|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 1 Timothy 2:12... I do not permit a woman to teach
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
Verse nominated by Henry Troup
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12, in context)
Henry comments: This verse has been used and abused to subjugate women in and out of the church. Entire denominations have been founded out of disputes over it. Surely it's a "worst" because it divides male and female and Christians from Christians.
How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!
[ 29. July 2009, 09:26: Message edited by: Simon ]
Poll information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 94 user(s) have voted.
You can't view the results of this poll without voting.
| |
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I have to say, this is one of those where I really, really, really would like to know what Paul was smoking, because it sure doesn't look like the Holy Spirit (to me).
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
I don't find this too much of a problem because Paul specifically says that he does not permit a woman to teach. It seems that he accepted that other people would have differing legitimate views and customs.
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
Well, it's a problem all right; not least because it appears that Paul is inconsistent. The same Paul who names female co-workers (there's even a female deacon).
Try this as a possible explanation:
in a very male-dominated society (though this varied from one place to another) women rarely had anything of an education, and their teaching would tend to be of poor quality and ineffective;
also, for a congregation already suffering from something of a culture shock, the sight of a woman - a woman! -taking the lead in a church service would have been, well, upsetting, unfamiliar and unhelpful.
Should not, of course, apply today; the modern situation is different.
If you view this verse as an instruction for all societies and all time, then you have to explain why Paul's writings (and other scriptures) are inconsistent.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
The whole passage is a little creepy, though I would like to believe it is addressing a particular problem in a particular congregation rather than something that was meant for everyone in every context.
(Would it read as forcefully and is it as much of a blanket statement in the original Koine Greek?)
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Why is it I am so much more fond of adding than taking away?
"In my personal, very humble opinion, for the time being, respecting the very fine women who add their blood sweat and tears to my personal ministry, I generallywouldn't permit a woman to teach."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963
|
Posted
What's so hard to understand? One word: Eve. If it weren't for that b**** we'd still be in Paradise. Thanks women. I LOVE yardwork. Do us a favor and take this letter's advice.
Enjoy the labor pains.
Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963
|
Posted
Ahem, I apologize in advance if anyone's offended. That was purely sarcastic.
Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
(...is it as much of a blanket statement in the original Koine Greek?)
I've heard someone claim that that an equally valid translation is "I would not permit that woman to teach." But I'm not a Greek scholar.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm a minor Greek student, but I once did a look at didaskalos etc. in Kittel with an eye to the whole women pastors debate. It seemed quite clear that in Jesus' day (and for a long time after), to teach always included a component of discipline. That is, one's teacher was not simply a fact-imparter; he was closer to a guru or master. Students were more like disciples (ha, even the English word reflects this). A teacher was expected to form the disciple's life, through sanctions if necessary.
Today, of course, in the cultures most of us come from, teaching is far less, uh, coercive. An ordinary lay man or woman teaching adult Bible study today would not be acting as a didaskalos in the full ancient sense; but a pastor or elder would be, since church discipline is entrusted to them.
As far as we know, neither Paul nor the rest of the NT Christians seem to have taken exception to women prophesying (which is certainly passing along information) or to the actions of Priscilla in teaching (= explaining doctrine) the man Apollos. On the other hand, it seems clear that the earliest churches did NOT invest women with disciplinary authority over men.
So when Paul says "I do not permit a woman to teach," he may well have had in mind the disciplinary aspect in particular. And if this is true, then this verse does not prevent a woman from serving as an adult Bible study teacher or even a theologian of the church at large, since Paul wasn't addressing that kind of thing but rather a disciplinary relationship.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As far as we know, neither Paul nor the rest of the NT Christians seem to have taken exception to women prophesying (which is certainly passing along information) or to the actions of Priscilla in teaching (= explaining doctrine) the man Apollos.
No, nor did he object to women like Lydia ruling over their own households, which (presumably) included male slaves or employees.
And he obviously did not prevent women from speaking in church meetings because he advises them how to behave when doing it.
So whatever Paul's rule meant it is irrelevant to questions about the ordained ministry of women, because Paul clearly worked with women who did the things that nowadays ordained people do.
(But then I think that Luke/Acts is partly written as a polemic in favour of women's ministry so....)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Is it worth bringing up the old authorship question?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If you do, I'm bailing, because it bores the hell out of me and I'm too irresponsible to force myself to sit through it. Bad Lamb Chopped. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Is it worth bringing up the old authorship question?
I'm interested. Unfortunately I don't know enough to contribute a whole lot, but I'd love it if someone who did brought it up. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kid Who Cracked:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Is it worth bringing up the old authorship question?
I'm interested. Unfortunately I don't know enough to contribute a whole lot, but I'd love it if someone who did brought it up.
Oh, it's just the usual stuff about how the Pastorals are in some ways very different from the rest of the Pauline canon, such that most academic types figure it must've been written by another guy.
I wouldn't go that far, necessarily (as I write differently now than I did even a few years ago), but there does seem to be a definite change in something between the earlier and later epistles.
Though as above, it's a tangent and I don't find the subject terribily exciting (or even that illuminating) either, even if it may be relevant.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Really it's irrelevant who wrote it if it's in the scriptures and used (as we think) wrongly. Whether or not Paul wrote it, people apply it as holy writ, and they're not going to stop doing so if you can prove it was written by some Pseudo-Paul.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Re: authorship, I somewhat agree with mousethief, at least on a certain level.
