How do Nazarenes explain 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

[Tinker Boyd]

I can understand the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 being perhaps strictly spoken to the women at the church in Corinth but this passage sounds more universal to me. Since the Nazarene church obviously believes women can be called by God to preach to a church, how do Nazarenes interpret/explain this scripture?


11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Greatly perplexed,
Tinker

[Shea Zellweger]

Some would simply say Paul was wrong, others would suggest Paul didn't actually write that chapter but it was added in a later edition by a patriarchal scribe. I would say it's a combination of inaccurate theology (Eve and Adam were both deceived, otherwise Adam would not have eaten the fruit) and cultural peculiarity (women of the time were uneducated).

[Ryan Scott]

I don't know enough about the context or the passage to give a good exegetical treatment. I am able to say that, for me, I don't let a few verses negate something that seems evident to the contrary in the whole of scripture.

[Dale Cozby]

If we are to take all of this scripture literally, then women who are barren apparently go to hell. Even if they are faithful in all other matters here listed.
"15 But women {[15] Greek she}will be saved {[15] Or restored} through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety"

If we also take the rest of that scripture literally, then Paul did not say "God does not allow women to have authority over a man." He explicitly said HE(Paul) does not allow it. Since in other writings Paul makes the distinction between what he does and what God requires, it would be safe to infer that he intended this as a personal point between himself and Timothy, not a matter for the church as a whole to hold as a command from God.

Of course if we are to take the sentence about Adam and Eve in a continued "literal" interpretation, Paul is obviously wrong. Adam did indeed become a sinner and he certainly bought into something besides God's plan to eat of the fruit, hence it would seem he must have been deceived as well.
I would say Paul is using the Adam and Eve story to justify his position and by the same logic we can use the Hamitic curse to justify slavery, as it was used for centuries. But it doesn't seem very consistent with the rest of the NT teachings to me.

[Ryan Scott]

]If we also take the rest of that scripture literally, then Paul did not say "God does not allow women to have authority over a man." He explicitly said HE(Paul) does not allow it.

Paul was a practical dude. He obviously ran into trouble with this issue in some places and made a blanket decision for those congregations he was responsible to lead. This might be documentation on a major step forward in the art of middle management.

[Benjamin Burch]

I can understand the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 being perhaps strictly spoken to the women at the church in Corinth but this passage sounds more universal to me. Since the Nazarene church obviously believes women can be called by God to preach to a church, how do Nazarenes interpret/explain this scripture?



Greatly perplexed,
Tinker

I would think that anyone who is being totally honest with the texts will have to deal with a major issue:

- This is completely inconsistent with the Pauline Gospel and completely inconsistent with Romans 16 (which is undisputedly Pauline).

In Romans 16 Paul refers to different women as "apostles" (the same title he uses for himself, clearly a teaching and preaching office), he lists Prisca before Aquilla which points to her priority in the couple, and he refers to Phoebe as a "deacon," which is clearly a position of authority over either an entire congregation or even multiple congregations.

So, it is clear that Paul does in fact allow women to teach and have authority over men. Therefore, there are two options, neither of which favor those who want to give this verse priority in the discussion over women in the Church.

(1) Paul doesn't mean exactly what it says in 2 Timothy in a universal way and it's a local situation only, because it doesn't match what he says elsewhere

(2) Paul did not write 2 Timothy and it is in tension with what Paul did say (and this would be the position, for many other reasons, of the large majority of NT Scholars).

Edited to Add: Every Nazarene NT Scholar I have studied with considers 2 Timothy as Un-Pauline.

[Cynthia Prentice]

I can understand the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 being perhaps strictly spoken to the women at the church in Corinth but this passage sounds more universal to me. Since the Nazarene church obviously believes women can be called by God to preach to a church, how do Nazarenes interpret/explain this scripture?



Greatly perplexed,
Tinker

I do not have time right now to delve into this scripture but an initial reading of the Jewish New Testament Commentary brings an interesting perspective, especially looking at the difference between our concept of learning and the pattern of disciple making (talmidim) in existance at the time. It makes sense that a woman should not have men as her disciples in a 24/7 type relationship. This would be very different than a woman pastoring a church (obviously she is not living with her parishioners) I would have to do further study to determine whether or not I agree with it but it is a fresh voice in the discussion.


11–12 Greek manthanetô does not mean learn in the modern sense of acquiring information but is related to mathetês, disciple. Thus the context is the pattern of discipling and being discipled which existed in Judaism and was exemplified by Yeshua and his *talmidim (on this word see Mt 5:1N). Orthodox Jews use the word “learn” to mean “studying Torah,” not merely to gain knowledge but to become more holy. This is close to the sense here.

One who disciples others has responsibility for their spiritual life and growth; women are not to have that kind of responsibility for men. Nevertheless, Timothy is to let a woman learn (be discipled) in peace (Greek êsuchia, “silence, restfulness”), without her being disturbed. The sense is not “in silence,” as in most translations, implying she should keep her mouth shut, but “at rest”; compare Ac 22:2 and 2 Th 3:12, where the word is translated, “settle down.” On the other hand, 1C 14:34–35 does teach against disturbing chatter by wives at congregational meetings. Although women may learn equally with men, *Sha’ul does not permit a woman to teach (to disciple) a man or exercise a discipler’s authority over him.

But in a well-led congregation (criteria for leaders is the topic of the next chapter) women may be given much authority and responsibility, including the discipling of women and the teaching of men; Sha’ul himself offers many examples—Lydia, the businesswoman who opened her home to him (Ac 16:14, 40), Priscilla, who taught Apollos (Ac 18:26), and Phoebe, who held a leadership position (Ro 16:1, and see 3:11 below)—to name but three.

13–15 The two reasons given for women’s not being disciplers of men are Adam’s chronological priority (compare 1C 11:8–9) and Eve’s propensity for being deceived. Sha’ul does not say that Eve sinned, but that she became involved in the transgression (literally, “has become in transgression”), which I take to mean that she became mixed up in Adam’s transgression. At Ro 5:12–21 Sha’ul teaches that it was Adam who sinned through directly disobeying God’s command to him (Genesis 2:17, 3:1–7), and therefore he bears the primary responsibility for the “Fall”—the introduction of sin into human life. Although the Apocrypha gives us the verse, “Sin began with a woman, and thanks to her we must all die” (Sirach 25:24), the New Testament presents a different picture. Eve was not the sinner, Adam was, since it was he who disregarded God’s command. Eve, rather, was “deceived” (2C 11:3)—when the serpent duped her, she became involved in Adam’s transgression.

Sha’ul sees a role difference for men and women rooted in God’s purpose. The eye of faith can accept this difference as not demeaning to women. Also, in the framework of faith, women’s self-fulfillment is not limited. It must be admitted that Sha’ul’s manner of argument does not appeal to the modern mind. But he was not writing for the modern mind. We owe it to the text to place ourselves in the shoes of his readers and not to measure his style against the assumptions of our age. For a broad discussion of the New Testament’s teaching about the roles of the sexes which takes modern sociological observations and ideological movements such as feminism into account, see Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ.

