The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 1 Timothy 2 issue

My church has chosen to take the view of allowing women to take on leadership (including eldership and teaching anyone) roles. Here is a quote from a statement I found from my church -

"We believe that the passages of Scripture in which Paul commands that women be silent, not hold any authority over a man, or that elders must be the husband of one wife are not universal commands but rather responses based upon the first century culture of Corinth and the Middle East. With any command given in Scirpture that is not universally applied, a determination must be made as to whether it is a universal command or a cultural and situational one. We believe this to be a situational command."

Of course the biblical passages this quote is referring to are 1 Cor. 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Tim 3:2, etc. What is your response to this statement?? I think my church has come to the wrong conclusion - but I don't really have all the details as to why. How can I know that this conclusion of the commands being based on the culture is not correct??

janean,

Here are a couple of articles which you will doubtless find helpful:

Women as Office Bearers

Hermeneutics of Women in Ordained Office

Your church's position is easily refuted by the text. In his argument against women teaching in I Tim. 2, Paul cites the creation story, not culture.

Have a look around www.cbmw.org you will find plenty of resources here on these verses. The 50 questions are a good place to start.

James.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ranton.gif" alt="" /> Or they could have written, "We believe that the Bible is the literal 'Word of God' unless we find a culturally biased reason for disagreeing with it . . . . . " <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />

Frankly, this sort of thing causes me to sway from sad to mad and back to sad. Why can't we simply accept God's Word and the Truth that it is and then seek to adapt our lives accordingly?!?

This article may add some fuel to the debate;

SHOULD A WOMAN TEACH IN CHURCH?

by Ray C. Stedman



The social movements of every age seem to be used by God to force Christians to re-examine (and clarify) their understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Painful as they may be, every such re-examination results ultimately in stronger and clearer statements on the subjects in question than the Church has ever had before. This is certainly the case in the matter of the woman's role in the Church. The secular Women's Liberation movement is forcing church leaders everywhere to distinguish carefully between attitudes toward women derived from customs and traditions of the past (often strongly macho-dominated) and what the Bible actually teaches and what the early Church actually did.

In the scope of this brief article it is not possible to answer all the questions which are being raised today. But we would like to examine the specific question being asked by many Christians today: Should a woman teach the Scriptures, and especially, should she teach men or when men are present?

We can say at once that the New Testament clearly indicates that both men and women receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit without distinction in regard to sex. Included among these is the gift of teaching, and other related gifts, such as prophesying (basically, preaching), exhortation, and the word of wisdom and of knowledge. Women prophets are referred to both in the Old and New Testaments and older women are instructed by the apostle Paul to teach the younger women. A somewhat oblique reference in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 suggests that both men and women were free to pray or prophesy in the open meeting of the Church, though the woman must do it in such a way as to indicate that she recognizes the headship role of her husband. If she does so, there seems to be no objection to the fact that men would be present in the congregation, or any limitation placed on her for that reason. From the viewpoint of spiritual gifts it seems clear that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" and God expects every woman to have a ministry as much as he expects every male to have one.

Though the ministry of women in the New Testament churches is not prominent in the record, nevertheless there are certain references which indicate they were frequently and widely used in various capacities. Almost all commentators agree that Priscilla and her husband Aquila were side-by-side companions of the apostle Paul in his work both in Corinth and in Ephesus, and that of the two, Priscilla was the more gifted and capable teacher, since her name is most often listed first. They were, together, the instructors of the mighty Apollos in his early preaching efforts. Here is a clear-cut case of a knowledgeable woman being used in the teaching of a man with no hint of an objection from Paul. Further, in Paul's letter to the church in Philippi he urges an unnamed fellow-worker (probably Epaphroditus) to "help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel." In the letter to the Romans he mentions other women who labored with him "in the Lord."

Perhaps no question would ever have arisen about the propriety of women's ministry were it not for two passages from Paul's hand which seem to lay severe restriction upon them. In 1 Corinthians 14 he says, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Again, in 1 Timothy 2 he says, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." Taken by themselves, apart from their contexts, these two passages do seem to prohibit any kind of teaching ministry for women, especially in any public way within the church.

But let us look at some guidelines of interpretation which will help us in understanding just what the apostle means.

1. Nothing in the above quoted passages can be taken in such a way as to contradict what the apostle himself permitted or referred to with approval in the practice of the church. He surely did not teach one thing and practice another. If, in 1 Corinthians 11 he speaks with approval of a woman praying or prophesying in public, as he does, then surely, in 1 Corinthians 14 he does not contradict himself by forbidding women even to open their mouths in any circumstance in the public meeting of the church. We must, therefore, read the prohibition of chapter 14 as applying to something other than the ministry of women permitted in chapter 11.

2. We must note that the immediate context of both passages quoted above has to do with the problem of disorder and even some degree of defiance in the actions of the women involved. In both passages, though widely separated as to recipients and locality, the word submission appears. In Corinth the problem was one of so conducting the meeting that edification of all present would be central. Therefore tongues were to be controlled and limited, and so was the exercise of prophesying.

Furthermore, they were to remember that "God is not a God of disorder but of peace," and then follows the warning against women speaking in the church. It is clear from this that the apostle was not concerned about women who properly exercised their gifts in prophesying or in praying, but was greatly concerned about women who disrupted the meetings with questions and comments, and perhaps even challenged the teaching of apostolic doctrine with contrary views. This is what he prohibited, as verse 27 makes crystal clear: "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command." He then closes the whole section with the admonition, "But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

The word to Timothy (who was probably living at Ephesus) is similar in character. The general context in which these words about women appear is concerned with regulating the behavior of Christians at meetings, as 3:14 makes clear: "Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." In line with this purpose, Paul tells the men how to pray (without anger or disputing) and the women how to adorn themselves (not with fine clothing but with good works) and from this he moves to the words of prohibition against a woman teaching or having authority over a man. These words cannot be taken as an absolute (no woman should ever teach a man) for if that were true Paul should have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in instructing Apollos. The words "have authority over" provide us the key to understanding this passage. Women should not be permitted the role of authoritative definers of doctrine within the church. They must not be permitted to do this, even though they may mean well, for the role of authoritative interpreters is given by the Holy Spirit to the apostles and elders, who, in the New Testament, were invariably men. This is supported by Paul's references to Adam and Eve which follows.

