Judge Deborah; This is my court buster.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:c107ef1475][i:c107ef1475]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:c107ef1475]
I hear ya, Scott....

by the way, any of you men taking the other side against me here [i:c107ef1475]guilty[/i:c107ef1475] (hey, it is your standard) of voting for a woman in any civil capacity (city, county, state, national)?

If a female police officer stops you do you submit or do you tell her she has no authority over a man? Do you obey the rulings of your city council, mayor, congresswomen, senators, etc etc?

Just looking at the logical conclusion of your stance.


Phillip [/quote:c107ef1475]

I do not vote for a woman. I obey the authorities placed over me, even illegitimate ones, just as Paul advised (cf. Romans 13 - Nero wasn't exactly a model of authority; he became Emperor by having his step-father murdered) .

I am not the one who will be called to task for obeying a woman in authority over me. She will be.
 
[quote:e1c8d8dfc6][i:e1c8d8dfc6]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e1c8d8dfc6]
[quote:e1c8d8dfc6][i:e1c8d8dfc6]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:e1c8d8dfc6]
I hear ya, Scott....

by the way, any of you men taking the other side against me here [i:e1c8d8dfc6]guilty[/i:e1c8d8dfc6] (hey, it is your standard) of voting for a woman in any civil capacity (city, county, state, national)?

If a female police officer stops you do you submit or do you tell her she has no authority over a man? Do you obey the rulings of your city council, mayor, congresswomen, senators, etc etc?

Just looking at the logical conclusion of your stance.


Phillip [/quote:e1c8d8dfc6]

I do not vote for a woman. I obey the authorities placed over me, even illegitimate ones, just as Paul advised (cf. Romans 13 - Nero wasn't exactly a model of authority; he became Emperor by having his step-father murdered) .

I am not the one who will be called to task for obeying a woman in authority over me. She will be. [/quote:e1c8d8dfc6]

Fred,
Do you vote locally? What if all your choices are democrat except for the woman?
 
[quote:73ea60cd1b][i:73ea60cd1b]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:73ea60cd1b]
I am not the one who will be called to task for obeying a woman in authority over me. She will be. [/quote:73ea60cd1b]

Fred,

Honest question: How does this relate to Esther being queen? She was submissive to her own husband (the king) and yet was an authority over the Jews.

This isn't a trick question. I am genuinely trying to think this through. Thanks!
 
Seth,
One can add deborah also to that idea. Who says that she was not submissive to her husband also.
 
[quote:069041db77][i:069041db77]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:069041db77]
Another female that stumps me is Huldah, the prophetess. What exactly did she do?

Mr. Greco,
What is your opinion specifically about Deborah? I was talking about this with my husband the other night (thinking about the 4 daughters of Phillip who prophesied) and we were wondering, why would God raise up a woman, instead of a man? It can't be simply that all the men were cowards: if it weren't for God's grace, Deborah would have been a coward, too. Why did He give this grace/position to Deborah? [/quote:069041db77]

Heidi,

I think it is one of many examples of God showing the foolishness of men, and proving that he does not need them. Men are unwilling to obey - so he takes a woman and uses her.

A good example of this is Miriam. God uses this child to see that his mediator is preserved and given a proper upbringing. No one else is able (or willing) to go to Pharaoh's daughter, so God in His wisdom uses this girl - and HE gets all the glory.

The important thing to remember is that women do not have this role (not being an authority) because there is a fundamental or natural deficiency in them - quite to the contrary often women are more gifted than men. They have that role because God has ordained it. Why? I don't know - I just obey. But that means that God is always free to do as He wishes and reverse the order for His purposes. Just as the sun can be stopped and the iron swim at the bidding of God; so God can do in the realm of authority.

Please do not hear that I am demeaning women, or saying they should be downtrodden. I actually think that one of the things going on here is God protecting women from the greater judgment that comes on those in authority. And women have the most important task of all, raising a godly seed. Today we tend to pass that over and think it is easy or no big deal (so we can ease our consciences when we farm the task out to day-care) but it is not. It is a hard, patience wearing task that most men frankly, cannot handle. Women are important. they are just not to have authority over men.
 
Fred, are you saying that if my wife tells me to do something and I do it that I have upset God's roles within marriage?

Have you never done anything your wife has told you to do?

Even in understanding the roles and functions of men and women within marriage, even then the most extensive passage on these roles (Eph 5) starts by telling Christians (men and women) to submit to one another.

You know that I am not advocating women ruling on the home. But the world is not the home! I do not htink we can justify taking God's function within marriage and extrapolating a construct whereby women are forbidden from ever ruling over a man.

The family, remember, is ultimately a picture (a living parable) of the relationship between Christ and His church (Eph 5:32).

The believer in relating to the civil government or even to employers represents no such reality.

Phillip
 
How about our education systems? Did anyone attend any educational institutions where woman were in leadership, i.e. principal, vice, superintendant? Did your attending there undermine your theology (if of course you are siding w/ Fred)?
 
[quote:ce10126300][i:ce10126300]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:ce10126300]
Seth,
One can add deborah also to that idea. Who says that she was not submissive to her husband also. [/quote:ce10126300]

Very true. Esther just popped into my head because of the discussion of all the "bad" women rulers of the Bible (Jezebel, etc.) Esther was a good queen!
 
Queen Esther....what a great point!!!!!

God ordained that she be queen! She ruled the people as queen. God put her there over men!

