|
|
Post by keita on Aug 25, 2006 17:15:24 GMT -5
 For now... I'm just wondering if either/any of you are familiar with the history of Ephesus, who the majority of these newly converted women teachers at Ephesus were/had been, and most importantly, what it was that the women of Ephesus were actually doing? Thanks, in great part, to what was shared in this thread, I now know the answers to those questions and I've found that they provide the very context which is key to making the connection between "coarse sexual practices" and what Paul writes to Timothy about the women of this church. It's some very interesting and seriously eye-opening information. And believe me (or better yet study it for yourself  ), I think you will find that it very much matters...A LOT... to better understanding Paul's instructions to Timothy and to the Body of Christ regarding the women of God who are called to leadership... whether then, now or yet to come. There truly is nothing new under the sun. For real. It is with that "context" in hand and mind that, imho, we actually find even much greater wisdom in 1 Timothy 2:12 than we've had or been taught on this matter. As with so many of Paul's culturally/situationally specific writings, it is this very type of foundational apostolic wisdom that is the "take away" because, unlike many of the details addressed in his letters, the wisdom remains completely immune to changing times and different cultures or locations, and, most importantly, is what keeps us gates of hell-proof. Fasten your seatbelts...this could be a bumpy ride... 
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Aug 25, 2006 18:51:43 GMT -5
are you referring to the "BC" History of Ephesus?
|
|
|
|
Post by keita on Aug 25, 2006 19:06:56 GMT -5
In a manner of speaking I am, because the carry-over of the "before Christ" ways of the congregation at Ephesus was the source of the problem(s) that Paul was faced with in his three years there, are what (I am most inclined to believe) Paul was subsequently writing to Timothy about as his replacement at that place, and what John speaks about when he writes of this same congregation (7churches) in the book of Revelation. And given what those most common "BC" spiritual/religious practices and teachings would have been (and long continued to be) for a whole lot of women converts in Ephesus and the very powerful impact it would have been having on the men of that congregation, I have come to truly understand why Paul refers to what they were doing with a word that he (and the entirety of scripture) uses only once to (I believe) very specifically refer to them. What these women were guilty of deserved that kind of special attention and condemnation; and it still does, whenever and wherever it's happening... I don't have to tell you where I've been to tell you what I learned there. But I'll just say this. A woman with, shall we say, "certain skills" can "usurp" a whole lot more than "authority" from most any man. Can I be real? Put it on him right and she can get anything he's got and have his mind too. And, oh, don't let her also be spiritually connected and hold an influential position. These women, many of whom were former pagan temple religious leaders and teachers (and known as "priestesses") and pagan temple prostitutes, "BC", had been given and fully accepted in those same "leadership" roles and "positions" of influence in the early church at Ephesus. They were often wealthy, intellectually brilliant and spiritually powerful as well as long practiced and very skilled in their "work". Largely due to ignorance, both they and the men of the congregation believed they were free to, and therefore were, continuing to conduct their deeply pagan and highly sexualized spiritual "business as usual" at a new location with what they thought was just a new "god"... Much like a lot of folks are today. Yes, I said it. I believe Paul knew exactly what was up with these women, what needed to be done about these women, and how to deal with these women and that is what (among a whole lot of other very important things) he tells Timothy in the letter he wrote to him. I do not believe Paul, at any time, in any way confused these unlearned pagan seductresses with or generalized their very specific behavior to all women. Nothing about his writings ever suggests such irrational misogyny. And that differentiation would also explain better explain why Paul speaks so harshly of these particular women who were functioning as teachers and preachers, even while so freely and frequently commending others for the same ... 'cause I definitely don't believe he was a schizophrenic either. So to all the women of God who are called, gifted, anointed and equipped to stand before His congregation to preach or teach, unless you are counted among the unlearned pagan seductresses, I simply daresay Paul wasn't talking to or about you in 1Timothy 2:12. And if, by chance or upbringing you are among them, know that the gifts and call are without repentance. But please, take Paul's timeless wisdom from his letter to Timothy and put on some decent and modest clothes, don't blind us with your bling, sit your hips down, shut your mouth, and LEARN. Finally, if you are one who persists in the belief that women cannot or even that they should not be preachers/teachers/pastors etc., I have great issue with your (mis)using 1 Timothy 2:12 to support that position. In light of its full "context", that's rather like peeing on a sister's leg and telling her it's raining. (Btw, just in case my vernacular offends anyone's delicate sensibilities, just open that beloved King James bible to 1 Kings 14:10 or 16:11 and get over it.  ) Now, I've got much more to say on this subject but I'll just stop right there... for the moment |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 26, 2006 2:16:23 GMT -5
