Mothers Saved in Childbearing? Part 2
Reprinted (with permission) from Faith Pulpit, March/April, 2010. See Part 1.
The Meaning of “She Will Be Saved in Childbearing”
In view of these considerations, what does the phrase “she will be saved in childbearing” mean? Several views have been offered:
(1) Women will be kept safe physically during childbirth.1 However, many godly women have died in childbirth. Moreover, the term “salvation” regularly has a spiritual meaning in Paul’s writings.
(2) Women in Paul’s day would be kept from teaching false doctrine through their maternal roles.”2 Nevertheless, “Paul roots his teaching deeply in the culture-transcending events of the Creation and Fall of man and woman. There is absolutely nothing in the passage which would suggest that Paul issued his instructions because of a local situation of societal pressure.”3
(3) Women will be saved through good works, represented by childbearing.4 Scriptures, however, teach that salvation is by God’s grace through faith in Christ―not by works (Eph. 2:8, 9).
(4) Women will be saved through the particular childbearing of Jesus.5 Those who hold this view link “childbearing” with Genesis 3:15 and emphasize the particularizing function of the article.6 The antecedent of “she will be saved” is Eve (who may represent “woman” generically), who then becomes Mary, the mother of Jesus. However, Parry pointedly observes, “It is difficult to believe that S. Paul would have alluded to the Incarnation in this obscure and cursory manner.”7 Moreover, Mary was not saved by giving birth to Jesus.8
(5) Christian mothers will be “saved,” or “delivered,” from the sin of exercising authority over men in the church because they give their time and effort in bearing children. This view interprets “she will be saved” as a woman’s deliverance from the effects of sin and childbearing as both bearing and rearing children.9 As Calvin explained, “the Apostle does not speak merely about having children, but about enduring all the distresses, which are manifold and severe, both in the birth and the rearing of children.”10
Conclusion
The grammatical and historical considerations lead me to prefer the last view. A Christian woman is “saved,” or “delivered,” from the sin of exercising authority over man in the church (specifically, teaching him) if she is faithful in her God-ordained role of bearing and rearing children. Moreover, her place in God’s overall plan of redemption (already implied in Gen. 3), is “preserved” through such a role. Paul selected childbearing because of its mention in Genesis 3, and “because of the emphasis of the false teachers who denigrated marriage and the maternal role of women.”11
Deliverance through motherhood has a condition: godly character. Although the passage deals with a woman’s church life, faithfulness to motherhood will affect her whole life.
The connection Paul made to the curse on Eve (Gen. 3:16) supports this conclusion.12 For the woman, her increased pain in childbearing becomes a blessing―her “salvation.” Childbearing will preserve her special role in God’s redemptive plan by keeping her from exercising authority over a man, which is her “forbidden fruit” in the context of church worship.
The coming of Christ allowed the woman to overcome her desire to rule over her husband (see Gen. 3:16b and 4:7). But also, childbearing (which multiplied in pain and sorrow due to the Fall) has taken a redemptive turn by playing a part in overcoming sin’s corruption of Creation. Not only is Eve’s prophesied Seed the Redeemer, but women in general are given a redemptive opportunity and purpose in their own (painful) childbearing.13
Application
Paul is not saying that all women must have children in order to be saved or to live a godly life. “He selects childbearing because it is the most notable example of the divinely intended difference in role between men and women, and most women throughout history have had children.”14 Although the term “childbearing” here refers strictly to bearing and nurturing children, we may apply it in its broad sense of nurturing children.
Christian married women who are not able to bear children may fulfill their motherhood role by adopting or by fostering children (cf. Eph. 1:5; Ps. 68:5). And all Christian women, married or unmarried, may nurture children spiritually as Paul did Timothy―Paul’s “true son in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2).
God’s Word differs greatly from our culture’s voices that belittle motherhood. God calls Christian mothers to rear godly children. First Timothy 2:15 should motivate all Christian women to bestow their God-given maternal instincts on needy children. With God’s help, we may rear children for His glory and look forward to our Savior’s commendation, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”
Notes
1 H. A. Ironside, Timothy Titus and Philemon (Neptune: Loizeaux, 1947), 72.
2 David Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry” in Women, Authority & the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1986), 200.
3 Douglas Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance” in Trinity Journal 1, no. 1 (Spring 1980): 62-83): 82.
4 C. Spicq, Saint Paul Les Epitres Pastorales, Tome I, Etudes Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 383.
5 Kent, Pastoral Epistles, 114-116.
6 Ibid., 115.
7 John Party, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Cambridge University, 1920), 15.
8 Introducing her as a new player into the drama “unnecessarily complicates an already confusing passage” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 145).
9 “Childbearing” is not merely a synecdoche of a woman’s godly works (cf., Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15”:72).
10 John Calvin, The Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, William Pringle trans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 71.
11 Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Andreas Kostenberger and Thomas Schreiner, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 119.
12 On contrasting v. 15 with vv. 11 and 12 or connecting it with vv. 13 and 14: “These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles), 147.
13 Paul Hartog, personal interview.
14 Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” 118.
Martha Hartog is an adjunct faculty member at Faith Baptist BIble College, teaching women’s ministries courses since 2001. She holds BA and MA degrees from Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary. Martha has served as a children’s worker, pastor’s wife, librarian and is actively involved in women’s ministries. Martha helped her husband, John II, start Maranatha Baptist Church in Grimes, Iowa. Her husband and her sons, John III and Paul, teach at Faith. Martha and John live in Ankeny and attend Faith Baptist Church in Cambridge, Iowa.
- 49 views
I’m probably part way between your view and Kevin’s. Over the last 5 years, I was forced by circumstances beyond my control to put a great deal of thought into the whole matter of roles. And I came to the conclusion that the differences between genders are more profound that I thought before, that they are by design and correspond to roles and that the results of role confusion are far more damaging than I thought.
Having said that, I believe that very little in Scripture is prescriptive on that point. So my view of the teaching restriction is the narrow restriction, not Kevin’s broad one. But my view of what roles the gender is best suited for generally is such that wisdom seldom recommends women for the traditionally male roles. But this is a wisdom argument. Some would call it a pragmatic argument (the two are often not so so easy to tell apart).
But teaching is not one of those tasks that I believe corresponds strongly to role or gender. The authoritative “official” teaching of the church is closely tied to role because of the authority part of it. But I know at least as many women who are able teachers asI do men who are able teachers. Depending on the kind of teaching, I would say that in some forms of teaching, the best teachers are women by a large margin (when it comes to teaching children, for example, highly skilled female teachers outnumber male ones about six to one—in my experience. I suspect that objective measurements would put the number even higher).
I’m rambling, but my point is that I’m more particular about roles on the basis of nature and prudence than on the basis of biblical prescription, but teaching is not a role that men are especially superior at by nature.
Having said that, I believe that very little in Scripture is prescriptive on that point. So my view of the teaching restriction is the narrow restriction, not Kevin’s broad one. But my view of what roles the gender is best suited for generally is such that wisdom seldom recommends women for the traditionally male roles. But this is a wisdom argument. Some would call it a pragmatic argument (the two are often not so so easy to tell apart).
