Sorrrrrrry,
This is about 12 minutes long, probably because I ramble. So watch it if you want. It's a smaller 'screen' because NSBR said the last one looked like a godzilla movie or something. And no I did NOT capitalize the g in godzilla! Funny, NSBR looks like a new Bible version.
.j.
17 comments:
Now that I,your Lord and teacher,have wash your feet,you also should wash one another'feet.I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.I tell you the truth,no servant is greater than his master who sent him.now that you know these things,youwill be blessed if you do them.JOHN13:14-17we should be willing to perform the the most menial service for one another.
Haven't watched yet, but whats really funny is I couldn't figure out what nsbr meant until a couple of days ago. I didn't even get the jank about me not floating, although gravity is the biggest reason, plus I am around you, Jodey, and Anthony quite a bit, and you alls (hot) air far out does mine so my feet are firmly planted on the ground!
May Women Teach Men at Church?
Posted by jimhamilton on September 2, 2006
It has been suggested to me that the reference to childbearing in 1 Timothy 2:15 places Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12 (that he does not permit women to teach or exercise authority over men) in the context of the home. This interpretation was accompanied by the assertion that as long as the senior pastor is a male, women can teach under his authority with the approval of their husbands.
If this interpretation is correct, what biblical reason do we have for not permitting a woman to be the senior pastor of a church?
1 Timothy 2:12 is the text on which the view that only men should pastor rests. What would keep someone who takes this view from coming to the conclusion that, since 1 Timothy 2:12 applies in the home and not in the church, women can be senior pastors?
There are several indications in 1 Timothy 2 that show that Paul’s instructions here are not limited to what a man and a woman do in their home.
First, Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve in verses 13–15 is not meant to limit what Paul has stated in verse 12 to the context of the husband and wife relationship in the home. Rather, Paul grounds what he has said in verse 12 about women not teaching men and not exercising authority over men in the pre-fall created order. Verse 13 begins with the word “for,” which indicates that Paul is now backing up what he just said in verse 12. He explains that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men because Adam was created before Eve (1 Tim 2:13). Verse 14 begins with the word “and,” indicating that Paul is now giving another reason for what he said in verse 12: Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men because Eve was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Tim 2:14). Verse 15 is not limiting the statement that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men to the context of the home, it is saying that even though Eve was deceived and became a transgressor, she can be saved through childbearing if she continues in faith.
Paul shows that verse 15 applies to women in general when he switches from the singular “she” (referring back to Eve in verse 14) at the beginning of the verse to the plural “they” in the middle of the verse. What is true of Eve is true of all women. They are not saved through the meritorious work of childbearing, but when by faith they embrace their role as women they show that they are born again. The most prominent way in which women embrace their roles as females is through childbearing, which men cannot do. But lest anyone think Paul is talking about women accomplishing their own salvation through childbearing, he adds, “if they continue in faith. . .” I take this to mean that childbearing is evidence that a woman has embraced her role as a woman, which is evidence that she has genuine faith. Verse 15 explains the manner in which Eve and her daughters can be saved, even though Eve fell to temptation. 1 Timothy 2:15 is not evidence that verse 12 only applies in the home, nor does it place these instructions in the context of the home rather than the church.
Second, we see that Paul is talking about what happens in public worship when he writes in 1 Timothy 2:8, “I desire then that in every place the men should pray. . .” The context does not change when Paul begins to talk about women in public worship in verse 9 (”likewise also . . .”). The words “in every place” probably refer to all places where Christians worship. This phrase, “in every place,” demonstrates that Paul is not limiting the instructions that follow to husband and wife relations in the home.
Third, in this context Paul instructs men to pray in public worship (2:8) and women to be dressed modestly and known for good works (2:9–10). The statement in verse 11, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness,” indicates that Paul is now addressing public teaching. When Paul is elsewhere dealing with women learning at home, he makes that clear. For instance, he adds the phrase “at home” in 1 Corinthians 14:35. In 1 Timothy 2:11, Paul might actually be advancing women by letting them learn in public. Is it likely, given his historical context, that he would allow women to teach men? It seems that 1 Timothy 2:11–12 gives a clear answer to that question. The statements in 1 Timothy 2:11 match the statements in 1 Timothy 2:12, as both verses deal with teaching/learning and submitting/exercising authority. Verse 11 states that women are to learn and submit, and verse 12 states that they are not to teach men or exercise authority over men.
