"Gender Roles at Home and Church"

[ITS]

Critique Blomberg's conclusions in Lecture 15, "Gender Roles at Home and Church."

[paul@kdcag.com]

Dr. Bloomberg discusses in detail Head Coverings, Women's silence in church, Domestic relationships, and Women's authoritative teaching in church. I will critique his overall presentation, and select one area to focus more discussion.

I believe that his efforts are very fruitful. I believe that he has properly investigated the various issues and options of each tension area. I enjoyed his investigation of other areas that he does not, in the end, support.

His comments and conclusions on Women and Authoritative Teaching in the Church do not, in my opinion, follow the same logical unbiased structure. I believe that the "bottom line" he suggests is not necessarily the point.

He says that a local application of 1 Tim 2:13-14 would be that no gender should teach heresy. Thus, the local application is addressing a specific situation, not commanding a general truth. When Dr. Bloomberg then states his interpretation to modern-day equivalents is "overseer" or "elder" and thus implying that women cannot serve in these roles, does not accurately reflect good analysis.

Experience would support the interpretation of local applicaiton and not a universal truth.

[Melinda]

Dr. Blomberg's discussion of gender roles in the New Testament is very focused. In II Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul is discussing head coverings for men and women. In particular men with long hair were considerd to be homosexual and women with short hair were considered to be in a lesbian relationship. Long or short hair sent sexual or religious signals to the society.

Dr. Blomberg declares that some still believe this to be true. There are many cultures throughout the world that take these scriptures literally. Many believers will reject women with short hair cuts saying that they are ungodly. These women will be denied entrance into a church for this. In other areas men wear their hair long as a sign of their culture and the church denies them entrance unless they cut their hair.

External appearances vary from culture to culture - Blomberg points out II Timothy 3:16- that each teaching passage must have relevance for today.

[melchis1]

In listening to Dr. Blomberg I find that I agree with most of his interpretation on Gender roles in the church. However I disagree with one of his interpretation specifically that which suggest that the head of the church must be a male. I follow Blomberg's argument in 1Corinthians 14:33b-38 until he makes the point of evaluation of prophecy. He states that this is something reserved for the male and that it is not a gift given of the spirit. If the evaluation of prophecy is not a gift of the spirit then it is based upon ones knowledge and experience. Surely we must question basing any of this on gender. There are many males who are ignorant by anyone?s evaluation. Should we leave our leadership to those who are ill-equiped in order to maintain male leadership within a church.

During the time that I grew up the Baptist church I was taught the typical beliefs of the time on male female gender roles in the church. Women had to wear head covering, they could not wear pants, and they had to be subservient to their husbands no matter how their husbands treated them. This was a kind of ?lord it over them ? way. I tried to subscribe to this as a boy because I wanted to do the right thing, but deep in my heart I was unsettled. With the strives that the church has made today I am much more comfortable with our approach towards women in the church. When Blomberg states that an office in church is held by a person solely upon their gender, then I find myself again struggling with that same uneasy feeling that I felt as a boy.

Blomberg list 5 approaches to Paul's statement about women being quiet in the church. One of which I feel is at the heart of the issue. That is the general lack of education of women in antiquity.

First women were not educated in that time. Paul was speaking to a new church whose beginning was within the Roman and Jewish climate was tenuous. In some situations Paul was not only birthing a new religion he was planting churches. It was important that he give them every effort to succeed. Paul made the very wise decision of leaving this office to men who were the ones most often taught at the time. The chances of finding a man with the education and experience to pastor a church was much greater than that of finding a women with the same. Since the high office in the church can make or brake that institution then in that day, in context it should be a man.

Blomberg cites the reason that I feel Paul based his decision on, the general lack of access to education. Blomberg then discredits this explanation by making the inference that there were uneducated men as well. However the lack of education to women was based in Jewish culture. It was unacceptable to educate women, taboo. A very similar situation existed in our own culture at a time much closer than that of antiquity. Slave codes held laws which prevent the education of African Americans for almost 400 years. On a whole one could not expect the race as a whole to integrate into society with such a lack of education. However there were those few who rose up through illegal education. In time as generations passed this changed. When the bands were broken, each generation leap from the shoulders of the generation which preceded and now we find a race of people vastly different form the one found at the close of 1865.