From this we are warranted in drawing certain conclusions to guide our conduct today.

1. Women certainly can teach. They are given the gift of teaching as freely as it is given to men, and they must exercise those gifts.

2. Women can teach within the context of church meetings. They are certainly free to teach children and other women without question, but are free to teach men as well if what they are teaching is not a challenge to the understanding of doctrine held by the elders of the church. Many godly and instructed women know far more about the Scriptures then many men and it would be both absurd and unscriptural to forbid such men to learn from such women.

3. Even the elders should recognize the often unique and godly insights of gifted women teachers and should seek their input in arriving at an understanding of the Scriptures. It is, however, the duty of elders to make the final decision of what is to be taught. No woman may participate in this.

It is my hope that this brief survey will help many in understanding the difficulties involved in answering the question with which we began. I, personally, thank God for the gifted woman teachers,among us at PBC and rejoice that we have little or no problem with the question of proper authority in this matter.

Related Paper: The Role of Women in Worship in the Old Testament, by Dr. Bruce Waltke

A interesting twist on translation of 1Tim. 2:11;

Q. Paul says: "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent" (1 Tim.2:11, NIV). Evangelical churches obey this commandment. Why doesn't yours?

Certainly, the New Covenant Church does not obey the commandment in the version of the scriptures that you have quoted (the New International Version) because the translation, which is heavily influenced by preconceived evangelical Protestant doctrine, is not correct. The correct translation should be:

"I do not permit a woman to teach continuously or usurp the authority of her husband; she must hold her peace" (author's translation).


The word for "teach" in this passage is, in the Greek, didaskein, in the present tense which means "to teach continuously". Paul is therefore saying: "I don't want a woman to constantly teach because this will undermine her husband's position, giving the impression that she is the head of the husband, which is contrary to God's ordained order between husband and wife." Thus a wife should place limitations on her own liberty in Christ in both her dress, adornment and her speech. Paul does not want women to be drab or mute, but to be careful lest they go beyond the boundaries that God has established. "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (1 Tim.2:9-10, NIV).
The fact that God has placed husband over the wife in authority does not mean that a man is better, more intelligent, or more worthy than a woman. This is simply the order established by God. And why? Because where there are two or more personalities consitituting one Body -- whether a marriage or a Church -- one Body can only have one head. This is intrinsic in God's creation.

Nowhere does the New Testament teach that woman is inferior to man or that women should be in subjection to men generally. She is the recipient of the same graces in Christ as is the man (Gal.3:28; 1 Pet.3:7). However, the New Testament does teach that a wife should be in submission to her husband and respect his authority, for this is the created order, "for Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim.2:13, NIV).

Does this mean that the husband has an advantage over his wife? Not at all, for he is in the same female position to Christ and to his leaders in the Church as she is to him. Moreover, Paul teaches that Christians generally must be self-limiting for the sake of those weaker in the faith. Submissiveness is a requirement both of men and women in the faith.

New Covenant Christians find the teaching that women should not be allowed to teach in Church quite absurd in the light of Scripture, not to mention common sense. Women, because of their natural, empathic nature, can, and do, make excellent teachers. However, the New Covenant also ensures that this in no way compromises a husband's authority over his wife, and at home a believing husband is expected to instruct his wife and his family in such a way that his children can clearly see that he has the overall authority, as God ordained. Similarly, a congregation is always presided over by a married man, who understands God's created order (1 Tim.3:1ff).

The challenge, therefore, is for evangelical protestants to submit their congregational life in harmony with the plain teaching of the New Testament and not to rely overly on one Bible translation but to check everything thoroughly.

I'm not sure whose translation this is, but it is hardly an accurate translation of the Greek text. Even a first year student of Greek can discern that much. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> No further comment is really necessary, actually as to the errors offered in this.

Now, I would appreciate knowing whose comments are included in your post? Are these YOURS? an author's? and if the latter, then you really should include the name of the author and the source from which you got the quote.

Lastly, what is YOUR position on this topic and have you read the two articles linked in my previous reply in this thread? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Sorry, I didn’t realize I had not included the author’s name, it is Christopher C. Warren. Yes, I did read the first one and skimmed the second article you posted. As with just about everything, there always seems to be two sides, even amongst those who claim to know the original languages.
I pretty much take the position of both the articles I submitted. I do not believe that women are to hold positions of leadership, such as Pastor, Elder, Deacon and etc.
My wife, who is much smarter than I, would be a good example of someone who is female, that I have learned a great deal from in the realm of Spiritual truth. I believe common sense tells me I would be a fool not to listen to her, for a number of reasons, one of which would be where I am sleeping tonight. I am reminded of Paul’s words in Gal.3:28, “There is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. These are strange words from a man who had such a problem with women in the churches.
I totally respect Dr Grudem and have read his book on “Systematic Theology”. He is a good example of a theologian who knows the original languages, yet, probably would disagree with you and others on this forum in respect to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Which helps substantiate different interpretations from Greek professors over words of Scripture, amongst themselves.
George

George

George,

Thanks for providing the author's name that belongs to that quote. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Yes indeed, there can be found those who disagree on any and every subject. However, what we are discussing here is what GOD has revealed and HIS truth concerning the role of women in the Church. Thus, despite the fact that there are those who disagree, the fact remains that only one of them is correct. The other is in violation of what God has decreed.

Personally, having read extensively on this subject of women being ordained into the place of an officebearer in Christ's Church. And, it seems clear to me that those who would have women in office depart from sound reasoning and from the proper biblical hermeneutic. Such things as "cultural boundness", "pragmatism", etc., etc., ad nauseam are always used in their argumentation. And, if one were to accept such devices to interpret all of the Scriptures, Christianity as it was designed and which has existed for over 2000 years would be totally dismantled and reshaped into something unrecognizable. If, however, one desires to limit the use such approaches in interpreting the Bible to personal selected topics, e.g., women in office, then at best, that individual is guilty of gross inconsistency and embracing a low view of Scripture.

