Thank you for those of you who shared in the last post. Wonderful, thought provoking stuff. I love having my brain stretched and joyfully challenged when it comes to the Word and it's Truth. I love to be reminded to be patient (and I need it, let me tell ya) and loving (thank you Julie!) and I love the absolute simplicity of faith from Tricia who said:
"I am not a scholar and do not claim to know everything about the Bible. I know a few important facts the Bible is the truth, it is God's Word, and it does not contradict itself. Since the Bible does not contract itself, Paul would not be saying in one place that men are the leaders (elders and teachers) of a church and then in another place say that a woman was a teacher (an apostle). This is a contraction. Junia would have to be male. Maybe, my thinking is to simple."
WOW! That was just so profound to me!!!! Yikes, it was like the lights went on in the realm of my faith and dimmed in the room of intellect. Both are important but it all comes down to having Faith to take God at his Word and believe that He will not let His Word contradict itself!! Excellent! Praise Him for using you Trish! It reminded me too that God meant for things to be clear and simple. We are the ones who start chopping and jumbling until what was so straight forward a child could see it, to scrounging though with our human brains to find what we think it "really" means when God has all ready told us what it means. It reminds me of what I tell the kids all the time:
"Don't come and keep asking me something until you get the answer you REALLY want." "I have answered you, you know what I have said."
We do the same to God and we somehow think that he will be quiet while we change his Words to mean what we want them to mean. The sad thing for us is that we will miss out on the blessing of taking Him at His word. That is why speaking the Truth is so important for the Glory of God and the joy of all peoples! His ways are best, even if we don't agree with them (thanks for that point Donna!)
So, if God does not contradict Himself. Then all of this issue is resting on one thing, and one thing alone. It does not rest on Junia because this coming point negates the concern to solve that mystery since God would never let His word contradict itself. The issue is whether 1 Timothy 2 is talking to the family ALONE or to the church as well.
1 Timothy 2 says:
1First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
8I desire then that in every place the men should pray,lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."
The first paragraph is setting the stage for the process of the testimony of Jesus (the gospel) being proclaimed. This takes place in three places the home, the church, and in public to the unsaved men and women (gentiles at the time) who need to be taught the Word of God.
What we do see:
1) "in every place"- this does not allow the detailed relation to only the home.
2) "men" and "women"
3)"Adam" and "Eve" (referred to not because JUST because they are man and wife, but because they are the beginning of the pattern God set down for roles of manhood and womanhood . Basically, they are the beginning of man and woman. The reference is to point out that God's intent was for this to be the way of blessing from the very beginning, and yes, that means before sin. Sin did not make it so women could not authoritatively preach, God designed those roles from the get go. Sin made us have a rebellion of it and mess it up from what it aught to be. The enemy wanted it messed up, Christ wants us to get back to the way God wants it)
4) "childbearing" (is is common sense that childbearing in its actually physical sense takes place in the home (or at the hospital if you want get picky). This does not mean these passages are referring to the home only, because children are born into the church, and the world for that matter. So, this word along cannot give us the context of where these rules are to take place. Remember too, that "home" is included in the spheres where men women interact. Paul did not intend for us to think that women birth at church. :* I think he knew we would not assume that specific element.
What we don't see:
1) home (though it would be included in the places men and women interact so it is part of the whole, not excluding the whole)
2) family (again, part of the whole sphere of where women and men relate, not excluding the whole)
3) husband (we all know husbands are men, but not every man is your husband, so the admonishment is all inclusive and purposefully non-specific)
4) wife (again, we know wives are women there is no question, yet not all wives are you! The passage intently says women to refer to the women of the family, and the church. Otherwise it would say "wives" as it does in other places in scripture)
Other related passages:
1 Corinthians 14:34-36; 11:2-16.
Again this article address MANY of the questions circulating this topic and I would never bore you with putting them all here. The format is question and answer so you can scroll down and read the question you would like some information on.
In summary:
The limitation is not as huge as we make it out to be. The setting is the home and the church or the place of congregated unbelievers who need to be taught the gospel but include men. The restriction is on authoritative teaching roles (pastor, elder, apostle in it's greatest sense). It is on nothing else. Christ has give women amazing freedoms and opportunities to teach, lead, and minister. A woman whining about not getting to preach is like a man who's angry he can't birth children. It is what God made it to be, and we don't have to like it, we have to obey it if we honor the words of God.
The Old Testament has women leaders and prophets. It is of note that they do not have ongoing ministries as the male leaders and prophets did and their intervention, though profound and from God is brief and in desperate times. This is not an argument against them however.
