Featured is it biblical Sexism to say only men can be Elders/pastors in church?

evenifigoalone · Jan 9, 2014

Yeshua1 said: ↑

So that would fit under cultural settings, that paul was just addressing that males were to lead based upon the OT setting, but that in modern cultures, females freed to lead, that is what is being referenced?
Click to expand...

Had more to do with a cult involving what sounds almost like today's radical feminism in that particular church, according to the article.

Yeshua1 · Jan 9, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

Had more to do with a cult involving what sounds almost like today's radical feminism in that particular church, according to the article.
Click to expand...

So you would agree with them that paul priciples on male leadership were ONLY given to fit that particular time then?

evenifigoalone · Jan 9, 2014

Yeshua1 said: ↑

So you would agree with them that paul priciples on male leadership were ONLY given to fit that particular time then?
Click to expand...

Not quite. The article's point is that Paul's words on this were addressed to the women rising up in rebellion, rather than a principle of male leadership in general.
I understand the article is quite long, but do you plan on at least taking a look at it so you can know it's arguments for yourself?

Rippon · Jan 10, 2014

Yeshua1 said: ↑

Still loking for those passages that support females as elders/pastors within local churches though, as I cannot find them!
Click to expand...

There are none.

Rippon · Jan 10, 2014

Rippon said: ↑

What mainstream translations seem to give the impression that women must be authorized to preach in order to have equality?....Crickets....NONE!
Click to expand...

No reply. There are no such mainstream translations that do any such thing. And by mainstream they ought to be in the top 10.

thisnumbersdisconnected · Jan 10, 2014

Yeshua1 said: ↑

is it biblical Sexism to say only men can be Elders/pastors in church?
Click to expand...

No. .......

Salty · Jan 10, 2014

thisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑

No. .......
Click to expand...

So you would disagree with my post # 13

Aaron · Jan 10, 2014

What is sexism?

Aaron · Jan 10, 2014

Rippon said: ↑

No reply. There are no such mainstream translations that do any such thing. And by mainstream they ought to be in the top 10.
Click to expand...

What does 1 Cor 14:34 mean? And is there an equivalent directive to the men?

Aaron · Jan 10, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

This link goes through Paul's writings on the topic and explains how they may be misunderstood: http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html
Rather long read, but brings up other examples from scripture, as well as the historical context. (Remember, Paul's letters were often in response to specific circumstances in the churches he wrote to.)
Click to expand...

Except that Paul appeals to Creation, not to culture.

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

Aaron said: ↑

Except that Paul appeals to Creation, not to culture.
Click to expand...

Cite your example?

I'd suggest reading the article I linked in a previous post. It's position is that the verses in Timothy citing nature were not an explanation on why women cannot lead (honestly, it doesn't make any sense in that context), but was addressing some lies spread by the cult that appears to have been causing trouble at the time.

JohnDeereFan · Jan 10, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

Cite your example?

I'd suggest reading the article I linked in a previous post. It's position is that the verses in Timothy citing nature were not an explanation on why women cannot lead (honestly, it doesn't make any sense in that context), but was addressing some lies spread by the cult that appears to have been causing trouble at the time.
Click to expand...

I don't want to speak for Aaron, but 1 Cor 11:8-9 and 1 Tim 2:12-14 would appear to support his statement.

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

JohnDeereFan said: ↑

I don't want to speak for Aaron, but 1 Cor 11:8-9 and 1 Tim 2:12-14 would appear to support his statement.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from the article that I keep asking everyone to read (it speaks for it's arguments better than I do), from the section analyzing the passage in Timothy:
(Note: I'm having to take large chunks out of these quotes due to length. And out of the section I want to quote, I'm going to have to divide it up into two or three posts. I will post the section analyzing the verse in Corinthians, too.
I'm doing all this from an iPod, so it will take me a while.)