History reveals that those individuals and/or churches who promote and use such arguments as "cultural boundness" eventually apply them universally. And the results have been apostasy from the faith. For example such truths, the historicity of Adam, the virgin birth of Christ, the physical resurrection of Christ, the abomination of homosexuality, etc., are either questioned and/or denied. However, all these unbiblical views, based upon the aforementioned approaches have been soundly refuted and shown to be spurious. That there are going to be and are today those who will not listen to those who have argued effectively for the inspired truth does not weaken it one iota, but rather such things are consistent with what Paul wrote here:

<blockquote>
1 Corinthians 11:19 (KJV) "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."<br>
</blockquote>

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,
I was gearing my response more to 1Tim.2:11-12 on woman teaching men and not over the issue of leadership in the Church. We are in agreement over leadership and what Scripture undeniably says in this regard. Where we may disagree, is the area of women teaching men. The original post spoke to both.
George

I was unaware that the context of Galatians 3:28 was ecclesiastical polity.......I thought it was soteriological. Could you show how this passage supports your context?


God bless,

william

geo,

The problem here is three-fold: 1) The author's personal translation of the text, which I say again, is fallacious. There is no warrant to translate aner as "her husband". Although this word can also mean "husband", if one chooses to opt for it over "man", then it would be "a husband" and not "her husband". However, the context doesn't lend itself to "husband", but more so to "man". 2) The immediate context of this passage is dealing with the corporate gathering of the saints in worship and not the teaching of a Sunday School class or any other such situation. Paul's concern is with the place of those who are qualified for OFFICE, i.e., an official, ordained position of authority over the congregation. And, 3) given this context, the qualifications later enumerated by Paul in 1Tim 3:1-13, which are first seen as grounded in the creation order, the translator's eisogesis of inserting "her husband" is automatically contradicted and shown to be spurious, since these officebearers must be the "husband of one wife". (3:2, 12).

Here is an excellent exposition of these two verses (11, 12) as found in William Hendriksen's Commentary:

11, 12. Next, the apostle gives a few directions with respect to the relation of women to
gathering and imparting knowledge (learning and teaching), again with special reference to public worship. He writes,

Let a woman learn in silence with complete submissiveness. But to teach I do not permit a woman, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to remain silent.

Though these words and their parallel in I Cor. 14:33-35 may sound a trifle unfriendly, in reality they are the very opposite. In fact, they are expressive of a feeling of tender sympathy and basic understanding. They mean: let a woman not enter a sphere of activity for which by dint of her very creation she is not suited. Let not a bird try to dwell under water. Let not a fish try to live on land. Let not a woman yearn to exercise authority over a man by lecturing him in public worship. For the sake both of herself and of the spiritual welfare of the church such unholy tampering with divine authority is forbidden.

In the service of the Word on the day of the Lord a woman should learn, not teach. She should be silent, remain calm (see N.T.C. on I Thess. 4:11 and on II Thess. 3:12). She should not cause her voice to be heard. Moreover, this learning in silence should not be with a rebellious attitude of heart but “with complete submissiveness” (cf. II Cor. 9:13; Gal. 2:5; I Tim. 3:4). She should cheerfully range herself under God’s law for her life. Her full spiritual equality with men as a sharer in all the blessings of salvation (Gal. 3:28: “there can be no male and female”) does not imply any basic change in her nature as woman or in the corresponding task which she as a woman is called upon to perform. Let a woman remain a woman! Anything else Paul cannot permit. Paul cannot permit it because God’s holy law does not permit it (I Cor. 14:34). That holy law is his will as expressed in the Pentateuch, particularly in the story of woman’s creation and of her. fall (see especially Gen. 2:18-25; 3:16). Hence, to teach, that is, to preach in an official manner, and thus by means of the proclamation of the Word in public worship to exercise authority over a man, to dominate him, is wrong for a woman. She must not assume the role of a master.

In His Grace,

The passage certainly has to with salvation, but also the qualities of Christ (vs 27) we all have. Thus because of grace, there is no DIFFERENCE between, Jew or Gentile, slave or free man, man or woman. If there was such a vast difference between a woman and a man in the areas of silence and teaching within the Church, why only two verses speaking to the need for woman to be silent and not to teach a man? Unless of course, there was a problem at the Corinthian church (like yelling across to the men’s side of the church, by vocal women, disrupting the proceedings) and woman (wives?) challenging the teachings of the man (husbands?) in 1 Timothy. Why would Paul contradict 1 Cor. 11:4-5, which suggest that both men and women were free to pray and prophesy in Church? Why would Priscilla be allowed to instruct Apollos? Why was Deborah allowed to judge men? And a question which has always been a bit of a mystery to me, is, why does Paul say woman will be saved in the act of child bearing, which implies marriage, yet, in 1Cor 7, he states a woman is better off not getting married, if we are going to stick to the letter of the law in verses 11 and 12 of 1 Timothy chapter 2? What if the word for man “aner” and the word for woman “gune” should have been translated “husband” and “wife” in 1Timothy 2:11-12? These two words for man and woman were used in this way over 40 times in the sum of the 150 times they were used in the New Testament? Could man’s tradition, have created a bias?
George

Oh......I was simply pointing out your misuse of that specific text in your effort. On another note, could you offer somebody from the early church who held your beliefs?


God bless,

william

William,
Galatians 3:28 encompasses salvation, liberty, equality and no condemnation which we have in Christ Jesus. If you find fault with my exegesis, then you may have never looked at the whole of Scripture for your understanding of any given verse. Far as indiviuals who support women talking in church and teaching men in Bible Studies and Sunday school classes, there are probably many in the course of history, unfortunately I can't name any within the Reform umbrella.Not that it matters, considering how men in general have treated women over history as inferior to themselves, especially within Christendom. Mind you, I am not advocating women as Pastor's, Elder's or Deacon's. What I am saying, is that it is ludicrous to say a man can not learn from a woman in the spiritual realm and that women are to remain silent in the Church services, especially considering most church services were held in homes occupied by the woman of the house in the time of Paul's writtings.
George

Indeed it must be my ignorance that makes me wrong. Yet you haven't quoted one early church writer, not one reformed theologian, and admit the context of the passage is NOT church polity. I understand.


God bless,

william

William
It is indeed interesting, that you would consider church polity and the history of how men have dealt with this issue more important then what the whole of Scripture seems to say. Especially in the light that no one theologian, Calvin included, ever got everything right.Also, where in the first century church, to you ever find the type of setting we now carry out our Church services in? Why don't you ask your wife or girl friend, if they think Scripture says they are to say nothing at all in church or ever teach a man. I have been in Reform Churches for over 20 years and have yet seen these doctrines adhered to, even in the most strict of the orthodox Presbyterian congregations I have been part of.
George

Indeed, this is an unfair caricature. William already asked you about Scripture which (1) you have used out of context, and (2) are misapplying. By asking you to look at the history, William was asking you to defend your interpretation of the Scripture—as you had already failed to do such from the Greek text he was wondering if you would do better from history.