Fourth, this letter is written to Timothy, but it becomes clear that Paul was addressing the church through this letter to Timothy. We see this in the concluding words of the letter, where the “you” in the benediction, “Grace be with you” (1 Tim 6:21) is plural, not singular. The letter is to be read in the church, and there is nothing in the context of 1 Timothy 2 that indicates that the prohibitions of 1 Timothy 2:12 do not apply in the church.
Fifth, when Paul addresses husbands and wives, rather than men and women in general, he makes it clear that he is talking about husbands and wives by qualifying these Greek words (the Greek term for “woman” can also be rendered “wife,” and the Greek term for “man” can also be rendered “husband”). In these other passages, Paul makes it clear that he is talking about husbands and wives by qualifying “man” or “woman” with words like “their own” or “your” so that it is clear that he is not addressing men and women in general but wives and husbands (see 1 Cor 14:35, “if there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home;” Eph 5:22, “wives, submit to your own husbands;” 5:25, “husbands love your wives;” Col 3:18, “wives, submit to your husbands;” 3:19, “husbands love your wives;”). Apart from words like “their own” and “your,” the terms “husbands” and “wives” could just as well be translated “men” and “women.” Unlike the passages just cited, there is no indication in 1 Timothy 2:8–15 that Paul’s statements apply only to husbands and wives. In 1 Timothy 2:8–15 Paul does not qualify the words “men” and “women” with words like “their own” or “your” because he is not talking about husbands and wives but men and women in general. Paul is addressing the way that women and men behave in public worship. He is not addressing the way that husbands and wives behave at home. The statement in verse 15 about women being saved through childbearing is about women embracing femininity. If Paul were addressing husbands and wives, or if verse 12 only applied to the home, he would say so (as he does in the other texts cited in this paragraph).
Paul has said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,” and he does not qualify this statement by saying that women can teach men if the senior pastor approves, or if they have the blessing of their husbands. Such an interpretation can only stand if the interpreter himself qualifies Paul’s command by importing foreign data into the context, thereby distorting what Paul said.
Nina Yar Says:
March 21, 2007 at 1:05 am
Hello All,
This is a subject dear to my heart because I am a woman, I am gifted in teaching and my only desire is to please our Lord and use this gifting only as He wishes me to use it. I am currently learning in Bible School how to interpret the scriptures using classic literal grammatical historical interpretation principles. It is a wonderful thing to learn how to divide God’s word objectively and honestly. It takes great humility and courage to apply it to one’s life.
I have recently received a challenge to perform a literal grammatical interpretation on the subject of women in ministry. I truly am open to the truth either way because there are so many confused and hurting women and children and youth out there to teach that it keep me plenty busy, even if I don’t teach men.
What is undeniable in my life is that God is bringing to me hurting women and youth without a good male figure in their lives. He is also bringing me young married career women (because I am an older career woman) with strong personalities to mentor. God has led me to be involved with women inmates. It’s heart-breaking.
A common theme in all these lives is the damage and trouble that is brought on by their ignorance of roles, authorities, boundaries, and domains. The Lord leads me to gently teach and encourage them to embrace biblical truths about these matter that agree with the things Jim Hamilton has been saying here. And the results are simply amazing. The ladies feel “liberated” to know what responsibilities are truly theirs and which are not. The ladies I minister to are very active and take on way to much responsibility- and their men reluctantly let them. When they unburden themselves of what the bible says the men are responsible for- what joy and peace fills their hearts. They become so much more effective in living and men are no longer seen as threats or opponents. They are co-heirs working together within their God-assigned roles and domains. It is beautiful to see. Neither feels deprived or cheated. Only fulfilled.
All this to say that the traditional biblical views are powerfully unburdening women of burdens that I don;’t think they were meant to carry. This is my experience in personal ministry. The “male nor female” concept just doesn’t seem to work in the practical realities of life. It actually brings problems and confusion into the relationships of life.
It will be interesting to test what I am teaching with a fresh grammatical study of God’s word. I have been a Christian for 25 years and have read the bible deeply for all that time. I have not been aware of all this controversy until just recently since my new church allows women to teach men. It surprised, grieved and concerned me because of my fear that men’s identity and leadership is being hurt by it. And if they get hurt, women get hurt with lack of spiritual protection. Women’s identities change too. I observe that they become more masculine and aggressive. It is an unseemly thing to see. They talk less about their children, and cool in their affections toward their husbands. The very two things women are to excel in start diminishing (Titus 2:4,5).
I sense that women have a big test in life concerning humility. We need to make sure that we do not refuse roles that are God-ordained to mature us. We can all agree that we are all destined to be servants of God forever. But will we pass the test on this Earth to be servants to each other now? If we are more eager to rule in this life instead of to serve and support, will we be given good privileges to rule with Christ in the afterlife?