But teaching is not one of those tasks that I believe corresponds strongly to role or gender. The authoritative “official” teaching of the church is closely tied to role because of the authority part of it. But I know at least as many women who are able teachers asI do men who are able teachers. Depending on the kind of teaching, I would say that in some forms of teaching, the best teachers are women by a large margin (when it comes to teaching children, for example, highly skilled female teachers outnumber male ones about six to one—in my experience. I suspect that objective measurements would put the number even higher).
I’m rambling, but my point is that I’m more particular about roles on the basis of nature and prudence than on the basis of biblical prescription, but teaching is not a role that men are especially superior at by nature.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Hi, [the few that seem to be reading this…]. I’m in the middle of moving from one house to another, working on the old house, and working my “support my family” job, so I have not had the time to engage. Thanks for your patience.
Additionally, I am not aware of any “with their pastoral/husband’s authority and with God’s blessing” clause (implicit or explicit). Men cannot delegate duties (whether these men are pastors or husbands) what is their responsibility to perform. Women cannot take them on apart from some clear direction in Scripture (as we have with shepherds).
The ability to teach is not the same as the authority to teach (I think Aaron made reference to this in some way regarding men and women), so that is a different argument. The authority to teach presumes ability / mastery to teach, but the opposite is not true. God gave…pastor-teachers to equip the saints. Men are specifically designated in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 (and both include some qualification to teach) but women are not identified in this way. I believe that the burden of proof is on those that hold your view.
As far as a woman’s blog, technology has done much to harm and confuse in most every realm. However, it remains to be seen in Scripture (by dictate or illustration) how that is a realm in which women are to be engaged. I would point you [again in this overall discussion] to 1 Tim 2:11-15, 1 Tim 5:9-10, Titus 2:3-5 and Proverbs 31:10-31 to find any such activity. Maybe in the Col 3:16 ? idea (just brainstorming with you). Though it seems to be one to one, not “here are my thoughts world.” The Bible does seem to have an extensive list of focuses and activities in the above passages for women to focus upon.
As far as the “having authority over a man” issue, I’m not sure I would even wrestle with that, based upon what I said above, and in previous posts. Teaching can stand alone as a separate prohibition, apart from having authority over a man, in 1 Tim 2. I would say that this involves what I call “authoritative” teaching of the shepherds (Acts 20:31, Eph 4:11-16, James 3:1) as opposed to the “repetitive” teaching of believers in general (Col 3:16). I would again base this upon Paul’s arguments from creation in 1 Tim 2, which are standing historical truth, not circumstantial or cultural in nature.
As far as making disciples and teaching them, that was expressly given to the apostles (aka church leaders), not to every individual in the church. The overall function of the church is to make disciples, but that does not mean that everyone goes, baptizes, or teaches. This opens another can of [discussion] , but you still cannot argue, in my opinion, what is not seen or commanded in the church in the NT. To do so is to read into it as well. Men were sent (Acts 13, for example). Women at times aided. The church as a whole made disciples, but some simply served tables (Acts 6) while others served the Word (Acts 6:4). All members of the body are essential, but not all perform the same functions (1 Cor 12).
Regards.
[Anne Sokol] i think women are given the ability to teach and I think they can do so in many settings in agreement with their pastoral/husband’s authority and with God’s blessing. and, for example, a man reading a woman’s blog in no way means she has or is exercising any type of authority over him.Hello, Anne. I would just ask you to support your “i think women are given the ability to teach and I think they can do so in many settings” with Scripture, either in instruction to women, or even in a Biblical illustration. As I have shared previously, there are no qualifications given for women teachers such as you see in 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1, so I believe formal instruction is not intended in Titus 2. It ends up being non-formal teaching in the realm of what every believer does to/toward everyone else (in the spirit of Colossians 3:16). It is not authoritative teaching (2 Tim 2:15).
Additionally, I am not aware of any “with their pastoral/husband’s authority and with God’s blessing” clause (implicit or explicit). Men cannot delegate duties (whether these men are pastors or husbands) what is their responsibility to perform. Women cannot take them on apart from some clear direction in Scripture (as we have with shepherds).
The ability to teach is not the same as the authority to teach (I think Aaron made reference to this in some way regarding men and women), so that is a different argument. The authority to teach presumes ability / mastery to teach, but the opposite is not true. God gave…pastor-teachers to equip the saints. Men are specifically designated in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 (and both include some qualification to teach) but women are not identified in this way. I believe that the burden of proof is on those that hold your view.
As far as a woman’s blog, technology has done much to harm and confuse in most every realm. However, it remains to be seen in Scripture (by dictate or illustration) how that is a realm in which women are to be engaged. I would point you [again in this overall discussion] to 1 Tim 2:11-15, 1 Tim 5:9-10, Titus 2:3-5 and Proverbs 31:10-31 to find any such activity. Maybe in the Col 3:16 ? idea (just brainstorming with you). Though it seems to be one to one, not “here are my thoughts world.” The Bible does seem to have an extensive list of focuses and activities in the above passages for women to focus upon.
As far as the “having authority over a man” issue, I’m not sure I would even wrestle with that, based upon what I said above, and in previous posts. Teaching can stand alone as a separate prohibition, apart from having authority over a man, in 1 Tim 2. I would say that this involves what I call “authoritative” teaching of the shepherds (Acts 20:31, Eph 4:11-16, James 3:1) as opposed to the “repetitive” teaching of believers in general (Col 3:16). I would again base this upon Paul’s arguments from creation in 1 Tim 2, which are standing historical truth, not circumstantial or cultural in nature.
[Anne Sokol] I don’t really read into the creation account the gender divisions that Kevin’s view puts into it.I would suggest that to hold the view that you do, you would have to read into the account and overlook what is clearly said in 1 Tim 2. I am only referring to the prohibitions and that Paul made in 1 Tim 2. His reasons are from creation, based upon creation order, and based upon creation deception, and both which directly deal with gender, not culture, circumstances, or how we feel. There is nothing read into anything. Paul (not Kevin) applies these creation truths to women very specifically in 1 Tim 2 in a way that could not be confused with some limited application.
[Anne Sokol] Men and women are created quite differently, but they were created to work together to accomplish the tasks of subduing the earth and multitplying … and making disciples and teaching them …Men and women are different (no argument here!). They were created to work together, but with different focuses. Adam was created, then commanded, given a garden to keep, and required to name the animals before the woman was created (she wasn’t apparently named until after the fall, so I will refer to her as the text does). Then God created a helper fit for him. A helper, not one to do what he did, but to help him to what he did. Not to keep the garden, but to help Adam, and (which would seem to be obvious in the “be fruitful and multiply” part) bear and raise children. One function is largely exclusive of the other, unless we ignore the male/female function of procreation. Adam was largely the subduer, with Eve as the helper. Her role, even in the fall, was focused on her husband and on her childbearing, not on her helping her husband garden or subdue the earth. It was still part of the overall picture, but it was not the same. Mothers have different focuses than fathers, and men have different responsibilities than women, throughout Scripture (not just in Genesis). Both are absolutely critical to accomplish God’s plan.
As far as making disciples and teaching them, that was expressly given to the apostles (aka church leaders), not to every individual in the church. The overall function of the church is to make disciples, but that does not mean that everyone goes, baptizes, or teaches. This opens another can of [discussion] , but you still cannot argue, in my opinion, what is not seen or commanded in the church in the NT. To do so is to read into it as well. Men were sent (Acts 13, for example). Women at times aided. The church as a whole made disciples, but some simply served tables (Acts 6) while others served the Word (Acts 6:4). All members of the body are essential, but not all perform the same functions (1 Cor 12).
