity in earlier days applies to out own times also. We too are culturally conditioned; only we do not notice it. The women's liberation movement has conditioned not only our practices but our very vocabulary. But, in such an important matter as we are now considering, it would be a pity if we were influenced by contemporary world-movements in thought and practice rather than by the guidance of the Spirit, as he speaks his liberating word to men and women today through the ministry of our Lord and his servant Paul. That ministry, that liberating word, is enshrined for us in the pages of scripture: to use scripture aright is to hear what the Spirit is saying through it to the churches of the twentieth century as well as what he said to those of the first.

Used with permission. Christian Brethren Review, "Women in the Church: A Biblical Survey" Vol. 33, December 1982, pp.7-14.

[Guest]

Misogyny: Hatred of women. This is a very unfair and slanderous accusation.
-larry

[Guest]

I agree Larry I know Steve and thats a false statement.

[Guest]

John (Aussie),
You'll have to take my word on this--I have not met a woman (or a man) in the last 35 years for whom I have not felt the love of Christ. I hate no one, and can not remember ever having hated any person. It's not in me to hate. My sins are of a different, more scandalous, sort.

I reread what I wrote above in order to find the comments that struck you as oozing mysogyny from their pores. All I found there was an exegetical treatment of a passage in 1 Timothy. There were no statements about women at all. I did make some statements about feminists, but many feminists (like some of the ones you quote) are men, not women. So statements about feminists are statements about an ideology, not about a gender.

Of course, there is plenty of hierarchy in what I have written above. I don't see why I should be embarrassed about that. There is a lot of hierarchy in the New Testament. God is apparently not embarrassed by it. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that the things I have said (or that the New Testament has said) about hierarchy are not actually true.

Posting lengthy articles by dead scholars is hardly what participation in a forum is about. I have read F. F. Bruce extensively, and am well-aware of his feminist leanings. That comes with being British, probably. The British evangelicals have progressed much further down the road of liberalism and "political correctness" than have most of us Yanks.

Much as I respect Bruce, I have to say that he is a man not without blind spots. He begins by saying that, in the creation of man and woman, there is no mention of priority. Paul apparently disagreed. In the very passage we are discussing, in 1 Timothy 2, Paul makes an issue of the fact of priority in creation. He is alluding to Genesis, chapter two, where the creation of man prior to woman is unmistakably clear.

Of course, there is no mention of "superiority" in the Genesis narrative. This is because it would be entirely unbiblical to describe either gender as being superior to the other, without qualification. That is why evangelicals, like myself, do not believe that men are superior to women. We are discussing functional hierarchy, not superiority. I have addressed these very issues at length in my earlier posts. You have ignored my points and invariably proceed to make the same old assertions (albeit using new spokesmen to reassert your points), and act as if nothing has already been said to refute them.

I would like to request that you answer for yourself, rather than posting long articles by dead white guys. You can recommend such articles here, and even post a link to them, if you like, but a forum is for discussion. If you have some points to make, please make them yourself, in your own words.

Blessings!

[Guest]

The comments of F.F. Bruce posted by Aussie Pentecostal are astonishing to me, in particular where he says "whatever seems to impose restrictions on true freedom has regard to local and temporary conditions". How would this affect our understanding of Galations 5:19-21 for example? Aren't Paul's comments here a restiction of our "freedom"? It seems to me the greatest care should be exercised in explaining away clear statements in scripture as custom that we can disregard.
I believe we rely too much on human reason in our exegesis of scripture. Human reason would lead us to conclude Uzza should not have died for touching the arc. What harm he did to it no man can tell! He had the best intentions.
I believe the scripture quoted, Galatians 3:28, is misused in support of women as elders, pastors, etc. It is taken completely out of context. Read 3:15-29. Paul is discussing our inheritance, v.15, being heirs, v.29. A woman of that day would naturally not be encouraged as only under unusual circumstances could a woman inherit anything in that time. I believe the inheritance of all believers is the subject of v.28.

In Christ, Homer