Women pastors

[firehill]

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.

There's is something I'd like to point out:

What I was speaking from was Galatians 3:28 - 4:7 Here Paul says that there is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. What is Paul saying? We need to research to find out because if we only take this as salvation then we have a problem. There was no difference between male and female in salvation. Female

[OopsMartin]

I currently attend a fellowship where men and women teach and pastor ( it's all that is available within reasonable travelling distance and even then it's 15 miles away.) Actually, women seem to do so more than the men. And that's one of the things I find disturbing. I look around and see receptive men and ejaculating women (spouting teaching) - and it doesn't work well. We have dancing where women of my age - 50 ++ a few years, put on their ballet shoes and attempt to float their abundant bodies before the congregation on tippy-toes with their scarves aloft and their skirts just about covering their wobbling flesh, which I find quite distracting. It's like when all the oldies get up and try and do a Mick Jagger dance at a wedding reception - faintly embarrassing! But that could just be me, I'm quite reserved. The men meanwhile sit quietly in their seats. The women pastors/teachers go for an emotional high, dancing and waving and holding hands, while the men embarrassedly feel a need to join in, and under the direction of a female leader, hug the person to their left or right, as directed. So last Sunday, me and the adjacent male kind of cringed and did as we were told - but we both felt uncomfortable. I would far sooner listen to a man authoritatively teaching God's Word and forget the emotionalism that women seem to find so essential to worship and the building of Christ's body on earth.

Ruth

That is some incredible gender stereotyping.

. I look around and see receptive men and ejaculating women (spouting teaching) - and it doesn't work well.

This floored me. Is that really what you think teaching is about?.... mental ejaculating. WOW!

I agree that abundant women (and men) need to keep themselves properly unexposed. However, as an aged who loves to dance I find your caricatures of us disturbing.

As for hugging our church gives respectable hugs or handshakes or both without any directions.

I suggest you get out of that church before your criticalness taints someone else. No one should go to a church that does not fit their personality, unless they are prepared to grow to a different level of spiritual fellowship.

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

Please have mercy on this gentle brother, that God will erase this picture from my mind. I may not be able to listen to a male preacher again without thinking of this example.

[firehill]

Repost:

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.

[Neopatriarch]

Thanks for answering to my second paragraph but I noticed that you didn't answer my first which I posted above. Before you can claim or interpret that Paul is reverting back to the plural of v.10 by using 'they' in v.15 BECAUSE 'she' (as you claim) refers to Eve as the prototypical woman you need to answer to what link Paul makes between Eve being created after Adam.

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

The reason for Paul's use of the anarthrous noun γυνή is because he is setting himself up to argue from the prototypical man and woman.

It would be strange to have only one particular woman in the church with this special relationship to Eve, the prototypical woman. What makes this woman so special that Paul calls her out for this proscription against teaching men that doesn't apply to other women? Does she have some unique relationship with Eve that other women do not?

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore says:

Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage. Thus the main clause of the sentence cannot be separated from the conditional clause since it must be interpreted in light of the qualifications presented by the ejavn clause. The shift from Eve to the women at Ephesus is subtle, with the proper name, Eve, used in verse 13, the generic noun (hJ gunhv) used in verse 14, the singular verb in verse 15a, and the plural verb in verse 15b. The entire paragraph (verses 9-15) concerning women often shifts from the plural to the generic singular, thus explaining the awkwardness of the change in number here. The plural use of gunhv in verses 9-10 refers to the larger sphere of women, the singular uses in verses 11-12 and in verse 14 referring to Eve have a generic or representative force, and verse 15 expands from the representative back to the larger sphere of Christian women with which the passage began. This shift in number is a characteristic of paraenetic style and occurs throughout the passage, thus there is no reason to interpret it as connoting a change of subject.

Given the problems with the alternative (taking γυνή to refer to some particular woman), I'm not sure why these arguments for understanding γυνή as a generic noun aren't sufficient for you.

-Neopatriarch

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

K, wait. You first ask in response to my post why is it necessary for you to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? In response, how can you ask why you need to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? Is that ALL Paul referenced in vv13 & 14? Is this what Paul said:

'I do not alow, a woman...for Adam was creadted first and then Eve.' NO. It is not.

