Women pastors

[firehill]

Surely had Paul put a restriction on women teaching and pastoring he would have included the restriction where he talks about the gifts (of which being an elder isn't even one of them). Instead he restricted 'a woman' in a letter written to Timothy in the middle of a false teaching context. Since teaching is a gift Paul would of had to restrict it as a gift. In Eph and Co where he expunds on the gifts he does no such thing yet tradition speaks of how women are 'restricted when it comes to using certain gifts' as if it were written in the bible in such context when it's NOT.

Even though some speak of women's restrictions in relation to 'roles and functions of the members of the Body', WHERE, PAUL actualy speaks of memebrs of the body, he NEVER restricts women.

[patricia1]

It occurs to me that many of us in the modern era read into the Bible according to our established paradigms. Some of us appear to have trouble understanding the limitation that the Bible places upon women in asserting authority over and teaching a man, because we are viewing the Bible through the modern paradigm rather than attempting to understand the established Biblical model.

In the modern era it is common among the meetings of the local churches to hear a message preached about salvation regularly. The modern church therefore views the meeting of the church to have two aspects: That of preaching the gospel to the unsaved among the congregation and that of delivering a somewhat simple discourse to the already saved (It is "simple" with respect to the content, so as not to confuse the unlearned. Granted that this is a generalization, but typically mid-week Bible studies are common from those who seek to get into the deeper matters of the the Bible).

So when we come to the subject of "pastorship" and women, and the Bible, we hear that women should not teach and, in the application of the modern paradigm, assume that this prohibition includes the preaching of the Gospel. However, in the first century church the preaching of the gospel did not typically take place in the gathering of the saints. In 1 Corinthians 14 there is actually no such message conveyed in the meetings of the church.

I think that it's important for us all to note that women in the Bible are given a great amount of credence and responsibility. We should not minimize the roles that many women of the Bible have been inspired to take. We would never prohibit any person on the basis of gender from the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. However, when we look at the Bible we see that there is a very clear differentiation between the practicing of the gifts, in the preaching of the gospel, and in the cutting straight the truth and delivering the teachings of the orthodox church. There is also a very clear order which God has placed in the church, and in the homes. Therefore we must not seek to subvert or displace the Bible's very clear teachings with regard to the proper roles and functions of the members of the Body, in their practice and in their proper order, simply because our modern practices vary.

As i read the response it was well stated. I had absolutely no preconcieved ideas nor church teachings prior to entering into a fellowship of a congregation. I was with the Lord for a very long time. As I looked for a place of worship The Holy Spirit told me where to go. one place lead to another and I ended up at a place where I stayed forr twelve years. Jesus told me I could trust the Pastor. The head was not Spiritually sick. I was even embarrassed when I asked at a bible study how did God find a jewsish italian...throwing everone into tremendous confusion. Well I thought malachi was pronounced malacheee.

I still hold to the truthes I was shown way back then. Jesus gave me Is. 61 so it does not matter what any person says I fear God and Obey Him. Patricia

[Ovedya]

Surely had Paul put a restriction on women teaching and pastoring he would have included the restriction where he talks about the gifts (of which being an elder isn't even one of them). Instead he restricted 'a woman' in a letter written to Timothy in the middle of a false teaching context. Since teaching is a gift Paul would of had to restrict it as a gift. In Eph and Co where he expunds on the gifts he does no such thing yet tradition speaks of how women are 'restricted when it comes to using certain gifts' as if it were written in the bible in such context when it's NOT.

Where exactly is teaching listed among the gifts of the Spirit?

At the end of Paul's discourse regarding the proper functioning of the gifts in teh church he prohibits a women from teaching. It does not follow the context to single out "a woman" when clearly Paul is discussing the functions of all the members in the church in the corporate setting.

Paul's letter to Timothy is exactly the same: 1 Tim. 2:9, "...that women adorn themselves..."; verse 10, "But what befits women..." Paul is writing about women corporately, not about a specific woman who did a specific thing in a specific place.

[firehill]

Surely had Paul put a restriction on women teaching and pastoring he would have included the restriction where he talks about the gifts (of which being an elder isn't even one of them). Instead he restricted 'a woman' in a letter written to Timothy in the middle of a false teaching context. Since teaching is a gift Paul would of had to restrict it as a gift. In Eph and Co where he expunds on the gifts he does no such thing yet tradition speaks of how women are 'restricted when it comes to using certain gifts' as if it were written in the bible in such context when it's NOT.

Where exactly is teaching listed among the gifts of the Spirit?

Eph 4

11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

1 Co 14

26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two

[rtwo]

Paul's letter to Timothy is exactly the same: 1 Tim. 2:9, "...that women adorn themselves..."; verse 10, "But what befits women..." Paul is writing about women corporately, not about a specific woman who did a specific thing in a specific place.

Not according to the grammar.

Even though, grammattically, Paul might say "A woman", the fact that he is using the term in the general sense suggests that, like the rest of the statements here, he is using "woman" as a corporate. Had he been talking about a particular woman, wouldn't it be more likely that he would say "that woman" or even give her name? If I say, "A man" or "A person", I am probably referring to -any- man or person. Context suggests that's what's happening here.

