"I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:24 pm

Still puzzled.

Words in blue in my posts are links. You click on them to see the quotes and sources I am referencing. Have you done that?

I showed you where the Interlinear shows the Greek does not say that.

I gave you the link to the Theological Dictionary, which tells which dictionary it is.

I gave you several links to the quote by Chrysostom. Here's another. http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.asp. There is an endnote reference with the quote which gives its source, at the bottom of the article. Even if you don't agree with the point the quote is being used to support, it is nevertheless a real quote.

As for the Fathers, I never said I considered them as more than respected historical references. Still, it's interesting that Chrysostom said what he said about this.
Last edited by KR Wordgazer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:18 pm

Going on from my post just above. . .
I did not deny that women where in some important and vital roles for the early Church, but we have no record of thewm preaching sermons and holding services.

We have them instead delivering letters, helping in feeding the poor, orginising events in cities, but never do we see them in the role of the Preacher.

Is this not Piculiar to you?

It isnt to me as I'd say they never held such positions.

It is still a denial of Scripture to say otherwise.
It is not difficult to figure out why this should be the case, given the misogyny of the cultures where the Gospel was spreading at the time, the seclusion and lack of education experienced by most women, etc. Women in Paul's day were not ready to teach, having never been allowed to learn anything until after Christianity came. And quite frankly, if a woman had been made a minister of a church, the church would have had no converts. The surrounding cultures considered women little better than animals.

It's quite clear Paul didn't think this way. It's clear he wanted women included as full people, allowed to learn and grow, but he knew it would take time. I think the Greek reading of 1 Tim 2:12 makes it pretty clear that Paul was saying women could not teach until they had learned. But does he really mean that no matter how much women learn, that is all they can ever do? I note that in Acts 18:26, Prisca and Aquila, husband and wife, both took Apollos aside and "explained to him the way of God more accurately." So Prisca, at least, taught Apollos-- though given the culture, I doubt very much if he would have listened to her without Aquila. A woman, then, who had "learned" apparently did "teach a man." There is no evidence that Aquila, or Paul, tried to stop her, or in any way condemned her for what she had done.

Similar, then, would be Junia's case. If she was a woman (and from all I've read I think this the most likely), then she was probably the wife of Andronicus. Though the two of them were "apostles," they were part of a larger, later group, not of the same rank or standing as the 12, or Paul. But if Junia did exercise the duties of apostleship (such as church planting), she would have done it along with her husband, or no one would have accepted her.

In any event, what we have is this. Early Christianity sought more inclusive roles for women within its ranks than was at all common. Women in Christianity were considered full human beings, able to learn, and were given roles such that they were called 'co-workers" in the Gospel. But at the time of Christianity's inception, most women were still years away from being able to take any serious leadership roles, and probably generations from any kind of real acceptance of such by the surrounding cultures. And then most of the Apostles were martyred.

As an example of what usually happens when the founders of something are removed-- my father was hired by the engineering company Hewlett-Packard in the days when Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard still ran the company. I still remember his lamentations about how the company drifted from Hewlett and Packard's original conception within a very short time after they retired. At one point, Packard even came back for a time to restore his original vision.

If this can happen within just a decade or so in an ordinary, wordly business, is Christianity entirely immune? I think not. I think that after Paul's death, the idea of women "not teaching yet" went on being, "not yet," and "not yet" eventually got replaced by "not teaching ever." And so there never was a time when "not yet" became "now."

As for "anointing," as I used it, the meaning is simply "giftedness." My pastor saw the giftedness of these Chinese women as leaders, and believed that such gifts were from God-- indeed, that God appeared to be specifically blessing these women in this particular exercise of their gift. For it is apparent that some women are 'born leaders." Why should that be only in the secular culture? Is not leadership talent a gift from God?

As for this:
I have heard praise for them. I cannot be moved.
So if a woman does well, it means nothing. But if she messes up, she becomes a "horror story," to use your own words-- an example as to why women shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't this attitude seem just a little unfair?

But I probably should stop here. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. You will, I'm sure, find all kinds of ways to pick apart everything I just said. I will note, though, that you never have given me the kind of quotes, sources and references for your position that I have been providing all along for mine.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:44 pm

Still puzzled.

Words in blue in my posts are links. You click on them to see the quotes and sources I am referencing. Have you done that?