Blomberg makes a statement that I believe can be viewed in a different manor. Blomberg states that the literal Greek translation of verse 15 reads ?But she shall be saved through child bearing, if they remain in faith in love and in holiness with modesty. Dr. Blomberg translates this to mean basically that women shall redeem themselves through child birth. That is that they can escape or mitigate their part in the fall of man kind by continuing to have children. It is difficult for me to accept that women have advanced so much in years since the fall of man due to one great responsibility and that is to bear children. I am not belittling the responsibility of child birth but we must also recognize the responsibility of both parents to raise children. Neither parent can be absolved of their monumental and unique responsibility in the rearing of young men and women. If this is as Dr. Blomberg states that women?s greatest contribution then why are we continuing to find that parenting is a two person job. Children need both their mothers and fathers present. Although we find curse in genesis 3 directed towards the women and towards the man we also find that these curse are universal. We all make our living by the sweat of our browse men and women. And if children are not raised correctly or if there is some great failure in the development of the child all society suffers wither through crime or the care taking of abandoned, malnutrition and mentally deficient children.

I believe that verse 15 means this. Women were at a disadvantage in training and learning. It was against Jewish law to teach women. In the heart of women and in hearts of some men I believe they knew that this was not the last word from God on the subject of women. In time women learned and proved that they could use their minds also. As we continue through generations things change and we as a generation learn. As these generations pass women learn and she proves herself and as she proves herself we learn the truth. We learn that women as a whole have the same cognitive capacity as men do. How can she be his equal his companion or help mate if she could not walk on the same cognitive plain as he does. She was made to be his companion and not another child or slave. I believe that our fall from sin ruined a lot of things for us among them was the Godly relationship between men and women. As generations pass women as a whole have grown. If we accept this then how can we limit a women?s cognitive role based upon her sex. How can we say that a women can not lead a church when she has demonstrated cognitively that she can simply based upon her sex.

Br. Blomberg states that a women can not be the overall leader of a church based upon a statement that Paul makes to the church at Corinth which appears to be dealing with a multitude of issues among them Transgender roles. Paul spoke to a specific issue occurring in a specific church at a specific time. I wonder how he would respond if he met a well educated women at the head of a church. How would he employ his yes but logic. However overarching all of this I do not believe that a women should sacrifice her uniquely women role to do anything. Not all women should be mothers and not all women should lead churches. A women should serve as she is called in what ever capacity that God calls her.


Consider Blomberg?s approach to Philemon and the issue of slavery. Blomberg stated that eh believed that Paul was against slavery but unwilling to confront the system of slavery because its roots reach too deep within the culture of the Roman empire. While my jury is still out on this statement, I would apply this same logic to the male dominated world of the first century. If Paul was afraid to pit Christianity against the deep roots of slavery then perhaps he was afraid of the deeper roots of a male dominated society as well.

However I do believe that there is one caveat and that is the great command that God gave to all of us and that is to be fruitful and multiply. In this I believe that women have a particular role which can not be shirked. Children have grown into adult hood with sever mental issues due to a lack of proper roles in the family or the loss of access to one parent of the other. Men and women do play roles in families and nothing should get in the way of this including the leadership of the church. But as in Paul?s ?yes but? logic there are exceptions. We should perform our duties as God has called us to do. A women should serve her role as mother first. In today?s society we all enjoy certain freedoms due to the build up of society. We can utilize baby sitters and day care but there are some developmental periods that can not be given away without consequence.

We must understand that Paul himself is a man within context. Had he been faced with the women of today how would he have respond. We don?t have a situation where Paul was confronted by a women who was the head of a church. Had he been confronted with this we might be discussing a different topic.

In closing I would like to quote Blomberg. He made a statement at the end of his lecture on Gender roles which I believe overarches all that we learn and I believe whole heartedly. ?Finally there is a desperate need for us to hold our views tentatively, admitting that we could be wrong, and agreeing to disagree in love and to tolerate diverse models among different minded churches.?

[SEikenberry]

By Sylvia Eikenberry, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary
December 7, 2004


Critique Blomberg?s conclusions in Lecture 15 ??Gender Roles at Home and Church.?

Gender roles can be defined as socially expected behavior patterns for men and women in the context of the culture of the New Testament church. In his lectures, Blomberg discusses four main issues ? head coverings, women?s silence in the church, gender roles within the home, and whether women should be allowed to teach in the church.