If you are going to discount Deborah so easily, what do you have to say about Esther, who was brought to this position of authority over a kingdom for such a time as this?


Phillip
 
[quote:97c216cb25][i:97c216cb25]Originally posted by sastark[/i:97c216cb25]
[quote:97c216cb25][i:97c216cb25]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:97c216cb25]
I am not the one who will be called to task for obeying a woman in authority over me. She will be. [/quote:97c216cb25]

Fred,

Honest question: How does this relate to Esther being queen? She was submissive to her own husband (the king) and yet was an authority over the Jews.

This isn't a trick question. I am genuinely trying to think this through. Thanks! [/quote:97c216cb25]

AND

[quote:97c216cb25][i:97c216cb25]Originally posted by Scott[/i:97c216cb25]Seth,
One can add deborah also to that idea. Who says that she was not submissive to her husband also.[/i][/quote:97c216cb25]

Esther had no authority. All authority was vested in the Persian king. Notice that Esther is not exempt from the law and fears for her life.

As for Deborah, my point is that unless you are going to say that Deborah's husband was the judge (and in that case Deborah had no authority) , Deborah was the judge over Israel - not over all Israel EXCEPT her husband, father and male relatives. You can't have authority over someone and NOT have authority over them at the same time. I don't know if Paul is listening in, but the laws of logic would come into play here. :candle:
 
Sure, the king was the ultimate authority, but Esther did have her own authority as Queen over men.

[b:ad08bf300c]Esther 4[/b:ad08bf300c]
4So Esther's maids and [u:ad08bf300c]eunuchs[/u:ad08bf300c] came and told her, and the queen was deeply distressed. Then she sent garments to clothe Mordecai and take his sackcloth away from him, but he would not accept them. 5[u:ad08bf300c]Then Esther called Hathach, one of the king's eunuchs whom he had appointed to attend her, and [b:ad08bf300c]she gave him a command[/b:ad08bf300c] concerning Mordecai[/u:ad08bf300c], to learn what and why this was.

And look, even a MALE guardian, a family member, was commanded by her and obeyed!

[b:ad08bf300c]Esther 4[/b:ad08bf300c]
17So [u:ad08bf300c]Mordecai went his way and [b:ad08bf300c]did according to all that Esther commanded him[/b:ad08bf300c][/u:ad08bf300c].

And Esther had authority in the kingdom:

[b:ad08bf300c]Esther 8[/b:ad08bf300c]
2So the king took off his signet ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai; and [u:ad08bf300c][b:ad08bf300c]Esther appointed Mordecai[/b:ad08bf300c] over the house of Haman[/u:ad08bf300c].

[b:ad08bf300c]Esther 9[/b:ad08bf300c]
29Then [u:ad08bf300c]Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, with Mordecai the Jew, [b:ad08bf300c]wrote with full authority[/b:ad08bf300c][/u:ad08bf300c] to confirm this second letter about Purim. 30And Mordecai sent letters to all the Jews, to the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth, 31to confirm these days of Purim at their appointed time, as Mordecai the Jew and [u:ad08bf300c]Queen Esther had prescribed for them[/u:ad08bf300c], and as they had decreed for themselves and their descendants concerning matters of their fasting and lamenting. 32[u:ad08bf300c]So the [b:ad08bf300c]decree of Esther[/b:ad08bf300c] confirmed these matters of Purim[/u:ad08bf300c], and it was written in the book.


Chapter and Verse.

Now did God, or did He not, ordain that Esther should be made Queen?

Phillip



[Edited on 4-3-04 by pastorway]
 
[quote:423822e873][i:423822e873]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:423822e873]
Fred, are you saying that if my wife tells me to do something and I do it that I have upset God's roles within marriage?

Have you never done anything your wife has told you to do?

Even in understanding the roles and functions of men and women within marriage, even then the most extensive passage on these roles (Eph 5) starts by telling Christians (men and women) to submit to one another.

You know that I am not advocating women ruling on the home. But the world is not the home! I do not htink we can justify taking God's function within marriage and extrapolating a construct whereby women are forbidden from ever ruling over a man.

The family, remember, is ultimately a picture (a living parable) of the relationship between Christ and His church (Eph 5:32).

The believer in relating to the civil government or even to employers represents no such reality.

Phillip [/quote:423822e873]

Phillip,

there is a difference between advice and authority. you example points this out and undermines your point.

You say:
[quote:423822e873]Have you never done anything your wife has told you to do?[/quote:423822e873]

The answer is yes. She often gives sound advice that I would be a fool not to follow. But because I do that does it mean that she has authority? Of course not! So how would that support women having authority outside the home? Frankly, that is preposterous. you can't say that your statement does not allow a women to have authority in the home (the place of the "advice" or "telling" ) but yet somehow it mysteriously applies outside the home - where the advice is not present.

Secondly, you forget that for a few thousand years the family was the structure of government. During the entire period until Exodus 2, Israel was a family, not a nation. During that time, society and government was conducted on family principles. And to be honest, that is in the main how it was conducted in Israel until the kings.

Thirdly, the Bible does speak of the relationship of Christ to the Church in more ways than that of the husband and the wife. Just one prominant way is that of the body and the head. But that analogy was used often (and perhaps first) in the context of the state's polity. For example:

[quote:423822e873]In the days when all the parts of the human body were not as now agreeing together, but each member took its own course and spoke its own speech, the other members, indignant at seeing that everything acquired by their care and labour and ministry went to the belly, whilst it, undisturbed in the middle of them, did nothing but enjoy the pleasures provided for it, entered into a conspiracy; the hands were not to bring food to the mouth, the mouth was not to accept it when offered, the teeth were not to masticate it. Whilst, in their resentment, they were anxious to coerce the belly by starving it, the members themselves wasted away, and the whole body was reduced to the last stage of exhaustion. Then it became evident that the belly rendered no idle service, and the nourishment it received was no greater than that which it bestowed by returning to all parts of the body this blood by which we live and are strong, equally distributed into the veins, after being matured by the digestion of the food.' By using this comparison, and showing how the internal disaffection amongst the parts of the body resembled the animosity of the plebeians against the patricians, he succeeded in winning over his audience. (Livy 2.32)[/quote:423822e873]


Then there is the obvious analogy of the kingship of Christ and civil authority. The Christian must relate to civil authority. He cannot ignore it (1 Peter 2:13-17)
 
[quote:dd3c26a2e2][i:dd3c26a2e2]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:dd3c26a2e2]

Esther had no authority. All authority was vested in the Persian king. Notice that Esther is not exempt from the law and fears for her life.
[/quote:dd3c26a2e2]

Hmm... in addition to what Pastor Way wrote, I would add Esther 8:2b: [i:dd3c26a2e2]"and Esther appointed Mordecai over the house of Haman."[/i:dd3c26a2e2] and Esther 9:32: [i:dd3c26a2e2]"So the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, and it was written in the book."[/i:dd3c26a2e2]

BUT: Esther 8 clearly shows that Mordecai was the one who gave the decree, not Esther. Hmm.... this is a puzzler. Was Mordecai giving the decree under the authority of Esther who was giving the decree under the authority of the King?

:think:
 
[quote:b8f765cdb2][i:b8f765cdb2]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:b8f765cdb2]
Sure, the king was the ultimate authority, but Esther did have her own authority as Queen over men.

[b:b8f765cdb2]Esther 4[/b:b8f765cdb2]
4So Esther's maids and [u:b8f765cdb2]eunuchs[/u:b8f765cdb2] came and told her, and the queen was deeply distressed. Then she sent garments to clothe Mordecai and take his sackcloth away from him, but he would not accept them. 5[u:b8f765cdb2]Then Esther called Hathach, one of the king's eunuchs whom he had appointed to attend her, and [b:b8f765cdb2]she gave him a command[/b:b8f765cdb2] concerning Mordecai[/u:b8f765cdb2], to learn what and why this was.

And look, even a MALE guardian, a family member, was commanded by her and obeyed!

[b:b8f765cdb2]Esther 4[/b:b8f765cdb2]
17So [u:b8f765cdb2]Mordecai went his way and [b:b8f765cdb2]did according to all that Esther commanded him[/b:b8f765cdb2][/u:b8f765cdb2].

And Esther had authority in the kingdom:

[b:b8f765cdb2]Esther 8[/b:b8f765cdb2]
2So the king took off his signet ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai; and [u:b8f765cdb2][b:b8f765cdb2]Esther appointed Mordecai[/b:b8f765cdb2] over the house of Haman[/u:b8f765cdb2].

Chapter and Verse.

Now did God, or did He not, ordain that Esther should be made Queen?

Phillip
[/quote:b8f765cdb2]

Phillip,

This is silly and shows why "chapter and verse" can have severe drawbacks without a wholistic systematic approach.

Do you really want to draw a Biblical norm based on a "command" given by a woman to a pagan eunech (who was not seen as a man in that society) ? Do you really think they were concerned about her or the king?

And come on, the "command" to Mordecai was that he would gather the people and pray for her so that she could do what HE HAD TOLD HER to do - go to the king. Do you really want to state that as authority? If so, the next time your wife tells you to pray, then you've just given her authority in the house.
:poke::getnowhere:
 
I amended my post above....Esther had her own "full" authority as Queen.

And also let me say again - it seems you are saying that every woman must submit to any man, and that cannot be supported with Scripture. This view that all women are to submit to any man and that no man can ever be under the authority of a woman stretches the principle of submission far beyond God's intent and purpose for submission!

"Her husband", the one she possesses is the one to whom she submits.

And stop giving me history. Give me [i:cc0ec50248]Scripture[/i:cc0ec50248] to defend your view.

Phillip


[Edited on 4-3-04 by pastorway]
 
[quote:4f7b1878ea][i:4f7b1878ea]Originally posted by sastark[/i:4f7b1878ea]
[quote:4f7b1878ea][i:4f7b1878ea]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:4f7b1878ea]

Esther had no authority. All authority was vested in the Persian king. Notice that Esther is not exempt from the law and fears for her life.
[/quote:4f7b1878ea]

Hmm... in addition to what Pastor Way wrote, I would add Esther 8:2b: [i:4f7b1878ea]"and Esther appointed Mordecai over the house of Haman."[/i:4f7b1878ea] and Esther 9:32: [i:4f7b1878ea]"So the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, and it was written in the book."[/i:4f7b1878ea]

BUT: Esther 8 clearly shows that Mordecai was the one who gave the decree, not Esther. Hmm.... this is a puzzler. Was Mordecai giving the decree under the authority of Esther who was giving the decree under the authority of the King?

:think: [/quote:4f7b1878ea]

Seth,

That is the point. Esther and Mordecai were taking advantage (in a godly fashion) of the "rules" that the pagan, ungodly society of Persia had set down. In Persia, a woman could have authority - after all, they cared nothing for God and His word. So we see Esther exercising that authority for the glory of God, but in reality it is Mordecai exercising the authority and Esther is under him.

By the way, the word for appointed (or set) in Esther 8:2 is not necessarily (or even primarily) a word of authority. It can mean something as mundane as set the cup on the table.
 
[quote:bb9bd43af0][i:bb9bd43af0]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:bb9bd43af0]
I amended my post above....Esther had her own "full" authority as Queen.

And also let me say again - it seems you are saying that every woman must submit to any man, and that cannot be supported with Scripture. This view that all women are to submit to any man and that no man can ever be under the authority of a woman stretches the principle of submission far beyond God's intent and purpose for submission!

"Her husband", the one she possesses is the one to whom she submits.

And stop giving me history. Give me [i:bb9bd43af0]Scripture[/i:bb9bd43af0] to defend your view.

Phillip
[/quote:bb9bd43af0]

Phillip,

You have set up a false dichotomy. The plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:12 is that a woman is not to have authority over ANY man. It does not say "her man" or "the man" or her husband. You know as well as I do that the word "aner" can mean husband, but it does not fit the context there (as it does not in John 1:13 (regardless of the nonsensical translation by the NIV) .

To say that a woman does not have authority is NOT to say that she must submit. Women are to submit to their husbands, but they are also to submit to those who are not their husbands - just as men are called to so submit - to the elders for example. But just because a women does not have to submit to a random man does NOT mean that she is permitted to have authority over him. 1 Timothy 2:12 is clear, direct and unequivocal. It is MEANT to be clear, direct and unequivocal, for Paul grounds his argument not in culture (as he does in 1 Cor 11) but in the [i:bb9bd43af0]natural created order[/i:bb9bd43af0] (Adam and Eve).

You must show me where the Bible says - be precept or teaching, not by vague example (that can easily be refuted as I have done with Esther and Deborah) that a woman can have authority over a man. 1 Timothy 2:12 is a direct command. It cannot be counterbalanced by the indirect acts of a queen of a pagan nation who had no real authority.

Also, keep in mind that if you prove your point - then you have overthrown 1 Tim 2:12 and so long as a woman's husband is not in attendance, a woman may have authority to teach. There is no way around it. You cannot say that 1 Tim 2:12 applies only to husbands outside the church but all men inside the church. It cannot be done.

The opposite of authority is not submission. The exposition of the 5th commandment, for example, speaks of duties to superiors, inferiors AND equals. Just because a woman is not in submission to every man, you cannot make the unwarranted leap - WITHOUT CRYSTAL CLEAR AUTHORITATIVE BIBLICAL COMMAND that shows 1 Tim 2:12 does not apply - that a woman may have authority.

To take a broken record out - the Church has interpreted this principle exactly as I have set it forth for 2000 years, until the feminists took over our pulpits. If you read Knox, you would see that Ambrose, Tertullian, Augustine, and all the Church fathers did so, as did the reformers, as did the puritans, as did Spurgeon and so on. You don't find your view appearing until the 20th century. Gee, I wonder why it came up then? :headscratch:
 
2nd Blast Continued

It is an affront to nature to allow women to govern men. Women are weak in comparison to men in this area. Women are effected with natural weakness, and intemperate emotions. From history, when women have been given the unfortunate opportunity to rule they have tyrannized and retarded reformation in ancient times, eg. Athaliah who killed her own son in pursuit of power, in early modern times, eg. the two Marys of England and Scotland who viciously persecuted the saints, in present times, feminists who have legalized the murder of unborn children, and so on.

Woman was created to serve man not to rule him. When woman was created, even in the Garden, she was put under subjection to man. (1 Cor. 11) After the fall, by reason of her initiating the rebellion, God reaffirmed her position as servant (Gen 3). The wife is to submit to the husband (Eph 5:23). The Apostle Paul plainly teaches that this principle of submission extends beyond the family- "1Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." Woman is not to teach ****nor to have dominion over a man**** Woman is to be subject as the Law says (1 Cor 14). Women are to outwardly display their submission in their apparel (1Tim 2). In the cultural context of the early church that meant head coverings (1 Cor 11). Perhaps, even, this is an eternal moral precept? But some would have woman trade her head covering of submission for a crown of superiority! Deut 17:15 sets rules for appointing a king- he is to be a [i:ee897a8699]brother[/i:ee897a8699].

If woman is not to rule the church how much more is she not to rule the state! Being a leader of the church is a little thing compared to being a leader of a nation. The magistrate has a great deal more power and responsibility than the minister. If woman is unqualified for bishop than she is unqualified for magistrate.

A few particular examples does not establish a common rule. Just because Deborah and Huldah were good judges does not mean all women are permitted to rule. God, in his sovereign providence, has used many evils for good purposes. David had seven wives, by his example are we to accept polygamy? You concede the man is the head of the house, yet it would seem from scripture Deborah was not only head of Israel but her household also. From your very own example by your very own interpretive method, we would have to also accept that women can be the head of the domicile.

On the other hand, woman is a nurturer, a mother, and a minister in the home. The female sex is endowed with its own special gifts: sensitivity, grace, and the ability to bear children. These do not make her well suited as a leader but perfect for a mother and a helpmeet.

Would any one of you for a second tolerate the usurpation of one of woman's offices? Science (pseudo-science) is approaching dangerously close to being able to create artificial wombs. Many sodomite men are heralding this an opportunity to become "mothers". What an abomination of nature!! And what an abomination of nature it is for a woman to rule man!