I have on occasion. I looke dover Metacrocks entry. I missed the dictionary, I am tired.



I showed you where the Interlinear shows the Greek does not say that.

I gave you the link to the Theological Dictionary, which tells which dictionary it is.


Actualy the Interlienaries I use do not accord the interpretation you have offered, and I'd also suggest perhaps the one you ued is beign misapplied.




I gave you several links to the quote by Chrysostom. Here's another.

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.asp. There is an endnote reference with the quote which gives its source, at the bottom of the article. Even if you don't agree with the point the quote is being used to support, it is nevertheless a real quote.

And it is from an unreputable soruce with a clear bias which has also no scruples in amendign how thigns are seen to fit their own agenda. I have seen much falsity form them.




As for the Fathers, I never said I considered them as more than respected historical references. Still, it's interesting that Chrysostom said what he said about this.

I would, however, prefer to read his words, and not jump to Hasty cpnclusions.

It is still also the cae that he was of the last fothe Fathers, and lived to see the beginnign fo the collapse of the ROman EMpire. He wa snot a witness to the Apostles himself.


I did not deny that women where in some important and vital roles for the early Church, but we have no record of thewm preaching sermons and holding services.

We have them instead delivering letters, helping in feeding the poor, orginising events in cities, but never do we see them in the role of the Preacher.

Is this not Piculiar to you?


It isnt to me as I'd say they never held such positions.

It is still a denial of Scripture to say otherwise.


It is not difficult to figure out why this should be the case, given the misogyny of the cultures where the Gospel was spreading at the time, the seclusion and lack of education experienced by most women, etc. Women in Paul's day were not ready to teach, having never been allowed to learn anything until after Christianity came. And quite frankly, if a woman had been made a minister of a church, the church would have had no converts. The surrounding cultures considered women little better than animals.

Speculation is far too often proven wrong.

Pagan and Jew alike had revered women, from Deborah to Hephestia, who held their posiitons within their societies.

Casting the blame upon the Mysogyny of the culture still lacks evidence that the Scripture permits women to hold the position of the Preacher, and is instead idle opinion in regard to the matter. Given the precice nature of the early Church andhow often it contradicted, even unto the death f its memebrs, those who lived around them, I still find htis a weak argument. When taken into consideraiton how women where revered and womeen whre proclaimed as the Great Saints, Early Among them AMary Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Joan, And later Thecla, Tabitha, and others, and given the Honour that was bestowed upon those women, and htis wihtin the ifrts two centuries of CHristendom, I do nogt think we can say the ealry Churhc suffered for the Mysogyny of the culture that surroudns it. Not, at leats,, without expainign how then it elevated to promenance so many women, as to be known as a Religion of slaves and women.


The links I missed. I've been tired of late, but I noted oen above, and shall say I have seen it before. I will addres sit in due order.

It's quite clear Paul didn't think this way. It's clear he wanted women included as full people, allowed to learn and grow, but he knew it would take time.

How is reserving to men the role of Preacher denyign women the fact that they are full people?



I think the Greek reading of 1 Tim 2:12 makes it pretty clear that Paul was saying women could not teach until they had learned.
But you have not read it in Greek. You have relied upon an interlienary, and do not speak Koine Greek. I do not either, and can eaisly find soemone who will show the dame Greek passage but show the reverse conclusion.

We must take care when speaking of hte true meanign of an original language we do not ourselves speak, and such care prevents me from actign upon this argument of yours, since you do not know the Greek well enough to read it with its Nuances.

I again mena no offence, but it is impossible for me to take that as an arugment I'd be comfortable making. I know from expeirnce that when I learned German, and knew little of it, I made enormosu errors due to not knowign the tences and forms of the language well enough.

Can we truly relie upon this from either of us, when neither of us know the GReek well?

We can of ocruse look up the original words and offer our view, but it is not sound a case to speak it.

I do know though that the Early Church did not view the text as permittign women to preach,and they did speak Koine Greek. You may say that thewir intepretation fo the Greek text was flawed by a Bias rootedint he Mysogyny of their culture,but what evidence do you have that this is the case?

I still must reject the proposiiton forlack of evidence.

But does he really mean that no matter how much women learn, that is all they can ever do?