Above you assail to interpret the text of Scripture with culture as your investigative and regulative hermeneutic. With this type hermeneutic you would have millions of interpretative translations. Even the homosexuals could find justification with this type of interpretative devaluation. After all it is the culture they live in? Paul is not here embracing a cultural hermenutic... Neither is Paul concerned about woman’s ability.....(of course, your wife is smarter than you are). The question is not whether woman are smart or have an ability to teach, but if they should teach a man? Paul here against your advice does not consult his girlfriend, but God’s Word for his interpretation.

Unlike your assumption concerning 1 Tim 2:11, Paul was concerned Scripturally that a woman should not enter upon an activity for which by her very creation she was not suited. Woman was not meant to serve the Lord in this manner. Please see Pilgrim's post for the correct interpretation of the passage.

Does this give us the right to totally redefine scripture? This is what you have done. Did the entirety of the church have this wrong until the last century?


And where does the Bible become different every generation? How about different for every culture? Do we interpret the Bible according to our cultural bias's?


Now there's some really sound methods, huh? Ask your girlfriend. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />


Your experience means nothing.


God bless,

william

William and Joe,
First of all, I do believe that women are to be under the authority of the man in the areas of teaching and leadership. Where we disagree, is on if a woman can ever teach a man and if a woman is to always remain silent in our churches. Both of you are quick to accuse me of misuse of Scripture, such as Gal. 3:27-28 and not willing to submit to theologians or Church polity in the history of the Church. Yet, what "pet" theologian have all of us quoted from, only to find out that we disagree with on some other issue (like Dr Grudem on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and the Spiritual gifts)?In regards to church polity, what first century church, remotely looks like how we play church today? What if the Greek word "didaskien" in the present tense can mean "to teach continuously"? Would that change either of your minds in respect to 1 Tim.2:11-12? Finally, when I look back at the posts presented on this issue, I begin to wonder if a legalistic tone runs deep through this whole area. What ever happen to grace?
George

Then what do we have except our own private interpretations? I'll take an interpretation supported by a continuity of 1800 years of practice over an 1800's feminist re-interpretation any day. I am not sure I totally agree with any one person, but this doesn't require that the entirety of the Christian church missed this point for 1800 years, does it? What I am claiming is your interpretation is a reformulation based on the preferences of a modern society. Your misuse of Galatians 3:28 has also been shown and addressed.


In polity, a few. But this isn't simply a first century dilemma for you. It is an 18 century dilemma. Your claim requires that the church was in error on this matter for nearly the entirety of its existence. Since when was polity decided by the winds of feminism?


Maybe........got anything? Pilgrim showed why your translation was in error already. Oh, what if worms owned shotguns? I've asked for anything and all you've given is opinion and feelings. I await whatever you have that will be better than this. I also would need to interpret the verse in its proper context and so that it would remain in harmony with the entirety of Holy Writ. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />


No. What does run deep here is the desire for truth. We don't wish do worship God according to a cultural truth thermometer, but by Gods word.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


God bless,

william

Please, since you hold yourself forth as someone who knows (or is familiar with[/i]) the Greek language, exegete (completely) the Galatians’ passages, or any other passage, revealing how they support your position. Where’s the beef?



Teach is not only [i]present and active, but also an infinitive (didask + ein, meaning to teach). The word continuously is not in the Greek it is merely an additional word, “you added.” By the injection of this term you desire us to think that it is ok sometimes for a woman to teach and usurp authority over a man. The verse makes no sense using this interpretation, as we must remember that Paul gives us the meaning of what he is saying in the next few verses. Since, these verses are used in contrast with one another, you would then have to say, “it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being sometimes deceived, fell into transgression (vs 14), which is clearly false, as the woman was quite deceived…... Your interpretation simply does not work.

When the church gathers, women are to listen to godly men who teach. Scripture teaches they should learn quietly..… with entire submissiveness (NAS). Submissiveness (hupotage, used only in the passive in the NT), means “to line up under.” Paul even stresses his context further using the phrase with entire emphasizing complete subjection. What I find most interesting in the Greek construction here are the terms hesuchia (quietly), emerging near the beginning of vs. 11, and the very end of verse 12 (quiet). These two terms group the scriptural teaching on the role of women as to the scriptural principle of silence. Thus, the teaching of Scripture in the context of gathering for worship is that women are to be silent and content in the role of a learner.


Whatever happened to obedience to the Word of God you were saved unto? When one makes grace a substitute for obedience it makes me think one embraces antinomianism. Eph 2 states you were saved unto good works. Those good works are just obeying what “is written.”

Joe and William,
I know very little about Greek, but I do know enough about human nature, and that we are persuaded more by what we want to believe then what might be. As stated before, professors of the Greek are at differences amongst themselves on verses like 1Cor.14:34 and 1Tim. 2:11-12, as this next article represents in the area of the Greek words for "man and woman". I have never been considered a antinomian or feminist supporter before, especially over if a woman can talk in church or teach one you guys something, without violating your authority over them.
By the way Joe, I hope your able to keep your feet dry, take care and my prayer is with you.
George

>The New RSV translation informs the reader in its footnotes to 1 Timothy
> >2:11-12 that the Greek can be translated alternatively as "I permit no wife
> >to teach or have authority over her husband". For reasons of context in 1
> >Timothy 2 and the 1 Peter 3 parallel, this is far and away the preferred
> >translation.
>
>It is a possible reading of the verse, but the traditional understanding of
>a church setting is far more likely. Paul does not have the authority to
>forbid a wife to teach her husband. But that is what Paul would be
>forbidding in 1 Tim 2:12 according to the above view. There are many other
>contextual indicators opposed to the above translation.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard


May I respectfully suggest to Harold Holmyard that he is begging the
question, affirming as fact that which is to be established.

1. He states that the traditional understanding of the verse is more
likely. If it is more likely because it IS traditional, i.e. if we are
simply to accept what is traditional, then (apart from reading our
predecessors to ascertain what tradition says) we can all shut up shop on
New Testament scholarship. But if Harold's preferred understanding ("a
church setting") is to be accepted because it is in fact the one more
likely, then he needs to address the task of showing this to be so: and
then whether this view is traditional or no is secondary.