Regards.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Susan R] Clarification- I’m not saying the church was segregated by default- I agree that ‘congregations’ in both old and new were generally not segregated at all, (which is a pattern that is completely ignored) but that when groups of people are divided in the Bible (which, again, isn’t very often), it is by gender, not by age or marital status. IOW, there is no pattern on which to base the singles class, the young married class, the college and career class, Sunday Schools and youth groups, the senior citizen class…. and yet when we separate for classes etc… this is the pattern we follow… so whose pattern is it? Ergo, if we are going to say that Biblical patterns set the standard of faith and practice, and that when the Bible gives us no examples of one thing but some examples of another, then we are constrained to follow that pattern, even if it is a lack of pattern.I understand that patterns themselves are not imperative in nature. I only suggest that the arguments I have offered regarding women are supported by a lack of any pattern, in addition to creation and instruction that is explicitly described or declared.
As far as the many ways we do things know, I believe we have probably done more harm than good by artificially dividing the local church, and divesting parents of their responsibility. We have, in my opinion, also devalued Scripture by ignoring James 3:1, having too many teachers, many of whom really do not know what they are teaching (content, not intent - much like what was going on in Ephesus - 1 Tim 1:5-7), and many of whom do not understand just how much effort and time it takes to get it right (2 Tim 2 :15; 1 Tim 5:17-18).
[Susan R] So if a woman writes a book or teaches a class- whether it’s about cooking or marriage, I can’t say that I believe it’s a violation of some clear cut principle, but rather, since there are no examples or directives that define the parameters of such, a woman should be extremely careful when she engages in these kinds of activities, and that she does so under the direction/supervision of her husband and/or pastor. IMO, the ‘best case scenario’ is that of a personal mentoring relationship between mature, experienced, and Godly women, and younger women who need teaching or reinforcement (because the first thing that comes to mind quite frankly is “Where was that girl’s mama, and why doesn’t the child know how to fry an egg for cryin’ out loud?”). But do to the fact that there are SO many girls out there with parents who checked out about 5 minutes after she was born, there is a HUGE gap that needs to be filled. Ditto with young men who are fatherless, whether because of the physical or mental/emotional and spiritual absence of the father.There are parameters that define teachers - they all happen to apply to men :) . Personal mentoring is exacting what I believe Titus 2:3-5 is indicating. It is woman to woman, not woman to class. It is also defined in content.
Ministry to the fatherless seems to demand … men? :)
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Aaron Blumer] I’m probably part way between your view and Kevin’s. Over the last 5 years, I was forced by circumstances beyond my control to put a great deal of thought into the whole matter of roles. And I came to the conclusion that the differences between genders are more profound that I thought before, that they are by design and correspond to roles and that the results of role confusion are far more damaging than I thought.Amen. Me too. More than most even give thought too?
[Aaron Blumer] Having said that, I believe that very little in Scripture is prescriptive on that point. So my view of the teaching restriction is the narrow restriction, not Kevin’s broad one. But my view of what roles the gender is best suited for generally is such that wisdom seldom recommends women for the traditionally male roles.Aaron, would you not agree that there is nothing illustrative of substance in all of Scripture to indicate otherwise?
I would love to have a coffee shop discussion with you on this. Much of Genesis is not commanded, yet it is assumed to be prescriptive (such as one man & one woman for marriage; Adam being the leader, etc.). And what is clearly prescriptive (five commands in Genesis 1:28) are ignored (for whatever reasons, yet we hold to marriage today). What does it take to be prescriptive?
[Aaron Blumer] But teaching is not one of those tasks that I believe corresponds strongly to role or gender. The authoritative “official” teaching of the church is closely tied to role because of the authority part of it. But I know at least as many women who are able teachers asI do men who are able teachers. Depending on the kind of teaching, I would say that in some forms of teaching, the best teachers are women by a large margin (when it comes to teaching children, for example, highly skilled female teachers outnumber male ones about six to one—in my experience. I suspect that objective measurements would put the number even higher).I would care to strongly differ. In most every instance of the OT and the NT, men are called upon to do the teaching. Prophets, priests and Levites (who were required to teach as part of their duties), apostles, and pastors were men (apart from the extremely rare prophetess). The qualifications of the NT church leadership are men who taught.
[Aaron Blumer] But I know at least as many women who are able teachers asI do men who are able teachers.I addressed this with Anne. I will write a bit more. 1 Tim 2:12-15 does not address ability. That is not the argument nor the discussion of the passage. It relates specifically to gender, and duties and prohibitions specifically regarding gender. Nowhere does Paul argue from the inability of women to teach (which I do not believe is the issue, nor the case), but because of their gender as it relates to God’s design for them and God’s appointed roles as is clearly indicated in creation and the fall.
[Aaron Blumer] Depending on the kind of teaching, I would say that in some forms of teaching, the best teachers are women by a large margin (when it comes to teaching children, for example, highly skilled female teachers outnumber male ones about six to one—in my experience. I suspect that objective measurements would put the number even higher).Though subjective statistics don’t really prove anything when Biblical authority is involved (Acts 15 - James ignores Paul’s converts, and cites Scripture to authenticate the ministry to the Gentiles, for example), I would agree that women are teaching their children and other women. Just not in the way that this article does, and not in the way most churches have gravitated to regarding women’s ministries vs. Eph 4 equipping.
[Aaron Blumer]… but teaching is not a role that men are especially superior at by nature.Men are probably not superior in leading either, but that is beside the point (Gen 3:17 - “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife…”). Adam followed when he should have led. It doesn’t matter who was better at it. It was his assignment, and not one he could delegate. I believe the same is true with teaching, as the prescriptions and patterns of Scripture resoundingly indicate.
Thanks for the great discussion, All!
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Aaron, would you not agree that there is nothing illustrative of substance in all of Scripture to indicate otherwise?There are hints otherwise, as in when exceptional women hold positions of leadership over men in non-church settings. But let’s suppose for a moment that those hints do not exist. We do not arrive at restrictions by reasoning that “the Bible does not say this is allowed.” That would eliminate a great many things including my sitting here typing at a keyboard, but even if we say Scripture can prohibit by silence when broad categories are involved, this leads to all kinds of problems. I’ve never met anyone who consistently used the Bible that way. It’s usually an argument appealed to quite selectively.
As for the rest, I’m not saying that ability is the issue where Scripture has prescribed. Rather, my thinking is that where Scripture does not prohibit, there is wisdom in observing what’s best for the genders role-wise (what they are designed by God to do) based on the kinds of skills and interests most of them have possessed over the millennia of recorded history.
I believe this is somewhat changeable. For example, I have recently come to the conclusion that God intended (based in part on the passage in question and the reference to deception in the Garden), for men to be the clear thinkers. I suspect that at some point in history, the design behind that intention was more evident because more men than women actually were clear thinkers. I’m not sure that’s the case anymore! (I know many women who are clearer thinkers than many men I know).
But I do believe it should be. But that being a reality requires that men embrace the responsibility and cultivate those skills. They have long preferred beer and football instead.