The role closest to pastor and elder in the OT is the priest. There are no women priest.
The importance of 1 Timothy 2 's application is massive. We must recognize the admonishment to the church and not just specifically the home. Again, we have to look at what it says, and what it does not say. Adam and Eve were man and woman before they were husband and wife. The problem is when we look at what the Word says and say, "this is what it means specifically" when the adress is not specific, it is general. All husbands and wives are men and women, but not all men and women are husbands and wives. That is why the passage is general and inclusive not specific and exclusive.
My conclusion:
The evidence proves that 1 Timothy 2 is speaking to the family and the church. It is referring to all women and all men. So, if God does not want women being authoritative teachers, then they should not be. Since he does not contradict himself, if Junia was a woman apostle, she was not an authoritative teacher of the scriptures to men. Otherwise, Junia is a short version of Junius and he was a male.
Simple, and straightforward. Just like most things God wants us to know.
There will only be one more part to this this weekend. In everything that comes my way, especially the things that shake me up and get me seeking Truth, I want to ask God one thing "What do you want ME to learn from this." Boy has he been showing me! One thing about this blog is that you get to see me rise and fall. Sometimes that scares me, especially because I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve in my writing. These writings are from a sinful woman. These reactions are from a sinful woman. So, you will find many faults here. Yet, if I was trying to hide that, I would not be doing God the justice of showing His glory in my life. Where I am weak, He is strong. Where I fail, He forgives. What I screw up, He uses for His glory. So, I have to be welcoming some mud on my face in order to show how He can shine despite it.
I have learned a lot from this study. God has stirred up some things in my personal life that he used this dive into womanhood and manhood to show me. He showed me the importance of studying to give an answer. I took a class that I loved in highschool (from Donna actually) in critical thinking. We learned how to debate and how to dissect faulty logic. It was one of the best classes I've every taken. There is no better place to put it to practice than in the defence of the Word of God. The lesson I learned was to keep it to my own blog. I always think everyone is as eager to stir the pot and find what's true as I am. That was conceited of me I think . So, from now on, I will be free to bring up my topics, but I will do it here. And you can come if you want to, and leave if you want to. But if you stay, I hope you always see Veritas. Challenge me if you don't.
Tomorrow I am off to second grade again! This weekend there will be a part three, and next week I am taking a break from blogging. Besides, if it were me, I would be way behind on all this reading and probably too intimidated by it's length to start!
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Can Women Be Pastors, Elders, or Apostles? Part 1: The Apostle Junia
Okay, time to dive in. I'd like to take one point at a time on this issue of pastors, elders, and apostles.
I want to make clear first that my husband and I are huge supporters of Sarah Palin and believe that it is completely appropriate for women to hold public office.
Second, I want to make clear that the specific disallowing argument we have is for women authoritatively teaching men in the home or the church. I want to look at what the bible does say and what it doesn't say. I want to be honest and not avoid when there is something left to debate.
So...
In the argument for women allowed in authoritative leadership in the church there is brought up the issue of Junia. I have been researching a great deal and found that this question answer format discussion on Junia had the most fair, biblically founded, and historically researched response.
In Romans 16:7, Paul wrote, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” Isn’t Junias a woman? And wasn’t she an apostle? And doesn’t that mean that Paul was willing to acknowledge that a woman held a very authoritative position over men in the early church?
Let’s take these three questions one at a time.
1. Was Junias a woman? We cannot know. The evidence is indecisive. We did a
complete search of all the Greek writings from Homer (b.c. ninth century?) into the fifth century a.d. available now on computer through the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (Pilot CD ROM #C, University of California at Irvine, 1987), which contains 2,889 authors and 8,203 works. We asked the computer for all forms of Iounia- so that we would pick up all the possible cases. (We did not search for the possible first declension masculine genitive Iouniou, which morphologically could come from a masculine Iounias, because there is no way to tell if Iouniou might come from the man’s name Iounios; so that all these genitive forms would be useless in establishing a masculine Iounias.)
The result of our computer search is this: Besides the one instance in Romans 16:7
there were three others.
1. Plutarch (ca. a.d. 50-ca. 120), in his Life of Marcus Brutus, wrote about the tension between Brutus and Cassius, “. . . though they were connected in their families, Cassius having married Junia, the sister of Brutus (Iounia gar adelphe¯ Broutou sunoikei Kassios).”17
2. Epiphanius (a.d. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of
Disciples, in which he includes this line: “Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria” (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase “of whom” is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought Iounias was a man.
