Paul may be asking the women to not disrupt the assembly with uneducated questions or with a disruptive attitude but rather to learn with the proper attitude. This fits well with the context described in I Timothy 5:13 where young women were going around talking foolishly about things they didn’t really understand. In my perspective women were not told that they should be quiet because they were women, but because they were not educated in the matters which they were talking about, there lack of knowledge was disruptive to the learning environment. In this case Paul is not restricting teaching in general but the attempts to dominate or gain some kind of control in behavior.
Man and women are each gifted by God, and God gives gifts to men and women equally, meaning that both women and men receive spiritual gifts. In Ephesians 4:11-12, Paul does not make a distinction between who received the gift of being a prophet, evangelist, teachers, pastors and so forth. A Traditionalist may say that these roles were for men only. However scripture lists both men and women as prophets. See (Ex.15:20, Lk 2:36, Acts 2:17-18). If women were prophets, why couldn’t one assume that women can hold the other positions listed in the passage? According to Baldwin, Paul is affirming that the women in the Ephesians situation should and can learn, in appropriate fashion, but that in verse 12 the word grouping “teach and exercise authority” should be taken in a negative sense meaning that the women should not be permitted to “continuously teach” and “ have sway” or “domineer over” a man. Paul teachings have hade a great influence on the views that society holds of women in church and in a women’s daily life.
Paul’s teachings may were also influenced by teachings that were around him at the time, the Genesis account which is available to us today and is often misinterpreted today was also available to Paul.
Another ancient tale revolving around a female figure that had the greatest influence on the literary treatment of women in earlier times is undoubtedly the Genesis story of Eve's defiance of God's command and the subsequent expulsion of the primeval couple from the Garden of Eden. The first female became the prototype of all women and her story a paradigm of female existence. In the many transformations that the prototypical figure of Eve has experienced in her journey both in Judaic literature and outside it.
First, Eve has become closely associated with evil, since she is the one who first surrendered to temptation and violated God's law. Her story is thus seen as a parable of the moral weakness and the strong proclivity for evil that characterize the female of the human species. Her corruptibility is matched by a tendency for insubordination, a shameless defiance of moral norms, and the power to seduce man and introduce evil into his life.
Second, in many commentaries and documents, both Jewish and Christian, which elaborate on the story of Eve's original act of transgression, there is an identification of the woman with carnal desires.' Woman is seen as primarily a sexual being whose moral weakness is coupled with sexual power which she puts to evil use. Woman's sexuality is for her the weapon with which she gains mastery over man and eventually destroys him. From the object of male lust woman has become the cause of it, and the story of Eve is seen as the introduction of sinful sex into the realm of human life. In her struggle for dominion, woman uses her erotic appeal to bring man down to her bestial level. The female has thus come to represent that part of the human composite that is more physical than spiritual and is more defenseless against the weaknesses of the flesh.
Third, in the biblical story it is only Eve, and not Adam, who has dealings with the serpent; therefore, in her many literary accounts Eve was described as having a special affinity with the devil. And since she was the harbinger of death, Eve, as the eternal woman, was believed to have a demonic side to her being. This close association with the devil and the ability to bring man unto death through her wiles and manipulations are interconnected, and are manifest in many of Eve's literary descendants. In short, the traits of the biblical Eve that were assumed to prefigure the essence of womanhood are a proclivity for evil, a destructive sexuality, and a demonic-deadly power.
However if one reads Tribles’ commentaries and translations of the Genesis story one can sea a different picture painted. Yes the serpent speaks to the woman, however we are not told why he does so, for that explanation is not given to us in the text, furthermore the text does not say that she was weaker or inclined toward evil. Rather the creation of the man and women were pronounced “good” by God in (Gen 2:18). Moreover Trible speculates that the women is more intelligent, aggressive and she knew what she was doing when she took the fruit from the tree, she is also very independent for she did not ask Adam for permission to take the fruit.
Also the notion that Eve is evil or has special affinity with the devil are wrong, for God does not curse Eve for what happen in the Garden, but curses the serpent(Gen 3:14). Another reason on why God does not curse Eve, is because God does not tell Eve directly not to eat out of the tree but she receives the message from Adam (Gen 2:15-17) for he is the one that receives the message from God directly. And the reason the serpent approached Eve was because he knew that Adam did not do an effective job in communicating with Eve what the Lord told him. The fact that Eve was not informed well on the matter is what made her a plausible target for the serpent, and not her weakness.