2. Harold asserts that a church setting [for the passage] is more likely.
As this list is a forum on Biblical Greek it is not appropriate here for me
to give a detailed answer to this. Any who would like to read such a
detailed answer to this viewpoint will find it on pages 33 to 57 of my book
"The Ministry of Women in the Church" (SPCK Australia, 1996, ISBN
1-876106-05-0, $US20). A brief answer is: the Greek here is ambiguous, as
GUNH can be understood as "woman" or "wife", and ANHR as "man" or
"husband"; and in situations of such ambiguity in the Greek one needs to
take very full and careful account of context. There is nothing within 1
Timothy 2:8-15E which indicates a church setting. The praying by men of
verse 8 is as appropriate for men in their role as head of a household as
within a church context: note especially the expression EN PANTI TOPWi.
Women get dressed at home, not in church (verses 9-10). The rationale which
Paul gives for verses 11-12 is Adam and Eve (verses 13-14) - they were a
married couple not a church. Women gave birth to their children in their
homes, not in the context of a church service (verse 15). If "a church
setting" is to be found in the context of verse 12 it is because it has
been first of all read into it. The passage does not contain it.

3. Harold asserts that Paul lacks the authority to forbid a wife to teach
her husband. Yet (presumably, on Harold's understanding of it being a
church setting) Paul has the authority to forbid ALL women from teaching
ALL men. He can do the greater forbidding, but not the lesser. This is a
bold and courageous assertion. I wonder how it could be supported.

4. Finally, Harold says that there are "many other contextual indicators
opposed to the above translation" i.e., of GUNH and ANHR here as wife and
husband. As these are not pointed out, I do not know what Harold has in
mind and in consequence I am unable to answer this assertion. However,
there are seven significant points of similarity with what Paul says here
(2:8-15E) about GUNH and ANHR and what Peter says about the people to whom
these same Greek words refer in 1 Peter 3:1-7. In the latter passage, as I
pointed out in my previous post, these words are translated as "wife" and
"husband". What are the "other contextual indicators" in 1 Timothy 2:8-15E
which mean that, to the contrary, the right translation in this passage is
"woman" and "man"? Or, Harold, would you say that that is also the correct
translation in 1 Peter 3?

5. The GUNH referred to in this passage is (in verse 11) to be in "full
submission" to the ANHR. The only person to whom a woman is ever required
to be in submission in NT teaching is to the husband with whom she is "one
flesh", and that is because he is the "head" of this one-flesh
relationship, and is to love his wife, and treat his wife as his own flesh,
a part of his own body (Ephesians 5:22-33E). The one always and only ever
goes with the other. The idea that a woman is to be in submission to males
other than her husband, who do not owe her the commitment outlined by Paul
in Ephesians 5, is a monstrous idea and is foisted upon the NT, not taught
by it.

I realize that opinions differ in relation to this passage. (Otherwise we
would hardly be spending time on it, trying to come to an understanding of
its meaning.) With full recognition of these other viewpoints, and aware
indeed of the possibility that I can be the one who is mistaken here, I
respectfully submit my interpretation of the Greek of verses 11 and 12. But
I would hold that it is not sufficient to assert that my understanding is
incorrect. To demolish my case it is necessary to address each of my
arguments and show how they are invalid or in error.

Then I will be persuaded to amend my views, and will publicly do so.

Regards,

Ward

http://www.eagles.bbs.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501

William and Joe,
This is another article which puts 1 Timothy 2 in context and yet another example of one who seems to know the Greek and but still holds a different position then you two. Seeking truth, means taking the time and considering all the positions. Being on the proverbial "Ivory Tower", making judgments of a fellow Christian who happens to be Reform, but differs on the peripheral thoughts, is counter productive.
George

Edit: Rather than copy/pasting large articles here, please use a URL (address) that points to the article online. Thanks! - Pilgrim
Pilgrim I need to learn how to do that... I shortened the article:
The Christian Marital Relationship and the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Sophrosune gives us an important clue to the context of Paul's statements in I Timothy 2:11-12. The fact that Paul is indeed referring to the marriage relationship is revealed by the words "woman" and "man." When Paul stated, "Let the woman learn ..." he was actually commenting on the Christian role of the wife. "Woman" is translated from the Greek gune (wife), and "man" is translated from the Greek andros (husband). When used with anthropos (man or mankind), gune may mean women in general. But when used with andros, it can only mean "wife" and must be translated so. Paul is not discussing here the general relationship of women to men, but the specific relationship of wives to husbands.

The real question here is: what are the proper roles of the converted husband and the converted wife in relationship to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ? Paul addresses this question in verses 11-15 of I Timothy 2. The context reveals Paul's answer: the natural order is not to be disturbed in the preaching of the gospel. This natural order, ordained by God, is the role of the husband as head of the wife. Thus Paul argues:

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (I Tim. 2:13-15).
The role of childbearing was biologically reserved for the wife from the very beginning. The role of fathering and leadership in the family was reserved for the husband from the very beginning. Paul argues that this is so for the sake of the children. Thus when husbands and wives are interacting at home, in an assembly, or anywhere else, the position of the husband as the natural head of the family should not be undermined! For, as Paul argues, this natural relationship is in accordance with God's ordained order in creation.

Does this mean that the wife must be mute in services, or in public in general, when her husband is present or when any man is present? Not at all! The Greek text does not support or warrant such a conclusion. In I Timothy 2:11 Paul does not argue that wives are not to learn, but only that they should "learn (manthano) in silence, with all subjection." Learn what? Be in subjection to whom? In absolute silence?

The word translated "learn" here is the Greek verb manthano and grammatically must answer to the Greek verb didasko, to teach. In the simple aorist tense, manthano means to learn anything. But in this context, manthano refers to the wife learning the facts of God's plan of salvation. This wonderful plan of salvation includes women in general and wives in particular! The phrase "Let the woman learn" in the Greek is in the present imperative. Thus Paul is commanding here that wives be continually and repeatedly taught the plan of salvation by their husbands!

What does Paul mean then, when he commands that this learning be done in "silence" and in "subjection?" The Greek word translated "silence" is hesuchia and refers to tranquillity of spirit or a state of being undisturbed. Thus Paul is not requiring Christian wives to remain absolutely silent but to speak with calmness and self-control.