15 An obscure verse. Possibly Sha’ul is reducing the severity of vv. 11–14 (compare 1C 11:11–12) by mitigating the punishment Genesis 3:16 decreed for Eve’s role in the Fall. There God said to her, “I will greatly multiply the pain of your childbearing—in pain will you bring forth children. You will turn away toward your husband, but he will rule over you.” verses 11–14 state that he still rules her. But now she is spared much of the emotional pain of motherhood (of “bringing forth” or raising children)—if not the physical pain of childbearing—through trusting and loving God and living a holy life.
Another possible meaning: God’s purpose for women is motherhood; a woman who devotes herself to this is in harmony with God’s plan. In any case, the verse certainly does not intend to teach that childbearing is an alternate “plan of salvation” for women, making trust in Yeshua unnecessary!

[Wilson Deaton]

Since the Nazarene church obviously believes women can be called by God to preach to a church, how do Nazarenes interpret/explain this scripture?

Since you asked about how "Nazarenes interpret/explain" let me share with the treatment of this passage from the Beacon Bible Commentary (Nazarene published).


[Paul] makes a similar point in I Corinthians 14:34-35... It is believed that these rigorous strictures were occasioned by the fact that many in the Corinthian church were recent converts from paganism, and that the new freedom which they enjoyed in Christ had led to certain extravagances which were unseemly or irreverent. It is at least possible that a similar reason afforded occasion for these admonitions to Timothy, who pastored a church hewn out of the heathenism of Ephesus.

We cannot accept the idea that even at Corinth, the stipulations we have cited were to be applied in every case. Indeed, Paul elsewhere says to them, "Every woman that prayeth, or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head" (I Cor, 11:5). This passage, at the very least, an acknowledgement that in Corinth women did pray and in some cases exercised the gift of prophecy; and that this did not meet with the apostle's disapproval, provided the women so engaged were properly attired.

It would be ill become us, therefore, to seek to base on Paul's remarks to Timothy a teaching that women are to be excluded from places of leadership in the church. Even v. 12, ..., must be regarded as a demand imposed on the church at Ephesus for reasons unknown to us. No universal teaching which would bind the Church for all times can be properly based upon it...
Wilson

[Todd Erickson]

Women prophesying bareheaded risked being identified with the priestesses of greek gods.

[Jim Chabot]

I can understand the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 being perhaps strictly spoken to the women at the church in Corinth but this passage sounds more universal to me. Since the Nazarene church obviously believes women can be called by God to preach to a church, how do Nazarenes interpret/explain this scripture?



Greatly perplexed,
Tinker

The long and short of it is that Nazarenes cannot explain 1 Timothy 2:11-15 it is just something that we go along with as Nazarenes. I have heard many, many explanations, none give a satisfactory answer. To be practical however, one must first realize that there is no denomination with entirely correct doctrine, one must overlook something somewhere in order to get along, so we make a choice as to where we best fit in. Nazarenes have held their view on women serving in ministry all the way back to Pilot Point and it isn't going to change.

We can trace this back even further, in fact all the way back to John Wesley who although initially against allowing women to preach, changed his views over time and actually ordained two women himself. Personally I think that JW let his surroundings and experience get the best of him and he decided against the advice of scripture, but we cannot deny that he did decide in favor on this issue in later life. It is part of our heritage.

Our American Holiness roots bring this in as well, I think in even stronger terms. Many of the leaders of the AHM movement were women, in fact I would hazard to guess that every camp meeting tabernacle in the North East has had at one time or another a woman evangelist lead the meeting. Again this doctrine reaches all the way back to our roots, it is part of what defines us as Nazarenes. Right or wrong, I believe that it is here to stay.

For a real good piece on the Wesleyan perspective concerning this take a look here:

http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/PDF%20Files/Leadership/SCOD/WomeninMinistry_Winslow.pdf

It is the best explanation that I have read, it is not compelling, but it is very well written.

Personally I believe that Paul was chosen directly by God to be the apostle to the gentiles. I believe that he was given this complicated task of reconciling the law with grace. So I have no problem taking Paul at face value. I don't see anything in this passage that is inconsistent with Paul's writings. Many point to different passages in Paul's writing claiming an inconsistency with this text, but it simply isn't there, Paul remained steadfast throughout his writings.

My personal belief and it is nothing more than that, just a hunch you could say, is that Paul felt a need to reiterate this particular tenet as one not changing. The emerging church was quite different in many ways from it's Judaic roots, yet not in all ways, Paul was the one working out the details. Nothing has changed in regard to his logic, he goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. Eve was deceived, while Adam was disobedient, different acts, and God meted out differing punishments for each. The curse is not universal, we do not bear it equally, Paul reminds us of this truth.

[Randy Wise]

I can understand the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 being perhaps strictly spoken to the women at the church in Corinth but this passage sounds more universal to me. Since the Nazarene church obviously believes women can be called by God to preach to a church, how do Nazarenes interpret/explain this scripture?



Greatly perplexed,
Tinker

I am not sure why one would be surprised at Pauls statement. The only church life so to speak that Paul had experience with was 1st century Judaism and that was very male oriented and the man or husband was seen as the head of house hold. Notice what Paul wrote after the "if". Thats what was see as important to salvation, not the humbleness in learning, which we would view as the culture of the day. (if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety). Also, as we all know, "all have sinned" , which includes men.

Randy

[Rich Schmidt]

Some would simply say Paul was wrong, others would suggest Paul didn't actually write that chapter but it was added in a later edition by a patriarchal scribe. I would say it's a combination of inaccurate theology (Eve and Adam were both deceived, otherwise Adam would not have eaten the fruit) and cultural peculiarity (women of the time were uneducated).


So, it is clear that Paul does in fact allow women to teach and have authority over men. Therefore, there are two options, neither of which favor those who want to give this verse priority in the discussion over women in the Church.

(1) Paul doesn't mean exactly what it says in 2 Timothy in a universal way and it's a local situation only, because it doesn't match what he says elsewhere

(2) Paul did not write 2 Timothy and it is in tension with what Paul did say (and this would be the position, for many other reasons, of the large majority of NT Scholars).

Edited to Add: Every Nazarene NT Scholar I have studied with considers 2 Timothy as Un-Pauline.

Just to be clear: Even if Paul didn't write it, it's still Scripture. Right, guys?

I just want to make sure none of us are thinking, "If Paul didn't really write it, then I don't have to deal with it."

[Benjamin Burch]

Just to be clear: Even if Paul didn't write it, it's still Scripture. Right, guys?

I just want to make sure none of us are thinking, "If Paul didn't really write it, then I don't have to deal with it."

Yes, it is still Scripture. However, the strong contrast between it and Paul's other statements on the issue as well as the ethic which derives from Paul's Gospel is highlighted and even heightened if it is a different author. It makes us have to deal with it all the more.

However, we also believe we're not supposed to marry multiple wives, but much of the Old Testament promotes this practice. My only point is that while, yes, it is absolutely Scripture, there are undoubtedly things in Scripture which simply don't mesh with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I think we do best to be honest about those sorts of things.

This, for me, is one of those sorts of things. If it DOES mean exactly what it sounds like it says, that is clearly not in accord with the Gospel in which there is no longer male or female.

[Jim Chabot]

Yes, it is still Scripture. However, the strong contrast between it and Paul's other statements on the issue as well as the ethic which derives from Paul's Gospel is highlighted and even heightened if it is a different author. It makes us have to deal with it all the more.

I would suggest that there are scholars on both sides of the textual issue, and I would also suggest that much like the news media, they are issue driven. True scholarship is rare.