Anyway, to me there are two distinct questions: a) what does Scripture prescribe? and b) what seems wise (in general) because designed roles seem to be evident? The former is a matter of obedience. The latter is a matter of judgment/discernment and allows for exceptional people. So in my paradigm you can simultaneously believe that women ought not to be heads of state as a general rule (a designed unsuitableness for the role is generally evident), but still hold that Margaret Thatcher was a superb Prime Minister (FWIW, I remain unconvinced that Sara Palin as Chief Exec. is a good idea… though she would be a better idea than many male alternatives).
A critic could say my view is just too convenient, but I’d rather say that it best explains all of the facts and is internally consistent.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
understand the moving thing. we were nomads for 5 weeks, still unpacking …
It is interesting how often women in the Bible are made out to be aberrations or somehow deviant from God’s true desires for mankind, rather than just accepted as examples for what they did and who they were.
That is like me extrapolating from the Bible that women are not allowed to have gardens because Adam was given the curse about working the ground, and men are not to be involved in childbirth because women were given the curse that their labor will be toil.
[Kevin Subra] Hello, Anne. I would just ask you to support your “i think women are given the ability to teach and I think they can do so in many settings” with Scripture, either in instruction to women, or even in a Biblical illustration.Prov 31:1, Song of Songs, Ex 15:20-26, Acts 18:26, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Judges 4-5, Deut 21:18-19, Prov 1:8, 6:20-24, Jer 13:18.
It is interesting how often women in the Bible are made out to be aberrations or somehow deviant from God’s true desires for mankind, rather than just accepted as examples for what they did and who they were.
[Kevin Subra] As I have shared previously, there are no qualifications given for women teachers such as you see in 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1, so I believe formal instruction is not intended in Titus 2. It ends up being non-formal teaching in the realm of what every believer does to/toward everyone else (in the spirit of Colossians 3:16). It is not authoritative teaching (2 Tim 2:15).You’re extrapolating and extra-biblical conclusion here, placing emphasis where really Scripture does not. I guess though it also depends on what one considers “formal” teaching. And criteria are given for the “older women” who teach the younger in titus 2.
[Kevin Subra] Additionally, I am not aware of any “with their pastoral/husband’s authority and with God’s blessing” clause (implicit or explicit). Men cannot delegate duties (whether these men are pastors or husbands) what is their responsibility to perform. Women cannot take them on apart from some clear direction in Scripture (as we have with shepherds).Again I think you’re making an extra-biblical or even anti-biblical argument. Titus is specifically told to have the older women teach the younger; he is not to do it. He is to delegate it. You counter with the fact that this teaching is not to be “formal.” What does that mean to you? It’s not supposed to be in a book form? a class or Bible study form? Those are examples of “formal” teaching that you are referring to? Or do you mean it’s not to involve doctrine? Pretty much everything involves doctrine, if one is honest, especially the topics listed for older to teach younger–love, purity, home guarding, etc..
[Kevin Subra] The ability to teach is not the same as the authority to teach (I think Aaron made reference to this in some way regarding men and women), so that is a different argument. The authority to teach presumes ability / mastery to teach, but the opposite is not true. God gave…pastor-teachers to equip the saints. Men are specifically designated in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 (and both include some qualification to teach) but women are not identified in this way. I believe that the burden of proof is on those that hold your view.Church leadership is given identity and criteria in these passages. You are saying that because women are not included in this list, they are not to stand in front of a group of ladies and teach formally, at least this is what I think you are saying. Again, you are taking the bible further than it goes to fit the paradigm you have created for men and women.
That is like me extrapolating from the Bible that women are not allowed to have gardens because Adam was given the curse about working the ground, and men are not to be involved in childbirth because women were given the curse that their labor will be toil.
[Kevin Subra] Men and women are different (no argument here!). They were created to work together, but with different focuses. Adam was created, then commanded, given a garden to keep, and required to name the animals before the woman was created (she wasn’t apparently named until after the fall, so I will refer to her as the text does). Then God created a helper fit for him. A helper, not one to do what he did, but to help him to what he did. Not to keep the garden, but to help Adam, and (which would seem to be obvious in the “be fruitful and multiply” part) bear and raise children. One function is largely exclusive of the other, unless we ignore the male/female function of procreation. Adam was largely the subduer, with Eve as the helper. Her role, even in the fall, was focused on her husband and on her childbearing, not on her helping her husband garden or subdue the earth. It was still part of the overall picture, but it was not the same. Mothers have different focuses than fathers, and men have different responsibilities than women, throughout Scripture (not just in Genesis). Both are absolutely critical to accomplish God’s plan.What do i not like about this? … I think this expression of gender does not cover the fullness of what God was doing in creation. I could say more, but i will leave it for now. Others say it better than me.
[Kevin Subra] As far as making disciples and teaching them, that was expressly given to the apostles (aka church leaders), not to every individual in the church.heard this one before. I would be really careful to go there.
[Aaron Blumer] There are hints otherwise, as in when exceptional women hold positions of leadership over men in non-church settings. But let’s suppose for a moment that those hints do not exist. We do not arrive at restrictions by reasoning that “the Bible does not say this is allowed.” That would eliminate a great many things including my sitting here typing at a keyboard, but even if we say Scripture can prohibit by silence when broad categories are involved, this leads to all kinds of problems. I’ve never met anyone who consistently used the Bible that way. It’s usually an argument appealed to quite selectively.So it is wrong for me to take creation pattern and revelation as it describes men and women in creation, but you would deviate from the Biblical pattern because of obscure or rare hints? I’m not following your argument. Also, I have not argued from a “the Bible does not say this is allowed” posture by itself. I have referred to the standing creation pattern, revealed commands and principles, and overall Bible pattern. That would not in any way be like sitting at a computer — not a similar comparison at all. (Though communication in writing is certainly illustrated sufficiently ;-) ) It seems to me that you are arguing against one evidence, while ignoring the rest.
Further, I would ask, what such hints exist in the NT? in the church? I’d be curious as to what sways your thinking in this area.
[Aaron Blumer] As for the rest, I’m not saying that ability is the issue where Scripture has prescribed. Rather, my thinking is that where Scripture does not prohibit, there is wisdom in observing what’s best for the genders role-wise (what they are designed by God to do) based on the kinds of skills and interests most of them have possessed over the millennia of recorded history.I just see no evidence of blending or changing roles as you indicate, either implied or stated. From Genesis to Revelation I do not see a departure of God’s design and role-based assignments.
How does Scripture prohibit? Paul uses the creation order and subsequent historical failure of Eve to substantiate the prohibition under discussion. He referred to no command. He did exactly what you are saying should not be done. His reasons are the underlying argument - he does not present new information from the culture or circumstance. He cites nothing beyond this, and builds the prohibition solely on these two reasons.
[Aaron Blumer] I believe this is somewhat changeable. For example, I have recently come to the conclusion that God intended (based in part on the passage in question and the reference to deception in the Garden), for men to be the clear thinkers. I suspect that at some point in history, the design behind that intention was more evident because more men than women actually were clear thinkers. I’m not sure that’s the case anymore! (I know many women who are clearer thinkers than many men I know).I understand your reasoning, but it still does not hold up to Scripture. If such things change based upon the character of men and women, then same sex marriage and divorce are equally up for grabs. Nowhere in Scripture do you have the leeway to make things somewhat changeable when Scripture does not do so, in my perspective. That is extremely dangerous ground, and leaves the Word at a worthless level, since it no longer is taken at face value. Men’s responsibilities and roles do not lessen because of their lack of desire to perform them.