Now, let's consider I Timothy 2.11-14:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Again, when we encounter this in English and with 20th-century Western-civi eyes, this looks relatively clear--but surely we have learned by now to pay attention to the textual and contextual details...
So, what facts to we have to note first?
Verse 11 is a non-issue, and actually provides limited evidence for preparation for a teaching ministry.
The women are to "learn in silence." Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders." (WS:WIC:128)
The phrase "in submission" is closely related to this notion, and together the two images call up the memory of Mary, "sitting at the feet of Jesus" in rabbinical student style (cf. Luke 10.39).
The interesting thing about this is that this was used of "future or current teachers"! Rabbincal students were generally preparing for a teaching ministry, 'wise men' and 'leaders' ALREADY were in teaching/authority roles. So, the very cast that this imperative is set in suggests a FUTURE teaching ministry for those women who learned in the proper fashion of students.
The "learning/teach others" cycle is 'standard' in Paul: And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who (nb: generic 'anthropos') will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Tim 2.2).
This becomes a bit more obvious when we compare the 'life-style' teaching given women in more traditional roles (Titus 2.4-5: Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.). There seems to be a sort of 'teacher-track' in view in I Tim 2, and a 'lay person' track in the Titus passage.
When we look at verse 12, we run into a MAJOR exegetical uncertainty:
The verb translated as "exercise authority over" (authenteo) is only used here in the NT, and its meaning is HOTLY contested.
TWO things that ARE sure about its meaning--it is NOT the normal word for "authority" (exousia), "exercising authority" (exousiazo), or "power" (kyrieuo); and it is NOT a 'good' thing (suitable for ANYONE to do--even males!)...so Scholer in WS:WAB:204-205:

Another factor basic to the interpretation of 2.11-12 concerns Paul's use of the unusual word authentein (translated "to have authority over" RSV) in the second injunction (2:12). This is the only occurrence of this word in Paul's writings and, indeed, in the entire New Testament. The word is not frequently used in ancient Greek literature. The precise meaning of authentein and its use in 2:12 cannot be completely resolved at this time; scholars are currently in an extended debate on the issue.
Traditionally, authentein has been understood to connote a sense of "domineer" or "to usurp authority" and the term is even associated with murder. Although not all of the evidence and arguments have been fully assessed, two points seem relatively certain. First, the term is unusual. If Paul were referring to the normal exercise of authority, his otherwise constant exousia/exousiazo ("authority/to exercise authority") vocabulary would most likely have been used. The choice of such an unusual term itself indicates that Paul intended a different nuance or meaning. Second,...many uses of the term seem rather clearly to carry the negative sense of "domineer" or "usurp authority." Thus I see the injunctions of 2:11-12 as directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.