In my perspective it is wrong to keep someone accountable for something that they were not aware of. Furthermore God tells Eve that her desire will be for her husband, (Gen3:16) which means that till now she did not have the quality within her, which goes on to rebuke the fact that she seduced Adam into eating the fruit, furthermore the text does not say anything about her seducing Adam, and as Trible notes that man can often be silent and passive especially when it comes to satisfying their appetite, so just the fruit alone was enough for Adam he didn’t have to be seduced to eat the fruit. So once again Eve is blamed even though Adam is the one that “sinned”. Yet that is not the only way (Gen 3:16) is misinterpreted.
To the woman he said, “I will increase your pains in childbearing: with pain you will give birth to children. You desire will be for you husband and he will rule over you. (Gen 3:16)
Often when man read this verse they think that God is speaking to them and is telling them that they can have dominion over women, some man often use this passage as a passport to male supremacy, however I don’t think that God is speaking to man, or is telling man that now they can rule over their wives. For it clearly says “To the woman he said,” one may ask themselves why is God telling the women this? In my perspective he is being considerate of women by letting Eve known that because of man’s fallen nature they will act superior to women. For God does not tell Adam that he is now a master of anyone, he just let’s Adam know that because of his actions the earth in now cursed, moreover God does not blame Eve when he speaks to Adam or makes her unequal.(Gen 3:17-19)
According to Tribble the assumptions made about a women’s role are culturally conditioned. Furthermore she goes on to talk about how important it is to be good translators of texts, and a good way to do that she says is to take whatever stereotypes we already have that we formed in our own culture and realize that the reason we have them is because of our common sin and disobedience. She goes on to say that our troubles that we encounter everyday are not because of our creation but because of our fall. This means that we were created equal, however once kind sinned the balance that was once there was lost.
The text of Genesis has been circulated in several religious communities since it was written. One of the religious communities that used and uses Genesis is the Christian tradition. One may ask themselves how did the Christian community come to the notion that man should dominate over women, there are several early forefather that have shaped the way one reads and interprets scripture. For example Martin Luther in his early years while he was teaching at the Wittenber monastery gave a lecture on Genesis where he made commentaries on (Gen3:16) by saying the fallowing:
Satan’s cleverness is perceived also in this, that he attacks the weak part of the human, nature, Eve the woman, not Adam the man. He goes on to say that even thought he were made equally righteous, Adam had advantage over Eve. He goes on to talk about the physical attributes of a male and how they excelled the females. He goes on to say that the reason the serpent attacked Eve is because she was physically weaker then Adam. Furthermore if the serpent tried to talk to Adam, the serpent would have been crushed. He they goes on to say that the serpent chooses Eve for he knew that Eve was weaker and dependent on her husband, and that led him to believe that Eve though that she could not sin.
Even though this is some of Luther’s early work it is still circulated in both protestant and catholic communities, furthermore he is the father of the Protestant Reform and his work holds authority in vast communities. Luther has influenced Western culture throughout the modern period. American culture, in particular, holds Lutheran ideas in some way or another, one can notice that in our country allot of people Lutheran or not think and act as the fierce and imposing reformer.
Another notion that influenced our society’s view of women was developed early on by man in Jewish communities while in exile. The legend that they circulated was about Lilith, the writings of Ben Sira which say, that God formed Lilith the first Woman and Adam the first man from the dust of the earth. Adam and Lilith never found peace together. She disagreed with him in many matters, and refused to lie below him during intercourse, asking Adam to treat her as an equal for they both were created from earth. Adam did not agree with her so Lilith said the ineffable word of God and flew up into the air of the world. Eventually, she dwelt in a cave in the desert on the shores of the Red Sea. There She engaged in sexual intercourse with demons and gave birth to hundreds of demonic babies daily. However the legend of Lilith did not stop here, as one can see from the writings of Ben Sira other legends were derived from the original one, however the legends that came after the first were not positive ones, Lilith was associated with the death of newborns, wet dreams and infertility.
This text is probably the most important of the founding texts for the myth of Lilith, for it introduces the portion of the story that has been most quoted, appropriated, and heralded today: that of Lilith as the first wife of Adam who flees the Garden of Eden because she refuses to be in subjection. What makes it so important to this particular study, however, is the contrast between the irreverent, non-traditional, parodying text and the story itself. This brings about a number of important revelations.