In his day, John Knox lamented the fact that the God-ordained order of nature was corrupted by a mere two women. Today, women are considered equal with men and freely take on the role as the leaders of countless men, who by right should be ruling over them. Lord forgive us for permitting this, we will be judged!

The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of women:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FirBlast.htm

R.L. Dabney's well known discussion on the topic:
http://www.pointsouth.com/fbs/women.htm

There used to be a paper by Rushdoony about biblical womanhood on the Internet called "a woman's place", I couldn't find it but I recommend it.

Mr. Greco, as for the fathers, don't forget Chrysostome in Homily 17. ie page 386 v.4 Works of John Knox, Laing. ;)

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Peter]
 
Ah ha. So your citation of history and tradition trumps the Bible?

1 Timothy 2:12 is in specific context - the church. "Let her learn in silence....and I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", as in the authoratative teaching of the church.

You have failed to show how a woman's role in EVERY arena is that of submission to males. The family, yes. The church, certainly. The state? Not that we can find in the text!

The term for "teach" is that of a process. Paul is saying that a woman cannot be a teacher in the church over men. The office and gift of a teacher (Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:29) in the church for a woman is reserved for her to teach other women (Titus 2:4) and children. She is not to engage in this position of authority over men in the church.

Further, they (women) are not permitted any authority at all over men - in the context of the assembly of the church. Men are the elders, the rulers in the church.

This says [i:54d49c7b12]nothing[/i:54d49c7b12] about outside the church. Nothing at all about any position of authoratitive teaching outside the confines of the meeting of the church for edification and worship.

And I am not the only one to interpret the passage this way. If we want to compare historical and traditional notes we can see that these verses are taken and applied in the context that Paul intended. Within the practice of the church.

Esther and Deborah were godly women that GOD put in places of authority over men. You cannot deny that, for God ordains all authority, and these women had authority. Deborah judged and Esther was a queen who commanded men with authority.

Matthew Henry identifies the prohibition as being within the church.

[quote:54d49c7b12]According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be [u:54d49c7b12]public teachers [b:54d49c7b12]in the church[/b:54d49c7b12]; for teaching is an office of authority[/u:54d49c7b12], and the woman must not usurp authority over the man, but is to be in silence. But, notwithstanding this prohibition, good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of religion. Timothy from a child had known the holy scriptures; and who should teach him but his mother and grandmother? 2 Tim. iii. 15. Aquila and his wife Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly; but then they did it privately, for they took him unto them, Acts xviii. 26.[/quote:54d49c7b12]

Even Calvin agrees in his commentary on the verses in 1 Timothy. The context is that of a position of authority as a teacher in the church.

[quote:54d49c7b12]After having spoken of dress, he now adds with what modesty women ought to conduct themselves [u:54d49c7b12]in the holy assembly[/u:54d49c7b12]. And first he bids them learn quietly; for quietness means silence, that they may not talk upon them to speak in public. This he immediately explains more clearly, by forbidding them to teach.

12. But I suffer not a woman to teach. Not that he takes from them the charge of instructing their family, [u:54d49c7b12]but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only[/u:54d49c7b12].[/quote:54d49c7b12]

Of course then Calvin contradicts himself by going on about how Deborah and others are a supernatural exception to the created order by God's chosing.

Tell me, does God ever lay down a "created order" and then reverse it as He sees fit, all teh while commanding that we not use that "supernatural exception" as a standard? Can God break the rules He makes? To say so it absurd. We need not classify Esther and Deborah as supernatual exceptions. We only need read the verses in 1 Timothy in context.

Did God appoint Esther as the Queen of Persia? He ordains all governemnt and gives them their authority. So God gave Esther authority over men. Pagan society or not, God gave her authority over men. And to deny this is to read around the text in hopes of upholding a notion that extends the specific role of women in the home and church and applies it universally. It stretches what God has said!

The Geneva Bible notes that 1 Tim 2:12 is talking about teaching in the congregation:

[quote:54d49c7b12]it is not lawful for women to teach in the congregation[/quote:54d49c7b12]

John Gill also sees this:

[quote:54d49c7b12]The apostle goes on to give some other instructions to women, how they should behave themselves in public worship, in the church of God; he would have them be learners and not teachers.

women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority[/quote:54d49c7b12]

Now then, Gill goes on to say that women must be subject in every arena. But he too neglects this whole context at that point. Paul is not addressing civil government. He is addressing the meeting and worhip of the church. To apply this specific command about the role of women in the church to every arena that a woman moves in is to take the text farther than it goes.

Why is there an insistence that we stretck the principle beyond its bounds as laid out right here in the Word, and exemplified by Esther and Deborah, just to name two?

Would God violate an eternal holy principle by ordaining Deborah and Esther to positions of power and authority?

He cannot. He would not. So it must not be so wide a principle as it has been made out to be by tradition and history.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood agrees too:

[quote:54d49c7b12]Are you saying that it is all right for women to teach men under some circumstances?

Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching (1 Timothy 2:8-10; 3:15), the best clue is the coupling of "teaching" with "having authority over men." We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for this office.

If you believe that role distinctions for men and women in the home and the church are rooted in God's created order, why are you not as insistent about applying the rules everywhere in secular life as you are in the home and the church?


As we move out from the church and the home we move further from what is fairly clear and explicit to what is more ambiguous and inferential. Therefore our emphasis moves more and more away from specific role recommendations (like the ones made in Scripture), and instead focuses on the realization of male and female personhood through the more subjective dimensions of relationship like demeanor, bearing, attitudes, courtesies, initiatives, and numerous spoken and unspoken expectations.

We believe the Bible makes clear that men should take primary responsibility for leadership in the home and that, in the church, the primary teaching and governing leadership should be given by spiritual men. We take this to be a Biblical expression of the goodness and the wisdom of God concerning the nature of leadership in these roles and the nature of manhood and womanhood. That is, rather than leaving to us to judge for ourselves whether mature manhood and womanhood would be preserved and enhanced through the primary leadership of men or women in these spheres, God was explicit about what would be good for us. However, when it comes to all the thousands of occupations and professions, with their endlessly varied structures of management, God has chosen not to be specific about which roles men and women should fill. Therefore we are not as sure in this wider sphere which roles can be carried out by men or women in ways that honor the unique worth of male and female personhood. For this reason we focus (within some limits) on how these roles are carried out rather than which ones are appropriate.[/quote:54d49c7b12]

I agree - the Bible is clear about the home and the church. But we are never told in the Scriptures that it is wrong or unnatural for a woman to lead in the civic realm. On the contrary, we have several examples of God placing women in roles of civic authority over men.

Phillip
 
Mr. Greco, thank you for your response. I understand what you are saying: the argument doesn't hinge on whether the woman is weaker or less qualified, but on what the place is of each of the members in the whole structure that God has given us. I am going to keep thinking through this (I got out my copy of [i:80d0511bf1]Female Piety[/i:80d0511bf1] the other day, and will see what it says, as well); but it does seem from the glimpses we get into the household life in Scripture that the women sometimes had authority over men, by virtue of their position as the mistress of the household. This would have been true, all throughout church history: even before feminism entered into the church, women were giving orders to male servants: it would have been very troublesome for their husbands to have to personally give every order for the working of the household as well as doing all that they had to do in the world. I realise that Nabal is not a shining example of virtue, but Abigail is: and she is in charge of the servants that take provisions to David. Perhaps Calvin's own wife would have given instructions to male servants, though obviously I don't even know if they had any: it seems highly unlikely if they did, that Calvin would even want to deal with making every decision about what should be done, and when and how... Does your interpretation of Scripture allow for this kind of situation, & how?
 
Phillip, Phillip, Phillip,

[quote:b08895656b][i:b08895656b]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:b08895656b]
Ah ha. So your citation of history and tradition trumps the Bible?

1 Timothy 2:12 is in specific context - the church. "Let her learn in silence....and I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", as in the authoratative teaching of the church.[/quote:b08895656b]

I hate to bring up a much beaten topic, but this is a result of your ecclesiology. What you have just done is say:

1. The Bible is the standard
2. The Bible must be interpreted as you interpret it
3. Others who (overwhelmingly) interpret it otherwise are beholden to some "tradition" because, ipso facto, if they were not, they would agree with you
4. The only way to prove you wrong is to convince you that your position is wrong.

This is not making the Bible the standard, but you. I will stand with the Church and the Scriptures on this one.

Of course everyone you cite will reference the fact that the teaching that is involved is that in the church. The main focus of the text is on teaching. That is the reason for the whole lead in: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission." But the grounds for forbidding teaching is that a woman is that she is not to have authority. And she is not to have authority because it is grounded in the creation order. Notice that the text does not say: "I suffer not a woman to teach and in that have authority." It says "I suffer not a woman to teach, [b:b08895656b]and not[/b:b08895656b] {oude} to have authority" There are two things going on here. But the main focus of the text is on teaching. That is why Calvin and Gill treat the text the way they do. It is not because of some tradition. You, my friend, (respectfully) are the one beholden to the tradition today that has around you flattened out every distinction among the sexes. The only important commandment today is "Thou shalt not ever make a distinction." I do NOT accuse you of liberalism, feminism or anything of the like. (You know I have too much respect for you for that) But you are also a product of a millieu. If the Bible were as clear as you think it is, why did the Church (basically every branch - Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, even Catholic) disagree with you until our century (which just happens to be the most feminist in the history of mankind) .

[quote:b08895656b]You have failed to show how a woman's role in EVERY arena is that of submission to males. The family, yes. The church, certainly. The state? Not that we can find in the text![/quote:b08895656b]

I repeat: show me one text that says that a woman may have authority over a man. A command. Not a narrative example. Both 1 Tim 2:12, and also 1 Cor. 11:3 clearly state that the created order [i:b08895656b]with respect to roles[/i:b08895656b], not ontology is God, Christ, man, woman. No one would argue that because Christ submits to the Father and does not have authority [i:b08895656b]over the Father[/i:b08895656b] that He is somehow less. It is the same with men and women. That is why Paul describes the relationship in those terms in 1 Cor. 11. That is why Peter calls them the "weaker vessel." That is why we have patriarchy, not matriarchy. It is not a cultural phenomena - it a reflection of the order of God, who is the One from whom all fatherhood (Eph. 3:15, a better translation of patria) is named.

[quote:b08895656b]The term for "teach" is that of a process. Paul is saying that a woman cannot be a teacher in the church over men. The office and gift of a teacher (Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:29) in the church for a woman is reserved for her to teach other women (Titus 2:4) and children. She is not to engage in this position of authority over men in the church.