It is VERY important to point out here that it is PURE FOLLY to base an entire doctrine affecting half the human race (!)--"women should not have authority over men"--on the basis of ONE SINGLE VERSE, and even worse--a single verse where the most important verb is (1) unusual; (2) negative; and (3) not even understood clearly!
Strictly speaking, given this cautionary note, we SHOULD BE able to rest the matter here, but I would like to at least probe a bit further to discover other dynamics in the passage that will either (1) illumine the argumentation somewhat or (2) circumscribe the application of the passage in keeping with the historical context.
The word 'teach' in the verse ("neither teach nor authentein a man") has a major issue associated with it, as well...
The verb is TOO 'big" to NOT be radically restricted in scope by whatever authentein means.
The situation is this. "Teach" takes an object in the accusative case and authentein takes an object in the genitive case. "Man" is in the genitive case, and is therefore the object of authentein. That means that 'teach' (unless it is 'connected' tightly to authentein) is UNRESTRICTED in scope. Paul would be prohibiting women from teaching anybody at any time--in direct contradiction to his plentiful commands for believers to teach/instruct/train each other (e.g. Tit 2.4; 1 Cor 14.26; Col 3.16). So the scope of the application must be limited somewhat in the context.
We have two streams of data that indicate 'qualification' on this verb: (1) the "pairings" in I Timothy and (2) the conjunctions used.
(1) The "pairings" data concerns the fact that the verb 'teach' is ALWAYS matched with another verb in I Timothy, which qualifies, hones, circumscribes its range. The cases are in 1.3-4; 4.11; 6.2b. This would mean that the 'teach' is somehow narrowed to 'revolutionary' or 'out-of-order' or 'disruptive' or 'destructive' teaching.
(2) The "conjunction" data concerns the fact that there is a 'but' between verse 11 and 12. So, we have Paul saying something like "Let the women study/learn as proper students...BUT I am not (currently) letting them (the students, having been under the influence of the false teachers--cf. 1.4-7; 5.13; 2 Tim 3.6) teach nor letting them 'overthrow' their teachers (until they are ready--cf. 2 Tim 2.2)". [The fact that 'teach' is present, active, indicative is indecisive as to whether it is a short-term or long-term command--the data is very divided in the extant literature.]
We also have the conjunction oude ("nor") connecting 'teach' and authentein. This conjunction often connects 'pairs' that mutually qualify one another. In this case, Kroeger (WS:ISNW:84) gives an illustration of how this would look: "I forbid a woman to teach or discuss differential calculus with a man"--the SUBJECT MATTER radically orients the range/scope of the 'teach' word.
Now, if we are dependent on authentein to clarify the meaning/scope of 'teach', and if we do not know what authentein means, then we sort of 'stuck'. The historical context suggests some limits, and the disruptive/destructive nature of authentein suggests some limits, but we need to keep looking for clues.
The word "man" in the authentein clause seems suggestive in context.
This appears to be a very gender-specific word (andros), suggesting that authentein was ONLY DIRECTED (whatever it was) at MEN--not at WOMEN. And, since the passage is apparently ABOUT women, we have women authentein-ing MEN only. Since there had been or were godly women teachers already in Ephesus (e.g. Priscilla and the deaconesses of 3.11), this would make a case that the immodest (3.9), gaudy (3.9), self-righteous (3.10b), unlearned (3.11), and disruptive (3.11) women under discussion in 2.9-15 (no doubt a subset of the women in Ephesus, 3.11; 5.2-9) were SPECIFICALLY teaching something about MEN that led them to seek to authentein them.

When we look at the passage in a bigger context, do we have anything in the text/context/historical setting that might give us a clue as to either WHAT the anti-male teaching was, or WHY there was anti-male teaching/activity?
Maybe.
textual clues:
First, the identical phrase "in quietness" BRACKETS the section on learning/teaching/authentein. This creates a 'packet' that stands alone. This suggests that the following data in verses 13-15 is not a critical support for the argument inside the bracket, but might be illustrative. If authentein is an obviously negative term, and if disruptive or out-of-order learning is commonly disapproved of as well, then Paul NEEDS NO SUPPORT for the 'packet'--his readership does not NEED any evidence or argument--they would ALREADY agree with him.

[SNIP]
Click to expand...

JohnDeereFan · Jan 10, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

Here's a quote from the article that I keep asking everyone to read (it speaks for it's arguments better than I do), from the section analyzing the passage in Timothy:
(Note: I'm having to take large chunks out of these quotes due to length. And out of the section I want to quote, I'm going to have to divide it up into two or three posts. I will post the section analyzing the verse in Corinthians, too.
I'm doing all this from an iPod, so it will take me a while.)
Click to expand...

So then, do you plan to explain away all the verses that corroborate these two verses?

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

Here's a quote from the article that I keep asking everyone to read (it speaks for it's arguments better than I do), from the section analyzing the passage in Timothy:
(Note: I'm having to take large chunks out of these quotes due to length. And out of the section I want to quote, I'm going to have to divide it up into two or three posts. I will post the section analyzing the verse in Corinthians, too.
I'm doing all this from an iPod, so it will take me a while.)
Click to expand...