First, one must note that this story is only told in response to the King's plea that Ben Sira cure his son. The King wants to know the significance of the angels whom Ben Sira inscribes onto an amulet: Snvi, Snsvi, and Smnglof. Ben Sira's answer explains the existence of this amuletic tradition and then proceeds to tell this story of Lilith as an explanation of "how Lilith acquired the power to hurt children, that is, how she became a child-stealing and strangling demon, and the reason why the invocation of those mysterious three names has the effect of driving her away and of saving the patient."
However I don’t believe, there is a reason for these two strains of the Lilith legend to be connected. Ben Sira or, more properly, the anonymous author of The Alphabet of Ben Sira could have supplied any number of stories to explain why it is Lilith who has the power over children and why the amulets with Snvi, Snsvi, and Smnglof's names keep her from harming them. Since the story centers on the fact that Ben Sira has created this child-saving amulet for the King, it is certain that the tradition of having the amulets around their necks, must have been something with which the rabbis, and others who may have read Ben Sira, would have been familiar with. It seems, therefore, that this tale of Lilith is completely incidental and unique. According to Gaster it was created by the anonymous author of The Alphabet sometime between 600 and 1000 CE and used simply as another facet to parody the Bible, the Talmud, and other rabbinic teachings. This is further evidenced in the facets of the tale itself. First, there is the irreverent tone of the passage (as with the entire book), and, more specifically, its explicit references to sex. Lilith's refusal to "lie below," was certainly not something that the rabbis would have applauded. Rather, it would be seen as sarcastic entertainment, something purely inconceivable and, thus, laughable. The association of Lilith with Adam and Eve, furthermore, was most likely done in order to draw a parody from the Bible which would be easily recognized. So this story of Lilith as a first Eve seems to be purely incidental, something to explain the amuletic tradition that could also invoke interest and laughter, draw upon the Bible and Talmud, and go along with the irreverent tone of the rest of this medieval work. From reading commentaries I came to the conclusion that the story of Lilith was not meant to be taken seriously, yet it has taken root in our modern culture, for people quote the passage written by Ben Sira often, trying to enable women, like Trible talks about in her article.
And if we were going to take the text of Lilith seriously, I would say that she was a strong women, that was independent and did not want to stay in a relationship where she was not treated as and equal. Lilith is a role model for women, because she teaches enabled individuals to stand up and be assertive and by doing that they will become better people by being true to whom they are.
I will argue that the Egalitarian View is a plausible one for both women and men. The egalitarian view agrees that in some biblical texts women were forbidden from holding certain leadership positions, but that the reasons for these restrictions do not necessarily transcent time and culture, similar tot the fact that we no longer wash one another’s feet or require women to wear hats in church. Groothuis and Pierce not, “Egalitarianism recognizes patterns of authority in the family, church and society it is not anarchistic but rejects the notion of any office, ministry, or opportunity should be denied anyone on the grounds of gender alone” This view is based on the principle that we are all viewed equal in God’s eyes (Gen 1:27), both male and female have equally fallen (Rom 3:23), we have both been equally redeemed through Christ’s life, death and resurrection (John3:16) we are equal in the new covenant community ( Gal 3:28), equals heir of God in Christ (1 Peter 3:7), and, most importantly, we are equally able to be filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit for a life of ministry(Acts 2:17) The Egaliterian view is that men and women are ontologically equal and functionally equal, meaning both men and women are given responsibility to rule over his creation.
Egalitarianism focuses more on the term “ biblical equality” an dhas no intention of trying to skew the bible for something it is not. According to Groothuis and Pierce.
[Egalitarianism] makes no appeal to “women consciousness” as normative: neither do [Egalitarians] feel free to dispense with or underplay any aspect of sacred Scripture, since it is all equally God-breathed and profitable for all of life ( 2 Timothy 3:15-17). Biblical equality, while concerned about the false limits and stereotypes that have fettered women, is not “woman centered” but God-centered and concerned with the biblical liberation of bothe women and men for the cause of Christ in our day and beyond. For when women are denied their gifts and callings, men suffer from the omission as well.
The heart of Egalitarianism is that when sin entered the world, it disrupted God’s perfect plan, the relationship between woman and man was changed (Genesis 3:16), and god’s original intention for the relationship between man and woman was defiled. Galatians 3:28 is the core of this view. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Male/female equality was restored to the original intention by body after the fall, and therefore, women and men are called alike to do the will of the Lord as it was originally intended to be done.
Other biblical support for the Egalitarian view is 1 Corintians 12:7-11, in which God gives gifts to those who love him in a manner that only he chooses to give. It is clear in the scriptures that he gives some gifts to some people and other gifts to others. There is no distinction between male and female, but that gifts are given both to male and female alike.