To end, Isaiah 3:12 brings a chill down my spiritual spine. If you read the context, especially verses 6 and 7, it is clear that women and youths became rulers in Israel in a time of moral decline and when men themselves refused to rule. Women filled the empty slots. But it was not commended as a good thing by Isaiah or God. It was one of the many signs of a godless society that has lost its way. I have never heard anyone bring this scripture up in a sermon, study, or lesson. Thought I’d throw it in the mix for those who previously brought up so confidently that it was unthinkable to think that women in ruling positions in society could actually be a bad thing. God speaking through Isaiah seemed to think so. Am I interpreting this passage incorrectly?
Blessings on you all! I’ll keep you posted on my studies.
Did Paul write these verses because there was a problem are just giving good advice? Does the churches teach clearly what the roles are? men,women,husban,wife,pastor,pastors wife,teacher,deacons,music pastor and so on. Ithink most of us would like to do our roles the way the Bible teaches.
What, then is teaching? Is leading a discussion (more what I do in Sunday School for example) really considered 'teaching'? It doesn't seem to be to be an 'authoritative' position, necessarily. In fact, I don't like to think of myself as a teacher. I simply don't know enough scripture to be in that category.
So what is the Biblical definition and more importantly, the application of 'teaching'? Are you 'teaching' because we have applied the title , or have we adopted a broad definition of it the same way we have for 'love'?
My other observation is on actual authoritative positions in the church. Pastor=man, I think we all agree. Scripture is pretty clear. But what of the office of deacon. Is it possible we have misused this office and/or it's defintion? Would you say that a woman could be a deacon? I submit to you that they already are, just without the pious title. In 1 Timothy, Paul does say that a deacon must be the husband of one wife, leading us to think 'deacon=man', but in Romans 16:1, he commends Phoebe, a 'deacon' of the church in Cenchrea. And looking at the set-up of many churches today and viewing the roles of 'deacon' in scripture, it appears that women are in fact playing the role more than men, which draws me back to where I started...are men sitting back and soaking up the Word too much? Perhaps we need to change some titles in our church. Bring back (as some churches have remained) the term elder, and clearly define that role in our...I have to say the word...by-laws. Furthermore, we may need to anoint some female deacons and thank them for their SERVANTSHIP over the years.
Bottomline for me, men have dropped the ball (ME ESPECIALLY) in church, in home, and in society. Chalk one up for the feminist movement.
Steve Walker Says:
September 4, 2006 at 6:33 pm
This is a common interpretation held by conservative scholars and pastors. Mark Dever discusses the debate over this issue in his article Baptists and Elders (link). He states, “What Baptists finally, largely and rightly—I think—concluded, is that there can be no distinction between ruling and teaching in the eldership.”
jimhamilton Says:
September 4, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Thanks Steve,
I agree that there should be no distinction between teaching and ruling elders, and I agree that 1 Tim 5:17 is informative for interpreting 1 Tim 2:12.
But since 1 Tim 2:12 says “I don’t permit a woman to teach . . . a man” rather than “I don’t permit a woman to be an elder,” I don’t think women should teach men.
With you for the Gospel,
Jim
If your are leading a discussion on scripture it is most certainly teaching and if not teaching it's certainly an authoratative position, (you can't seperate the two) whether we like that or not. Now if you never make any authoratative comments concerning scripture and only ask questions you're just talking. (this isn't what you do) I think you don't give God enough credit for what he has done in your life, no you aren't perfect, but you are being perfected. And you are knowledgable of scripture, not all-knowing, but knowing. You are a teacher.
As for deacons, we have thourghly messed that up. Something I haven't researched completely, but know enough about their roles to know that most fellowships aren't even close when it comes to Deacons proper roles. Or at least, they add way more to the proper role than should be there. I also agree that men have not and do not do what they have been called to do consistently.
Women not being allowed to teach men or have authority over them does diminish them or keep them from serving, all are called to serve, (men, women, boys, and girls)
Just because men have dropped the ball doesn't mean we have a pass not to act in accordance with scripture.
curious? Not Sure if you are or are not...
Are you saying Deacons should be re-named elder or that they are the same or interchangable?
