Comments on: Too much of one, not enough of Another

By: Theology for the Masses » Blog Archive » Friday Morning Summary

Theology for the Masses » Blog Archive » Friday Morning Summary — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:52:43 +0000

[...] It has been a busy week. While there were only five posts, we have had 48 comments on a variety of topics. Most of the discussion has centered around 1) the nature of God in relation to time and his ability to change and 2) the egalitarian / complementarian views of gender relations. [...]

By: Jesse Black

Jesse Black — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:51:38 +0000

Questions for the complimentarians:

What does the kingdom of God gain by putting women under the authority of men? (Are all women under the authority of all men?) What about women who are gifted in leadership, teaching, etc? What about the women throughout the Bible who were called to positions of leadership over men? Does the kingdom of God gain from disallowing women to freely use their gifts? Does the kingdom of God gain by forcing men into leadership when they are not gifted or equipped in it?

What about single women? What about widows? If men are the head of women (first a father and then a husband), are we adding to the plight of “widows”? Throughout the Bible, God gets very angry when people do not care for the widows and orphans.

I honestly want to know how complimentarians answer these questions, because I think they are important.

By: Tom 1st

Tom 1st — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:01:38 +0000

Hank,
Just got word you’re asking ’bout I Timothy 2. In a few days, I will post on it on my blog page. I have a series of posts I posted on my previous blog that will deal with the complementarian position in I Timothy 2. I think you should find it, at the very least, an intriguing argument. I, personally, think its darn near air tight - in the egalitarian side.

I’ll re-post the series again…as I have a new page, and as I have new readership. So, give me a few days…my Trinity post is still drawing some interest.

By: jr.

jr. — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:34:37 +0000

Hank,

First, freaking sweet icon. Props.

I'll let Tom handle 1 Tim… he and I are working on that text right now and he's done some fantastic analysis of it. I'll put a bug in his ear.

Prisca is listed before her husband… this clearly marks her as an apostle of distinction ABOVE her husband. And I would disagree with you about Junia… Paul rarely calls anyone a coworker. To give such a title to a woman reflects his egalitarian outlook.

1 Cor. - that Paul is hearing from "Chloe's people" indicates that she is at least the homeowner if not a key leader in one of the Corinthian house churches.

And speaking of 1 Tim… what do you do with "and a woman shall be saved through childbirth"?

By: Hank

Hank — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:17:58 +0000

Oh yeah, how do you understand 1 Timothy 2:9-15? I read it this morning during my quiet time and I was curious as to how someone who does not come from a complementarian background would interpret it. Most notably, I am eager to see how you understand Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where he says "A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet", and also how Paul uses the picture of Adam and Eve and the Fall in Genesis 3.

By: Hank

Hank — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:12:00 +0000

Well, the declension of diakonon is second declension so the endings will look more masculine that feminine. She is still being referred to as a deaconess. But thanks for the information and I will process it and come back to later.

By: Honzo

Honzo — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:15:05 +0000

The title of deacon (διάκονον), not deaconess, is used by Paul to describe Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Am I wrong here? It is the same word used by Paul, or a follower of Paul in 1 Timothy 3. Factor that with the parallel structure of 1 Tim 3:8 and 1 Tim 3:11 are the same. Since we know from Romans 16:1 that female deacons were referred to by the masculine form of the word for deacon, it is reasonable to assume that Paul or Paul’s follower, is still talking about female deacons in verse 11. There is no way to tell wife from woman and man from husband in the Greek besides context. The context here (because of the parallel structure and the textual warrant for the masc. form of deacon to refer to a woman) seems to dictate that we are still talking about female deacons in 1 Tim 3:11. Also, there are more than a couple of early church fathers that attest to this, such as John Chrysostom in “Homily 11 on 1 Tim 3:11,” Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus on his “Commentary of 1 Tim 3:11″

John Chrysostom:

“Likewise woman must be modest, not slanderers, sober, faithful in everything.” Some say that he is talking about women in general. But that cannot be. Why would he want to insert in the middle of what he is saying something about women (in general)? But rather, he is speaking of those women who hold the rank of deacon. “Deacons should be husbands of one wife.” This is also appropriate for women deacons (diakonoi), fo rit is necessary, good and right, most especially in the Church.

Theodore of Mopsuestia:

The woman, likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.” Paul does not wish to say this passage because it is rightfor such [deacons] to have wives; but since it is fitting for women to be established to preform duties similar to deacons.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus:

“In the same way, women” that is, the deacons (diaonous), “are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in everything.” What he directed for the men, he did similarly for the women. just as he told the male deacons to be serious, he said the same for women. As he commanded the men not to be two-faced, so he commanded the women not to talk irresponsibly. A that he commanded the men not to drink much wine, so he ordered that the women should not be temperate.

Lastly, I think that it is worthy to note parallel structures found in the New Testament, esp as they are describing gender roles in the Pauline letters. (see the submit/love parallel in Corinthians.

By: Hank

Hank — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:09:15 +0000

First of all, I am glad you made the point "The surprising statement in the first century wouldn't have been 'wives submit to your husbands', [Ephesians 5:24] it would have been 'husbands love your wives.'" That is something that we in the 21st century take for granted and never pick up on. Men in the first century were not people who married for love as much as other reasons (i.e. sons for passing on inheritance, honor, gaining more estate/money etc.). The command to love in the way that Christ loved his bride the church would have blown them away. Paul was a radical to have said that.

I'm not seeing what you are saying in 1 Corinthians 1, could you elaborate further. In Romans 16 Paul respects these three women greatly and does commend Phoebe to them to help her in any way they can. Junia is well known to the apostles and Prisca was very instrumental in helping Paul, she and her husband Aquila. But Paul does not define their positions as leadership positions. Can you demonstrate for me, please, that these women were in positions of leadership? I'm sure you can from the text.

In the case of Junia, I don't think that Paul is labeling her as an apostle in the same sense that he and Peter and James and John are. Because the ESV can be very biased in matters of gender (it is pretty clear in their preface), I refer to the NET where Paul is translated as saying in Romans 16:7, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me." The Greek of "they are well known to the apostles" is worded in an elative sense as it is coupled with the dative preposition en and a personal plural dative. They knew of her and knew her well, but she is not being put on their level of authority.

May be you can point out something I'm not seeing the Greek text. I'm looking forward to your response if and when you get the time.

By: Honzo

Honzo — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:59:27 +0000

You are correct JR, knowledge of the culture that Paul was trying to change is vital to interpreting and making sense of what Paul is writing in Eph and Corinthians.

By: jrmadill

jrmadill — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:43:14 +0000

Romans 16 and 1 Cor 1 both evince Paul authorizing and praising female church leadership (Phoebe, Prisca, Junia). The NT teaches marriage to be a partnership in which both partners willingly submit to one another. In Eph 5, the husband has the greater submission (he is called to die while the wife is called only to submit) because he gained the most power in the Fall (with the introduction of patriarchy/headship in Gen 3).

This concept of submission in marriage is consistent with Paul's understanding of Christian gender relationships in general, as evinced in the texts i cited above. Paul clearly does not see any difference between men and women, or between the roles to which they are called. In fact, Paul wants the Christian marriage to be every bit as controversial and counter-cultural as he expects the Church to be. (As my pastor observed yesterday when preaching on the parallel in Colossians 3, "The surprising statement in the first century wouldn't have been "Wives submit to your husbands", it would have been "Husbands love your wives".)