Part two:
(Part three is coming)

Second, the conjunction connecting vs. 13 and vs. 12 is a 'weak' one--gar. This conjunction CAN mean 'because' (as the traditional interpretation of the verse understands it), but that is a less pervasive translation than the softer "for". (The 'normal' word for 'because'--in the sense of supporting argument--is hoti). Gar can easily be understood as illustrative or explanatory--cf. Rom 7.2, "for example"=gar.)
In this case, it could either be an example of (1) the teaching and the authentein-ing; or (2) of the consequences of women NOT BEING TAUGHT, and therefore, vulnerable to the false teaching of evil men. And, since only the "middle" part--about the deception of Eve--makes sense relative to (2), I think (1) makes considerably more sense in the context.
This would allow us to understand the contents of 13-15 as semi-rebuttals of the false teaching. Paul's points in verses 13-15 look something like this:
Adam was created before Eve
It was NOT Adam who was deceived, but Eve.
Childbearing is important and good

IF, therefore, these are the rebuttals, what would the false teaching look like?
Eve was created before Adam (or at the same time?)
Adam was deceived; Eve was not.
Childbearing is 'bad'

Another clue that Paul is only using the material in 13ff as ILLUSTRATIVE rather than DOCTRINALLY NORMATIVE comes from his use of the "Eve/Deception" motif.

That Paul is selective in his use of Eve in 1 Timothy 2:14 seems clear from at least three other Pauline texts. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Eve's deception is a negative model, warning all Corinthian believers--men and women--against false teaching. This shows that Paul did not limit Eve's deceivability to women. In both Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, the apostle attributes sin and death to Adam, not Eve. (WS:WAB:210; cf. also BBC:in. loc.)
What is curious about this text, however, is that Paul does not draw any implication/message from it--he doesn't issue a command. It is like he is only stating the proposition ITSELF (as if the content itself is the issue).
contextual clues:
Our approach here is to find statements and descriptives about the false teaching that was apparently being taught by men, and held to/taught by certain women.
"It seems certain from 2:9-15, 5:11-15, and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 that these [false teachers] have had considerable influence among some women, especially some younger widows, who according to 2 Timothy 3:6-7 have opened their homes to these teachings, and according to 1 Timothy 5:13 have themselves become propagators of the new teachings" (Fee, cited in WS:ISNW:62)
it involved speaking nonsense or babbling (5.13) perhaps magic (translated as 'busybodies' in the text)
I Tim 4.7 uses the phrases "myths" and "old women" as purveyors of them.
I Tim 1.4 uses the phrase "myth" and "endless genealogies"
I Tim 1.7 associates it with a strange view of the 'law'
I Tim 4.3 show that they were anti-marriage and 4.4 that they were anti-creation.
I Tim 5.14 suggests that the false teachers were both anti-marriage and anti-childbearing.
I Tim 2.5 points out that there is "ONE mediator between God and Man"
It also points out that there is only ONE God!

[SNIP]

The historical setting:
Ephesus was legended to have been founded by the Amazons in the 12-13 centuries BC (ISBE, s.v. "Ephesus"), and maintained one of the strongest goddess worship centers in history (WS:ISNW:47-54). This was worship of the Great Mother or maternal principle, who allegedly gave birth to both humans and the gods.
"By the mid-third century B.C.E. Ephesus and surrounding parts of Ionia were already inhabited by Jews; and in the first century BCE, a vigorous Jewish community was able to contend successfully for its civil rights. The Jewish population may have numbered as many as seventy-five thousand persons. Many lamps bearing an inscribed menorah have been recovered, and there is evidence of the involvement of Ephesisan Jews in magic. The Jews of Asia Minor, especially those Phyrgia, had assimilated much of the culture of their surroundings, so that there was a saying, "the baths and wines of Phrygia separated the Ten Tribes from their brethren." Certain elements of Judaism, especially the biblical stories, were adopted by the larger society. At Apameia, coins minted in the reigns of three successive rulers showed Noah's ark. The legend above the box-like ark says "Noah"; but the two persons standing outside the ark indicate that the biblical account has been embellished, perhaps from the Greek flood story of Deucalion and Pyrrha." (WS:ISNW:54-55)
"From the earliest times in Anatolia, female religious officials known as 'old women' kept alive the ancient myths." (WS:ISNW:64).