That said, I don't see a contrast in Pauls writings in this regard. You pointed out the list found in Romans 16, but I think you are reading far more into it that actually exists.

Firstly Paul refers to no one in that list as an apostle, he refers to Junia as one who is a notable person who is known to the apostles. I realize that the NIV and NASB use language that could possibly suggest that he refers to her as an apostle, but even that language can be read either way. In nestles text the preposition before the word Apostle indicates a relation to the apostles, not inclusion in their membership. Nor would it be possible. Apostle means "sent one", therefore the identity of the "sender" is of primary importance. There are only thirteen who are the sent ones of the Lamb, with Judas vacating his office, twelve remain to be inscribed on the foundation of the great city. The naming of Junias as an Apostle is highly speculative scholarship at best.

While it is true that Paul refers to Phoebe as a deacon, he is not using the current definition of the word. Deacons were servants, they were to care for peoples need thus freeing up the elders to oversee the church. Also when one reads the entire text concerning Phoebe, it is clear that the context implies a servant or helper, Paul indicates that she has helped him greatly. Please note that the word diakanos is translated "servant" in most versions including the NIV and KJV, one needs to version shop to get the word translated to "deacon" and that is not indicative of authority in the vernacular of the day. This is consistent with Pauls teaching that Widows consign themselves to the service of the church. Paul show consistency here.

He mentions Priscilla before Aquilla. Ok. He reverses the order in 1 Corinthians 19. How are we to read this? Was there a power struggle between the two, were there marital issues? Did Paul have an affair, and list her first because of guilt? No, he lists two names, the order tells us nothing.


However, we also believe we're not supposed to marry multiple wives, but much of the Old Testament promotes this practice. My only point is that while, yes, it is absolutely Scripture, there are undoubtedly things in Scripture which simply don't mesh with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I think we do best to be honest about those sorts of things.

Best I can tell, there is no admonition in scripture against multiple wives except for the ministry requirements in Timothy. Personally I am glad to have just one wife and I have no desire for another, even if the law allowed it. But there is nothing in scripture that prevents this.


This, for me, is one of those sorts of things. If it DOES mean exactly what it sounds like it says, that is clearly not in accord with the Gospel in which there is no longer male or female.

Again, I see no conflict. Where Paul speaks of us no longer being male and female as we are one in Christ, he speaks directly to the issue of salvation. He makes the point emphatically that the era of Judaism is over. To confer a larger meaning to this verse is irresponsible, in that it creates a conflict in Paul's writing which simply does not exist.

Again, it is part of our heritage and our identity. I'm ok with it, but lets not try to defend this practice with scripture, it is untenable.

[Rich Schmidt]

However, we also believe we're not supposed to marry multiple wives, but much of the Old Testament promotes this practice. My only point is that while, yes, it is absolutely Scripture, there are undoubtedly things in Scripture which simply don't mesh with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I think we do best to be honest about those sorts of things.

This, for me, is one of those sorts of things. If it DOES mean exactly what it sounds like it says, that is clearly not in accord with the Gospel in which there is no longer male or female.

I'm a fan of the redemptive movement hermeneutic described in Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830815619?ie=UTF8&tag=livinghopecom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830815619). I think it's helpful on this issue. It sees statements like these in Scripture as evidencing a move in a certain direction, toward God's ideal, even though they don't perfectly describe or prescribe that ideal. But compared to the cultural norm of the day, it's a step forward.

The way I put it a few months ago, when preaching on Ephesians, was that Paul didn't instruct people to overthrow the cultural structures of his day, but instead urges them to live as followers of Jesus within those structures.... which has the result of transforming things.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm a fan of the redemptive movement hermeneutic described in Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830815619?ie=UTF8&tag=livinghopecom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830815619). I think it's helpful on this issue. It sees statements like these in Scripture as evidencing a move in a certain direction, toward God's ideal, even though they don't perfectly describe or prescribe that ideal. But compared to the cultural norm of the day, it's a step forward.

The way I put it a few months ago, when preaching on Ephesians, was that Paul didn't instruct people to overthrow the cultural structures of his day, but instead urges them to live as followers of Jesus within those structures.... which has the result of transforming things.

I do find this helpful, though I'm not sure I find it helpful when talking about this verse if it is not Pauline. For it would actually be a step in the wrong direction (within later Pauline tradition), away from Paul's more radical gender ethic displayed in Galatians and in Romans 16.

[Jim Chabot]

I'm a fan of the redemptive movement hermeneutic described in Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830815619?ie=UTF8&tag=livinghopecom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830815619). I think it's helpful on this issue. It sees statements like these in Scripture as evidencing a move in a certain direction, toward God's ideal, even though they don't perfectly describe or prescribe that ideal. But compared to the cultural norm of the day, it's a step forward.

The way I put it a few months ago, when preaching on Ephesians, was that Paul didn't instruct people to overthrow the cultural structures of his day, but instead urges them to live as followers of Jesus within those structures.... which has the result of transforming things.

I believe that what you describe is by and far the best defense for our practice. I am not persuaded, but I do believe that it presents the best argument in accordance with Wesleyan tradition. The textual arguments leave me feeling that there is a bit of reverse engineering going on.

[Benjamin Burch]

I would suggest that there are scholars on both sides of the textual issue, and I would also suggest that much like the news media, they are issue driven. True scholarship is rare.

That said, I don't see a contrast in Pauls writings in this regard. You pointed out the list found in Romans 16, but I think you are reading far more into it that actually exists.

Firstly Paul refers to no one in that list as an apostle, he refers to Junia as one who is a notable person who is known to the apostles. I realize that the NIV and NASB use language that could possibly suggest that he refers to her as an apostle, but even that language can be read either way. In nestles text the preposition before the word Apostle indicates a relation to the apostles, not inclusion in their membership. Nor would it be possible. Apostle means "sent one", therefore the identity of the "sender" is of primary importance. There are only thirteen who are the sent ones of the Lamb, with Judas vacating his office, twelve remain to be inscribed on the foundation of the great city. The naming of Junias as an Apostle is highly speculative scholarship at best.

While it is true that Paul refers to Phoebe as a deacon, he is not using the current definition of the word. Deacons were servants, they were to care for peoples need thus freeing up the elders to oversee the church. Also when one reads the entire text concerning Phoebe, it is clear that the context implies a servant or helper, Paul indicates that she has helped him greatly. Please note that the word diakanos is translated "servant" in most versions including the NIV and KJV, one needs to version shop to get the word translated to "deacon" and that is not indicative of authority in the vernacular of the day. This is consistent with Pauls teaching that Widows consign themselves to the service of the church. Paul show consistency here.

He mentions Priscilla before Aquilla. Ok. He reverses the order in 1 Corinthians 19. How are we to read this? Was there a power struggle between the two, were there marital issues? Did Paul have an affair, and list her first because of guilt? No, he lists two names, the order tells us nothing.



Jim,

Thank you very much for your response. I don't have time currently to respond to it, I'm busy with my term paper on Paul's theology in Romans 1 and Galatians 3 (over 6 months of research coming together in this one!). Maybe when I'm done you'll be interested in reading that? Anyways, suffice it to say for now that I am very grateful for your dialogue but I respectfully think that you're reading Romans 16 very poorly, especially in regards to Paul's referring to Junia as an apostle. But, I just don't have time to defend myself right now. I'll respond when I get some time.

Thanks again, Jim.