He makes a connection between the order. So if he makes a connection between the order then he's not simply referencing the order of creation. So does it matter what link he made between Adam being created first then Eve or NOT? Did he link the order of creation to Adam's responsibity over Eve, his authority over her, his leadership, his headship? NO. He linked Adam's being created first to NONE of those. So what did he link the order of creation to. He STATED the links.

I just want to know how this relates to the question of whether or not γυνή should be understood as a generic noun or as referring to some particular woman in the Ephesian church. Why do you think we're going to find the answer to this question in the order of creation? And what was so wrong with all of the arguments that went before? Are you dropping those now?

-Neopatriarch

[Floatingaxe]

He died for those "sore thumbs", but He wants to hear from them, loudly! Personality traits have a tendency to allow us to fall into the false belief that it is okay if we worship quietly according to our "nature". It isn't okay.

Our born nature is to worship God with all we've got, in obedience, no matter what our "nature" argues. We will have to stand before Him one day and answer why we didn't praise Him with our all. What will we say? We were shy? That means embarrassed. What will God think of that? It is equal to shame. What does God's Word say about being ashamed? It could also be fear...fear of what? Fear of man? What does God say about fearing man?

Sorry, I do not get any of that from Scripture. I would not dance and shout and float about in my home - that is not my nature - so why should I do it in a public gathering such as church? Am I to become a different person, to leave all inhibitions at the church door and just let go and do that (well, copy that, to be honest, because I have no personal inclination) which I would not even do in my own home? The only time I have done that is under the influence of alcohol when all inhibitions were abandoned, of which I am mightily ashamed. Is not one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, self-control? Should I really lose all inhibitions in church and then call it worship?

Ruth

It is our new nature in Christ to be demonstrative beofre the Lord in Worship. It is a command. We read in Psalms distinct commands to worship with joy. The word for "joy" means spinning wildly in exuberance and dance. If God does it over us, then the least we can do is rejoice in the same way before Him. It has nothing to do with personality. It has everything to d0po with obedience. God expects it from each one of His kids, personality or not.

A child doesn't hold back his joy upon seeing his daddy come home from a hard day's work. Neither should we withold our joy in His presence. He doesn't withold Himself!

If a shy person can go to a football game and hoot and holler for his or her team, that same shy person needs to hoot and holler for Jesus. He loves it and revels in it.

[firehill]

Thanks for answering to my second paragraph but I noticed that you didn't answer my first which I posted above. Before you can claim or interpret that Paul is reverting back to the plural of v.10 by using 'they' in v.15 BECAUSE 'she' (as you claim) refers to Eve as the prototypical woman you need to answer to what link Paul makes between Eve being created after Adam.

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

The reason for Paul's use of the anarthrous noun γυνή is because he is setting himself up to argue from the prototypical man and woman.

It would be strange to have only one particular woman in the church with this special relationship to Eve, the prototypical woman. What makes this woman so special that Paul calls her out for this proscription against teaching men that doesn't apply to other women? Does she have some unique relationship with Eve that other women do not?

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore says:

Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage. Thus the main clause of the sentence cannot be separated from the conditional clause since it must be interpreted in light of the qualifications presented by the ejavn clause. The shift from Eve to the women at Ephesus is subtle, with the proper name, Eve, used in verse 13, the generic noun (hJ gunhv) used in verse 14, the singular verb in verse 15a, and the plural verb in verse 15b. The entire paragraph (verses 9-15) concerning women often shifts from the plural to the generic singular, thus explaining the awkwardness of the change in number here. The plural use of gunhv in verses 9-10 refers to the larger sphere of women, the singular uses in verses 11-12 and in verse 14 referring to Eve have a generic or representative force, and verse 15 expands from the representative back to the larger sphere of Christian women with which the passage began. This shift in number is a characteristic of paraenetic style and occurs throughout the passage, thus there is no reason to interpret it as connoting a change of subject.

Given the problems with the alternative (taking γυνή to refer to some particular woman), I'm not sure why these arguments for understanding γυνή as a generic noun aren't sufficient for you.

