Lol. Good post! I liked how you put “covering” in quotations. The book that turned my thinking upside down was “So who is your covering?” by Frank Viola.

I need to read that book. There is another one called “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that has also been influential in some of the “modern” thought.

You would enjoy the book. It is about the church, but a thoroughly understand of the book changed my understanding of relationships as well. I learned a lot even if I do not agree with everything.

There is a thread on HSA right now (or a couple) where people were saying those who believe women can be elders are deliberately going against the scripture. This is not true. The church I attend now has husband and wife on staff. I do not get the feeling this is due to any inward rebellion against the Holy Spirit.

This is IFB week for me, even though I am not blogging about it. Some people need to study.

Point the guys on HSA to Romans 16:1. Is a “deacon” an elder?

So how would you reconcile Rom. 16:1 with 1 Tim. 3:10-12?

(Verse 10 mentions deacons, and then verse 11 says “their wives”; verse 12 says “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife”.)

Hope I don’t come across in a doubtful or attacking way. I did notice that the same Greek word is used in both places, so my question is an honest one.

Don’t worry, I’m not overly sensitive. Most languages are not gender-neutral. English is fairly unique in that way, but it has still been common to refer to audiences of mixed-gender people as male—even in our own language.

Then someone wants to bring up the arguments about how nature itself proclaims that men are the heads of women and must rule. >_<

Calvin believed that the order of Nuns, which the Catholic church had started, was begun by Paul’s orders in I Timothy 5.

Paul commended a female deacon. III John is written to “the elect lady and her children” (which many think are the Christians who met in her house). Philip’s daughters prophesied, which implies some authority and Paul stayed at his house. Aquila and Priscilla worked as a team to house Christians, to teach them the meaning of prophesy, and more that we have never heard about.

There are plenty of examples of women leading and aiding. I Timothy 3:11 means that the spouse should be on board with the ministry (although I don’t know that they have to operate exactly as Aquila and Priscilla—Peter was married also). Verse 12 was written for a culture that accepted polygamy.

[quote=Chris]Most languages are not gender-neutral. English is fairly unique in that way, but it has still been common to refer to audiences of mixed-gender people as male—even in our own language.

Right, but 1 Timothy’s language doesn’t look to me like one of those generic male references that could be taken as a mixed audience.

[quote=Chris]Calvin believed that the order of Nuns, which the Catholic church had started, was begun by Paul’s orders in I Timothy 5.

Can you point out to me what in that chapter I’m supposed to be noticing?

[quote=Chris]Paul commended a female deacon.

I find it interesting that most Bible versions translate Rom. 16:1 as “servant” while 1 Tim. 3:12 is most often translated as “deacon”. Makes me wonder if the Greek context would necessitate different interpretations for each instance. Also makes me wonder if there was any status-quo motivation for translating the word those ways.

[quote=Chris]II John is written to “the elect lady and her children” (which many think are the Christians who met in her house). Philip’s daughters prophesied, which implies some authority and Paul stayed at his house. Aquila and Priscilla worked as a team to house Christians, to teach them the meaning of prophesy, and more that we have never heard about.

Women certainly can and do play a meaningful role in spreading the Gospel, although that doesn’t imply that they hold any church office.

[quote=Chris]I Timothy 3:11 means that the spouse should be on board with the ministry

The Greek word there for “wives” is explicitly female—not a generic “spouse” term.

[quote=Chris]Verse 12 was written for a culture that accepted polygamy.

Maybe, but that doesn’t explain away what it so plainly says: that deacons are husbands.

Sorry this has taken over a week. I’ve been traveling and haven’t been online so much.

[quote=garrettw]Right, but 1 Timothy’s language doesn’t look to me like one of those generic male references that could be taken as a mixed audience.

The Greek word “diakonos” is literally “servant.” Our word “deacon” is a transliteration from the original language, and I can’t help but think that it is intellectually dishonest to create a special order in the church by picking and choosing when to translate and when to transliterate. More on this in a moment.

[quote=garrettw]Can you point out to me what in that chapter I’m supposed to be noticing?

The women who were taken care of by the church in I Timothy 5 were not allowed to sit around idly. They taught as Paul instructed in his epistle to Titus, or visited the sick, or prayed, etc. They worked for their hire.

[quote=garrettw]I find it interesting that most Bible versions translate Rom. 16:1 as “servant” while 1 Tim. 3:12 is most often translated as “deacon”. Makes me wonder if the Greek context would necessitate different interpretations for each instance. Also makes me wonder if there was any status-quo motivation for translating the word those ways.

The Amplified is the only translation that I have seen which translates Romans 16:1 similarly to I Timothy 3, and it uses “deaconess” which has its own special connotations in some churches (ie. deaconesses can prepare the “Lord’s Supper,” but it must be served by a deacon).

Grammatically speaking, I Timothy 3 is plural and masculine. Romans 16:1 is singular and feminine.

[quote=garrettw]The Greek word there for “wives” is explicitly female—not a generic “spouse” term.

I don’t think there is a generic term for “spouse” in Greek… If you are aware of one, would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

[quote=garrettw]Maybe, but that doesn’t explain away what it so plainly says: that deacons are husbands.

I’ve had that discussion with polygynists. They normally insist that a deacon have at least one wife. It’s an interesting road to go down, but their argument falls flat because of I Timothy 5:9, which is applied to women that the church is caring for. On the other side of the argument is the question: Is a man allowed to be a deacon if he does not have kids?

It is easy to prove that God is the one who opens the womb. What about adopted kids though? There is more leeway in this passage than some would give.

[quote=Chris]The Greek word “diakonos” is literally “servant.” Our word “deacon” is a transliteration from the original language, and I can’t help but think that it is intellectually dishonest to create a special order in the church by picking and choosing when to translate and when to transliterate. More on this in a moment.

That seems to make sense – didn’t think of “deacon” being a mere transliteration.

[quote=Chris]
The women who were taken care of by the church in I Timothy 5 were not allowed to sit around idly. They taught as Paul instructed in his epistle to Titus, or visited the sick, or prayed, etc. They worked for their hire.

Not just “women” – specifically widows.
I assume you’re mainly referring to verses 9 and 10. The KJV, MKJV, ASV/RV, and YLT seem to me to have the best translation of verse 9, using “taken into the number” or “enrolled” for Strong’s G2639 (katalego), which looks very similar to our word catalogue, possibly indicating the word here might also be translated “catalogued”, which would seem to make sense to me.
In any case, this word does not seem to indicate a hiring or a fulfillment of some office.
But not only that, all the qualifications (aside from age) in those two verses specify that they must have been met in the past, i.e. that their being enrolled requires the specified work to already have been done – and not that it will begin or be required to continue, necessarily, upon enrollment.
From the context, I gather that this “enrollment” refers to providing for a widow, be it financially from the church treasury, or in some other aid capacity, when she cannot rely on any relatives for the support she might need.

[quote=Chris]The Amplified is the only translation that I have seen which translates Romans 16:1 similarly to I Timothy 3, and it uses “deaconess” which has its own special connotations in some churches (ie. deaconesses can prepare the “Lord’s Supper,” but it must be served by a deacon).

So in your opinion, is the Amplified Bible more correct in this instance, or what?

[quote=Chris]Grammatically speaking, I Timothy 3 is plural and masculine. Romans 16:1 is singular and feminine.

I was relying on e-Sword’s KJV with Strong’s numbers for my Greek word lookups – and it didn’t show any difference between the two instances. Looks like it probably just goes by a root or masculine or generic form of words.

[quote=Chris]I don’t think there is a generic term for “spouse” in Greek… If you are aware of one, would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

With Google’s help, I’ve found this: σύζυγος / σύζηγος (the first one being, in Latin-ish characters, “sýzygos”).

[quote=Chris]On the other side of the argument is the question: Is a man allowed to be a deacon if he does not have kids?

You’re referring to 1 Tim. 3:12. How can one rule or manage his children well if he has none? Methinks it would be unsafe to say that children aren’t a requirement.

[quote=Chris]What about adopted kids though?

The passage doesn’t seem to specify the source of the children. I take children (here, at least) to mean any under one’s charge, especially since it’s talking about ruling or managing, which could be executed sufficiently no matter where – or rather, who – the child originally came from.

[quote=garrettw]In any case, this word does not seem to indicate a hiring or a fulfillment of some office.

The elderly have value, but that does not mean that they are allowed to sit around idly. Take a look at I Timothy 5:5,6 and 5:17.

[quote=garrettw]But not only that, all the qualifications (aside from age) in those two verses specify that they must have been met in the past

ie. They must have kids (I Timothy 5:10). Sorry, not serious about this one. ^_^

[quote=garrettw]So in your opinion, is the Amplified Bible more correct in this instance, or what?

Whatever the Amplified gains for rendering the word “deaconess” instead of “servant,” it loses in verse 7. They render “Junia” (a woman’s name) as “Junias” (-s signifying a male). To be fair, Tischendorf does use Junias but Westcott-Hort agrees with the TR/Byzantine text on Junia.

[quote=garrettw]I was relying on e-Sword’s KJV with Strong’s numbers for my Greek word lookups – and it didn’t show any difference between the two instances. Looks like it probably just goes by a root or masculine or generic form of words.

The difference is in the emphasis (accent on the alpha vs. omikron) and the addition of a sigma to end the masculine form. Apart from those two changes, the spelling is identical.

It has been a while since I have used e-Sword, but you may check if it supports “Morphological” tags in some way. Those should tell you gender, number, etc.

[quote=garrettw]With Google’s help, I’ve found this: σύζυγος / σύζηγος (the first one being, in Latin-ish characters, “sýzygos”).

I don’t see either one of those spellings in the Koine Greek, at least in what was used for the New Testament. Strong’s doesn’t have any words starting in σύζ-. We need a good Greek dictionary so we can learn when this came into existence.

[quote=garrettw]You’re referring to 1 Tim. 3:12. How can one rule or manage his children well if he has none? Methinks it would be unsafe to say that children aren’t a requirement.

Exactly, but this is the same argument that you are using for how he treats his wife.

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to someone who grew up in Africa. As you may know, polygyny is a common practice there. When “modern” Christian missionaries first began to evangelize the continent, they freaked out and told the converts that they could only keep one wife. The men often picked the youngest, most beautiful wife to keep and kicked the others out. Bad choice. So the missionaries changed tactics and simply declared that the men could not marry more than one woman and that they had to honor their existing marriages. Men began to wait to convert until after they had the number of wives that they desired.

Paul’s solution here is quite brilliant. If the men are married to more than one wife, they are not allowed to be leaders in the church.

Let me ask something. Was Paul married? Could he place restrictions on church leadership that he himself did not live up to?

Just something to chew on.

[quote=Chris]Paul commended a female deacon.

Let’s say for now that Paul commended a female “diakonon” in Romans 16:1 so that no interpretation of the root is implied. Similarly, 1 Tim. 3:8-10,12 gives qualifications for “diakonoi”. If 1 Tim. meant general servants, then only married guys with kids could act as a servant in any way. This obviously doesn’t make sense: we know from other passages that all Christians are to serve others (I’m thinking I don’t have to prove that). Therefore, these “diakonoi” aren’t just servants in the general sense, and are subject to qualifications that general servants aren’t.
In Romans 16:1, “diakonon” taken alone does not conclusively imply one or the other specific meaning (servant or deacon) – but since 1 Tim. does (based on the context, of course), the qualifications there exclude the Rom. 16:1 instance from applying in the same sense.
Another Bible word with 2 possible interpretations is church, or ekklesia, which depending on the context can mean the church universal or a local body.

[quote=Chris]II John is written to “the elect lady and her children” (which many think are the Christians who met in her house).

This is a source of contention among scholars, as I understand it: “Elect lady” could mean the obvious, an actual lady, yet some think it may refer to a church itself; “children” has a similar problem: is it literal human offspring, is it the Christians that met in her house, as you say, or is it some other sort of spiritual beneficiaries? And still, what interpretation of “elect” is correct? As far as I know, there’s no concrete evidence in any direction for this.

[quote=Chris]Philip’s daughters prophesied, which implies some authority and Paul stayed at his house.

Philip’s daughters prophesying doesn’t imply any authority of those daughters themselves, but merely the presence of a spiritual gift – though the words spoken from this gift would implicitly have authority, not because of who they are spoken by, but because of the source of the words/thoughts/ideas themselves (the Holy Spirit).
Notice in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 how women are not permitted to speak in the assembly. The context there is regulation of spiritual gifts – prophesying in particular. So even though their words of prophesy might have some authority, they still can’t speak them in the assembly. They can’t speak, “but should be in submission” – sounds like a lack of sufficient authority to me. These verses, however, only regulate activity in the context of the church setting.

[quote=Chris]Aquila and Priscilla worked as a team to house Christians,

This is outside the assembly, so I don’t think it’s really pertinent. But…
Aquila and Priscilla housed Christians? The only instance I can find is that they took Apollos “unto them” (Acts 18:26), which could mean they took him aside, or took him into their house; either way, it seems they took him out of the assembly context, so I don’t see how this would apply either.
[quote=Chris]to teach them the meaning of prophesy,

I don’t see this anywhere.
[quote=Chris]and more that we have never heard about.

... which clearly has no place in an argument of Biblical facts.

[quote=Chris]I Timothy 3:11 means that the spouse should be on board with the ministry

“on board with the ministry”? I don’t see that idea in that verse. If you’re referring to “faithful in all things”, the Greek word for “faithful” seems to mean believing, trustworthy, or truthful; “in all things” seems to mean in total, or completely. So I suppose that phrase’s meaning could include being “on board with the ministry”, but I don’t get the impression that’s what he’s getting at, given the context of the rest of that verse. The Good News Bible (which I generally do not recommend) has an interesting rendering of it: “Their wives also must be of good character and must not gossip; they must be sober and honest in everything.” To me that seems to be a reasonable way to understand the verse.

[quote=Chris]Verse 12 was written for a culture that accepted polygamy.

Interesting, then, that this guy thinks otherwise (scroll down 3/4 of the page to the bolded point #1).

[quote=Chris]The women who were taken care of by the church in I Timothy 5 were not allowed to sit around idly. They taught as Paul instructed in his epistle to Titus, or visited the sick, or prayed, etc. They worked for their hire.

A couple more things to add on this: women at the time were still treated as second-class citizens, so a widow would not be able to do certain things to provide for herself, even if she were able. Thus, provisions were made for the church to take care of their needs on an ongoing basis. (Full disclosure: that info came from my dad.)
And since that passage is talking about widows’ qualifications, you might say more accurately that they “were not allowed to [s]sit[/s]have sat around idly”. Really, all Christians are not supposed to “sit around idly”, present tense – and if a widow is still able to be an active Christian, then by all means, she should do what she can, but that’s not what 1 Tim. 5 is addressing.

[quote=Chris]The elderly have value, but that does not mean that they are allowed to sit around idly. Take a look at I Timothy 5:5,6 and 5:17.

Certainly – but again, those verses talk about things all Christians should be doing in that general servant capacity. My point was that the “enrollment” mentioned there, taking verses 9 and 10 only literally, isn’t talking about any new or current ongoing required activity as would be implied by your usage of the word “hire” to describe widows’ financial support. At the same time, if a widow is still physically able but decides to “sit around idly” once she is “enrolled”, I’d say that might disqualify her from “a reputation of good works”.
Anyway, I dare say the scenario of an able-bodied widow needing to rely on church support doesn’t present itself all that often these days.

[quote=Chris]ie. They must have kids (I Timothy 5:10). Sorry, not serious about this one. ^_^

Actually, all the versions I have in my e-Sword render it in the past tense, like “if she has brought up children” or “raised children”. But yeah, that basically means the same as having kids.

[quote=Chris]Whatever the Amplified gains for rendering the word “deaconess” instead of “servant,” it loses in verse 7.

Uh, ok. I should have made my intent more clear in my question. I was unsure why you said you only knew of a single version that translates Rom. 16:1 and 1 Tim. 3:12 similarly, because that would seem to prove my point.
In addition to the version you mentioned, I have here “God’s Word” which translates the Romans verse with “deacon”, and then the frequently-inaccurate (IMO) Contemporary English Version which uses “leader”. Then there are the Douay-Rheims Bible (“in the ministry”) and Young’s Literal Translation (“a ministrant”) which are renderings that I think could go both ways.

[quote=Chris]It has been a while since I have used e-Sword, but you may check if it supports “Morphological” tags in some way. Those should tell you gender, number, etc.

Not in the Strong’s references, but the Byzantine and Westcott-Hort NTs (which I just downloaded before I wrote this post) do contain morphological tags right next to the Strong’s numbers throughout the text.

[quote=Chris]I don’t see either one of those spellings in the Koine Greek, at least in what was used for the New Testament. Strong’s doesn’t have any words starting in σύζ-. We need a good Greek dictionary so we can learn when this came into existence.

Yeah, good idea. (I love being able to see those Greek characters in all their original glory; I’m so glad all these modern Microsoft fonts have a full complement of non-Latin characters!)

[quote=Chris]Exactly, but this is the same argument that you are using for how he treats his wife.

I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.

[quote=Chris]Was Paul married? Could he place restrictions on church leadership that he himself did not live up to?

Sure, he could, because it wasn’t just him, a mere man, placing the restrictions; it was the Holy Spirit through him.
In John 11:49-52, Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die before the Jews had even decided what to do with him. Verse 51 says that prophesy was “not of himself”, or not of his own will or thoughts; its source was divine.
Whether Paul was qualified or not doesn’t pertain to the divine message revealed through him.
Now, I don’t see any other logical answer to the question you posed, so what am I supposed to be chewing on?

[quote=garrettw]Let’s say for now that Paul commended a female “diakonon” in Romans 16:1 so that no interpretation of the root is implied. Similarly, 1 Tim. 3:8-10,12 gives qualifications for “diakonoi”. If 1 Tim. meant general servants, then only married guys with kids could act as a servant in any way. This obviously doesn’t make sense: we know from other passages that all Christians are to serve others (I’m thinking I don’t have to prove that). Therefore, these “diakonoi” aren’t just servants in the general sense, and are subject to qualifications that general servants aren’t.
In Romans 16:1, “diakonon” taken alone does not conclusively imply one or the other specific meaning (servant or deacon) – but since 1 Tim. does (based on the context, of course), the qualifications there exclude the Rom. 16:1 instance from applying in the same sense.
Another Bible word with 2 possible interpretations is church, or ekklesia, which depending on the context can mean the church universal or a local body.

A word can be used to reference a subset of the whole. For instance, I could say “Indians” and mean a local group or all American Indians… Or the people from India, thanks to Columbus for that incongruity. We say that the Marines won a battle, but it wasn’t the entire Marine force. Ekklesia is the same way.

It is a good idea to use multiple words during translation work. There are nuances that will exist in one language and not another. And… I am puzzled about how I messed up the spelling of diakonoi. I know the difference between the iota and sigma. >_<

John 2:9 has the same spelling as I Timothy 3:12, which I would presume is proof of Mary’s authority in the church (kidding).

Seriously though, I do not see a reason for the passage in I Timothy to specifically exclude women. There were women among the group that met to select a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26). In the next chapter, there is nothing to indicate that the men spoke while the women stayed out of the way. In fact, Peter quotes Joel that the men and women would prophesy. He said that was what was going on (publicly).

Given the precedent, when there are other possible explanations, I have a hard time accepting that women are to be so limited in the church.

[quote=garrettw]This is a source of contention among scholars, as I understand it: “Elect lady” could mean the obvious, an actual lady, yet some think it may refer to a church itself; “children” has a similar problem: is it literal human offspring, is it the Christians that met in her house, as you say, or is it some other sort of spiritual beneficiaries? And still, what interpretation of “elect” is correct? As far as I know, there’s no concrete evidence in any direction for this.

Granted, there is much argument about the address. 2 John 4 does not make much sense if this is to the church at large though. Would you take the third epistle in the same way, I wonder? “Gaius” means an “earthly lord” (paraphrase of Hitchcock).

[quote=garrettw]Philip’s daughters prophesying doesn’t imply any authority of those daughters themselves, but merely the presence of a spiritual gift – though the words spoken from this gift would implicitly have authority, not because of who they are spoken by, but because of the source of the words/thoughts/ideas themselves (the Holy Spirit).

If women have the ability for the Holy Spirit to speak through them, why doesn’t the Holy Spirit have voice in the common meeting of Christians?

[quote=garrettw]Notice in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 how women are not permitted to speak in the assembly. The context there is regulation of spiritual gifts – prophesying in particular. So even though their words of prophesy might have some authority, they still can’t speak them in the assembly. They can’t speak, “but should be in submission” – sounds like a lack of sufficient authority to me. These verses, however, only regulate activity in the context of the church setting.

I Corinthians 14 is an interesting passage concerning women in the church. I have done a lot of reading on it and have yet to find what law prohibited the women from speaking in a public assembly. Hint: it is not Genesis 3.

Also, the words for “keep silence” are not the same as the ones used in I Timothy 2:12. The root word used in I Corinthians 14 is generally translated along the lines of “and they held their peace” (ie. Acts 15:12&13;).

The word for “silence” used in I Timothy 2:12 is also found in places like II Thessalonians 3:12, where it is applied to men (busybody in v. 11 is masculine).

[quote=garrettw]Aquila and Priscilla housed Christians?

Paul stayed with them. I’m not trying to claim that they ran a hotel.

[quote=garrettw][quote=Chris]to teach them the meaning of prophesy,

I don’t see this anywhere.

Acts 18:25,26. Apollos had only been familiar with John’s baptism, but expounded mightily on the Scriptures. He would have compared the prophesies about Jesus.

[quote=garrettw][quote=Chris]and more that we have never heard about.

... which clearly has no place in an argument of Biblical facts.

Paul kept saluting them. He also saluted the church that met at their house (I Corinthians 16:19). There is plenty of Biblical evidence for their work, though the works themselves were unnamed. There are also extrabiblical accounts that they were killed by Nero as Paul was.

[quote=garrettw]“on board with the ministry”?

You’re right, I should know better than to use that phrase. All that I meant by it was that the spouse is not working against Christ.

[quote=garrettw]Interesting, then, that this guy thinks otherwise (scroll down 3/4 of the page to the bolded point #1).

The explanations for the first and second points are weak. He fails to explain why a divorced/remarried person is not the “husband of one wife.” The consummation of marriage is until death, ala. Mark 10:5-12. Or go read the story of Jacob and Leah. Notice that Jesus said “the two shall become one flesh… let not man put [them] asunder.” #3 could be taken in any direction that the expounder wants. If you want examples, let me know.

[quote=garrettw]A couple more things to add on this: women at the time were still treated as second-class citizens, so a widow would not be able to do certain things to provide for herself, even if she were able. Thus, provisions were made for the church to take care of their needs on an ongoing basis. (Full disclosure: that info came from my dad.)

Your dad is right.

[quote=garrettw]And since that passage is talking about widows’ qualifications, you might say more accurately that they “were not allowed to [s]sit[/s]have sat around idly”. Really, all Christians are not supposed to “sit around idly”, present tense – and if a widow is still able to be an active Christian, then by all means, she should do what she can, but that’s not what 1 Tim. 5 is addressing.

Good points, but verse 5 is in the present tense. I’m not saying they have to press beyond what they are able, but these women are still a part of the church. The time that they have from not worrying about survival can be spent on other things.

[quote=garrettw]Uh, ok. I should have made my intent more clear in my question. I was unsure why you said you only knew of a single version that translates Rom. 16:1 and 1 Tim. 3:12 similarly, because that would seem to prove my point.
In addition to the version you mentioned, I have here “God’s Word” which translates the Romans verse with “deacon”, and then the frequently-inaccurate (IMO) Contemporary English Version which uses “leader”. Then there are the Douay-Rheims Bible (“in the ministry”) and Young’s Literal Translation (“a ministrant”) which are renderings that I think could go both ways.

Of the physical translations that I have, The Amplfied was the only one that had anything close to “deacon.” It is great for study most of the time. “In the ministry” or “ministrant” are what is generally used in other places where Paul wrote diakonos variants.

[quote=garrettw]Yeah, good idea. (I love being able to see those Greek characters in all their original glory; I’m so glad all these modern Microsoft fonts have a full complement of non-Latin characters!)

Indeed. I need to figure out how to make my Android display Greek.

[quote=garrettw][quote=Chris]Was Paul married? Could he place restrictions on church leadership that he himself did not live up to?

Sure, he could, because it wasn’t just him, a mere man, placing the restrictions; it was the Holy Spirit through him.
In John 11:49-52, Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die before the Jews had even decided what to do with him. Verse 51 says that prophesy was “not of himself”, or not of his own will or thoughts; its source was divine.
Whether Paul was qualified or not doesn’t pertain to the divine message revealed through him.

Luke called the people who questioned Paul “noble” (Acts 17:11). I have yet to find Scriptures to support this treatment of women on a widespread scale.

Woman, Thou Art Loosed is a great book! You could also check out “Does God Really Prefer Men?” By Gary and Leslie Johnson, “Man of Her Dreams, the Woman of His” by Joel and Kathy Davisson and “The Christian Woman…Set Free” by Gene Edwards. If the patriarchy movement interests you, I would recommend “Quivering Daughters” by Hillary Mcfarland and “Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement” by Kathryn Joyce. All of these books were written by Christians, with the exception of the last one.

Gene Edward’s book has my interest, as I have read A Tale of Three Kings and was impressed. I do read Hillary’s blog sometimes as well. Thanks for the list! I will add it to mine.

Gene Edward’s book is good… it delves deep into the origins of the translations, how the greek view of women has influenced the western world’s view of women… the definite bias many of the most influential men of faith in history had against women, and how this affected how the Bible has been translated. It is very informative of where the double standard we see (at least I see) today came from.

... is something I have read a little bit on while trying to understand this myself. It is quite different than the way most of us perceive things today.

[quote=Chris]... is something I have read a little bit on while trying to understand this myself. It is quite different than the way most of us perceive things today.

what is the Greek view of women?

*Laughs* Anyone who is squeamish ought to skip this comment. The Greek view of women is that they are passive/receivers, while men are active/penetrating.

This is why 1st Corinthians 6:9 mentions “effeminate” and “sodomites” in its original Greek, while newer translations begin to consolidate according to the way that we view homosexuality today (“The Message” butchers it horribly, but that is expected). “Effeminate” covers men who are penetrated. “Sodomite” (KJV: “abusers of themselves with mankind”) would be those who penetrate other men.

This is the beginning of their understanding.

oh, sheesh, I would have to ask *blushes* lol

Ok, thanks ...I think…

It’s alright. I’m sure others have wondered as well.

I was seriously thinking that it would be about submission or roles of the woman, or their place in society.Something like that. lol

... but the basic presumption that underlies it went so much deeper. The Greeks were philosophers to such an extent that their language was defined by this and similar ideas.

Chris,

I ran across this post from the link you left to it on another blog.

I’m not really sure where to start. While I agree with your arguments in some areas of this post, in others you have taken points way out of the place that people meant them to be, your first point for instance.

A few days ago I released my own post on what the Bible says on courtship. I’d be glad if you read that, as what I point out there is what I believe the Bible teaches as the real basis of courtship.
                    In Christ,
                        Nicolas Rovirosa

Hey Nicolas, the blog post that you are referencing looks like it was posted last Sunday? I’ll make it a point to read that tomorrow evening. There are lots of perspectives in courtship circles (almost every family I talk to, or hear of, has their own expectations), but I’d like to see where you are coming from.

In the mean time, I have a 10 sermon (DVD) collection called “Courtship / Betrothal Series” by S. M. Davis on my shelf. He is very influential in Independent Fundamental Baptist circles and holds to the belief about Adam named above.

Not all teachers believe that the young man will know he should pursue a girl. Some do claim that his parents (or even pastor) should be the one to tell him.

dang, you people have had all the fun without me. why can’t I get notifications sent to my email?

You can. Create an account.

And… he didn’t approve my comment, but there appears to be another blog post about courtship so I’ll read it tomorrow. I was given another courtship pamphlet that I’ll probably be blogging about as well. Specific is less arguable than general.

Oh…so S.M. Davis has a DVD set on Courtship. I didn’t know that. So that’s where a lot of people are getting there ideas from. hmmm.

sheesh, let me try this again

Add a question mark after courtship

*their instead of there

Yeah, I’ve got about 30 of S.M. Davis’ sermons on DVD. He is entertaining to listen to, but I question some of the doctrines. Then again, you know me. :D

lol, yes, I know you that’s why I really enjoy you & our friendship & enjoy talking to you about things.

We have some of Davis sermons on vhs (back way before dvds were even thought of O_O) and they were convicting & I liked them at the time & tried to follow his teaching. I have since come to realize that we can’t follow a formula to prevent sin or even to avoid trouble. Not that i’m opposed to everything that is being taught. We just need to be seeking God and answers through prayer and be willing to follow God rather than man even if it isn’t the norm for that year

If formulas work, why did Mr. Davis send his daughter to Hephzibah House? He makes some great observations, but the claim that x, y and z will produce a perfect child… are a little off.

Oh, and thanks. I have enjoyed talking to you as well. Common sense is nice to hear.

As I’ve never forgotten about our exchange here, I was rather excited to learn of a new website that is built to serve as a debate platform. For a long time I wanted to build something similar myself, but I never got around to it.

So when I found out about Kialo (.com), I was immediately eager to transfer the points of our discussion to there in order to invite more participation and garner more viewpoints.
Now that I have done so, I would like to invite you (or anyone else) to participate if you like.

Here is the invite link to join the discussion as a “writer”: https://www.kialo.com/invited?token=005-41002eca-8e3b-4fa5-8b47-8340d25babf5

And here is the general link to the discussion itself: https://www.kialo.com/does-the-bible-allow-women-to-hold-the-church-office-of-deacon-9025