[Rich Schmidt]

I do find this helpful, though I'm not sure I find it helpful when talking about this verse if it is not Pauline. For it would actually be a step in the wrong direction (within later Pauline tradition), away from Paul's more radical gender ethic displayed in Galatians and in Romans 16.

Whether it's Paul or another church leader, it could still be a move toward God's ideal from wherever things stand in that particular cultural situation.

Webb's approach would see certain verses as hinting at or pointing toward the ideal, while other verses are instructions to help us take steps in that direction.

It's been a while since I worked through the book, but he lays out over a dozen criteria for evaluating passages of Scripture, and he deals specifically with this particular passage as a sort of test case. It's definitely worth reading. Not everyone finds his argument compelling, but I certainly find the basic idea to be very helpful.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,

Thank you very much for your response. I don't have time currently to respond to it, I'm busy with my term paper on Paul's theology in Romans 1 and Galatians 3 (over 6 months of research coming together in this one!). Maybe when I'm done you'll be interested in reading that? Anyways, suffice it to say for now that I am very grateful for your dialogue but I respectfully think that you're reading Romans 16 very poorly, especially in regards to Paul's referring to Junia as an apostle. But, I just don't have time to defend myself right now. I'll respond when I get some time.

Thanks again, Jim.

No problem Ben, I wish you well with your paper, and yes I would be interested in reading it. I'm convinced that someday, I may be able to tell people that I knew Ben Burch, before he became a famous writer!

Sometime when you have time, I would highly recommend this book:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-The-Apostle-by-Sholem-Asch-English-Translation_W0QQitemZ300418679204QQcmdZViewItemQQp tZAntiquarian_Collectible?hash=item45f25941a4

It is not a dry scholarly work, rather it is an incredible perspective from an author with an incredible philosophical depth steeped in the Jewish culture.

He does a great job outlining Isaiah and also the Exodus. I have read his complete works, he is a very engaging and intriguing author.

[Rich Schmidt]

I believe that what you describe is by and far the best defense for our practice. I am not persuaded, but I do believe that it presents the best argument in accordance with Wesleyan tradition. The textual arguments leave me feeling that there is a bit of reverse engineering going on.

I think it works well, too. Yet somehow our denomination managed to ordain women from the beginning without Webb's particular approach/defense. :) We simply put together the experience some women had of being called to (and gifted for) preaching and church leadership with the various passages of Scripture that say God calls women to preach (or "prophesy"), and got on with it. :)

[Ryan Scott]

Would it be wrong to simply say that some early Christians had similar views on gender equality in worship to some Christians today - in neither case does that require us to adhere strictly to those rules.

[Jim Chabot]

Would it be wrong to simply say that some early Christians had similar views on gender equality in worship to some Christians today - in neither case does that require us to adhere strictly to those rules.

There's a lot to think about there, I guess it would be right and I guess it would be wrong to say that. I hope I'm not twisting your words, because I can see room for differing interpretations to what you have said here.

Yes I think that Christians today do have similar views on gender equality, and yes I think that it both cases Christians have extended their views to cover all aspects, including our time of assembling together and our leadership. I see a similarity, today we can see this by observation, and back in the days of the early church we can see things by reactions taken.

I differ in that I think that we are asked to adhere to the "rules" I believe that early Christians, much the same as today looked for gender equality in worship. And I believe that Paul by divine inspiration instructed the early church properly. I believe that his instruction is valid today, nothing has changed.

I am also a realist, this is here to stay. It is part of who we are, it is part of our identity.

[David Graham]

Would it be wrong to simply say that some early Christians had similar views on gender equality in worship to some Christians today - in neither case does that require us to adhere strictly to those rules.

I agree Ryan, and what we see emerging in the early church is the emergence of "new wineskins".

The Old covenant revolved around the law with mandated practices with regard to worship and the offering of sacrifices etc. It also provided for an order of priests who were to lead this community so that they would live according to the standards which God had set for them. It was all very nicely regulated and packaged, and yet even then the people didn't get things completely right, and so God raised up prophets and prophetesses to warn the people of their error and to teach them God's way.

In the New Testament age, we are not under law but under grace. This means that things are not so "neatly packaged", and God now works in the world, not by a specific order of priest but through all believers by his Spirit. Remember the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost regarding the significant events of that day: "This is what the Prophet Joel spoke about: 'In the last days I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and your daughters will prophecy; your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams..... yes, on all of my servants both men and women I will pour out my Spirit in those days'".

Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Old Covenant in full, and gave his followers new commandments which spoke of us loving one another and doing the things which he did. Thus all believers in Christ represent Christ in their world being motivated by love and empowered by God's Spirit. (No restrictions were placed upon who could do this; no, not even gender! :smile: )
Even with regard to the administration of the sacrament, the emphasis was upon the people's hearts and conduct and not upon who could/could not serve or officiate.

SO, in my opinion, Paul is offering his opinion as a "former Rabbi" in the light of his understanding of the cultural and religious practices of the time in which he lived. It is noteworthy, I think that Paul should have written; "I do not permit a woman to teach etc" for this indicates that he himself didn't regard the matter as settled and therefore mandatory upon the whole church.:tongue:

[Ryan Scott]

I meant simply that at the basic level, we can say that not everyone agreed, which, to me, seems like a valuable lesson.

[John Kennedy]

I don't know how Nazarenes explain the Timothy passage. Maybe I'll incur some fundamentalist/literalist wrath, but I really don't care. I'm just happy that they were courageous enough to provide a place of ministry for a God-called woman, my mother. For years before she met and married my father and then for years in partnership with him, she was faithful to God's call on her life. And God blessed her ministry, both in the salvation of souls and the strengthening of believers.

The few times she would even talk about the hostility of some to women in ministry, her attitude seemed to be that the issue was their problem - she had said yes to God's call and that was enough.

Even though I haven't been a Nazarene for years, I am still gratefui for a church that refused to be bound by foolish cultural ideas and was willing to provide a place of service for God's daughters as well as his sons. I hope the church never, either in letter or in spirit, abandons that stand.

[Mike Schutz]

For me, the most helpful, short, pastoral presentation of this is from Craig Keener, in both his IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament and His work Paul, Women, and Wives. While Craig is not Nazarene (ordained in the National Baptist Convention, Ph.D. from Duke, teaches at Palmer - the seminary at Eastern University, St. Davids' PA), he is very helpful here, without getting into some of the issues that lead folks looking for a common-sense answer to think that we are grasping at straws.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I would suggest that there are scholars on both sides of the textual issue, and I would also suggest that much like the news media, they are issue driven. True scholarship is rare.

Nope. This assumes that all biblical research and scholarship is biased and is done to support the personal opinions of the one studying. While the statement itself inadvertently provides its own evidence, that fact itself tends to invalidate the statement.

I have worked with and among biblical scholars all of my adult life. I have encountered pseudo-scholars on both ends of the spectrum, and in fields ranging from science to sociology. They are fairly easy to recognize. Fundamentalists (those who militantly promote their own opinions as the only truth) can be from either the right or the left, and can be academics with advanced degrees as easily as uninformed rock musicians.

But most biblical scholars and theologians I have encountered take the task of research and scholarship quite seriously. I have even changed my mind about some things after carefully studying the evidence (Clark Pinnock is a notable example of this). That is the way scholarship works (in science, both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are good examples).