Egalitarians believe that there are many biblical examples of women that prove this view to be biblically accurate. First of all, there are examples of female leadership in Israel in passages such as Exodus 15 in which Miriam is leading women in worship. Deborah in Judges 4-5 and Huldah in 2 Kings 22 are examples of women who had special positions and were also considered to be prophetesses. There were also women such as Ruth, Esther and Naomi who did not hold specific positions, but had roles in the spiritual formation of Israel.
Other reasons for the belief of equality for men and women for Egalitarians is the evidence of women in Jesus’ ministry. Though women had roles in Jesus’ ministry, there was cultural resistance even then, but Jesus used women’s ministries through those circumstances. There are many passages to support this argument, including Luke 8:1-3, Matt 15: 21-28, Luke 7:36-50, John 4:39-42, Matt28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, and Acts 1:8. In these passages we se that women traveled with Jesus and learned from him as he taught in villages. We see Mary being encouraged by Jesus for listening at his feet and learning instead of cleaning and worrying about the house. There is the powerful example of the Samaritan woman who is the first person who is not among the disciples to evangelize the message of the gospel. The Egalitarians believe that these are example that Jesus did not prohibit women from teaching others, men and women alike.
Another example is that God chose women to be the first to examine the tomb and, through the angel that appeared to them, commanded the women to tell what they knew. For th Egalitarian, this demonstrates that jesus had confidence in women and trusted them to tell people the most impotant message that can be told.
The Egalitarian vies is also supported by examples of wome serving in the early church. In Acts 2, we clearly see the indication that both men and women are recipients of the Holy Spirit. We are informed that the Holy Spirit and the gifts he gives those that believe are to be used in the church (I Cor 12:7). In Acts 18:26, Priscilla and Aquila explained to Appollos the way of god and were teaching and instructing him, a teacher himself. Finally, in Romans 16 Paul makes several references about women and their work in the church, he refers to Phoebe who is a servant and possibly a deacon ( not clear) and Junias ( if a women) is called “outstanding among the apostles (Rom 16:7”). These several references to women in the sixteenth chapter of Romans seems to be and argument for the Egalitarians that women were shown appreciation for their stand and belief in Christ and the same Pauld that told Timothy that women should be silent also is saying here in Romans that one woman is “great among the apostles,” leading and doing a good job.
Perhaps most importantly, the proclamation of Christ to all people to make disciples of all nations does not show any gender barriers based on what God proclaimed for all believers (Matt28:18-20). All of these examples need to be studied more deeply to understand the meaning and why such information is included in the Scriptures.
Presently women are able to attend theological seminaries and receive degrees: we are allowed to further our knowledge and understanding of the Bible, yet controversy of ordination of women still rings louder than ever. I agree with James Stamoolis which states, “This controversy is over hermeneutics, rather than authority.
Stamoolis goes on to say that it is worth telling that though there are many denominations that are very male dominated, women missionaries carried out functions that are considered pastoral and were sent by the church. It seems as if possibly the real issue is just the inconsistencies of man. Stamoolis comments, “ There has been a disconnect between what are perceived to be the clear instructions of Scripture in the sending country versus the actual needs of the mission field.”
The importance of hermeneutics in a debate such as this is because of the common misunderstandings of believers when they read Scripture. In everyday life we often interpret someone else’s words to mean something different than its original intention and the same goes for interpreting Scripture.
It is this factors our distance from the biblical writers in time and culture that demands that we be good exegetes, if we are truly to hear the scripture as God’s eternal word. We must wrestle with their use of words, syntax and literary forms, which express ideas, and we must hear those ideas within both the author’s and readers cultural contexts and presuppositions, if ever we are adequately to understand what they intended by their words.
Furthermore this is not a debate to come to some kind of conclusion that women are better than men or that women can do a better job than men in any position. Rather, it is based on our divine calling from a God who died and rose again so that we may have life and have it to the fullest. In Matthew 28: 18-20 He called all who believe, man and women.
An issue like this, though full of passion and controversy, is one that should never divide the church. Though it is extremely important and relevant to today’s society there is something way more important, which is being an ambassador for Christ.
If we think about al the women who are mentioned in the bile, women who had leadership roles and were named, we have to assume there is a reason for that. We have to assume there is a reason God wanted us to know that there were women who had specific and important roles in the church, and who those women wore. These examples of women in leadership are clear evidence that women held leadership roles in biblical times and can also give confidence to women that we can make a difference too.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldwin, S. Men and Women in The Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership. n.p.: InterVarcity Press, 2003.