-Neopatriarch

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

K, wait. You first ask in response to my post why is it necessary for you to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? In response, how can you ask why you need to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? Is that ALL Paul referenced in vv13 & 14? Is this what Paul said:

'I do not alow, a woman...for Adam was creadted first and then Eve.' NO. It is not.

He makes a connection between the order. So if he makes a connection between the order then he's not simply referencing the order of creation. So does it matter what link he made between Adam being created first then Eve or NOT? Did he link the order of creation to Adam's responsibity over Eve, his authority over her, his leadership, his headship? NO. He linked Adam's being created first to NONE of those. So what did he link the order of creation to. He STATED the links.

I just want to know how this relates to the question of whether or not γυνή should be understood as a generic noun or as referring to some particular woman in the Ephesian church. Why do you think we're going to find the answer to this question in the order of creation? And what was so wrong with all of the arguments that went before? Are you dropping those now?

-Neopatriarch

How does understanding the full connection between v.12 TO vv. 13 & 14 relate to the question of whether or not 'a woman' should be understood as generic or specific (a specific woman of the Ephesian church)? The answer depends on why Eve was deceived. Paul says nothing of the sort that it was because of her being female. No. He says it had to do with her being created after Adam.

I don't know what arguments you are refering to but I will respond to your other arguments if that's what you're speaking of BUT first what needs to be grasped is the FULL connection

Paul made TO the prohibiton of 'a woman' not teaching or 'having authority over' 'a man'. If we limit Paul's connection to v.12 to just the order of creation then the passage can be entirely misunderstood, misinterpreted.

See if Paul is speaking of Eve as the prototyplical female then that must be shown from the context of the passage and whether or not that is true can be seen at least from understanding the full connection of vv.13 & 14 that he did make to v.12.

We're not going to find the answer in the order of creation becuse Paul did not limit his connection of v.12 to the order of creation alone. His connection to v. 12 is the order of creation compared to who was deceived and who wasn't. So there is a difference.

Since paul's conection was the order of creation and who was and wasn't deceived therefore

it need be determined WHY Eve was deceived which has something to do with her being created after Adam. It has nothing to do with her being female because that is not the link Paul makes to her being deceived. He links her deception to having been made after Adam, not her gender.

[Smalcald]

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.

What the text means really has nothing to do with culture. Did Paul saying there "is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female" repeal the prohibition of women from serving as leaders in the Church? If not, then it neither repealed any other prohibition on women in the Church. That means that if you believe women can not be pastors, to be consistent you must also believe they can not speak in church. What culture says is not relavent. When Paul penned these verses, He cared absolutely nothing about what culture would be prevailing in the 21st century.

I understand the point here hr, and in some ways it is a good point. For me I don't like where it takes us though and what it says about scripture in general. I have always viewed scripture as something written by God, the author's being relatively unimportant, and thus they were written to all believers over all of time, what Paul knew or did not know would not be relevant in how I view scripture.

I don't know, I am not crazy over this issue in general. But if I have to choose, I will always veer toward the more literal interpretation of scripture if there is a question, I think this is the safest route.

For me, when we have scripture saying, here are the requirements for a Bishop, Elder and Deacon, and these requirements are both consistent and repeated almost verbatim in two different books of the bible, I don

[firehill]

For me, when we have scripture saying, here are the requirements for a Bishop, Elder and Deacon, and these requirements are both consistent and repeated almost verbatim in two different books of the bible, I don

[Vickilynn]

It is our new nature in Christ to be demonstrative beofre the Lord in Worship. It is a command.

Shalom FA,

It is NOT our new nature to be demonstrative. That is man's theology. Please, prove that by Scripture.

The commands to rejoice and show adoration do not have to be done in the corporate worship, NOR are they commands.

We can worship quietly and please G-d. We are to worship in "spirit and in truth."

If a shy person can go to a football game and hoot and holler for his or her team, that same shy person needs to hoot and holler for Jesus. He loves it and revels in it.

Again, that is man's theology.

[Ovedya]

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.

No THAT ^^ is complicating.

Actually verse 13 is connected with authority and verse 14 is connected with teaching.

Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived. It's connected with teaching because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7)

So then, why can a woman not assert authority over a man? Because man was created first. (13)

And why can a woman not teach a man? Because the woman was greatly deceived. (14)