1. Use or non-use of Head Coverings - I disagree with Blomberg in that he interprets I Corinthians 11:4-5 to refer to a man or woman?s hair. ?Every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head?it is just as though her head were shaved!? This is a redundant statement if the woman?s hair is short (almost shaved) anyway. I believe it does refer to the veil or cloth scarf worn over the women?s head. I think that the women of the early church may have dressed similarly to women in Bangladesh who wear saris. I have observed Moslem Bangladeshi women, who both grow their hair long and take great care to keep the cloth veil over their head at all times. When meeting a man who is not of their family, the woman will quickly draw the veil across her face. (Of course, the faces of women who wear the burqa, worn by fundamentally strict Moslems, would never be seen at all in public.) |The veil expresses modesty and the long hair was the norm for what was beautiful. I do agree with Blomberg?s reference to Paul?s not liking men in the Corinthian church to cover their head with a veil because the Roman men wore a toga over their head during pagan worship. In some cultures such as in India, if a man wears extremely long hair, it is a sign that he is a ?holy man??in the Hindu religion?the opposite of the impression Paul wanted to make of men in the early Christian church.

2. Women?s Silence in the Church ? I agree with Blomberg in that he felt that the Jewish women were not necessarily segregated in worship?chattering or gossiping with no actual involvement in the service. They may have asked disruptive questions from time to time. I think that Paul was being very careful to make sure that the atmosphere in the early church was conducive to worship. They would often have been meeting in people?s homes, so perhaps the women congregated to the kitchen or food preparation. (I Corinthians 14:33b-38) As the church tended to be more organized and formal, things may have changed. Blomberg feels that women had the right to prophesy. In our modern day churches, the church would be missing a lot if all women were asked to remain silent ? tremendous Bible teachers such as Marilyn Hickey and Joyce Meyers would be missed. Women who are worship leaders, musicians, Bible teachers Sunday School teachers, and choir members all have their part in today?s church.

3. Gender Roles within the Home -

a. Women ? Blomberg talks about the Hierarchical combination of submit and head. ?Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.? Ephesians 5:22 I think that submission is one area that many wives struggle with. I did myself in my marriage of 25 years. But I have to say that things went a lot better for our family if I submitted to my husband?s wishes and decisions. Now that I am a widow and have to make my own decisions, I definitely miss that hierarchy of authority and protection that the Lord wanted to provide for wives and their children by placing the husband in authority over the wife.
b. Children ? ?Children, Obey your parents in the Lord for this is right.?
Paul may have observed behavior among the children of the early church for him to write this. I think that Paul would be absolutely appalled at the behavior of modern children in the 21st Century. As always, Paul is placing the Lord at the top of the hierarchy. Children should obey their parents as though Jesus himself had asked them to do something for the Kingdom.
c. Husbands ? Paul went against the culture when writing to the Greek and Roman husbands, who were very used to ruling their household however they wished. Paul admonished husbands to love their wives ?as their own body? or ?as Christ loved the church.? I think that it was very well said, but few husbands can live up to this statement.

4. Women and Authoritative Teaching in the Church ?

a. Women must be Submissive - Paul says ?A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.? I Tim. 2:11 Blomberg brought out the point that indeed women should be learning with a submissive spirit. By the time Paul wrote to Timothy, church services were becoming more formal and Paul wanted the women to learn as much as the men were. The verse about women being ?saved through childbearing if they continue in faith?? (I Timothy 2:15) has sparked controversy. But I believe women model God?s love and plan for the human race by bearing children and raising a ?godly seed.? So I would agree with the statement. To me this says that Paul wouldn?t really be much for the ascetic practice of women becoming nuns, although he was single himself and encouraged others to be like him.

b.Women not permitted to teach and have authority - A second controversial issue is the one in I Timothy 2:12 ?I do not permit women to teach and have authority.? Paul was laying down some guidelines which if they were strictly followed in our culture today, would mean that we would miss out on the ministries of great women of the faith such as Kathryn Kulman, Joyce Meyers, and Marilyn Hickey. Women do need to have an authoritative role in teaching, but the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews are hesitant to put a woman in their top leadership position. They do allow them in supportive roles. The church I?m a member of in Tacoma, Washington has 12 ministers?all men accept for one woman who is the leader for Women?s Ministries. Women relate to women well and can provide insight to men if the men are willing to be taught by them.

c. Women active in Mission - We can see that Paul depicts women as being active in mission. In Romans 16, nine of the 28 people he greeted were women. In Roman times, some women owned houses and so may have been patrons of house churches. We know that Priscilla and Aquila worked together as a missionary couple. Phoebe is a deaconess (Romans 16:1-2). Paul, Blomberg, and I agree that women did make a significant contribution to the ministry of the early church.

[carlos72]

Critique Blomberg's conclusions in Lecture 15, "Gender Roles at Home and Church."
I believe that Dr. Blomberg does a great job in explaining the difficult passages about gender roles at home and at churc. He really throws a new light into the biblical texts that are controversial for many church members and even pastors.
On his conclusion of lecture 15, I do not feel that he made clear if a woman can be a senior pastor and if a married woman can teach her husband in modern days. I do understand that this instructions given to women in the church were given in the first century and we have come a long way since. In our days, women are more enthusiastic with church education and theological carreers than men, therefore they can be adequate teachers to their husbands. I do not think that by having a woman teaching or being a senior pastor is a vioaltion of Paul's teaching. I am sure that both men and women have the same authority at home and at church, given by God with the only requirement that they must submit to each other and both submit to God.
On all other topics of gender roles, I think that Dr. Blomberg gives us the best insight into the content of the each Bible verse and I agree with him in topics such as head covering, women submission to men, and lenght of hair (which would need an adaptation to our culture today).

[carlos72]

Dr. Blomberg's discussion of gender roles in the New Testament is very focused. In II Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul is discussing head coverings for men and women. In particular men with long hair were considerd to be homosexual and women with short hair were considered to be in a lesbian relationship. Long or short hair sent sexual or religious signals to the society.

Dr. Blomberg declares that some still believe this to be true. There are many cultures throughout the world that take these scriptures literally. Many believers will reject women with short hair cuts saying that they are ungodly. These women will be denied entrance into a church for this. In other areas men wear their hair long as a sign of their culture and the church denies them entrance unless they cut their hair.

External appearances vary from culture to culture - Blomberg points out II Timothy 3:16- that each teaching passage must have relevance for today.

I agree with this postion, many cultures take the passage of the length of hair literally, specially in cultures where the theological education is not appropiate and iliterate people read it as it is translated.
On the other hand, archeological investigations had determine that in Paul's time in Corinth, temple prostitutes shaved their heads and the male priest let his hair grew long to distinguish authority in the temple. Paul is telling the church in Corinth that a Christian must show a change of life style not only inwardly but outwardly, and the Christian should distinguish himself or herself from the pagans in other religions contradicting the Bible.
If we apply that today, we can tell people in any culture that women in the church should not look like prostitutes on the streets, and that men should not look like pagans or drug adicts do in modern days.

[kruger5]

Critique Blomberg's conclusions in Lecture 15, "Gender Roles at Home and Church."
I appreciated Blomberg?s conclusion concerning the ultimate authoritative teacher in a given church should be a man (or at least not a married woman teaching her husband). I am pretty traditional about men being the pastor of the church, but I have seen too many women decline from board positions or other leadership or teaching positions within the church because they do not think it is their place. Blomberg brings out the fact that Priscilla and Aquila both taught Apollos. Here we have an example of a woman teaching a man without any objection, but she is not teaching as an authority over her husband but rather alongside him.

Blomberg also pointed out some interesting pairs of words that Paul uses all throughout 1 Timothy 2 to say the same thing in a synonymous way such as: requests and prayers, kings and authorities, peaceful and quiet, godliness and holiness, good and pleasing, herald and apostle, telling the truth and not lying, without anger or disputing, with decency and propriety. So when you arrive at verse 12 where it says, ?I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man? it seems reasonable to see this also as two synonymous expressions not as two separate ones disqualifying women from a teaching role. This would contradict the example of Priscilla and Aquila who both taught Apollos to which Paul made no apparent objection.

[kruger5]

In listening to Dr. Blomberg I find that I agree with most of his interpretation on Gender roles in the church. However I disagree with one of his interpretation specifically that which suggest that the head of the church must be a male. I follow Blomberg's argument in 1Corinthians 14:33b-38 until he makes the point of evaluation of prophecy. He states that this is something reserved for the male and that it is not a gift given of the spirit. If the evaluation of prophecy is not a gift of the spirit then it is based upon ones knowledge and experience. Surely we must question basing any of this on gender. There are many males who are ignorant by anyone?s evaluation. Should we leave our leadership to those who are ill-equiped in order to maintain male leadership within a church.

