So...women can pastor huh??

[the answer]

Yo

I've been sooooooo busy the past few weeks, Ive had no time to even be here. But I wanna pick up my convo with E on this topic. I kinda wanna focus on 1 tim 2, I think it teaches women cannot be elders( pastors) But I have to go and pick the points from E's posts that I want to respond to. I will try to get something up tonight!

CC baby!

[eternal]

admin said:

So...women can pastor huh??

Yes.

[the answer]

LOL...sooooo sorry

I sat down to write a response and kinda was overwhelmed. What u and Neb said was a lot I was very much trying to get something down. I'll just put up something to get it going...lol

[eternal]

admin said:

LOL...sooooo sorry

I sat down to write a response and kinda was overwhelmed. What u and Neb said was a lot I was very much trying to get something down. I'll just put up something to get it going...lol

[the answer]

We seem to come back to the same idea's here. I'm not convinced that Phobe was a "leader" in the sense of an elder/ bishop.

1. It's not probable to me to think that Phobe was in authority over him. The only person Paul ever says is above him is Christ. He never says that about anyone, not even the other apostles.

2. It makes more sense to say "help Phobe, cuz she has helped me" That seems more plausible then "Help Phobe, cuz she was a leader of even me"

3. The masculine noun prostate¯s can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun (prostatis)
does not take the meaning “leader” but is defined as “protectress, patroness, helper.”

I will put the rest up tonight, I got youth group.

[eternal]

admin said:

I will put the rest up tonight, I got youth group.

Good. And remember, don't just keep one sentence statements/objections, but rather explore your reasons for stating them.

[Aristotle]

Hey my people. Sorry I haven't been on in a while, but when I saw this, I had to jump on it.

Women's roles in the Church are so clear that I don't understand why people even ask this question. Paul clearly told Timothy that a woman should not have authority over any man. If a woman preaches, well, I hope its a church of only estrogen. Clearly if one man is in the audience, than a man should be preaching, not a woman. Simple.

Its funny that I even saw this today. Lately I've been reading two books. One, most of you are pretty familiar with and have probably read it... The Da Vinci Code. The other book is its... opposite, I guess you could say. Its The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel.

The Da Vinci Code is based on gnostic gospels and one in particular... the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. This Dan Brown character seems to be a radical feminist in my opinion, not that I'm anti-woman or anything. But unlike him, I do know the roles that were given to man and woman. But hey, this all goes back to Adam and Eve. When they sinned, God told Adam that Eve will envy his authority over her. Well that's what is happening with this feminist movement. They do not want to be submissive because of sin...point blank.

I hope I didn't confuse you all with the Dan Brown analogy, but his views have quite a role in women being pastors or priestesses. This man belives that Mary had a closeness to Christ that all the prophets envied. Supposedly, she is The Prophet, and perhaps the companion and lover, oh yeah, and wife... oh and one more, mother of Christ's children. Yes, very rediculous. You guys should really look into the gnostic gospels and see how rediculous these "gospels" are. And about a woman being a pastor... I think I've pretty much covered that.

Look out radical feminism.

[eternal]

aristotle said:

Hey my people. Sorry I haven't been on in a while, but when I saw this, I had to jump on it.

Women's roles in the Church are so clear that I don't understand why people even ask this question. Paul clearly told Timothy that a woman should not have authority over any man. If a woman preaches, well, I hope its a church of only estrogen. Clearly if one man is in the audience, than a man should be preaching, not a woman. Simple.

...

Look out radical feminism.

Did Paul say women shouldn't have "authority" or "usurp authority?"

I hope you recognize that it is the latter as examples such as Deborah, Anna, Phoebe, Prisca, etc all demonstrate women having teaching and authorotative roles over men.

Look out radical androcentricsm and patriarchy!

peace.

[Aristotle]

Sorry my brother, but aren't you leaving out the second part of that passage? Just in case, I'll give you the entire passage: 1 Timothy 2:11-12

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

"But to be in silence"... hmmm? How can a woman teach if she is ordered to learn in silence with all subjection. For one to teach, she must talk, meaning she must disobey the order to learn in silence right? Last time I checked, talking is not being silent. I'm not saying a woman can not ask questions or lead a worship service, or even teach a children or youth class. I think she can do that. But to be the head pastor? I beg to disagree.

Besides, I love women...but this sacred feminism movement is rediculous. I'll let my wife rule over me when these feminists can prove that Mary Magedalene was indeed the head Apostle and wife of Jesus.