But I do believe it should be. But that being a reality requires that men embrace the responsibility and cultivate those skills. They have long preferred beer and football instead.
[Aaron Blumer] Anyway, to me there are two distinct questions: a) what does Scripture prescribe? and b) what seems wise (in general) because designed roles seem to be evident? The former is a matter of obedience. The latter is a matter of judgment/discernment and allows for exceptional people.I would have to come back and ask again, what does it take for Scripture to prescribe something? If it takes a command, then marriage is undefinable (and I believe this approach to Scripture is a huge reason why we have the same-sex marriage controversy today), as such a command doesn’t exist. Jesus referred to the pattern in Genesis when He discussed such. Marriage is based upon the pattern in the garden. If it takes a command, then why do most somehow disregard the first several commands in Genesis 1:28 as something not for them? or 1 Tim 5:14? If it takes the practice of the majority of people through Biblical history, it still would be the way to live.
I don’t think you can have your b) until you adequately define your a). Even then, you would need to somehow determine the criteria required to determine what seems to be wise (is that just subjective?). That sounds too much like Judges 21:25.
[Aaron Blumer] So in my paradigm you can simultaneously believe that women ought not to be heads of state as a general rule (a designed unsuitableness for the role is generally evident), but still hold that Margaret Thatcher was a superb Prime Minister (FWIW, I remain unconvinced that Sara Palin as Chief Exec. is a good idea… though she would be a better idea than many male alternatives).With all due respect (and I do respect you, Aaron), I think your paradigm is undefinable, because it has no definitions or parameters. I can agree that Margaret Thatcher was a superb Prime Minister, but that still just not justify her holding that office. Her ability does not qualify her for the role that I believe was intended for a man, anymore than a woman with pastoral skills and abilities should pastor a congregation. It is gender-assigned first, then ability-evaluated, or directly appointed by God as Saul or David were. (And I will not be voting for Mrs. Palin, again, FWIW.)
[Aaron Blumer] A critic could say my view is just too convenient, but I’d rather say that it best explains all of the facts and is internally consistent.From my perspective, it is a most inconvenient view, as it ultimately results in no clear view at all. I guess I’m not your critic after all. ;) (Glad that’s settled, anyway.) It also suggests, not internal consistency, but a super-Biblical variability that allows for no consistency, if I understand you correctly.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Anne Sokol] understand the moving thing. we were nomads for 5 weeks, still unpacking …[Kevin Subra] Hello, Anne. I would just ask you to support your “i think women are given the ability to teach and I think they can do so in many settings” with Scripture, either in instruction to women, or even in a Biblical illustration.[Anne Sokol] Prov 31:1, Song of Songs, Ex 15:20-26, Acts 18:26, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Judges 4-5, Deut 21:18-19, Prov 1:8, 6:20-24, Jer 13:18.It appears that you have not read the entire thread. Nothing referenced here counters what I have said or believe. Mothers instruct children. In the last days (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17) are yet to happen, and none will need others to teach them then. A reference to a queen mother, apart from a king, may have weight.[Anne Sokol] It is interesting how often women in the Bible are made out to be aberrations or somehow deviant from God’s true desires for mankind, rather than just accepted as examples for what they did and who they were.The discussion is on 1 Tim 2:11-15 (the text of the article and the preceding verses). I find it interesting how women are made to be aberrations if they somehow fulfill a wife/mother role, frankly. Women in leadership are aberrations in Scripture. Women in teaching roles are aberrations in Scripture. Why not just accept them as aberrations? They were not the norm, and yet we now justify all that we do because of them, and have created a new “norm.”[Kevin Subra] As I have shared previously, there are no qualifications given for women teachers such as you see in 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1, so I believe formal instruction is not intended in Titus 2. It ends up being non-formal teaching in the realm of what every believer does to/toward everyone else (in the spirit of Colossians 3:16). It is not authoritative teaching (2 Tim 2:15).[Anne Sokol] You’re extrapolating and extra-biblical conclusion here, placing emphasis where really Scripture does not. I guess though it also depends on what one considers “formal” teaching.This is a false accusation. I am making observations from the text itself. I am only stating Paul’s prohibition, and his creation support for it. There is nothing added. Paul prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men, and his two-part proof is (a) the order of creation, the man being created before the woman - which stands true in any situation because it is a historical event not mold-able by culture or circumstance; and (2) the deception failure of the woman - which stands true again, because it is a historical event. Neither event had any direct relationship to the local church. The garden was not a church. It was only applied to the church. What is extrapolated? Why not offer support, rather than simply arguing by attacking me, rather than the argument itself? I’m willing to listen, but not if you do not care to offer constructive criticism of my arguments. I don’t want to sound mean, but this type of interaction has no point.[Anne Sokol] I guess though it also depends on what one considers “formal” teaching.I have offered explanation earlier. I also gave links to audio and pdf for my broader study. Formal seems to be limited to a few (James 3:1) men (Eph 4:11-12 cp. 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9).[Anne Sokol] And criteria are given for the “older women” who teach the younger in titus 2.No, it does not. It lists behaviors or characters for the 5 groups, of which teaching the younger women is one such behavior. As it is written, it includes all believing women, just as the same passage includes all believing older men, younger women, younger men, and bond servants. It does not define or describe a list of qualifications for a woman leader or teacher (similar to 1 Tim 3:1-7 or Titus 1:5-9). Further, even when a list for a godly woman is given (such as in Prov 31:10-31 or 1 Tim 5:9-10) it makes no mention of teaching or leading as desired qualities or encouraged activities.[Kevin Subra] Additionally, I am not aware of any “with their pastoral/husband’s authority and with God’s blessing” clause (implicit or explicit). Men cannot delegate duties (whether these men are pastors or husbands) what is their responsibility to perform. Women cannot take them on apart from some clear direction in Scripture (as we have with shepherds).[Anne Sokol] Again I think you’re making an extra-biblical or even anti-biblical argument.Seriously? Have you read this entire thread Anne? That is quite an accusation. Of course, if the shoe fits, I will wear it. However, I would say that I’ve at least studied this entire topic for most of my adult life, and I’ve read through the Scriptures combing it for whatever it may say over and over again. And I’ve studied the relevant passages over and over again in Greek for countless hours trying to get it right. I’ll keep trying, but you have to offer arguments, not subjective, unproven ideas or personal attacks. These are not extra-biblical or anti-biblical. Maybe they are wrong, but they are not either of those.[Anne Sokol] Titus is specifically told to have the older women teach the younger; he is not to do it. He is to delegate it. You counter with the fact that this teaching is not to be “formal.” What does that mean to you? It’s not supposed to be in a book form? a class or Bible study form? Those are examples of “formal” teaching that you are referring to? Or do you mean it’s not to involve doctrine? Pretty much everything involves doctrine, if one is honest, especially the topics listed for older to teach younger–love, purity, home guarding, etc..Titus is told to have all the older women teach all the younger women the very specific list that he also gave them. No qualms there if one reads the entire passage in context (it doesn’t really matter what I think - it’s in the text itself). However, that does not replace or ignore the fact that pastor-teachers are given to equip the saints (men, women, and children), not just the men. The more I study the Word of God from cover to cover, and these passages in particular, the more I am convinced that we have given away the farm in many areas, including the realms of gender roles in the home, the church, the work place, and in government.