As of right now, my thought is that (in my particular church) maybe look at the roleof the church as a whole, as I think we have been in some way...and it seems that the current deacons we have would fall more under the category of elder as laid out in scripture, although my pastor is bringing them into a more 'deacon-like' role. Seems that over time, we (baptists, america, I don't know) have taken the deacon role and made it less a servant role,and more a group of elders actually governing the local church, elder not necessarily being 'older'. So, I'm wondering if maybe renaming is a possiblity. Not sure if it's necessary in our situation. Like I said, my (our) pastor is trying to lay a new foundation basically (not replacing Christ, but replacing tradition) in the church and the 'positions' we have in placeor need in place. Teaching is something that needs to be looked at, but we need men to step up.I know that at least one is being trained for that purpose.
As for women being deacons, I think it's a great idea since many have the 'servant's heart' and it would be outstanding if a husband and wife could be 'deacons', I don't know...give me more to chew on.
I have looked up/studied teaching and base my prior comments on that...
I know that scripture uses the exact word for Phoebe that it does for deacons. Not 100%, but from what I have studied so far it looks as if deacon simply means servant. Why then couldn't all believers be "deacons"? Especially since if you are one, you will serve others.
I think in Timothy the deacons/servants were chosen for a specific task and it called for men.
I believe Phoebe was a servant also, but not the same as those in Timothy. (both still servants just not in the same capacity) Not any more important or less important.
I agree we need to define the roles of an elder and deacons shouldn't function as an elder unless they are. They are two different things and I see now you believe that also.
Maybe we shouldn't elect deacons/servants, we as believers should just be them (servants that is). I would rather be called a servant than a deacon.
just some thoughts...
in one of my last comments it says does diminish, it should say doesn't diminish....
couldn't figure out how to edit it.
You might be right about the deacon thing...I also agree that the role of elder needs to be defined and if there are qualified men, then we put them in that position. I'm in agreement with the view that we don't put people in positions just to have someone in a position.
As far as what teaching is, I'll have to look into it more. I appreciate your comments, but I still look at myself as a discussion leader rather than a teacher. I have tried to never lay out instruction or application of scripture in a way that made my suggestion seem somewhat absolute.
What I love so much about our class is that there are different ways of looking at things and we're able to discuss it and I think that only when we have all discussed a topic and looked at scripture, we all agree on the application needed.
...change subject...
As far as editing previous posts,there is a way under your profile page to list posts and then edit (yours)...
So, anyway, I woke up at 1:30 this morning with no apparent chance of going back to sleep...so I naturally went to the Word. Did some normal studying, then speant a while loking at teaching.
From looking at the passages regarding teaching/teachers (Jesus being the most dominant), I'm convinced that teaching was a person taking scripture, and revealing it to others. Not many people had Bibles, not many could even read.
The apostles (formerly known as disciples, or students [to the greatest teacher ever!]) taught the early church about...JESUS! This included the Old Testament that pointed to...JESUS! and their own experiences and instruction with and from...JESUS!
This teaching was focused on telling people about Jesus and God, and the plan of salvation. The early church was taught why they needed Jesus, how to obtain salvation, how to live for the glory of God through Jesus Christ, etc.
The whole 'salvation through the risen Messiah' was new, even though it had been prophesied about for hundreds of years. The people needed to understand that prophecy had been fulfilled. The apostles and early teachers did this by reading the Word of God and telling of the works and words of Jesus to the early believers.
Today, we have books written by scholarly men and material put together by teams of educated believers. And a present day teacher takes one or both of these and studies through the week (along with members of his/her class) and comes together on a Sunday morning or Wednesday night and they discuss what they have learned...together.
I don't look at this as very authoritative, unless someone would say that telling someone to turn to page 71 and read the second paragraph is authoritative. If this is the case, the we need to avoid female nurses, because we wouldn't want a 30 year old female telling a 45 year old male to roll up his sleeve.
This view no doubt is opposite with others, maybe even my pastor, but I believe the time we live in now is a lot different, and teaching has taken on a broader meaning, as has many other tings as we have discovered earlier.
Yes the teaching that is spoke of, I believe, in Timothy is speaking of biblical instruction. Not a nurse, etc.
Even if we can't agree that you are teaching/not teaching Sunday School, I think, maybe wrongly, but LEADING a biblical discussion is obviously a role of authority. (no matter if its a small or large role, still authority) Of course I don't have a problem with you teaching men because you are a man and that doesn't conflict with scripture.
We can learn from women, but when it comes to the church gathering together, like is spoke of in Timothy(and in the home) a woman isn't to teach or exercise authority over men. Authority does, for me, include LEADING a class or discussion.
Gotcha...now about authority. What are roles that would be considered 'authoritative'? Is this primarily in a 'teaching'/'discussion leading' format, or does it involve a broader spectrum.