Sure, there is no way to be totally neutral about anything. That is the nature of human beings. And we tend to be more passionate about religious beliefs. But that is far from a basis to assume that all scholarship is "issue driven" and that "true scholarship is rare." As one who has worked in biblical scholarship (for longer than I want to admit!), I can fairly confidently affirm that it simply is not true, and at best is a serious overstatement.


Again, it [women in ministry] is part of our heritage and our identity. I'm ok with it, but lets not try to defend this practice with scripture, it is untenable.

"Untenable" is far too strong here. Again, the basic assumption that the purpose (or result) of biblical study is to defend a certain predetermined position is itself determining how Scripture is to be heard. There needs to be some recognition that even though this is an absolute statement, it is in reality a statement of personal biblical hermeneutics that involves a range of assumptions about the nature of Scripture. Until that issue is addressed it will not matter what exegetical evidence is presented; Scripture will be read in only one way to support one conclusion without considering any other factors or evidence.

I understand the biblical perspective quite well, as well as the classic position developed from it against women in ministry, just as I understand the reasons for the societal subjugation of women and not allowing women to vote in the USA until 1920. But those are not absolutes that forever define the role of women. That calls us to realize and try to make sense out of the tensions even within Scripture as societal and cultural mores came into conflict with a growing awareness of a different way to live based on encountering this God, the God who hears the cries of oppressed slaves (what Walter Brueggemann calls "voices and counter-voices"). It also calls us to learn to read Scripture not only within its own context but to learn to apply it within our own context, as is done even within the pages of Scripture across a millennium (and as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount).

In turn, that calls for a more sophisticated hermeneutic than assuming that what the Bible says within a specific cultural and historical context is the only thing that it means (a lot of Old Testament examples here, as well as many from the New Testament).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jim Chabot]

Nope. This assumes that all biblical research and scholarship is biased and is done to support the personal opinions of the one studying. While the statement itself inadvertently provides its own evidence, that fact itself tends to invalidate the statement.

I have worked with and among biblical scholars all of my adult life. I have encountered pseudo-scholars on both ends of the spectrum, and in fields ranging from science to sociology. They are fairly easy to recognize. Fundamentalists (those who militantly promote their own opinions as the only truth) can be from either the right or the left, and can be academics with advanced degrees as easily as uninformed rock musicians.

But most biblical scholars and theologians I have encountered take the task of research and scholarship quite seriously. I have even changed my mind about some things after carefully studying the evidence (Clark Pinnock is a notable example of this). That is the way scholarship works (in science, both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are good examples).

Sure, there is no way to be totally neutral about anything. That is the nature of human beings. And we tend to be more passionate about religious beliefs. But that is far from a basis to assume that all scholarship is "issue driven" and that "true scholarship is rare." As one who has worked in biblical scholarship (for longer than I want to admit!), I can fairly confidently affirm that it simply is not true, and at best is a serious overstatement.

Dennis could we discuss this without talking past each other here. You have introduced an assumption regarding personal opinions and then argued against it as if it was contained in my post. From what I am reading, we are saying essentially the same thing using different words. You have also introduced pseudo scholars into the mix where I had not considered them. Honestly, I can't see how an uninformed rock musician would fit into my use of the word scholar. If I am reading you correctly, I would say that we are probably in agreement in that regard.

I don't doubt the seriousness issue either, however I fail to see the correlation between serious intent and institutional bias. You have said that one cannot be totally neutral about anything and I agree, we all are in some way a product of our environment. Biblical scholars do not work in a vacuum, they are shaped by their tradition. Try having a conversation about Hebrews Chapter Six with one of your contemporaries at Bob Jones, or how about a similar conversation regarding the veneration of Mary with a Vatican scholar. There will be points in the conversation where their bias will prevent an admission to one of your points will there not? Would not a scholar with a calvinist bent accuse you of the same? I am not suggesting that there is no common ground, and I am not suggesting that there is any hidden agenda of sorts, but there will be institutional bias, it is unavoidable.


"Untenable" is far too strong here. Again, the basic assumption that the purpose (or result) of biblical study is to defend a certain predetermined position is itself determining how Scripture is to be heard. There needs to be some recognition that even though this is an absolute statement, it is in reality a statement of personal biblical hermeneutics that involves a range of assumptions about the nature of Scripture. Until that issue is addressed it will not matter what exegetical evidence is presented; Scripture will be read in only one way to support one conclusion without considering any other factors or evidence.

I understand the biblical perspective quite well, as well as the classic position developed from it against women in ministry, just as I understand the reasons for the societal subjugation of women and not allowing women to vote in the USA until 1920. But those are not absolutes that forever define the role of women. That calls us to realize and try to make sense out of the tensions even within Scripture as societal and cultural mores came into conflict with a growing awareness of a different way to live based on encountering this God, the God who hears the cries of oppressed slaves (what Walter Brueggemann calls "voices and counter-voices"). It also calls us to learn to read Scripture not only within its own context but to learn to apply it within our own context, as is done even within the pages of Scripture across a millennium (and as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount).

In turn, that calls for a more sophisticated hermeneutic than assuming that what the Bible says within a specific cultural and historical context is the only thing that it means (a lot of Old Testament examples here, as well as many from the New Testament).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.


Once again, I am not hearing anything substantially different than what I have said in this thread. You object to my use of the word "untenable" then you present a similar view. Now perhaps we are using different terms here, but I don't see a difference in the conversation.

I used the word "untenable" in reference to scripture alone. It appears that you agree, for you state that without the application of a sophisticated hermeneutic, no amount of exegetical evidence will prevail. I have addressed this here in this thread, I have referenced a piece by Karen Winslow, and I have affirmed the work that Rich Schmidt mentioned as compelling although not convincing.

I will admit that we have a serious disconnect when you introduce the societal subjugation of women and changing societal norms as reason to read scripture into our context. I realize that is the Wesleyan bias and I am aligned with it in many ways. However Paul reaches back to Adam and Eve, some 4000 years back according to Bishop Ussher, and perhaps millions of years back by scientific accounts. While we are a scant 2000 years beyond Paul's statements. I am afraid that I would have to disregard too much of what Paul has said in order to apply that thought process.

In fairness I should add that I did see your point that I also must have a bias. I agree, it is unavoidable, I do believe that my bias is better than your bias, and I'm sure that you feel the same regarding yours. I'm ok with that, this would be a very boring world without free will wouldn't you think?

[Paul DeBaufer]

"Of course if we are to take the sentence about Adam and Eve in a continued "literal" interpretation, Paul is obviously wrong. Adam did indeed become a sinner and he certainly bought into something besides God's plan to eat of the fruit, hence it would seem he must have been deceived as well."

Of course Adam was deceived and sinned. I am not sure Eve sinned. If we take Genesis literally then the prohibition from eating the fruit in the center of the Garden was given to Adam before Eve was created. She may well have disobeyed Adam presuming he passed on God's command to her. But we have no Biblical evidence that God directly instructed Eve. Adam KNEW for certain, but did it anyway.

[Jim Chabot]

"Of course if we are to take the sentence about Adam and Eve in a continued "literal" interpretation, Paul is obviously wrong. Adam did indeed become a sinner and he certainly bought into something besides God's plan to eat of the fruit, hence it would seem he must have been deceived as well."