No one said this was all women coudl ever do, and owmen did do many things.We are, however, discussing a spacific role they are told not to do.



I note that in Acts 18:26, Prisca and Aquila, husband and wife, both took Apollos aside and "explained to him the way of God more accurately." So Prisca, at least, taught Apollos-- though given the culture, I doubt very much if he would have listened to her without Aquila.


Yet you have no evidence outside of how you think the culture was and how you assume the peopel woudl react.

Again you have no direct evidence, and only supposiiton based upon the presumption fo hwo peopel behaved.



A woman, then, who had "learned" apparently did "teach a man." There is no evidence that Aquila, or Paul, tried to stop her, or in any way condemned her for what she had done.

But, she did not find herself in the role of an official teacher, and was not preachign sermons and holdign classes.

I myself have said such things where permitted earlier.

It still doens't speak to the matter at hand.

Similar, then, would be Junia's case. If she was a woman (and from all I've read I think this the most likely), then she was probably the wife of Andronicus.
Assumption again, as there is no evidence.

SHe may have been th wife of another, or unmarried.

Many women int eh ealry Churhc chose diliberatley not to wed.

We cannot say.

We cannot even say for certain that Junia was a woman.


Though the two of them were "apostles,"
Neither where said to be Apostles. Again, even itn eh GReek, the tex doesn't say they where. It merely says they where held in high regard by the Apostles.


they were part of a larger, later group, not of the same rank or standing as the 12, or Paul. But if Junia did exercise the duties of apostleship (such as church planting), she would have done it along with her husband, or no one would have accepted her.

Accordign to whom?

THecla, a famous Saint and COntemporary of The Apostle Paul, was a Sacred Virign, who never married, and yet her mission work is renouned int eh Ancient CHurch.

All this talk of Mysogany and claism that women woudl never be listeendtoand had otgo with their husbands ignores compleltey her.

It ignroes other owmen in the early Church who did similar feats, and that ghey did htis in the ealry Church.


No, I'm afraid I am unimpressed by the constant reliance upon the claim of a Mysogynist culture and how women woudl not be heard, and the presumptiosn fo marital relationships we cannot know existed.

Int he case of Thecla we kow she had no Husband. This did not slow herdown.

Why thenought I think it woudl others?


In any event, what we have is this. Early Christianity sought more inclusive roles for women within its ranks than was at all common.


This has not beendenied,but thee is still a principel of order.


Women in Christianity were considered full human beings, able to learn, and were given roles such that they were called 'co-workers" in the Gospel.

Not only was this not denied but I have sated such myself.
But at the time of Christianity's inception, most women were still years away from being able to take any serious leadership roles, and probably generations from any kind of real acceptance of such by the surrounding cultures. And then most of the Apostles were martyred.
All but John diedcruel deaths at the hands of their enemies.

THis said, your makign rpesumptiosn again,presumptiosn supportedonly by your beleif in what the ancient world waslike,that is conflicting with theevidence I have seen before.

Women did speak, and women did in the early Church go fourth and spread the GOspel, and not always with their Husbands , lest they be unheard, and many of those owmen became Saints.

All in the early years of the Church.

What they did not do, was Preach the Gospel as Ministers.

They where never PResbyters, and never Bishops.

Still, they where heard, and listened to.


As an example of what usually happens when the founders of something are removed-- my father was hired by the engineering company Hewlett-Packard in the days when Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard still ran the company. I still remember his lamentations about how the company drifted from Hewlett and Packard's original conception within a very short time after they retired. At one point, Packard even came back for a time to restore his original vision.

Wal-Mart is another good example, as is Sears. But this doens't speak tot he Church as our leader is not dead, nor retired, and still direct sour steps.

A livign God, and eternal Lord Jeuss CHrist, guides his Church.

We have but to listen.

If this can happen within just a decade or so in an ordinary, wordly business, is Christianity entirely immune? I think not. I think that after Paul's death, the idea of women "not teaching yet" went on being, "not yet," and "not yet" eventually got replaced by "not teaching ever." And so there never was a time when "not yet" became "now."

But can it not be argued that the current posiiton you hold that women shoudl be permited to preach is instead the innovation, and you are those hwo took over Hewlett Packard after the founders retired?