3. John Chrysostom (a.d. 347-407), in preaching on Romans 16:7, said in reference to
Junias, “Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted
worthy of the appellation of apostle!”1873
What we may learn from these three uses is that Junias was used as a woman’s name
in the time around the New Testament (Plutarch). The Church Fathers were evidently
divided as to whether Paul was using Junias that way, Epiphanius assuming it is
masculine, Chrysostom assuming it is feminine. Perhaps somewhat more weight may be
given to the statement by Epiphanius, since he appears to know more specific information about Junias (that he became bishop of Apameia), while Chrysostom gives no more information than what he could deduce from Romans 16:7).19
Perhaps more significant than either of these, however, is a Latin quotation from
Origen (died 252 a.d.), in the earliest extant commentary on Romans: He says that Paul refers to “Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives (Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion, quos omnes et cognatos suos, et concaptivos appellat)” (Origen’s commentary on Romas, preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus, c. 345-c.410 a.d., in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 14, col. 1289). The name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying-if this ancient translation is reliable-that Origin (who was one of the ancient world’s most proficient scholars) thought Junias was a man. Coupled with the quotation from Epiphanias, this quotation makes the weight of ancient evidence support this view.
Masculine names ending in -as are not unusual even in the New Testament: Andrew
(Andreas, Matthew 10:2), Elijah (Elias, Matthew 11:14), Isaiah (Esaias, John 1:23),
Zacharias (Luke 1:5). A. T. Robertson (Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New
York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914], pp. 171-173) shows that numerous names ending in
-as are shortened forms for clearly masculine forms. The clearest example in the New
Testament is Silas (Acts 15:22) from Silvanus (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:12).
So there is no way to be dogmatic about what the form of the name signifies. It could
be feminine or it could be masculine. Certainly no one should claim that Junia was a
common woman’s name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only these three
known examples in all of ancient Greek literature. Moreover the fact that Andronicus and Junias, like Prisca and Aquila (16:3), are given as a pair does not demand that they be husband and wife, because in 16:12 two women are greeted as a pair: “Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.” Andronicus and Junias could be addressed as two men, since Tryphena and Tryphosa are addressed as two women.
2. Was Junias an apostle? Possibly so, but this is not certain. Grammatically “of note among the apostles” could mean that the apostles held Andronicus and Junias in high regard. Thus they would not be themselves apostles. But this is unlikely because Paul himself is an apostle and would probably not refer to them in the third person. On the other hand, since Andronicus and Junias were Christians before Paul was, it may be that their longstanding ministry (reaching back before Paul’s) is precisely what Paul might have in mind when he says “of note among the apostles.” They may well have been known among the apostles before Paul was even converted. Here again we cannot be certain.
3. Did Junias have a very authoritative position in the early church? Probably not. The word apostle is used for servants of Christ at different levels of authority in the New Testament. Revelation 21:14 refers to “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (cf. Matthew19:28; Acts 1:15-26). The twelve had a unique role in bearing witness to the resurrectionof Jesus. Paul counted himself among the privileged group by insisting on having seen and been called by the risen Christ (Galatians 1:1, 12; 1 Corinthians 9:1-2). Very closely related with this unique inner ring were the missionary partners of Paul, Barnabas (Acts14:14) and Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 2:6), as well as James, the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19) and perhaps others (1 Corinthians 15:7).
Finally, the word apostle is used in a broad sense as “messenger,” for example, of
Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25, and of several “messengers of the churches” in 2
Corinthians 8:23. Therefore, if Andronicus and Junias were apostles, they were probably 74 among the third group serving in some kind of itinerant ministry. If Junias is a woman,this would seem to put her in the same category with Priscilla, who with her husband seemed to do at least a little travelling with the Apostle Paul (Acts 18:18). The ministry would be significant but not necessarily in the category of an authoritative governor of the churches like Paul (2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:10).
(the above is taken from this article sorry it got chopped up like that)
What are my thoughts?
I agree that there is great lack of surety on this one person in the scripture. So, when there is a lack of clarity in the bible I can go to what is clear.
1) Every single Apostle (other than this one that may or may not be a woman) are men. I find that a strong statement.
2) Plenty of men in history have feminine gender names
Let's look at the name Junia:
Feminine gender of Lunius, derived from Roman goddess Juno
Origin and meaning of the name from the word "Junius" An original form of Junia is the Latin "Junius". The Roman name Junius could be from the Roman goddess Juno. The name Junia was borne by an early Christian mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, who was described as an important person, the gender of the person is not clear. (reference here)
Note that the original for of Junia is the masculine "Junius".