Doctrine is teaching. The words mean the same thing (the English word “doctrine” translates the noun form of the word “teach”). It is specific teaching that is defined in the text, given to all older women for specific areas. There is no indication that women are to go beyond this in a pastoral or “Bible study” way. That does not counter Col 3:16, which I would understand more sharing what one has learned informally with others. The medium in which it is relayed is not the point, as I see it. It is the content and topical nature. If it is covered under Titus 2:3-5, the medium is irrelevant (though Titus 2:3-5 seems to give a shoulder-to-shoulder mentoring picture to me, not some impersonal publication).[Kevin Subra] The ability to teach is not the same as the authority to teach (I think Aaron made reference to this in some way regarding men and women), so that is a different argument. The authority to teach presumes ability / mastery to teach, but the opposite is not true. God gave…pastor-teachers to equip the saints. Men are specifically designated in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 (and both include some qualification to teach) but women are not identified in this way. I believe that the burden of proof is on those that hold your view.[Anne Sokol] Church leadership is given identity and criteria in these passages.Precisely. No women referred to. Men exclusively. No women selected as apostles or apostolic helpers or pastors, whose primary function was to lead by teaching.[Kevin Subra] You are saying that because women are not included in this list, they are not to stand in front of a group of ladies and teach formally, at least this is what I think you are saying.Yes, but I am not saying that just because of this. There is no indication that women were expected or instructed to to exactly this. That was (and is, I believe) the role of a pastor. 1 Tim 5 and Prov 31 stand in stark contrast to your view, neither of which hint at such an activity or responsibility for women.[Anne Sokol] Again, you are taking the bible further than it goes to fit the paradigm you have created for men and women.I would say just the opposite. I am holding to the creation pattern, commands, and practices found throughout Scripture. I would have to say that it is you, Anne, that has embraced our deviated practices of today’s church culture and are trying to justify it without Biblical evidence or support.[Anne Sokol] That is like me extrapolating from the Bible that women are not allowed to have gardens because Adam was given the curse about working the ground, and men are not to be involved in childbirth because women were given the curse that their labor will be toil.No, as the Scripture speaks to both of those instances clearly. Men have their roles as leader, provider, protector, and teacher. Women have their roles as helper, wife, mother, and caregiver. I really don’t even follow your examples. Men were “cursed” in the realm of their work. Women were “cursed” in the realm of their relationship to their husbands and in the realm of their motherhood. Both “curses” are gender-specific, and consistent with the pre-fall creation pattern.[Kevin Subra] Men and women are different (no argument here!). They were created to work together, but with different focuses. Adam was created, then commanded, given a garden to keep, and required to name the animals before the woman was created (she wasn’t apparently named until after the fall, so I will refer to her as the text does). Then God created a helper fit for him. A helper, not one to do what he did, but to help him to what he did. Not to keep the garden, but to help Adam, and (which would seem to be obvious in the “be fruitful and multiply” part) bear and raise children. One function is largely exclusive of the other, unless we ignore the male/female function of procreation. Adam was largely the subduer, with Eve as the helper. Her role, even in the fall, was focused on her husband and on her childbearing, not on her helping her husband garden or subdue the earth. It was still part of the overall picture, but it was not the same. Mothers have different focuses than fathers, and men have different responsibilities than women, throughout Scripture (not just in Genesis). Both are absolutely critical to accomplish God’s plan.[Anne Sokol] What do i not like about this? … I think this expression of gender does not cover the fullness of what God was doing in creation. I could say more, but i will leave it for now. Others say it better than me.I’m not sure what I do not like about this - that it is not an expressed argument, but only an implied subjective rejection with the support of unmentioned others, I guess. :)[Kevin Subra] As far as making disciples and teaching them, that was expressly given to the apostles (aka church leaders), not to every individual in the church.[Anne Sokol] heard this one before. I would be really careful to go there.What’s not to like about interacting with you Anne? Thanks for being careful? (another argument of silence) I stand by what I say, and encourage you to at least read the entire thread, and think about and study the seemingly wild and crazy suggestions that I put forth, then offer helpful arguments. Just an encouragement.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Sigh, all right… . Personally, these discussions frustrate me too.
I don’t mind putting this instruction in the frame of the church, but putting it in the even tighter frame of apostles and then through that of church leadership, you are taking several logical steps that might not have been intended… . Is what I’m saying.
Prov 31:1, Song of Songs, Ex 15:20-26, Acts 18:26, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Judges 4-5, Deut 21:18-19, Prov 1:8, 6:20-24, Jer 13:18.
So I’m not sure what we’re talking about … .
There are occasions of women in leadership. You look at Scripture and see them as aberrations of God’s design, or simply say they weren’t somehow in leadership. Miriam?
So, I’m not saying that women should exercise spiritual authority over a man in the church today. However, I don’t draw lines of teaching, for example, as tight as you do. I don’t see that God does in the Bible what you are doing/saying.
And this is the heart of our issue. You look at these verses in tim and titus and draw tight lines around them. Tight lines that you defend with your interp of certain words like “teach” and what is formal or not. Lines that others, not just me, do not see drawn there. Like this:
You go further saying that paul is saying that women are not even to teach women formally, not to teach them doctrine. I’m saying i don’t see it there… . So I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion with you.
[Anne Sokol] What do i not like about this? … I think this expression of gender does not cover the fullness of what God was doing in creation. I could say more, but i will leave it for now. Others say it better than me.
[ Kevin Subra ] I’m not sure what I do not like about this - that it is not an expressed argument, but only an implied subjective rejection with the support of unmentioned others, I guess.OK, I will be specific. Read Eldridges Captivating. It is the best explanation and treatment of created woman that I have read to-date. This is not a recommendation of their other books. And I can’t put in quotes here b/c I don’t have the book with me.
[ Kevin Subra ] As far as making disciples and teaching them, that was expressly given to the apostles (aka church leaders), not to every individual in the church.
[Anne Sokol] heard this one before. I would be really careful to go there.
[ Kevin Subra ] What’s not to like about interacting with you Anne? Thanks for being careful? (another argument of silence) I stand by what I say, and encourage you to at least read the entire thread, and think about and study the seemingly wild and crazy suggestions that I put forth, then offer helpful arguments. Just an encouragement.Could it also be said that these instructions were given to His disciples, so it applies to Christ’s disciples, of which all Christians are.
I don’t mind putting this instruction in the frame of the church, but putting it in the even tighter frame of apostles and then through that of church leadership, you are taking several logical steps that might not have been intended… . Is what I’m saying.
Prov 31:1, Song of Songs, Ex 15:20-26, Acts 18:26, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Judges 4-5, Deut 21:18-19, Prov 1:8, 6:20-24, Jer 13:18.
[ Kevin Subra ] It appears that you have not read the entire thread. Nothing referenced here counters what I have said or believe. Mothers instruct children. In the last days (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17) are yet to happen, and none will need others to teach them then. A reference to a queen mother, apart from a king, may have weight.I gave quite a differing list here, and you’re only responding to a few of them.
[ Kevin Subra ] The discussion is on 1 Tim 2:11-15 (the text of the article and the preceding verses). I find it interesting how women are made to be aberrations if they somehow fulfill a wife/mother role, frankly.I don’t think anything of the sort is being done in this discussion. Women are wives and mothers. Men are husbands and fathers. It’s wonderful! I think we are discussing something different.
[ Kevin Subra ] Women in leadership are aberrations in Scripture. Women in teaching roles are aberrations in Scripture. Why not just accept them as aberrations? They were not the norm, and yet we now justify all that we do because of them, and have created a new “norm.”First, clarify, that i don’t think a woman should be a pastor-teacher, so yes, I would see that as an aberration of Scripture. I would also see women teaching a mixed group face-to-face in a “formal” church setting as strange.
So I’m not sure what we’re talking about … .
There are occasions of women in leadership. You look at Scripture and see them as aberrations of God’s design, or simply say they weren’t somehow in leadership. Miriam?
[Numbers 12:1-2] Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 So they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?”Deborah? … God can raise from the dead. He could’ve raised up a man at that time very easily.
So, I’m not saying that women should exercise spiritual authority over a man in the church today. However, I don’t draw lines of teaching, for example, as tight as you do. I don’t see that God does in the Bible what you are doing/saying.
And this is the heart of our issue. You look at these verses in tim and titus and draw tight lines around them. Tight lines that you defend with your interp of certain words like “teach” and what is formal or not. Lines that others, not just me, do not see drawn there. Like this:
[Kevin Subra] As I have shared previously, there are no qualifications given for women teachers such as you see in 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1, so I believe formal instruction is not intended in Titus 2. It ends up being non-formal teaching in the realm of what every believer does to/toward everyone else (in the spirit of Colossians 3:16). It is not authoritative teaching (2 Tim 2:15).Here’s another example:
[Anne Sokol] You’re extrapolating and extra-biblical conclusion here, placing emphasis where really Scripture does not. I guess though it also depends on what one considers “formal” teaching.
[Kevin Subra] This is a false accusation. I am making observations from the text itself. I am only stating Paul’s prohibition, and his creation support for it. There is nothing added. Paul prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men, and his two-part proof is (a) the order of creation, the man being created before the woman - which stands true in any situation because it is a historical event not mold-able by culture or circumstance; and (2) the deception failure of the woman - which stands true again, because it is a historical event. Neither event had any direct relationship to the local church.This is an example of what I am saying. We agree that Paul prohibits women from teaching/having authority over men in the church.
You go further saying that paul is saying that women are not even to teach women formally, not to teach them doctrine. I’m saying i don’t see it there… . So I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion with you.
[KS] Further, I would ask, what such hints exist in the NT? in the church? I’d be curious as to what sways your thinking in this area.I think the NT is quite clear how things are supposed to work in the church. I’ve been talking about what Paul’s allusion to creation does and doesn’t imply about women’s roles outside the church (or inside the church but not in relation to men)
[KS] I just see no evidence of blending or changing roles as you indicate, either implied or stated. From Genesis to Revelation I do not see a departure of God’s design and role-based assignments.You’re assuming your conclusion in your analysis of the evidence. I’m not in favor of any blending or changing of roles. Rather, when I look at Scripture I do not see the roles restricted across the board as you do.
[KS] How does Scripture prohibit? Paul uses the creation order and subsequent historical failure of Eve to substantiate the prohibition under discussion.The prohibition under discussion is that a woman “teach or or have authority over a man.” Applying his (unexplained) reasoning to other prohibitions is what I do not believe is warranted by the text. But I’ve stated all this before a couple of times now I think.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Anne Sokol] OK, I will be specific. Read Eldridges Captivating. It is the best explanation and treatment of created woman that I have read to-date. This is not a recommendation of their other books. And I can’t put in quotes here b/c I don’t have the book with me.Referring generally to a book is not being specific, is it? I gave a link to one of my studies (a two page summary, with an accompanying audio that gives a fuller view of my leanings). This platform would not really make sense if we bantered back and forth generally referring to books that we consider “the best explanation and treatment” without specifically addressing the exact issues we are discussing. Wouldn’t it make sense to clearly present our arguments?
Have you read the entire thread? Have you reviewed my links (either or both)? If not, discussion is not really possible.
[ Kevin Subra ] As far as making disciples and teaching them, that was expressly given to the apostles (aka church leaders), not to every individual in the church.
[Anne Sokol] Could it also be said that these instructions were given to His disciples, so it applies to Christ’s disciples, of which all Christians are. I don’t mind putting this instruction in the frame of the church, but putting it in the even tighter frame of apostles and then through that of church leadership, you are taking several logical steps that might not have been intended… . Is what I’m saying.Anne, I apply it to the entire church, but in a broader way than “everyone is equal and everyone does the same thing unless explicitly stated otherwise.” Men and women are all involved in the great commission, but in different ways. The men (the apostles were all men, as are all pastors) have leading roles (Eph 4:11-12, etc.) whereas women (and even most men) have supportive roles. This is evidenced in Christ’s ministry, and in Paul’s as well. It is what is there, and to argue for a broader view, in my opinion, requires more than “we see no command not to.” That ignores the obvious, in my understanding.
[Anne Sokol] Prov 31:1, Song of Songs, Ex 15:20-26, Acts 18:26, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Judges 4-5, Deut 21:18-19, Prov 1:8, 6:20-24, Jer 13:18.
[ Kevin Subra ] It appears that you have not read the entire thread. Nothing referenced here counters what I have said or believe. Mothers instruct children. In the last days (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17) are yet to happen, and none will need others to teach them then. A reference to a queen mother, apart from a king, may have weight.
[Anne Sokol] I gave quite a differing list here, and you’re only responding to a few of them.I’ve addressed all of them either in this thread generally (such as prophetesses as Miriam, who sang, but has no evidence of leading or teaching - just getting leprosy for attempting to usurp Moses’ role in both) or specifically. What is missing?
[ Kevin Subra ] The discussion is on 1 Tim 2:11-15 (the text of the article and the preceding verses). I find it interesting how women are made to be aberrations if they somehow fulfill a wife/mother role, frankly.
[Anne Sokol] I don’t think anything of the sort is being done in this discussion. Women are wives and mothers. Men are husbands and fathers. It’s wonderful! I think we are discussing something different.I believe that your comments lend to this. It is fighting to establish a norm that is not found in Scripture. If only women were wives and mothers (and helpers) as a primary focus, and men were fathers and husbands (and leaders).
[ Kevin Subra ] Women in leadership are aberrations in Scripture. Women in teaching roles are aberrations in Scripture. Why not just accept them as aberrations? They were not the norm, and yet we now justify all that we do because of them, and have created a new “norm.”
[Anne Sokol] First, clarify, that i don’t think a woman should be a pastor-teacher, so yes, I would see that as an aberration of Scripture. I would also see women teaching a mixed group face-to-face in a “formal” church setting as strange. So I’m not sure what we’re talking about … .Where do you find the “mixed-group” prohibition? Where do you find women in the NT church (in Scripture) teaching or leading in some formal way, even in a non-mixed group?
[Anne Sokol] There are occasions of women in leadership. You look at Scripture and see them as aberrations of God’s design, or simply say they weren’t somehow in leadership. Miriam?You do precisely what you are saying that I am doing. This passage has Miriam claiming leadership - read the rest of the passage. There is no indication that God led through Miriam. She sang a song Anne. Is that leadership? (That will change the music ministry of your church…) You are reading into Miriam’s role. I am only observing it. There is no indication, beyond her singing, even of any other prophesying. Please don’t build your view of the church on her implied or assumed functions. They are not there.[Numbers 12:1-2] Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 So they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?”