During the time that I grew up the Baptist church I was taught the typical beliefs of the time on male female gender roles in the church. Women had to wear head covering, they could not wear pants, and they had to be subservient to their husbands no matter how their husbands treated them. This was a kind of ?lord it over them ? way. I tried to subscribe to this as a boy because I wanted to do the right thing, but deep in my heart I was unsettled. With the strives that the church has made today I am much more comfortable with our approach towards women in the church. When Blomberg states that an office in church is held by a person solely upon their gender, then I find myself again struggling with that same uneasy feeling that I felt as a boy.

Blomberg list 5 approaches to Paul's statement about women being quiet in the church. One of which I feel is at the heart of the issue. That is the general lack of education of women in antiquity.

First women were not educated in that time. Paul was speaking to a new church whose beginning was within the Roman and Jewish climate was tenuous. In some situations Paul was not only birthing a new religion he was planting churches. It was important that he give them every effort to succeed. Paul made the very wise decision of leaving this office to men who were the ones most often taught at the time. The chances of finding a man with the education and experience to pastor a church was much greater than that of finding a women with the same. Since the high office in the church can make or brake that institution then in that day, in context it should be a man.

Blomberg cites the reason that I feel Paul based his decision on, the general lack of access to education. Blomberg then discredits this explanation by making the inference that there were uneducated men as well. However the lack of education to women was based in Jewish culture. It was unacceptable to educate women, taboo. A very similar situation existed in our own culture at a time much closer than that of antiquity. Slave codes held laws which prevent the education of African Americans for almost 400 years. On a whole one could not expect the race as a whole to integrate into society with such a lack of education. However there were those few who rose up through illegal education. In time as generations passed this changed. When the bands were broken, each generation leap from the shoulders of the generation which preceded and now we find a race of people vastly different form the one found at the close of 1865.

Blomberg makes a statement that I believe can be viewed in a different manor. Blomberg states that the literal Greek translation of verse 15 reads ?But she shall be saved through child bearing, if they remain in faith in love and in holiness with modesty. Dr. Blomberg translates this to mean basically that women shall redeem themselves through child birth. That is that they can escape or mitigate their part in the fall of man kind by continuing to have children. It is difficult for me to accept that women have advanced so much in years since the fall of man due to one great responsibility and that is to bear children. I am not belittling the responsibility of child birth but we must also recognize the responsibility of both parents to raise children. Neither parent can be absolved of their monumental and unique responsibility in the rearing of young men and women. If this is as Dr. Blomberg states that women?s greatest contribution then why are we continuing to find that parenting is a two person job. Children need both their mothers and fathers present. Although we find curse in genesis 3 directed towards the women and towards the man we also find that these curse are universal. We all make our living by the sweat of our browse men and women. And if children are not raised correctly or if there is some great failure in the development of the child all society suffers wither through crime or the care taking of abandoned, malnutrition and mentally deficient children.

I believe that verse 15 means this. Women were at a disadvantage in training and learning. It was against Jewish law to teach women. In the heart of women and in hearts of some men I believe they knew that this was not the last word from God on the subject of women. In time women learned and proved that they could use their minds also. As we continue through generations things change and we as a generation learn. As these generations pass women learn and she proves herself and as she proves herself we learn the truth. We learn that women as a whole have the same cognitive capacity as men do. How can she be his equal his companion or help mate if she could not walk on the same cognitive plain as he does. She was made to be his companion and not another child or slave. I believe that our fall from sin ruined a lot of things for us among them was the Godly relationship between men and women. As generations pass women as a whole have grown. If we accept this then how can we limit a women?s cognitive role based upon her sex. How can we say that a women can not lead a church when she has demonstrated cognitively that she can simply based upon her sex.

Br. Blomberg states that a women can not be the overall leader of a church based upon a statement that Paul makes to the church at Corinth which appears to be dealing with a multitude of issues among them Transgender roles. Paul spoke to a specific issue occurring in a specific church at a specific time. I wonder how he would respond if he met a well educated women at the head of a church. How would he employ his yes but logic. However overarching all of this I do not believe that a women should sacrifice her uniquely women role to do anything. Not all women should be mothers and not all women should lead churches. A women should serve as she is called in what ever capacity that God calls her.


Consider Blomberg?s approach to Philemon and the issue of slavery. Blomberg stated that eh believed that Paul was against slavery but unwilling to confront the system of slavery because its roots reach too deep within the culture of the Roman empire. While my jury is still out on this statement, I would apply this same logic to the male dominated world of the first century. If Paul was afraid to pit Christianity against the deep roots of slavery then perhaps he was afraid of the deeper roots of a male dominated society as well.

However I do believe that there is one caveat and that is the great command that God gave to all of us and that is to be fruitful and multiply. In this I believe that women have a particular role which can not be shirked. Children have grown into adult hood with sever mental issues due to a lack of proper roles in the family or the loss of access to one parent of the other. Men and women do play roles in families and nothing should get in the way of this including the leadership of the church. But as in Paul?s ?yes but? logic there are exceptions. We should perform our duties as God has called us to do. A women should serve her role as mother first. In today?s society we all enjoy certain freedoms due to the build up of society. We can utilize baby sitters and day care but there are some developmental periods that can not be given away without consequence.

We must understand that Paul himself is a man within context. Had he been faced with the women of today how would he have respond. We don?t have a situation where Paul was confronted by a women who was the head of a church. Had he been confronted with this we might be discussing a different topic.

In closing I would like to quote Blomberg. He made a statement at the end of his lecture on Gender roles which I believe overarches all that we learn and I believe whole heartedly. ?Finally there is a desperate need for us to hold our views tentatively, admitting that we could be wrong, and agreeing to disagree in love and to tolerate diverse models among different minded churches.?
In response to the first paragraph of this post I would like to agree with Blomberg?s interpretation that the head of a church should be a male. God is a god of order. We may not be able to fully comprehend why he orders things the way he does, but he is God. It may seem that the Son is in a lower position than the Father, but the two along with the Spirit altogether form the Godhead. It does not mean one is lower than another; they just function differently to create order. It seems pretty clear to me that God has placed man in a higher authority position than women for the purpose of order, not on the basis of inequality. While this may seem a bit harsh in the liberal culture of America, I believe this is the pattern we should follow based on the model of Scripture as Blomberg suggests.

[grahamjcjg]

Although there is some disagreement on this tread as to a number of Blomberg?s interpretations and applications of this difficult issue, I am very encouraged by the general direction that this debated has taken as of late within the church at large. That is to say, that there is today much more agreement within Christendom than ever before. It is reassuring, at least with reference to this debate, to see Christians hammering out this issue and even making progress toward a more unified view. In the book Blomberg and Beck edited on this topic, Two Views on Women in Ministry, he notes that a number of past ideas are no longer championed by many contemporary Christians (see ?Introduction? of the above cited book). For example, the idea of men lording over their wives is today viewed as something very hard to biblically square with the notion of ?husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church.? In fact, had Blomberg edited a book on this subject more than 100 years ago, it might have been called Three Views? or even Four Views?.

Personally, I find little practical differences today between the camps when it comes gender roles (at least within the home). I find great comfort in this fact, especially since I am forced to admit that I am still largely undecided on this issue.

All of that being said, I too will question Blomberg, at least at one point ? 1 Corinthians 11.

Though historically, having one?s head shaved or uncovered could have communicated infidelity or idolatry, I am forced to wonder why Paul would then only want women to covered while praying and prophesying. Wouldn?t he want them to always appear pure and holy? Moreover, in light of Paul?s response to Christians eating meat sacrificed to idols and Paul?s position on Jewish Christians practicing Hebrew traditions, I am curious as to why he would have cared what others thought about Christian women?s heads. In fact, wasn?t it Paul who said, ?let each be fully convinced in his [or her] own mind? (Rom 14:5)? In light of the overall context of this epistle, I expect Paul to actually be arguing that head covering is irrelevant, i.e. that such a custom has no bearing on Christianity and that women should be able to make up their own minds about this issue (which does seem to be his conclusion from v. 16).

Interestingly enough, one recent theory proposes just that. Rather than translating exousia as ?headcovering? or ?sign of authority,? a case can be made for translating this word as ?freedom of choice.? In fact, Hays and Hooker both point out that this is how Paul uses the word when talking about a Christian?s exousia regarding the eating of meat sacrificed to idols (also refer also to 6:12, 7:4, 8:9, 9:4-6, 9:12, and 10:23 in this same epistle). It is also relevant to note that Paul uses katakaluptein in this context four times before v. 10 and once after, but he instead of using katakaluptesthai in verse 10 he uses exousia. Why not use, a word, which would have made the most sense here if he wanted to teach his readers about headcoverings?