[SNIP]

Full-blown Gnosticism will not emerge for another two centuries, but that a proto-Gnosticism, pre-Christian, perhaps Jewish in basis, circulated in the 1st century AD seems almost certain--the evidence we have "points not to the great Gnostic systems, but rather to a kind of Judaizing Gnosticism...as is found elsewhere" (Dibelius-Conzelmann, cited in NIGTC:28) and "there is no need...to look outside the first century, or indeed the span of Paul's life, for such an amalgam of Jewish and Gnostic traits in the Levant" (Hanson, cited in NIGTC:28).
The type of reverse-Bible story we have in the passage (that Eve was created first; and that Adam was the one deceived) is obviously a distortion of an OT teaching, in keeping with pre-Christian expansions/reversal stories of the time.

[SNIP]

The cult of Artemis, the main revenue-generator and "claim to fame" for the city, was particularly woman-centered and immoral (ZPEB, s.v. "Ephesus"):
When the son of Codrus, last king of Athens, founded the city, he placed his colonists near the shrine of an ancient Anatolian goddess whom the Greeks, following the religious syncretism common in the ancient worlds, called after their own goddess Artemis. This was perhaps in the 10th, 11th, or 12th cent. B.C., so uncertain are dates in this borderland of legend and history. The cult thus recognized was that of a nature-goddess, associated with carnal fertility rituals, orgiastic rites, and religious prostitution.
The success of Paul's ministry at Ephesus would no doubt have included some of the priestesses of Artemis (cf. the story of the burning of incantation scrolls by cult practitioners in Acts 19.19).

[SNIP]
Click to expand...

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

Part two:
(Part three is coming)
Click to expand...

Part three:
(This concludes the section on Timothy.)

Paul, of course, had lectured in a Greek secular school for two years there (Acts 19.9), and if the pattern was anything like that in Athens (Acts 17.34), educated women were probably there and were converted under his teaching.
The earliest strands of proto-gnostic and proto-mystery religions we know of had the characteristics of the false teaching in the Pastorals: nonsense syllables, ritual immorality, belief that the woman (variously Eve or other primal female figures) was the source of /origination of the man, belief that this primal Woman was NOT deceived but rather 'enlightened' by the Serpent--and subsequently 'enlightened' the deceived male; obsession with spiritual genealogies, and prohibition against marriage and childbirth.
[Cf. the childbearing issue, held up as 'good' in 1 tim 2.15 and elsewhere (WS:WAB:243): "If the passage is a reaction to a proto-Gnostic type of teaching, verse 15 becomes more comprehensible. Childbearing and marriage were forbidden by certain Gnostic groups because they pulled the soul-atoms back into material bodies instead of liberating them to ascend to their ultimate source."]
Okay, so it LOOKS LIKE Paul is trying to stop a dangerous heresy, by (1) forbidding women from teaching/authentein-ing "proto-something's" counter-biblical views relative to adam/eve/marriage/etc., and by (2) aggressive instruction for women, who could at some point help deal with the issue--esp. among the younger widows.