Are you denying that Christianity is a patriarchial religion or is God an androgynous one? You're scaring me a little.. is this Dan Brown???

Kidding.

[eternal]

aristotle said:

Sorry my brother, but aren't you leaving out the second part of that passage? Just in case, I'll give you the entire passage: 1 Timothy 2:11-12

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

"But to be in silence"... hmmm? How can a woman teach if she is ordered to learn in silence with all subjection. For one to teach, she must talk, meaning she must disobey the order to learn in silence right? Last time I checked, talking is not being silent. I'm not saying a woman can not ask questions or lead a worship service, or even teach a children or youth class. I think she can do that. But to be the head pastor? I beg to disagree.

If there are examples within the bible of women teaching and having authority over men, would these examples discount your interpretation of this passage?

Besides, I love women...but this sacred feminism movement is rediculous. I'll let my wife rule over me when these feminists can prove that Mary Magedalene was indeed the head Apostle and wife of Jesus.

Huh? What does that have to do with anything? If you can prove I'm Mexican, I will agree with you, lol. ??

The bible teaches that women were indeed in positions of authority and teaching, even in authority over Paul himself (Phoebe).

Are you denying that Christianity is a patriarchial religion or is God an androgynous one? You're scaring me a little.. is this Dan Brown???

Kidding.

I think some of the hyperbolic connections you make are a little scary, myself. The bible demonstrates that God ministers through human beings equaly, not showing discrimination between any gender, race, or nationality.

www.itstheanswer.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=discuss&action=display&thread=1143347028

www.itstheanswer.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=discuss&action=display&thread=1142923421

[the answer]

Did Paul say women shouldn't have "authority" or "usurp authority?"

He said they shouldn't "exercise authority" The only translation that uses 'usurp' is the kjv. All others that I read have authority, dominion, exercise, etc. I think usurp is a wrong and bad translation.

I hope you recognize that it is the latter as examples such as Deborah, Anna, Phoebe, Prisca, etc all demonstrate women having teaching and authorotative roles over men.

The NT church is different. Paul gives us intructions on how the church is to be governed. No women teaching over men as elders.


The bible teaches that women were indeed in positions of authority and teaching, even in authority over Paul himself (Phoebe).

Here again I don't agree. When Paul in 2 tim 4:17 said 17But the Lord stood at my side (pareste) and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth.
Was he implying he had authority over Christ?

I think some of the hyperbolic connections you make are a little scary, myself. The bible demonstrates that God ministers through human beings equaly, not showing discrimination between any gender, race, or nationality.

God says the MAN is the head of the house and the woman is to submit to him. This is the order God has ordained. It isn't about "men being better then women" it is about ROLES in the body. In many ways the home mirrors the church.

I don't think it's " discrimination" to say only men can pastor. It just a God given role. Women can do soooooooooooooooooooooo many things in "ministry" Ministry is not just teaching and preaching. In fact, I think most ministry in church has nothing to do with teaching. Helping the poor, nursing, helping drug addicts....the list will get too long if I keep writing.

[eternal]

He said they shouldn't "exercise authority" The only translation that uses 'usurp' is the kjv. All others that I read have authority, dominion, exercise, etc. I think usurp is a wrong and bad translation.

Why? You read the argument presented in the debate with Neb. What about it was unconvincing?

To refresh you...

This point will continue to be debated. You will cite scholars who disagree with women pastors and women who have authority, so their theology helps them translate the word when there is dispute. I likewise will quote people with the same dilemma on the other side of the camp.

Moo (“1 Timothy 2:11-15;” pp. 66-67) says that the term can mean either “have authority” or “usurp authority” depending on the context. As noted L.E. Wilshire, “The TLG Computer and Further References to AUTHENTEO in 1 Timothy 2:12;” (120-34) as well as Craig S. Keener in “Paul, Women, and Wives (109) “the term gradually change, from associations with murder in the classical usage, to “domineer” and, by the patristic period, to “exercise authority.”

It is also noted that in the Patristic period that it is found to carry the meaning of “originator of” which would fit well with the discussion that follows its usage, but its findings are largely excluded to a later date. Kroeger (“Classicist’s View,” pp. 231-32) is an advocate of this position, that it means, “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something,” and contends that it was used to combat the Gnostic myth that the mans source is a woman, as articulated in my article.

At studylight/Strongs it defines it as,

1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2 one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3 an absolute master
4 to govern, exercise dominion over one

All options are covered here, except for the later usage denoting origination. We see the progress though from the negative to a more subtle form of it. From murder to acting as ones own authority and usurping authority, to just plaid authority through governance. There is a development of the term, and then we as exegetes are left to decide what it is that Paul intended with it.