It certainly seems that you want to change what is written and how we do htings to suit your views, nd if these views lack historical creedence, one must wonder if, instead of the Ealry Apostles willing htat women shoudl preach, but the ealry Chruhc after thier deaht denied it, perhaps modern man permits it, and changes the direction of the Church to suit his own ends.



As for "anointing," as I used it, the meaning is simply "giftedness." My pastor saw the giftedness of these Chinese women as leaders, and believed that such gifts were from God-- indeed, that God appeared to be specifically blessing these women in this particular exercise of their gift. For it is apparent that some women are 'born leaders." Why should that be only in the secular culture? Is not leadership talent a gift from God?


You still conuse the role of the PReacher with that of a leader, and this is not what he PReacher is.

Leadership is not the role of those who minister the Gospel, but serivce, and it is not for them to stand before others with skills and talnets to lead, btu skills and talents only to minister.


It is still written, and it is still binding. Let those women practice the Gospel, and let them teahc others of it and do good for the CHurh, but let us reserve for the Pulpit the role of Men, for it is what was written, and what we do know.


As for this:


I have heard praise for them. I cannot be moved.


So if a woman does well, it means nothing. But if she messes up, she becomes a "horror story," to use your own words-- an example as to why women shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't this attitude seem just a little unfair?

No, what seems unfair is your misunderstandign of what I had said before. When I referenced the role of women as Ministers and called htm Horror Stories, it was in reference to others who have written their own testamonies and have re[ported only the bad, justa s you linked to a testamony which reporte doly the good.


I never said that each time a woman preaches it is a horror to behold, nor intnded I that. I thougth it obvious when I posted it that I meant that testamonial evidence as you had linked can be coutnered with those who ar eon the oposing side, and is oflittleworth in determining the truth of the Scriptures.

I said nothing otherwise of how omen actually perform, and only addressed the problem inherant in the approach you had used.

But I probably should stop here. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. You will, I'm sure, find all kinds of ways to pick apart everything I just said. I will note, though, that you never have given me the kind of quotes, sources and references for your position that I have been providing all along for mine.

I providd you with scripture. I have then defended the traditional eading o the Scripture. I need less evidence for that.

I have also noted Thecla, and other early women as Saints, this is a notation.


I have also spoken of the task at hand that you have to show the culture was as you described.


Other than this, there must needs be silence.


I stand, after all, upon the Scriptures, and this is what they say. Shoudl I then be faulted for it?

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:58 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Actualy the Interlienaries I use do not accord the interpretation you have offered, and I'd also suggest perhaps the one you ued is beign misapplied.
Or perhaps yours is. As you said, since neither of actually speaks the original language, we can't be sure.




And it is from an unreputable soruce with a clear bias which has also no scruples in amendign how thigns are seen to fit their own agenda. I have seen much falsity form them.
I can see why you'd disagree with the source-- I chose it because, unlike many of the other places that quote this text by Chrysostom, they have a footnote to the actual book where the writing is contained.

It's not as if only groups like this use this quote-- it is acknowledged as an actual quote by Chrysostom on every website I have encountered, from both sides of the issue.

Still, you are right that he is several hundred more years after the events than some of the other church fathers.



Pagan and Jew alike had revered women, from Deborah to Hephestia, who held their posiitons within their societies.

Casting the blame upon the Mysogyny of the culture still lacks evidence that the Scripture permits women to hold the position of the Preacher, and is instead idle opinion in regard to the matter. Given the precice nature of the early Church andhow often it contradicted, even unto the death f its memebrs, those who lived around them, I still find htis a weak argument. When taken into consideraiton how women where revered and womeen whre proclaimed as the Great Saints, Early Among them AMary Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Joan, And later Thecla, Tabitha, and others, and given the Honour that was bestowed upon those women, and htis wihtin the ifrts two centuries of CHristendom, I do nogt think we can say the ealry Churhc suffered for the Mysogyny of the culture that surroudns it. Not, at leats,, without expainign how then it elevated to promenance so many women, as to be known as a Religion of slaves and women.