Belleville, L. Women Leaders and the Church. :Baker Books, 2000.
Cantor, Aviva. “The Lilith Question.” New York: Schocken Books. (1983).
Fee, G. discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. n.p.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Ferguson, E. Backgrounds of Early Christianity 2nd edition. Eerdmans Publishing Company. (September 2003).
Gaster, M. Studies and Texts in Folklore Magic Medievall Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Smaritin. n.p.: Ktav Pub InC, 1990.
Grenz, S. Women in the Church. n.p.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Hassey, J. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy: Evangelical women in ministry a century ago. n.p.: InterVarcity Press, 2004.
Kenner, P. Women and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul. n.p.: Hendricksons Publishers, 1992.
Luther, Martin. “Lecture on Genesis.” In Luther's Works. Vol. 1, Trans George V. Schick.Ed. Saint Louis: Concordia.(1958),
Nash, R. Great Divides: Understanding the Controversies that Come Between Christians. Academic Renewal Press (January 2003).
Saucy, R.L. and Tenelshof, J.K. Women and Men in Ministry: A Complementary Perspective. Chicago, Moody Press. (2001)
Schaller, L.E. Creative Leadership Series. Nashville, Parthenon Press. (1982)
Scholer, D. Women in Ministry: A Biblical Basis for Equal Partnership: women and Men in the Ministry of the Church. Covenant Press. (1997)
Stamoolis, J. Scripture and Hermeneutics: Reflections over 30 Years. Evangelical Review of Theology, vol. 28, Issue 4, p. 337-344. (2004)
Skihan, Patrick.The Wisdom of Ben Sira. New York : Doubleday, 1987.
Tertullian. One the Apparel of Women. Kessinger Publishing (2004)
Trible, P. "Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread." In Womanspirit Rising:A Femenist Reader in Religion. n.p.: Harper&Row, 1972.
Phyllis. “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread.” In Womanspirit Rising: A feminist Reader in Religion. San Francisco: Harper&Row, 1972.
Pierce, R., and R. Groothuis. Discoverin Biblical Equality: Complemenatrity Without Hierarchy. n.p.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Walker, Barbara. The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. HarperCollins Publishers.1983.Zodhiates, S. The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: New American Standard Bible: Unlocking the Riches of God's Word. AMG Publishers. (1998)
Ware, B. “summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions of the Role of Wome in the Home and in Christian Ministry.,” http://www.cbmw.org.
S Grenz, Women in the Church (InterVarsity Press, 2004). P.39
Hassey, J. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complimentarity Without Hierarch: Evangelical women in ministry a century ago. “Hassey, J,” Downers Grove (InterVarsity Press. 2004).
J Hassey, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy: Evangelical women in ministry a century ago. ( InterVarcity Press, 2004).
S Baldwin, Men and Women in The Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership (InterVarcity Press, 2003).
R. Nash, Great Divides: Understanding the Controversies that Come Between Christians, Academic Renewal Press (January 2003) (42-43).
Belleville L, Women Leaders and the Church (Baker Books, 2000), 164-65.
P Kenner, Women and Wives: Marrieage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Hendricksons Publishers, 1992). p. 107
E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity 2nd edition, Eerdmans Publishing Company. (September 2003) (70- 73).
Belleville L, Women Leaders and the Church, 164-65.
Baldwin, Men and Women in The Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership.
Barbara Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. HarperCollins Publishers.1983.
P Trible, "Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread." In Womanspirit Rising:A Femenist Reader in Religion (Harper&Row, 1972).
Martin Luther, “Lecture on Genesis,” in Luther's Works, vol. 1, Trans George V. Schick.Ed (Saint Louis: Concordia.(1958), n.d.).
Aviva Cantor, “The Lilith Question,” New York: Schocken Books. (1983).
Gaster M, Studies and Texts in Folklore Magic Medievall Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Smaritin (n.p.: Ktav Pub InC, 1990).
R. Pierce, and R. Groothuis, Discoverin Biblical Equality: Complemenatrity Without Hierarchy (n.p.: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
B Ware, “summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions of the Role of Wome in the Home and in Christian Ministry.,” http://www.cbmw.org (accessed April 19, 2006).
J. Stamoolis, Scripture and Hermeneutics: Reflections over 30 Years, Evangelical Review of Theology, vol. 27 P.339
G. Fee, discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (n.p.: InterVarsity Press, 2004). P.365