The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Male bias?

Is it possible that over the years of Church history, some verses were translated with a male bias? Phoebe, a Christian woman whom we find in Romans 16:1 spoken of as any common "servant" attached to a church body, yet, may have been someone gifted by the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel, if we read what the apostle originally said in the Greek. "Diaconon" can (from what I have read) be translated "deacon" or preacher of the word.

geomic1 said:

Helmut Koester's view:

Romans 16 is a letter of recommendation, the earliest letter of recommendation for a Christian minister, and it's written for a woman, Phoebe, who is, in the beginning of the chapter, said to have been a deacon, not a deaconess -- but a deacon in the sense of a preacher, a minister, because Paul uses the same word for himself.

Tom said:

Have you ever heard of the word "deacon" being used is the sense of a preacher or minister of the Word?

Tom said:

I sure haven't and I have read many articles on the subject.
Although I have read articles that support women preaching (by egalitarians) the Word, it has always been in the context of pastor/elder.

Even at that, I have found that most (at least of the articles I have read) of these egalitarians, although they support women in the office of "deacon", they do not support women in the office of "elder".

geomic1 asks:
1. Is the creative order in respect to the immediate family?

2. Is the reason woman are not mentioned in passages of leadership, due to the general low view of woman during that period of time in Greece and the Middle East in general.

3. What would the general consensus be if 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1Tim. 2:12 did not exist with regards to the whole of Scripture (Systematic Theology).

4. What if 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was added to the original translation at a later time? What if 1Cor. 14:34 was a note left in the margin of the original letter of Paul, and translators really didn’t know where it belongs in the chapter; may be after verse 40 of the same chapter? Why the disparity between 1 Cor. 11: 5 and 14:34-35?

5. What if the translators should have used “wife and husband” in 1Tim. 2:12, instead of “woman and man” (same Greek word for both aspects)? And was this in respect to the home setting or the church setting?

6. Are we also to take a literal view of verse 9 and 15 of 1 Tim. Chp. 2?

2. Is the reason woman are not mentioned in passages of leadership, due to the general low view of woman during that period of time in Greece and the Middle East in general.

Ah, the novel "cultural bound" argument! This is easily refuted by the doctrine of divine inspiration. It was the Holy Spirit Who moved the writers of the Bible to write what they did. Thus the qualifications for office are not subject to any cultural influences of the writers since they are what God has commanded be done in the churches.

geomic1 said:

As I wrote, I am working through these issues brought up. I have been for nearly 30 years a person who has believed that women are not to be leaders, preachers, teachers over a man. Yet, a little research from the other side does (at least to me) bring up a need to know what validity they possess in regards to their claims. In every area I list, what appears to be scholarly imput is put forth; and often is the case, glib answers to them do not suffice. I read through your links and much I agree with and much just brings more questions.

In regards to number 4 on my list, I would challenge you to simply do a search of "1 Cor.14:34 Interpolation" and I believe you will readily see my point...

Four main interpretations have been proposed to resolve the apparent contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34. One view maintains that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a post-Pauline interpolation. There is no textual evidence for such a view, though a few manuscripts tend to edit the text by placing the passage after verse 40. Except for the difficulty of the text, there is no reason to view it as an interpolation.

A second view holds that Paul was simply inconsistent in his application of the Gospel. It is hard to believe that a man of Paul’s caliber would not have recognized his inconsistency on a practical matter, within the space of three chapters. Such a view undermines confidence in the inspiration of Scripture.

A third view assumes that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 did not give permission for women to pray or prophesy publicly but only privately. Consequently, in 1 Corinthians 14 we have "an absolute prohibition against women’s speaking in the services." The weakness of this view is that there is little warrant for believing that the praying and prophesying mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:5 was to be done privately alone at home. Paul saw prophecy as a gift for public use. Moreover, it is hard to believe that Paul would prohibit women from praying with their heads uncovered in the privacy of their homes. By the same token, it is hardly conceivable that Paul would forbid a man to pray with his head covered when alone outdoors in the cold weather.

A fourth view maintains that chapter 14 does not contradict chapter 11, but only restricts certain forms of talking on the part of women, such as wives asking questions publicly of their husbands, or women engaging in a disorderly form of speech. A basic weakness of this view is that it ignores the fact that Paul instructs women to be silent in the church not because they are disorderly, but because they are women.

The sentence which may provide the key to understand the meaning of the injunction is the phrase "For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says" (1 Cor 14:34). The phrase "should be subordinate" is often overlooked in determining the meaning of the passage, yet it contains an important qualification. The strong contrast implied by the preposition "but" (alla), suggests that the speaking that Paul has in mind is that which involves not being subordinate. Women are forbidden a specific type of speech, namely, that which constituted some sort of exercise of authority and was therefore inconsistent with the subordinate role which Paul believed women should fulfill in the church. The speech then denied to women is a speech that is inappropriate to their position as women or wives.

(Quoted from "Women In Church Office by Samuele Bacchiocchio, Ph.D.)