The links I missed. I've been tired of late, but I noted oen above, and shall say I have seen it before. I will addres sit in due order.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that misogyny was part of the culture. To ignore the culture in which a text was written is a very easy way to misinterpret authorial intent. Paul's injunction that women "learn" was written in response to a culture that said they could not. But again, he does not say to Timothy, "Let a woman learn in silence, but do not permit her to teach." Instead he says (using traditional translation), "Let a woman learn in silence; but I do not permit a woman to teach." There really is a difference there. The first clause is a command; the second, a statement of what Paul does. To ignore that is, again, to potentially lose sight of authorial intent.

Yes, it certainly is true that even in the most misogynistic cultures, certain women do manage to distinguish themselves. However, they are not generally looked upon as disproving the rule (about the nature of women), but only as exceptions to it. In early Christian culture, one way for a woman to distinguish herself was to eschew marriage and take the path of celibacy and service. This doesn't mean that all other women, who had not so distinguished themselves, were considered any more capable than before. Surely the writings of the Church Fathers make this abundantly clear! The writings of the Church Fathers show no such "contradiction of those who lived around them" as you mention, when it comes to the view of women, though the clear truths of the Scripture do mitigate the problem. However, there are still certain Church Fathers who go so far as to claim that woman is not "made in the image of God," as Gen 1 teaches, but that only man is.


How is reserving to men the role of Preacher denyign women the fact that they are full people?
Well-- imagine if you were told, "you, as a man, are equal in every way to a woman-- but only a woman is ever going to be allowed to preach or teach. You are forbidden this because of your gender." What, logically, is the conclusion one must come to? That either the first statement is true, or the second one is. Either the genders are equal, or one is fundamentally incapable of doing something that men by nature are able to do.

For years I submitted to this; for years I was willing to believe that as a woman I was restricted from ever preaching or teaching. But did I, in my very heart of hearts, consider myself to be fully equal to the men in the church? No. How could I? The thing is fundamentally impossible. Women and men are different, but equally capable-- or they are not equals.

That's all I have time for right now. :)
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:14 pm

I am reminded of another conversation we had.

I am a Monarhcist, but I had said on another occassion how I wanted a Decentralised Government.


You thought htis strange. How can I want a smaller and decentralised Government, when in fact I beleived in Monarchy?

The answer was simple, but never had opostunity ot be addressed. A Monarchy doens't simply repalce an elected President wiht a Hereditary King, and thw hwole system I advocated required massive changes to the governmnt and to the society as a whole.


If you look at the Feudal syustem as a clear exampel of this, each Feif was under a Lord who had sworn feilty to a King, but each Feif was independant of other feifs. THe concept of a Nation-State did not exist and the Govenrment was aculaly quiet small.


The same is true in what we say about Equality, in that it is approached differently.

Equality is under thelaw, and how the law treats us. Women are Equel to men in that they can recieve Gos grace and are held equelly accountable for their actions, and are as valuable as men. But women are not men, and have different oles in lie to play.

Equel to men they remain, but they are not the same as men.

Pope john Paul 2 said "Equel but different". He wrote about this topic in, I beelive, the Theology Of The Body.

Women can not preach, but htis doens't mean they ar eunequel to men. It means onl that they can not preach.

Int he same way, under the old law of Moses, only the sons of Aaron coudl be Priests, but this did not make the Levites unequel and usperior to the Benjaminites, the Jews, or the Ruebenites.

A woman is equel in her value, and equel before God in how he treats her. A Woman is not, hwoever, the same thing as a man, nd her role in ife differs.


As for the Culture of Mysogany point, it still remaisn to be seen that the Early Churhc suiffered this, and btayt Paul only mena s"WOmen can't teahc now" rather htan "Never can". It remains to be demonstrated that women ever held such posiiton as a Presbyter in the Early Church, much less a Bishop.


I still see no reason to conclude that the early Church permited women to fulfill this role, and see no reason to blame it only on the Mysogyny of the culture.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:34 pm

Zarove wrote:I still see no reason to conclude that the early Church permited women to fulfill this role, and see no reason to blame it only on the Mysogyny of the culture.
Neither do I see any reason why the word "I" in 1 Tim 2:12 is intended to be ignored, as if "Let the women learn, but I do not permit them to teach" meant exactly the same as "Let the women learn, but do not permit them to teach." No satisfactory reason for the presence of that "I" (which according to your interpretation is not needed there) has been given.