Of course Adam was deceived and sinned. I am not sure Eve sinned. If we take Genesis literally then the prohibition from eating the fruit in the center of the Garden was given to Adam before Eve was created. She may well have disobeyed Adam presuming he passed on God's command to her. But we have no Biblical evidence that God directly instructed Eve. Adam KNEW for certain, but did it anyway.

Paul reference was not to sin, it was to deception. I don't think that the issue here is with wrongdoing rather it is with differences that go back to creation. His reference goes back to the curse which was meted out with different terms. Paul I believe is not seeking to subjugate women, his writing comes by inspiration of the Spirit. I think that our culture, causes us many times to jump to conclusions.

And I agree with you. Adam did know for certain, he did it anyway, then later he tried to blame Eve. If we are looking a wrongdoing, Adam has greater guilt, no doubt in my mind. Adam was disobedient, Eve was deceived, and that is the point.

Eve does answer the serpent with knowledge of the prohibition and she cites God as the source. We will have to ask her to be sure, but God did have opportunity to tell her. We also have no record of Cain's instruction prior to his inappropriate sacrifice yet God reasons with him as with one familiar with the rules.

[Benjamin Burch]

Paul reference was not to sin, it was to deception. I don't think that the issue here is with wrongdoing rather it is with differences that go back to creation. His reference goes back to the curse which was meted out with different terms. Paul I believe is not seeking to subjugate women, his writing comes by inspiration of the Spirit. I think that our culture, causes us many times to jump to conclusions.

And I agree with you. Adam did know for certain, he did it anyway, then later he tried to blame Eve. If we are looking a wrongdoing, Adam has greater guilt, no doubt in my mind. Adam was disobedient, Eve was deceived, and that is the point.

Eve does answer the serpent with knowledge of the prohibition and she cites God as the source. We will have to ask her to be sure, but God did have opportunity to tell her. We also have no record of Cain's instruction prior to his inappropriate sacrifice yet God reasons with him as with one familiar with the rules.

Seeing as how there's no real adam or eve, this whole conversation seems rather pointless doesn't it!? :tongue:;)

[Jim Chabot]

Seeing as how there's no real adam or eve, this whole conversation seems rather pointless doesn't it!? :tongue:;)

Thanks Ben! I had better put Ridderbos back on the shelf before I get in real trouble!

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis could we discuss this without talking past each other here.

That was not my intent.


You have introduced an assumption regarding personal opinions and then argued against it as if it was contained in my post.

I did not introduce "personal opinion" as an assumption. You expressed three personal opinions just in the two sentences I quoted:


I would suggest that there are scholars on both sides of the textual issue, and I would also suggest that much like the news media, they are issue driven. True scholarship is rare.

1) the news media are issue driven.
2) biblical scholars are issue driven.
3) true scholarship is rare.

To say that biblical scholars (and the news media) are "issue driven" and then to assert that "true scholarship is rare" is to express personal opinions, not to state facts. My response was that this assumes that both of these are biased in research and reporting in order to support and/or promote personal agendas. If I have misread or misinterpreted what you said, I'd be more than happy to listen to a clarification and apologize.


From what I am reading, we are saying essentially the same thing using different words.

Perhaps. I don't think so. But, I've been wrong before.


You have also introduced pseudo scholars into the mix where I had not considered them. Honestly, I can't see how an uninformed rock musician would fit into my use of the word scholar.

I was pointing out that I have encountered some biased scholars who let personal agendas and biases interfere with their conclusions, just like some uninformed laypeople do (recent examples on NazNat). On that point we do, indeed, agree. Yet my point was that this is not a basis for the conclusions, neither to suggest that all biblical scholars are biased and therefore unreliable (because they are issue driven), nor to assert that true scholarship is rare for the same reason.


I don't doubt the seriousness issue either, however I fail to see the correlation between serious intent and institutional bias.

I was not referring to institutional bias. And since you were talking about scholars who are issue driven, I did not hear you referring to it either.


You have said that one cannot be totally neutral about anything and I agree, we all are in some way a product of our environment. Biblical scholars do not work in a vacuum, they are shaped by their tradition.

As I pointed out, however, that does not mean that all scholarship is tainted or that true scholarship is rare. One of the basic principles of academic research is peer review. One of the positive aspects of that is that biases cannot be trumpeted as truth, at least not for long, and that various traditions serve to balance others. I have been in very dynamic discussion where Lutherans (law versus gospel), Presbyterians (imputed righteousness), and Nazarenes (transformational grace) provided interacting balance to readings of Scripture.


Try having a conversation about Hebrews Chapter Six with one of your contemporaries at Bob Jones, or how about a similar conversation regarding the veneration of Mary with a Vatican scholar. There will be points in the conversation where their bias will prevent an admission to one of your points will there not?

Using extreme examples as a basis for generalization does not provide credible evidence. In spite of advances made at Vatican II and scholars like Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng, and Raymond Brown, classic Catholic tradition openly elevates canon law (Tradition) over the authority of Scripture. With a different authority base such a conversation would be irrelevant. And I doubt that radical fundamentalist Christians are interested much in biblical scholarship beyond apologetics.


Would not a scholar with a calvinist bent accuse you of the same? I am not suggesting that there is no common ground, and I am not suggesting that there is any hidden agenda of sorts, but there will be institutional bias, it is unavoidable.

But that is not quite what the original comment said. "Institutional bias" is not necessarily the same thing as "issue oriented." And theologians working from within a particular religious tradition are not the same thing as news media that are issue oriented.

I have acquaintances, friends, and family who are ardent Calvinists (Catholics, etc.) some of whom are recognized scholars in their fields. For example, Bruce McCormack, a fellow student at NTS and now professor at Princeton, is clearly Reformed, but that does not render his scholarship invalid nor does it prevent us from having profitable discussions (although I get lost in Barth).

Once again, my point was that the original statements were far too strong and too generalized to be valid.


Once again, I am not hearing anything substantially different than what I have said in this thread. You object to my use of the word "untenable" then you present a similar view. Now perhaps we are using different terms here, but I don't see a difference in the conversation.

Perhaps.


I used the word "untenable" in reference to scripture alone. It appears that you agree, for you state that without the application of a sophisticated hermeneutic, no amount of exegetical evidence will prevail.

That's not quite what I said.


There needs to be some recognition that even though this is an absolute statement, it is in reality a statement of personal biblical hermeneutics that involves a range of assumptions about the nature of Scripture. Until that issue is addressed it will not matter what exegetical evidence is presented; Scripture will be read in only one way to support one conclusion without considering any other factors or evidence.

Whether it is clear or not (which is open to debate), the point was that until assumptions about the nature of Scripture are addressed, exegesis is irrelevant. The comment about "a more sophisticated hermeneutic" came two paragraphs later in referring to how we deal with the internal tensions within Scripture itself, both voices and counter-voices, in relation to specific cultural and historical contexts. And that all the while realizing that Scripture covers almost a thousand years of human history and we live two thousand years beyond that. I suggested that this reality calls us to deal with Scripture beyond taking isolated passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (or Exodus 21:7-11) as any kind of direct command for living today, without first understanding both the internal tensions and the contexts of both then and now.


I will admit that we have a serious disconnect when you introduce the societal subjugation of women and changing societal norms as reason to read scripture into our context. I realize that is tha Wesleyan bias and I am aligned with it in many ways. However Paul reaches back to Adam and Eve, some 4000 years back according to Bishop Ussher, and perhaps millions of years back by scientific accounts. While we are a scant 2000 years beyond Paul's statements. I am afraid that I would have to disregard too much of what Paul has said in order to apply that thought process.

