one wife

This is a pastoral epistle. Paul was writing to Timothy who was raised by a Jewish mother, and grandmother, Eunice and Lois. They brought him up according to the strict laws of the Jews. This has nothing to do with the Gentiles whatsoever.
Timothy did become the pastor of Ephesus. Paul's relationship with Ephesus becomes clear in Acts 20 when he calls the Ephesian elders together and gives them one last exhortation before he leaves, possibly never to see them again. There he tells them, "I have not failed to teach unto you the 'whole counsel of God.'"
Jew or Gentile, these believers had thorough instruction in the Word of God, as few other churches did, for the time that Paul had spent with them. Timothy as well spent much time with Paul on his missionary journeys. Ephesus having a Gentile background becomes totally irrelevant taking into consideration these factors. His teaching to them was based on what he already taught, based on the Word of God. These were final instruction to a pastor overseeing the church.
DHK

 

Timothy's father was Greek. Timothy was not raised in the Jewish faith at all (Timothy was not circumcised).

 

2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

Though his father was a Greek, Paul indicates that "the faith that is in him" dwelt first in his grandmother, and then in his mother. His education was passed down. He was taught thoroughly in a Jewish home, despite having a Greek as a Father.
Circumcision is simply an outward symbol.
DHK

 

Acts 16:1-3

1. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

2. Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.

3. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

That wouldn't be the same Timothy that wasn't circumcised, now would it?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry - couldn't resist.


Seriously though, my greatest disturbance about some of the line of reasoning taking place here is the implication that if a passage is not cultural relevant it must be interpreted in the light of present culture. I see great danger in that.

 

A practicing Jew would NEVER have been uncircumcised in those days. The fact that Timothy's state of, well, you know, is mentioned is indeed significant.

Equally, however, is failing to recognize the author's audience and intent. Lack of contextual understanding invariably results in misapplication of scripture. Misapplication of scripture is just as great, if not a greater, danger, for it results in adding to scripture. That's exactly what I see happening with this verse.

Many have falsely asserted that this verse requires that pastors be married. When we encourage people to understand the context to refute that position, it's deemed acceptible, but when it comes to the claims that pastors cannot be divorced or be women, the same encouragement for contextual understanding is rebuffed.

 

Scripture speaks for itself. You only argue against yourself and against God with human reasoning. Paul says this about Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

I happen to believe what the Scriptures say about the upbringing of Timothy, not your speculations. The Scriptures are very plain that the faith that was in Timothy he inherited from his mother and grandmother. They taught him in the Jewish faith. To deny those things is to deny Scripture.

When Paul met Timothy, as Dan pointed out, Paul took him and circumcised him. This was done so that he would not be an offence to the Jews when travelling with Paul. Paul often went to the synagogues, and even to the Temple. Paul worked from a principle of not causing an offence or a stumbling block to those that are weak, or if it would prevent one from being saved.

To put it in today's perspective, I would not ask another pastor to work with me in the ministry if that Pastor was not baptized after salvation. It would be hypocritical and offensive to others.
DHK

 

episkopos
Thayer Definition:
1) an overseer
1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent
1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church
Part of Speech: noun masculine

Paul specifically stated to Timothy that "the man that desireth the office of a bishop . . ." Your argument that Paul was referring to either a man or a woman by the use of the word "man" is incorrect, since the word man is used synonomously with the word bishop in the same sentence.

While the word "man" can refer to "mankind" as in your examples, that is not the case here. Paul's instruction and qualifications was clearly meant for men who would be bishops, and deacons.

Unquestionably, the first deacons were men:
Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. We know from Scripture that not a single woman was named among the seven men originally ordained in Jerusalem.

The Scriptural examples of preachers and deacons are "men." Why attempt to circumvent the examples given us by suggesting that God really means to include women also? There are definitely areas where God intends for men to be men and women to be women and this is one of them.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry - couldn't resist.


Seriously though, my greatest disturbance about some of the line of reasoning taking place here is the implication that if a passage is not cultural relevant it must be interpreted in the light of present culture. I see great danger in that. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, it is my opinion that the passage is indeed culturally relevant, that it speaks to how people of that day and age thought in terms of how many spouses they had, and it indicates that the woman felt she had no spouse - zero spouses - and that Jesus even agreed with her method of counting how many spouses she had.

