Changes

21 bytes removed , 11:55, July 13, 2016

clean up & uniformity

Line 1: Line 1:

=Synopsis=

−

What does the [[Bible]] teach about women and their status as human beings, [[Christian]]s, citizens, and wives? This is the question of egalitarianism versus [[complementarianism]]. The purpose of this document is to present an accurate summary of the Christian egalitarian view. Christian Egalitarianism is not the promotion of female over male, nor of male over female. It is the belief that scripture shows male and female to be equal in salvation, in gifting, in service, and in access to [[God]].

+

What does the [[Bible]] teach about women and their status as human beings, [[Christian]]s, citizens, and wives? This is the question of egalitarianism versus [[complementarianism]]. The purpose of this document is to present an accurate summary of the Christian '''egalitarian''' view. Christian Egalitarianism is not the promotion of female over male, nor of male over female. It is the belief that scripture shows male and female to be equal in salvation, in gifting, in service, and in access to [[God]].

=The Old Testament=

Line 7: Line 7:

==Before Sin==

−

Both male and female are stated as being made in the image of God <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201:27;&version=72</ref>; Gen. 1:27. Neither is said to reflect or represent that image more than the other. But is authority found in chronological order? God makes the only creatures with authority, humankind, last. If there is any tie between authority and chronological order, the text can only support the idea that the last created being is the one in authority. So [[Eve]]'s being created after [[Adam]] does not imply his rulership over her, but could actually support the opposite. However, the only concrete statement that can be made about why humans were given authority is based upon their being made in God's image; no connection is made between chronology and hierarchy.

+

Both male and female are stated as being made in the image of God;<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201:27;&version=72</ref> Gen. 1:27. Neither is said to reflect or represent that image more than the other. But is authority found in chronological order? God makes the only creatures with authority, humankind, last. If there is any tie between authority and chronological order, the text can only support the idea that the last created being is the one in authority. So [[Eve]]'s being created after [[Adam]] does not imply his rulership over her, but could actually support the opposite. However, the only concrete statement that can be made about why humans were given authority is based upon their being made in God's image; no connection is made between chronology and hierarchy.

Likewise, no connection is made between naming another creature and hierarchy. Adam named animals <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:20;&version=72</ref> because God told him to, and Adam named "woman" <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23;&version=72</ref> because he existed before her. But the text never calls this naming any kind of authoritative act. The text states the purpose of Eve's creation to be as a helper <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:18;&version=72</ref> for Adam. Does this constitute an instance of hierarchy, that is, is a "helper" inferior to the one needing help? The scripture here makes no explicit statement either way; all other claims about hierarchy have to be inferred from other passages, or from our own usage. Even so, we can take "helper" <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/helper</ref> as either an assistant or a benefactor, so usage of the word "helper" does not intrinsically tip the scales in either direction. In fact, if we do check other scriptures for the word "help" or "helper", we see that same word <ref>http://godswordtowomen.org/studies/word%20study/help.htm</ref> used for God as for Eve.

−

One often-overlooked fact in this pre-sin world is that "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh" <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:24;&version=72; 2:24</ref>. The man is to join to the woman, not the woman to the man. Does this signify authority or hierarchy? The passage is silent about that; it is simply stated as a fact. This statement does not prove either way that one joining to the other indicates hierarchy. If our experience says anything, it is either neutral (a joining of two equals) or indicates that the one being joined to is superior. But there is no case of the one being joined to signifying superiority over the one joining. Their being "one flesh" can either refer to a figurative return to the unity of Adam and Eve, or possibly to "one family". From there we could say that if one must take the other's name, it would be the man taking his wife's name.

+

One often-overlooked fact in this pre-sin world is that "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh".<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:24;&version=72; 2:24</ref> The man is to join to the woman, not the woman to the man. Does this signify authority or hierarchy? The passage is silent about that; it is simply stated as a fact. This statement does not prove either way that one joining to the other indicates hierarchy. If our experience says anything, it is either neutral (a joining of two equals) or indicates that the one being joined to is superior. But there is no case of the one being joined to signifying superiority over the one joining. Their being "one flesh" can either refer to a figurative return to the unity of Adam and Eve, or possibly to "one family". From there we could say that if one must take the other's name, it would be the man taking his wife's name.

So the Bible never explicitly or even implicitly indicates any kind of hierarchy between Adam and Eve before sin.

Line 23: Line 23:

==After Sin==

−

God turns to Adam first and demands an explanation. Adam's response is to blame not only Eve but also God <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:12;&version=72</ref>He says nothing about his failure to act, but note also that he doesn't deny having been with her at the time; that is, he doesn't appeal to having been unaware of the temptation. Then Eve is challenged, and her response is true; she makes no effort to pass blame or change the story, and freely admits to having eaten the fruit. We must keep these facts in mind when reading about God's judgment of the matter.

+

God turns to Adam first and demands an explanation. Adam's response is to blame not only Eve but also God <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:12;&version=72</ref> He says nothing about his failure to act, but note also that he doesn't deny having been with her at the time; that is, he doesn't appeal to having been unaware of the temptation. Then Eve is challenged, and her response is true; she makes no effort to pass blame or change the story, and freely admits to having eaten the fruit. We must keep these facts in mind when reading about God's judgment of the matter.

−

First God curses the serpent <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:14-15;&version=72</ref> directly and physically; he would crawl on his belly and eat dust. Then he adds that he will deliberately put "enmity" or extreme hostility between the serpent and Eve, and between her "seed" and his "seed"<ref>The meaning of the phrase is debated, and is not further explained in the immediate context. But we do at least have some NT help. In Mt. 13:38 Jesus defines literal "seeds" in the parable as corresponding to either children of God (believers like Eve) or children of Satan (rebels against God like Adam). So at least in the first part of the "enmity" verses we can understand it as speaking of the perennial hostility between those two groups (certainly '''not''' merely between women and snakes!). But the second part is specific to individuals: he (lit. ''it'') will strike your (the serpent's) head, and you (the serpent) will strike his heel.</ref>. But the next statement about what each "seed" will do involves future individuals. So a future "seed of the woman" will crush a future "seed of the serpent", and this is tied to their mutual hostility. We have to wait for the New Testament (NT) for elaboration on the meaning of this section, but it should be noted that this future hostility is still part of the curse on the serpent, and it is specifically stated to be the seed of only the woman who would crush the serpent. There is no statement in all the Bible that explains ''why'' God chose only the woman's seed; every explanation has to come from inference. But we can note the fact that there was a difference in the motivation for sin between Adam and Eve: Adam was not deceived and so sinned deliberately, while Eve was deceived into sinning. She nonetheless took responsibility, admitting she sinned, but also spoke truthfully about the serpent's role.

+

First God curses the serpent <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:14-15;&version=72</ref> directly and physically; he would crawl on his belly and eat dust. Then he adds that he will deliberately put "enmity" or extreme hostility between the serpent and Eve, and between her "seed" and his "seed".<ref>The meaning of the phrase is debated, and is not further explained in the immediate context. But we do at least have some NT help. In Mt. 13:38 Jesus defines literal "seeds" in the parable as corresponding to either children of God (believers like Eve) or children of Satan (rebels against God like Adam). So at least in the first part of the "enmity" verses we can understand it as speaking of the perennial hostility between those two groups (certainly '''not''' merely between women and snakes!). But the second part is specific to individuals: he (lit. ''it'') will strike your (the serpent's) head, and you (the serpent) will strike his heel.</ref> But the next statement about what each "seed" will do involves future individuals. So a future "seed of the woman" will crush a future "seed of the serpent", and this is tied to their mutual hostility. We have to wait for the New Testament (NT) for elaboration on the meaning of this section, but it should be noted that this future hostility is still part of the curse on the serpent, and it is specifically stated to be the seed of only the woman who would crush the serpent. There is no statement in all the Bible that explains ''why'' God chose only the woman's seed; every explanation has to come from inference. But we can note the fact that there was a difference in the motivation for sin between Adam and Eve: Adam was not deceived and so sinned deliberately, while Eve was deceived into sinning. She nonetheless took responsibility, admitting she sinned, but also spoke truthfully about the serpent's role.

−

Now God turns to Eve and makes a deliberate statement <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:16;&version=72</ref> he would make her "bring forth children in sorrow" <ref>The word typically translated "pain" here is the same word translated "sorrow" or "painful toil" for Adam when he is told of his requirement to grow food.</ref>. Then he makes not a command or curse but a prediction ("will", not "shall"): Eve would turn (possibly "desire" but no indication of what this desire was) to Adam and this would result in his ruling over her. Note first of all that Adam's rule over Eve was put in the future, so it '''did not exist in the present'''. Put another way, if Adam already had rule over Eve, why would God predict it here and make it a future event? God did not say Adam would ''continue'' to rule or rule harshly or more effectively, but just rule. Another reason we know God did not command this rulership is that he had just blessed Eve with the promise of her seed alone crushing the seed of the serpent who had deceived her (remember it was part of ''the serpent's'' curse). To turn completely around and curse her with servitude to the man who had blamed her and God for his sin and failed to step in while she was being tempted, would be to say God rewards poor leadership and passing blame, even to the point of blaming God. Adam had proven himself disqualified to lead and unworthy of God's blessing with rulership over the one he failed to lead and protect.

+

Now God turns to Eve and makes a deliberate statement <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:16;&version=72</ref> he would make her "bring forth children in sorrow".<ref>The word typically translated "pain" here is the same word translated "sorrow" or "painful toil" for Adam when he is told of his requirement to grow food.</ref> Then he makes not a command or curse but a prediction ("will", not "shall"): Eve would turn (possibly "desire" but no indication of what this desire was) to Adam and this would result in his ruling over her. Note first of all that Adam's rule over Eve was put in the future, so it '''did not exist in the present'''. Put another way, if Adam already had rule over Eve, why would God predict it here and make it a future event? God did not say Adam would ''continue'' to rule or rule harshly or more effectively, but just rule. Another reason we know God did not command this rulership is that he had just blessed Eve with the promise of her seed alone crushing the seed of the serpent who had deceived her (remember it was part of ''the serpent's'' curse). To turn completely around and curse her with servitude to the man who had blamed her and God for his sin and failed to step in while she was being tempted, would be to say God rewards poor leadership and passing blame, even to the point of blaming God. Adam had proven himself disqualified to lead and unworthy of God's blessing with rulership over the one he failed to lead and protect.

Nothing is said about future generations in this passage except the woman's future seed crushing the serpent's future seed. What God said to Adam and Eve, he said directly to them. There are no statements to the effect of putting all men over all women, or all husbands over all wives, for all future generations. Any theories about how God's words here affected future generations are only conjecture and anecdotal evidence. We can fill in some blanks in hindsight, but the passage itself says nothing about the future of all humanity.

−

Now God turns to Adam and makes a deliberate statement: <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17-19;&version=72</ref> the ground would be cursed, producing thorns and thistles, he would eat the plants of the field (before they were only told to eat fruit), and he would return to the dust from which he was taken. Note that Adam was not cursed directly; there is nothing said about his spirit or Eve's, or their future offspring. Finally, Adam is driven out <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24;&version=50</ref> of the garden to prevent his eating from the Tree of Life. The Hebrew states that only "the man" was barred from the Tree of Life and banished from the garden. Why only Adam? The text doesn't say. It tells us Eve would turn to him, but it doesn't say why. All we know is that God predicted Eve would go with Adam, and then he would rule over her.

+

Now God turns to Adam and makes a deliberate statement:<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17-19;&version=72</ref> the ground would be cursed, producing thorns and thistles, he would eat the plants of the field (before they were only told to eat fruit), and he would return to the dust from which he was taken. Note that Adam was not cursed directly; there is nothing said about his spirit or Eve's, or their future offspring. Finally, Adam is driven out <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24;&version=50</ref> of the garden to prevent his eating from the Tree of Life. The Hebrew states that only "the man" was barred from the Tree of Life and banished from the garden. Why only Adam? The text doesn't say. It tells us Eve would turn to him, but it doesn't say why. All we know is that God predicted Eve would go with Adam, and then he would rule over her.

−

(Note: some English translations, even the TNIV <ref>http://www.tniv.info/</ref>, translate "him" as "them" without explanation; compare also with the use of "had formed" for the animals in chapter 2 which in the Hebrew is only "formed". In these instances the KJV <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50&lang=2</ref> is accurate. Also note the order of events in chapter 2 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%20;&version=72</ref>: God says he will make a helper for Adam, then brings him animals to name, then makes Eve. Why is the account of making/naming animals put between God's announcement of his intention to make Eve and his actually making her, if the making/naming of animals had happened before? Even if the animals were made earlier, which the Hebrew <ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19</ref> and LXX <ref>http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=formed&section=1&it=kjv&ot=lxx&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search</ref> do not support, and Adam only named them here, we still have to ask the significance of the timing. We cannot lightly dismiss the argument that God brought animals to Adam for the purpose of preparing him for Eve. In addition, we see that only Adam is told he would "return to dust"; it is his fate alone. But since Eve chose to follow him out of the garden, we know in [[hindsight]] that she and all her descendants would also share in Adam's fate.)

+

(Note: some English translations, even the TNIV,<ref>http://www.tniv.info/</ref> translate "him" as "them" without explanation; compare also with the use of "had formed" for the animals in chapter 2 which in the Hebrew is only "formed". In these instances the KJV <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50&lang=2</ref> is accurate. Also note the order of events in chapter 2:<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%20;&version=72</ref> God says he will make a helper for Adam, then brings him animals to name, then makes Eve. Why is the account of making/naming animals put between God's announcement of his intention to make Eve and his actually making her, if the making/naming of animals had happened before? Even if the animals were made earlier, which the Hebrew <ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19</ref> and LXX <ref>http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=formed&section=1&it=kjv&ot=lxx&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search</ref> do not support, and Adam only named them here, we still have to ask the significance of the timing. We cannot lightly dismiss the argument that God brought animals to Adam for the purpose of preparing him for Eve. In addition, we see that only Adam is told he would "return to dust"; it is his fate alone. But since Eve chose to follow him out of the garden, we know in [[hindsight]] that she and all her descendants would also share in Adam's fate.)

What we see in Genesis 1-3 is most striking for what it ''does not'' say. We can add more through the NT teachings and references, but before we do that we must know what's actually stated. The context includes considering what it meant at the time it was written.

Line 41: Line 41:

Although God only spoke of Adam ruling Eve, the pattern of male domination continued through all generations, even extending to some men ruling over other men. But rather than this historical pattern indicating God's expressed will or natural order, as complementarianism argues, it shows the fulfillment of God's prediction of the consequences of sin, and we see as we go through the OT some notable exceptions.

−

In Genesis 16 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016%20;&version=72</ref> (also 21 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2021%20;&version=72</ref>) God orders Abraham to listen to his wife. And when she tells him to send Hagar and Ishmael away, God talks directly to Hagar and makes a promise to her. Note that Hagar names God (16:13); here we have direct evidence that God does not consider the one giving names to be superior. Along with that, there are many instances where God is the "helper"<ref>[http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/word%20study/ezerkenegdo.htm word study], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=10&verse=14&version=72&context=verse Ps. 10:14], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=27&verse=9&version=72&context=verse Ps. 27:9]</ref>, showing that helpers can be superior.

+

In Genesis 16 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016%20;&version=72</ref> (also 21 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2021%20;&version=72</ref>) God orders Abraham to listen to his wife. And when she tells him to send Hagar and Ishmael away, God talks directly to Hagar and makes a promise to her. Note that Hagar names God (16:13); here we have direct evidence that God does not consider the one giving names to be superior. Along with that, there are many instances where God is the "helper",<ref>[http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/word%20study/ezerkenegdo.htm word study], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=10&verse=14&version=72&context=verse Ps. 10:14], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=27&verse=9&version=72&context=verse Ps. 27:9]</ref> showing that helpers can be superior.

There are of course other notable women in the OT. Abigail saved her people from slaughter when her "foolish" husband set himself against David. Queen Ester took her life in her hands to save the Jews from genocide, something she was not forced to do. Ruth, a Moabite and ancestor of Jesus, was so selfless as to be completely dedicated to her mother-in-law Naomi, and boldly approached Boaz about his duty as a Jewish kinsman. Their child was called a son of Naomi rather than of Ruth's dead husband or even Boaz. But what about leaders of men? Did God ever choose a woman for that?

Line 55: Line 55:

In reading the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus, we see some radical departures from societal norms. He said things like "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath" and "Among the gentiles, people rule over other people, but it must not be that way among you". He internalized religion instead of the tradition of outward performance. But he also treated women as equal with men in every way.

−

An example is the account of Mary and Martha <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:38-42&version=72</ref>. To sit at the feet of a rabbi was an exclusively male right, yet Jesus defended Mary for doing so. And then there is the account of Jesus being anointed at Bethany <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:6-13;&version=72</ref>, his being touched by the "sinful woman" of Luke 7:38 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:38;&version=72</ref>, and the Samaritan woman <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&version=72&context=chapter</ref> with whom he spoke publicly. And of course the first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were women <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:1-10;&version=72</ref>. Women were also among his traveling companions <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%208:1-3;&version=72</ref>, another scandal at the time.

+

An example is the account of Mary and Martha.<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:38-42&version=72</ref> To sit at the feet of a rabbi was an exclusively male right, yet Jesus defended Mary for doing so. And then there is the account of Jesus being anointed at Bethany,<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:6-13;&version=72</ref> his being touched by the "sinful woman" of Luke 7:38,<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:38;&version=72</ref> and the Samaritan woman <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&version=72&context=chapter</ref> with whom he spoke publicly. And of course the first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were women.<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:1-10;&version=72</ref> Women were also among his traveling companions,<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%208:1-3;&version=72</ref> another scandal at the time.

In Acts we see that on the Day of Pentecost, both men and women were given the Spirit and spoke in other languages, in at least partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17-18). Note that women too would prophesy, that is, speak to the crowds of men and women publicly about God. There is no indication that female prophets were of a lesser rank than male prophets, or that female prophets only ever spoke to women or only in private. We can add the teaching ministry of Priscilla and Aquila, and the fact that Ananias and Sapphira were each held accountable for their own sins. There are no instances where these passages in any way discount the ministry, worth, or roles of women in the church. The Jerusalem Council <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&version=72&context=chapter</ref> did not make any long list of rules about who could do what, beyond asking for sensitivity to Jewish customs, and even then only restricting the new church from eating the blood of animals or being sexually immoral.

Line 79: Line 79:

There is much [http://www.bookschristian.com/sys/product.php?PRODUCT=277764 textual attestation] for arguing that Junia is in fact a woman, numbered among the apostles and counted as outstanding, and has the same authority as any male apostle. There is [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem08.html none at all for the male form "Junias"] until long after the NT canon was completed.

−

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2011&version=72 1 Cor. 11] (see also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph.%205:21-24;&version=72; Eph. 5:21-24]) is where we see the term "head" as something that describes how Christ relates to the church and how men relate to women (not just husbands to wives). But the Greek word ''[http://godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/boss.htm kephale]'' translated "head" did not mean "boss"<ref>See also [http://www.searchingtogether.org/kephale.htm] and [http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/Ephesians523.htm]</ref>. It could mean the literal physical head of a body, a headdress, the source of something (ex. a river), a person's life, or the conclusion or pinnacle of something. The head and the body are "one flesh" and not separate from each other; they are interdependent. By speaking of Christ as the "head" of the church, the scriptures are speaking of his being one with us and we with him, just as Jesus prayed before his death.

+

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2011&version=72 1 Cor. 11] (see also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph.%205:21-24;&version=72; Eph. 5:21-24]) is where we see the term "head" as something that describes how Christ relates to the church and how men relate to women (not just husbands to wives). But the Greek word ''[http://godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/boss.htm kephale]'' translated "head" did not mean "boss".<ref>See also [http://www.searchingtogether.org/kephale.htm] and [http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/Ephesians523.htm]</ref> It could mean the literal physical head of a body, a headdress, the source of something (ex. a river), a person's life, or the conclusion or pinnacle of something. The head and the body are "one flesh" and not separate from each other; they are interdependent. By speaking of Christ as the "head" of the church, the scriptures are speaking of his being one with us and we with him, just as Jesus prayed before his death.

Certainly no one would deny that Christ has authority over the church, but the context here is not about that aspect of Christ. Paul is prefacing what he is about to say concerning head coverings, and so is using a play on words with "head". He goes on to talk about whether men or women should wear head coverings in the meetings, and only uses the word "authority" (Gk. ''[http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/FRMSTRGRK18.htm exousia]'') when he talks about a woman's right to choose for herself whether or not to cover her own head. The words "a sign of" are not in the Greek at all.

Line 88: Line 88:

Moving on to chapter 14, we see in verses [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2014:34-38;&version=72; 34-38] what surely is the most misunderstood passage of scripture. Everyone agrees that Paul has been writing to answer questions and deal with problems in the church at Corinth, and sometimes quoted them before issuing his rebuttal or answer. But Greek has no quote marks as such; quotes have to be determined from context. One indicator is the practice of beginning the sentence following a quoted text with the Greek word ''He'' (eta with rough breathing mark), typically translated "Or". We see it twice in vs. 36: "Or has the word of God come only to you, or has it reached only you?" This comes across weakly in English. Instead, Paul is using great force to rebut what he has just quoted, which came from the Corinthians: "Nonsense! Has the word of God come only to you? Nonsense! Has it reached only you?"

−

The text of vs. 34-35 comes from a teaching in the Talmud<ref>Talmud, Berachot 24a [http://www.davening.net/tznius.html Basics of Tznius]</ref>, not the scriptures. No such "law" is found anywhere in the Bible. So even without the "''He''", we can tell that these two verses are nothing Paul would promote, especially since he spent so much effort combating the legalists. In other words, if he strongly opposed the imposition of the OT laws on the church in all his other writings, why would he do the opposite here and appeal to it, even if this quote were an actual OT law? So this is saying ''exactly the opposite'' of what complementarianism claims. Paul '''strongly opposed''' the silencing of women in the churches. This view is also consistent with his other statements about the prophesying of women in the congregation. Complementarianism must interpret Paul's rebuttal as being aimed at an ''anticipated'' objection to v. 34-35 instead of a quote from the Corinthians. But there is nothing in the rebuttal to indicate this, no such words as "someone will object". Paul did use such phrases elsewhere, but as rhetorical questions, not necessarily anticipated objections.

+

The text of vs. 34-35 comes from a teaching in the Talmud,<ref>Talmud, Berachot 24a [http://www.davening.net/tznius.html Basics of Tznius]</ref> not the scriptures. No such "law" is found anywhere in the Bible. So even without the "''He''", we can tell that these two verses are nothing Paul would promote, especially since he spent so much effort combating the legalists. In other words, if he strongly opposed the imposition of the OT laws on the church in all his other writings, why would he do the opposite here and appeal to it, even if this quote were an actual OT law? So this is saying ''exactly the opposite'' of what complementarianism claims. Paul '''strongly opposed''' the silencing of women in the churches. This view is also consistent with his other statements about the prophesying of women in the congregation. Complementarianism must interpret Paul's rebuttal as being aimed at an ''anticipated'' objection to v. 34-35 instead of a quote from the Corinthians. But there is nothing in the rebuttal to indicate this, no such words as "someone will object". Paul did use such phrases elsewhere, but as rhetorical questions, not necessarily anticipated objections.

−

In Galatians 3:28 we see Paul's overturning of an old rabbinical prayer/boast: "Thank God that I was not born a Gentile, a slave, or a woman!"<ref>Talmud, Menahoth 43b-44a [http://groups.msn.com/Mishpocha/thetalmudpart4.msnw Mishpocha]</ref>. Instead, this once-proud Pharisee writes, "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; you are all one in Christ Jesus." This comes in the middle of a discussion about our freedom in Christ, our equality, and our adoption and spiritual baptism. Paul is writing passionately against the very same legalistic mentality that would have silenced the women at Corinth. If Paul only means that we are all equally saved, then why can we not also say that there are still restricted roles for gentiles and slaves? All three are listed in the same sentence, so we can't put restrictions on women without also putting them on gentiles and slaves.

+

In Galatians 3:28 we see Paul's overturning of an old rabbinical prayer/boast: "Thank God that I was not born a Gentile, a slave, or a woman!".<ref>Talmud, Menahoth 43b-44a [http://groups.msn.com/Mishpocha/thetalmudpart4.msnw Mishpocha]</ref> Instead, this once-proud Pharisee writes, "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; you are all one in Christ Jesus." This comes in the middle of a discussion about our freedom in Christ, our equality, and our adoption and spiritual baptism. Paul is writing passionately against the very same legalistic mentality that would have silenced the women at Corinth. If Paul only means that we are all equally saved, then why can we not also say that there are still restricted roles for gentiles and slaves? All three are listed in the same sentence, so we can't put restrictions on women without also putting them on gentiles and slaves.

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph.%205:21-32;&version=72; Eph. 5:21-22] reads as follows:

Line 96: Line 96:

Typical English translations, even the [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:21-22&version=72 TNIV], have this:

#"'''Submit''' to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord."