"One must bear in mind here that during the era of time when Paul was writing, it was usually men who were the ones to receive an education. If this word meant 'complete silence,' women would never have the opportunity to ask questions or increase her [their] knowledge of the Scriptures. Simply speaking, the wife ought to be displaying a tranquil spirit in her attempt to learn" (Zodhiates, The Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible, World Kein, p. 1497).
Paul is encouraging, indeed commanding, that wives speak up, ask questions, learn of God's plan of salvation, but that they do so in a manner that does not undermine the husband's position as head of the family.

"Subjection" must also be understood in this context. The Greek word is hupotage and simply means "to place in proper order." Hupotage refers to the natural order that God established between the husband and the wife. Paul simply shows here that in the wife's desire to learn, whether in the family or gathered in Christian fellowship, the proper order requires that she always respect her husband's position as her leader (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3). As there is complete equality of husband and wife in Christ (Gal. 3:28), Paul is not saying that the wife is inferior to her husband. This is not a matter of superiority and inferiority, as viewed by many today; it is a matter of respecting the God-ordained order in family relationships. Both husband and wife have equal claim and authority over each other (I Cor. 7:3-5). Nevertheless, God Himself has ordained that when a man and a woman voluntarily enter into a marriage relationship, the husband is to be the leader (Eph. 5.22-24), and this role is to be upheld, respected and nurtured for the sake of the children and for the very salvation of the wife (I Tim. 2:13-15).

Carl Franklin

George,

While I am sure you mean well, what we are speaking about here are far more than mere “peripheral thoughts.” First, I do not consider ANYTHING in God’s Word peripheral or non-essential. God’s holy words in Scripture are meant for several purposes, among them being: to allow us to know Him better, salvation, and to reveal to us how we ought to now live our lives. In addition, God has structured the family in a very particular way and He has seen fit to not leave it to mere chance how we ought to order things here. Thus, we see such passages as those in Timothy and elsewhere that we should examine and apply to our lives—and to those of others.

Second, God’s Word is not a mere smörgåsbord of interpretations—I’ll take the peppery interpretation today. Greek is good, but then you need to properly interpret it—just because a person knows English does not mean he understands what any given sentence means “in context.” Moreover, if you are going to study another’s materials you must at least have a solid foundation so you can discern good from evil. This means observing a proper hermeneutic. While no hermeneutic is perfect, a pure reformed one is much more accurate than the trash you are posting here: i.e. the only Carl Franklin I have heard of is in Worldwide Church of God. What do you know of their theology? While some of is may be accurate—much is not…. While Ward Powers of Tyndale College is better known then Franklin, he still has a different hermeneutic than found by most in the Reformed camp. In addition, his Greek is not as precise as Machen's or Baugh's.

Joe,
What you have written for the most part, I agree with. Yet, I do believe, there are Scriptures such as 1Tim.2:11-15 and 1Cor.14:34, which are difficult to fully understand. I remember reading a comment Luther made on 1Peter 3:18-22, where he states openly, that no one may know exactly this side of heaven what these verses fully mean. It would be foolish to get dogmatic over these type of verses, though the "Word Faith" people have done exactly that.With the former verses, I believe the church setting and problems that existed must be taken in account as well as, is it man and woman or husband and wife being considered in the Timothy passage. But most of all, I believe we as a Church need to extend grace and not get carried away in the area of silencing our women or believing a woman has nothing to offer her husband or a man in general in the area of our faith.
George

Scripture?


God bless,

william

Ministry:

Acts 18:18-26
1Cor. 11:4-5
Phil.4:3
Romans 16:1-3
Judges chp 4

Grace and Love:

Romans 14:19
1Cor. 6:12, 10:23
1Peter 3:7-9
1Cor. chp 13
Eph. 4:2-7

None, NOT ONE, of those passages said what you said. NONE said anything about a women teaching in corporate worship.


God bless,

william

I'm not sure that the practice of "extending grace" where it violates, contradicts or diminishes a biblical precept, teaching, or law is a legitimate one. Actually, I know it is not something the Bible teaches us to do. We are to "extend grace" as you put it to those brothers/sisters who are "weak" in certain areas of Adiaphora; things indifferent, e.g., in matters of food, drink, observing of days and such matters. Matters which are good, in and of themselves, are just that . . . "good" and are thus free to be used with thanksgiving, if used rightly. However, as to matters which deal with the polity of the Church and the teaching of God's truth, this is not included in matters of "indifference". To do one thing is right and pleasing to God. To do otherwise is wrong and not pleasing to God. This topic is one of these "right or wrong" issues.

Secondly, no one here has even hinted that, "a woman has nothing to offer her husband or a man in general in the area of our faith." The truth is, those of us who hold to the "traditional" interpretation of the Scriptures in this matter, based on sound biblical exegesis and interpretation, apart from cultural mores, also hold strongly to a doctrine which sees woman as most valuable and who have many opportunities to minister in the Church, home and society at large. Your statement is fallacious and does not represent what we believe at all. The issue is, Are women permitted to teach and/or have authority over men within the Church and home? Is it clearly NOT, Can women teach a man anything. But rather, Are women allowed to be "teachers" of men. These are two decidedly different things of which it is important to distinguish.

In His Grace,

I don't want to beat a "dead horse", but if you want to stick to the "letter of Law" and without consideration of what was happening in the Church of Corinth, then woman are NOT to speak at all during a service. Knowing that the Church at that time, met predominantly in homes and were probably more like what we would consider a Bible Study home group, this would be a "tall order". Mind you, there is no qualification, like "once the Elder begins teaching or preaching" the women need to be quiet, the "letter of the Law" is, NEVER! So, in your church, if you have women singing or praying aloud or speaking out a prayer request, I assume the Elder in charge of order, escorts them out, right? If you are going to stick to the "letter of the Law", in 1Tim. 2:11-15, depending if you believe this is "man and wife" or "men and women" being address, you are for sure going to make the single women get married right?, Because after all, they are "saved in child bearing" and if they "continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety". Remember the "letter of the Law" doesn't allow to separate "saved in childbearing" from the rest of the verse. If you are reading this William, this is what I mean by extending grace and love. Yes, do not let a woman usurp authority from a man thinking they are without restraint in the area of teaching when men are present, YES, women are not to disrupt a service by asking questions or verbally disagreeing with the Elder, but in just about everything else, "extend grace and love" to the women of the Church.
I am a little surprised that there was so much opposition. We the Reform part of the Church, in my estimation, take a very extreme view of what I believe are two difficult passages to interpret (at least in my understanding). Hey, such is life. Thanks for the imput, I am done posting on this issue.
In Christ love, George

