Women Pastors?

I agree! :thumbs:

 

I don't see any reference in the NT to Priscilla having the authoritative role of teacher. First of all, Priscilla is doing whatever she's doing (even if you want to call it teaching) with Aquila. Secondly, it seems that they were explaining something to Apollos, because he only knew of the baptism of John. I do not see how the example of Priscilla justifies a woman teaching men or being a pastor.

 

No, they can't. Didasko has a wide range of meaning, and can mean the same as ektithemi, but ektithemi only occurs 4 times in the NT (including this time), and it never means to teach in an official context as in a school or at the feet of a rabbi.

No, the perfect tense signifies perfective aspect in past time. "The fundamental significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring, without reference to its progress. It is the indefinite tense aoristos, unlimited). It has no essential temporal significance, its time relations being found only in the indicative, where it is used as past and hence augmented.... The aorist signifies nothing as to completeness, but simply presents the action as attained. It states the fact of the action or event without regard to its duration." (Underlining is mine; from A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, by Dana and Mantey, p. 193.) If Luke had meant to show continued action in past time in this verse he would have used the imperfect tense.

On the contrary, it is the efforts of the "Biblical feminists" to use this passage to prove that Priscilla was some kind of rabbi for Apollos that are strained.

 

You are right. I phrased this terribly! I come from a family of strong women, who would be upset if they read this. :tonofbricks:

(Beloved aunts and Mom, you are'nt reading this, right?) raying:

Women ought to become strong emotionally and mentally, as well as physically, as Prov. 31 teaches.

Let me try again. When a woman becomes a pastor, the set of skills needed to pastor successfully will change her in ways that may challenge her feminine nature. Does that work better?

I'm in favor of single women missionaries. I have known some wonderful single women missionaries over the years. In fact I just recently filled out a recommendation form for a wonderful single young lady who has applied to a mission board.

What I oppose are women pastors on the mission field. One reason is that the nationals always have a vital need to see the Christian home modeled, and a woman pastor does not do that well.

Whew. Am I out of trouble yet? raying:

 

I think I remember where I was going now, when Apollos left Ephesus didn't he leave these two in charge?

 

Hi, LeBuick! I can't find this in the Bible. If you can, let us know!

 

John,

You are demonstrating several of what Carson calls "exegetical fallacies".

The aorist is not a "once and for all" tense. Dana and Mantey certainly could read Greek better than I - but they learned in an age when language study was all diachronic and and grammar was taught prescriptively. The main weakness of Dana/Mantey, Robertson, Moulton and the venerable "oldies" is the discussion of tense/aspect. The aorist when compared to the imperfect (the normal "either/or" choice in narrative) is intended to show that the speaker conceives of the action as a whole at a given point in time (perfective aspect). Most aorists are past-referring but they are not all so as Porter, Fanning, Carson, and others have pointed out. "once and for all" action is just not part of the aorist construction - this would be suggested by other contextual factors.

Regarding the didasko/ektithemi - once again a bit of a fallacy. The former word is obviously much more common. Ektithemi is attested in Homer and other classic authors, where it actually means to leave someone. But in the Acts 18 context Priscilla and Aquila are clearly teaching. This in no way justifies women being pastors - why the fuss?
There are overlaps in all semantic domains - to say that because a different word is used means that there must be a different meaning is silly. Language is not used that way.

As I said my objection here is that I see you setting a dangerous example - justifying a preconceived interpretation with improper linguistic analysis. This sets a bad example for those just beginning Greek study.

 

My point is that there are a lot of things people can choose to do which are wrong but they can do them.

 

Well, I'm old school and don't have the new grammars, so I may have to yield to you here. However, I have translated half the NT into Japanese, and don't remember any time when the aorist was ever used where it could be proven that it referred to any repeated action. And as long as you are referring to Carson, he wrote in Exegetical Fallacies: "The aorist, after all, is well-named: it is a-orist, without a place, undefined. It simply refers to the action itself without specifying whether the action is unique, repeated, ingressivbe, instantaneous, past, or accomplished" (p. 70). So I repeat my objection to the "Biblical feminists" that this passage in no way justifies a woman teaching men in an extended class meeting over and over. (For examples on how feminists use this, see In Search of God's Ideal Woman by Dorothy Pape, pp. 94-95; I Suffer Not a Woman, by Richard and Catherine Kroeger, p. 82.)

