Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Full Series

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism - I’m still studying but it seems I will hold a, perhaps slightly adjusted, form of what I held before beginning to study, which is Complementarianism – We COMPLEMENT each other – Equal in value, different in roles, strengths, etc.

Male domination vs. Negation of Gender Differences

Complementarians acknowledge and lament the history of abuses of women personally and systemically, And, on the other hand, complementarians lament the feminist and egalitarian impulses that minimize God-given differences between men and women and dismantle the order God has designed for the flourishing of our life together.

The correction of domination isn’t egalitarianism, its complementarianism. The solution is not to take away the MALE, but to take away the DOMINATION, and in its place put things like Sacrifice

Men and Women are good for each other, complement each other, but

1. This is not just, or even primarily, referring to marriage (men and women display the glory of God better than a hypothetical world where only one or the other exists)

2. Is about marriage, but this does not mean that men and women need wives and husbands to be what God intends or to be fully human or to fully enjoy life or to be Blessed

“Not Biblical Husbandry and Wifery”

It will feel like I am talking about marriage a lot here in this series, though I am not really, I am talking about MAN and WOMAN and what is essential to their natures, and marriage is not one of those things, but much of what is said will have the flavor of marriage and some things WILL only apply to marriage, and it is important that it is made clear that marriage isn’t for everyone, and you are not lesser if you are not married or more if you are.

How many times have you heard someone say, “He's such a great guy, how is he still single?” Or, “She's such a catch. When will she get married off?” The implication behind such questions is obvious: great men and women get married, and those who are not married are just in some before-stage of their true purpose. The Bible scoffs at this idea as true of all.

Talking not just to singles, but to marrieds, because one of the big mistakes we make, myself included, is focus our conversations with single people on their prospects for marriage as if that’s the most important thing God is doing with them right now is sending them on a hunt for a husband or wife, and it implies to them that this is the thing that matters most when it is what we are constantly talking about.

Singleness comes in a variety of ways, not married yet, spouse dies, divorce, intention/choice, but I want to speak to all of these types. (Carson and Piper)

1. Marriage is not Anyone’s Final Destiny of Any Human

Mark 12:25 – A widow who loses a husband and whom God gives another will not be a bigamist in Heaven.

You were not created to be married, it is not essential to who and what you are and who and what God intends for you to be, because you won’t be married in heaven, marriage is truly only a very short reality of your eternal existence

(know wife as wife and husband as husband in heaven)

Matt 19:27-30 – So in some sense, the reward very well may be greater in some sense for the one who did not enjoy marriage here

2. Jesus Christ, the most fully human person who ever lived, was not married.

3. Singleness has its Benefits

Paul says he wishes all could enjoy the benefits of ministry that he had as a single man. (Me and Ariel) 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, 32ff

1 Tim 5:8 – Singles don’t have these good, God-glorifying, but large burdens

A single missionary in Kenya, Rhena Taylor wrote, “Being single has meant that I am free to take risks that I might not take were I a mother of a family dependent on me. Being single has given me freedom to move around the world without having to pack up a household first. And this freedom has brought to me moments that I would not trade for anything else this side of eternity”

4. Paul and countless other missionaries Chose Singleness for Christ’s sake

1 Cor 9:5, 15, Matt 19:12

Mary Slessor was a missionary in Calabar, West Africa, and deeply desired a man named Charles Morrison, a missionary on the coast of Africa. They were engaged to be married, but his mission would not allow him to transfer to the interior because of his poor health. She would have to move to him to be married. She said this when asked if she would.

“It is out of the question. I would never take the idea into consideration. I could not leave my work for such a reason. To leave a field like Okoyong without a worker and go to one of ten or a dozen where the people have an open Bible and plenty of privilege! It is absurd. If God does not send him up here then he must do his work and I must do mine where we have been placed.”

This doesn’t just apply to foreign missionaries of course, but single people everywhere who love and are devoted to the Lord.

There are few things more courageous than accepting a call to singleness for God’s glory.

Jesus calls Singleness a GIFT, and not just a talent, but a present by God’s grace! Not JUST a gift like teaching but also a GIFT like children! It is a GIFT to be single, whether permanently, or for a time.

NOT FOR ME RENE! Yes, even for you.

You may be confident that God has marriage in your future and maybe so, but your singleness now is a GIFT and is by God’s GRACE.

5. Christian singleness SHOUTS the SUFFICIENCIES of CHRIST

Christ will sustain you. You have enough strength to remain single forever. OUR CULTURE (the movies end when they get together)

Paul doesn’t speak of singleness in 1 Cor 7 as some Winter that he is enduring just to get to the Spring of marriage, he speaks of it as beautiful and desirable and even preferable in some sense!

SOUL MATE?

Here’s what you need to realize: if you are single and unhappy or married and unhappy, the answer is not getting into a relationship, and the answer is not getting out of one. THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS AND ONLY EVER JESUS CHRIST.

YOU WEREN’T BORN TO GET MARRIED, YOU DON’T EXIST TO GET HITCHED, YOUR PURPOSE ISN’T FOUND ON YOUR WEDDING DAY! YOU WERE BORN TO KNOW JESUS, YOU EXIST TO LOVE JESUS, YOUR PURPOSE IS FOUND IN JESUS!

COOL RUNNINGS (true story, at least based on one, whatever that means): “A gold medal is a Great thing, but if you’re not enough without a gold medal, you’ll never be enough with one.” If you’re not enough without marriage . .

Take your hope away from marriage, and put it on Christ. Only then will you be a suitable marriage partner or suitable marriage potential.

Men and Women Complement Each Other – God’s glory revealed more fully with both of them – This is extremely true in marriage, but it doesn’t mean that the single person is less than or less God-glorifying, often they are more

- - - I spent some time today working on applying for approval for my final semester in seminary . . . next week my final paper is due in my second to last class – Abortion – Next Wednesday night pause from this series - - -

(Piper) Man and Young Woman on a date – he asks her out – he pays – he finds out over dinner àblackbelt- he gently pulls her behind him, she allows him, and says over my dead body, tells her to run, she says this is the kind of man . . .

Not a matter of competency, not a matter of superior or inferior competency, it is what it is at the bottom of a man to be a man, what it is at the bottom of a woman to be a woman

She may be wealthier, she may be better fit to fight, competency isn’t the issue

In general, men are made as fighters, broader shoulders, more testosterone, etc. . . to fit the role given, but not always, and the skinniest weakest man alive is still a man. . .

I don’t have a clear definition of man or of woman to give to you yet, we are going to build this together as we go, but I do want to say that you already have a definition of it down deep even if you cant put it into words, you still know there is a difference. Everyone does at bottom, it takes much self-convincing to not think so. Its one of the things we humans recognize almost immediately, one of the main topics of conversation with Coen at 3, like it was with Naomi at 3 and the boys when they were little is who is a boy and who is a girl – Randomly – daddy youre a boy like me, all the boys, Naomi will say her and mom are having a girls day. This is part of the early understanding of identity, its one of those things at the baseline – Coen doesn’t know much, but he knows hes a boy, and hes like Bubba and Jerry and Daddy in that way. Coen wears hats because I wear hats, Naomi wears pretty bracelets because mom does.

Guess Who with Coen, I’m so much better than him, I kill him . . .

Egalitarian – Stress the EQUAL VALUE OF MEN AND WOMEN - strategy is to minimize the differences. WHY? We don’t do this with other things. If I wanted to explain to you that Football was good for young boys AND that playing an instrument was good for young boys – I wouldn’t do so by devaluing their differences, in many ways I would lift up their differences because along with their offering discipline and work ethic, they also have their own strengths and do things in a young man that the other cannot.

The pathway to saying BOTH ARE VALUABLE should not be to minimize their differences.

This is a great loss and taking a tremendous toll on our young people who do not know what it means to be man or woman, which they know is one of the deepest most fundamental things about themselves.

Additionally, it may not be coincidental that since feminist ideals have begun to take hold in our culture, sexual exploitation and confusion and perversity and what has been called sexual freedom have exploded.

What would you say to your child who asked, “Dad what does it mean to be a man and not a woman?...”

Where do you get that idea from?

Do Bible passages or stories come to mind that taught you this or that support it?

Ray Ortlund “As Genesis 1-3 go, so goes the whole Biblical debate.”

Complementarians and Egalitarians Agree (1 Tim 2) – it centers around Gen 1-3 – Egalitarians say that there is no male authority at all until chapter 3, when it comes only as a result of sin – we should fight it

Last week we said Complementarians believe 2 basic truths – Equal in Value, Different in Roles

1. Men and Women are Equal in Value

Gen 1:26-28 – male and female he created THEM – image of God THEM

Vs 26 – let THEM rule

29-31 – Blessing to THEM – they together are the pinnacle of creation

Amid all the stunning perfection of Eden, God says, there is something wrong here. Gen 2:18

There was one defect in paradise, the man did not have one like him, a helper suitable for him. WHAT HAPPENS IS NOT MEANT TO SEE WOMAN AS LOWER - But what is next is odd at first, God doesn’t just create her like he did Adam, first he parades the animals by Adam and tells Adam to name the animals, which took careful consideration on Adam’s part of each beast. Why did God do this? Likely, because Adam did not yet see his aloneness, and so God moved his objective aloneness to his subjective heart by making him consider all of these animals and realize that none were like him, none that shared his nature.

And so God performs the surgery. Imagine the scene, as the last beast plods off with its new name, the man turns away sorrowfully. God lays him down to sleep and goes to work, removing the rib from Adam, closing the wound and building the woman. There she stands, perfectly gorgeous and uniquely suited for man in every way. God wakes Adam and says, I’ve got one more for you to name, how about this, what do you think of her, what will you name her?

Then we have the first recorded human words, and they are poetry

2:23

The man doesn’t see the woman as his rival, but as his partner

2:24 – This is the reason we still see men and women pairing off today, it is grounded in the beginning.

The reasoning here is beautiful – The two shall become one flesh, the union of husband and wife is actually a Reunion of what was one flesh before, only this time it is in a much more God-glorifying form, man and woman together.

May say - If 2 sexes was more God glorifying than 1, then why not 3? (Attributes of God – Wisdom, he gets to make that call)

Why didn’t God just create Eve like He did Adam, why the rib thing you think?

2. Men and Women are Not the Same - In Chapter 2, not 3, before Sin

Gen 2:18-25

Ortlund - “The very reality that God created human beings in the dual modality of male and female cautions us against an unqualified equation of the two sexes”

Helper suitable for him – not another one just like him - same and not same

She is suitable in large part because of her differences

Also, God didn’t create them both at the same time, or even both from the dust, he could have created them however he wanted and whenever he wanted.

Genesis 3:16 – Male “Ruling” is a result of the Fall, so once a woman is redeemed, she is no longer under that curse.

Did Eve get punished with childbearing? No, what was the new element? Pain

Did Eve get punished with Husband being Head / Primary Responsible? No, she will suffer in relation to her husband.

One of 2 explanations for the punishment

1. God gives the woman over to the desire to rule her husband, but she will never be able to

Gen 4:7 is close resemblance to this passage, almost the same exact Hebrew phrasing. Sin desires to rule over you but you must not let it. This is the same kind of desire that the woman has for her husband. Same word. God hands her over to a desire for competition with her rightful head. The Godly husband must disallow this.

2. It may be a foreshadowing of male domination (ungodly)

Redemption of Sin is not that we say no more men or women, all the same, redemption is in Godly Sacrificial leadership by Husband and Godly Helping of the Wife

This relationship – Headship/Helper, is not just the result of sin, it is Always grounded in Creation Itself

1 Cor 11:8-9,14, Eph 5:31-32 (man shall leave), 1 Tim 2:13-14

God is not interested in unlimited equality

God does not value intellectual equality, aesthetic equality among people

Financial, talents, opportunities, he divinely ordains inequalities in many aspects of our lives.

When I was in the womb, I had only so much potential for physical, intellectual, aesthetic development, I had a ceiling, given by God.

God is not interested in ultimate equality among us, and because God is WISE, the conclusion is that unlimited equality must be a false ideal

ALL TOTALLY EQUAL in value and personhood and dignity, and that must be the only equality that matters to God

Is it repugnant and sinful when an elder exercises authority over a member, it can be but must it be, parent/child?

Authority does not = status – why does position dictate significance?

Is it any wonder that we see all around us a mass stampede for power, recognition, status, prestige and so on? The worlds reasoning is invalid, authority does not authenticate my person, it is a responsibility to be borne for the benefit of others without regard for oneself.

Ironically, feminism shares the very premise upon which male domination is founded, namely, that my personal significance is measured according to my rung on the ladder – by this reasoning, the goal of life degenerates into a competition for power, and no one hungers and thirsts for righteousness. ABORTION - Go over anything again, questions, objections, thoughts, about the decision itself, about our response to it, about anything?

I will be saying in this series that man and woman are meant to complement each other – doesn’t mean you were created for marriage or if you never marry you are any less than

6. Marriage is not Anyone’s Final Destiny

7. Jesus Christ, the most fully human person who ever lived, was not married

8. Singleness has its Spiritual Benefits

9. Paul and countless other missionaries Chose Singleness for Christ’s sake

10. Christian singleness SHOUTS the SUFFICIENCIES of CHRIST

It is not a bad thing to desire a husband or a wife, but it is not ok and is idolatrous to just sit around and wait on one as if God is waiting for you to find a husband so he can use you, and its not ok for married folks to talk to single folks like this. Paul doesn’t speak of singleness in 1 Cor 7 as some Winter that he is enduring just to get to the Spring of marriage, he speaks of it as beautiful and desirable and even preferable in some sense!

SOUL MATE?

Take your hope away from marriage, and put it on Christ. Only then will you be a suitable marriage partner or suitable marriage potential.

OK-----

The world has NEVER been less sure of what a man is or what a woman is – supreme court justice was famously asked, What is a … exploding documentary . . .

It is a catastrophe that the world of young men and women are looking out there, to this current culture, for answers about what it means that they are man or that they are woman. Newsflash: they don’t know – DINGLEHOPPER

If you were to use it that way, you would be ineffective and probably hurt yourself

I’d like to look generally at the modern cultural view of gender, transgenderism, the inability to define a man or woman, etc, how the L and G contradict the T and the Q+. . . . eventually, but as we did with the abortion series, I want to keep the order correct and start with an examination of the Bible, I just want to look at the Bible and see if we can get a working idea of what makes a man a man and a woman a woman, ask if it seems like men and women are the same or if they are different, and in what ways are they different, and hear from God in order to craft a meaningful definition from the one who invented man and woman.

Wanna know what the Cotton Gin is for, lets ask Eli Whitney.

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism – Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, Male and Female…

This historically has been a Scripture ID issue / watershed Issue – This is the ridge that has begun the slippery slope for virtually all… à Homosexuality àScripture as Advice but not Authority à Non-Christian

I’m still studying but it seems I will hold a, perhaps slightly adjusted, form of what I held before beginning to study, which is Complementarianism

Historic View is Complementarianism, never been a female pope or cardinal

Egalitarianism only about 150 years old as a belief system, only really organized in the 80s

Egalitarianism exists not because of biblical reasons . . . problems

Domination and Abuse – “the fact that women have been so abused is evidence” . . . both sides agree there has been, the question is what’s the solution?

Negation of any Differences, or Return to God’s Way of Differences designed for our flourishing

The solution is not to take away the MALE, but to take away the DOMINATION, and in its place put things like Sacrifice

Desire to Stress Equal Value

Egalitarian –strategy is to minimize the differences. WHY? We don’t do this with other things. If I wanted to explain to you that Football was good for young boys AND that playing an instrument was good for young boys – I wouldn’t do so by devaluing their differences, in many ways I would lift up their differences because along with their offering discipline and work ethic, they also have their own strengths and do things in a young man that the other cannot.

The pathway to saying BOTH ARE VALUABLE should not be to minimize their differences.

This is a great loss and taking a tremendous toll on our young people who do not know what it means to be man or woman, which they know is one of the deepest most fundamental things about themselves. The FUSS about all the gender stuff proves that we see gender / maleness femaleness as crucial to our identity.

What may be more interesting for most of us here, is not complementarian vs egalitarian as much as hard complementarian vs soft complementarian

Soft – Can’t be Elders (which includes preachers), can do anything else. Pray in church. Deacons. Some even say women can preach if the male elders approve it.

Hard – Can’t speak in church, Can’t teach Sunday School class to a 8 year old baptized male, shouldn’t hold secular positions of authority, shouldn’t be CEO’s, etc.

Spectrum – coC has been about . . . hereish

I don’t have a clear definition of man or of woman to give to you yet, we are going to build this together as we go, but I do want to say that you already have a definition of it down deep even if you cant put it into words, you just know there is a difference. Everyone does at bottom, it takes much self-convincing to not think so. Its one of the things we humans recognize almost immediately, one of the main topics of conversation with Coen at 3, like it was with Naomi at 3 and the boys when they were little is who is a boy and who is a girl – Randomly – daddy youre a boy like me, all the boys, Naomi will say her and mom are having a girls day. This is part of the early understanding of identity, its one of those things at the baseline, and has been until 15 minutes ago historically – Coen doesn’t know much, but he knows hes a boy, and hes like Bubba and Jerry and Daddy in that way. Coen wears hats because I wear hats, Naomi wears pretty bracelets because mom does. Ariel Pregnant – boy or girl . . . why would you not find out?

Guess Who when Coen was 2

What would you say to your child who asked, “Dad what does it mean to be a man and not a woman?...”

Where do you get that idea from?

Do Bible passages or stories come to mind that taught you this or that support it?

“As Genesis 1-3 go, so goes the whole Biblical debate.”

Complementarians and Egalitarians Agree (1 Tim 2) – it centers around Gen 1-3 – Egalitarians say that there is no real difference at all until chapter 3, when it comes only as a result of sin – we should fight it

3. Men and Women are Equal in Value

Gen 1:26-28– male and female he created THEM – image of God THEM

Vs 26 – let THEM rule

29-31– Blessing to THEM – they together are the pinnacle of creation

Adam naming beasts . . . God says how about that

Then we have the first recorded human words, and they are poetry

2:23

The man doesn’t see the woman as his rival, but as his partner

2:24– This is the reason we still see men and women pairing off today, it is grounded in the beginning.

4. Men and Women are Not the Same - In Chapter 2, not 3, before Sin

Gen 2:18-25– Signs not the same being, but differences

Ortlund - “The very reality that God created human beings in the dual modality of male and female cautions us against an unqualified equation of the two sexes”

Helper suitable for him – not another one just like him - same and not same

She is suitable in large part because of her differences - Do you see how your differences, particularly ones tied to maleness/femaleness complement your partner? Or your parents if not married?

Also, God didn’t create them both at the same time, or even both from the dust, he could have created them however he wanted and whenever he wanted.

Why didn’t God just create Eve like He did Adam, why the rib thing you think?

Genesis 3:16– “Male Ruling is a result of the Fall, so once a woman is redeemed, she is no longer under that curse.”

Did Eve get punished with childbearing? No, what was the new element? Pain

Did Eve get punished with Husband being Head / Primary Responsible? No, she will suffer in relation to her husband.

One of 2 explanations for the punishment

3. God gives the woman over to the desire to rule her husband, but she will never be able to

4. It may be a foreshadowing of male domination (ungodly)

Redemption of Sin is not that we say no more men or women, all the same, redemption is in Godly Sacrificial leadership by Husband and Godly Helping of the Wife

This relationship – Headship/Helper, is not just the result of sin, it is Always grounded in Creation Itself

1 Cor 11:8-9,14, Eph 5:31-32 (man shall leave), 1 Tim 2:13-14

God is not interested in unlimited equality

God does not value intellectual equality, aesthetic equality among people

Financial, talents, opportunities, he divinely ordains inequalities in many aspects of our lives.

When I was in the womb, I had only so much potential for physical, intellectual, aesthetic development, I had a ceiling, given by God.

God is not interested in ultimate equality among us, and because God is WISE, the conclusion is that unlimited equality must be a false ideal

ALL TOTALLY EQUAL in value and personhood and dignity, and that must be the only equality that matters to God

Is it repugnant and sinful when an elder exercises authority over a member, it can be but must it be, parent/child?

Authority does not = status – why does position dictate significance?

Headship isn’t a position you want – Man and Woman stood in front of God, he held a heavy rock, and was telling one of them they had to carry it. . .

3:16 – he shall rule over you, result of fall

BEFORE CHAPTER 3, BEFORE THE FALL

Equal in Value

1:26-27 – Image of God

Both have Dominion à 1:28 – every verb plural

We complementarians need to hear – Women share in the call not just to be fruitful and multiply, but to exercise dominion over the earth. Men and Women are to rule over the earth.

Different in Role/Authority

Adam Created First

Primogeniture – Deut 21:17, 1 Tim 2:12-13

Eve Created out of Adam Adam Dust, Eve Side of Adam

1 Cor 11:8 – Woman created out of Man

Adam Given Commands and Tasks 2:15-17

Responsible to teach to Eve

Adam Names Her . . . Twice – Isha, Eve – 2:23, 3:20

The Namer is the One in Authority – Parent Child

Eve is Called Helper For Him 2:18, 20b

Just the word Helper (Ezer) doesn’t imply subordination, Teacher Helps the Student, most often used of God in the OT

Helper normally means that the other (the helped) cannot do what is required alone

Can’t be fruitful alone (obvious)

Also can’t exercise dominion properly alone

For Him – 1 Cor 11:9

Why didn’t God create them both simultaneously, both out of dust, give them both the commands and tasks, has them each name each other, and call them both helpers for each other? He could have done that.

Chapter 3

Eve speaks with the serpent, Adam there 3:6, 9-10, 16-19

“Male Ruling is a result of the Fall, so once a woman is redeemed, she is no longer under that curse.”

Calls to the Man, why?

Romans 5:12, BLAMING ADAM???, 14, 15b, 16a, 17a, 18-19

1 Cor 15:21-22

Sidenote Men – this is the main reason why I say this isn’t the sort of authority that you want, its one you’ve been burdened with. . .

3:16 – Lots of different translation variations because its difficult

RULE – Mushal – Gen 1:18, 4:7, 24:2

DESIRE – Chucah – Longing, could be sexual, could be desire to rule over or control (Probably not sexual, as sexual desire already existed and was good, would be odd for that sort of desire to be part of the curse)

Look again at 4:7 – The Hebrew is almost identical, the entire phrase here is almost identical

Sin wants to control Cain, but he has to rule over Sin

What seems to me to be in view is that the fall gives the woman this desire to rule that she didn’t have in paradise, that before the fall there was no conflict, perfect headship and perfect helper, the curse here on the woman is that conflict will now exist but the man will be in authority. – That makes most sense to me – I think it fits

Did Eve get punished with childbearing? No, what was the new element? Pain

Did Adam get punished with farming? No, what was the new element? Difficulty

Did Eve get punished with Husband being Head / Primary Responsible? No, she will suffer in relation to her husband.

This relationship – Headship/Helper, is not just the result of sin, it is Always grounded in Creation Itself

1 Tim 2:12-14 – I do not permit a woman to teach . . . for Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Eph 5:31-32 (man shall leave)

This could also be a reference here to the abuses of men, a reminder for us complementarians that male authority should be seen as a limited thing, not unlimited.

Redemption of Sin, Redeeming us back to Eden, is not that we say no more men or women, all the same, redemption is in Godly Sacrificial leadership by Husband and Godly Helping of the Wife.

Ephesians 5

God is not interested in unlimited equality

God does not value intellectual equality, aesthetic equality among people

Financial, talents, opportunities, he divinely ordains inequalities in many aspects of our lives.

When I was in the womb, I had only so much potential for physical, intellectual, aesthetic development, I had a ceiling, given by God.

God is not interested in ultimate equality among us, and because God is WISE, the conclusion is that unlimited equality must be a false ideal

ALL TOTALLY EQUAL in value and personhood and dignity, and that must be the only equality that matters to God

Authority does not = status – why does position dictate significance? 1 Cor 12, Rom 12

Ironically, feminism shares the very premise upon which male domination is founded, namely, that my personal significance is measured according to my rung on the ladder – by this reasoning, the goal of life degenerates into a competition for power, and no one hungers and thirsts for righteousness. And there can be no real community, no real friendships for their own sake, just as a means to my personal gain.

Chapter 3

n Male authority is Not Result of the Fall

n Man held responsible primarily for the Fall throughout the Bible

n 3:16 – 4:7

Did Eve get punished with childbearing? No, what was the new element? Pain

Did Adam get punished with farming? No, what was the new element? Difficulty

Did Eve get punished with Husband being Head / Primary Responsible? No, she will suffer in relation to her husband.

This relationship – Headship/Helper, is not just the result of sin, it is Always grounded in Creation Itself

1 Tim 2:12-14 – I do not permit a woman to teach . . . for Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Eph 5:31-32 (man shall leave)

This could also be a reference here to the abuses of men when it says he shall rule over you, a reminder for us complementarians that male authority should be seen as a limited thing, not unlimited.

Redemption of Sin, Redeeming us back to Eden, is not that we say no more men or women, all the same, redemption is in Godly Sacrificial leadership by Husband and Godly Helping of the Wife.

Ephesians 5

God is not interested in unlimited equality

God does not value intellectual equality, aesthetic equality among people

Financial, talents, opportunities, he divinely ordains inequalities in many aspects of our lives.

When I was in the womb, I had only so much potential for physical, intellectual, aesthetic development, I had a ceiling, given by God.

God is not interested in ultimate equality among us, and because God is WISE, the conclusion is that unlimited equality must be a false ideal

ALL TOTALLY EQUAL in value and personhood and dignity, and that must be the only equality that matters to God

Authority does not = status 1 Cor 12, Rom 12 - Something in us objects if we are feet, THAT’s the result of the fall

ALSO – the husband headship authority is like being given authority if authority means you always sacrifice

Boy goes down girl goes free, Batman and Cruise Ship

Bump in the night, why do I get up? Is it JUST because I am physically stronger, or is it deeper?

I got up for the same reason that Adam is held responsible.

Complementarian Egalitarian dividing line is Elders, that’s what makes one complementarian or egalitarian basically. . .

Maybe everything I will say youll already agree with, but likely will be pushing against at least some things you have believed and that’s good, that’s called learning, and that’s what has happened to me. Where I think the Bible is clear, I want to be clear, where I don’t think the Bible is clear, I want to mirror that.

THOROUGH

Male Leadership is Normative from Genesis to Revelation

Leaders are almost always men.

But it isn’t exclusive. We complementarians need to remember that there are women in the Bible that are doing leaderly type things, even if it isn’t normative.

Prophetesses

Miriam – sister of Moses

Exodus 15:20-21, Micah 6:4, Numbers 12:15

Moses was certainly the chief leader (Num. 12), but Miriam had some important leadership role

Huldah –

2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22

Josiah sends people to inquire of Huldah

Isaiah’s Wife –

Isaiah 8:3

Anna

Luke 2:36-38

Philips Daughters

Ac 21:9

Unnamed NT Women

1 Cor 11:5 (11-14 are about assemblies)

Ac 2:17 – Sons and Daughters shall prophesy

It is not just that there weren’t good men to do it around, there were.

No inherent problem with women being prophets. Many more male prophets.

1st – Cessationist vs. Continuationist

1 Cor 13:8-12

No consensus on what prophesy was in the NT either.

Seems they were declaring a message from God, but that they were told in the NT to TEST them

1 Thess 5:19 (1 Jn 4:1)

Why were they despising them? Interesting. Probably because some were nuts.

Your position on this doesn’t really matter to the discussion we are having, because whether women are prophesying today, they certainly were then.

Egalitarian Claims from This

1. Women prophesied in “mixed company” at public gatherings

Yeah probably so – 1 Cor 11

Of course this is true in the OT, Huldah, Deborah, Anna, but also in the NT.

Wasn’t private, if it was 1 Cor 14 would become contradictory

Only to women? Stretch. Paul isn’t concerned about when or where or to whom they prophesy, but how.

2. Prophesy is basically teaching, so they can be elders

No.

May involve teaching, but it isn’t teaching, and isn’t authoritative

Distinctions always made between Teachers and Prophesiers

Elders given high qualifications, prophesiers not

Prophesies were to be constantly tested to see if they were true, test with Scripture, doctrine, so prophesy underneath that authority

Prophets had no authority outside of their prophesy – Nathan went to David and David said he was going to be a temple and Nathan said GO, and God said, “Did I tell you to say that, that’s wrong, go tell him he wont be able to do that.” Prophets didn’t make subjective judgments, Elders do that. (2 Sam 7)

Other “Authorities”

Deborah

Judges 4-5

In Judges, Israel has no King, Judges role was military leader to deliver Israel and God’s final arbitrator on issues, a “Judge”

Deut 17:8-10

All the Judges in Judges are male, except - Deborah Judges and Prophecies

Is interesting Deborah only judge who does not lead militarily

Barak says not without you, and then is rebuked for his lack of faith – she rebukes him with what is apparently embarrassing to him, your war glory will be given to a woman.

May be a theme of no men stepping up in these chapters (probably means woman in politics is fine)

Wise Woman

2 Samuel 20:16-22

Represents the City – Makes Deal with Joab

Is 3:12

Might not be the word Women, might be creditors

Some translate it creditors

Consonants the same, just different vowels (no vowels in first manuscripts)

Probably not literally women – “My people” – Israel à we don’t have any indication women ever ruled in any of the OT, when there’s lists of leaders or rulers, the lists never include women

In Micah, contemporary of Isaiah, he talks about leaders of Israel, ALL are male.

He’s calling the men women, see verse 12 – infants aren’t literally their oppressors

Why is it negative – could be bad for women to lead ontologically, could be culturally bad – not trained/experienced

Priests

Women were priests in other cultures and pagan religions at the time – common – odd Israel’s weren’t

In Israel – women were never Priests or connected to Priesthood

Lev 21:1 “Sons of Aaron” - Heb 5:1-4

Why?

1. (C) Men have always been meant to hold the highest spiritual office amongst the people (Priest, Elder, Apostle)

2. (E) Women were ceremonially unclean – No scripture says this is the case, and women did all sorts of things that unclean people couldn’t do – go in temple courtyard, take part in feast day celebrations, were part of the gatherings, etc. Men were unclean on occasion as well, but that didn’t disqualify them, they just couldn’t serve for that time period – touch an unclean thing, had a wound, a sickness, etc.

NEW TESTAMENT WOMEN

Mary, Lydia, Nympha – Hosts of House Churches are the Overseers/Elders/Authority

Ac 12:12, 16:15, Col 4:15

“If they met in your house in Greco-Roman times, you were in charge”

Why would they meet in certain houses? Wealth. So the wealthy are automatically the leaders?

Luke 9:1-4 – Were the homeowners in charge of the apostles? Their leaders?

Ac 16:15 – Same, brand new Christian now the spiritual leader of Paul – even though elders cant be new Christians

Timothy and Titus went to appoint elders in churches, these churches were meeting in homes, so if all that was required to be an elder was the owner of the home . . .

Owner of Home have some authority? Sure – use that bathroom instead of that one, etc. but not ELDERS

Euodia and Synteche

Phil 4:2-3

Labored side by side – doesn’t mean elder

Egalitarians and Complementarians agree that women were significantly involved in ministry, Rom 16:1-4, 6-7, 12-13, 15

Doesn’t mean leaders, elders, overseers

Priscilla and Aquilla

Ac 18:2, 18, 26, Rom 16:3, 1 Cor 16:19, 2 Tim 4:19

4 out of 6 times, wife mentioned first – very odd in that culture, unless the wife is the primary one active

Listed first is so odd it demands some explanation

Prominence or Leading the activity - Ac 18:24-26 - they both do it, she likely leading

A woman teaching a man theology, correcting theology

Wasn’t in the synagogue, wasn’t public or formal – took him aside

Pheobe a Deaconess - Can women be deacons? I don’t know, I’m not nearly as sure as I was before studying (often the case)

Capitol D vs. Lower case d

Romans 16:1

Word normally means servant, but there is also an office, and here it does seem like the office is in view – specifying “of the church at Cenchrae” (Craig Blomberg, Tom Schreiner, Douglas Moo)

“Deaconess” not a word until 2nd or 3rd century, but it was a word used throughout the early church, there were women that served in that role throughout church history.

1 Timothy 3

No “Their”, just Gune

Wives or Female

If ONLY wives, Odd qualifications for Deacons wives and not elders

Qualifications parallel to ones just mentioned, Seem like qualifications for doing ministry

Deaconnesses in church history were largely deacons specifically for ministry of women that would have been deemed inappropriate for men to do.

1 writing from 100 from Pliny, a Roman governor, writes to Trajan about his persecution of the Christians, he writes that two of the people he has been persecuting are called Deaconesses by the church

Junia, an Apostle?

Apostles had highest teaching authority in the church, so if a woman was an apostle, then she can surely be a lesser elder.

Romans 16:7 (generally thought to be a married couple)

Is this even a woman?

Yes, it seems so. That name was only ever female in the first century, there was a male version, written Junias or Junianas normally, but it came much later. (250 times in Ancient Roman literature, always female) Male version not used until 9th century.

Apostle vs. apostle. (Deacon vs deacon)

Why there aren’t still Apostles – Acts 1:8ff

Well Known AMONG vs. Well Known TO - Greek could be either one

AMONG THE APOSTLES

Consensus (90%) – Among – one of the apostles

Well known as apostles, they rise up in that group and are well known to others

It is consensus largely because they argue it’s the more natural reading, but most significantly is they point out that the Greek church fathers took it as Among and thought Junia an apostle.

They spoke Greek, they were closer than us to the events, etc.

She may have been an apostle, but this doesn’t mean she was an Apostle.

Consensus hold she was an apostle, but the majority of that consensus don’t think she was an Apostle

Think for a moment what this would be saying if what was meant was APOSTLE. It is saying they are outstanding among THE Apostles. Peter, James, John, that they rise above them. Yet we never hear about them in Acts or any of the other books.

Likely more than just like letter messengers, don’t sound like messengers, most scholars, egalitarian and complementarian both, see apostle here as parallel to our modern idea of missionary or church planter.

Euodia and Synteche “side by side”, co-workers co-laborers in the Gospel

Revered missionaries, well know among the missionaries

Missionary isn’t Elder, isn’t the highest role of church leadership, isn’t the highest spiritual role

Missionaries are normally appointed or sent by Churches and underneath elders

BUT – likely did involve some teaching, evangelism certainly, teaching doctrine, but not permanently, and not LEADERS

Here’s something else, it may be that these women were apostles/missionaries specifically to Women. Andronicus and Junia work together, basically divided by gender.

Early Church for hundreds of years, women were Deacons and focused on ministry to women to avoid inappropriate things. They anointed women with oil for prayer so men wouldn’t be touching women that aren’t their wives. Women would assist in baptisms of women for the same reason. We know this was the case for hundreds of years, I think there is good reason to think that these women apostles/deacons were largely there to minister to women specifically.

TO THE APOSTLES

That specific Greek phrase in the sense this is used (Dative instead of Genitive) “episemoi en tois apostolois” is always used in the sense of well known to instead of well known among

This is why ESV has gone with TO them

I am not an expert in Greek syntax

It is Relevant that All the 12 Apostles were Men

That’s obvious and consistent with the complementarian position that the highest spiritual authority should be male

Response is that it was cultural, women would have faced obstacles for evangelism that men wouldn’t have. Easy to say, but impossible to verify. And we’ve just established that women were doing all kind of stuff for the gospel.

Think about these ideas –

“Women weren’t made apostles because they were unlikely to be accepted by the culture?” The 12 men weren’t accepted by the culture, they were nobodies, uneducated, unimpressive. It doesn’t seem being accepted by the culture was important to Jesus. Why a tax collector???? Fisherman, hillbillies.

If Jesus picked his 12 by who was in good high standing in the culture, thatd be something.

(What about Junia? If this is true, and she was an apostle, howd she become so highly regarded?)

Jesus didn’t want to give the appearance of evil, let a woman go around with him all the time. Spoke alone with a Samaritan woman at the well, Let a woman known as immoral anoint his feet with oil and dry with her hair. Makes him look bad! (And women Did travel with Jesus, just like the apostles did, and were often more faithful – Matt 27:55, Lk 8:1-3)

The Bible never gives this inclination, it actually gives the opposite inclination, that the gender matters in itself.

Prophetesses

Miriam – sister of Moses

Huldah – Josiah sends people to inquire of Huldah

Isaiah’s Wife

Anna - proclaimed the Lord’s coming in the middle of the Temple

Philips Daughters

Promise Sons and Daughters will Prophesy – Ac 2 and 1 Cor 11 - Instructions on Prophesying in Church

No inherent problem with women being prophets. Many more male prophets.

You may think prophecy still happens or that it doesn’t, that doesn’t really matter . . .

Women prophesied in mixed company at public gatherings

This doesn’t mean women can be elders

Other “Authorities”

Deborah

In Judges, Israel has no King, Judges role was military leader to deliver Israel and God’s final arbitrator on issues, a “Judge”

Deut 17:8-10

Judges 4:4-9, 14-15, 17a, 18-21, 5:24ff

All the Judges in Judges are male, except - Deborah Judges and Prophecies

Is interesting Deborah only judge who does not lead militarily

Barak says not without you, and then is rebuked for his lack of faith – she rebukes him with what is apparently embarrassing to him, your war glory will be given to a woman. 4:9

Wise Woman

2 Samuel 20:16-22

Represents the City – Makes Deal with Joab

Is 3:12

Might not be the word Women, might be creditors

Some translate it creditors

Consonants the same, just different vowels (no vowels in first manuscripts)

In Micah, contemporary of Isaiah, he talks about leaders of Israel, ALL are male.

He’s calling the men women, see verse 12 – infants aren’t literally their oppressors

Why is it negative – could be bad for women to lead ontologically, could be culturally bad – not trained/experienced

Priests

Women could be prophetesses, Women could be Judges, state representatives . . . never priests

Women were priests in other cultures and pagan religions at the time – common – odd Israel’s weren’t

Lev 21:1 “Sons of Aaron” - Heb 5:1-4

Why?

1. (C) Men have always been meant to hold the highest spiritual office amongst the people (Priest, Elder, Apostle)

Other NEW TESTAMENT WOMEN

Mary, Lydia, Nympha

Ac 12:12, 16:15, Col 4:15 – Women who offered up their homes for churches to gather in

Sidenote – We often, especially in our restoration roots, glorify house churches and say like that’s the real way to be biblical, I find that a difficult conclusion (NOT BETTER NOT WORSE) – why did they not have a public meeting place, there really weren’t public buildings like that, people worked at home primarily, the early church didn’t have the funds for such a construction, and the persecution. But its hard to imagine that if persecution wasn’t a thing and someone offered Lydia or that church a building made just for their weekly assemblies and any other needs that arose, that they would have been like nah, house churches are the only faithful way. They didn’t have buildings, or A.C., seats, screens, Bibles, but you cant conclude from that their lack that that’s a better way of assembling.

Description does not equal prescription, some times its just description.

1 Cor 11:17,22 – Wasn’t Only Houses, or at least it was normal to leave home to assemble w/ church

Theres certainly nothing wrong with churches meeting in houses, as long as they have elders and deacons and sing and open the Word and take communion and the other things churches do, I am saying theres no meaningful difference in house churches and building churches.

Church is a people, not a place, so the place is relatively insignificant, in both directions

“If they met in your house in Greco-Roman times, you were in charge”

Why would they meet in certain houses? Wealth. So the wealthy are automatically the leaders?

Luke 9:1-4 – Were the homeowners in charge of the apostles? Their leaders?

Ac 16:15 – Same, brand new Christian now the spiritual leader of Paul – even though elders cant be new Christians

Timothy and Titus went to appoint elders in churches, these churches were meeting in homes, so if all that was required to be an elder was the owner of the home . . .

