- Religion and Philosophy
Man, the Male Leadership Role as Directed by God - Part 22
Times have changed since the appointment of the first deacons in the “new” church. In Acts 6:1, we have the reason for the first deacons. In Acts 6:3, we have the note they are to be men (aner/male - 435).
Then some 30 years pass during which the church begins to “evolve.” The Apostles have diminished in number. The church is coming under persecution. The Gnostics are attacking the church from the inside. Paul now lays down definitive rules for the organization and works of the church. These are not reworked rules, but added rules to better organize the church and sustain it as a Christian organization.
1 Timothy 2:11; Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
One cannot change the meaning of these words. One can only give a “new slant” to them, a slant that “better signifies” the needs and wants of the "community." One has to search through the “screwball” versions of the Bible to find a translation of this verse that fits a certain agenda. Consider the “God’s Word” translation, for instance. This same verse is transmogrified to:
“A woman must learn in silence, in keeping with her position.”
Now we have what is needed by a certain group. A view of their argument might be “Well, ya know this doesn’t mean in the church as you propose. It really speaks of the woman pastor who quietly studies in her study as is required by a person of her position as pastor.”
There is nothing new about these folks, and there is little right about their theology. It is impossible to reconstruct this verse in this manner using the accepted proofs and helps, no matter how far one takes the Greek wording. But let’s not underestimate them, or their resolve. If the verse and meaning do not support their agenda, the simple answer is to change the proofs.
We find the Strong’s Concordance is no longer the only concordance available. The American Standard Bible publishers have their own concordance. The problem is we now find words in ASB that are not supported by the accepted proofs, yet this version is hailed as a literal translation. Again, we are not about arguing versions, but we cannot shy away from the things either.
Screwball attitudes bring about screwball theories which brings about screwball proofs, even if they have to be fabricated. To be succinct, libertines are screwballs. God still loves them, but their "games" beg the question "Do they love God?'
Now we come to the verse that is the center of all this controversy
1 Timothy 2:12; But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
It is strange how the Bible can use a word twice in two consecutive verses, where neither the subject changes nor the meaning of the word changes, and still have the libertines change both with reasoning not supported by the Bible in any fashion. Yet, this is what happens to this verse, and the one before, at the slight of hand of the neo-theologian. Why? Because the average pew sitter is too lazy to study the Word of God and too fearful of those that orchestrate the church/assembly, John 12:42. The warning was given long ago and is still “prophesied” today in the Book of Jude. Shame on those that would pervert the Word and shame on those that allow such to be done.
God has instituted a teaching and organizational structure. That is apparently the way He wanted it. To say that it is necessary for a woman to be place in the pulpit “because there are not enough men in the church” is only a reason to close the church, not violate the command of God. Now God moves on and tells us why He wants it this way.
1 Timothy 2:14; And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
God says the punishment of Genesis 3:16 is still in force. We all like to reason out what or why God does things, but it is not necessary to know, only to follow. As the old saying goes “God says it; I believe; that’s good enough for me.” The problem it is not good enough for the libertine.
But if the reason is not good enough or the understanding is not clear enough, God speaks even more directly through Paul in the next verse, 1 Timothy 3:1, . . . If a man desire the office of a bishop, . . .
We must remember that “chapter and verse” numbering are relatively new to the scriptures. It was apparently first put in print by Robert I Estienne (Stephanus) in the 1550's AD, but had been done manually by Cardinal Caro and Cardinal Robert Langton in about 1205 AD.
The point is these are reference numbers only, not part of the scriptures. But even here, the libertine is now at work.
Present day electronic Bible programs are now beginning to used, what some call, the original divisions of chapter and verse, those apparently done by Caro. One can only imagine the confusion this is going to cause some folks. And the libertine will, no doubt, pick up on this as it suits their purpose. Back to the study.
“Man” as used here in 1 Timothy 3:1, in some folks mind, is the “generic” for mankind, which includes male and female. In certain instances, this would be correct. The Greek word for “man” used here is “eitis” (1536), a compound of “ei” (1487) and “tis” (5100). It could seem to mean “if any person, i.e. male or female, wants to be a Bishop (Pastor), then here is what you must be.” However, this verse is the lead in to the next verse and not an approval for either sex to hold the office. The actual and fundamental requirements begin in 1 Timothy 3:2 and completely debunk the argument that a woman can be a Bishop/Pastor/:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
The two words in this verse of greatest importance to our study are “must” which is an imperative and “husband” which is defined, in this case, as the only possibility being "a male.” A right thinking person could never define “husband” as a woman. Nor could a libertine ever properly redefine the two. Therefore, the “mankind” of verse one is not genderless. It is defined as meaning a man, a male, in verse 2.
Of course, this does beg the question, “What about female missionaries?”
That’s where we’ll pick next .....