Well, thanks for calling me "silly." That really made me feel good. :tongue3:

Okay, so give me just one example from anywhere--the NT, the classics, Josephus, anyone, I don't care--that shows ektithemi as meaning "teach." BAGD doesn't give that meaning. Liddell-Scott doesn't. Why do you? Can you produce a lexicon, any lexicon, that gives the meaning "to teach"?

Wow, another shot to make my day. Now I am dangerous and am setting a bad example! :tongue3:

Look, I'm just looking at the lexicons and the context and the historical usage. How can that be a bad example? Where in the world would you tell students to look if not to the lexicons and historical usage? So far you have given me no proof that ektithemi can mean "teach." Trot out your proof and then we'll talk.

 

Is there a way to get arrested on the Baptist Board? I feel so bad. I'm such a jerk, being silly, dangerous, setting a bad example and basing my arguments on preconceived notions. To quote my favorite philosopher, "I'm a BAAAAAAAD boy" (Lou Costello, circa 1950 A. D.).

Someone shoot me (metaphorically) before I cause more harm. :tonofbricks: :BangHead: :tongue3:

 

I have just a few thoughts and questions to consider.

1. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and women are not to be in authority over men, then why did he choose Deborah as a Judge? And if she can be an exception, can there be others?

2. When I read these passages from Paul about his views on women in authority in the church, instead of a "thus saith the Lord," or "on God's authority" he very clearly says "I do not permit..." This is an extremely unusual point. Paul clearly puts himself in submission to both Christ and to the Lord in just about everything he writes, expecially in reference to his Damascus road experience. Is he distinguishing here between what God says and what he says, and in so doing does he indicate that his own personal authority is not to be considered universal, or for all time, but is instead a particular position that is intended to apply to the Christians under his authority at that particular time? There is a distinction between Paul saying "I don't permit," and something that he declares that the Lord says.

 

#1 Deborah was not a pastor and Israel was not a church. She held no spiritual authority. The judges during that period were SOMETIMES priests, but certainly not always, and really this example would only become plausible if you could prove Deborah was a priest. Furthermore, Deborah stepped in where a MAN had failed. She acted as judge because the man at that time had refused to take the position. There are numerous examples of women taking over when the men won't/can't do it.......this does not automatically mean that it is God-ordained.


#2 Why would Paul's authority extend to the Christians under him then, but not to us today? Where in the passage do you see anything that says it was only meant for that particular congregation, or time period? It isn't there.
Now, in the only time that Paul does clearly speak out of his own will, he actually SAYS plainly that he is speaking and not the Lord......and that instance is NOT over this issue.
Paul writes like a lawyer.....he builds his cases point by meticulous point. Sometimes even belaboring a point just to be sure it is clear. He does not write in subtleties, nor does he just declare things to be so and leave it at that. He gives causes, reasonings, historical background.....everything he can to be clear. Why do we think that he would be different over this issue? He wasn't one to be afraid of repercussions from the Jews. He suffered everything possible from them....he wasn't real worried about being popular.....especially by this time in his ministry.
Not to mention the True Author of the Scriptures here in question. Also not real afraid of man's wrath.

Why would God have the women not teaching the men or usurping authority over the men in the church back then.....but suddenly He changes His mind in today's modern era? See Jack, what you're saying is that it wasn't ok for a woman to pastor at that church then...but for some mysterious reason its ok now. ??

 

Look again at the Deborah story. First of all, the judges did not rule the country, but advise it. They only led into battle (for example) rarely, and then soon relinquished power. Secondly, Deborah did not set herself up as an authority over men, but the people naturally came to her as a wise woman where she lived (Jud. 4:5). Thirdly, when the opportunity came to lead men into battle, she refused the position of general, though promising to go along on the trip. Barak was the general.

Yes, in the Timothy passage Paul says "I do not permit." But in the Corinthian passage he says "It is not permitted." I think that is an important difference.

Regardless, either the passages were inspired by God or they weren't. I believe in verbal-plenary inspiration, so I obey them.

 

Whew! It is a good thing you do obey them . . .

 

I think it comes from this verse. Turns out it was not Apollos but Paul that left them in Ephesus to carry on the work. This is how they were there when Apollos came. It does not specifically say that is WHY Paul left them there but I think that is the common understanding.

Acts 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
20 When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not;
21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

 

How about saying the Bible says so, and I believe it?

:saint:

 

Did I stick a couple of toes in my mouth there again? Or maybe a full set? :laugh: