Why Can't Men Believe what the Scriptures Say?

[firehill]

There is no question that God uses women, and that women have been used to preach. The woman at the well was an example of a woman who was used in the role of an evangelist. The question with me only comes in concerning the offices of Bishop and Deacon. It is obvious from the qualifications listed a woman is not able to fill these roles. I posted these lists in another thread, but will do so here as well.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 Qualifications for a bishop

1 Blameless

2 The husband of one wife

3 Vigilant

4 Sober

5 Of good behavior

6 Given to hospitality

7 Apt to teach

8 Not given to wine

9 No striker

10 Not greedy of filthy lucre

11 Paitent

12 Not a brawler

13 Not covetous

14 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity

15 Not a novice

16 Of a good report of them which are without

1 Timothy 3:8-12

1 Grave

2 Not doubletongued

3 Not given to much wine

4 Not greedy of filthy lucre

5 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience

6 Let these also first be proved

7 Blameless

8 The deacon's wives must be:

a Grave

b Not slanderers

c Sober

d Faithful in all things

9 Deacons must be the husband of one wife

10 Ruling their children and their own houses well.

It is obvious from the qualifications for these offices, it has to be referring strictly to a man. In both cases, they have to be the husband of one wife. The word translated to husband is aner which means a man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man, sir. It cannot be refering to a woman, and a woman cannot have a wife. Hazzard wants to know why people cannot accept what the Bible teaches, so I would ask him the same question. The Bible also tells us why these offices are to be held by a married man.

1 Timothy 3:5 "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Before someone comes back and tries to de-sex the man, I will once again point out that regardless of the Greek word translated to man, which can mean a man or anybody, we know it has to be a male because of the other qualification that he be the husband (aner-man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man sir) of one wife.

My position, which I believe to be the Biblical one, is that women can be preachers, but not Bishops or Deacons.

According to your logic Karen, the reason for these guidelines was the people were from a heathen past. That would mean men and women alike. Then why temporarily exclude women from these offices, and later allow them to fill them? In addition, why not take the time to state these qualifications are only temporary? Next, why stop there? How about allowing a drunkard to serve, even though one qualification is not given to much wine? Back then, they used to think of being a drunkard as a sin, but in today's enlightened society, we know better than God and think of it as merely a sickness. It is judgemental and unfair to exclude a sick person from the offices as well, don't you think? Do you see the slippery slope you are going down?

Right Butaro and we have the proof that this is EXACTLY the slope which those major denominations which began ordaining women 40 years ago have gone down, almost without exception.

I want to make another point, this is NOT just a couple of versus it is in several Epistles of Paul, not just Timothy. Beyond that this theme of male leadership is in 1 Peter, with Peter supporting these positions. So the theme of the WHOLE Word IS indeed that women are not called to be Deacons, Elders or Bishops (pastors), and that they should not have authority over men in a Christian Congregation. In fact if all we had was that one passage in Timothy in which Paul says I do not let a women be in authority over a man, I would indeed take a harder look at cultural context. But we don't, we have numerous passages in numerous epistles by several authors, Peter and Paul being the foremost describing the qualifications for congregational leadership.

Another problem with your view of the Timothy passage is that 'a woman' who Paul says to 'let learn' vs. 'women' is said to not 'usurp authority' or 'domineer'. The thing is that men shouldn't do such a thing either! it's simply bad behavior in the least to domineer ANYONE.

Actually the word used in 1 Timothy 2:12 is authenteo. It is in the present indicative active. It does not speak of "ursurping" authority. It rather speaks to the level of authority (being in absolute authority). This is in no place fobidden in scripture. The bible makes it clear that that there are authority structures and relationships that should be honored.

Again, such above is your opinion. There are numerous Greek words used for 'authority' but Paul chose a word that is not utilized anywhere else in the entire NT. Ofcourse the word is hotly debated and translated differently in various translations...

[EricH]

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Do you consistently apply this rule to all the doctrines you hold. In other words is that your default, what the early church believed is always correct and the most biblical??

No I do not apply this rule to all sound doctrines. In other words I do not apply this rule as a means to formulate sound doctrine as a default. It's just a fact that added to others...makes the case for the female apostle convincing. It is not a default I use.

So, really it is not a part of your argument. If you are willing to admit that the early church fathers did not always know best, stating that they believed Junias to be a woman does not carry weight. In other words, it does not follow that because the early church fathers believed it, they were correct.

And the same thing goes for the 'traditional view' of women. So what? So what of the 'traditional' view? Hum?

So your argument seems to hinge on the fact that that exact name is never found referring to a woman, is that correct?

Junias is never found to even exist as a male name in antiquity wheres Junia existed all over the place.

1. I have not, however, appealed to commentators to support my position. You have. Your case in this passage is built on the fact that most of the early church fathers held to it. I have not appealed to anything like that. This is really nothing more than an appeal to tradition.

2. The name is actually in the masculine tense in Romans 16:7. You have not really addressed this.

3. You have not shown that Paul's use of the word apostle here is referring to the 12

[Guest shiloh357]

Again, such above is your opinion. There are numerous Greek words used for 'authority' but Paul chose a word that is not utilized anywhere else in the entire NT. Ofcourse the word is hotly debated and translated differently in various translations...

Actually, in the arena of interpretation the specific word used is not nearly as important as the context in which that word is used. Ultimately context determines word meaning. What you and everyone else need to argue from is context. Instead of making this a man/woman debate, you need to actually exegete the Scriptures in a way that allows them to speak for themselves, and then accept whatever the outcome may be from that excersize. Any text must be read with an understanding of the object the author has in view. As it stands, you are letting your theology drive your interpretations.

[EricH]

There is no question that God uses women, and that women have been used to preach. The woman at the well was an example of a woman who was used in the role of an evangelist. The question with me only comes in concerning the offices of Bishop and Deacon. It is obvious from the qualifications listed a woman is not able to fill these roles. I posted these lists in another thread, but will do so here as well.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 Qualifications for a bishop

1 Blameless

2 The husband of one wife

3 Vigilant

4 Sober

5 Of good behavior

6 Given to hospitality

7 Apt to teach

8 Not given to wine

9 No striker

10 Not greedy of filthy lucre

11 Paitent

12 Not a brawler

13 Not covetous

14 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity

15 Not a novice

16 Of a good report of them which are without

1 Timothy 3:8-12

1 Grave

2 Not doubletongued

3 Not given to much wine

4 Not greedy of filthy lucre

5 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience

6 Let these also first be proved

7 Blameless

8 The deacon's wives must be:

a Grave

b Not slanderers

c Sober

d Faithful in all things

9 Deacons must be the husband of one wife

10 Ruling their children and their own houses well.

It is obvious from the qualifications for these offices, it has to be referring strictly to a man. In both cases, they have to be the husband of one wife. The word translated to husband is aner which means a man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man, sir. It cannot be refering to a woman, and a woman cannot have a wife. Hazzard wants to know why people cannot accept what the Bible teaches, so I would ask him the same question. The Bible also tells us why these offices are to be held by a married man.

1 Timothy 3:5 "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Before someone comes back and tries to de-sex the man, I will once again point out that regardless of the Greek word translated to man, which can mean a man or anybody, we know it has to be a male because of the other qualification that he be the husband (aner-man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man sir) of one wife.

My position, which I believe to be the Biblical one, is that women can be preachers, but not Bishops or Deacons.

According to your logic Karen, the reason for these guidelines was the people were from a heathen past. That would mean men and women alike. Then why temporarily exclude women from these offices, and later allow them to fill them? In addition, why not take the time to state these qualifications are only temporary? Next, why stop there? How about allowing a drunkard to serve, even though one qualification is not given to much wine? Back then, they used to think of being a drunkard as a sin, but in today's enlightened society, we know better than God and think of it as merely a sickness. It is judgemental and unfair to exclude a sick person from the offices as well, don't you think? Do you see the slippery slope you are going down?

Right Butaro and we have the proof that this is EXACTLY the slope which those major denominations which began ordaining women 40 years ago have gone down, almost without exception.

I want to make another point, this is NOT just a couple of versus it is in several Epistles of Paul, not just Timothy. Beyond that this theme of male leadership is in 1 Peter, with Peter supporting these positions. So the theme of the WHOLE Word IS indeed that women are not called to be Deacons, Elders or Bishops (pastors), and that they should not have authority over men in a Christian Congregation. In fact if all we had was that one passage in Timothy in which Paul says I do not let a women be in authority over a man, I would indeed take a harder look at cultural context. But we don't, we have numerous passages in numerous epistles by several authors, Peter and Paul being the foremost describing the qualifications for congregational leadership.