Now, given this overall pattern in the verse, do we have ANY LEXICAL DATA about authentein that would make sense in this context?
Apparently so.
The lexical work of Kroeger (WS:WAB:225-244) and Kroeger/Kroeger (WS: ISNW:87-104), although complex, documents one important strand of meaning as being "to proclaim as the originator or source of something" (op.cit.). Liefeld summarizes Kroeger in WS:WAB:246: "If Kroeger's understanding of authenteo is correct, the most straightforward translation of the verse would be, 'I do not permit a women to teach or to declare herself the originator of man.'"
WS:ISNW:103 states it thus: "If we were to read 1 Timothy 2:12 as 'I do not allow a women to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man,' we can understand the content of the forbidden teaching as being the notion that woman was somehow responsible for the creation of man."
And elsewhere: "I do not permit woman to teach nor to represent herself as originator of man but she is to be in [peaceful] conformity [ with the Scriptures, as a respectful student]. For Adam was first formed, then Eve..."
This claim to origination was not just some genealogical quibble--the gnostics claimed that their origination gave them access to a 'purer' stream of revelation, truth, and 'knowledge' than the apostolic circles. This was not a trivial matter--but an issue that would radically affect how the church approached the issue of community truth.

Now, if we try to peace this together, certain things seem to emerge:
There were false teachers, at least one of whom must have been a woman, that taught a reverse-bible story about adam/eve.
These teachers argued for their position that women preceded men, and also did not suffer from 'deception'.
They therefore would have claimed to be a source of 'purer' revelation than the apostolic circle and the OT scripture (a standard "Gnostic" claim).
Paul deals with this situation (1) defensively first--TEACH the women the Word; and (2) offensively--Forbid these false women teachers (also characterized by immodesty, pomp, and bragging of godliness) to teach/proclaim this doctrine, and make sure they take their place in the 'classroom' with the other people being discipled according to the Word.

What this would mean for our study, is that this passage does NOT restrict women's role in the early church, but only the roles of FALSE TEACHERS--in this case, with the special case of women heretics.
Remember also the I Cor 14 passage...If I was correct in my understanding of that, then Paul's scope of the 'not teaching' is ALREADY restricted to a VERY specific context confronting the Ephesians. He, accordingly, could not be issuing a 'gag order' without contradicting his earlier argumentation in I Corinthians (assuming that he had not changed his mind for some reason, of course, but we have no reason to assume that.).
Now, in case I am wrong about this, the NEXT MOST LIKELY understanding of this verse (maybe even the preferred understanding, at the time of this update) keys off of another translation of authenteo, namely, "to domineer" or to "violently wrest authority from". Under this alternative interpretation, the error was not the 'having authority' (remember, that would have normally used Paul's "standard" authority words) but for "overthrow" or creating imbalance. Men and women were supposed to be 'co-rulers'; to "push the man off the platform and take it alone" is just as bad an error as "not getting up there" when you should be there! It is much more difficult to make sense of the adam/eve verses that follow that instruction, in my opinion, and the childbearing verse is extremely difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

JohnDeereFan said: ↑

So then, do you plan to explain away all the verses that corroborate these two verses?
Click to expand...

The article explains that to fully understand those verses a closer look needs to be taken. It pulls on multiple examples from scripture, on history, and on exegenesis. The entire thing is so much longer than post lengths here would allow for.

I understand that it's intimidatedly long, but I took the time to read through it months ago. (Of course I might have more time on my hands than others here.)
And I'm bringing it up because I'm being compelled to--I was just going to leave it at my original post here and would have preferred that.

No one has to agree with the conclusions the article arrives at--I don't expect anyone to. But it does show that there is more behind my position than wishful thinking.

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

Here's a quote from the article that I keep asking everyone to read (it speaks for it's arguments better than I do), from the section analyzing the passage in Timothy:
(Note: I'm having to take large chunks out of these quotes due to length. And out of the section I want to quote, I'm going to have to divide it up into two or three posts. I will post the section analyzing the verse in Corinthians, too.
I'm doing all this from an iPod, so it will take me a while.)
Click to expand...