But George, if you didn't want to "beat a dead horse", which is what you have done, then why did you do it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

The Lord Christ would have us not live by the "Letter of the Law" as you have indicated, but rather to go BEYOND the "letter" and live by the "Spirit of the Law". In every instance in Scripture, where the incarnate God expounded on the Law of God, He instructed His disciples that the "letter" only skims the surface while the "spirit" plunges to the depths of what the law actually requires; i.e., obedience from the heart and not simply an outward action. Thus, in this matter of women teaching men in the Church, simple conformity to the clear restriction is not enough, particularly where it impacts upon a woman's obedience to this law. She must do so willingly and most cheerfully knowing that it is the will of God for her life and for the sake of the order established by God for the Church.

Obviously and unfortunately, you have totally misunderstood what Paul was writing in regard to a woman being saved through "childbearing"! I would refer you back to one of my initial replies to you where I quoted a small section of William Hendriksen's comments from his Commentary. In that passage of Scripture, where Paul is basing the remarks which follow on the creation order and the place of women, not just wives, he uses the example of the typical married woman who would normally bear children. In that example he is emphasizing the place of women in relation to men; i.e., men have been given the authority to teach as the head of the woman and not vice versa. And women are designed to be helpmates of men and they have been given the privilege to bear children, and not vice versa. He is speaking of "roles" of men and women as God has created them. Thus, women (godly, Christ-professing women) are saved (ultimately) through their obedience (not by works of the law, but by displaying their good works. cf. 1Tim 2:10; Eph 2:10) and not by exercising dominion over men nor in teaching men. The thrust of Paul's words is that women should content themselves in being submissive NOT as did Eve when she usurped Adam's authority and which led to the fall of all mankind. (cf. vss 13, 14).

The fact that Paul bases all that follows upon 1) the creation order and 2) the entrance of sin, totally eliminates any possibility that his words can be relegated to a "cultural boundness". If they applied to the Church when in its infancy when it was meeting in homes. It applies all the more to the Church as it has matured throughout history.

I fully understand your "surprise". However, that such a view as you have posited here, and that which is becoming popular in the modern church is of no surprise to me, personally. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> The modern "culture" with its strong Feminist influence has effectively launched a campaign to dismantle biblical Christianity in many areas, e.g., women in the church, homosexuality, family, marriage, etc., <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Ironically then, it isn't that Paul's teaching was based upon his cultural surroundings, but rather that the assault launched by Modernists is based squarely upon a demonic and worldly philosophy which is antithetical to biblical teaching.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,
I guess I am addicted to your forum (“beating a dead horse”), and answering this post. I pretty much agree with William Hendriksen’s commentary on 1Tim. 2:15, I must not of made my point clear, so let’s try again. If we just take 1Timothy 2:11-15 and didn’t investigate Scripture and the Greek (i.e. Joe), one could believe that women are saved by bearing children. Which as you, others (forum) and Hendricksen’s, have explained in a rational way, is not true. Yet, what if the beginning of the passage (vs 11-12) is referring to a married couple and what if the passage can be explained to mean “continuously teach (I know Joe, “didaskein” by itself can not mean “continuous”, but at least two people I have read from, say it can, contextually) and usurping the authority of the husband or man”, then the admonition is not as simple as it reads. Let’s say, that indeed that is what the text says, “I do not allow a woman to teach a man…”. Ok, is it just spiritual Bible teaching? Can my wife or a woman friend, teach me to balance my check book correctly? Again, without a broad understanding of Scripture, the novice may stumble here by what the passage says and actually means. Which brings up another issue Pilgrim; what do you do with Christian women who come to this site and correct men who may have written something not to their liking; is this teaching men and usurping their authority? Should the bouncer Elder, ban her from the forum? Another hypothetical (or not so) situation; my wife is quite knowledgeable on the specifics of Temple of Solomon, should I throw her out of the Bible Study or severely chastise her, if she corrects me on the actual articles that are found in the Holy of Holies ? Is it ok, if I ask her the answer in front of the men in our group? Hopefully, you can readily see, that this whole issue of women being silent and not teaching men, can have some serious implications of legalism, if one is not careful. In my case, I will go on being the “antinomian, feminist, disobedient and Scripture twisting” person many already believe me to be (though I don’t think of myself that way) and let women speak in Church (singing, praying, etc)and teach men under certain circumstances that doesn’t usurp their authority or diminished God’s glory in His Church.
This will really be my last post, at least for several days, I am going camping. California is still sunny, unlike those poor folks in Florida.
In Christ love, George

George ,


If we did away with Greek, Hebrew, hermeneutical interpretation, the covenant theology, and whatever, then we could make the Bible say anything we desired—but it would not be God’s Word. When we take away from not only WHAT God says, but HOW He says it and its very CONTEXT you are just reading another literature book (i.e. If I take a whole person and take away his right arm (Greek), his left arm (Hebrew), his right leg (hermeneutical interpretation), and the left leg (covenant theology), I am left with a body of words with no foundation). This is what liberalism, feminism, and a host of other false cults do to sell their wares to believers and unbelievers alike. Even much of the PC USA has bought into this false method of interpretation --they are apostate.


As Hendriksen stated, “In the service of the Word on the day of the Lord a woman should learn, not teach.…As already indicated, these directives regarding the woman’s role in connection with public worship are based not on temporary or contemporary conditions or circumstances but on two facts that have meaning for all time, namely, the fact of creation and the fact of the entrance of sin.” The context here is "Directions for Public Worship." What does this have to do with balancing check books or the Highway?