[OopsMartin]

Even though, grammattically, Paul might say "A woman", the fact that he is using the term in the general sense suggests that, like the rest of the statements here, he is using "woman" as a corporate. Had he been talking about a particular woman, wouldn't it be more likely that he would say "that woman" or even give her name? If I say, "A man" or "A person", I am probably referring to -any- man or person. Context suggests that's what's happening here.

If Paul had not deliberately changed from speaking of women to "a woman" and kept talking about that "a woman" for a few sentences, there might be a case. We need to pay attention to grammar especially when it is out of the usual.

[rtwo]

Even though, grammattically, Paul might say "A woman", the fact that he is using the term in the general sense suggests that, like the rest of the statements here, he is using "woman" as a corporate. Had he been talking about a particular woman, wouldn't it be more likely that he would say "that woman" or even give her name? If I say, "A man" or "A person", I am probably referring to -any- man or person. Context suggests that's what's happening here.

If Paul had not deliberately changed from speaking of women to "a woman" and kept talking about that "a woman" for a few sentences, there might be a case. We need to pay attention to grammar especially when it is out of the usual.

I disagree. In fact, it is very much a stretch to suggest that "a woman" is now referring to a particular woman. The phrase "a woman" is used simply because it makes more sense in context. It reads better. The switch from "women" to "a woman", given the context, is more a stylistic choice than anything else. For example, I might say:

"Men don't like to go shoe shopping. In fact, men hate it. If a man tells you he really wants to go shoe shopping with you, you might consider his motives..."

I am still referring to "men" in general, though I said "a man." The reason I change it here is to provide a more concrete example of what I've been saying. Now, I would grant that, depending upon the context of this particular discussion, one could reasonably assert that I am, in fact, discussing a particular man. But, based solely on the grammar, which is what's being done above, you cannot make that assertion for certain.

[patricia1]

Even though, grammattically, Paul might say "A woman", the fact that he is using the term in the general sense suggests that, like the rest of the statements here, he is using "woman" as a corporate. Had he been talking about a particular woman, wouldn't it be more likely that he would say "that woman" or even give her name? If I say, "A man" or "A person", I am probably referring to -any- man or person. Context suggests that's what's happening here.

If Paul had not deliberately changed from speaking of women to "a woman" and kept talking about that "a woman" for a few sentences, there might be a case. We need to pay attention to grammar especially when it is out of the usual.

I disagree. In fact, it is very much a stretch to suggest that "a woman" is now referring to a particular woman. The phrase "a woman" is used simply because it makes more sense in context. It reads better. The switch from "women" to "a woman", given the context, is more a stylistic choice than anything else. For example, I might say:

"Men don't like to go shoe shopping. In fact, men hate it. If a man tells you he really wants to go shoe shopping with you, you might consider his motives..."

I am still referring to "men" in general, though I said "a man." The reason I change it here is to provide a more concrete example of what I've been saying. Now, I would grant that, depending upon the context of this particular discussion, one could reasonably assert that I am, in fact, discussing a particular man. But, based solely on the grammar, which is what's being done above, you cannot make that assertion for certain.

Personally guys I think we seriously all need a english lesson. LOL When I read the word I use my name in the spots( unless it is too condemning . That solves any promblem for me. As far as I am concern when I am in there That book Is say" To my Loving Daughter Patricia written by the Holy Spirt as told to by God the father. I also to not pause. so unless I do a bible study I never know where scriptures are.

[Rumple]

First Timothy 2:12 says,

[Rumple]

It is extremely disappointing that many liberal churches and denominations have decided to go against the clear teaching of Scripture and 2000 years of church history to ordain women to the pastorate and further their feminist agenda. Every denomination that has gone down this road is now grappling with the idea of ordaining homosexuals too. They use nearly the same arguments for this debate that they used to ordain women.

The really ironic part is these groups claim to have the high ground on openmindedness and "love" but just try and question their practice of ordaining women and then you will see true wrath and anger. Their openminded attitude then goes out the window exposing the real liberal mindset.

Like many other doctrines this is 'clear' to some but obviously not to all.

Women being in a submissive carnal role is different than what women might be in a spiritual role. There is neither 'male nor female' in Christ. In Christ, any person, male or female naturally may be called by God to do what He desires. Who is any man (or woman) to decide that another person is or is not in God's will when he or she says God called them to a particular ministry? If God is in it who can stand against it? If on the other hand it simply a thing of the flesh it will come to naught.

I see a spiritual side to Paul's writings about women's role versus men's role. The women's role is that of the Church. This is the submissive one and it will include both natural men and natural women. The men's role is that of the active ministry. This active role will also include both natural men and natural women. Even a male pastor will be in the submissive role of woman when he not the preacher, but merely, in effect, another member of the congregation (Church) listening and learning from the one who is preaching or teaching God's Word at the moment.

Jesus teaching His sermon on the mount was the active male minister. All of the listeners: men . women and children, were the Church, the silent ones, the 'spiritual women' in submission to Him.