And what I'm getting at is a female ministry leader/director. I'm good with it, depending on the ministry/area. But if I work with that ministry, then there are times where I am 'working for a woman' basically.
There is no scriptural teaching involved, but directions are given to me (a man) by a woman to accomplish certain tasks/goals. Again, I'm cool with it and would rather it be that way than for me to be in charge.
Excited to be part of the longest blog ever. Well, maybe not ever. Now I got to figure out why I go to church on Sundays. Thanks, Jodey.
By the way...when would NSBR be bringing his chainsaw to unstoned's house?
I believe that teaching and authority cannot be separated in regards to bible teaching and in Timothy. My previous comment was meant to say if you and I don't agree on that point, (or what exactly teaching is/isn't), we can agree (maybe) that leading a class/discussion in a fellowship of believers about God, His Word, and/or that might be contained in His Word is a position of authority.
If a female is a ministry director/coordinator, I think that is fine, if it doesn't include leading men. (then of course you get into of what age is a man) but anyway, to be part of that ministry as a servant as a man wouldn't be considered a violation of scripture in regards to teaching/authority over a man.
I'm certainly okay with a female ministry leader/coordinator so as long as it isn't over men. And I am certainly okay with men working ALONGSIDE that leader/coordinator. And that is how I think it should be and is, (working alongside). Same goes for the opposite, Man ministry leader/coordinator, woman works alongside, not for. I am not working for Jodey, because he is an authority. I work for Christ.
Although, Jodey is my pastor and I will submit to his authority as my pastor unless it goes against scripture, (not that that has happened).
Thursday for chainsaw okay?
Oh, check out my profile...
I will concede that teaching and authority are inseperable if we mean authority as used in 1 Timothy. The term for authority is a term that means autocratic, which means authority that is domineering, unlimited power, even tyrannical. Of course women should not have this role over men. In fact, men need to be careful with the authority they have been given.
When you read this passage,it almost seems like women should go to church hidden behind their husband, sit down, shut up and have babies. But we know this is not what Paul is saying. Men have a responsibility to lead their wives/families in the ways of God by (1)Living for Christ (2)Loving like Christ (3)Teaching like Christ and if need be (4)Dying like Christ. Women should respect their husband and the role he has been given, and live quietly, peacefully while serving with him.
It just seems to me that teaching as we have it in most cases today is not the situation they had in the early church. I've sat under more than one female teacher and never felt them to be domineering. I believe they taught within the guidelines given to them by male leadership.
In the sense of a ministry leader, I think there is authority involved (she says use red, I use red. She says take kids outside,I take kids outside) but this is not an autocratic authority as Paul is talking about. If it were, I would feel uncomfortable. And yes it does fall in line with working alongside another person, but for organizational purposes (which God likes), someone has to be...in charge.
Thursday is good for NSBR's Chainsaw Massacre and since we seem to be the only ones pecking this subject to death, I'm sure we'll talk more then.
unstoned said:
I believe they taught within the guidelines given to them by male leadership.
Not to try to sound mean in anyway, but I could not care any less whether a man gave the woman guidelines are not, because as Jim Hamilton said:
Paul has said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,” and he does not qualify this statement by saying that women can teach men if the senior pastor approves, or if they have the blessing of their husbands. Such an interpretation can only stand if the interpreter himself qualifies Paul’s command by importing foreign data into the context, thereby distorting what Paul said.
I say amen (I agree) to that Brother Jim.
unstoned said:
In the sense of a ministry leader, I think there is authority involved (she says use red, I use red. She says take kids outside,I take kids outside) but this is not an autocratic authority as Paul is talking about.
I agree, not what Paul is talking about. So, I don't really understand why this matters.
unstoned said:
If it were, I would feel uncomfortable. And yes it does fall in line with working alongside another person, but for organizational purposes (which God likes), someone has to be...in charge.
I wouldn't say she has authority over you because she ASKED you to use a certain color, or stand in a certain place, or do a certain thing. Thats the difference for me, asking and telling/demanding a man to do something. I have never been told or demanded to do something by a woman Ministry leader/coordinator or a man Ministry leader/coordinator for that matter. Thats why I say we are working alongside of each other. I agree someone has to be in charge. I would say she is in charge of the ministry, not the men working in that ministry. I believe there is a difference. I also believe she would be working under the authority of the elder(s) which doesn't mean pastor necessarily.
I will see you Thursday, but as for the blog, I am through at least for a while. I am spending way to much time on this computer than with my wife. Be glad to continue this conversation in person, but not here at least for a while.
Post a Comment