But I don't think Paul wrote the Pastorals.
This actually does matter for interpretation, though. As quite a few scholars contend, the Pastorals are not only written by someone other than Paul, they're written by someone after Paul, who is writing in a different political environment (perhaps) and at any rate takes a different approach than Paul. Mary Rose D'Angelo, in "Eusebeia: Roman imperial family values and the sexual politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals" (Biblical Interpretation, 11 no 2 2003, p 139-165), has a really interesting take.
As with any political minority, the early Church vacillated between resistance and accommodation with regards to the broader culture. This would depend on such matters as the local climate, the church leaders' willingness to attract persecution to themselves and their flock, and other factors, including the leaders' ideas about the best way to witness to Christ and evangelize.
Anyway, D'Angelo points out language in the Pastorals that really seems to accommodate a certain emperor's "family values campaign".
If that's the case, then that bit of information certainly informs the way we decide to apply the passage in question in our own time and context. We might also disagree with the author's general strategy of cultural accommodation on this point. (Ironic, isn't it, since those who advocate for keeping women out of leadership positions in the church claim to be on the side of not accommodating contemporary culture!)
(There's a whole lot more to D'Angelo's argument than I can reproduce here; I strongly recommend reading it if you're interested and if you have access to the journal it's in.)
Paul himself seems to be all about resistance. And he's less interested in organizing church structure (as the Pastor is) than in evangelizing, even if he does establish churches. After all, he grabbed hold of Jesus' call to him and claimed the title and role of Apostle for himself, quite confusing the other Church leaders (at first, anyway). It just doesn't seem like Paul would be dictating who could do what in the Church, regardless of Jesus' calling or the Spirit's bestowal of charisms, which Paul himself claims are distributed by the Spirit as the Spirit sees fit.
I think, with these authorship questions informing us, we can interpret 1 Tim 2.12 as a later congregation's application to their own situation, and their own theological justification of it - which is not binding on us today, though we would do well to try to understand any wisdom in it we can.
For starters, this was a church that found it to be a good strategy (for survival? evangelism? ministry?) to accommodate the prevailing culture. So I think based on this passage and indeed the Pastoral epistles, we can claim that right too, within reason (i.e., not violating any core principles of the Gospel; being very careful & deliberate about what ends we intend by it; etc.).
It also seems to illustrate that God may call different parts of the Church to different things. Perhaps one branch of the Church is meant to resist while another is called to accommodation. Perhaps it's OK for one church to focus on evangelization, and another on ministering to those in its midst. Perhaps it's OK for some churches to be more conservative so that those who are more conservative will not be given offense/caused to stumble, while it's OK for other churches to be more liberal, so that those who are more liberal will not be given offense/caused to stumble. Or, we might judge that the Pastor was wrong and realize that the Spirit is still in the Church even when we get it wrong. Lots of possibilities, I imagine!
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
Paul already says that there is no male or female in Christ, so this is obviously a local prescription and not a problem for the big picture.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362
|
Posted
Scholars are certain that Paul had passed from the scene when someone wrote this in his name. The person who wrote this in Paul's name had the problem that Paul's churches(they were house churches) had grown to the point that they now appeared on the radar of the Roman world. This was a male dominated world. If the Church was to survive it would have to grow in a man's world. One has to ask himself what would he have done? With out knowing some of the history of the Bible one can find many problems with it.
Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
Scholars are certain that Paul had passed from the scene when someone wrote this in his name.
Which scholars are certain of this? All of them? Show me a scholar who is certain of anything of the sort and I'll show you a scholar who is not humble and careful enough to be a scholar at all.
[ 27. December 2009, 23:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362
|
Posted
Everyone please, I am not a scholar, expert or anything of the sort. Most of what I know about the Bible comes from taking these courses:
The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers
From Jesus to Constantine
Historical Jesus
Lost Christianities
New Testament
The Making of the New Testament Canon
Apostle Paul
Jesus and the Gospels
Story of the Bible
Exploring the Roots of Religion
Early Christianity
History of Christian Theology
Philosophy of Religion
Great Figures of the New Testament
Old Testament
Natural Law and Human Nature
The Catholic Church: A History
Popes and the Papacy
Book of Genesis
Skeptics and Believers: Religious Debate in the Western Intellectual Tradition
Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation
Augustine: Philosopher and Saint
Late Antiquity: Crisis and Transformation
Great World Religions
Emperors of Rome
Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World.
Are the professors who give these courses scholars, authorities, experts? In my opinion you have to take the course and decide for your self. The courses are available to all. What I do is pick out of the courses what I think are religious sticky points and post them with the hope that someone out there will have a source that throws a different light on the point.
Hamp
Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
C&W Host Hat On
Hamp, you have posted exactly the same list of courses, with a request for people to take them, on six different threads.
This could potentially be construed as advertising, but is also akin to spamming. Both of those activities are against the 9th Commandment.
Do not do this sort of thing again, lest you attract the attention of an Admin.
This warning will not be repeated on the other threads, but be advised that it applies to them (and indeed the whole SoF) as well.
Marvin
C&W Host
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
