Historic theologian on women in the church

Indeed, women are better at some things than men, and vice versa. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and each was designed by God to have a different role to play in life as well as in marriage. And God's creation was pronounced "good" by Him. But modern society thinks to discard God's design and to re-imagine those roles, as if "equality" could mean "equal in every respect" (it never can).

 

Provided they 'keep their place and behave as quiet servants not teachers or leaders'. They are, even in that though, in fact more Christlike in their servanthood than many 'male-only' priests. John 13:12-17.

1 Cor.11:11-12 says "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

You would be nowhere to be seen without your mother, a woman, who YOU came out of, Stalwart, and were totally dependent upon during the early years of your life.

I'm not disputing that, but the differences do not include intelligence, ability to lead, understand or instruct others less educated than themselves in Christian virtue and service.

Rubbish! Secular male dominated social convention mostly and Jewish male supremacy which condemned Jesus for his unorthodox approach regarding women. John 4:24-27.
Matt.27:54-56. Where were all the men then? Hiding, that's where!

Since Jesus had a whole lot more than just 12 disciples, and there is some uncertainty about all their names, and the twelve was a symbolic number for the Jews, I don't think Jesus ever excluded women from his followers (disciples, there were many women disciples who ministered to him), any more than he conciously excluded Gentiles from the twelve. It just happened that way because they were where they were in the society they lived in at the time.

You are surely not suggesting that Jesus set a precedent for debarring women from communion are you? You would have some negative support from scripture and some true misogynists if you tried that, I grant you because there is no recorded instance of a woman receiving communion anywhere in the Bible. That's a fact. It is factually interesting but no excuse whatever for preventing them from receiving the sacraments, or for that matter even consecrating them. It was a very special event, the Last Supper, not Passover per se because Passover includes the whole Hebrew family including the women.

If it was St Paul that taught it. We are not sure where those particular verses should fit and they raise a peculiar contradiction when it is a fact that the same author has already taught 3 chapters earlier that women should cover their heads when 'prophesying', which essentially meant leading or speaking in public worship in the assembly i.e not remaining silent. So which 'teaching' should we follow. Headgear wearing to speak, or no speaking whatever in church, regardless of headgear?

Like it or not respect means: to treat with consideration, refrain from violating, to acknowledge esteem, to feel or show esteem, deference or honour, to look to, regard, consider, take into account, to value.

All attributes I have found sadly lacking in some male-only-priesthood proponents over the years, and I am male myself. They may probably have been even ruder and more disrespectful to women in the way they expressed their repugnant views to them.
.
.

 

This is a ridiculous thing to say. We need our fathers no less than our mothers in this sense; we are the product of both parents in their respective roles, both literally and symbolically. All you're doing is validating the very point Stalwart is making.

 

...and here comes the smoke-machine. "We don't know what it really means! Maybe Paul didn't even write it! And even if he did it only pertains to that specific time and place, not to everyone everywhere! And it's in conflict with verse xyz!"

As if in two thousand years of exegesis, hermeneutics, and in-depth study, this stuff hasn't been exhaustively discussed and hashed out ten thousand times already (and by people far wiser than we). Consensus was reached long ago.

 

According to biology? Yes of course. But we are not to judge according to the flesh, like those corrupted in the world and by the ruler of the world. Instead we are taught to judge according to the spirit. And here is the prince of the apostles, teaching you the teaching according to the spirit:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
-First epistle to the Corinthians, v. 7-10

This mirrors the creation narrative in Genesis, of course, where Eve is made out of Adam, and in his image.

You're using corrupt translations. Here is the actual text:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Who's not sure? You? We're pretty sure.

 

I Cor. 11:11 was written to somewhat balance out, but not to countermand, the verses preceding it, including v. 3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I like what John Gill wrote in his commentary about verse 11:

...the one is not without the other in religious worship, and in the enjoyment of religious privileges; that though the woman may not pray publicly and expound the Scriptures, yet she may join in prayer, and hear the word preached, sing the praises of God, and enjoy all ordinances; for in Christ no distinction of sex is regarded, men and women are all one in him, and equally regenerated, justified, and pardoned, and will be glorified together.​

God sees no distinction of sex in regard to our salvation (men and women will be glorified together and are all united in Christ), but this fact does not mean that God sees no distinction of sex in all regards; in fact the earlier verses are among many scriptures that make clear the distinctions God makes between men and women.

 

Biology is now, 'of the flesh' and corrupted by the ruler of the world? That sounds kind of Gnostic doesn't it? Does that not occur to you that you might be misunderstanding the holistic meaning of the passage a little?

And the man calleth names to all the cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; and to man hath not been found an helper--as his counterpart. And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead. And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man; and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken; therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife . . . Youngs Literal Translation.

I think perhaps you may be over egging your omlette when you suggest that woman is made in man's image. I don't think scripture actually says that. It does say men shouldn't cover their head and women should for some obscure and confusing 'glory' reflectioning reason. It very clearly says though that they were both made in the image of God, neither of them in the image of each other.

And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them. And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, Youngs Literal Translation.

You are using an antiquated Elizabethan English version of the scripture. Here is Youngs literal translation. (as close to the original Greek LXX / Hebrew as a literal translation can get).

but neither [is] a man apart from a woman, nor a woman apart from a man, in the Lord, for as the woman [is] of the man, so also the man [is] through the woman, and the all things [are] of God. Youngs literal Translation.

Scribes who put it after verse 40, when they copied the original or earlier manuscripts were not sure, presumably because they also were confused and alarmed by the contradiction with 1 Cor.11:5 and 13. For this reason vs. 34-36 are thought by many to be an interpolation, slipped in between 33 and the old 34. Giving the more sensible reading of:

For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.

.

 

Seems that God will have to stop making such distinctions when they both get to heaven then:

But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:"

Angels are not all equal but it is not sex that delineates their rank.

Once saved, we are effectively already in the Kingdom of God, and should have already begun behaving toward each other as God means us to continue. John 11:26.
.

 

I think most Christians would agree that in Heaven gender and rank differences disappear and all become one in Christ.

But you are asserting that this is true on earth, and that is simply false. The Bible makes quite clear, over and over again, the concept of male headship in the family. God wishes human families to maintain the same hierarchy he has over his creation. The church is the Bride of Christ; we submit to him in the same way a wife submits to her husband.

It was true before the Fall:

"Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'"(Gen 2:18)

It was true after the Fall:

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

"An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones." (Proverbs 12:4)

The entirety of Proverbs 31 expounds on the qualities of a good wife as helpmeet to her husband.

Paul strikes this theme over and over in his epistles. Human families are meant to mirror the relationship between God and the Church.

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.) (Eph 5:22-24)

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them." (Col 3:18-19)

Peter affirmed this.

"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct." (1 Peter 3:1-2)

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)

This is one of the reasons why priests and bishops must be male, for they are leading a church much as they lead their own families.

"He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?" (1 Tim 3:4-5)

 

Gnostic is something passed on in secret; the scriptures are widely available to all. They complement the knowledge we can derive through natural means. Some things we can know only through the spirit of inspiration, because they are unavailable or even are at war with the natural. According to biology, man comes from woman, but that is an imperfect and flawed picture, because according to knowledge revealed in the Scriptures, the woman actually came from man.

Let’s read the text again carefully:
“man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”

This falls in line with his other teachings, such as 1 Timothy 2, where the holy apostle says,

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

And in Ephesians 5:22,

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”

 

One more note about Young's translation (or Young's Literal Translation, as @Tiffy is at pains to remind us). It does indeed render Hebrew quite literally into English...to the point of often making nonsense of the resulting English. Even "word-for-word" translations are not completely literal, because English does not map perfectly onto Hebrew or Greek. Any translation written in good (or even passable) English is not going to be completely literal because it cannot be; if it were literal, it would be gibberish.

Read David Dewey's A Guide to Bible Translations on this. There's a reason why Young's translation never really caught on. Among modern translations, the NASB and the ESV are probably the most word-for-word literal you're going to get and still get comprehensible English out the other side.

Literal is not the same as accurate, particularly when it comes to translating from one language to another. The NIV is a perfectly reliable and accurate translation of the Bible, but it isn't particularly literal. It's more thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word, and thus it tends to be a bit more readable than word-for-word translations. However, more literal translations are more useful for close bible study (which is why the 1995 NASB is still the favored translation among many seminarians).

The NET Bible (not to be confused with the NET Septuagint) is a pretty meh translation in my opinion, but it is a vast treasure-trove of translation notes. I highly recommend it (make sure to get the full notes edition) if this sort of thing interests you.

(Sorry to derail the thread a bit. I'm a Bible geek.)

 

You're not derailing it. Its helpful to know you know that stuff. Saves a lot of time explaining.
.

 

Consensus reached by whom? The issue and the contradiction plus the displaced verses in many manuscripts still exist. There is no consensus among those who recognise the truth of those facts, only in those who choose to deny or ignore them.
.

 

NIV is for the most part OK but the RSV is still the most accurate while still being readable, translation, IMHO.
.

 

"Those who recognise the truth of those facts"? Who are "those"? What authority do they have? What "facts"? How are these "facts" established if (in your view) there is no consensus? Who decides?

My view is that the Bible is written in fairly plain language and (when translated properly) is expressed in plain English. (Now before you pounce on "translated properly", my feeling is that most modern bibles are fine. There are a few horrible ones, and some so-so ones, but the major translations are fine.) The plain meaning of the text should always be given priority in interpretation and exegesis. God does not require us to be scholars of Greek and Hebrew to divine the meaning of his Holy Word. We resort to exegesis, hermeneutic, and textual analysis in difficult cases, but we should always prioritize the plain meaning first. The Bible is not a puzzle or a cryptogram, though it can be subtle. It was written by divinely-inspired authors to be read and understood by common people.

And as the Christian church is catholic (small-"c", mind) then consensus does indeed set the bar for interpretation. If you're going to assert a contrary meaning to verses of the Bible (particularly those like the ones I quoted above), then your evidence and exegesis can't advance simply on your own say-so. Bible interpretation cannot be idiosyncratic. We exist not only among the church militant, but also the church triumphant, those Christians in past times who have given their own discernment and wisdom to the church regarding the interpretation of scripture. There is an enormous amount of wisdom, learning, erudition, discernment, and scholarship in the history of Bible interpretation; there is much cant and error as well. But consensus, as I said before, is not overturned just because I may disagree with some particular reading of a part of the Bible. By attempting to overturn consensus I am making a strong claim, and strong claims require strong evidence. Not just "because I said so".

Idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible leads to whole jungles full of error, confusion, and heresy. Christian consensus on scripture provides us with our roadmap along the true path. Sometimes that map is wrong, but we know when that happens because we find ourselves lost. We go back, we correct the map (if we have discernment to do so) and we continue on.

The Bible belongs to all Christians and of course we should all contribute our wisdom to understanding it. But we must also recognize that far wiser heads than ours have been at work on this book for many centuries, so in humility and a servant spirit we receive their teaching until our own discernment is strong enough to operate in a mature fashion.

 

'Those' are the scholars and historians who study the manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts, which the Bible is translated from a compilation of the various copies we now have. They are not all the same and in the case of 1 Cor. 14:34-36 the "women must shut up entirely in church" verses appear at various places besides between verses 33 and 37.

The authority of someone who has actually seen the manuscripts and studied them. Not just someone who assumes they must obviously be all identical because God wrote them all Himself.

The verses which appear in most English translations at 1 Cor.14:34-36 do not appear there in all of the manuscripts of 1 Corinthians that are available to study. FACT!

If those "Shut up woman", verses are removed from between 1 Cor.14:33-36, the remaining text still makes perfect sense as if nothing has been removed. Paul is then seen to be dealing with the problem of male and female prophets prophesying in a disorderly and undisciplined manner, not giving way to one another, disputing with one another or some individuals, (of either sex), 'taking over' and showing off. THIS is then what's left.

What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.

The removed verses read: "As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Do you notice a distinct difference in tone and style between the above two paragraphs? The first is using all inclusive language. The second is entirely excluding just the women from the proceedings.

Scribes and copyists have been puzzled apparently as where these 'extra verses' should go. In some manuscript copies they have put them after verse 40 like this:

39 So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; 40 but all things should be done decently and in order. As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Committees argue over where verses may have been originally and some get outnumbered so they go where the majority guess they might have appeared in the scroll that Paul wrote. It is true, of course, that Paul did not write it in his original because Paul didn't write most of his letters. Paul dictated it to a scribe as he did for nearly all the text in all his other letters with only a few notable exceptions.