Further, they (women) are not permitted any authority at all over men - in the context of the assembly of the church. Men are the elders, the rulers in the church.[/quote:b08895656b]

You make my point. Paul does not forbid women teaching (for we have positive commands to them to teach other women and children in 1Tim and Titus) - he forbids them teaching [b:b08895656b]men[/b:b08895656b]. Why? Because they are not to exercise authority. Would you permit a woman to teach a seminary class? How about a class on preaching? That is not in an assembly. What about women teaching men "under the authority of the elders" ? That is where your position is already headed. You may not want to go there, but the bus has already left - it is fast becoming the position of the PCA.

[quote:b08895656b]Esther and Deborah were godly women that GOD put in places of authority over men. You cannot deny that, for God ordains all authority, and these women had authority. Deborah judged and Esther was a queen who commanded men with authority.[/quote:b08895656b]

Again, this proves nothing. God called Cyrus his servant. He put godless fools in power and commanded that we submit to them (e.g. Nero) . The bare fact that God uses the disobedience and shamefulness of men (would that Barak would have had some manhood!) to His glory and His peoples' good is no argument.


[quote:b08895656b]According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be [u:b08895656b]public teachers [b:b08895656b]in the church[/b:b08895656b]; for teaching is an office of authority[/u:b08895656b], and the woman must not usurp authority over the man, but is to be in silence. But, notwithstanding this prohibition, good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of religion. Timothy from a child had known the holy scriptures; and who should teach him but his mother and grandmother? 2 Tim. iii. 15. Aquila and his wife Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly; but then they did it privately, for they took him unto them, Acts xviii. 26.[/quote:b08895656b]


Henry here does not disagree with me. Notice that they are not to teach, not because the teaching is authoritative (although that is true) but because to teach is an instance of having authority. The having of authority is forbidden. When the teaching does not entail an authoritative office (e.g. with other women and children, or in a context in which it was clear that Priscilla had no authority) Henry (and Paul) have no problem with that.

[quote:b08895656b]Tell me, does God ever lay down a "created order" and then reverse it as He sees fit, all teh while commanding that we not use that "supernatural exception" as a standard? Can God break the rules He makes? To say so it absurd. We need not classify Esther and Deborah as supernatual exceptions. We only need read the verses in 1 Timothy in context. [/quote:b08895656b]

Yes my friend he does. All throughout the Bible. He changes the created order of the way the heavens move (the sun in Joshua), the way physics works (the axehead floating) the fact that all men die (Enoch, Elijah) , the transmission of original sin and the way men are born (the Virgin Birth) , the finality of death on earth (the widow's son, Jairus daughter, Lazarus) , and many others. If Esther and Deborah are not exceptions, why are there no others? Think about it. the Bible covers about 5,000-6,000 years of human history. And we have TWO examples? And further, we have two examples of the worst rulers EVER in Jezebel and Ataliah - who by the way are the only true women rulers over Israel (for a judge was not truly the ruler of Israel, God was, and Esther at best ruled under a man in a pagan kingdom) . Do Jezebel and Ataliah help us to understand this?

Of course not. Because women are not forbidden from authority because they are wicked, or weak, or foolish. the Bible nowhere makes that blanket statement. That is the error of those who seek to lord it over women. But the Bible is equally clear that authority is for men.

[quote:b08895656b]Did God appoint Esther as the Queen of Persia? He ordains all governemnt and gives them their authority. So God gave Esther authority over men. Pagan society or not, God gave her authority over men. And to deny this is to read around the text in hopes of upholding a notion that extends the specific role of women in the home and church and applies it universally. It stretches what God has said![/quote:b08895656b]

So then you are willing to say that it is a good thing for rulers to murder Christians, right? After all, God "appointed" Jezebel and Ataliah. And he appointed Nero. Paul and Peter both say that VERY clearly - even more clearly than you infer about Esther. So just because someone is a ruler means that God has designed that as a norm, right? I guess we ought to not be concerned if we have pagans in church leadership then, since after all Judas WAS a leader in the church, right?

Of course not. But that is the logical conclusion of your position.

[quote:b08895656b]Now then, Gill goes on to say that women must be subject in every arena. But he too neglects this whole context at that point. Paul is not addressing civil government. He is addressing the meeting and worhip of the church. To apply this specific command about the role of women in the church to every arena that a woman moves in is to take the text farther than it goes.[/quote:b08895656b]

Obviously. How could Gill disagree with you. He and Calvin are just so horribly inconsistent and tradition bound. if they could only come to the text without any presuppositions like you, in a society that has no obvious opinion on the roles of the sexes, right? {Sarcasm alert}

[quote:b08895656b]Would God violate an eternal holy principle by ordaining Deborah and Esther to positions of power and authority?[/quote:b08895656b]


Who said this was a holy principle? Who said it was eternal? Not me. Not Paul. Is there human authority in the resurrection? I didn't think so. Is this principle one of the 10 Commandments? Last time I looked it wasn't. But you need to play this up in order to put God in a box.

[quote:b08895656b]The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood agrees too:[/quote:b08895656b]

Forgive me, but this is an example of pandering and weakness by CBMW. I love their work, and have a great friend with them, but they also know how far they can push this. They know that this is a battle that cannot be won in the modern church. The winnable (and more important) battle is with respect to Church leadership. And that is where they choose (wisely) to fight. Don't kid yourself that all (or even a majority) of the CBMW folks believe this. They don't.

