Women Learning & Under Authority

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not really sure how far we can apply that representative/intercessory principle, lynnie. And I mean that: I'd be interested to hear if someone has worked through this more thoroughly.

In each example you cite, we have a case of someone with God-given leadership or intercessory role--a prophet in each case, if not a priest--representing his people in their sins.

Do I really have the place or the right to represent and intercede for, say, CJ Mahaney? A (former) officer in a denomination utterly disconnected from me? As a Christian husband and father, I feel like I can represent and intercede for my family, and my church, if I were still a church officer. Beyond that, I would be hesitant to take that role. I don't see any example in the Bible--correct me if I'm wrong here--of a lay-person taking it on themselves to represent or intercede for their leaders without being given that role.

Hi- don't want to drift where the thread went, but to answer your question, I don't know. I have been encouraged by teaching in the past to this effect but I can't make out a theological case for your question at the moment. I have done it often, just from the vantage point that I probably have some or all of the same root sins that lead to scandalous actions in some people. I actually find it hard to interceed like this for people with perversions only because I don't feel like I am twisted in that unnatural way, but I admit that if I had been terribly molested when young I very well could have ended up just as perverted. But its no problem just praying for people the way you do, and asking the Lord to bring them to repentance.

The main point I was trying to make is that when women in the church seem like "feminists", at the very least spend part of your prayer in praying for the sort of men that provoke such sinful reactions. They are all over : ). I listen to women about their problem husbands, and I always have to direct them back to themselves.........invariably it is a great big stew with plenty of female ingredients in the mix. I tend to think it is wiser for older women to be doing the exhorting about submission to women, and for men to be doing the exhorting about how men should be to men. It may be that the biggest problem with Aimee is not her opinions about where men need to change, but that she is trying so hard to get them to change. Maybe that is better left to men, and she should be more focused on where women need to repent. Thinking it all through right now. Thanks for the reply.
 
It may be that the biggest problem with Aimee is not her opinions about where men need to change, but that she is trying so hard to get them to change. Maybe that is better left to men, and she should be more focused on where women need to repent. Thinking it all through right now. Thanks for the reply.
I smell what you stepping in here Lynnie, you may be on to something as I am dwelling on all this as well.
 
Perhaps there’s a middle ground to all this.

1. We may not infer that all women are easier targets to deceive then all men.

2. Nor may we infer that a reason that women may not rule in the church is because they are more likely on average to be deceived by men. After all, if we grant #1 above, then obviously from a purely statistical basis there can be settings or situations in which even all women are more difficult to deceive than all men.

But perhaps more to the point, pastors are to be assessed for their discernment. Therefore, we aren’t ever to give a pass on vulnerability to deception merely on the basis of male gender. So, if we read too much in 1 Timothy 2:14, we could end up ignoring that fact that certain men don’t qualify due to a weakness in this area. We mustn’t assess vulnerability purely on gender, as if the apostle was prescribing a binary litmus test to determine the ease of deception.

3. That said, I think we may safely draw some complementarian inference from the text. There is a binary litmus test, a necessary but not sufficient condition for church officers. Officers must be male.

Although we mustn’t infer that women are disqualified from the office of pastor due to a propensity to vulnerability in this area, I can’t dismiss that the apostle seems to pointing us to some corroborating general rule that supports the distinctly male qualification. In other words, a pastor must be male because of creation order. That creation order works its way out in general principles (yet not without exceptions).
 
I‘m trying to follow you. Why do you think Paul used “Eve was deceived” as one of the reasons for the prohibition for women to teach in the public gathered body?
I wonder if part of the order of creation model is the direct link between God and Adam. God created Adam and the command was to him. Eve was formed from the rib of Adam by God obviously. So there is a design aspect to man's role, his authority and accountability and it has noting to do with intelligence and everything to do with God's mandated and designed order.
 
Although we mustn’t infer that women are disqualified from the office of pastor due to a propensity to vulnerability in this area, I can’t dismiss that the apostle seems to pointing us to some corroborating general rule that supports the distinctly male qualification. In other words, a pastor must be male because of creation order. That creation order works its way out in general principles (yet not without exceptions).

Could we maybe say that while woman's reasoning isn't marred more man's, we have some consequences of the fall that match the actions Adam and Eve took that lead to the fall? So, the inability to have an ordained office follows the pre-fall pattern but now there's the difficulty with that setup. And maybe that's what Paul is referring to, the consequence of Eve's actions not some inherent nature.
 