Now why doesn't the same method of counting spouses apply to our Pauline instructions about who is qualified to be a deacon or a pastor?

 

That may not mean waht is says it means John.

 

I've posted this here before, but it bears repeating:

I Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To understand this verse in the context it was written, we must look at the Greek. Gunh and Anhr are the words in koine Greek for "wife" and "husband" respectively (not "man" and "woman" in general), and being guided in this verse by the passage which is its wider context, we can see that this context is referring to a home-marriage-family situation, not a church context. Paul is saying that he does not allow a wife to exercise authenteo over a husband in the marriage relationship (authenteo = control in a domineering manner).

This verse has to do with the marital relationship. It was not intended to refer to all men and women in a church setting.

 

There are other scriptures closely allied to 1 Timothy 2:12, and they are I Corinthians 14:34-35, which says:

Based on the above it is certain that whenever Paul spoke about women speaking, he meant church, not the home. It is the men who have the authority to speak and teach in church.

How interesting that Paul would teach one thing to the Corinthians and another to Timothy, a pastor. Or rather, that God be inconsistent with His doctrine, since the true writer of all scripture would be God.

Here is Calvinist John Gill's exposition on 1 Timothy 2:12 -

And here is Arminian Wesley's notes on the same verse up to verse 14:

(Taken from crosswalk study notes, emphases in bold mine).

 

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 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.

The context of this verse is as such: During the time of this writing, men and women wsat separately. Men sat in what we would refer to as congregation seating, and women sat separated from their husbands in an outer section. The officiant addressed the husbands in the congregation, but not the women outside. (btw, children did not attend either; it was strictly a man-only culture). It was typical for the women to call out to their husbands in the congregation to find out what was being said from the pulpit. This back-and-forth chatter was extremely disruptive to the service. Paul called for wthe women inthe sidelines to remain silent, and called for men to give women the instruction given to them once they got home.

Today, women are no longer segregated from the congregation. They sit next to their husbands. Also, today, single women are allowed to attend church (also forbidden back then). Children, too, attend with their parents, which was then forbidden. We no longer have the conditions that existed in the context of this verse. Coed congregations and electronic sound systems, plus the fact that most people today are educated enough to take notes, have made the original context of this verse a non-issue. If we are to apply anything from this verse to today's application, it would be that the congregation should remain silent, and not interrupt the preacher, while he is speaking. This applies to anyone in the congregation, be they men, women, or children.

This verse is NOT a call for women to be banned from the pulpit.

Now, being a proud SBC member, I'm bound to accept that women are not to be pastors in our churches. That does not, however, mean that it is unbiblical for non-Baptist churches to have women clergy.

 

My assumption is that the term "churches" has been used loosely. There is virtually no example of a woman being in the ministry anywhere in the New Testament. Several women have played significant roles as obedient servants of Jesus Christ, both individually and in conjunction with their husbands. (Lydia, Eunice, and Priscilla are three that readily come to mind.) But it ends there!

Men and women are not equally suited for every task! God established roles that each are to undertake to provide order. Promoting or encouraging an order other than what God has ordained by implying that God didn't mean what He had His men under inspiration to write, is to invite chaos, and that is what this discussion proves.

I find it difficult to believe that a true Baptist could seriously believe otherwise.

 

Women and clergy is not a doctrinal issue of scripture, neither is it part of the Baptist Distinctives. There's nothing doctrinally that says all Baptist churches must forbid women from the pulpit. The SBC does, and as an SBC member, I uphold that. But Baptists don't have scriptural authority to require the same of non-Baptist churches.

 

John3v36, that verse has already been addressed earlier in this thread.

 

Is it fair to assume that the SBC would not recognize other denominational organizations as true churches who have women in the pulpit? They have no authority over them, but they would certainly not sanction their position.

I think most Baptists would disagree that adherence to and following proper scriptural authority is an important prerequisite to doctrinal soundness.

(Sorry to digress from the original posting issue, so I will save any future comments for a new thread.)