Another problem with your view of the Timothy passage is that 'a woman' who Paul says to 'let learn' vs. 'women' is said to not 'usurp authority' or 'domineer'. The thing is that men shouldn't do such a thing either! it's simply bad behavior in the least to domineer ANYONE.

Actually the word used in 1 Timothy 2:12 is authenteo. It is in the present indicative active. It does not speak of "ursurping" authority. It rather speaks to the level of authority (being in absolute authority). This is in no place fobidden in scripture. The bible makes it clear that that there are authority structures and relationships that should be honored.

Again, such above is your opinion. There are numerous Greek words used for 'authority' but Paul chose a word that is not utilized anywhere else in the entire NT. Ofcourse the word is hotly debated and translated differently in various translations...

But it is however attested in the greek literature (for example Philodemus, Rhetoric 2; papyrus BGU. The use of the word shows no inherant sense of grasping, or usurping in the negative sense. It always has a connotation, however, of having "full authority"

[EricH]

Again, such above is your opinion. There are numerous Greek words used for 'authority' but Paul chose a word that is not utilized anywhere else in the entire NT. Ofcourse the word is hotly debated and translated differently in various translations...

Actually, in the arena of interpretation the specific word used is not nearly as important as the context in which that word is used. Ultimately context determines word meaning. What you and everyone else need to argue from is context. Instead of making this a man/woman debate, you need to actually exegete the Scriptures in a way that allows them to speak for themselves, and then accept whatever the outcome may be from that excersize. Any text must be read with an understanding of the object the author has in view. As it stands, you are letting your theology drive your interpretations.

I agree. But the rules of grammar do tell us what is and what is not possible in terms of an interpretation

[Guest shiloh357]

Again, such above is your opinion. There are numerous Greek words used for 'authority' but Paul chose a word that is not utilized anywhere else in the entire NT. Ofcourse the word is hotly debated and translated differently in various translations...

Actually, in the arena of interpretation the specific word used is not nearly as important as the context in which that word is used. Ultimately context determines word meaning. What you and everyone else need to argue from is context. Instead of making this a man/woman debate, you need to actually exegete the Scriptures in a way that allows them to speak for themselves, and then accept whatever the outcome may be from that excersize. Any text must be read with an understanding of the object the author has in view. As it stands, you are letting your theology drive your interpretations.

I agree. But the rules of grammar do tell us what is and what is not possible in terms of an interpretation

I agree with that as well, but what I see is firehill going on a man/woman debate and arguing from that vantage point, which is foreign to the text. Instead of arguing from the text, she is arguing from what she believes and forcing the words of Paul to conform to her views, rather than letting Paul speak for himself.

[Giaour]

After reading all 14 pages of this thread, I have a couple of opinions to add.

Apostle means -sent one (missionary)

The disciples were called disciples (students)WHILE they were being taught by Jesus .

When Jesus left, they were called apostles because Jesus sent them out to proclaim His word.

Men and women were jailed seperately, so Junias was a man since he was in jail with Paul.

Scripture tells us that Christ is the head of the Church, man is head of the woman.

Woman cant be held in authority over a man so women preachers is a no no.

bibleb.com

In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul says, "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. " That verse teaches that women are to be in submission to men in the sense that they are not to usurp the role of leadership in the church, which belongs to qualified men only.

a) The source of subjection

No one argues that the head of every man is Christ. There is no Christians' Liberation movement demanding equality with Christ! Also, everyone understands that God the Father is the head of Christ. Philippians 2:5-8 teaches that Christ took upon Himself the form of a servant during His Incarnation. Since Christ is the head of the man, and the Father is the head of Christ, why do we debate about whether the man is the head of the woman?

[Ovedya]

Men and women were jailed seperately, so Junias was a man since he was in jail with Paul.

Yes. Now that is how you use culture to reveal Scriptural truth!

[Openly Curious]

Giaour

Men and women were jailed seperately, so Junias was a man since he was in jail with Paul.

"KEEN" observation indeed my dear sister and very noteworthy

OC

[Giaour]

Giaour

Men and women were jailed seperately, so Junias was a man since he was in jail with Paul.

"KEEN" observation indeed my dear sister and very noteworthy

OC

Thanks dear sister but you know some will tear me up for it.