What specific do 'they' want Females NOT to do, that Males can do?

[Tom Wetmore]

Doug, the qualifications for elders/bishops/deacons that have been identified frequently, also included being a good husband to one wife and a good father to ones children, managing ones own household well and being known to be a person of good character, good works and hospitality. These are repeated with regard to the older widows.

Paul identifies the council of elders (presbyterion) in 4:14 that had ordained Timothy. (The letter, of course did not have the chapter and verse breaks...) That begins the passage about Timothy's relationship working with this group. A "presbyterion" was a Greek word derived from secular society which was a group of community leaders of proven maturity and wisdom that comes with experience and age that form a council to oversee and govern the community. The Sanhedrin was such a group in Jewish society. The members of the Sanhedrin were called elders.

The precise term "presbyteros" was not simply referring to aged people. It was used in reference specifically to the members of the "presbyterion". (The reason for the female form of the word was a matter of good Greek grammar, quite like the masculine and feminine forms of words in Spanish and many other languages...) If Paul was only talking about aged men and women he would have used the Greek word that meant only that - "presbytes". While derived from a common root word "presbyteros" had the further meaning of maturity and wisdom that comes from age/experience that was to be honored and respected. Those who had long traveled the path of life were looked up to for guidance and leadership, which is a common cultural phenomenon. As a group they were the leaders of the community or council of elders. The NT church was quite simply a community of believers. All of these roles/positions/offices of the NT church were community governance terms simply taken from the wider secular society and adapted for running the church community. In the first century they had no religious significance.

It is a seemingly odd modifier in the first reference to the widows to honor those that are "widows indeed", or as in some translations, "truly" or "really" widows. One is either a widow or not, as we would understand the word today. Being sort of a widow is like being sort of pregnant. But the significance of this obscure reference, according to NT scholars, is that there was a practice of members dedicating themselves wholly to service of the church, leaving all other temporal responsibilities behind. Some of the women who did this apparently declared themselves to be "widows" to their former life. That helps the "really widows" reference make sense, especially with Paul's elaboration that they really should not abandon those familial responsibilities and connections. And it was for those that were truly widows that were mature with no other responsibilities and all alone that had proven their piety and had already cared for their own family well that should be included and recognized among the body of elders.

You have to read the passage as a whole without dissecting it into isolated bits and pieces. And context includes understanding what is implied and how it would have been understood by the audience to whom Paul was writing.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

What the verse about the younger widows seems to be saying is that Paul had observed that these younger widows acted immature and had not demonstrated their piety or to fulfill their own ability to serve others that would naturally show by being a good wife and mother. The mature widows that had demonstrated the qualification for elder-hood on the same basis as already described.

Would you emphasize that point for Shelly, please? She has asserted that motherhood may not be God's greatest calling.

I will let Shelly speak for herself and draw her own conclusions about this conversation.

But I do think you have misunderstood/distorted her point as you appear to have with what I have said and what Paul said. You seem to be assuming that Shelly is excluding motherhood as a God designed calling/role for women. I think her point is that those who read a verse like this distort it to mean that being a mother automatically and categorically excludes women from any other possible calling by God. I understood her to say that there are indeed many examples of God's call on women that had nothing to do with making babies.

I am not making the point (so don't try to use my words to do it) that women should forsake being a wife and mother. Paul isn't either. Quite to the contrary, just as when speaking of elders/bishops/deacons in the church that were men, Paul speaks of the evidence that they are suited for such roles - they should be good spouses, good parents, good upstanding people that have shown by their maturity and experience in other things to be capable of similar service in the church. Just as being a good husband and father prepare a man and demonstrate his worth, being a good wife and mother does likewise for a woman. The principle of that is clearly echoed in Paul's counsel to TImothy with regard to the older widows that were to be included among the body of elders in the church at Ephesus.

[Tom Wetmore]

A further point about what Paul is obliquely referring to regarding the "widows" is how this office of the church developed over the centuries that followed. Nuns in the Catholic tradition come from this. The etymology of the word "nun" indicates that it came from a Latin word that was an endearing reference to or term of respect for an older woman. Just as the first century "widows" renounced all for the church, the catholic orders of nuns likewise gave up everything and became completely dependent on and in service of the Church.

[shelly]

Doug, I am neutral on the subject of women's ordination. Only God and the individual knows whether they are truly being called by God. But what I will say is that I posted because your idea that women best serve God by being wives an mothers is offensive to say the least. I can name several women off the top of my head whose service had nothing to do with their producing children. Queen Esther, Deborah (a Judge and spiritual ruler of Isreal), Tabbatha-the bible records her work with the poor not her children, Mary Magdeline, Rahab the Harlot, Mary and Martha are never recorded as having children or being married. Jesus said he is no respector of persons but people want to argue Paul's social commentary about male female relationships. Women are not simple baby making machines whose greatest spiritual contribution is raising babies. Really, is the fact that EGW had children the greatest way God used her?