Again, we are dealing with a principle of biblical interpretation, which would require a much longer discussion. But it is a principle that was already at work within the Old Testament, and most certainly among the Rabbis and in the New Testament. One example:


In the post-exilic era, one of the major threats to the Jews was the dilution of the returned community by the influx of foreign influences picked up in Babylon. These influences were more than alien ideas. Many exiles had intermarried with non-Israelites who were not worshippers of Yahweh. When the people returned, they brought with them many who worshipped Mesopotamian and Canaanite gods, who did not know the Israelite heritage, and who could not even speak Hebrew. Given the Israelites’ problems with idolatry and syncretism, the leaders realized the danger to the fragile community. From the time of the early returns under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, there was an increasing concern with the "pollutions" of these foreign influences. So they took steps to "cleanse" the community of this contamination.

Nehemiah issued a stern warning, accompanied by physical beatings and pulling out of hair, against the continuation of this practice of intermarriage. Ezra went one step further. He demanded, under threat of losing all their property and their right of participation in the community, that those who had intermarried divorce their non-Israelite wives. This decision is made by appealing to specific law which forbade such intermarriage. However, the laws only prohibited such marriages; there was no provision for divorcing wives in such circumstances, much less for forfeiting property and community rights for failure to do so. Yet, one of the elders characterizes this action as according to torah (Ezra 10:3):


So now, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all [these] wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment [mitsvah] of our God; and let it be done according to the torah.

It is obvious that Ezra, faced with a new and uniquely threatening situation, applied the "law" far beyond its original intent. Yet, that new application, in the context of the pressing needs of the community, could be characterized as torah. Torah as Holiness: Old Testament 'Law' as Response to Divine Grace (http://www.crivoice.org/torahholiness.html)


This, and many other examples, provide us with some guidelines for how we as people of God walk the line between stability and change, while also providing us with some principles for how we interpret and apply Scripture.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Tinker Boyd]

It seems to me that the church of the Nazarene has decided that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 applied to a specific church from reading the bit from the Beacon Bible Commentary and the info available on these verses in the studies provided on clt.nazarene.org. Without passing judgement, I just don't find their arguements convincing. I think women are called to preach and I am glad Nazarenes have moved forward but it seems that even among Nazarenes we don't know what these verses really mean because we haven't convinced ourselves (as a group). I love the fact that Nazarenes spread a big tent and welcome so many of mixed beliefs but I wonder if some of our women preachers feel 100% supported by their own denomination in this circumstance. I admire their courage for pushing on. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all the dailog here and found it very well thought out no matter what the stance on the application of these verses to today.

[Hans Deventer]

Without passing judgement, I just don't find their arguments convincing.

Tinker, I have accepted that I do not have convincing arguments for each and every text. I read my Bible in the light of the revelation of God in Christ. He sent out women to proclaim the gospel of His resurrection to his male disciples, which is the heart of the gospel if anything. Whatever Paul (or anyone else) says that might seem to contradict that, I'll read it in the light of Christ's being and actions. If it doesn't fit, too bad for Paul. I'll listen to his Master first.

[Randy Wise]

I would also note that we have women through out our school systems teach boys and girls. Does it make sense that when a boy becomes a certain age he can no longer be taught or receive instruction from a women? Not to me and I would be surprised if it made a difference to Jesus who is the head of the body of Christ.

The church as we call it started in Jerusalem. Just because one today might see perfection in leadership appointments as both male and female leaders doesn't mean the first Christians, (Hebrews), saw the same perfection when they believed Jesus was the Christ. The first importance was to spread the gospel message and not a gender war. To me, in some areas, such as male and female leaders, we see some change in how we define "lawful" or acceptable and what I see as lawful I don't speak in terms of error. At one time women weren't even allowed to vote in our country How could that be right? Some change can be seen as good change.

Randy

[Dale Cozby]

While the statement itself inadvertently provides its own evidence, that fact itself tends to invalidate the statement....
the basic assumption that the purpose (or result) of biblical study is to defend a certain predetermined position is itself determining how Scripture is to be heard. There needs to be some recognition that even though this is an absolute statement, it is in reality a statement of personal biblical hermeneutics that involves a range of assumptions about the nature of Scripture. ...
In turn, that calls for a more sophisticated hermeneutic than assuming that what the Bible says within a specific cultural and historical context is the only thing that it means (a lot of Old Testament examples here, as well as many from the New Testament).
Wow Dennis, I am still chasing my tail trying to fully understand the profoundness of that first statement.
I am not sure we can ever escape the reality we all come to scripture with assumptions, presumptions, propositions, or a subliminal cultural bias..... even if we call for a more sophisticated hermeneutic.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I found an article on the Wesleyan/Holiness Holiness Clergy that deals with the passage. About 70% down the page there's a section named "Paul and Women" that is about the I Timothy passage. The writer makes the case that everything Paul says here is to combat the Gnostic teachings that were prevalent in Ephesus.

http://www.whwomenclergy.org/booklets/reclaiming.php

[Dennis Bratcher]

Wow Dennis, I am still chasing my tail trying to fully understand the profoundness of that first statement.
I am not sure we can ever escape the reality we all come to scripture with assumptions, presumptions, propositions, or a subliminal cultural bias..... even if we call for a more sophisticated hermeneutic.

I don't mean it as any kind of insult, but this is embracing one of the cardinal assumptions of post-modern thinking. Part of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity stated that the location of an observer affected what was observed; that is, what is seen can be different depending on the position and perspective of the one seeing. That simple idea helped provide the basis for realizing that "pure objectivity," while a laudable goal in scientific research, was not possible. Science did not abandon the need to filter out such biases, but dealt with them much more consciously and deliberately and considered such biases in the review process.

That idea of perspective affecting how data is understood then filtered out into other fields. It is now sometimes presented in the claim that there is no objective or absolute truth about anything and that all "truth" claims only have meaning in relation to the one expressing them. I have heard that very idea expressed on NazNet, although not quite so blatantly, in saying that since religious people cannot agree on theology that all religious belief is a matter of personal opinion.

Now certainly neither you nor Jim was saying that. Yet we need to be able consciously to walk some middle ground between total postmodern relativism (whether theological or ethical) and the false confidence in certainty or objectivity that characterized modernity. So, while we recognize our inability to achieve absolute objectivity we need not surrender to bias and uninformed and unexamined assumptions as inevitable. That is why I reject the notion that most scholarship is so biased as to be worthless, or that true scholarship is rare (I could give examples, but that is a different direction).

The very contribution of postmodern thinking that forces us to acknowledge our own relative perspective on things, also allows us to operate in a much more dynamic mode without having to have every detail of every idea nailed down absolutely. We can be content with far fewer absolutes, since we understand that Truth does not always lie in what we think is true, and that even many things that are "true" are far more functionally true than absolute Truth. We can deal more easily with diversity of opinion since we understand that not everything we think is true is mutually exclusive of every other truth claim (as Wesley himself recognized in the late eighteenth century). And we can understand, in ways that have eluded us Protestants for most of 500 years, that what unites us as Christians, those few important essential elements of the Faith, are far more important than the myriads of details about which we disagree.