Currently, there is a small movement that is now translating exousia here as ?freedom.? I believe there is a footnote in the TNIV and a couple of other translation as well. The biggest problem with this translation is how it might fit within the immediate context of verses 3-9. I believe the best explanation is offered by Christopher Smith and Laurie Hurshman in a article they wrote for the Journal of Christian Ethics. Here they propose that Paul is challenging the Corinthians with something similar to the ?yes, but logic,? though not quiet the same (refer to 15:12-19 where Paul seems to be allowing for no resurrection of the dead to push Corinthian logic to its end conclusion).

Space does not permit me to develop this further. Please refer to the following article:
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/034/Headcoverings%20and%20Women%E2%80%99s%20Roles%20in %20the%20Church%20-%20A%20New%20Reading%20of%201%20Corinthians%2011_2-16%20By%20Laurie%20C%20Hurshman%20and%20Christophe r%20R%20Smith_034__.htm

[kabandanelson]

CRITIQUE BLOMBERG’S CONCLUSION IN LECTURE 15: GENDER ROLES AT HOME AND CHURCH.
NAME: Kabanda Nelson.
LOCATION: Tyndale Theological Seminary.

Dr. Blomberg does a very good job in explaining the difficult passages in our study. I appreciate his efforts to research and find the sufficient explanations for such passages as this. I find that I agree with him on most of the conclusions he gives in the lectures but this time I was not convinced with his conclusion on lecture 15 about Gender roles at Home and Church.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 has a controversial statement by Paul that says; “So every man who prays or proclaims God’s word with his head covered dishonors Christ. Verse 5, And any woman who prays or proclaims God’s word with her head uncovered dishonors Christ.” Reading this in context, at this point Paul is talking about propriety in worship, and its natural to think of a cloth veil as a covering referred to in this context. In Dr. Blomberg’s discussion he concludes this to be human hair which he says in the culture of the Corinthians sent either religious or sexual signals at this time.
I think this is true but it is coming in a different point. I feel Paul is talking about cloth veils in this context. The Corinthian church were a mixed ethnic group since this was a trading centre, there was a high level of income inequality so the rich men might have dressed on very huge expensive veils around the head to emphasize status. Well, it’s normal for women to decorate them selves and it gives decency in some way which is required in worship. Otherwise, covering or non covering would be an issue in any church because God does not judge by external appearance.

Dr. Blomberg still comments on women and authoritative teaching in Church though I find some dissatisfaction with his conclusion on this as well. This leads us to the issue of women occupying top leadership positions in the church. There are very many women who are very intelligent and gifted by God, who can occupy these leadership positions and satisfy us and God. We all believe that leadership comes from God, so if God has chosen a woman to fill up a top leadership position violating this would be unfair both to the woman and God.
Regarding his discussion of the hierarchical combination of “submit” and “head,” I very well agree with him on this matter.

[kabandanelson]

NAME: Kabanda Nelson.
LOCATION: Tyndale Theological Seminary.

This is post in reply to Melinda.

I disagree with her conclusion and examples she gives in discussing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. She seems completely convinced that the covering discussed in context is human hair. I feel that the covering talked about here is a cloth veil. When you go with the NIV version Bible, the statement verse 5(b) is a comparison that reads; “it is just as though her head were shaved.” By this statement Paul is comparing a woman who does not cover her head with a veil with one who veils. Reading this statement in isolation but having at the back of your mind the significance of reading in context will draw us to the belief that it’s the cloth veil in view here.

However, agree with her that there are many cultures today, who take these scriptures literally. But I feel taking or not taking this scripture literally all draws us to the same interpretation at least for this particular section. Paul did not employ much logic in writing 1Corinthians when you compare with his other letters. I think we should avoid taking some scriptures too spiritual or too mystical by trying to find a super natural interpretation even where the passage seems simple and speaks directly to us.