I have advocated my reading for a couple reasons as already noted before.

Paul could have chosen his primary word for authority that he uses most often “exousia/exousiazo.” The only other time he does not use this is in 1 Thes 2:6 “Baros” where the word is not in dispute (used IMO to denote the “weight” that is associated with the word, as it fits the “asserting” of it through the means of humilty and gentleness, as opposed to the authority of the Jews and their hindering of Paul’s mission to them) and in Titus 2:15 (which could legitimately be translated as “commandments”)

So the question is why does Paul chose this random word to describe what he is taking about? If he has simple authority in mind, why not use the “exousia/exousiazo” as he usually does? And with the debate over which stage of development the word was at when Paul used it, we should appeal to the CONTEXT as well as the rest of the scripture to help us understand what exactly Paul intends with this message. As I just suggested, any interpretation that implies Paul means that a woman can not teach or have any authority at all in the Lord over a man, must contend with the many examples of women doing just this thing repeatedly throughout the cannon. I am unwilling to dismiss those instances, and rather chose to understand the word to remain consistent with the biblical examples, as well as Paul’s common language when trying to convey the idea that you suggest he is here.

For example, some look at 14:34 and suggest that Paul intends that women be “silent” in the church. However, just a few minutes prior to the reading of this instruction, we find Paul’s acknowledgment and instructions for those women who were prophesying in the church in 1 Cor. 11. If one was to read ch. 14 shallowly, they would be compelled to believe Paul instructs all women to be completely silent when congregating with the saints. However, this is clearly not the case because we are able to look at examples of Paul discussing women’s role in speaking in the church, and in this case in the very same letter. So this background FORCES us to reconsider what it is exactly Paul is saying here.

The same is true with this 1 Timothy passage. I pray this is becoming more and more evident to all who are reading this.

So not only the language Paul chooses to use lends to this understanding, but also the history of women doing the very thing a misreading would suggest they could not, implores us to look more intently into what Paul is declaring to the Ephesian church.

So on this issue, I stand with the KJV in their translation of the word.

and before that,

Now for vs. 12, which can not under any circumstances be viewed in isolation from anything which has already been discussed not only in this matter, but even the wider mention of authoratative involvment of women in the church in all offices of the church, throughout scripture. Vs. 12 must be interpreted in light of all the affirmative proffessions of women leadership and teaching and authority.

We KNOW that women taught. Taught/excercised authority through prophetic offices.(Daughters of Philip; Prophet Anna-Daugheter of Phamel, as well as the affirmation of Women Prophets in 1 Cor. 11:6) Through the office of an Apostle. (Junia) Through pastoral leaders of the house church (Nympha; Mary; Prisca, etc). As well as various other recognitions of women excercising authority over a man through the medium of instruction/pnuematic gifts of leadership and expression.

So Paul's comment may be a matter of prefference (ie 1 Cor. 7:7,12,40)--though we must recognize that it is not the standard that Christ initiated, and perhaps Paul struggled with, as we note that it is only declared that PAUL does not allow, not that it is not permissible according to God I do not allow---but then again, we know that he commends such women leaders/instructors/teachers; and recognizes their authority in various other parts of his letters.

It is more likely a matter of usurp authority or domineering authority. This plausibility arises due to the word that Paul chooses to use. Paul used the less common term authentein rather than the more common terms exousia ("authority") and exousiazo ("to have authority"). This choice may indicate Paul had a special nuance of meaning in mind.

This option has a great deal of credibility to it. Some have suggested that the word should be translated to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something. This fits well with the forementioned arrogance of the women at hand, as their attitudes of wealth perhaps were also causing them to "puff themselves up," as to their "reverse partiarichal prefference," which is clearly as hostile to the table sharing philosophy of Jesus as is the more renowned Patriarichal version.

Many Gnostics at the time taught that Eve predated Adam, and was the originator, and they argued for supremacy in this regard (though this is not a comprehensive view of early Gnostics, as anyone who has studied them in detail is aware of..they also developed their own androcentric leanings as well).

Paul may be arguing against a certain influx of this pattern of thought within the church...discouraging the women to be so haughty not only in dress, but also in spirit.

He reminds them to be quiet, as he reminds all members of the family of God, and to be submissive, as they are being no better than the Patriarichal models which was so dominant at the time. Their liberation and equality was not a move for them to become the new authority figures in town. Not at all! It is a fellowship of equals, where men and women both, equally share in the glory and authority of Christ. Again, there is no distinction.

