Women pastors

[Ovedya]

I'm not denying that 'for' connects v.12 to v.13 & 14. I'm not talking about that connection but rather the specific plain as day connection that Paul makes between Adam being formed first then Eve IN vv. 13 & 14. How can we understand the connection between v12 & 13 & 14 when we won't see the connection he makes between the order of creation in vv.13 & 14?

I don't understand what you are getting at here? Why does it seem that you're trying to make this more complicated than it is? Do you think that Paul was trying to make it a complicated issue? "I do not permit a woman to teach or assert authority over a man....and this is the reason. There's nothing complicated about it.

Yes I know that there are two things that Paul is prohibiting 'a woman' from doing. Now if the issue of Adam having been created first had ANYTHING to do with authority then he would have SAID:

I do not allow a woman to teach or 'have authority over' 'a man' (I'll discuss the meaning of the word later) FOR Adam was created first then Eve and (THIS is where the link between Adam being created first comes in) Adam had authority over Eve. BUT that is not the link Paul states. He states something else.

No. He is not. The link between authority over men and teaching is directly connected to Adam's being created first. There is no "something else."

Yes, 'for' shows a link between v.12 to vv.13 & 14. Now the link IN vv. 13 & 14 is what I'm talking about.

You make this far more complicated than it needs to be. Do you think the early church saw this as being as ambiguous as you do you think that they understood it to means something different? Did they complicate it to the point that it was understood as being opposite to what verse 12 clearly says?

You've still not answered my questions. How does Paul link v.13 TO v.14? What does he link Adam being created first TO? What does he link Eve being created after Adam TO?

Authority and submission. The God-ordained order in creation.

I did answer it. You're just complicating it.

[methinkshe]

When one understands that all references to seed in the Bible are to do with multiplication, it is easy to understand why the Word of God is likened to seed in the parable of the sower and why Biblical teaching can metaphorically be likened to ejaculation of seed. And why there is good seed and bad seed, and why the seed of the Word should be disseminated by the man and received by the woman, and not vice versa.

Ruth

I'm sorry but this is incredible reaching and stretching.

As a man I have to tell you that ejaculation is self gratifying when done alone. It's not about serving. Omigosh, and there is your idea that only men have "seed". I just cannot go there.

Please, let's just say it was an interesting idea but it went astray somewhere.

Fair enough, leave it. However, just to correct your understanding, I did not talk about "serving" I spoke of "multiplication". The whole concept of seed when used metaphorically in the Bible is to do with multiplication. Where did I mention "serving"? Unless you are referring to the use of the term "serving" as applied to say a bull serving a cow.

Ruth

[OopsMartin]

When one understands that all references to seed in the Bible are to do with multiplication, it is easy to understand why the Word of God is likened to seed in the parable of the sower and why Biblical teaching can metaphorically be likened to ejaculation of seed. And why there is good seed and bad seed, and why the seed of the Word should be disseminated by the man and received by the woman, and not vice versa.

Ruth

I'm sorry but this is incredible reaching and stretching.

As a man I have to tell you that ejaculation is self gratifying when done alone. It's not about serving. Omigosh, and there is your idea that only men have "seed". I just cannot go there.

Please, let's just say it was an interesting idea but it went astray somewhere.

Fair enough, leave it. However, just to correct your understanding, I did not talk about "serving" I spoke of "multiplication". The whole concept of seed when used metaphorically in the Bible is to do with multiplication. Where did I mention "serving"? Unless you are referring to the use of the term "serving" as applied to say a bull serving a cow.

Ruth

Actually, I was using "serving" in reference to the ministry of teaching. All ministry including teaching is for the purpose of serving the body of Christ, bringing them truths they need to know.

[Ovedya]

Not all functions of ministry are equal, nor are they equally distributed.

[EricH]

Not all functions of ministry are equal, nor are they equally distributed.

That is true.

[OopsMartin]

Not all functions of ministry are equal, nor are they equally distributed.

True!

[firehill]

You've still not answered my questions. How does Paul link v.13 TO v.14? What does he link Adam being created first TO? What does he link Eve being created after Adam TO?

To Adam NOT being deceived!

Ovedya, is that complicating?

So the link between 'a woman' not teaching or 'having authority over' (I'll speak later to the meaning) 'a man' is directly connected to Adam's being created first IN WHICH CASE Adm's being created first is directly connected to NOT being deceived. His being created first is NOT directly connected to having authority. That is the 'something else'.

So the direct connection between 'I do not allow' 'a woman' to teach and 'have authorityover' 'a man' IS Adam being created first who wasn't deceived and Eve being created after who was. That's the actual FULL connection Paul makes between v.12 & vv. 13 & 14. He doesn't limit the connection TO JUST Adam being created first and neither does he make a link between Adam being created first and having authority.

NOW the question is WHY? Why did Paul make this connection? Could it be that the Genesis accounts reveals the answer? Paul sure didn't say why Adam wasn't deceived and Eve was. So it must be then that Genesis holds the answer.

[EricH]

How might that apply to women? Men have not been doing what God instructed them to do, so women have had to fill the positions. Just a thought.

i may agree.

you have men not coming forth

and you have men supporting female pastors.

however, it is written for it to be this way.

When Christ rules with an iron rod do you think He'll rule like that because we arent loving one another?

This era is setting up the next era.

tell me where it says in scripture it says that when Christ comes that there

is a big party and He smiles down on the world?

No one is saying to act like we dont care but no one is saying to take matters into your own hands.

think about this...if this forum existed 2500 years ago then this TOPIC would stop at page 1 because you'd know

there no such thing as female rabbi's. 500 years ago it would stop at page 2 and all agreeing that men should be "leaders."

we are in 2007 and have passed 20 pages.

put aside the women topic for a second. We are in a point of the Church age's life that no one knows where to go and people are taking matters into their

own hands and are running with it. you have people running into every single direction.

200 years from now I WOULD BET MONEY that the topic would be "female pastors" and it will end at page 1 with all agreeing to "yes."

scripture doesnt say to turn the Church upside down.

this is what scripture says about the last generation of Christians:

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

isnt it funny how 2000 years ago it was one point of view and now its another?

The Church is run by the bible (which is the Word of God).

So who is running the church now? The bible or the people that is "ever-learning but resist divine truth?"

In this particular case, I agree with ex.

We can't use culture, or anything else to alter or modify scripture. Times, culture, and conditions might change, but the message does not change. If people are not willing to submit to the authority of scripture, and what it says about this issue, they are not going to submit to the authority of scripture anywhere. Ultimately, you are not arguing with what anyone says here, if you are arguing with a fundamental truth found in the Bible, you are arguing with God.

The question remains to be answered as to what scripture does say. It lists the qualifications of a pastor as a man.....

It also says that there is "neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek."

It also says that "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." In my line of reason, if you do not believe that there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek; then you must also believe that women are not to talk in Church at all. You must believe they are to remain silent. If you do believe there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek; you must not distinguish in church office. Just my opinion. I would not build doctrine on it.

We must first ask what a text means. Then, once we understand what it means, we can apply it to our culture.

[Vickilynn]

The question remains to be answered as to what scripture does say. It lists the qualifications of a pastor as a man.....

It also says that there is "neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek."

It also says that "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." In my line of reason, if you do not believe that there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek; then you must also believe that women are not to talk in Church at all. You must believe they are to remain silent. If you do believe there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek; you must not distinguish in church office. Just my opinion. I would not build doctrine on it.

Shalom Hr,

Context! Context! Context!!

Are there no more males or females? Of course there are! But are there any differences concerning salvation? NO.

Many years ago there were big class differences between men and women, Jews and Gentiles. And the Scriptures say that at the foot of Cross, there is no difference between anyone.

That does NOT mean there are no gender-specific roles for men and women. In fact, the Bible speaks to this directly.

So no, the lack of difference between male, female, Jew or Greek has nothing to do with church offices or roles within the home or church.

[exrockstar]

The question remains to be answered as to what scripture does say. It lists the qualifications of a pastor as a man.....

It also says that there is "neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek."

It also says that "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." In my line of reason, if you do not believe that there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek; then you must also believe that women are not to talk in Church at all. You must believe they are to remain silent. If you do believe there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek; you must not distinguish in church office. Just my opinion. I would not build doctrine on it.

Shalom Hr,

Context! Context! Context!!

Are there no more males or females? Of course there are! But are there any differences concerning salvation? NO.

Many years ago there were big class differences between men and women, Jews and Gentiles. And the Scriptures say that at the foot of Cross, there is no difference between anyone.

That does NOT mean there are no gender-specific roles for men and women. In fact, the Bible speaks to this directly.

So no, the lack of difference between male, female, Jew or Greek has nothing to do with church offices or roles within the home or church.

hr. jr. you may want to read the next chapter because it gets to Pauls point.