Here's the entire section on I Corinthians 11 (which is considerably shorter):

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head -- it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Observations:
Women were obviously allowed to prophesy in church
Women were obviously allowed to pray audibly in church
"Prophet" was an official position and was "2nd in rank" in the church, behind apostles and before teachers (I cor 12.28-29)
The issue in the passage is some obscure point about head-coverings--NOT about women speaking in the church--and about people being contentious about it (v.16).
We have already noted above that v.10 says a women should have (exercise?) authority over her own head. ["Paul means that she should exercise wisely her right to decide whether to cover her head in a way that will honor her husband..." BBC:in loc.]

Now, even though the passage SUPPORTS women's speaking roles and 'authoritative speaking' roles, some have seen in the reference to 'headship' a basic male-over-female hierarchical subordination structure, as being ordained of God. Let me be quick to point out that EVEN IF THIS WERE SO, it would IN NO WAY negate the obvious fact that women were allowed (indeed, encouraged, when done in proper fashion) to function in worship. That fact remains unchanged in our text.
But what about the 'head' thing? Perhaps another digression is warranted, given the controversy surrounding it.
Some of the basic points first:

"head" does NOT mean the same thing we mean by it in Western culture. From the standpoint of anatomical function, in Paul's day it was the 'heart' that made the decisions, guided life, etc. "Head" was much more the 'adornment department' of the body! In other words, when people wanted to make decisions, they used their heart; when they wanted to get all "gussied up" ["dressed up", for you colloquially-deprived readers ;>) ], they used their head (e.g. hair, makeup, jewelry). So, in the literature, the word translated 'head' here often shows up as 'crown' or 'excellence'. [Hence, its usefulness in the passage of I Cor 11.]

The root notion was that of 'source', and from this usage it was applied to people--Zeus, Pharoah, the progenitors of the Twelve Tribes, Christ-with reference to the Church, man (Adam)--with reference to woman (Eve)....
If an author wanted to make a point about AUTHORITY, he would use two specific words--exousia ("authority"; Matt 28.18, Rom 13.1-3) and/or archon ("ruler"; Rom 13.3). He only used 'head' when dealing with issues of origination, completion, consummation.
In the passage under discussion, the only mention of the word 'authority' is in verse 10--and it is the women who possesses it!

NONE of the SCORES of published lexicographers of ancient Greek even LIST "authority, ruler" as a meaning for this word (WS:WAB:97-110, 118-132). It only begins to show up with those minor usages after Constantine!
Recent attempts to argue that the "source"-meanings PRESUPPOSE the "authority" meaning (a la Grundem) by restricting the locus of study to SPECIFIC persons, literally "exempt" this passage from the force of their arguments!
For example, when it is argued that in thousands of cases in Greek literature, when 'head' is applied to a person (as opposed to river or something inanimate), it is only applied to a ruler; then I Cor 11 disappears from consideration--because the term in question is the generic noun 'man'--NOT a specific man! (And, if we agree that the man is Adam--agreeing for sake of argument that he had some authority over Eve--then the passage ONLY extends to the First Couple, and becomes only an illustration for Paul).
A second problem is that, strictly speaking, it CANNOT mean 'authority' when applied to God and Christ in the passage--at the time Paul writes this. While that COULD have been a meaning during the Pre-Cross Incarnation, after the Exaltation Paul is clear that Christ has been given all authority, and that He will sometime in the future , 'give it back' to the Father (I Cor 15.24-28):