Paul's words then take on a new context, when read in view and light of the culture and time at hand. Pauls words in vs. 12 say that he does not allow a woman to DOMINEER a man, just as he does not allow a man to domineer a woman.

A clear example of this, is the persecution of the early church, which bred some of the most beautiful non-violent literature of all time....but that is easy to do when one has no authority and they are the persecuted. But as prominence grew, and especially with the Roman Govt's "conversion," there was a switch of philosophy, now that military power was on their side, and force became a "trait" of the Kingdom of God.

The women at this time were falling into the same trap. They had been liberated, and now were attempting to do to men, what men had done to them.

Paul says he does not allow such a practice, and I believe his word choice clearly depicts this to be the case.
He also reinforces there need for humility, and to not become haughty, but to be quiet, and to remember that the first shall be last.

Vs. 13f is further reminder of the Hebrew teaching on the creation account, discounting any leanings that they might have been influenced by their Gnostic contemporaries, and led to their sway from egalitarian principles, to a mimicing all over again of the principles of the domination system.

Hope this helps give some perspective to the text, and a very appropriate reading of a passage that has been so plaguing to not only women, but the spirit of equality and empowerment for all people.

When we subject a people, their subjection not only negatively affects them, but also all people, including those in the places of prominence.

The NT church is different. Paul gives us intructions on how the church is to be governed. No women teaching over men as elders.

Based on what text? This one?

Is not Phoebe the diakanos, also called “prostasi?.”

Here is what I wrote to Neb, perhaps you can interact with it:

Studying the term in the greek of the day, the title I cited is authentic.

Strongs says,

1. a woman set over others
2. a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

The first definition is more consistent with the Greek of the day, and the structure of the early church.

It is the feminine of “prostemi” which means according to my NASB concordance, “to put before, so set over, to rule” It is translated as “have charge over (1), leads (1), leads (2), manage (1), managers (1), manages (1), rule (1)”

In fact, the word is used in 1 Timothy 5:17 in discussion of the elders. So if Phoebe is said to be an “prostasis” over many, and 1 Timothy 5:17 says that, “elders who prostemi

[/u] well are to be considered worthy…”

So if the same thing is said of elders and then uniquely to Phoebe in a very special accommodation in Rom. 16 to lead of his list, how silly of a connection is made to assume that Paul acknowledges Phoebe having at least the same authority of an elder, if not most likely being an elder herself, since she wields the same authority as he says elders do in 1 Timothy?

It is also used in Rom. 12:8 “he who prostemi with diligence.” This is Paul’s discussion of gifts equipping the saints, and each person is to build up the body according to their gift. Prophecy, teaching, exhortation, serving, giving, mercy, etc. And of course for our purposes, “leading” which is the same word connected with the activity of the elders discussed above, and of course the same word denoting the work of Phoebe. [/quote]

She carried the authority that is said to belong to the elders themselves. Right?

Here again I don't agree. When Paul in 2 tim 4:17 said 17But the Lord stood at my side (pareste) and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth.
Was he implying he had authority over Christ?

No, it meant that the Lord was "STANDING" and it was the LORD's authority that He is drawing upon, and that Christ had authority over him. I am not sure what case you are making here?


God says the MAN is the head of the house and the woman is to submit to him. This is the order God has ordained. It isn't about "men being better then women" it is about ROLES in the body. In many ways the home mirrors the church.

And as we see, throughout scripture (NT and OT) God has equipped women to equip the saints through every gifting without distinction based on gender, race, or nationality. I have provided many examples to you on this, would you like to engage them? As you recall, Neb agreed that the women both taught and had authority in the Lord throughout the cannon of scripture. What say you?

I don't think it's " discrimination" to say only men can pastor. It just a God given role. Women can do soooooooooooooooooooooo many things in "ministry" Ministry is not just teaching and preaching. In fact, I think most ministry in church has nothing to do with teaching. Helping the poor, nursing, helping drug addicts....the list will get too long if I keep writing.



Nice try There is no reason to believe that the role of pastor is any different than all the other gifts. Even Neb's historical tracking of the concept of "elder" demonstrated this. In the NT there are too many examples of God using women, and Paul commending them in the very roles your interpretation supposes is condemned, to believe it. Rather the language and the context of the text agrees with these examples, both affirming that God indeed does call and minister through women in every office of the church and gifting of His Holy Ghost.

peace.