Your Levite argument is interesting, and I'm glad to see that you have found a way to reconcile the equality contradiction-- but I don't think it has any bearing on this instance. It's not as if the passage was written in any way so as to say, "I, God, have chosen men and given them the exclusive right to preach," which is the way the command about the Levites reads. The two sections of scripture are not similar in any way.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:33 am

Neither do I see any reason why the word "I" in 1 Tim 2:12 is intended to be ignored, as if "Let the women learn, but I do not permit them to teach" meant exactly the same as "Let the women learn, but do not permit them to teach." No satisfactory reason for the presence of that "I" (which according to your interpretation is not needed there) has been given.
There is no reason to give one. Paul wrote the letter, and in other segments used a personal reference, such as I or Me, when speaking. Since Paul was the letters author, it stands to reason that he said I permit not because he was the author of the letter.


You make too much over it, I think, and in order to create something not present.
Your Levite argument is interesting, and I'm glad to see that you have found a way to reconcile the equality contradiction--
It was never a contradiction in my mind, nor is this an attempt to reconcile anything.

but I don't think it has any bearing on this instance. It's not as if the passage was written in any way so as to say, "I, God, have chosen men and given them the exclusive right to preach," which is the way the command about the Levites reads. The two sections of scripture are not similar in any way.

But you cannot show that when Paul said he did not permit women to preach, he meant it only as a personal statement of his own practice.

Why, if it was such, would he even tell Timothy of it? Obviously he intended Timothy to follow this lead.


I'm afraid we are still faced with the statement that women are not to preach, and are to learn in silence and subjection, even if you want to redirect it to Paul's use of the word I.

Paul had Apostolic authority, and this is not argued.

He clearly intended Timothy to follow suit, else he'd not reference it in this Pastoral Epistle.

He spoke of himself, but he is the author o the text, so this is not strange, and indeed some of the Prophets do this.

It may not read as the Torah, but the Torah doesn't read like the Prophets, and the Torah is the only text which affirms such a direct line to God. Even the Gospel s do not read like the Torah.


The real question is, why should I assume it was only meant as a passing statement from Paul? Why do we see no evidence of anyone ever suggesting this meant something different in the first century?

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:02 pm

Zarove,

For more of the evidence you have requested, I present this quote from Tertullian, from his writing "On the Apparel of Women." Tertullian, against the plain reading of both the Genesis account and Paul's writings on the Fall of Man in Romans, fixes all the blame for Adam's fall on Eve. Women then are blamed for all the sin in the world, although Gen. 3:6 clearly says Eve's husband was with her when Eve first took the fruit, and Paul's teachings on the Fall of Man center on Adam.

Tertullian quite clearly misinterprets the Scriptures based on personal bias. How, then, can we exonerate the Church Fathers from any misogyny from their culture which might have affected their reading of 1 Tim 2:12? It is clear from their writings that they repudieate the surrounding culture; and yet they are not entirely free from unwarranted bias against women, as is clear from this:

in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,— the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. "In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die.

As for your statements about Paul's use of the word "I," I do not find them compelling. I never said Paul was merely making a statement about his own personal practice; he was clearly, from the beginning of the passage ("I will that men everywhere should pray") stating his desires and policies based on his authority as an apostle. However, he still uses "I." These, then, are good, practical exhortations for Timothy to put into practice at the church in Ephesus, and for us to consider as to application to our churches today. I balk at the idea that the application must be, "no woman in your churches today can teach men."

Paul's words, "I do not suffer a woman to teach" are written in the present, active tense. The English has two versions of such, which would be either "I do not suffer a woman to teach," or "I am not suffering a woman to teach." In the English, the second one gives a much more timely sense to the wording, but the Greek had no such distinction. We cannot tell whether Paul meant "I do not suffer a woman to teach" or "I am not suffering a woman to teach." We cannot tell which of these shades of meaning Paul meant to convey; we only know that the purpose of this letter was to give Timothy current, direct advice on how to deal with problems the church at Ephesus was having.

The other thing interesting is that where in the verses directly above he says, "I will," and "I want" to describe what he wants the church members to do, here he does not say, "It is my will that women not teach." He merely says, "I do not suffer a woman to teach." It's interesting that, when he had been using phrases to convey his will and his desires immediately above, here he conveys only his practice. Yes, I do believe Timothy was to follow his example. I merely do not think the words have the always-and-forever strength you are giving them, when compared with his wording in the other verses. The statement about women not teaching is not worded as the will of God; it is not even worded as the will of Paul. It is simply worded as the practice of Paul, which he wants Timothy to follow in the church at Ephesus, where, according to chapter 1, verse 7, there was a problem with members "wanting to be teachers of the law [when they] do not know what they are talking about."