Then the end will come, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
[Also, it is not clear from the I Cor 11 passage that God the Father is in view--the more inclusive term 'God' may indicate that a source relationship is VERY intentional here. In other words, a 'source' motif--similar to adam-eve--would be more correct if it ran like this: "Godhead was the source of an enfleshed-Godperson".]
Needless to say, the relationship between the Father's authority and the Son's authority is exceedingly complex(!), but we MUST proceed on the basis on the force of these passages.
Additionally, it should be noted that, linguistically, one simply cannot move from an author's intention (e.g. using a word with a central meaning of 'source of origin, source of completion' AS OPPOSED TO a word with a central meaning of 'authority, ruler'), to some theoretical 'conclusion' that the author was consciously intending BOTH MEANINGS at the same time. This is certainly counter-intuitive (without an indication of a play on meanings--like physical-head and source-head in I Cor 11), and one that would require a large number of passages that made that linkage of concepts EXPLICIT and PART OF THE SEMANTIC substructure of the language. That the majority of cases in which a author used 'source' to describe a person who ALSO had 'authority' is oblique at best and irrelevant at worst, to the issue. What must be shown is that the preponderance of authors used the word 'head' without using the word 'authority, ruler' and DREW DIRECT IMPLICATIONS in the 'authority' sphere--NOT the spheres of honor, respect, similarity, continuity, homage, etc (spheres that would be implications of 'source or origin').
And, when you have a semantic distance as great as between "source" and "authority" you MUST show how the literal meaning 'stretches' to the metaphorical meaning. "Fork in the road" can be derived from a physical fork, as can most other metaphorical extensions. In some cases, we know we can 'lose' the literal in favor of the metaphorical, but in this case BOTH USAGES co-exist in the literary data. It is incumbent, then, for someone to show how 'authority' can be an extension (in such a vast array of situations!) of "source" or "one who completes". It is not enough to cite statistical correlation.
And finally, from a methodological standpoint, we could see this from the 'headship' passage in Ephesians. In linguistic studies, when you have a word which you do NOT know the meaning of, you try to decide from the invariable redundancy clues in the passage. If we didn't know what 'head' meant in Ephesians 5, and tried to figure out from the clues, we would decide that it meant something like 'servant'--one who saves, grooms, cleans, dresses, completes, protects, etc. We would NEVER come up with 'authority' from the actions and attributes of Christ in THAT passage! (He obviously has authority over His Bride, but it is not remotely in view in that passage.) But the literal notion of "that which completes" or "a major source of change" (i.e. "head"!) makes quite a lot of sense here. Simple inductive Bible study--without starting with a loaded meaning of 'head'--would yield something much more akin to 'active change agent' than 'ordained authority'...
Thus, I have to conclude that 'head' does NOT entail authority, but rather is used to focus on organic union (e.g. Christ/Church, Husband/Wife) and source/completion (e.g Christ/New Creation) motifs. The lexical data is simply too overwhelming at this point AGAINST the equation of the two.
Click to expand...

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

questdriven said: ↑

Here's the entire section on I Corinthians 11:
Click to expand...

The final paragraph (it made my last post just a tad too long):

So, I may not know what I Cor 11 means--relative to women wearing headgear other than hair at church, but I can tell from the passage what it does NOT mean! Women were obviously allowed to pray and prophesy in church, and were not commanded to 'be silent' at all. There is absolutely no restriction on women's roles (in worship at least) in this passage.
Click to expand...

evenifigoalone · Jan 10, 2014

That's all for now, and in a little while I'll be leaving for Winter Jam with my church. I'll be gone all day after that point.

I'll be perfectly honest: I am SO NOT looking forward to this debate. Even as a layman, I am capable of debating, but I prefer observing debates to participating in them. Being involved in a debate this big and this controversial, especially knowing pretty much everyone here disagrees with me, it intimidates me to the point that I can get literally sick to my stomach.

I guess what I'm saying is...please be gentle.
This can be a good discussion, but if it becomes little more than demonizing a position you don't agree with then no one learns anything.

Featured is it biblical Sexism to say only men can be Elders/pastors in church?

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

JohnDeereFan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

JohnDeereFan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Featured is it biblical Sexism to say only men can be Elders/pastors in church?

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

Salty 20,000 Posts Club Administrator

Aaron Member Site Supporter

Aaron Member Site Supporter

Aaron Member Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

JohnDeereFan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

JohnDeereFan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

evenifigoalone Well-Known Member

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Salty 20,000 Posts Club
Administrator

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

JohnDeereFan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JohnDeereFan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter