Jim, thanks for your paper. Here are some comments,
1. I totally agree with your concern to respect the ultimate authority of Scripture. Consequently, I also agree that we ought to take the author's words (whether he was Paul or someone else) as God's words.
2. At the same time I think that it is right to interpret Scripture in the light of its total context, and this may mean not applying it in the same way as it was meant to be applied by its first readers. For example, most Christians today would not think it necessary for women to cover their heads in worship as 1 Cor. 11:2-16 prescribes (perhaps the real issue is about dressing modestly), nor for church members to kiss one another as Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26 and 1 Pet 5:14 prescribe (perhaps the real issue is about greeting one another with sincere affection).
3. Regarding the interpretation of Genesis 3, I think it should be pointed out that the curse 'he shall rule over you' in 3:16 is a statement of the result of the Fall, not a statement of God's ideal.
4. Regarding the role of women generally in the NT, I accept the essence of your arguments regarding the roles of the women at the tomb, Phoebe, and Priscilla. I am more positive about the likelihood of the Junia of Rom 16:7 being a woman apostle than you are, but agree that it is difficult to attain 100% certainty in matters of this kind.
5. Regarding the main text which you discuss 1 Tim 2:12-14, I think I should point out the following:
i) there is no seperate word for 'over' in the Greek of v.12.
ii) The word translated 'have authority over' (Gk. 'authentein') appears only here in the NT. Its use outside the NT often has negative connotations (there are even passages in which it means 'murder'!)
iii) In the light of 1 Tim 5:11-16 which shows that there was a problem with young widows in the churches for which Timothy had responsibility, I believe it is more likely that the words translated 'man' and 'woman' are rightly so translated, and do not mean 'husband' and 'wife'.
6. The key difference between your position and that of those who would allow women to take leadership positions in the Church lies, I think, in the meaning of v 14. What is the intended force of these arguments from Genesis 2-3? Do they state God's universal and eternal intention that women should have a subordinate position in the running of the Church in comparison with men? Or are these stories cited rather to address a local and temporary problem in which some young widows were 'saying what they should not say' (5:13) and 'following Satan' (5:15), with the result that they were acting in a domineering way in Church? In this case, the force of the arguments is
i) that they should listen and learn before they speak in Church (just as Eve had to listen to, and learn from Adam concerning what God had said in her absence, according to the literal interpretation of Gen 2), and
ii) that they should (unlike Eve) resist Satan's temptations (the force of Paul's use of the same story in 2 Cor 11:3, though there it is applied to men as well as women).
It is not easy to decide between these options, and I agree with you that those who hold either interpretation are entitled to hold it and should respect those who hold the alternative.
Peter Ensor, 5.12.10
1. I totally agree with your concern to respect the ultimate authority of Scripture. Consequently, I also agree that we ought to take the author's words (whether he was Paul or someone else) as God's words.
2. At the same time I think that it is right to interpret Scripture in the light of its total context, and this may mean not applying it in the same way as it was meant to be applied by its first readers. For example, most Christians today would not think it necessary for women to cover their heads in worship as 1 Cor. 11:2-16 prescribes (perhaps the real issue is about dressing modestly), nor for church members to kiss one another as Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26 and 1 Pet 5:14 prescribe (perhaps the real issue is about greeting one another with sincere affection).
3. Regarding the interpretation of Genesis 3, I think it should be pointed out that the curse 'he shall rule over you' in 3:16 is a statement of the result of the Fall, not a statement of God's ideal.
4. Regarding the role of women generally in the NT, I accept the essence of your arguments regarding the roles of the women at the tomb, Phoebe, and Priscilla. I am more positive about the likelihood of the Junia of Rom 16:7 being a woman apostle than you are, but agree that it is difficult to attain 100% certainty in matters of this kind.
5. Regarding the main text which you discuss 1 Tim 2:12-14, I think I should point out the following:
i) there is no seperate word for 'over' in the Greek of v.12.
ii) The word translated 'have authority over' (Gk. 'authentein') appears only here in the NT. Its use outside the NT often has negative connotations (there are even passages in which it means 'murder'!)
iii) In the light of 1 Tim 5:11-16 which shows that there was a problem with young widows in the churches for which Timothy had responsibility, I believe it is more likely that the words translated 'man' and 'woman' are rightly so translated, and do not mean 'husband' and 'wife'.
6. The key difference between your position and that of those who would allow women to take leadership positions in the Church lies, I think, in the meaning of v 14. What is the intended force of these arguments from Genesis 2-3? Do they state God's universal and eternal intention that women should have a subordinate position in the running of the Church in comparison with men? Or are these stories cited rather to address a local and temporary problem in which some young widows were 'saying what they should not say' (5:13) and 'following Satan' (5:15), with the result that they were acting in a domineering way in Church? In this case, the force of the arguments is
i) that they should listen and learn before they speak in Church (just as Eve had to listen to, and learn from Adam concerning what God had said in her absence, according to the literal interpretation of Gen 2), and
ii) that they should (unlike Eve) resist Satan's temptations (the force of Paul's use of the same story in 2 Cor 11:3, though there it is applied to men as well as women).
It is not easy to decide between these options, and I agree with you that those who hold either interpretation are entitled to hold it and should respect those who hold the alternative.
Peter Ensor, 5.12.10