Owner of Home have some authority? Sure – use that bathroom instead of that one, etc. but not ELDERS

Euodia and Synteche

Phil 4:2-3

Labored side by side – doesn’t mean elder

Egalitarians and Complementarians agree that women were significantly involved in ministry, Rom 16:1-4, 6-7, 12-13, 15

Doesn’t mean leaders, elders, overseers

Priscilla and Aquilla

Ac 18:2, 18, 26, Rom 16:3-4, 1 Cor 16:19, 2 Tim 4:19

4 out of 6 times, wife mentioned first – very odd in that culture, unless the wife is the primary one active

Listed first is so odd it demands some explanation

Prominence or Leading the activity - Ac 18:24-26 - they both do it, she likely leading

A woman teaching a man theology, correcting theology

Wasn’t in the synagogue, wasn’t public or formal – took him aside

Pheobe a Deaconess - Can women be deacons? I don’t know, I’m not nearly as sure as I was before studying (often the case)

My personal conclusion here is I’m not sure, Liberty

Capitol D vs. Lower case d

Romans 16:1

Word normally means servant, but there is also an office, and here it does seem like the office is in view – specifying “of the church at Cenchrae” (Craig Blomberg, Tom Schreiner, Douglas Moo)

“Deaconess” not a word until 2nd or 3rd century, but it was a word used throughout the early church, there were women that served in that role throughout church history – women deacons for women

1 Timothy 3

No “Their”, just Gune

Wives or Female

If ONLY wives, Odd qualifications for Deacons wives and not elders

Qualifications parallel to ones just mentioned, Seem like qualifications for doing ministry

Deaconnesses in church history were largely deacons specifically for ministry of women that would have been deemed inappropriate for men to do.

Junia, an Apostle?

Apostles had highest teaching authority in the church, so if a woman was an apostle, then she can surely be the lesser elder.

Romans 16:7 (generally thought to be a married couple)

Is this even a woman?

Apostle vs. apostle. (Deacon vs deacon)

Why there aren’t still Apostles – Acts 1:8ff

Well Known AMONG vs. Well Known TO - Greek could be either one

AMONG THE APOSTLES

Consensus (90%) – Among – one of the apostles

Well known as apostles, they rise up in that group and are well known to others

It is consensus largely because they argue it’s the more natural reading, but most significantly is they point out that the Greek church fathers took it as Among and thought Junia an apostle.

They spoke Greek, they were closer than us to the events, etc.

She may have been an apostle, but this doesn’t mean she was an Apostle.

Consensus hold she was an apostle, but the majority of that consensus don’t think she was an Apostle

Euodia and Synteche “side by side”, co-workers co-laborers in the Gospel

Revered missionaries, well know among the missionaries

Missionary isn’t Elder, isn’t the highest role of church leadership, isn’t the highest spiritual role

Missionaries are normally appointed or sent by Churches and underneath elders

BUT – likely did involve some teaching, evangelism certainly, teaching doctrine, but not permanently, and not LEADERS

Here’s something else, it may be that these women were apostles/missionaries specifically to Women. Andronicus and Junia work together, basically divided by gender.

TO THE APOSTLES

That specific Greek phrase in the sense this is used (Dative instead of Genitive) “episemoi en tois apostolois” is always used in the sense of well known to instead of well known among

This is why ESV has gone with TO them

I am not an expert in Greek syntax

It is Relevant that All the 12 Apostles were Men

That’s obvious and consistent with the complementarian position that the highest spiritual authority should be male

Think about these ideas –

If Jesus picked his 12 by who was in good high standing in the culture, thatd be something.

(What about Junia? If this is true, and she was an apostle, howd she become so highly regarded?)

The Bible never gives this inclination, it actually gives the opposite inclination, that the gender matters in itself.

Euodia and Synteche

Phil 4:2-3

Labored side by side – doesn’t mean elder

Egalitarians and Complementarians agree that women were significantly involved in ministry, Rom 16:1-4, 6-7, 12-13, 15

Doesn’t mean leaders, elders, overseers

Priscilla and Aquilla

Ac 18:2, 18, 26, Rom 16:3-4, 1 Cor 16:19, 2 Tim 4:19

4 out of 6 times, wife mentioned first – very odd in that culture, unless the wife is the primary one active

Listed first is so odd it demands some explanation

Prominence or Leading the activity - Ac 18:24-26 - they both do it, she likely leading

A woman teaching a man theology, correcting theology

Wasn’t in the synagogue, wasn’t public or formal – took him aside

Pheobe a Deaconess - Can women be deacons? I don’t know, I’m not nearly as sure as I was before studying (often the case)

My personal conclusion here is I’m not sure, Liberty – I’ll tell you how I lean in a moment

Capitol D vs. Lower case d

Romans 16:1

Word normally means servant, but there is also an office, and here it does seem like the office is in view – specifying “of the church at Cenchrae” (Craig Blomberg, Tom Schreiner, Douglas Moo)

1 Timothy 3

No “Their”, just Gune

Wives or Female

If ONLY wives, Odd qualifications for Deacons wives and not elders

Qualifications parallel to ones just mentioned, Seem like qualifications for doing ministry

Junia, an Apostle?

Apostles had highest teaching authority in the church, so if a woman was an apostle, then she can surely be the lesser elder.

Romans 16:7 (generally thought to be a married couple)

Is this even a woman?

Apostle vs. apostle. (Deacon vs deacon)

Why there aren’t still Apostles – Acts 1:8ff

Well Known AMONG vs. Well Known TO - Greek could be either one

AMONG THE APOSTLES

Consensus (90%) – Among – one of the apostles

Well known as apostles, they rise up in that group and are well known to others

It is consensus largely because they argue it’s the more natural reading, but most significantly is they point out that the Greek church fathers took it as Among and thought Junia an apostle.

They spoke Greek, they were closer than us to the events, etc.

She may have been an apostle, but this doesn’t mean she was an Apostle.

Consensus hold she was an apostle, but the majority of that consensus don’t think she was an Apostle

Euodia and Synteche “side by side”, co-workers co-laborers in the Gospel

Revered missionaries, well know among the missionaries

Missionary isn’t Elder, isn’t the highest role of church leadership, isn’t the highest spiritual role

Missionaries are normally appointed or sent by Churches and underneath elders

BUT – likely did involve some teaching, evangelism certainly, teaching doctrine, but not permanently, and not LEADERS

Here’s something else, it may be that these women were apostles/missionaries specifically to Women. Andronicus and Junia work together, basically divided by gender.

TO THE APOSTLES

That specific Greek phrase in the sense this is used (Dative instead of Genitive) “episemoi en tois apostolois” is always used in the sense of well known to instead of well known among

This is why ESV has gone with TO them

I am not an expert in Greek syntax

It is Relevant that All the 12 Apostles were Men

That’s obvious and consistent with the complementarian position that the highest spiritual authority should be male

Think about these ideas –

If Jesus picked his 12 by who was in good high standing in the culture, thatd be something.

(What about Junia? If this is true, and she was an apostle, howd she become so highly regarded?)

The Bible never gives this inclination, it actually gives the opposite inclination, that the gender matters in itself.

Universal Priesthood of All Believers

No Difference in Men and Women – Priests so Elders

1 Peter 2:4-5 – we are the temple, living stones, spiritual house, holy priesthood

“To offer spiritual sacrifices to God” – not for my sins, spiritual, worship, life for God

We don’t go to a priest so the priest can go between us and Christ, we are the priests

Obviously men and women, all that are in Christ

Revelation 5:9-10

We don’t need priests, we are priests – that’s incredible

Theres no separate category of priests in the Kingdom of God – no high hat wearing special mediating class

You are a PRIEST – you don’t need another mediator

1 Tim 2:5, Heb 10:19-22 WOW – YOU can draw near to God’s very presence because of Jesus

Heb 6:19-20

You aren’t the high priest, but JESUS IS, and you are IN HIM - He is High Priest, we are his priesthood

Jesus gives you full access to God’s grace. Wives don’t need husbands, children don’t even need parents, new Christians don’t need more mature Christian friends or elders . . .

BUT All Priests in that sense doesn’t mean we are all the same.

Women are Priests, then they can be Elders

No. There are other qualifications given for elder. Able to Teach. Not a new convert.

Is a child who is a Christian part of the universal priesthood of believers? Of course. Can he be an elder? My 14 year olds. . .

Let’s say someone walks in tonight, repents of their life of sin, is baptized, and honestly converted. Are they now a part of the universal priesthood of believers? Of course. Can they be an elder?

Galatians 3:28

Overrides everything

Prooftexting – Open the Bible, go look at the passage, and see if that’s what its saying, how does that fit with the rest of what the Bible has to say about it

1. If this obliterates all gender distinctions, its odd that that never comes up again. Also, its odd that Paul himself seems to conclude the opposite – 1 Cor 11:7-9, 1 Tim 2:12-14

2. Neither Jew or Gentile, Slave Free – There were distinctions still though after this – slaves obey your masters

What if 1 Tim 2 said elder had to be a Jew

3. Context of the passage – Conclusion – Most of the time you can just open and read the context and see why the conclusion is silly - All gender distinctions are meaningless

Galatians Whole Context

Justified by Faith, not by the Law, not by being Jewish

If you don’t see the constant Jew/Gentile tension, cant fully understand the NT

3:16- 18 – HOW DOES THE INHERITANCE COME, BY JEWISH LAW? PROMISE

23-29 - Now, what is being said in verse 28? Is it that theres no distinction whatsoever anymore between . . .

26 – You are all sons – not general term for mankind, but sons and not daughters – you all carry the status of the son instead of the daughter, slave, or gentile – full inheritance, keep family name

4:1-7– Adoption as sons – if any of the pairs should stand out here it is slave/free - SONSHIP

“There is neither male nor female” – HEY, IF THAT MEANT NO DISTINCTION, WHY WOULD YOU WANT THAT? Do you wish you were a man?

Feminism devalues women and women’s roles by saying there should be no distinction. If you have a Bear and a Lion, and the Lion starts saying, hey really we’re no different than bears and you should see us as you see bears, that devalues the Lion! You’re a Lion!

For the first time ever, for the last 60 years, moms who are full time moms get embarrassed when asked what they do, why? Feminism. Doesn’t get to chase her dreams of going to an office and instead is relegated to simply raising eternal souls, poor thing. YOU’RE A LION DOING LION THINGS!

1 Peter 3:7 – “Weaker Vessel (sex in some)”

We will look at this whole passage more probably next week when we talk about marriage and submission and other fun stuff.

“Showing Honor to the woman as the weaker vessel.” (Yours may say show respect but that isn’t strong enough)

Men, do not take advantage of your wives in any way.

Weaker – same as English, most commentators say the physical differences is likely in view since there are no indications elsewhere that women are weaker in another sense, but the word just means weaker so it could be anything that weak could be in English

Let me tell you what makes sense to me, and you do what you want with it.

Vessel – Literally means like a Jar or a Vase

Show Honor to the Weaker Vessel – So a woman is such a thing that particularly should be honored – Image of the Glass that your mom only gets out for special company, stays out of reach of the less careful, is revered and special and beautiful, and care is taken to see it doesn’t get broken VS the plastic cups that you toss in a bin in the cupboard.

Can a Woman be Gifted with Teaching (should we let her be an elder then)

I think so and No

1 Pet 4:10-11- no indication some gifts are given to men and some to others

1 Cor 12:4-11

12:4-6ff VARIETIES of gifts

There are lots of non-elder teachers

Clear Example - Titus 2:3-5 – Women’s Ministry

What if a woman hears a man who has a poor view on some doctrine and she knows better, TELL HIM, teach him, Priscilla and Aquila - doesn’t equal pastor/elder/authority

Not everyone gifted in teaching has to teach in the same environment and capacity

Headship (Lead into next week on Submission and Marriage)

Is the husband the head of the wife? Really? I mean we say it all the time. Is it really true?

1 Cor 11:3 . . . . so Yes its true, Eph 5:23

What does that word mean? Kephale’? Is authority involved?

Lexicon- It means Head, physical head, or chief, highest, preeminent, consistently means authority

Bible- Is authority included/excluded? EGAL – authority never included – Source, provider

Col 1:18, 2:10, Eph 1:20-22, 4:15-16, 5:22-23

SEPTUAGINT à Judges 11:11, 2 Sam 22:44

Also Everyone and their mother throughout church history has seen this as meaning authority

MARRIAGE

The Biblical teaching on marriage is astounding, and it is the clearest picture of the complementarian viewpoint, that men and women complement each other.

“The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism – for that is what the words ‘one flesh’ would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was it expressing a sentiment but stating a fact, just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument” Lewis – Mere Christianity

EQUAL IN VALUE BUT DIFFERENT IN ROLES IN MARRIAGE – AND THAT IS GOOD

Headship

Is the husband the head of the wife? Really? I mean we say it all the time. Is it really true? Is the Bible really that backwards?

1 Cor 11:3 . . . . so Yes its true, Eph 5:23

What does that word mean? Kephale’? Is authority involved? – if it is then the whole debate is settled to some extent

Lexicon- It means Head, physical head, or chief, highest, preeminent, consistently means authority

Bible- Is authority included/excluded? EGAL – authority never included – Source, provider

Col 1:18, 2:10, Eph 1:20-22, 4:15-16, 5:22-23

SEPTUAGINT à Judges 11:11, 2 Sam 22:44

Also Everyone and their mother throughout church history has seen this as meaning authority

Submission

BIBLE TO MARRIED PEOPLE – as I am talking tonight, you need to keep catching yourself. . . ONLY SAYS WHAT A HUSBAND SHOULD BE DOING TO THE HUSBAND, WIFE TO THE WIFE – that is to say . . . it never says, husbands, make sure your wives (that’s abuse) . . . that is irrelevant to your task of being a godly husband

IF ONE of you fills their role, your marriage will be better regardless of the other. . .

KEY to marriage is to do YOUR part without looking to see if they’re doing their part.

Wife, Submit, Husband, Lead Sacrificially - “But they’re not doing their part,” yeah, just do it.

Unto the Lord – Unto Christ – Do what you are called to do as a husband/wife

(It may even be more honoring to the Lord when your partner isn’t reciprocating)

Now, let me say this first about the particulars of what exactly submission looks like, I am not the leading authority when it comes to the particulars about how all of this works itself out, here’s what I mean – Titus 2 – Older women are better to ask than me, they are the ones primarily charged with that task of teaching, younger women charged to listen

“Submit” – hypotasso - Word means to rank underneath – authority word by definition

Now, lets do what we have been practicing, and just look at the relevant passages and try to be honest with what it says. (probably won’t finish this week, and we shouldn’t, because that would mean we were going too fast with a topic like this)

1 Peter 3:1-7– Read All

Be Subject to Your Husband – ESV

NASB, NIV, NKJV – “Submit” – Same word that we’ll be looking at in other passages

hypotasso

OWN husbands, not women to men

The WHOLE section here is on submission right? - Why be subject? We have some reasons given –

- Might be saved by her conduct, by her attitude and goodness – Lee Strobel

- It is good – respectful and pure conduct

- 4 – Inner beauty of the heart - Character thing

- Very precious in God’s sight

o Our culture sees it as repulsive

- Holy Women have done this

- 6 – Sarah as example

o “Obey” – we’re terrified of that word – gross – but we do it all the time, you obey your boss, you obey your friends when they ask you to use the hall bathroom at their house instead of the other one, obey is submit

o The Lord called him out to nowhere with no evidences, and she said ok, I will submit to that

o “Calling him Lord” – Gen 18:12 – only place she does this – see v 13 – LORD – its more of a normal term in Hebrew, just for someone authoritatively higher than you, that’s all. We don’t have an English equivalent, Lord is as good as we can do here, but wives don’t need to call their husbands Lord, more pregnant word today in English

o She does see Abraham as the leader of the family. Highly offensive today.

7 – Husbands, show honor – weaker vessel, co-heirs, prayers may not be hindered

NOT LESSER, HEIRS WITH YOU – Gal 3 - you are all sons of God

Just weaker

Total equality in value and inheritance, just different in role/function . . . hmm, interesting

The one with the authority is the one threatened/warned here, which is how it works, you have authority, but don’t dare use it wrongly

Colossians 3:18-19 (Sermon upcoming)

Simply put – wives submit to your husbands (husbands, not any man, not dating, not engaged)

as is fitting in the Lord

- If it conflicts with submission to the Lord, don’t do it

- Submission is fitting, not just cultural

Husbands love your wives – not commanded to force them to submit, love them

Do not be harsh with them – another authority statement it seems – do not abuse

Household Codes

Ephesians 5:22-33– Read All

“Unto the Lord” – its about Christ, not even primarily about your husband

Wives submit OWN HUSBANDS

Why? – FOR Husband is the Head of the wife

Church submits to Christ, Wives submit to Husbands (Church àChrist, Wives àHusbands)

Again the Wife is told to submit, and then the Husband is told to Love his wife

What does that look like? Well Jesus examples this kind of love – 26-30

31-32 – Grounded in Creation

33 – Love his Wife – self-sacrificial, Wife respect her husband – seems to acknowledge the authority

The whole argument here is a Head Body analogy illustration

Mutual Submission – v21

Verse 21 is definitely connected to what follows, but it doesn’t mitigate all that its about to say. “Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” doesn’t mean everyone submit to all others in the same way and in the same sense and to the same degree

Household Codes

If v 21 means there is no authority difference between husband and wives, it also means there is no authority difference between parents and children, masters and slaves. Are parents to submit to children? Well they do in some sense, no they don’t, they sacrifice for them, they serve them, but who is in authority never changes.

“Really its saying wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives” – Really? Odd it never uses the word submit for husbands, but always says Wives submit and Husbands Love. Also,

Does radical love = submission? Jesus is example – he serves us but doesn’t submit to us, he serves but is always the one in authority

V21 is the Launching Pad into the 3 groups to follow and the discussion of submission – it isn’t saying that every group submits equally to every other group.

“It’s all cultural!” Really? Even though he keeps grounding it in creation, and calling it fundamentally good and pleasing to God. Is the part about men loving their wives as Christ loved the church cultural? Or inherent and eternal?

In any passage, we have to look for indications that something is cultural or transcultural. All the indications in these passage seem to me to point to transcultural. (Trans)

It seems to me that the honest and plain reading of these texts is open to all. Husband headship – sacrificial serving, Wife submitting to his authority.

A bit more:

Lewis sees Christian headship in particular as the wise and inevitable result of marriage because of The Permanence of marriage.

What happens in a disagreement about something major - TALK IT OUT – RARE not settled this way with 2 people who have decided to love each other, but what if that doesn’t do it? . . .

Go separate ways or someone has to be able to make the call

One Counselor said - “In unhealthy marriages it is often the meaner one that makes the call.”

“Well what if he makes the wrong decision,” (TALK, TRY TO CONVINCE HIM) It is still pleasing to God for the wife to submit.

Ladies, if you don’t want this man making decisions about your future children, stay away, if you would gladly walk in submission, great sign.

“What if he’s not a Christian?” – 1 Peter 3:1 - Lee Strobel – fearful of her lectures, won by her conduct

There are hard scenarios and I think times to rebel against that authority, but it’s the massive exception.

1 Samuel 25:2-35

Principles? Life threatening scenario – protection – abuse

Also, for instance, he is not your priest, so he cant control your prayer life or spiritual life, he cant keep you from church…

AUTHORITY IS/IS NOT

IS NOT Micromanaging

Proverbs 31:10-28 Trusts her , doesn’t micromanage – it was widely understood that the woman had much authority over the home and many things, certainly over the children for instance, just not over the husband

IS NOT just blanket he gets to make the calls

1 Cor 7:3-4 – The wife has authority to make that sort of claim on her husband, specifically sexually, but has that right over her husband

Submission is limited – at least here

Mark 10:42ff, 2 Cor 10:8, 13:10

Ephesians 5:26-30 – For the Benefit of the Other

Can you as a wife say “My husband is my head” and that’s good? (look at husband “you aint my head!”)

Genesis 3– Desire to Rule (desire for your husband, loving your husband wasn’t a result of the fall)

Can you as a husband say, I will lay down my desires for the sake of my wife’s good desires. I will sacrifice More.

Virtually every Christian throughout history has taken these passages the way you heard them when you first heard them.

Romans 12:10, Phil 2:3-4 - NO GENDER DISTINCTIONS HERE, this should be your attitude toward ALL

Why? – FOR Husband is the Head of the wife

Church submits to Christ, Wives submit to Husbands (Church àChrist, Wives àHusbands)

Again the Wife is told to submit, and then the Husband is told to Lovehis wife

What does that look like? Well Jesus examples this kind of love – 26-30

Again people say, SHAUVINISM – THE MAN GETS TO BE JESUS? – Have you read that story?

Not the sort of thing you would choose

Shouldn’t be fair – SACRIFICE LIKE JESUS – GAVE HIMSELF UP

Selfish desires

Parenting – We know parenting means laying down my desires for the sake of my children, simple things like practices instead of mountain biking, using my money to buy them Christmas, to disciplining when it would be easier and more fun not to, to valuing their growth and maturity more than I value their liking me.

31-32 – Grounded in Creation

33 – Love his Wife – self-sacrificial, Wife respect her husband – seems to acknowledge the authority

The whole argument here is a Head Body analogy illustration

In any passage, we have to look for indications that something is cultural or transcultural. All the indications in these passage seem to me to point to transcultural. (Trans)

It seems to me that the honest and plain reading of these texts is open to all. Husband headship – sacrificial serving, Wife submitting to his authority.

A bit more:

Lewis sees Christian headship in particular as the wise and inevitable result of marriage because of The Permanence of marriage.

What happens in a disagreement about something major - TALK IT OUT – RARE not settled this way with 2 people who have decided to love each other, but what if that doesn’t do it? . . .

Go separate ways or someone has to be able to make the call

One Counselor said - “In unhealthy marriages it is often the meaner one that makes the call.”

“Well what if he makes the wrong decision,” (TALK, TRY TO CONVINCE HIM) It is still pleasing to God for the wife to submit.

Ladies, if you don’t want this man making decisions about your future children, stay away, if you would gladly walk in submission, great sign.

“What if he’s not a Christian?” – 1 Peter 3:1 - Lee Strobel – fearful of her lectures, won by her conduct

There are hard scenarios and I think times to rebel against that authority, but it’s the massive exception.

1 Samuel 25:2-35

Principles? Life threatening scenario – protection – abuse

Also, for instance, he is not your priest, so he cant control your prayer life or spiritual life, he cant keep you from church…

AUTHORITY IS/IS NOT

IS NOT Micromanaging

IS NOT just blanket he gets to make the calls

1 Cor 7:3-4 – The wife has authority to make that sort of claim on her husband, specifically sexually, but has that right over her husband

Submission is limited – at least here

Mark 10:42ff, 2 Cor 10:8, 13:10

Ephesians 5:26-30 – For the Benefit of the Other

Can you as a wife say “My husband is my head” and that’s good? (look at husband “you aint my head!”)

Genesis 3– Desire to Rule (desire for your husband, loving your husband wasn’t a result of the fall)

Can you as a husband say, I will lay down my desires for the sake of my wife’s good desires. I will sacrifice More.

Virtually every Christian throughout history has taken these passages the way you heard them when you first heard them.

Romans 12:10, Phil 2:3-4 - NO GENDER DISTINCTIONS HERE, this should be your attitude toward ALL

Can a Woman be Gifted with Teaching (should we let her be an elder/preacher then)

I think so and No

1 Pet 4:10-11- no indication some gifts are given to men and some to others

1 Cor 12:4-11

12:4-6ff VARIETIES of gifts

There are lots of non-elder teachers

Clear Example - Titus 2:3-5 – Women’s Ministry

2 Timothy 1:4-5 – 3:14-15 - why does he mention them and not Timothy’s father (who was a Greek)? Could they keep teaching him after he was baptized or came to faith? Can a mom today? What makes that different than another woman? Again all of these distinctions are grounded in Creation. The view that a woman cannot teach a baptized 14 year old male seems off to me.

When I get my hair cut by Luanne, and we talk about what we are reading and she teaches me about something from the book of John that shes been reading about that I didn’t know, is she sinning?

What if there were other men there and they listened and learned? Then is it sinning?

What if a woman hears a man who has a poor view on some doctrine and she knows better, TELL HIM, teach him, Priscilla and Aquila - doesn’t equal pastor/elder/authority

Not everyone gifted in teaching has to teach in the same environment and capacity.

Are those things the same as Exercising Authority over the Church?

Manhood and Womahood 13

Head Coverings

Looking at all the texts that present CLEAR Gender differences

History – Women wore head coverings until very recently historically

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

One of the most difficult passages in scripture – 1 verse in particular offered me the only time I can remember . . .

The Principle vs. the Method/Custom/Practice - Not always easy

Greet one another with a holy kiss – Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26

What is the Principle that is Tied to Creation? What is it that is tied to Nature? (ON BACKSIDE OF BOARD)

A. Women should wear head coverings (in church, when praying/prophesying – pull up as needed)

B. Men and Women should appropriately represent the God ordained gender differences and order, which will vary from culture to culture to some extent

I don’t know for sure – Romans 14:5-6

If you want to wear a head covering, how could anyone ever denigrate that, doing something out of honor and love of the Lord, feeling led by the Spirit by the Word to honor God – that will always be beautiful

I do THINK its B – lean that way at least

Rene I just think you’re an idiot – GREAT, JOIN THE GROWING CLUB – welcome to the church of Christ

Context – 1 Cor 11-14 – The Ekklesia, Corporate Worship, What happens when believers get together

I spent a lot of time reading and listening this week, and as I go I just take notes that I try to sort under theme headings, but at the end of this I had just pages and pages and pages with very little form and tons of knots to try to untie, so what I decided would be easiest for you and for me is just to walk through the passage together from beginning to end.

Some things that were basically agreed upon by all, but there were lots of different ideas about the passage, lots of different arguments made, the scholars I trust less were more dogmatic (THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS), the scholars that are go-to for me were much more cautious and careful, still while offering their conclusions. Some of the arguments I found quite weak, some I found to not seem to fit the passage, I am going to walk you through what seems true to me.

V2-3 – I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND - Head of Man is Christ, Head of Wife is Husband, Head of Christ is God– this is God’s order, this is the way He has ordered things, and the rest of the passage seems to me Paul’s criticizing the church for not aligning properly with that order

The adornment of women, then, reflects their relationship to the headship of men, showing whether they relate rightly to God-ordained authority

V4 – Dishonors his head – Likely dual meaning here - Christ, but also himself

We do know that men covering their heads when praying was apparently normal in pagan worship.

V5 - A woman praying or prophesying without a covering of some kind dishonours her husband (and self)

It seems the covering of the head was a normal symbol of a woman who is spoken for, and submitted to that man

Theres one writing that talks about how in the first century men were divorcing their wives stating that they had already declared their independence from the family by uncovering their heads

V6 – It seems that the issue was hair being long and down – Cover was probably not a veil, but something that held the hair up

It is claimed that in the first century, letting your hair down and loose was at least a symbol that you were sexually available, or it was at least more promiscuous

There are first century writings of gross men talking about their lusts over women’s hair, apparently when it was down

for their divine judgment various groups of wicked people are hung by their offending parts. Those who blasphemed are hung up by their tongues, adulterous men were hung up by their . . . offending part (let the hearer understand, by their maleness).., adulterous women are hung up by their hair

Numbers 5:18 – Woman accused of adultery was to let down her hair

14-15 –Paul could be saying that long hair IS the woman’s covering, pulled up, but that doesn’t seem to be a natural reading of the text, 4-7 seem to be speaking of an actual covering, we know from archaeology that head coverings were normal for women in the first century. Verse 4 – men pulling hair up??

Plutarch wrote, ‘it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered’

If Paul links together hair and a covering here, his point may be that a woman’s long hair is an indication that she needs to wear something that will keep her hair up on her head.

To sum up: the custom recommended here probably denotes a covering of some kind. For a woman not to wear such a covering in public in the first century may have had sexual connotations, suggesting the woman was sexually available – taking off a wedding ring today (but more obviously, be like if a woman walked in a bar, got everyones attention, took her ring off, and dropped it in the trash)

Refusing to cover their heads also sent a message in the culture of the day that the women were not relating properly to male leadership, to the ORDER, and Paul wants them to avoid offending others.

One scholar says it is likely that the early Christian women had heard the Gal 3 message – there is neither male nor female, and so were bucking the norms and hair downing it, saying gender distinctions weren’t proper anymore, Paul says no

V7-9 - Is he talking about women or wives, probably both, but mainly wives.

Paul does not deny that women are the image and glory of God, Gen 1:26-27 THEM, but he concentrates on their distinctive role in bringing glory and honour to their husbands.

15:49 – General all of us - Adam was created directly in the image of God and the rest of us (from Eve on) are made in God’s image as we inherit it from Adam and our parents (cf. Gen. 5:3).

Paul’s point is that the origin and purpose of Man was different than the origin and purpose of woman, man came from God ex-nihilo, woman came from man and for man, as his helper. NOT ONTOLOGICAL VALUE STATEMENTS, but statements that man is this the glory or honor of God and women thus the glory and honor of man.

That the man was not created for woman goes without saying in Genesis 2. She was not even on the scene yet. That woman was created for manis based on Genesis 2:18, where God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Man cannot be the glory of woman because man didn’t come from woman. Rooted in Creation.

trans.

Clearly gender distinctions are important to Paul. Paul’s chief concern, however, is for God’s glory, which would certainly be diminished by any apparent disrespect for gender distinctions in worship.

V10 – this is the verse everyone began with WOW THAT’S WEIRD

Head covering is defined - symbol of authority – man does not have this symbol – an acknowledging of God’s order

Angels – 1. Hey, cool. There is more going on when we gather than we can see.

Some think its just a reference to messengers from other churches who would be shocked at their not covering

Some think its referring to the devil’s angels not to lust over the women – Gen 6

The best solution is probably that the angels are good angels who assist in worship and desire to see the order of creation maintained – Ac 12:23

it may well be that he is concerned that angelic guardians of God’s honor and glory would be offended (and perhaps required to intervene) if women’s attire were to either draw attention to the glory of man or in any way be considered inappropriate for those worshiping God

V11-12

Paul wants to avoid any thought that women are ontologically inferior; thus he emphasizes the interdependence of men and women in the Lord. Women came into existence through men, but men since Adam come into the world through women.

In saying everything comes from God, the Lord is acknowledged as the ultimate source of life and all that is good. At the same time, there is the recognition that the diversity and unity of the sexes come from him. He has sovereignly appointed, directed and blessed both sexes.

V13

The argument for covering has been theological (appealing to creation) and cultural (appealing to honour–shame). He appeals now to the Corinthians themselves and asks them to assess the situation, which is quite similar to his tack in 1 Corinthians 10:15in the discussion on food offered to idols.

Paul expects cultural resonance and agreement with his words here, which indicates that he does not say anything that would astonish his readers. – Paul appeals to this cultural knowledge – isn’t it obvious

Our culture doesn’t think it is improper for a woman to pray with head uncovered. Additionally, as I said a moment ago, then For a woman not to wear such a covering in public in the first century likely had sexual connotations, hair down was seen as more sexually suggestive, suggesting the woman was sexually available, those things aren’t the case today

Paul – isn’t it obvious? - us today – um, no

Isnt it obvious that a man shouldn’t wear a dress and high heels and lipstick – to that we could say yes

God’s gender distinctions and order

V14

‘Does not nature itself teach you …’ Human beings by nature are male and female; thus same-sex relations ‘are contrary to nature’ (Rom. 1:26)

What long hair means is not defined, but Paul probably has in mind a man wearing his hair so that he looks like a woman. Pseudo-Phocylides writes, ‘If a child is a boy, do not let locks grow on his head. Do not braid his crown nor cross knots at the top of his head. Long hair is not fit for boys, but for voluptuous women’ (Ps.-Phoc. 200–212).

Deut 22:5

Nature functions as an instructor that teaches human beings about distinctions between men and women. The distinctions are echoed in culture; thus a man with long hair elicits repugnance and brings shame upon himself (used to, doesn’t now) - principle same, men shouldn’t appear to be woman

V15

Honour is clearly in view here since the word glory functions as the antonym of the term ‘disgrace’ in verse 14. Conversely, for a woman to have her hair sheared off or shaved would bring her shame (11:5–6). Creation and culture meet here, for the creational distinctions between men and women are reflected in a particular cultural setting.

V16

Working out the implications of the passage is not easy since culture and theology merge. It is clear that the distinctions between the sexes must be preserved; thus there is no warrant for the notion that one’s gender is simply a social construct.

What is the Principle that is Tied to Creation? What is it that is tied to Nature?

C. Women should wear head coverings (in church, when praying/prophesying – pull up as needed)

D. Men and Women should appropriately represent the God ordained gender differences and order, which will vary from culture to culture to some extent

Romans 14:5-6

In many cultures today, whether women are covered or veiled during worship does not communicate anything about the relationship of men and women, though in first-century Corinth it sent a powerful message. If women did not wear the covering, they brought shame on themselves and their husbands. Each culture has to work out how the theological principle articulated works out in its particular circumstances.

We recognize this, it doesn’t cause me shame as Ariels husband if she wears her hair down, what would cause me shame, if she dressed provocatively, if she took off her wedding ring, if she brought attention to her body – “Isnt she married?” – I think this is the same thing that we see here

Additionally

What nature prescribed was that in general men feel ashamed when they are effeminate and women incline naturally to being feminine. The cultural symbols of femininity and masculinity change. (In America Paul could say, “Doesn’t nature teach you that a man should not wear a dress?”)

Not taught anywhere else in the Bible (Can you think of another polity principle, that we mandate, that is only taught one place)

Ideally we see – Taught by Jesus, Practiced in Acts, Clarified in the Epistles

Foot washing – taught by Jesus, not the others

Can a Woman be Gifted with Teaching (should we let her be an elder/preacher then)

I think so and No

1 Cor 12:4ff- no indication some gifts are given to men and some to others

There are lots of non-elder non-preacher teachers

Clear Example - Titus 2:3-5 – Women’s Ministry - TEACH

2 Timothy 1:5 – 3:14-15 - Could they keep teaching him after he was baptized or came to faith? Can a mom today? What makes that different than another woman? Again all of these distinctions are grounded in Creation. The view that a woman cannot teach a baptized 14 year old male seems off to me.

When I get my hair cut by Luanne, and we talk about what we are reading and she teaches me about something from the book of John that shes been reading about that I didn’t know, is she sinning?

What if there were other men there and they listened and learned? Then is it sinning?

What if a woman hears a man who has a poor view on some doctrine and she knows better, TELL HIM, teach him, Priscilla and Aquila - doesn’t equal pastor/elder/authority

Not everyone gifted in teaching has to teach in the same environment and capacity.

Are those things the same as Exercising Authority over the Church

Review 1 Cor 11 Conclusions as Relevant for today

Verse 3

Men and Women should appropriately represent the God ordained gender differences and order, which will vary from culture to culture to some extent – regardless of your view on head coverings themselves and that action, this is what is being taught

Lets look now at the 2 passages that were my proof texts for years about complementarianism

1 Corinthians 14

Context – Chaos instead of Order, those disrupting Order

If silent means silent, then no singing, Cannot contradict 1 Cor 11

· The Weighing of the Prophecy (29) – teaching magisterial authority

Fits flow and context

· Wives Asking Disruptive Questions

Again I want to emphasize the perspicuity of Scripture, NORMALLY, you can understand a passage just by reading the passage, and not even needing historical background information or knowledge of the original lanugages. That is normal. That is what should be generally expected.

It seems to me, just from the passage, fair to infer that what was going on is women, wives in particular, were asking disruptive questions.

It could have been questions directly about their husband, or questions that would show disagreement with her husband or teacher, either of which would have been viewed as humiliating.

Asking questions in such a way that challenged the order - Honoring God ordained Order

Makes sense of his bringing up submission “as the Law also says” which is a marital wifely reference that is of course about the God ordained order

Quietness (Not permitted to speak) - Submission

36-40 (40 as summary and conclusion of whole section)

Can be written off as cultural more easily, particular problem in a particular church, problem for the time, etc. I think from this series that Paul is simply referencing truth that we see from cover to cover.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Regarding how hard the verse is to interpret, a story that I have seen used by multiple scholars. Australian NT scholar Claire S. Smith tells of a new Christian, a university-aged woman in “an ethnic based church” who read 1 Tim 2 for the first time. When asked whether she found it difficult, she replied, “No, it’s easy. Paul is saying women shouldn’t teach in church, because that’s the way God wants it.” It would be easy, Smith notes, to suppose that “her ethnic cultural background probably made it easier for her to do that.” But Smith continues: “But can you see that the opposite might also be true—that our culture influences our reading of the text, and that many of the difficulties we find in it might exist because of our culture and ourpersonalities and not because of the text itself?”

I trust God, I believe this Word was meant for us as well, I am initially skeptical of all interpretations that require one to have information that only experts have naturally, and that most wouldn’t have even had access to just a few decades ago before the internet

Context here is about the church - 3:14-15 – elders, deacons à assembly

Verse 11

Jewish injunction against women learning – let a women learn

Learn quietly OR peacefully – word can be used either way – 2:2

Without disruption, don’t inhibit them from learning

Without obstruction seems more likely – 1 Cor 14 - “with all submissiveness”

Verse 12

Board– DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN – Teach / Exercise Authority

Rather, she is to remain quiet (in peace) – as opposed to

FOR àAdam formed First, Adam not Deceived

Whatever our answer about what is meant here needs to deal honestly with all of those facets

A. Plain (with biblical context) – I do not permit a woman to be an elder (direct context, not any sort of authority anytime in church, but the kind connected to teaching)

B. I do not permit a woman to dominate/domineer/use authority poorly over a man (but this doesn’t prohibit them using authority rightly)

Can have authority, but not domineer it. There is debate about this authority word scholarly and what it meant most often in the early church, but it seems weak to me simply because of the passage itself. I do not permit a woman to lead domineeringly because Adam was formed first? Does he then permit a man to lead domineeringly? Nope.

Grounded in creation – not cultural – what is? Principle

Similar reasoning that we have become familiar with – because of something in Creation

2 Things that make an elder different than a deacon – able to teach, govern well

1 Tim 3:2,5-6, 5:17, Titus 1:9

Not any kind of authority whatsoever, but eldering/teaching authority

TRANS. àThe God created sexual order is still true on this side of the cross.

Women saved through childbirth

Jesus – Gen 3:15 – seed

3:16 – pain in childbearing - curse

Saved – faith still key to follow

Child rearing – peaceful quiet life – Lipscomb

False teachers likely telling women they could only reach fullness if they left all that mother stuff behind and became actively involved in teaching and preaching, Paul reaffirms the intention of faithful women, helpful wives, managing the household well

1 Tim 5:14

Attention to these roles that are PROFOUNDLY AND ONLY Female

Theres been no more obvious moment of gender differences, and the goodness and beauty of God’s design, then in the room when my children were born

1. God’s design – woah, insane

2. Differences . . . . I cant do that à

Can a Woman be Gifted with Teaching (should we let her be an elder/preacher then)

I think so and No

1 Cor 12:4ff- no indication some gifts are given to men and some to others

There are lots of non-elder non-preacher teachers

Clear Example - Titus 2:3-5 – Women’s Ministry - TEACH

2 Timothy 1:5 – 3:14-15 - Could they keep teaching him after he was baptized or came to faith? Can a mom today? What makes that different than another woman? Again all of these distinctions are grounded in Creation. No indication that parenthood is an exception. The view that a woman cannot teach a baptized 14 year old male seems off to me.

When I get my hair cut by Luanne, and we talk about what we are reading and she teaches me about something from the book of John that shes been reading about that I didn’t know, is she sinning?

What if there were other men there and they listened and learned? Then is it sinning?

What if a woman hears a man who has a poor view on some doctrine and she knows better, TELL HIM, teach him, Priscilla and Aquila - doesn’t equal pastor/elder/authority

Not everyone gifted in teaching has to teach in the same environment and capacity.