I further note that in Rev. 2:20, Jesus finds fault with the church at Thyatira, because "You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants . . " Jesus does not say He finds fault with Thyatira for permitting women to teach; He merely faults them for listening to "that" woman who uses the title "prophetess" falsely to teach sexual immorality. Why no denunciation for letting a woman teach at all, if this was an actual interdiction from God?

No, I just don't find your arguments compelling based on the wording of the verse in question, the teachings of other verses, and the evidence of bias from the writings of the Fathers. I will search for some more examples of the latter.

Furthermore, everywhere I look I find statements that that word "silence" which you keep repeating is actually the Greek word "quietness." "Quietness" does not mean absolute silence, but a state of mind in which the recipient of a communication is receptive and free from contention or discord. This word simply does not mean a woman must sit in absolute silence. In fact, it refers to the ordinary state of a receptive student. This makes even clearer what I had stated before-- cultural and historical understanding make the authorial intent clear in that what is surprising is not that Paul says, "let them learn in quietness and submission," but that he says, "let them learn" at all.
Last edited by KR Wordgazer on Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:43 pm

For more of the evidence you have requested, I present this quote from Tertullian, from his writing "On the Apparel of Women." Tertullian, against the plain reading of both the Genesis account and Paul's writings on the Fall of Man in Romans, fixes all the blame for Adam's fall on Eve. Women then are blamed for all the sin in the world, although Gen. 3:6 clearly says Eve's husband was with her when Eve first took the fruit, and Paul's teachings on the Fall of Man center on Adam.

Tertullian quite clearly misinterprets the Scriptures based on personal bias. How, then, can we exonerate the Church Fathers from any misogyny from their culture which might have affected their reading of 1 Tim 2:12? It is clear from their writings that they repudieate the surrounding culture; and yet they are not entirely free from unwarranted bias against women, as is clear from this:

They beign Tertullian, who himself later defected to Montanism, I beleive.

Tertulian in no way proves every Church Father had such a bias, and lived 150-200 yars post events. He salso doens't limit himself to merley Romans, and elsewhere Paul himself lays th blame on Eve for beign firts deceived, and in other passages Blame si rested on her, such as in Genesis chapter 3.

Thus why women are given a spacific punishment in 3:16.


Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


This also tells us why women shoudl nto userp the authority of a man in the CHurch, as it is part of the way it was designed, thatmen hold those positions.

I think you read into Tertullian well too much bias, and do not seek his counsil to see why he said what he said.



in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,— the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. "In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die.

Notice how much of this flowes not form a misreaig of Pausl letter to the ROmans, but Genesis 3:16.

It also doens't nessisairly coem form his Mysogyny base dupon his culture.


As for your statements about Paul's use of the word "I," I do not find them compelling. I never said Paul was merely making a statement about his own personal practice; he was clearly, from the beginning of the passage ("I will that men everywhere should pray") stating his desires and policies based on his authority as an apostle. However, he still uses "I." These, then, are good, practical exhortations for Timothy to put into practice at the church in Ephesus. I merely balk at making them commandments for all time.

The Ancient Church was, however, based upon Apostolic Authorrity. When Paul spoke saying " I say", he was giving his command. A command, I remidn you, based aroudn that authority, and not overturned anywhere in the Scriptures.

On what ground do you overturn it?

When paul spoke in an Apostolic letter giving Pastoral gidelines to Timothy, speakign as an Apostle of Jesus CHrist, he spoke with that authority, and his words where to be complied to out of obeidence.



Paul's words, "I do not suffer a woman to teach" are written in the present, active tense.


Because Paul as very much alive at the time and the situation current. Much in Pauls letters ar eitn eh active, current sence, but I doubt you htink Paul speaks of beign hoenst, chaste, and virtuous only for the time he lived in, and that itis eaislychangable now.