So where does this leave the “novice Christian” you ask who does not have access to Greek, Hebrew, proper theology, etc.? In a biblical Church where God says, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…” (Eph 4:11-14 ff). Presently you are being tossed to and fro, we pray that you might get under some biblical teaching that will direct you towards God and not continue in the realm of “every wind of doctrine…”

Joe,
You say "As Hendriksen stated, “In the service of the Word on the day of the Lord a woman should learn, not teach.…As already indicated, these directives regarding the woman’s role in connection with public worship are based not on temporary or contemporary conditions or circumstances but on two facts that have meaning for all time, namely, the fact of creation and the fact of the entrance of sin.” The context here is "Directions for Public Worship." What does this have to do with balancing check books or the Highway?"

Are not where two or more believers are gather, Christ is there? Is not this church? Is not my small Bible Study on Sunday night Church and public worship? Why has no one addressed woman singing or praying in Church? The reason is, you all know your places of worship do include woman participating, inspite of verses like 1Cor. 14:34-35 and 1Tim. 2:11-12 who say woman are to be quiet period! Without any qualification at all. You guys know also, that even on this forum you have woman correcting and teaching men. The whole thing screams of hypocrisy in the disguise of orthodoxy.
George

Not, necessarily! Christ is present when my wife and I sleep. Am I having public worship then? Christ is present several times when individuals are not having public worship?— After all He is omni-present! What is your definition of Church as compared to the historical meaning?


NO, your small Bible Study on Sunday Night at Church is not considered Public Worship by definition! Do you baptize individuals in your Bible Study? Do you offer communion there?


Do your women assert authority over a man when they pray or sing? What is the object of their prayers and singing—man or God?


Is the Highway a Church? Are we conducting public worship here on the Highway? Did you get baptized here—(OK, maybe by fire <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" />), but not water…


The whole thing screams of <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> liberalism disguised as Reformed theology! Reformed theology does NOT embrace (1) feminist theology (2) other liberal views (2) a misunderstanding of Scripture, etc, etc., etc,…

Hi- I have been on vacation for nearly 2 weeks and haven't really gotten to read through this whole thread until now. I really like what Pilgrim said here to George:

(quote from Pilgrim)Yes indeed, there can be found those who disagree on any and every subject. However, what we are discussing here is what GOD has revealed and HIS truth concerning the role of women in the Church. Thus, despite the fact that there are those who disagree, the fact remains that only one of them is correct. The other is in violation of what God has decreed.
[/quote]

Some of the things George has brought up seems to be the same things I am hearing from my church. The quote from our church's position that I put in the original post is from a 2-3 page paper that shows the suppposed 2 positions of women in ministry (one of which is not ok to have women in leadership/teaching men in church and the other not ok). It's so clear to me that there simply aren't 2 positions on this issue and that it's one way or the other. It either has to be right or wrong with having women be elder and teach adult Sunday School and preach up front.

The questions George raised are the same things I've heard when I've discussed this issue with my husband - ie. Why was Deborah allowed to Judge?, living the "letter of the law" with the more conservative view, why were women allowed to phrophesy?, and bringing up the Galatians passage.

If anyone is interested, these articles are helpful with trying to clarify the issues:

http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=73
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=74
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=75

I don't understand why this question is brought up? The same thing was brought up by my husband in defense of women in leadership and teaching positions. Now am I missing something, because the way I see it Deborah was a judge not a priest. Isn't their a huge difference in position here?? Now if she was a Levite priest in the OT then I could see their is a legitimate argument. How can one compare Deborah being a Judge to a woman being an elder or pastor in a church today?

One cannot use Deborah as a reason to allow women into the ordained offices, Elder or Deacon, in the N.T. Church.

1) God's appointment of Deborah as a Judge was an exception to the normal rule which He Himself had established. If one wants to use Deborah to justify women in office, then to be consistent, we must also allow donkeys to prophesy today as well. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

2) In the New Testament we find the revelation of what was first revealed in the Old Testament; e.g., the fulfillment of the shadows, types, prophesies, etc. And thus the transition from the old economy to the new economy includes many changes both in expressions of a new universality, e.g., redemption and equality of men, women and children as well as a new spirituality. In this new economy, which is grounded upon the old economy, there is to be found a refining and defining of the people of God and a set of precepts and governing rules for them, one of which is who is to serve as office bearers in the Church. There are specific passages of Scripture which address the requirements and duties of those offices, particularly 1Tim 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9. Passages which are specific to a topic indisputably take precedent over passages which only allude to a topic. And in these two passages alone, there are very clear instructions as to who are to hold those offices; i.e., men only.

The restriction to men for the offices in the Church is not one based superiority and or ability but one which is based upon the original creation of God. The roles of men and women are clearly laid out in a covenantal formula; man being head of the woman. The principle is one of "functional subordination" and in my understanding, it reflects the relationship within the economic Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In His Grace,

Much is said right in this section. One might rightly ask why? Without further comment.

In response to an overture from the Presbytery of the Midwest the 51st General Assembly (1984) established a committee of three members (Messrs. Cottenden, Conn and Silva) "to consider the hermeneutical aspects of the debate over the role of women in ordained office and to report to the 52nd General Assembly with specific applications to this issue." This Committee presented a preliminary report which discussed some of the hermeneutical tensions involved in such a study and provided a series of hermeneutical guidelines. It quoted extensively from the 1978 report of a similar committee of the Christian Reformed Church.


The 52nd General Assembly (1985) recommitted the whole matter, including the preliminary report with its recommendations and the report of the advisory committee, to the Committee, which it enlarged by the addition of two members (Messrs. Gaffin and Knudsen). Two alternates (Messrs. Strimple and I. Davis) were elected. They became members shortly after the assembly due to the resignation of two of the original members (Messrs. Conn and Silva). The recommittal motion further instructed that "an exegesis of passages relevant to the debate over the role of women in ordained office be included in the Committee’s report to the 53rd General Assembly." The Committee determined, in the light of this addition to the mandate, not to attempt another systematic treatment of hermeneutical principles. Rather, it sought to identify the texts of Scripture which appear to have the most bearing on the matter and to exegete them raising particular hermeneutical questions as they occurred.


The 53rd General Assembly (1986) continued the committee in order that it might complete the section of women and the diaconate. An alternate (Mr. Reynolds) was elected. He became a member shortly thereafter due to the resignation of Mr. Cottenden. The Committee did not complete the section on the diaconate, but decided to present the partial report which it had prepared for the 53rd General Assembly to the 54th General Assembly.


The 54th General Assembly (1987) recommitted the entire report with the recommendations of the advisory committee to revise and expand the report in order to present a completed report to the 55th General Assembly (1988).