[hoffmapc]

I liked Dr. Blomberg’s treatment of head coverings for men and women. His view that the actual head covering is a cultural issue, and the issue of honoring the spiritual head is a timeless principle is very astute. Often people forget that the Bible was not written in a vacuum. There are cultural issues at work that were addressed by the writers, but the cultural issue is not the main point. It is our job to find the timeless principle that is at the heart of the matter and then seek to apply that principle across different cultures in appropriate ways. With this in mind, I believe that Dr. Blomberg is correct in stating that a timeless principle of honoring one’s spiritual head can be taken from 1Corinthians 11:2-16. I also liked the way Dr. Blomberg distinguished between women “preaching”, which he believes is not prohibited by scripture, and women holding on “office” of elder in the church, which he believes is prohibited in 1Corinthians 14:33b-38. This interpretation is a good balance between both sides of the issue that still holds true to the text.

[keelboy]

I believe Blomberg covers this topic very well in the one lecture he designates for the subject. There is definite validity in knowing that women were not as educated as men in the first century and this explains many of the problems Paul addresses. As well, we know that things have changed greatly just in the 20th century. But, God created each sex with certain abilities that allow them to team together and have offspring. After that, both men and women complete the equation by giving those offspring the emotional, physical, and mental training they need to develop correctly to train the next generation. I believe he does a good job of opening the learner’s eyes to a broad variety of issues in the time he gives.

[keelboy]

I like the connection ‘melchis1’ made. Paul was sensitive to the culture he operated in. He was very aware both politically and emotionally to things go on during that time. This was obviously due to his education, experience, and anointing. In fact, it was not until current day that this male dominated society began to show significant change. As we know now, the change was not a bad thing, although we are still trying to find balance. The early church was about individuals finding Christ, which has not changed. We are not primarily about changing culture, but changing the inside attitudes. And that kind of change will in turn affect the society and culture.

[KDG]

(1 Cor. 11:2-16) I agree with Dr. Blomberg’s opinion that the hair covering is a culturally driven argument with an overriding supra-cultural principle behind it, namely honoring one’s spiritual head, Jesus Christ. Paul tells the Corinthian church not to dishonor Christ by taking on physical attributes that look pagan. Their culture equated covering a man’s head and uncovering a woman’s head during worship with pagan practices. Therefore the covering or uncovering of one’s head became a sign of submitting to Christ’s authority within the 1st century Greco-Roman cultural context.

The passage should be read with the idea of honoring Christ by conforming one’s appearance to fit cultural norms and decorum acceptable in their given culture as well as an abandonment of appearances that might be confused with non-Christian practices.

(1 Cor. 14:33b-38) I agree with Dr. Blomberg about women being silent in the context of being the final authority for evaluating prophecy, a job which the church overseers would seem to perform for the sake of maintaining order in worship.

(Eph. 5:18-33) I agree with his conclusion that wives are to respect and honor their husbands (but not obey them blindly) and that husbands are to love their wives, even to the point of self-sacrifice for their wives’ welfare.

(1 Tim. 2: 8-15) I agree with Dr. Blomberg’s suggestion that this passage means women are not to teach men or have authority over men (in the book of Acts, Priscilla together with her husband, corrected Apollos) and by extension, are not to serve as elders/overseers. The overall context in 1 Tim. 2-3 is authority, leadership and teaching, and Paul makes it clear that women are not to exercise authority over men in the church as teachers/elders/overseers.

[KDG]

In response to Paul@kdcag.com, I disagree with his critique of Dr. Blomberg’s discussion of “Gender Roles at Home and Church”.

First, in the third paragraph, Paul states that he thinks Dr. Blomberg may have missed the point in his assessment in his “bottom line” about men, not women having the ultimate teaching authority in the church. I believe Dr. Blomberg is correct. The overall context of this section of 1st Timothy is teaching and the authority to teach. Immediately following 2:15, the Apostle Paul shifts from women to men and discusses qualifications for elders/overseers, men who in 3:2e are “able to teach”. The Apostle Paul makes it clear these teachers are to be men, even though with deacons, one can make a legitimate argument that 3:11 refers to deaconesses, as Dr. Blomberg indeed makes.

In his fourth paragraph, Paul claims Dr. Blomberg makes a poor analysis. Why is this so? Further to my comments above, did not the Apostle Paul instruct in 1 Tim 3 that the elders, who are to be able to teach and manage the church, are to be men? The prohibition against women as teacher/elders in 2:12 is consistent with the context of outlining qualifications and responsibilities of an elder as a male teacher/leader.