−

This cuts into the middle of a sentence to put the second half with the text that follows instead of the text that preceded. So the meaning is "wives, be devoted to your own husbands as to the Lord". This is very likely to refer to the practice common at the time, wherein a father retained ownership of his daughter even after marriage<ref>From [http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?653; This Article]: Abuse of wives was a common practice. In fact, wife abuse was such a problem that in the early first century A.D., the Emperor Augustus devised a system called “marriage without hand” (''sine manu'') to protect women from husband abuse. The law provided that the woman and her dowry remained under the jurisdiction of her father’s family. A woman could be taken back by her family and married to another man if the husband mistreated her too severely. The law was intended to reduce the divorce rate and stabilize family life, but in fact only contributed to further instability in marriage. An historian of the first century claimed that “the only enduring relationship a married woman had was the one with her blood relatives;” not her husband... Marriage instructions were directed almost exclusively to the wife. She is to defer to the wishes of her husband, to worship his gods, to have no friends of her own, to understand and forgive his sexual relations with courtesans and men.</ref>. This resulted in the father having power over his son-in-law with the threat of taking back his daughter should he ever displease him. So Paul is saying that instead of this arrangement (the marriage "without hand"), the woman is to be devoted to her own husband, instead of her father. This makes the most sense of why did Paul only told husbands to love and wives to support: because he told wives to be devoted to their husbands instead of their fathers. He needed to say the former because he said the latter. The whole message was, "Since you wives are not to go back to your fathers, you husbands must be careful to love your wives and not beat them."

+

This cuts into the middle of a sentence to put the second half with the text that follows instead of the text that preceded. So the meaning is "wives, be devoted to your own husbands as to the Lord". This is very likely to refer to the practice common at the time, wherein a father retained ownership of his daughter even after marriage.<ref>From [http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?653; This Article]: Abuse of wives was a common practice. In fact, wife abuse was such a problem that in the early first century A.D., the Emperor Augustus devised a system called “marriage without hand” (''sine manu'') to protect women from husband abuse. The law provided that the woman and her dowry remained under the jurisdiction of her father’s family. A woman could be taken back by her family and married to another man if the husband mistreated her too severely. The law was intended to reduce the divorce rate and stabilize family life, but in fact only contributed to further instability in marriage. An historian of the first century claimed that “the only enduring relationship a married woman had was the one with her blood relatives;” not her husband... Marriage instructions were directed almost exclusively to the wife. She is to defer to the wishes of her husband, to worship his gods, to have no friends of her own, to understand and forgive his sexual relations with courtesans and men.</ref> This resulted in the father having power over his son-in-law with the threat of taking back his daughter should he ever displease him. So Paul is saying that instead of this arrangement (the marriage "without hand"), the woman is to be devoted to her own husband, instead of her father. This makes the most sense of why did Paul only told husbands to love and wives to support: because he told wives to be devoted to their husbands instead of their fathers. He needed to say the former because he said the latter. The whole message was, "Since you wives are not to go back to your fathers, you husbands must be careful to love your wives and not beat them."

We can summarize the passage like this:

Line 118: Line 118:

In Chapter 5 Paul writes that a woman is to be the "[http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/1stTimothy514.htm despot]" of her home. The Greek word there meant exactly the same as our current English understanding, so Paul declares that the woman of the house is it's "despot" or unquestionable ruler. The husband is never given this strong title of rule over his wife and family.

−

Now to Paul's letter to Titus. In chapter 1 Paul gives qualifications for "elders" (Gk. ''presbuterous''). The phrase translated "the husband of one wife" (''mias gunaikos andra'') means "a one-woman man" or "one-man woman", that is, a faithful spouse<ref>From [http://claymore.50megs.com/RDIVORCE.HTML This Article]: Paul's instruction includes only three words, "mias gunaikos andra," as one of several requirements for being an elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1;6) or a deacon (1 Tim. 3:12, where the pl. "andres" is used). "Gune" refers to any adult female, including wives and widows. The King James Version translates it "woman" 129 times and "wife" 92 times. The noun "gunaikos" is in the genitive and therefore deals with attribution. It may refer to relationship or quality, for "the genitive defines by attributing a quality or relationship to the noun which it modifies." Dana and Mantey define the genitive as "the case which specifies with reference to class or kind." The genitive here is used to define or describe the noun "aner." This should not be considered a possessive genitive, for that would mean that the word in the genitive indicates one who owns or possesses the noun it modifies. In that case the translation would be "a man owned by one woman." Nor can this be considered as a genitive of relationship ("a man who has [possesses] one wife") for there is no indication within the phrase or context that that relationship is implied. It is best to understand this "gunaikos" as being a genitive of quality, that is, giving a characteristic to the noun it modifies. The noun being modified is "andra," accusative singular of "aner." "Aner" is translated "man" 156 times in the King James version and "husband" only 50 times (including the passage under discussion). This accusative functions here as an object of the main verb "be" along with a long list of other accusative nouns and participles. Stated simply, the clause is "Therefore . . . an elder must be . . . a man . . ." The words "one woman" modify "man" to explain what kind, or to qualify the noun by attributing to him this character, Robertson adds that the genitive of quality (also called attributive genitive). "expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness." He also points out that usually the genitive follows the limiting substantive, "but the genitive comes first if it is emphatic," is the case here. Since the other qualification in 1 Timothy 3 deal with the man's character and since the grammatical structure is more naturally consistent with this emphasis, it seems best to understand the phrase as meaning that he is a one-woman type of man.</ref>. Paul is referring to the quality of the person, and he goes on to talk about the importance of such qualities in the culture of Crete at that time.