We can embrace the Truth as a person not a set of ideas. We can believe in other things that are true, while also realizing (as Wesley said) that we are most certainly mistaken in some of those beliefs, yet not outside of the Truth. We can embrace a set of beliefs that we think are true, while also understanding that others with different perspectives also embrace things they believe to be true that do not necessarily match our set of beliefs. Yet we do not have to convince them that we are right and have the only Truth while they are wrong and are thus sub-Christian, since we are still united around the only Truth that really matters.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Like Hans if there is ever a seeming contradiction between what Jesus says and/or does in His teaching and what Paul (or whoever) teach I must go with Jesus. In this instance there is an apparent difference between Jesus teaching and the presumed Pauline teaching. Jesus allowed women to proclaim the Good News. A women was sent to tell the 12 about the resurrection. The Samaritan woman was allowed to go to town and tell them about the Messiah and many came to believe through her.

Further the biblical witness tells us that Deborah was the spiritual and military leader of Israel. That under her judgeship a military victory was handed to a woman.

Let us not forget Joel 2:28 where God tells us that our daughters will prophesy. Is prophesy not to proclaim the word of God? Isn't that then preaching?

So I must, personally, based on the very little I know and understand at the moment, agree with the conclusion of the article that Scott posted, that this instruction was to combat gnostic and pagan practices from entering the church. Further we must consider how the Greek world thought of women and their place. Only a couple hundred years earlier women had less standing than male slaves in Greek society. Throughout the Pauline corpus we see a trend not to offend the culture.

IMHO his instruction is from the author, his opinion, and reflects a desire not to offend.

[Randy Wise]

I don't believe Paul was wrong in His day. The scriptures (NT) suggest to me leaders from a structured religious order, (orderly worship), in Israel going out to a world with many gods and all sorts of customs in regard to religious practices. There were gender issues and quarrels among the many new (non Hebrew), believers. (birth pains of the Church) Some of these Paul squashed with his "end of discussion" decisions with the first importance on spreading the good news of the gospel not gender or leadership wars. Paul was the last of the 12 so did He really introduce a new decision?

Context Context
Can you see the men "shaving their beards" ?

Acts 21:20
When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

Randy

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I believe the principle in the passage is not "women keep silence." Instead, its "Christians, be willing to be inconvenienced, to be humbled, to sacrifice your rights, to do anything for the sake of the gospel."

[Tinker Boyd]

I found an article on the Wesleyan/Holiness Holiness Clergy that deals with the passage. About 70% down the page there's a section named "Paul and Women" that is about the I Timothy passage. The writer makes the case that everything Paul says here is to combat the Gnostic teachings that were prevalent in Ephesus.

http://www.whwomenclergy.org/booklets/reclaiming.php

This was an excellent read. Thanks for passing on the link!

[Todd Erickson]

I believe the principle in the passage is not "women keep silence." Instead, its "Christians, be willing to be inconvenienced, to be humbled, to sacrifice your rights, to do anything for the sake of the gospel."

and besides, God doesn't seem to have designed women for silence in any case; it's sort of like trying to get cats to fall on their backs.

We've tried this. Even tried tying buttered bread to one. Currently powering the district with that spinning cat...

[Susan Unger]

I liked this article from Holiness Today - http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/h2ol/article.jsp?id=10008810

[Gina Stevenson]

Best I can tell, there is no admonition in scripture against multiple wives except for the ministry requirements in Timothy. Personally I am glad to have just one wife and I have no desire for another, even if the law allowed it. But there is nothing in scripture that prevents this.

Oh? [guess we would have a hard time agreeing, huh?] Even if, as someone suggested, there was "no real Adam & Eve," are we throwing out the Scripture where it says something about "the two shall become one." Doesn't say, "The three, or four, or five shall become one ...."

Seems to be prohibitive to me.

[Shea Zellweger]

Oh? [guess we would have a hard time agreeing, huh?] Even if, as someone suggested, there was "no real Adam & Eve," are we throwing out the Scripture where it says something about "the two shall become one." Doesn't say, "The three, or four, or five shall become one ...."

Seems to be prohibitive to me.

Given that the historical customs of polygamy did not involve marrying multiple women simultaneously, I don't think that poses a serious problem. In fact, the law of Moses required that if my brother died without leaving behind a male heir, it was my responsibility to take his wife as my wife, and conceive a son with her to carry on my brother's line, regardless of whether I'm married. It was also customary that the eldest brother be married first, then the next and the next, so given the mortality rate of the time period, a man's youngest son could very easily be responsible to marry three or four additional women and have sex with each of them, at least until such time as they each give birth to a son. I'd call that a pretty clear endorsement of polygamy, at least in one instance, which to me is further evidence that we make Genesis three far too prescriptive a passage.

[Jim Chabot]

Given that the historical customs of polygamy did not involve marrying multiple women simultaneously, I don't think that poses a serious problem. In fact, the law of Moses required that if my brother died without leaving behind a male heir, it was my responsibility to take his wife as my wife, and conceive a son with her to carry on my brother's line, regardless of whether I'm married. It was also customary that the eldest brother be married first, then the next and the next, so given the mortality rate of the time period, a man's youngest son could very easily be responsible to marry three or four additional women and have sex with each of them, at least until such time as they each give birth to a son. I'd call that a pretty clear endorsement of polygamy, at least in one instance, which to me is further evidence that we make Genesis three far too prescriptive a passage.

Great post Shea! Although I believe that there is no scriptural prohibition against polygamy. I would not endorse it as a practice, especially for myself!

You post does illustrate a principle that we seem to act poorly on. That is the responsibility of extended family, not so much in the area of procreation, but in the area of well being. We need to remember that our extended family is our responsibility, my brother needs to feel responsible to take care of my family should I die or become disabled. and i need to take that responsibility in the case of his death or disability as well. We don't see much of that ethic today and it is sad.

We have family friends who are also in the building business. There were two brothers, one was the salesman and the other handled the actual operation. One of the brothers died while trying to rescue his sons dog who had fallen through the ice. The other brother had been planning to take his family on a cruise in the following weeks. After his brothers death, he immediately purchased tickets for his brothers family to take them also. He then contacted various subcontractors to make sure that his brothers house was in good condition, and to this day he has provided for the welfare of his brothers family. All I can say is that man is truly a man of God! I think that was the original intent of the polygamy passages in the OT, we need to carry on with that spirit.

[Jim Chabot]

and besides, God doesn't seem to have designed women for silence in any case; it's sort of like trying to get cats to fall on their backs.

We've tried this. Even tried tying buttered bread to one. Currently powering the district with that spinning cat...

Something to think about Todd. He didn't design men to Love their wives, he had to tell us to do it because we don't do it naturally. Same goes for women, he has to tell them to respect their husbands because they don't do it naturally. Funny how he does not tell wives to love their husbands, he doesn't need to, same as he doesn't tell husband to respect their wives.

Somehow there is tension between how we operate "out of the box" and the way God intends for us to act.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Something to think about Todd. He didn't design men to Love their wives, he had to tell us to do it because we don't do it naturally. Same goes for women, he has to tell them to respect their husbands because they don't do it naturally. Funny how he does not tell wives to love their husbands, he doesn't need to, same as he doesn't tell husband to respect their wives.

Somehow there is tension between how we operate "out of the box" and the way God intends for us to act.

Are we confusing our perfect nature as created by God with our nature we have created fr ourselves through Adam? Could Paul be addressing our fallen nature and not the nature God originally created?