Gary,

Gal 3:26-28 isn't what I would call the Trump Verses for 1 Tim 2 or 1 Cor 14.  What it does is tell us what God expects of the church when one is totally immersed in the spirit of Christ.  IMO, we loose what we are to be seen as the image of Christ in us.  When you read the traditional translation of the other two sets of verses, there is a definite conflict of meaning that cannot be explained away, no matter how hard one tries.  Viewing Genesis 2 and 3 also conflicts with 1 Tim 2 in the since it is currently translated, at least until we factor in the the now know conflicts that had arrisen in Ephesus in the church.  The conflicts I'm referring to are the assorption of paganistic Gnostic teachings which were quite active in Ephesus at this time into the Christian church in Ephesus which would form the basis of the Christian Gnostic teachings which we still suffer from the effects of in our modern church.  What most people are unaware of is that much of the reason for writing Timothy was to combat Gnostic teaching, much of which was coming throughy women who were heavily influenced by the reverse view of the creation of man.

I would highly recommend the foundational study on this which was done in apx 1995, give or take,
I Suffer Not A Woman: Rethinking 1 Tim 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence  by Richard Clark Kroeger & Catherine Clark Kroeger  ( http://www.amazon.com/Suffer-Not-Woman-Rethinking-Evidence/dp/0801052505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1225976813&sr=8-1 )

Greek translation is definitly not an exact science!  There is much we still don't know and discoveries are continually being made that show that the Greek to English translation needs to be redone in some areas of our NT, especially where gender is definded.  The Kroegers tackle this problem head on using a historical approach which takes into account the Gnostic influence on how the letter to Timothy should be understood and translated,, especially in light of discoveries of Greek texts in the 1970's that have served to give us a better understanding of one word in particular:  authentien.

Another example of how we apply translation for a male only view is the following:  From the NIV: (Traditional view)
3:1This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer{or, superintendents, or bishops}, he desires a good work.
3:2 The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;
3:3 not a drinker, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
3:4 one who rules his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence;
3:5 (but if a man doesn't know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the assembly of God?)
3:6 not a new convert, lest being puffed up he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
3:7 Moreover he must have good testimony from those who are outside, to avoid falling into reproach and the snare of the devil.
3:8 Servants{or, Deacons.}, in the same way, must be reverent, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for money;
3:9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
3:10 Let them also first be tested; then let them serve{or, serve as deacons} if they are blameless.
3:11 Their wives in the same way must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
3:12 Let servants{or, deacons} be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
3:13 For those who have served well{or, served well as deacons} gain for themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Translation based on the latest knowledge that is presently considered the untraditional view
 
Ch.3:1-7 This is a faithful saying. If any person  aspires to be a Guardian,  they are desiring a fine work. 2 So then it is necessary that they are blameless and faithful to their partner,  not a drunkard, sensible,  well behaved,  hospitable, skilled in teaching,  3 not a drunk nor someone who gets into fist fights, but they must be fair, peaceful and free from greed.
4 They must provide for  their own household, and have their little children in support, and to do so in a most dignified manner. 5 (For if someone doesn’t know how to provide for their own household, how will they manage God’s house!)
   6 They can’t be a novice, or they might get wrapped in clouds of conceit and silliness which would lead to them falling prey  to Slanderer-Liar’s law court.  7 They must also have a fine reputation with the outsiders, so that they don’t fall into disgrace, as this is  a trick set up by Slanderer-Liar.
8-13   In the same way also  deacons must be dignified, not two-faced, not addicted to  wine, not greedy for dishonest profit. 9 They must possess the hidden secret truth of the faith with a clean conscience. 10 And after they have first been examined,  and found to be without reproach,  then let them serve as deacons. 11 In the same way also,  female deacons  must be dignified,  not slanderers or drunks, but trustworthy in everything.
   12 Deacons must be faithful to their partner,  and provide for  their children and their household well.  13 For those who have served as deacons obtain for themselves an advanced standing. They also have much right to speak freely, boldly and openly,  by means of the faith that comes from the Anointing of Jesus.

While this newer rendering of 1 Tim is more accurate in literal Greek translation, it is presently considered the untraditional view due to the idea that the eldership (Guardian/s in this case--I prefer elder) and the deaconate are now open to not only males, but females with the desired qualities and desires to serve.  Please note that there is nothing in the verses that describes the way the vast majority of elde3rships seem to work in our smaller congregations!  Larger congregations have moved to a servant-leadership model over the last few years which is how I personally believe the eldership should be.

there is a huge volume of work and study that has been published and more coming out everyday that challenges the ultra traditional views as applied by the vast majority of male controlled denominations/congregations.  The biggest problem we have, IMO, is getting past the idea that the perfect understanding (traditional views) regarding the place of men and women in the church and that women cannot be equal to men in the church at all levels. 

Jesus made his most important announcements of his ministry through women and we cannot even recognize that simple fact in the traditional views!  With that fact in mind, how can we start to understand what Paul said regarding women, and paul was guided by the Holy Spirit!

Wiley,

Looking at the above rendering, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.  Have you looked at the Koine Greek behind this passage for yourself?  It's obvious that much attention was given to make the above "translation" gender neutral.  I would call it a paraphrase since it drifts a little too far from the actual meaning of the Greek.

miaV gunaikoV andra

That is the phrase in the Greek that is "traditionally" (if you will) translated as "husband of one wife."  The problem with forcing that to be gender neutral is that the Greek is very gender-specific there.  The Greek word for wife or woman there is the word from which we get the word root "gyn" (as in "gynecology").  "Aner" (or "andra" in its declension here) specifically and only refers to a man or male (as opposed to other Greek words which might have been used instead... such as "anthropos," which could be ambiguous with regard to gender).  "Gyne" specifically and unambiguously refers to a woman or female.  And, the way these words appear together in the context, a "husband" and a "wife" is what we're talking about.

Also, if the "translator" was only concerned about making this "gender neutral," I wonder why the word "spouse" wasn't used?  That would have been a perfectly adequate word if you're only concerned about forcing the text to be gender neutral.  But, apparently, anyone could potentially qualify as long as he or she is faithful to his or her... uh... "partner."  Hmm...

I worry that this kind of rendering/stretching of the text might not only be used in the gender equality discussion... but could also be used in another conversation that is taking place in some denominations.  But, that's another issue.




Just for some info, here is Strong's description of the Greek word that is translated as "husband" in 1 Timothy 3:2:
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/435.htm

And, the word that is translated as "wife": 
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1135.htm

There's no making either of those words "gender neutral."  They mean what they mean. 

Traditional or not, to make that verse gender neutral is to depart from a literal translation of the Greek.  If you want to take liberties with your application of that verse and apply the "priniciple" of "husband of one wife" to women so that "wife of one husband" could also be acceptable, that's one thing.  But, to say that the Greek says something other than what it says is something else entirely.

 

We all know that it is better that a man go to hell than to suffer the degradation of being preached to and taught by a woman.  Mercy sakes alive.  What will they think up next?? 

After reading all the posts I think it would be presumptuous to put women in as Elders.
I don't see any real proof that God intended it to be so. I don't believe Gal. changes the meaning of the other verses.  I wonder if it isn't referring to our lives in heaven any way.

This quote was in an Ed Fudge GraceMail which came as I was typing my prior post.  Interesting coincidence 


(Full document HERE )


V

Some very interesting posts!  Volkmar     well said!

Sorry I can't be around much.  My wife and myself have been hit with serious health problems (different problems) that have kept us very tied up.  My comments are going to be directed mostly at all of us on both sides and not at the discussion, per sey!

Where would all of us be who are members of the "Restoration Movement Churches" if Alexander Campbell and Barton W Stone, along with many others, had taken the traditional attitude of "no change" in the biginnings of the movement?  They looked at Scripture and asked do we understand it correctly and if not, do we need to change.  As a result of that attitude, the Churches of Christ, the Independent Christian churches, the DoC, and several others movements came out of restudying Scripture and going directly against what was the tranditional understanding.  So now, there is a small but growing movement inside these groups of what used to be independent thinkers saying we need to openly rethink and act on the new information available regarding the translation of the Greek and how it should be understood.  Unfortunately, these people usually end up feeling like, for all their study, they are banging their heads against brick walls in churches where preachers and elders have stood in pulpits for 100 plus years saying "show me I'm wrong and I'll change".   In my experience, those who make that claim are the ones who are totally closed minded to anything that might make them have to tear down a wall of their safe house/comfort zone. 

I was talking to an elder the other night who I think is about as frustrated at times with the genderism that exists in the church as I am!  He believes there should be women elders and that the church is actually not what Jesus expects it to be unless it has women elders but he is limited by the other "traditional" elders to even being able to talk about it.  One thing I believe with all my heart:  The legalism and patternism that is so prevelant in the church today and that has caused so much division in the RM churches (all of them!)cannot exist in a church that uses Gal 3:26-28 as their guide line to how people are to be treated and accepted and allowed to use their spiritual gifts.

How many times have we discussed this topic and not a single person from my memory who is against females in leadership has ever changed their mind or even really listened to what is really being said?

 

That's what I imply all the time.