3) Not a valid point in the proof this is a man, but still notable is the fact that men can have names given to them that are of the feminine gender. As the above article also states. We all know that girls are also given boy gender names as well.
4) It does not fit the biblical pattern, that being, that men are to be the leaders when it comes to authoritative leadership in the home and the church. If the only fray in the fabric of this pattern is possibly not a fray at all, then we should stick with the patterns strength.
My conclusion on women apostles: To come up with a theology you need to look at what is clear and not what is unclear. It is clear to me that every Apostle is a man. It is not clear that one is a woman. The weight is on the side of the allowance for men. I admit that the unclear allows for a possible hole (and even the fact that there is this hole is uncertain) in the structure of the argument. So, I go again to where there is clarity. That is in 1 Timothy 2. That is where it is supported. That is where I will be going next with this topic. There is no where in scripture where the uncertain issue of women apostles is supported. No where. If I'm wrong, I want to be shown.
This is how I draw my conclusion.
On a final side note: where are the women standing up for this issue? I am reading many women chatting about it and all the women in disagreement are biting their tongues. Now is not the time for timidity. It is probably a virtue that you are quiet but there is no need to be quiet when the Word of God is being stretched into another belief system. This is not about who has the better argument, this is about loving God with our minds by digging, finding, and then defending. Where are the women who will stand up for biblical womanhood and defend it?
I want to make clear first that my husband and I are huge supporters of Sarah Palin and believe that it is completely appropriate for women to hold public office.
Second, I want to make clear that the specific disallowing argument we have is for women authoritatively teaching men in the home or the church. I want to look at what the bible does say and what it doesn't say. I want to be honest and not avoid when there is something left to debate.
So...
In the argument for women allowed in authoritative leadership in the church there is brought up the issue of Junia. I have been researching a great deal and found that this question answer format discussion on Junia had the most fair, biblically founded, and historically researched response.
In Romans 16:7, Paul wrote, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” Isn’t Junias a woman? And wasn’t she an apostle? And doesn’t that mean that Paul was willing to acknowledge that a woman held a very authoritative position over men in the early church?
Let’s take these three questions one at a time.
1. Was Junias a woman? We cannot know. The evidence is indecisive. We did a
complete search of all the Greek writings from Homer (b.c. ninth century?) into the fifth century a.d. available now on computer through the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (Pilot CD ROM #C, University of California at Irvine, 1987), which contains 2,889 authors and 8,203 works. We asked the computer for all forms of Iounia- so that we would pick up all the possible cases. (We did not search for the possible first declension masculine genitive Iouniou, which morphologically could come from a masculine Iounias, because there is no way to tell if Iouniou might come from the man’s name Iounios; so that all these genitive forms would be useless in establishing a masculine Iounias.)
The result of our computer search is this: Besides the one instance in Romans 16:7
there were three others.
1. Plutarch (ca. a.d. 50-ca. 120), in his Life of Marcus Brutus, wrote about the tension between Brutus and Cassius, “. . . though they were connected in their families, Cassius having married Junia, the sister of Brutus (Iounia gar adelphe¯ Broutou sunoikei Kassios).”17
2. Epiphanius (a.d. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of
Disciples, in which he includes this line: “Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria” (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase “of whom” is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought Iounias was a man.
3. John Chrysostom (a.d. 347-407), in preaching on Romans 16:7, said in reference to
Junias, “Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted
worthy of the appellation of apostle!”1873
What we may learn from these three uses is that Junias was used as a woman’s name
in the time around the New Testament (Plutarch). The Church Fathers were evidently
divided as to whether Paul was using Junias that way, Epiphanius assuming it is
masculine, Chrysostom assuming it is feminine. Perhaps somewhat more weight may be
given to the statement by Epiphanius, since he appears to know more specific information about Junias (that he became bishop of Apameia), while Chrysostom gives no more information than what he could deduce from Romans 16:7).19
Perhaps more significant than either of these, however, is a Latin quotation from
Origen (died 252 a.d.), in the earliest extant commentary on Romans: He says that Paul refers to “Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives (Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion, quos omnes et cognatos suos, et concaptivos appellat)” (Origen’s commentary on Romas, preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus, c. 345-c.410 a.d., in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 14, col. 1289). The name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying-if this ancient translation is reliable-that Origin (who was one of the ancient world’s most proficient scholars) thought Junias was a man. Coupled with the quotation from Epiphanias, this quotation makes the weight of ancient evidence support this view.