[quote:b08895656b]I agree - the Bible is clear about the home and the church. But we are never told in the Scriptures that it is wrong or unnatural for a woman to lead in the civic realm. On the contrary, we have several examples of God placing women in roles of civic authority over men.

Phillip [/quote:b08895656b]

Again, you have produced no command, and out of say 1000 examples of rulers and civic authorities, you give two. Each has extremely exceptional cases, and in fact is countrebalanced by two horrific cases of women in civic authority. And you still have not explained to me how a woman can have authority over the state and not over one of the members of the state - her husband. That's because you can't. If a husband and wife have a disagreement about a matter, and the husband's decision should (Biblically) stand, the woman magistrate can trump him by the use of her civil authority. There is no way around this. But I'll ask again for an answer.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by fredtgreco]
 
[quote:28d3112cf7][i:28d3112cf7]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:28d3112cf7]
Mr. Greco, thank you for your response. I understand what you are saying: the argument doesn't hinge on whether the woman is weaker or less qualified, but on what the place is of each of the members in the whole structure that God has given us. I am going to keep thinking through this (I got out my copy of [i:28d3112cf7]Female Piety[/i:28d3112cf7] the other day, and will see what it says, as well); but it does seem from the glimpses we get into the household life in Scripture that the women sometimes had authority over men, by virtue of their position as the mistress of the household. This would have been true, all throughout church history: even before feminism entered into the church, women were giving orders to male servants: it would have been very troublesome for their husbands to have to personally give every order for the working of the household as well as doing all that they had to do in the world. I realise that Nabal is not a shining example of virtue, but Abigail is: and she is in charge of the servants that take provisions to David. Perhaps Calvin's own wife would have given instructions to male servants, though obviously I don't even know if they had any: it seems highly unlikely if they did, that Calvin would even want to deal with making every decision about what should be done, and when and how... Does your interpretation of Scripture allow for this kind of situation, & how? [/quote:28d3112cf7]

Heidi,

It would appear to me that this is an instance of the woman not exercising any authority, but rather her husband's. In the same way we see servants giving orders and exercising authority of their masters (please note that I use this example for illustration, not to imply women are as servants and men as masters) .

The issue here is one of order, not of importance. That is why the servant can do that. I often wonder if the rebellion against authority by women (and men) in our day is because they do not understand the Biblical principle that God uses the small and despised things of the world rather than the important things of the world. We don't trust that God can use us where HE sees fit.

For example - would you rather have a woman ruler an entire nation for 75 years, or teach the children in her family? Which would have more impact on world history and the church?

The answer of course, is the latter, if the woman is the mother of Augustine, or John Newton, laboring on with little support at home. And yet they each affected our lives more than Queen Victoria did.

Kinda makes you think twice about what is important, doesnt it? I wish men who denigrated women and scorned "in the kitchen and with the kids" had a clue about how dreadfully important the kitchen and the kids are. That is probably the reason that God gave the woman that role.
 
Fred, you know that you and I agree on this in every single respect except the application of the principle to civic life.

The Bible clearly defines roles within marriage and the church. It does not so define them in civic life. God ordained three institutions. Family. Church. Government.

We have positive and negative commands for family and for church, but we are given no such injunction for government. To broaden the scope of the principle that far exceeds what the Bible teaches.

And you do know that a wife does also have some authority to excercise over her husband, right?

[b:1580cb0831]1 Cor 7[/b:1580cb0831]
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Submission is not the absence of authority, it is the proper response to authority. And I think that your position takes away God given authority for women in certain arenas.

I truly believe that if Deborah and Esther were not examples of what God can do with women in positions of authority that the Word would tell us that this is not the norm but an exception. It does not tell us that, and in fact, the Holy Spirit saw fit to include these narratives to demonstrate the sovereign power of God ruling in the lives of men through godly women! Please be careful not to take anything away from Deborah or Esther.

Here is where I have trouble with your view. Logically, taking your position, if a woman has authority over men and uses it we must either submit to that woman or we must disobey. If she is an elected offical, then we disobey the government and proclaim that we ought to obey God rather than "women."

If woman has no authority over man then no position or office will extend to her authority that God has declared void.

And yet when Deborah or Esther give commands they are followed by godly men without hesitation to accomplish God's purposes.

Would you say that the true God given authority of a position is dependent upon the sex of the person in office?

That simply is not what the Scriptures show us.

I am not being reletavistic, nor am I conforming to the culture. If I were then we would have female pastors and my wife would run the family. I understand the roles that are defined in the Bible for men and women. And your position takes specific roles out of context and applies principles across the board that are intended to be very specific.

With all respect for you my friend.....I think this is all I will say. I have made my case and the readers can study the Scriptures for themselves.

Phillip

[Edited on 4-3-04 by pastorway]
 
I think I'll leave it at that as well.

This is a good example of where brethren can disagree pretty hemently about something and still remain brethren.

:closed:

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Romans922
  • Locked
Deborah, Anna, and Four Daughters
Replies
2
Views
2K
Romans922
Romans922
BobVigneault
  • Locked
Is this really a church?????
Replies
4
Views
2K
rmwilliamsjr
R
Richard King
  • Locked
Is this what "Calvinist" believe?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Bladestunner316
Bladestunner316
CalvinandHodges
  • Locked
Is there a problem with this statement?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Iconoclast
Iconoclast
BlackCalvinist
  • Locked
Pastors..... is this worthy of church discipline ?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Marcos
M
Back
Top