Women in position of authority !

Then, women can live by bread alone, because jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone". And, women shall not know peace, because the angels told the shepherds "Glory to God in the highest, peace, good will towards men". Plus, lesbianism is scripturally permissible, because we're told only that "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman".

 

Then, women can live by bread alone, because jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone". And, women shall not know peace, because the angels told the shepherds "Glory to God in the highest, peace, good will towards men". Plus, lesbianism is scripturally permissible, because we're told only that "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman". </font>[/QUOTE]JohnV, you are so wrong. You need the Word-Study Greek NT or something like that where you can look this stuff up.

The wordS for "man" in "Man shall not live by bread alone" and in the other passage are a different word than the word in the Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3 passages. The word in Matt. for both passages you refer to is "anthropos" which can mean man or woman.

That is not the word used in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3
Do you think I would post what I did without checking?

 

Then you will agree with me that I Timothy 2:12 (But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence) it not talking about the marital relationship, and not men and women in a church setting. Why, because the words translated here are Gunh and Anhr, which mean "wife" and "husband". They're the same two Greek words used in the passage "husband of one wife".

BTW, I will commend you on your knowlege or koine. Luke 2:14 (good will toward men) is anthropos (humankind in general), and, with little exception (such as James 1:12 and 3:2), the word translated "man" in most of the NT referrs to humankind, male and female both.

Now, the next logical question: Does "husband of one wife" mean that a single male cannot be a pastor?

 

As for 1 Tim. 2.12, that is very disputed. I've read long commentaries on it. I think context informs the meaning.

Since 1 Tim. is about relationships and order in the church, it seems it would be about the church setting (as well as marital). I think scripture is more than clear that man has spiritual headship over woman, in marriage and in the church.

Also, it does not mean the woman is to be silent, but be of quiet demeanor(according to several commentaries. See NET Bible). The American Standard version renders that "to be in quietness" which can mean to be of quiet demeanor.

Thanks. Agreed, acc. to what I've read. I am no Bible scholar!

Good question! You or I or someone should start a thread on that!

Personally, I think it means he cannot have more than one wife a time or be adulterous. My pastor has preached on this and said that the Greek actually says, "A one-woman kind of man." So my pastor talks about how a husband should be a "one-woman kind of man."

 

The context of this verse is as such: During the time of this writing, men and women sat 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, often 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.

I already discussed this verse earlier in this thread. 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). While Paul is addressing issues involving the church, this context is referring to husbands and wives who are in the church. He is referring to the home-marriage-family situation of churchgoers, not a "all males and females in the 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 of Christian spouses. It was not intended to refer to all men and women in a church setting.

 

BTW, nice to have you back, JohnV. Forgot to say it earlier.

Even going along with what you say here (and I think that those words for husband and wife can also be translated as man and woman, as some versions do), if a woman is under the authority and spiritual headship of her husband at home, how can she be over him and have headship over him by pastoring a church? I think this passage is another point for no woman pastors.

 

This has to be one of the silliest things Ive ever read.

Who, but the called, which are qualified by God, would you want to be in a leadership position? And exactly how did any of us get into the position to question what is God's word?</font>[/QUOTE] You are absolutely right... so when the Bible says that a woman should not teach nor usurp authority over a man, we should accept it at face value without filtering it through the current opinions of the world, right?

It is pure godless, pragmatism to say that God's Word can be dismissed because someone thinks a woman is better qualified or that there are no qualified, willing men around.

It has been my experience (which is admittedly limited) that churches open up to women in unscriptural roles prior to the "need" for women to fill them.

The failure of men to fulfill their God mandated responsibilities does not negate God's will concerning women and their role.

If the dog is the only male around... obviously you have a congregation of women... which can be led by a woman.

I would rather obey God's Word on this matter than use fallacies of limited alternatives to excuse my not doing so.

How do you know that God wouldn't "qualify" and "call" a man out of the group if the people got their opinions out of the way and actually trusted Him to do so?

Yes. He mandated male leadership in the church and is full well capable of providing it.

Unity isn't a worthy goal unless we are unified around obedience to God through His Word. Feelings don't determine what is right or wrong.