Masculine names ending in -as are not unusual even in the New Testament: Andrew
(Andreas, Matthew 10:2), Elijah (Elias, Matthew 11:14), Isaiah (Esaias, John 1:23),
Zacharias (Luke 1:5). A. T. Robertson (Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New
York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914], pp. 171-173) shows that numerous names ending in
-as are shortened forms for clearly masculine forms. The clearest example in the New
Testament is Silas (Acts 15:22) from Silvanus (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:12).
So there is no way to be dogmatic about what the form of the name signifies. It could
be feminine or it could be masculine. Certainly no one should claim that Junia was a
common woman’s name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only these three
known examples in all of ancient Greek literature. Moreover the fact that Andronicus and Junias, like Prisca and Aquila (16:3), are given as a pair does not demand that they be husband and wife, because in 16:12 two women are greeted as a pair: “Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.” Andronicus and Junias could be addressed as two men, since Tryphena and Tryphosa are addressed as two women.
2. Was Junias an apostle? Possibly so, but this is not certain. Grammatically “of note among the apostles” could mean that the apostles held Andronicus and Junias in high regard. Thus they would not be themselves apostles. But this is unlikely because Paul himself is an apostle and would probably not refer to them in the third person. On the other hand, since Andronicus and Junias were Christians before Paul was, it may be that their longstanding ministry (reaching back before Paul’s) is precisely what Paul might have in mind when he says “of note among the apostles.” They may well have been known among the apostles before Paul was even converted. Here again we cannot be certain.
3. Did Junias have a very authoritative position in the early church? Probably not. The word apostle is used for servants of Christ at different levels of authority in the New Testament. Revelation 21:14 refers to “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (cf. Matthew19:28; Acts 1:15-26). The twelve had a unique role in bearing witness to the resurrectionof Jesus. Paul counted himself among the privileged group by insisting on having seen and been called by the risen Christ (Galatians 1:1, 12; 1 Corinthians 9:1-2). Very closely related with this unique inner ring were the missionary partners of Paul, Barnabas (Acts14:14) and Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 2:6), as well as James, the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19) and perhaps others (1 Corinthians 15:7).
Finally, the word apostle is used in a broad sense as “messenger,” for example, of
Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25, and of several “messengers of the churches” in 2
Corinthians 8:23. Therefore, if Andronicus and Junias were apostles, they were probably 74 among the third group serving in some kind of itinerant ministry. If Junias is a woman,this would seem to put her in the same category with Priscilla, who with her husband seemed to do at least a little travelling with the Apostle Paul (Acts 18:18). The ministry would be significant but not necessarily in the category of an authoritative governor of the churches like Paul (2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:10).
(the above is taken from this article sorry it got chopped up like that)
What are my thoughts?
I agree that there is great lack of surety on this one person in the scripture. So, when there is a lack of clarity in the bible I can go to what is clear.
1) Every single Apostle (other than this one that may or may not be a woman) are men. I find that a strong statement.
2) Plenty of men in history have feminine gender names
Let's look at the name Junia:
Feminine gender of Lunius, derived from Roman goddess Juno
Origin and meaning of the name from the word "Junius" An original form of Junia is the Latin "Junius". The Roman name Junius could be from the Roman goddess Juno. The name Junia was borne by an early Christian mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, who was described as an important person, the gender of the person is not clear. (reference here)
Note that the original for of Junia is the masculine "Junius".
3) Not a valid point in the proof this is a man, but still notable is the fact that men can have names given to them that are of the feminine gender. As the above article also states. We all know that girls are also given boy gender names as well.
4) It does not fit the biblical pattern, that being, that men are to be the leaders when it comes to authoritative leadership in the home and the church. If the only fray in the fabric of this pattern is possibly not a fray at all, then we should stick with the patterns strength.
My conclusion on women apostles: To come up with a theology you need to look at what is clear and not what is unclear. It is clear to me that every Apostle is a man. It is not clear that one is a woman. The weight is on the side of the allowance for men. I admit that the unclear allows for a possible hole (and even the fact that there is this hole is uncertain) in the structure of the argument. So, I go again to where there is clarity. That is in 1 Timothy 2. That is where it is supported. That is where I will be going next with this topic. There is no where in scripture where the uncertain issue of women apostles is supported. No where. If I'm wrong, I want to be shown.
This is how I draw my conclusion.
On a final side note: where are the women standing up for this issue? I am reading many women chatting about it and all the women in disagreement are biting their tongues. Now is not the time for timidity. It is probably a virtue that you are quiet but there is no need to be quiet when the Word of God is being stretched into another belief system. This is not about who has the better argument, this is about loving God with our minds by digging, finding, and then defending. Where are the women who will stand up for biblical womanhood and defend it?
Monday, September 22, 2008
What Does Paul Mean In 1 Timothy 2?
It seems to me that the allowance of women teaching men is resting heavy on the proper understanding of 1 Timothy 2. I am on a mission to study this and find it's meaning.
Though I am about to paste the excerpt text of what is said on this by John Piper, I can say from listening to the whole sermon here, that there is a great deal more definition in that.
I will be leaving this blog up all week with a follow up blog coming from the actual sermon notes for those of you who don't get to listen. You are missing a lot without it.
I welcome comments and discussion.
For those of you not interested in all this reading and discussion, I apologize. The correct handle of the Word of God is one of my deepest passions and one I struggle with being polite on when it comes to it being misrepresented. I scare myself with the intensity of it. I'm sure Jesus seemed very disagreeable when he raged through the temple. Sometimes I feel that bubble in me. I'm praying though that God would be glorified by the way I handle this topic. I want His word to be heard for what it says.
I love how clear and understandable John Piper is in his teaching and his mastery of the common sense of scripture.
"Manhood, Womanhood, and the Freedom to Minister" by John Piper
1 Timothy 2:8-15
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
What we saw last week from Ephesians 5:32 was that marriage is a mystery. God gave it a meaning at the beginning of creation that was not fully revealed for a long time. But now it's made plain in the New Testament. And the mystery is this: marriage is an image or picture of Christ's relationship to his bride the church. A husband and a wife are meant by God to be living images of Christ and the church in relationship to each other.
Before Sin Ever Entered into the World
So when God created man and woman, he made us the way we are—with the differences of manhood and womanhood—so that we would be suited for these complementary roles (and for the other expressions of complementarity outside marriage). In this drama man was meant to play the role of Christ, and the woman was meant to play the role of his bride the church.
And we have stressed for five weeks now that these differences are not the result of sin. Sin didn't create manhood and womanhood. God did. And sin did not bring diversified, complementary roles into existence. God did. Before sin ever entered the world, God ordained and fitted Adam to be a loving, caring, strong leader for his wife Eve. And before sin entered the world, God ordained and fitted Eve to be a partner who supports and honors that leadership and helps carry it through. Both in the image of God. Both equal in their God-like personhood. But also different in their manhood and womanhood. The pattern was beautiful. They respected each other and served each other and complemented each other and enjoyed each other.
What Sin Ruined and Christ Recovered
What sin did was ruin this harmony. Sin made men abandon servant-leadership and become passive or harsh and insensitive and uncaring, or some other distortion of biblical headship. And sin distorted the woman's support and honor into manipulation or defiance or helplessness or some other distortion of true biblical submission.
So what Paul did in Ephesians 5 (as we saw last week) is call for a recovery of God's original idea. He doesn't abolish what God created at the beginning. He wants to get back to it: true biblical headship and true biblical submission. Here's the way we defined these two realities from our study last week:
Headship is the divine calling of a husband to take primary responsibility for Christ-like servant leadership, protection, and provision in the home.
Submission is the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts.
When a husband leads like Christ and a wife responds like the bride of Christ, there is a harmony and mutuality that is more beautiful and more satisfying and more fruitful than any pattern of marriage created by man. God loves his people and he loves his glory. And therefore when we follow his idea of marriage, we are most satisfied and he is most glorified.
The Real Test of Whether We've Grasped This
Now the real test I think of whether we have grasped the biblical essence of manhood and womanhood and affirm it as true and beautiful—the real test is whether Paul's application of it to the life of the church surprises and offends us or not. If the New Testament roles for man and woman in marriage are rooted not in sinful pride and not in cultural expectations, but in God's original design for creation, then how would you expect this original design to express itself in the life of the church? That's what we have before us today in 1 Timothy 2:11-14.
Let's seat ourselves before these unpopular verses and listen for a few minutes, and see if the story they tell is really as unattractive as so many think it is.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
I think what we need to do in order to understand the submissiveness in this text is patiently think through the meaning of "silence" ("Let a woman learn in silence") and the meaning of "teaching" ("I do not permit a woman to teach") and the meaning of "authority" ("or to have authority over men"). So let's take these one at time.
1. "Silence"
First, "silence." Verse 11: "Let a woman learn in silence." Notice that the word "silence" is used two other times in nearby verses.
The word for silence here (hesuchia) is used earlier in verse 2 of this chapter (hesuchion). But there it refers to the "quiet" life which all godly people should lead. "Pray . . . that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." This gives you the tone and the extent of the word. It doesn't refer to absolute silence: a "quiet" and peaceable life is not a life of total silence. It's a life untroubled and serene and content. So the silence doesn't seem to be total. It's more like what we would call "quietness."