+

Now to Paul's letter to Titus. In chapter 1 Paul gives qualifications for "elders" (Gk. ''presbuterous''). The phrase translated "the husband of one wife" (''mias gunaikos andra'') means "a one-woman man" or "one-man woman", that is, a faithful spouse.<ref>From [http://claymore.50megs.com/RDIVORCE.HTML This Article]: Paul's instruction includes only three words, "mias gunaikos andra," as one of several requirements for being an elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1;6) or a deacon (1 Tim. 3:12, where the pl. "andres" is used). "Gune" refers to any adult female, including wives and widows. The King James Version translates it "woman" 129 times and "wife" 92 times. The noun "gunaikos" is in the genitive and therefore deals with attribution. It may refer to relationship or quality, for "the genitive defines by attributing a quality or relationship to the noun which it modifies." Dana and Mantey define the genitive as "the case which specifies with reference to class or kind." The genitive here is used to define or describe the noun "aner." This should not be considered a possessive genitive, for that would mean that the word in the genitive indicates one who owns or possesses the noun it modifies. In that case the translation would be "a man owned by one woman." Nor can this be considered as a genitive of relationship ("a man who has [possesses] one wife") for there is no indication within the phrase or context that that relationship is implied. It is best to understand this "gunaikos" as being a genitive of quality, that is, giving a characteristic to the noun it modifies. The noun being modified is "andra," accusative singular of "aner." "Aner" is translated "man" 156 times in the King James version and "husband" only 50 times (including the passage under discussion). This accusative functions here as an object of the main verb "be" along with a long list of other accusative nouns and participles. Stated simply, the clause is "Therefore . . . an elder must be . . . a man . . ." The words "one woman" modify "man" to explain what kind, or to qualify the noun by attributing to him this character, Robertson adds that the genitive of quality (also called attributive genitive). "expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness." He also points out that usually the genitive follows the limiting substantive, "but the genitive comes first if it is emphatic," is the case here. Since the other qualification in 1 Timothy 3 deal with the man's character and since the grammatical structure is more naturally consistent with this emphasis, it seems best to understand the phrase as meaning that he is a one-woman type of man.</ref> Paul is referring to the quality of the person, and he goes on to talk about the importance of such qualities in the culture of Crete at that time.

In chapter 2 Paul adds to the qualifications for elders, both male and female. The Greek word here is one from which we get "presbyter". It is the very same word as in chapter one; "presbyters" were to be appointed in every town. So when many translations use "older men" and "older women" here, they are being inconsistent at best. These are the appointees of chapter one, not all elderly people, since age is not a matter of appointment. Similarly, the Greek word typically rendered "young" is one from which we get the prefix "neo" meaning "new", not necessarily "young". So Paul is saying that male and female elders are to train new believers in appropriate doctrine and behavior.

Line 128: Line 128:

=Conclusion=

−

The egalitarian view of women in the church and home seems consistent with proper exegetical methods and does not require heavy reliance upon inference or tradition or translation. The Bible simply doesn't say many of the things claimed for it, especially concerning women. At the very least, there is certainly room for disagreement with male supremacism even in its mildest forms. Jesus came to bring life and freedom from oppression for ~~all-- and~~ that includes women.

+

The egalitarian view of women in the church and home seems consistent with proper exegetical methods and does not require heavy reliance upon inference or tradition or translation. The Bible simply doesn't say many of the things claimed for it, especially concerning women. At the very least, there is certainly room for disagreement with male supremacism even in its mildest forms. Jesus came to bring life and freedom from oppression for all—and that includes women.

==References==

−

~~<small><references/></small>~~

+

[[Category:Bible Study]]

DavidB4-bot

Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt

59,252

edits

Changes

Egalitarian (view source)

Revision as of 11:55, July 13, 2016

Navigation menu

Search