IF it was an interpolation though it would have had to be either in the original or in a very early copy of the original because there are no copies in existence with the "Shut up woman" passage completely missing. The Corinthian church however was notorious for unruly and dishonest behaviour. The male leaders were misbehaving and 2 Corinthians probably contains more than one 'telling off' letter from Paul to them, which they may have stitched together to save face, giving us at least 4 fragments of different correspondences from Paul to Corinth. So they may have had a habit of doctoring their mail from him to make his letters look less like a proper set of good tellings off.

2 Corinthians consists separately of probably:
(A) 6:14 - 7:1
(B) 10:1 - 13:10
(C) 1:1 - 6:13; 7:2 - 9
(D) 13:11-14

But there is also the issue of "As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak," contradicting 1 Cor, 11:5 "any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved." and 1 Cor.11: For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.

Why insist that women wear something on their head to prophesy or pray, if they are not even permitted to speak at all in church anyway? THAT is the contradiction and I personally don't think Paul was so silly as to have failed to notice the logical inconsistency of it.
.

 

Riddle: When is the word of God canon not the word of God canon?
Answer: when someone doesn't like some passage or other, and looks for reasons (such as, "it isn't in all the manuscripts") to disregard snippets of the canon.

Sorry, but the canon is the canon. If you don't like parts of it, get in your time machine, return to that early church council, and present your case.... good luck! As the saying goes, "The word of God says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

 

I get so frustrated when people dive into the "manuscripts vary" swamp. Of course they differ. They were hand-written by many people over the course of centuries, and passed down to us through man's ingenuity and God's providence. Our earliest manuscripts of the New Testament are fragments from the 1st century AD; better fragments come from the 2nd century; Codex Vaticanus was compiled (probably) sometime in the 4th century. Since then, scholars have unearthed literally thousands of manuscripts of both Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types. The astonishing thing to me is how little they actually differ.

The autographs are long gone (probably read to tatters within years of their writing and long since returned to dust). But God has preserved his Word through the centuries, and by his grace and the work of the Holy Spirit in the archaeologists, scientists, textual critics, and translators over the years, we moderns are blessed with a Bible that is probably the closest to the autographs as it's ever been!

At this moment I have five different Greek New Testaments on my shelf: the Nestle-Aland 29, the United Bible Societies 5, the Tyndale House New Testament in Greek, the TBS edition of Beza's revision of the textus receptus, and an old 1901 Greek New Testment published by the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate. And you know what? All of them are pretty much the same. What differences there are usually come down to word-order (Greek is looser with word-order than than English is), spelling, and punctuation. A tiny amount -- maybe 1% -- is "controversial", but none of it fundamentally changes anything. (The pericope adulterae falls into this category.)

Here's the thing...you can read a copy of Erasmus' Greek Novum Instrumentum of 1516 and (terribly typeset and riddled with typographical errors as it was) it would still transmit the true Gospel to you. You can read the KJV in English as published in 1611, and it will transmit the true Gospel. You can read just about any modern English translation, and get the true Gospel. The Bible is true and its teaching is inerrant. Whatever issues there are in manuscripts or translations does not change that. Yes, there are corrupted versions of the Bible -- not mistranslations but deliberate corruptions meant to draw believers down a false path. One must trust the church and pastor and ask for guidance if unsure.

A final note: I actually favor the Septuagint (LXX) over the Masoretic Old Testament. Despite being a Greek translation of an earlier Hebrew text, it's actually older by far than the Masoretic text that most modern Bibles use. (Parts of it go back to 300BC, during the early Ptolemaic period of Alexandrian Egypt.) It's probably the version of scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from in the New Testament (the Masoretes didn't begin their work until centuries later).

 

One small addendum: now that Greek/English interlinears are common on the internet, there's a deluge of "experts" in Koine Greek. The truth is that there aren't that many true experts in Koine. Maybe a few dozen in the whole world. In the Christian world, Bill Mounce and Dan Wallace are the most well-known. They are Christians, world-renowned experts and teachers of Koine Greek, translators, and scholars.

Dan Wallace has done a lot of conferences over the years on this exact topic, and many of them are on YouTube. This is a good place to start if you're new to the topic. (He's also written the academic-standard second-year Greek grammar to go with Mounce's first-year grammar.)