You can see this especially at the end of verse 12. The same word is used again. But this time you can tell what Paul has in mind by its opposite. He says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men, [literally:] but to be silent." "Not to have authority over men, but to be silent." In other words this quietness is the opposite of exercising authority over men. "Don't exercise authority over men, instead be silent."
So what sort of quietness does Paul have in mind? It's the kind of quietness that respects and honors the leadership of the men God has called to oversee the church. Verse 11 says that the quietness is "in all submissiveness," and verse 12 says the quietness is the opposite of "authority over men," and so the point is not whether a woman says nothing, but whether she is submissive and whether she supports the authority of the men God has called to oversee the church. Quietness means not speaking in a way that compromises that authority.
We'll come back in a minute and be more specific about just what this submission is.
2. "Teaching"
The second thing we need to look at is the reference to teaching in verse 12. How extensive is Paul's prohibition when he says, "I permit no woman to teach"?
To answer this, one thing we can do is look at other places where Paul and others talk about women teaching. For example in Titus 2:3 he says that the older women are to teach the younger women (at the end of the verse): "they are to teach what is good, and so train the younger women to love their husbands and children."
Another example is 2 Timothy 3:14 where Paul tells Timothy to remember from whom he learned the Scriptures. And the persons he has in mind (we can tell from 2 Timothy 1:5) are Eunice and Lois, Timothy's mother and grandmother. (His father was not a believer or even a Jew, Acts 16:3.)
One other example is Priscilla. It says in Acts 18:26, "When Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately."
So, it's not likely that Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 that every kind of teaching is forbidden to women. There are examples of them teaching younger women, teaching children, and in some way teaming up with their husbands to give private instruction when someone is confused or uninformed like Apollos. Those are just some examples. Is it possible to generalize, then, about what Paul does have in mind here when he says, "I do not permit a woman to teach"? I think the safest thing to do is let the next phrase guide us. The next phrase is, " . . . or exercise authority over men." "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over men."
Instead of letting the word "teach" mean anything we want it to mean or think it might mean, it's safer to say, it probably means a kind of teaching that somehow relates to authority. Teach and exercise authority go together. So at least one general thing we can say about women teaching is that Paul forbids it when it is part of the exercise of authority over men.
That leads us to the third question, namely, what is this "authority" referred to in verse 12?
3. "Authority"
The key that unlocks this door is a very interesting observation. When you read the rest of 1 Timothy about the role of elders in the church, what you find is that the elders had two basic responsibilities: they were to govern and they were to teach. You can see this in the qualifications of 3:1-7, but the easiest place to see it is in 5:17, "Let the elders who rule [or govern] well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching."
Elders rule or govern, and elders teach or preach. Back in Acts 20:28, you may recall, the elders in the church at Ephesus were called by the Holy Spirit and made "overseers" and charged with "pasturing" or feeding the flock, that is, teaching the whole counsel of God.
I don't think it's coincidental that what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12 is that he does not permit a woman to teach and exercise authority over men. He is saying in essence: I do not permit women to fill the office of elder in the church. The elders are charged with the leadership and instruction of the church. That's a summary of their job. So when Paul puts those two things together and says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority," the most natural sense is, "I do not permit a woman to assume the office of elder in the church."
So the authority Paul has in mind in 1 Timothy 2:12 is the authority of elders. And what is that supposed to look like? Well we saw already from Jesus in Luke 22:26 what it's supposed to look like: "Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves." Paul said in 2 Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10 that God gave him authority in the church not for tearing down or destroying but for building up. And Peter said to the elders of the churches (1 Peter 5:3), "Do not domineer over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock."
In other words, elder-authority is servant-authority. Elder-leadership is servant-leadership. That's why teaching is at the heart of this calling. Elder-authority leads by persuasion—by teaching—not by coercion or political maneuvering. Elder-authority is always subordinate to biblical texts. It can always be called to account by Scripture. Therefore teaching is the primary instrument of leadership in the church.
Defining Authority and Submission
I think it would be helpful to step back here and try to do for the concepts of authority and submission in the church what we did for the concepts of headship and submission in the home, namely, give a crisp definition of each.
"Authority" refers to the divine calling of spiritual, gifted men to take primary responsibility as elders for Christ-like servant-leadership and teaching in the church.
"Submission" refers to the divine calling of the rest of the church, both men and women, to honor and affirm the leadership of the elders and to be equipped by it for the hundreds and hundreds of various ministries available to men and women in the service of Christ.