The English has two versions of such, which would be either "I do not suffer a woman to teach," or "I am not suffering a woman to teach." In the English, the second one gives a much more timely sense to the wording, but the Greek had no such distinction. We cannot tell whether Paul meant "I do not suffer a woman to teach" or "I am not suffering a woman to teach." We cannot tell which of these shades of meaning Paul meant to convey; we only know that the purpose of this letter was to give Timothy current, direct advice on how to deal with problems the church at Ephesus was having.

It is a general Pastoral Epistle setting fourth guidelines for the CHurhces Timothy woudl plant as well. And the same guidane is foudn elsewhere.

Given the reason for the ban on women preahcign is the ituation with Eve, and a reminder of how she fell, and of Gods generl order,a nd provided that this is how it wa sunderstood int he firts century, I see still no reason to discard it to suit a modern Fancy.


The other thing interesting is that where in the verses directly above he says, "I will," and "I want" to describe what he wants the church members to do, here he does not say, "It is my will that women not teach." He merely says, "I do not suffer a woman to teach." It's interesting that, when he had been using phrases to convey his will and his desires immediately above, here he conveys only his practice.
But thats still ultimatley a semantic debate, and tryign to simply confuse the words meaning base don word choice.
Yes, I do believe Timothy was to follow his example. I merely do not think the words have the always-and-forever strength you are giving them, when compared with his wording in the other verses.
Then, show me where int he Scriptures this is contradicted.


Otherwise, I ust take it for what it says.
The statement about women not teaching is not worded as the will of God; it is not even worded as the will of Paul. It is simply worded as the practice of Paul, which he wants Timothy to follow in the church at Ephesus, where, according to chapter 1, verse 7, there was a problem with members "wanting to be teachers of the law [when they] do not know what they are talking about."


Actually the word "Suffer" has a stornger conniotation than this, and basiclaly Paul is saying " I do not allow".

Paul is tellign Timothy " I do not allow omen to preach in th services".

Its a fairly obvious and straigh forward phrase.



I further note that in Rev. 2:20, Jesus finds fault with the church at Thyatira, because "You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants . . " Jesus does not say He finds fault with Thyatira for permitting women to teach; He merely faults them for listening to "that" woman who uses the title "prophetess" falsely to teach sexual immorality. Why no denounciation for letting a woman teach at all, if not teaching in the church was a command from God?

You do realise that you are makign tow great errors inthis I hope.

The firts beign the confusign of a Prophetess with a precher, which we aforetime mntioned is not the case, and I never said a woman coudl't be a Prophetess.


The other is that Jezebel here is an allusion to an Old Testament figure and the enture passage, as with all else in Revelaiton, is symbolic and allegorical.

I will not enage in the exegesis as it is irrelevant for our topic excpet to say Jezebel is not a real woman in this passage.

Any moe htan theowman clothes int he stars is. Or Jeuss beign a Multi-eyes Lamb is.

No, I just don't find your arguments compelling based on the wording of the verse in question, the teachings of other verses, and the evidence of bias from the writings of the Fathers. I will search for some more examples of the latter.

But you have shown no verse that permits women to hold the psoition fot he preacher, and have certianly given no reason to think Paul meant anythign other than women not beign permitted.

I still go by thwt is written, not what we can asusme it means after ausign confusion tot he text.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:42 pm

Still wondering how "I do not suffer a woman to teach" has morphed into "a woman can't be a preacher."

"Teach means "teach." The woman "Jezebel" (yes, I know that's a symbolic name) was "teaching." If you believe Paul is saying "I do not suffer a woman to teach, but she can still be a prophetess, even though prophetesses teach in the Church, because all I really mean is that a woman can't be a preacher," you are reading far, far more into the text than you say I am.

As for the Revelation quote-- yes, Jesus' messages to the churches had symbolic elements, but they were far less symbolic and more direct than other, purely symbolic, passages in Revelation. Or do you think that Rev. 2:13, "even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city" is not referring to a real person either? The way these letters are worded, there are people Jesus praises and people He denounces. There are symbolic names given, but no reason whatsoever to disbelieve that there was a real person who was here given the appellation "Jezebel," or at the very least, a group of people giving false teachings which was under female leadership.

As for Eve, I don't recall saying that blame didn't rest on Eve. I said that the Bible makes it clear that not ALL the blame rests on Eve, though Tertullian tries to make it so.
Wag more.
Bark less.

Post Reply