I hope that I'm posting this in the right section. Due to some of the comments by Berbs relating to Paul's view of women and their role in the church and some of the follow-up comments by Bo, I thought that it might be better to look at these considerations in a forum outside of Eschatology-oriented "Mark of the Beast." Bo wrote that some of Paul's remarks assigning an inferior status to women in the church may have been understood as regarding a cultural situation: "2) I have heard apologists say that women were causing revolts and this was language put in there to restore "order". Shyea, right." This thought could be developed further, I think. My father, Jon Zens, has written a book entitled What's with Paul and Women? that offers an explanation of the contextual milieu in which some of Paul's statements might be better understood. Below is an excerpt from the summary of his book. He also has a freely available article online called Are the Sisters free to function? At the following site: http://searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm
1 Timothy 2:11-12 has been used as a "clear" mandate to silence women in the church for over 1500 years. In What's With Paul & Women? Jon Zens exposes the fallacies of this interpretation, and opens up the meaning of 1 Tim.2:9-15 using insights gleaned from the Artemis-saturated Ephesian culture where Timothy was left to stand against false teaching (1:3). Going beyond 1 Tim.2, this book covers the major issues in gender inequality with three Appendices: one on the Ephesian social world in which 1 Timothy was written, another on 1 Corinthians14:34-36 and an extensive review of John Piper'sWhat's the Difference? Manhood & Womanhood Defined According to the Bible.






--Adam

Thanks for the resources, Adam.

I would contend, and I think this is a consensus view of all who don't read the 1 timothy passage in isolation, that with the exception of 1 Timothy, Paul seems to have a remarkably enlightened view of women (considering his cultural background). In fact, the departure in 1 Timothy is so drastic from Paul's other writings (such as Galatians, where he states that in Christ there is no male or female) that many have used this (along with other evidence) to state that Paul did not write it. Others still hold that he wrote it, but that the statements he makes were applicable only to the church in question, because of some extenuating circumstances.

We simply don't know, but what is clear to me that there is nothing in the passage itself which indicates that the instruction was meant to be universal - for all churches, for all time. In fact, the very structure of the sentence starts with "But I" - a very subjective beginning. Only those who hold to either/both a very exalted view of the apostle Paul and a doctrine of inerrancy would claim that this statement must be universally applied.

Those who do hold to such a view have a problem, however. While most evangelicals/fundamentalists would hold that a woman should not have authority over a man, I know of very few who require their women to "remain silent". This is exactly the kind of thing that Jesus would have picked apart.

Another issue involved in this topic would be

whether one needs an elaborate defense of

Paul's Words about women in the church or

whether one can remain historically agnostic

about that.

Certainly, Paul's writings in Timothy need to be

qualified by his more universally aimed passage

to the church at Galatia: "So in Christ Jesus you are all children

of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into

Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither

Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor

female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to

Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to

the promise." (3:26-29)

Christians who emphasize the equality of the sexes obviously

emphasize this passage. Whether one agrees completely with

the "egalitarian in Christ" approach, one can at least see

historically that broader concerns are being addressed.

With Jeremy, I am a bit torn about how to address skepticism

on this topic and I'm not sure that an elaborate defense of

I Timothy 2 and I Corinthians 14:34-35 is really needed if you

are trying to criticize from a foundational perspective which

rejects God or the Bible a priori. In other words, from a non-

God perspective, I'm not entirely sure that equal dignity and

worth can be ascribed to the sexes. Their souls would most

likely become degraded outside of a framework where they

would be seen as created in the Image of God.

--Adam

Adam, you wrote:

I'm not sure that an elaborate defense of I Timothy 2 and I Corinthians 14:34-35 is really needed if you are trying to criticize from a foundational perspective which rejects God or the Bible a priori. In other words, from a non-God perspective, I'm not entirely sure that equal dignity and worth can be ascribed to the sexes.


Exactly. This was the point I was trying to make to Berbs. You can criticize the Bible all you want for not living up to your (subjective) moral standards. But then you need to be able to demonstrate why your (subjective) moral standards are (objectively) better. Otherwise, the argument is simply "I don't like this." Or, sometimes alternatively stated as "I don't like this, therefore you're an [insert various anti-religious invective here]."

Jeremy,

You make some great points. It's more an area of "opinion"

than fundamental doctrine in theology.

My dad is fond of pointing out that I Cor. cannot be construed

as an "absolute" silence since Paul is delivering some

instructions about how women should pray and prophesy !?!

Another option which you rightly point out is that of the

non-Pauline authorship position. I do consider Paul's work

in the Pastoral epistles to have a lot of the same literary

marks as his other works but not all feel that way.

For example, Joanna Dewey in her introduction to First

Timothy writes:

"They [Pastorals] claim to be letters from Paul to two of his

colleagues...They appear instead to be handbooks for church

administration written in the early 2nd century, decades

after Paul's death, by an unknown author." (The Women's

Bible Commentary, Newsom and Ringe, eds.)

Another classic in the field is Robert Bank's Paul's Idea of

Community which I have not read, but my father did mention

that Banks questions the "Paulinicity", if you will, of certain

of the Epistles.

Take care,

Adam

I am ganna take a blind stab at this and say, since he was a biblical man, yes he was anti woman.

Perhaps when he was still saul, he had more respect of them, but idk.

Josh,

Well, I assume that you would agree that Jesus

was a Biblical man.

He would be fairly "pro-woman" given all of the

evidence (see my dad's online article for more

juicy details).

Take care,

Adam

Hi Adam,

I just finished reading what your dad has written from the link that you had posted to Josh. I found it very interesting and could relate through most of what he wrote, with the exception of the Adam and Eve era. I can't seem to follow how he came up with his interpretation of Adam's rib being removed and Jesus being pierced in His side. Let me add, that I am open to the vision. I just have a problem in seeing it.

I very much enjoyed reading his work. Thank you for sharing, Linda

Linda,

Thanks for the input. I may have to re-read that section.

The basic gist that I grab from my dad's work is that Genesis

cursing language is not normative for the church.

That may be oversimplistic but that's what I derive in a nutshell

from it.

We are redeemed and are being redeemed by the gracious

work of the Son on the Cross; that redemption entails radically

working to overcome the cursing phenomena that we see:

hence the Galatian language about all being one in Christ's

eyes.

Blessings,

Adam

Well, you need not worry about Paul's view of women since Paul didn't write 1. Timothy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_T...o_Pauline_authorship

1 Corinthians 5 ;3

Colossians 2 ;5

1 Thessalonians 2 ;17

What do these verses tell you? Do they not tell you that Paul is speaking, but another has to be receiving what he is saying. Paul is in spirit. He is saying so in these verses. Who Paul was communicating with, must have wrote these words, but they are all from God.

Linda Williams wrote:
My quote only mentiones the Pastoral Epistles since what's at stake here is 1. Timothy, not 1 Corinthians, Colossians or 1. Thessalonians.
However, since you mentioned Colossians, there are doubts concerning the authorship:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossians#Authorship