If a person has the proper view of God, His Word, and themselves then it will "feel wrong" to do things contrary to His Word.

 

Yes, there are a few places where the words are translated "man" and "woman", just like ther are some places where, for example, anthropos means humans in general, or a specific man. As in all places of scripture, it's important to study the koine context, the cultural context, and the author's intended audience. This is a must due to the inhierent issues that crop up whenever you translate text from one language to another. Koine does not follow the same grammatic and etymological rules that English does (and, even in English, there are numerous words that have multiple meanings depending on the context; "man" and "woman" are two good examples. When we fail to do those, we end up changing scripture. Likewise, when we attempt to do so, but do so incorrectly, we end up changing scripture.

Good point. But does a man who voluntarily gives his wife authority usurp his own authority? Many men give their wives authority to plan meals. She has complete control over what they're eating and which day. Whe the wife excercises that authrity, is she usurping his authority? Of course not. Likewise, if a woman is pastoring a church, and her husband has voluntarily allowed her to be in that role, how is he devoid of headship any more than when he voluntarily allows her to make the meals?

That being said, I do see your point, which is why I don't have a problem with the SBC reserving the role of pastors for men only. While it can be argued that it may not be scripturally forbidden, I think we're all in agreement that it's scripturally preferred for men to be in the role of pastors.

Now, while we're on that topic, it raises the question of women preaching (which is not th esame as women pastoring). All Christians are called to preach the Gospel as per the Great Commission. Does a non-pastor woman preaching usurp her husband's spiritual authority? Scripture doesn't appear to assertively say so, and I would have to say no, for the same reason as in the meal preparation example.

The problem falls to the fact that many of us interchange the phrases "preaching" and "pastoring". Yet, the last time I checked, giving sermons was only a small slice of what pastors do in the role of pastor.

 

I don't think a man can give his spiritual headship away. For the woman to pastor, even with her husband's permission, she will be exercising authority over him, which is not the same as letting her make decisions about meals. Also, she will be excercising authority over other men, and this violates the order given in the passage about the God&gt;Christ&gt;man&gt;woman order.

I agree that preaching and pastoring are not necessarily the same, so it depends on what is meant by preaching. I think a woman can preach in the sense of giving the gospel, as missionaries do, but not pastor. Pastoring is not just preaching but also guarding the flock, leading the flock, making decisions to do with the flock, etc.

 

Agree

 

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that women cannot ever have an authoritative role. Certainly, women are not in violation of scripture when they become judges, police officers, or hold public office such as mayor or senator.

I dunno 'bout anyone else, but, to this day, my 72 year old mother still has spiritual headship over me.

 

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that women cannot ever have an authoritative role. Certainly, women are not in violation of scripture when they become judges, police officers, or hold public office such as mayor or senator.

I dunno 'bout anyone else, but, to this day, my 72 year old mother still has spiritual headship over me. </font>[/QUOTE]I completly disagree with everything you've said.

 

Deborah was a judge over Israel. A position of authority in the civil governance of the country... ordained by God. The book of Judges says that God raised up the judges over Israel. The nation came to her for judgment... sounds pretty authoritative.

Provision was made under the Law for women to inherit property when no male child existed. This would have placed women in authority over male slaves and servants.

Lydia was a seller of purple and the head of a household. It is very likely that in both of these positions she held authority over male servants.

In the context of the assembly of believers, the Bible forbids women to teach or usurp authority over men. Clearly male leadership is established for both the Christian home and church. However, the Bible does not condemn every example of females exercising authority over men in business or politics.

 

So, you think it's a violation of scripture when a woman is a police officer, a judge, a manager, a college professor, etc???

Or do you disagree with the notion that I still honor my mother, even though I'm almost 40?

 

JohnV, I think you should honor your mother, but I don't think she should have spiritual headship or authority over you anymore.

If she did, then by default, she would also have spiritual authority over your wife through you, which is not right.

 

Well, actually, Jesus Christ has spiritual headship over me. You're right, however, in pointing out that the Commandment of honoring our mother and father does not cease when we move out of the house.

 

honor doesnt = obey

 

Good point. Neither does spiritual headship in the church = obey.