Keita, you've presented much for us to "chew on" here, and I likes to chew. However, I will say that what you've presented here made me think of this short Q&A summary that I originally posted the link to in the "What is the Bible?" thread. I think it's pretty relevant right here. |
|
|
|
Post by keita on Aug 26, 2006 2:26:41 GMT -5
Keita, you've presented much for us to "chew on" here, and I likes to chew. I know that's right! LOL! We've been chewing together for some time now and I am always blessed and edified by that. As always, I greatly appreciate, will always give respectful consideration to, but do not and need not completely or necessarily agree with your perspective(s). I know that's always been true for you as well so it's all good! |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 26, 2006 2:55:53 GMT -5
You need to go to bed; I thought I was the only one up around this time. Just so I'm clear, what exactly is it that you disagree with in the link that I posted? I think this may help us sift through some foundational issues here and be beneficial for all who are participating or just reading. |
|
|
|
Post by keita on Aug 26, 2006 3:18:48 GMT -5
You have no idea how much I wish I could. 36 minutes and counting... LOL! Shows how much you know! Nothing! I think that article is full of wisdom and makes a really important call to balance in bible study. If anything, I would simply add the importance of knowing the difference between, as well as the value of and time for reading the bible both exegetically and/or devotionally. Any more than that I'd probably take over to the "What is the Bible" thread you referenced. What issues are you speaking of? |
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Aug 26, 2006 11:37:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by keita on Aug 26, 2006 16:40:22 GMT -5
PRAISE GOD!!!
See, this whole thread is just one example of why I never fear, mind or tire of bringing my "sword" to the controversial subjects of the House of Refuge. It has been my experience that when I do, at least 1 of 2 things is gonna happen. In the clanging and banging of it all, either iron will sharpen iron and my sword will be that much more effective, or somebody is gonna help me beat it into a plowshare. And on a good day, I'll get both.
Blessed Sabbath y'all!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 27, 2006 1:50:06 GMT -5
Nothing! I think that article is full of wisdom and makes a really important call to balance in bible study. If anything, I would simply add the importance of knowing the difference between, as well as the value of and time for reading the bible both exegetically and/or devotionally. Any more than that I'd probably take over to the "What is the Bible" thread you referenced. I think this may help us sift through some foundational issues here and be beneficial for all who are participating or just reading. What issues are you speaking of? I apologize Keita; from reading your response it appeared (to me) that you were expressing disagreement with the information in the link in the article. So allow me to ask you, how would you reconcile what was said in that article and your own view regarding the background of Paul's injunctions in 1 Tim. 2:12? For me, I honestly don't see anything in the text that would restrict Paul's comments to only one specific group of women in the church, just as it has not been demonstrated that his comments to the men were singling out one particular group of men. Another thing I will say is that if all of this was going on behind the scenes (women sexually seducing men, influencing the men in the congregation in sinful ways, etc.), why is it that this information is conspicuously absent from the text? We know that when it comes to issues specifically dealing with sexuality and sexual sin, Paul does not bite his tongue nor does he speak timidly (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5-7). He speaks specifically regarding the situation and the correction that needs to take place. So why is it that in Timothy, Paul would choose to deal with such a heavy, serious subject using a term that is supposedly ambiguous in nature? Furthermore, if the women in Ephesus were engaging in all of this sinful activity, the only thing Paul had to say about it is that the women were to learn quietly with all subjection? Why does he not address the ROOT of the supposed confusion in the church, sexual sin? Simply commanding the unruly, seductive women to learn won't get to the root of the problem in the church. Secondly, as I stated earlier, I believe that there is a close connection between teaching and authentein in the passage. If we render authentein as "having/excercising authority," that connection is preserved. If it is rendered in some other fashion having to do with coarse or sinful sexual activity, there is a severe disruption in the train of thought in the passage. Author Steven Clark notes: ...the terms "teach" and "exercise authority" are parallel. They are intentionally linked. The kind of teaching meant in the passage is allied to exercising authority; the kind of exercising authority which is meant is undoubtedly the kind which would accompany teaching. Authority and teaching are also parallel to subordination and quietness. Hence, the passage prohibits woman from taking a position where man is subordinate to her. The prohibition is not simply directed at some disorderly or untrained women acting improperly. Also, I have to bring up the issue of reputable sources. How many respected Greek concordances/dictionaries/lexicons, etc. assign such a meaning that's being proposed in this thread to authentein? |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 27, 2006 1:54:25 GMT -5
PRAISE GOD!!! See, this whole thread is just one example of why I never fear, mind or tire of bringing my "sword" to the controversial subjects of the House of Refuge. It has been my experience that when I do, at least 1 of 2 things is gonna happen. In the clanging and banging of it all, either iron will sharpen iron and my sword will be that much more effective, or somebody is gonna help me beat it into a plowshare. And on a good day, I'll get both. Amen and amen!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by nina on Aug 27, 2006 4:42:12 GMT -5
This article really seems - to me - to encompass all the aspects on this subject: www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/kroeger.htmBeyond all that, what is in my heart is this: I don't believe that God's plan is for Man and Woman to "grow apart", and certainly not for His name sake. Through what Jesus came to accomplish and did, we have been reconciled with God himself. When God spoke in the Garden, He spoke "enmity" between the snake and Woman, not Man and Woman, until... We have to stop watering the seed of enmity, take upon ourselves the yoke of God's Word, together, and really begin to taste now what He came to give us, life, and life more abundantly. |
|
|
|
Post by keita on Aug 27, 2006 14:47:45 GMT -5
For that information and wisdom as well as all the "roots" you've brought to the "wings" on this thread... God Bless You, sis Nina! Okay, as we ( I sure do hope ) continue to examine 1 Timothy 2:12, here's a general and timely reminder: The word “usurp” in the expression, “nor to usurp authority over the man,” does not occur in the original text; and the word “the,” which also does not exist in the original text, is misleading. The insertion of “usurp” is without warrant... Now, based on a whole lot of study, I believe that's because what these women congregation leaders/teachers were doing, ( and a whole lot of us still are doing when, if, and as long as we remain unlearned), was and is a whole lot deeper, and far more damaging than just that. It's why Paul pulls out the big guns in and by his very particular (one time only in the entirety of new testament scripture) use of the word "authentein" to describe, and, I believe, to make very clear the very particular nature of what they were doing. And that's also why there's no doubt in my mind that God wants us to get down to "it" on this matter... Because, for the several reasons I've shared here, I believe Paul's instruction to Timothy was not nor was it ever intended, and therefore should not be used to address the questions of can she or even should she (which, at least to me, is in itself, a very different question). And I think you just really have to stick your fingers in your ears, bury your head in the sand and ignore way too much scripture to use 1 Timothy 2:12 to limit or shut her down and out in the way that so many presently do. Instead, at its best, I believe Paul's instructions draw both Timothy's and our attention to the all-important and still largely unexamined whos and hows of women in church leadership. Throughout his writings regarding women, Paul is largely focused on and has a great deal to say about that. So as a woman who knows she has been called, gifted, equipped, and anointed to preach and teach, and who does so from and with a desire to serve and please God, honors the entirety of scripture, and who knows that neither God nor Paul is misogynistic (woman-hating) or schizophrenic (suffering from an inconsistent or split personality) it's the hows of what my sisters and I do what we do that God has me focused on... whether exegetically and/or devotionally reading Paul's writings regarding women... and the rest of the book as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Aug 28, 2006 7:07:55 GMT -5
KRAZEE: Good job. You've said much of what I was going to say so I'll just second what you said. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by keita on Aug 28, 2006 11:33:16 GMT -5
KRAZEE: Good job. You've said much of what I was going to say so I'll just second what you said. :-) It hasn't happened all that often, lol, so I didn't want to miss the opportunity to completely agree with you. Without a doubt, bro kb is "the man"! (And I mean that in every scriptural and spiritual sense of the word! ) But I would, and do give exactly that same commendation of "Good job" to ALL who are participating in this thread, or even simply following it, who are doing so from a place of loving God and His Word, believing the scriptures, knowing that we each, and only, know in part, and whose purest intention and sole agenda is the pursuit and propogation of His Truth...whether I agree with them or not. And now, since I'm still teaching this evening... I've got to go! Y'all pray for me! |
|
), I think you will find that it very much matters...A LOT... to better understanding Paul's instructions to Timothy and to the Body of Christ regarding the women of God who are called to leadership... whether then, now or yet to come. 
) 