And that last point is very important. For men and women who have a heart to minister—to save souls and heal broken lives and resist evil and meet needs—there are fields of opportunity that are simply endless. God intends for the entire church to be mobilized in ministry, male and female. Nobody is to be at home watching soaps and reruns while the world burns. And God intends to equip and mobilize the saints through a company of spiritual men who take primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church.
Closing Appeal
There are many voices today who claim to know a better way to equip and mobilize the men and women of the church for ministry. But I commend to you this morning with all my heart the plain meaning of these verses:
That manhood and womanhood mesh better in ministry when men take primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church.
That manhood and womanhood are better preserved and better nurtured and more fulfilled and more fruitful in this church order than in any other.
I commend this to you for your belief and for your behavior, because
this is the way the Scriptures teach us to order the church,
and God inspired the Scriptures,
and God is good.
My hope next Sunday, in the last of this series, is to pick up verses 13 and 14, and then paint the big picture of what it means to be man and woman in all of life.
© DesirLogos.ReferenceTagging.lbsBibleVersion = "ESV";
Logosing God
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
Piper On Women in Church Leadership and Apostles
I know, I know, I just can't stop.
This is great, but listen here to hear his whole talk.
Also, you can go here to learn more about 1 Timothy 2 and it's importance.
Should women become pastors?
The Bible draws a connection between the home and the church. Just as there is a role distinction at home—where the husband is called to lead the family—there is also one at church.
At home men are proving their fitness to be elders (pastors), and at church they are the ones who are given that role. Paul says explicitly, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12). And those two functions—teaching and exercising authority—are the functions of the elder.
It's not a problem for a woman to minister in hundreds of ways in the church, but the office of leadership and teaching of men is preserved for spiritual and godly men.
Why didn't Jesus choose women as some of his apostles?
The Twelve are all men. That was intentional, because they are all given incredible authority to found the church. They are like pastors, only they have more authority than pastors.
But Jesus did call women, and he called them into significant ministry. Read the beginning of Luke 8 or see the role of women at the Resurrection. Jesus broke significant taboos in the way that he elevated the role of women. It was counter-cultural to have Mary sitting at his feet learning like a rabbinic student at the feet of his teacher. And it was counter-cultural for him to have women so closely attending him, providing for his needs, and for him to be so merciful to the women of the street.
Jesus was pro-woman to the max. But he did not choose women to be apostles. That wasn't because he was enslaved to his times. It was because, in coherence with the rest of the Bible (Genesis 1-2, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11, and 1 Timothy 2), he believed that it would be healthy for the church and the family if men assumed the role of Christ-like, humble, caring, servant-leaders, and if the women came in alongside with their respective gifts to help carry his leadership through according to those gifts.
So I sympathize with any confusion on this matter, and I pray that the Lord would give you light to see that it's really not very complicated: God has ordained that in the home and in the church men assume a special role of responsible leadership and teaching.
This is great, but listen here to hear his whole talk.
Also, you can go here to learn more about 1 Timothy 2 and it's importance.
Should women become pastors?
The Bible draws a connection between the home and the church. Just as there is a role distinction at home—where the husband is called to lead the family—there is also one at church.
At home men are proving their fitness to be elders (pastors), and at church they are the ones who are given that role. Paul says explicitly, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12). And those two functions—teaching and exercising authority—are the functions of the elder.
It's not a problem for a woman to minister in hundreds of ways in the church, but the office of leadership and teaching of men is preserved for spiritual and godly men.
Why didn't Jesus choose women as some of his apostles?
The Twelve are all men. That was intentional, because they are all given incredible authority to found the church. They are like pastors, only they have more authority than pastors.
But Jesus did call women, and he called them into significant ministry. Read the beginning of Luke 8 or see the role of women at the Resurrection. Jesus broke significant taboos in the way that he elevated the role of women. It was counter-cultural to have Mary sitting at his feet learning like a rabbinic student at the feet of his teacher. And it was counter-cultural for him to have women so closely attending him, providing for his needs, and for him to be so merciful to the women of the street.
Jesus was pro-woman to the max. But he did not choose women to be apostles. That wasn't because he was enslaved to his times. It was because, in coherence with the rest of the Bible (Genesis 1-2, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11, and 1 Timothy 2), he believed that it would be healthy for the church and the family if men assumed the role of Christ-like, humble, caring, servant-leaders, and if the women came in alongside with their respective gifts to help carry his leadership through according to those gifts.
So I sympathize with any confusion on this matter, and I pray that the Lord would give you light to see that it's really not very complicated: God has ordained that in the home and in the church men assume a special role of responsible leadership and teaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)