[Anne Sokol] Deborah? … God can raise from the dead. He could’ve raised up a man at that time very easily.Deborah “judged” the people, seemingly helping them relationally, solving problems between them. God did raise a man, Barak, who did answer the call reluctantly. Deborah did not lead the army - Barak did (as God’s revelation required). She received direct revelation from God (one instance that we know of in Scripture), which would put that instance as something different than what we have in the church, unless you believe we are still getting direct revelation from God. Will you base the function of the NT church on her 10 verses in Judges?
[Anne Sokol] So, I’m not saying that women should exercise spiritual authority over a man in the church today. However, I don’t draw lines of teaching, for example, as tight as you do. I don’t see that God does in the Bible what you are doing/saying.I understand what you are saying. I just say that you allow yourself much more latitude that what is seen in Scripture. You offer two aberrations that received direct revelation from God in the OT as your support. I’m saying that the Scriptures do not justify these as normal, nor do the evidences and arguments of Paul somehow collapse under them.
[Anne Sokol] And this is the heart of our issue. You look at these verses in tim and titus and draw tight lines around them. Tight lines that you defend with your interp of certain words like “teach” and what is formal or not. Lines that others, not just me, do not see drawn there.And I would say just the opposite. You are taking on more than what the Scriptures in Titus teach or allow, and what the limitations for men to pastor/shepherd clearly indicate, and where no evidence in the NT church exists. Mine are not tight lines - I only read what is there. You take liberties where there are none Scripturally to be had.
[Arguing about “others” seeing what you see is not an argument. Evidences are arguments. The silent “they…,” even if a majority, is not a Biblical argument (or Jesus was wrong most of the time, since most disagreed with everything He said).]
[Kevin Subra] As I have shared previously, there are no qualifications given for women teachers such as you see in 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1, so I believe formal instruction is not intended in Titus 2. It ends up being non-formal teaching in the realm of what every believer does to/toward everyone else (in the spirit of Colossians 3:16). It is not authoritative teaching (2 Tim 2:15).Here’s another example:
[Anne Sokol] You’re extrapolating and extra-biblical conclusion here, placing emphasis where really Scripture does not.Again, I offer observations, not extrapolations. To get where you are, you must extrapolate, as the Scriptures do not identify such. I also was summarizing previous comments, because I had more fully covered them before.
[Kevin Subra] This is a false accusation. I am making observations from the text itself. I am only stating Paul’s prohibition, and his creation support for it. There is nothing added. Paul prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men, and his two-part proof is (a) the order of creation, the man being created before the woman - which stands true in any situation because it is a historical event not mold-able by culture or circumstance; and (2) the deception failure of the woman - which stands true again, because it is a historical event. Neither event had any direct relationship to the local church.
[Anne Sokol] This is an example of what I am saying. We agree that Paul prohibits women from teaching/having authority over men in the church. You go further saying that paul is saying that women are not even to teach women formally, not to teach them doctrine.We apparently do not agree. Paul does not say “in the church.” He says that he does not permit a woman to be teaching or having authority over a man. Period. He gives his evidence from creation order (which is in no way specific to the church) and creation deception (which is in no way limited to the church). If he gave a prohibition with the qualification which you state (or any qualification that would limit it to time, culture, circumstance, etc.) we would have nothing to discuss. He does not. Paul does not argue from an avenue that could be limited to the church. He could have easily. He applies creation - he does not create truth here. Also, the surrounding context (even of 1 Tim 2:15) would argue that Paul is not arguing within the church (if Martha’s conclusions in her article are close to being accurate). Otherwise, motherhood (and modesty and godly conduct prescribed for women earlier in the passage) would be limited to the church as well (we cannot pick and choose).
[Anne Sokol] I’m saying i don’t see it there… . So I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion with you.I appreciate what specifics you do bring up. I would encourage you to read the entire thread though. Thanks.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
we’re leading a post-abortion seminar for three women for the weekend. I am doing what you do not think i should biblically be doing.
i was thinking today, why am i even spending my time talking aboutt this? do i lead a bible study? no. do i teach in the church? no. Occassional things come up for women. but then i remembered this post-abortion seminar coming up. Three lady leaders, three ladies who are going through the study. By your applications of Scripture, we shouldn’t be doing this.
So that’s why i’m spending my time here. It will be important to everyone sometime, some how, somewhere.
Kevin, I am ceasing and desisting. Readers can see your POV and my POV. They have enough info now to see various perspectives. that is my only reason for continuing this discussion. i have no goal to change your mind.
i’ve only scanned the thread. i’ve heard your postion before, it is not new to me. i haven’t checked the links. sorry i can’t help you more about the book Captivating. i am just saying that their description of gender, creation, roles is, imo, more fully in line with what hte bible has in mind than your posted description. therefore, people can refer to that book if they so desire.
About references to women, it is rhetorically suggested that God spoke/prophesied through miriam. God spoke through solomon’s mother to all men and women about a virtuous wife. He spoke through Anna, through Mary and Elizabeth, words and truths that are preached in churches today. Do you think Deborah judged in her own power? God has spoken through women, teaching, doctrinal words. i’m not promoting women preaching or being ordained, as you are implying, but you are not allowing for the ways women have been used either or the ways God gives them freedom to be used today.
i’m sorry you see this as trying to start a norm not found in scripture. i don’t see that at all. There are several issues that are not fully fleshed out in scripture, like the work of missions, for example, we work with what we see and know fully of Scripture. You are taking one path of logic, I am taking another. You say I’m going outside the perameters of scripture to support myself. I say you are making logical connections inside scripture that do not exist in scripture—they are your logical connections of your own making.
ok, we’re leaving!
i was thinking today, why am i even spending my time talking aboutt this? do i lead a bible study? no. do i teach in the church? no. Occassional things come up for women. but then i remembered this post-abortion seminar coming up. Three lady leaders, three ladies who are going through the study. By your applications of Scripture, we shouldn’t be doing this.
So that’s why i’m spending my time here. It will be important to everyone sometime, some how, somewhere.
Kevin, I am ceasing and desisting. Readers can see your POV and my POV. They have enough info now to see various perspectives. that is my only reason for continuing this discussion. i have no goal to change your mind.
i’ve only scanned the thread. i’ve heard your postion before, it is not new to me. i haven’t checked the links. sorry i can’t help you more about the book Captivating. i am just saying that their description of gender, creation, roles is, imo, more fully in line with what hte bible has in mind than your posted description. therefore, people can refer to that book if they so desire.
About references to women, it is rhetorically suggested that God spoke/prophesied through miriam. God spoke through solomon’s mother to all men and women about a virtuous wife. He spoke through Anna, through Mary and Elizabeth, words and truths that are preached in churches today. Do you think Deborah judged in her own power? God has spoken through women, teaching, doctrinal words. i’m not promoting women preaching or being ordained, as you are implying, but you are not allowing for the ways women have been used either or the ways God gives them freedom to be used today.
i’m sorry you see this as trying to start a norm not found in scripture. i don’t see that at all. There are several issues that are not fully fleshed out in scripture, like the work of missions, for example, we work with what we see and know fully of Scripture. You are taking one path of logic, I am taking another. You say I’m going outside the perameters of scripture to support myself. I say you are making logical connections inside scripture that do not exist in scripture—they are your logical connections of your own making.
ok, we’re leaving!
Discussion