So, the inability to have an ordained office follows the pre-fall pattern but now there's the difficulty with that setup. And maybe that's what Paul is referring to, the consequence of Eve's actions not some inherent nature.

Maybe, that's better than the original statement. The problem is that most of these patriarchalist types root this in a pre-fall situation.
 
Could we maybe say that while woman's reasoning isn't marred more man's, we have some consequences of the fall that match the actions Adam and Eve took that lead to the fall? So, the inability to have an ordained office follows the pre-fall pattern but now there's the difficulty with that setup. And maybe that's what Paul is referring to, the consequence of Eve's actions not some inherent nature.
I do not think so. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul gives 2 reasons for the prohibition:

1. Pre-Fall Creation - Adam formed first.
2. Eve was deceived (Post Fall).
 
I do not think so. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul gives 2 reasons for the prohibition:

1. Pre-Fall Creation - Adam formed first.
2. Eve was deceived (Post Fall).

Agreed on reason for the prohibition, but what I am hearing in other posts, is that the passage isn't going so far as saying that she was deceived because of something inherent. Here's the passage with the bolded&underlined being what I think is assumed.

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived because she is more gullible and became a transgressor.
 
Agreed on reason for the prohibition, but what I am hearing in other posts, is that the passage isn't going so far as saying that she was deceived because of something inherent. Here's the passage with the bolded&underlined being what I think is assumed.

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived because she is more gullible and became a transgressor.
Yeah, I am not being so bold as to say that. Now I would be willing to say that due to Eve being deceived in the Fall that afterwords Eve’s (and women ordinarily and in general) fallen nature may ordinarily have a greater propensity to slide in this way than males ordinarily do. Just like I ordinarily fail in the lust of my eyes more than does my own wife. Males also certainly sin in being immmodest, but it would also seem that Paul felt to stress the topic of apparel more with the female sex.
 
Last edited:
Grant did you read Rev. Winzer’s arguments against this being a reason and were unconvinced?
Yes. I would tend understand and agree with the arguments by the majority of reformed commentators. Before I ever get to commentaries I try to take the plainest meaning of what Paul says. Pauls uses the same line of argumentation with Headcoverings. (Tying to creation)

Paul list 2 reasons Rather clearly. I will read Winzer again. But Paul’s clear pointedness his hard for me to get over.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that Satan exploited the weaker vessel in this vital instance. He will continue to do so, and will use every tool at his disposal to reek havoc and sow discord including the utilization of social media to embolden sin and slander of the weaker vessel.

Adam complied so it is basically a moot point, but Satan will use whatever advantage is at his disposal. That’s what I think, I’m always open to correction.

Adam was led astray by Eve, not by the serpent. That's an important distinction. Eve was deceived by the enemy whereas Adam was deceived by his wife, his confidante, his friend. That makes Eve's deception of Adam especially grievous: she exploited her relationship with Adam to bring him, and with him Mankind, into ruin. Eve should have been suspicious of the serpent the moment it spoke to her: animals do not talk. We have no reason to believe it was normal for them ever to talk. She knew God's command and she knew that serpents do not normally talk. But still she allowed herself to be deceived.

It should also be remembered - in relation to the "modern educated woman" argument - that Adam and Eve were holy and righteous, without sin, before the Fall. Not one person since (save Christ) has been in such an advantageous position. Education is nothing to that.
 
Yes. I would tend understand and agree with the arguments by the majority of reformed commentators. Before I ever get to commentaries I try to take the plainest meaning of what Paul says. Pauls uses the same line of argumentation with Headcoverings. (Tying to creation)

Paul list 2 reasons Rather clearly. I will read Winzer again. But Paul’s clear pointedness his hard for me to get over.
It was hard for me to get over too but after re-reading the thread over the years it has made more sense. It’s indeed hard to go against so many wise commentators who hold to the other view.
 
I was actually asking your opinion :)
Oh, ha! I don’t really have an opinion per se; I just checked Gill and he comports with what I’ve heard taught before: “He took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him...”

I’ve never studied the issue out and compared commentators, but this is maybe the majority view of at least the older ones?
 
Oh, ha! I don’t really have an opinion per se; I just checked Gill and he comports with what I’ve heard taught before: “He took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him...”

I’ve never studied the issue out and compared commentators, but this is maybe the majority view of at least the older ones?

That works for me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top