[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Rach

Alright so since in 1 Tim. 3 it refers to elders/overseers as "a husband of one wife", "He must manage his own household well" as well as refering to them as "he" and so forth, wouldn't that indicate that any postion of elder/overseer is to be held by a man only?

Ah, that makes sense. Though my last year's New Testament teacher would have flunked me for saying that.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Rach

Alright so since in 1 Tim. 3 it refers to elders/overseers as "a husband of one wife", "He must manage his own household well" as well as refering to them as "he" and so forth, wouldn't that indicate that any postion of elder/overseer is to be held by a man only?

This is significant evidence in favor of the view of male-only headship in the Church. I suppose that if we had significant evidence to the contrary, the assumption of masculinity in "a husband of one wife" and 'he' could be ignored, instead taking it to refer to proper fidelity, which a woman can also exhibit. The Scripture often gives commands to one gender that should be generalized to the other (e.g., "everyone who looks at a woman lustfully...").

However, you mention another factor from the context, and I think it is very important: "he must manage his own household well." Paul is very clear that the man is the head (1 Cor 11:3, 9). It is interesting that Paul elaborates by saying that "he must manage his own household well" entails that he must be "keeping his children submissive," for he places the father primarily in view with respect to the proper discipline of children in Eph 6:4. That is to say, because Paul makes proper headship of the household a requirement of being an elder, and that implies that only men are supposed to be elders.

But, even this evidence might be controverted in the fact of supreme evidence to the contrary. After all, perhaps Paul just wants to show us the general principle that elders are supposed to properly fulfill their roles. Both men and women can properly fulfill their roles, so, under Paul's restrictions, women could still be elders if they properly fulfill their role. Yet, we must examine the context. One major theme in this epistle is the return of men and women to their proper gender roles. Note the immediately preceding text:

1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In v. 14, Paul obviously isn't making the elementary mistake of thinking that Adam didn't eat the fruit also. What he means is that Adam wasn't the one directly deceived by the serpent. Eve was deceived, and then she brought Adam into sin along with her. Adam was ultimately deceived into sinning, but Eve was immediately deceived by the serpent.

More specifically, we must relate this to vv. 12-13, which discuss the roles of men and women in relation to teaching authority. In light of that, some would see Paul's argument in v. 14 in the following way: Women are inherently stupid, and get deceived, so they'd better not teach or lead. However, this ignores Paul's response to the problem in v. 15: she should turn to childbearing, instead. The point here is not that the woman is stupid and useful for nothing but childbearing. After all, he just said that women should actually be learning in v. 11. He clearly doesn't think they should be removed from all intellectual activity.

Instead, childbearing is an example of the woman's proper role: Women should replace the deception of v. 14 with the proper role of childbearing found in v. 15. The deception in v. 14, then, is one of role: The woman was deceived in that she placed herself in the wrong role in relation to Adam! This follows with the curse God gave at the Fall: Restoring the proper order, God said that Eve would be submitted to her husband (Gen 3:16), and Adam should not have let his wife lead (Gen 3:17). V. 13 of our text says that Adam was to lead because he was created first, Eve being created for him. V. 14 reinforces this, saying that Eve was wrong to usurp Adam's position of leadership. That is to say, from both Creation and God's curse after the Fall, Paul shows us that the man is supposed to lead the woman in the family.

Paul takes this to have bearing over order in the Church: As men lead in their individual families, so men must lead in the family of God. This he emphatically asserts in v. 12. Now we see the relevance of all the discussion you noted in chapter 3: Men must be good leaders in their own households if they are going to be good leaders in the household of the faith! So, when Paul says that an elder must be the husband of one wife, manage his household well, and so on, he thereby restricts the office of elder to men, "for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" (1 Tim 3:5) Thus, men are to elders because they are to be the heads of the household. Allowing women to be elders reverses the created order of male headship in the household.

[+Donny]

Instead, childbearing is an example of the woman's proper role: Women should replace the deception of v. 14 with the proper role of childbearing found in v. 15. The deception in v. 14, then, is one of role: The woman was deceived in that she placed herself in the wrong role in relation to Adam! This follows with the curse God gave at the Fall: Restoring the proper order, God said that Eve would be submitted to her husband (Gen 3:16), and Adam should not have let his wife lead (Gen 3:17). V. 13 of our text says that Adam was to lead because he was created first, Eve being created for him. V. 14 reinforces this, saying that Eve was wrong to usurp Adam's position of leadership. That is to say, from both Creation and God's curse after the Fall, Paul shows us that the man is supposed to lead the woman in the family.

One thing I found that was interesting about this passage in Jeffrey Meyers' critique of Mary Pride's The Way Home (about birth control), is that, according to Meyers, it refers specifically to the Messianic Seed. I can't remember the argument in full, but he claimed that the Greek, rendered "yet she will be saved through childbearing", is best reading "the childbirth", and that the reference to the woman is singular here, whereas it is plural in the latter half of the verse. He was trying to claim that the fulfillment of the protoevangelium brought salvation to women. Though they were deceived, and thus helped to bring sin into the world, in obedience, she (Mary, who can be seen as an anti-type of Eve), brought forth the savior, the Second Adam.


Of course, that was in response to Mary Pride's use of this verse to prove that all women should seek to have tons of children, but that is another issue.

[Chrysostom]

That's a view that's been suggested by a number of people, but it doesn't seem to fit with the flow of the passage. Why have "the childbearing" as Mary's bearing of Christ, in context? It makes more sense to have childbearing opposite of usurping authority.

[Link H]

to understand this issue, we need to realize that the terminology many churches use is downright confusing and causes many people to misunderstand the word of God.

The elders of the New Testaments are the ones specifically entrusted to PASTOR the church. If someone is gifted as a pastor, but he is not an elder/overseer of the church, he isn't an official leader. (I believe Ephesians 4:11 pastors may include people who aren't officially in leadership but are gifted to lead and teach people, and certainly includes elders who pastor and teach.)

Nowhere do the apostles put 'pastors' per se in charge of chruches. rather they appointed 'elders.'

The elders they appointed were:
1. Older men. (I Peter 5:5, I Timothy 5:1, 17.)
2. PASTORS (I Peter 5:1-5, Acts 20:28. The Greek verb for 'pastor'/'tend sheep' is translated as feed or tend.)
2. Overseers/episcopos/bishops (Acts 20:28, Titus 1.)

These older men had to be men. How could a woman be the husband of one wife?

An elder of the church should first show his ability to 'pastor' by leading his own family well. Only after that should he be entrusted with leading the household of faith. Men are to be the heads of households.

The New Testament never introduces elders, telling about the apostles appointing them. Probably this is because the people back then knew what elders were. There were elders in the Old Testament. These elders were leaders of clans and tribes of Israel. A tribe is made up of clans, which is made up of extended families. Extended families in a patriarchical society like Israel are usually led by the odler men in the clan, the grandpa's and great uncles in the extended family. Out of a group of families that make up a clan, certain older men are the elders of the clan. In a tribe made up of clan, certain older men may be the elders of the tribe. Israel had tribal elders, and Moses called together 70 of them, known to be the elders of the people. Later, in cities, older men would serve as elders at the gates. These were older men. New Testament eldership is not something new. It carries over from the Old Testament. Now, instead of having physical family heads as elders, we should have our 'spirtiual family' leaders as elders, older men who have a spiritual fatherly toward the saints in the assembly.

Elders carried over from the Old Testament elders correspond to Old Testament elders, not to the Levitical and Aaronic priests. Ironically the word 'priest' in English comes from the Greek word for elder, but has changted in meaning. Historically, Christians called their church leaders 'priests' which means 'elders. But since the word 'priest' changed in meaning to refer to Old Testament priests, a lot of protestants opted for the word 'pastor' after the REformation.

Elders are to be 'apt to teach' and some will especially devote themselves to preaching and teaching. But other people in the church should be free to use their gifts as well, including teachers, prophets, and those with the gift of exhortation. The New Testament commands for chruch meeting sin I Corinthians 14 show us how to take turns speaking in church in an edifying manner. Not every teacher or evangelist has to be qualified to be an elder (e.g. he may not have enough life experience to rove his ability to rule his household yet.)

The modern separation between the professional pastor and the non-pastoral committe member elders is not Biblical. this disctinction is a historical accident of the Reformation.

Calvin and the Genevans considered their 'pastors' to be Biblical elders. They had another kind of elder which they took from models of how Christian communities in North Africa in the 300's and other places organized themselves. Since they wanted a theocracy that wasn't completely ruled by church clergy, Geneva set up civic community elders, who weren't considered to be ordained ministers. They also had ministers they considered to be Biblical elders. Since church and state were intertwined, communit elders became important in their church affairs, and so an 'unordained elder' became a part of this model of their church structure. They took over certain responsibilities Anglicans and Roman Catholics usually give to deacons.

The Scottish Presbyterians imitated the Genevans, but considered their pastors to be 'elders' Biblically, at first. But since the same word 'elder' was used, eventually, their doctrine changed.

What we ended up with was an unbiblical kind of 'elder'-- one that doesn't pastors, who sits on committees and isnt' considered to be a minister of the Gospel. (Some Reformed churches do now ordain elders, but have professional ministers as well. And some 'lay elders' do pastoral ministry. There are thousands of variations of this.)

We also ended up with an unbiblical office of church leadership office known as the 'pastor.' Some pastors are Biblical elders and really pastor. But there are a lot of things that are unbiblical or at most quasi-Biblical about the pastoral system.

1. Pastors are often 'hired guns' who work in one place then another.

Biblical elders were appointed _from within their own assembly._ Paul encouraged them to work to support themselves (Acts 20) but also encouraged that they be conmpensated in proportion to their labor in the Gospel (I Timothy 5:17-18.)

2. People can be 'pastors' if they have a degree:

even if they don't rule their houses well, keep their children in line, or live up to other Biblical qualifications-- even if they are not 'older men.'

3. People can be 'pastors' if they claim a call to preach.

In some traditions, church eladership is considered to be a matter of having a 'call to preach.' Not everyone called to preach fits the qualifications for being a church overseer. Not everyone who can be a church overseer will be a dynamic evangelistic preacher. The qualification is that he be 'apt to teach'. Teaching can be done in short speeches, conversation, through a catechal method (i.e. by questioning students), or through sermons.

There is a lament in the book of Isaiah to this efect: Children rule over them and women are their leaders... something along those lines. Isn't this similar to the case in many churches today? Many churches have physically and spiritually young 'overseers' ruling over their physical and spiritual elders. The young leaders claim to have a call or have theological education.

By the way, 'elderesses' or 'older women' have an important role to play in the church today. for examlpe, Paul says that the older women should teach the young. It's just that 'elderesses' aren't to be church overseers, in a role to exercise authority over the men.

I think the problem is the clergy-laity mindset. We need to realize that every believer has a gift, and we should all be free to use it. Our church meetings should follow Biblical guidelines and allow non-elders to minister to the congregation as we take turns using our gifts to edify the body. Some people think that only elders/"pastors"/overseers/"clergymen" should be allowed to minister the word or do anything 'important' in the church. Ratehr than trying to make everyone elders, we should return to Biblical standards for eldership, and recognize the importance of body ministry.

[Link H]

I just noticed something in verse, I Timothy 2:15,

"...SHE shall be saved through childbearing, if THEY continue in faith and charity and holiness and sobriety."

Apparently 'she' is Eve and 'they' are women. I believe this is a reference to the Seed of the woman prophecy, though childbearing as an example of a woman's role as opposed to usurping authority may be one thing Paul is hinting at here.

But what really stood out here is the issue of whether one has to live as a Christian to be saved after coming to faith. Some people think you can confess your faith, say a prayer, and live like the Devil and still be saved. Here Paul says 'she' will be saved through childbearing IF they continue in faith, charity and holiness and sobriety. So these qualities are needed for women who want to continue in salvation. (This particular verse is about women. All Christians are required to have these traits. Also, salvation in scritpure is a broader concept than just 'getting saved' as the term is used today.)

[+Donny]

That's a view that's been suggested by a number of people, but it doesn't seem to fit with the flow of the passage. Why have "the childbearing" as Mary's bearing of Christ, in context? It makes more sense to have childbearing opposite of usurping authority.

1)How is a woman "saved" through childbearing?
2)Why does Paul switch from singular to plural in v. 15 when talking about the woman/women?
3)Would not just generic "childbearing" be a different noun form than "the childbirth"? I haven't yet studied enough Greek to know.
4)I don't see how it goes against the flow of the passage. Though Eve was deceived and fell into transgression, there is a way out for her. In the curse, God gave the protoevangelium, which spoke of the way her error would be repaired, not through generic childbearing, but through the birth of the one Messianic Seed.
5)How does just generic childbearing fit the flow of the passage? I don't see how childbearing can be in opposition to rebelliousness.

[Jay42]

How is a woman "saved" through childbearing?

This tends to be interpreted as a statement not about salvation (as in soteria) but more about how God will protect and deliver all those Christian women who are truly following Him, including through the scary proposition of childbirth.

As a side note: my own views on female leadership fall on the liberal side of things, and I'm still working through it. I'm not so sure what Paul structured with his churches with Timothy was meant to be never-ending commands to the church universal. I understand why one would find this view flawed and unbiblical. I just hope no one in that critic's congregation wears jewelry or beads.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Link H

The modern separation between the professional pastor and the non-pastoral committe member elders is not Biblical. this disctinction is a historical accident of the Reformation.

I don't see where you argued for this.

Originally Posted by Link_H

(Some Reformed churches do now ordain elders, but have professional ministers as well. And some 'lay elders' do pastoral ministry. There are thousands of variations of this.)

We distinguish between teaching and ruling elders. Thus, senior pastors are still elders.

Originally Posted by Link_H

Apparently 'she' is Eve and 'they' are women. I believe this is a reference to the Seed of the woman prophecy, though childbearing as an example of a woman's role as opposed to usurping authority may be one thing Paul is hinting at here.

Then only Eve would be saved here, not the women. Paul has in mind the salvation of the women in view.

Originally Posted by +Donny

1)How is a woman "saved" through childbearing?

Because it's representative of her proper role; she's saved from the error of usurping authority if she turns to her proper role. Calvin comments,

"If this passage be tortured, as Papists are wont to do, to support the righteousness of works, the answer is easy. The Apostle does not argue here about the cause of salvation, and therefore we cannot and must not infer from these words what works deserve; but they only shew in what way God conducts us to salvation, to which he has appointed us through his grace."

Originally Posted by +Donny

2)Why does Paul switch from singular to plural in v. 15 when talking about the woman/women?

One representative of many.

Originally Posted by +Donny

3)Would not just generic "childbearing" be a different noun form than "the childbirth"? I haven't yet studied enough Greek to know.

No. Both are "the childbearing." Greek's use of the definite article (our 'the') isn't nearly as restricted as English's.

Originally Posted by +Donny

4)I don't see how it goes against the flow of the passage. Though Eve was deceived and fell into transgression, there is a way out for her. In the curse, God gave the protoevangelium, which spoke of the way her error would be repaired, not through generic childbearing, but through the birth of the one Messianic Seed.

The passage is talking about the women, and uses Eve only as an example. Introducing some complex talk about the birth of Christ is a tangent -- why go down it, especially considering as how Paul doesn't expand on it? Perhaps God's response to Eve of the pain of childbearing is partially in view, but this only as it relates to the position of the women. If Paul had suddenly started on a big point about salvation, he would have continued down it (for a bit, at least), instead of continuing to talk about the proper role of women (end of v. 15) and then authority in the Church (ch. 3).

Originally Posted by +Donny

5)How does just generic childbearing fit the flow of the passage? I don't see how childbearing can be in opposition to rebelliousness.

They're trying to steal the man's role; instead, they should return to their roles. Childbearing is just representative of the role of women here. It's probably mentioned because of its relation to God's curse on Eve.

Originally Posted by Jay42

I'm not so sure what Paul structured with his churches with Timothy was meant to be never-ending commands to the church universal.

The problem I have with this is that Paul grounds his command for male headship in the Church on universal premises: Creation, Adam and Eve, male headship in the family. These are things that hold true for all time.

Originally Posted by Jay42

I just hope no one in that critic's congregation wears jewelry or beads.

They are opposite "respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control," meaning that jewelry and beads are here just representative of straying from appropriate feminine behavior into the mindset of an idolater or seductress.

[Link H]

Link H said:
>The modern separation between the professional pastor and the non-pastoral committe member elders is not Biblical. this disctinction is a historical accident of the Reformation. <

>Must be nothing responded,<
>>I don't see where you argued for this.<<

This is clear from looking at scripture and history. I presented a summary fo some of the history in my last post. I had an article from a scholarly journal written by a Presbyterian scholar at one point. I'm not sure if I have it on CD ROM or if I'll have to try to find it on the Internet. The apostles appointed elders from within the congregations that grew up when they preached the word and baptized. There is no class of seminary educated men being hired in one location, and then changing jobs and moving to another found in the New Testament. There is no position of 'senior pastor' over the elders of a local congregation in the New Testament. (There is a Chief Pastor, the Lord Himself.)

The Bible doesn't teach us to have non-pastoral elders either. The elders fo the church are commanded to pastor the church of God. I Peter 5 and Acts 20.


Mutbenothing wrote,
>We distinguish between teaching and ruling elders. Thus, senior pastors are still elders.<

But the Bible makes no such distinction. All elders are to be apt to teach. All overseers of the church are to 'rule' ('stand before') the church. Some will devote themselves to teaching more than others, but there is no separate office of teaching elder in scripture.

Link_H said:
Apparently 'she' is Eve and 'they' are women. I believe this is a reference to the Seed of the woman prophecy, though childbearing as an example of a woman's role as opposed to usurping authority may be one thing Paul is hinting at here.

Mustbenothing replied
>Then only Eve would be saved here, not the women. Paul has in mind the salvation of the women in view.<

I don't se how this follows from the passage and what we have discussed so far. Paul is identifying men with Adam and women with Eve in this passage.

I dont see this as an attack of grace either. God works in the saints to will and to do that which is good. Jesus predicted that He would reject workers of iniquity who called him "Lord, Lord.."

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Previously, I

>>I don't see where you argued for this.<<

Originally Posted by Link H

This is clear from looking at scripture and history. I presented a summary fo some of the history in my last post. I had an article from a scholarly journal written by a Presbyterian scholar at one point. I'm not sure if I have it on CD ROM or if I'll have to try to find it on the Internet. The apostles appointed elders from within the congregations that grew up when they preached the word and baptized. There is no class of seminary educated men being hired in one location, and then changing jobs and moving to another found in the New Testament. There is no position of 'senior pastor' over the elders of a local congregation in the New Testament. (There is a Chief Pastor, the Lord Himself.)

The Bible doesn't teach us to have non-pastoral elders either. The elders fo the church are commanded to pastor the church of God. I Peter 5 and Acts 20.

The distinction (between minister/teaching elder and ruling elder) is traditionally argued through these texts (though Hodge and those following his argument go from the general principle of rule from the people), which make a distinction between the teachers and rulers:

Romans 12:6-8
6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;
7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching;
8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

1 Timothy 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Background:

2 Chronicles 19:8
Moreover, in Jerusalem Jehoshaphat appointed certain Levites and priests and heads of families of Israel, to give judgment for the Lord and to decide disputed cases. They had their seat at Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

>Then only Eve would be saved here, not the women. Paul has in mind the salvation of the women in view.<

Originally Posted by Link_H

I don't se how this follows from the passage and what we have discussed so far.

I'm to be contrasted with the view that Paul has in mind specifically Eve, and not women generally.

Originally Posted by Link_H

Paul is identifying men with Adam and women with Eve in this passage.

He's drawing conclusions from Adam and Eve to men and women. It's not an actual identification, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Link_H

I dont see this as an attack of grace either. God works in the saints to will and to do that which is good. Jesus predicted that He would reject workers of iniquity who called him "Lord, Lord.."

I'm not sure to what you're responding, here.

[Link H]

According to the presbyterian scholar some of those verses were used to support the idea of civic elders who were not church elders in Geneva-- the 'elders' that evolved into the non-pastoral board elder.

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

Background:
I'm to be contrasted with the view that Paul has in mind specifically Eve, and not women generally.

He's drawing conclusions from Adam and Eve to men and women. It's not an actual identification, as far as I can tell.

"Identification" is a pretty loose term. Could you explaint he difference between drawing conclusing from Adam and Eve and idenfying people with Adam and Eve? This is pretty much the same thing as far as I can see.

Btw, the last quote of mine you referred to is my response to the quote from Calvin.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Link_H

"Identification" is a pretty loose term. Could you explaint he difference between drawing conclusing from Adam and Eve and idenfying people with Adam and Eve? This is pretty much the same thing as far as I can see.

Here is a "rough 'n' ready" description: If two entities are identical, then they share all the same properties. The American President in 2002 is identical to George Bush. John Roberson is identical to mustbenothing. The person to whom I'm responding is identical to you. The author of Hamlet is identical to William Shakespeare.

However, Adam is not identical to all males, and Eve is not identical to all females. They're distinct persons. What was true for Adam and Eve has bearing on all humans, but Adam and Eve are not identical to all humans.

Originally Posted by Link_H

Btw, the last quote of mine you referred to is my response to the quote from Calvin.

Ah, okay.

Originally Posted by Link_H

Btw, the last quote of mine you referred to is my response to the quote from Calvin.

Originally Posted by Link_H

I dont see this as an attack of grace either. God works in the saints to will and to do that which is good. Jesus predicted that He would reject workers of iniquity who called him "Lord, Lord.."

I'm not sure what position you're defending here. Are you suggesting, contra Calvin, that finding justification partly in our works is no challenge to grace, because these works are due to the grace of God? His position can be argued from, for instance,

Romans 11:6
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

[Lightknight]

Just remember, if someone really wanted to be a butt about these verses they could pull on alternet meanings for the word "gune". But I don't think that would stack up.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Just remember, if someone really wanted to be a butt about these verses they could pull on alternet meanings for the word "gune". But I don't think that would stack up.

that would be an argument that would be too weak to attempt!

OK this is really bugging me
{rant]They are not alternate meanings, they are part of the semantic range. meaning like when I speak of a mouse I could mean a furry animal or computer hardware, but when I speak of a mouse at my computer an alternate translation would not equate to a brown furry animal. its not even a possibility; Because a word in context can mean something does not mean it is allowable to use any definition wherever yoou feel like. CONTEXT AND USAGE DTERMINE MEANING [/rant]

there. i have been ornery enough. i will get back to styudying for my greek final.