"Female Pastors" Is there any such thing?

[Tibby]

Eloquently put, Saved. Broken, you made some good points, but as Saved pointed out, you have a few holes in your theory. Now saved, my father has been in Anesthesia for over 30 years, he is one of the best in the region, and one of the best in the country at doing Epidurals. And if the Epidural is done well, then the women does feel NO pain DURING childbirth. However, the pain afterward is a different story… No top of that, we have to keep in mind, I said “done WELL” it is very possible for a mistakes, or even to little or to much in the way of drugs, or even lack of skill on the practitioners part, and the women still feels a little pain. Good job, Saved. Other then that, you did a good job. Other then that, Broken, how do you explain the multitude of verses speaking against women preachers?

[suzie]

Tibby, yes women have and will continue to be leaders within the church. There were two spiritual ministries present in the OT-that of priest and prophet.  

Deborah, both prophet and judge over Israel for 40 yrs--that word used for judge is "shaphat"--to govern. God raised up Deborah to govern.  Miriam in Micah 6:4 was called a leader--by God. Huldah was a female prophet and contemporary with Jeremiah, and Zephaniah.

Junias -a woman apostle.  Phoebe, called a "prostatis" which is one who governs (romans 16:2) These are a few of the women God called to leadership.

God called these women despite the great cultural and traditional conditions of the times.

Your claim against the sbc is your opinion, however you missed the point of my message.

I am very interested in your Sciptural basis for this shared ministry power of husband and wife, but not single women....?

Scripture indicates that leadership of the Church is vested in Elders who walk in the anointing of the five fold ministries: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists. These are the "people" gifts to the body of Christ for its equipping. Scripture does not indicate a distinction between men and women in leadership  positions within the church. The distinctive qualifications for leadership are character based, rather than gender based.

the woman does always have pain with childbirth, (or afterwards): the Scripture says "I will greatly increase you pains in childbearing"....with pain you will give birth to children. Some women do not have children at all.  Men do not toil the earth  by the sweat of their brow much of the time. However, this was the reality of life in the ancient world before Christ came begin the restoration process of equality.
Just as no person should be ordained or given responsibilites of ministry within the church because of sex, or for the sake of a "point"; no person, called and gifted by God, should be denied any role of ministry or leadership in the church because of one's sex.

Tibby, the NT verses in accordance with wives to submit to their husbands....wives should submit to their husbands, and husbands to their wives. That is what the verses pose.  Whatever submitting a wife is to do, the husband is to reciprocate as a Christian. It is God who is to be leader of each marriage, each home, each heart.  It isnt about a hierarchy, but about mutuality, love and equality in Christ. It is a matter of unity other rather than authority. The self-giving servanthood that Jesus emulated.

[Broken]

My computer ate this the first time, so I'm having to post again, grrr. And its going to have to be in two parts as it was too long the first time. Tibby, I address your comments in here too

Sorry broken but your hypothosis is quite inccorect.  Women still have pain in child birth whther they use pain relievers or not it just doesn't hurt as much.

As Tibby mentioned, some women really do feel no pain in child birth. If even one woman feels no pain, you have to make a choice between saying that they are sinful for accepting pain relieving medication, or that the curse was removed ("...saved through childbirth..." anyone? )

Regardless it's quite obvious that the pain is still there as ordained by God though you may try to cercumvent it.

So, it is sinful to accept such medication? Or its ok to circumvent God's will? Which are you trying to say?

Also desire towards the main does not mean lustfully or sexually.  Adam and Eve were already married how then would it be a "curse" to love her husband.

The point of the curse being that woman would have pain in childbirth but God ordained that her desire for him would be such that she would have more children and thus suffer more pain.
How would you define desire towards a sexual partner in a non-sexual way?

Also I suppose you believe then that this curse was dropped quite early on since homosexuality has been around for quite some time.

 
Not just lesbians are affected - all those who feel no sexual desire for a man - which includes celibates - or who feel no sexual desire for the man they are with are, if the curse is upheld in that way, condemned. Or God is a liar. Take your pick.
I am suggesting that the curse is not quite so literal as you make out. That just as we would not condemn a woman for not experiencing birth pains or for not sexually desiring her husband, we should also not say men are the rulers of women. You must either take all, or none You cannot say that the part of the curse which deals with men must still be in effect but the rest can be disregarded.

Maybe you forgot about sodom and gahmorra.  Or maybe even how Paul declares homosexuals as not inheriting the kindom of God.

That really isn't relevant here, but it doesn't actually matter whether or not lesbianism is condemned (which it isn't in the OT), the fact that there are lesbians gives the lie to a literal interpretation of the curse. And you've forgotten the celibates.

Also if using scripture is wrong perhaps you should go complain to Paul who uses this very scripture as part of the reason women are not meant to be leaders aka preachers to the church.

Ah yes, that scripture. I'll quote or I'll get lost (I notice you're a KJV-onlyist or prefer that version, so I'll use that):

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This is one of the most problematic passages in the Bible; hard to translate, and hard to interpret. At first glance it tends to give the impression that Adam did not sin (contrary to Genesis) and that women can only be saved if they have children + faith, charity, holiness and sobriety (which is against the idea of salvation by faith, not to mention perverse).

Since you bring it up, it might be useful to go through it in detail - and I will get to pseudo-Paul's use of Genesis.

[CONT]

[Broken]

[CONT]
I have a couple of points here:

1) "I suffer not a woman to teach" contradicts scripture if used in an absolute sense. Even if we assume Paul is here talking of women teaching men in the sense of preaching or of teaching adult men, it still contradicts scripture. According to Acts:

And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. (Acts 18:24-26)

Therefore, if women are not to teach men ever, Priscilla sinned, as she taught Apollos, who was (obviously) a man. Would you say she sinned?

2) "Nor to usurp authority over a man." The King James Version's translation here is actually the best, in my opinion. Paul is being very specific here about what he is condemning, he is not condemning the authority of women over men, but the usurption of authority over men. It may be helpful to define "usurp", as its really not used often anymore:

\U*surp"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Usurped; p. pr. & vb. n. Usurping.] [L. usurpare, usurpatum, to make use of, enjoy, get possession of, usurp; the first part of usurpare is akin to usus use (see Use, n.): cf. F. usurper.] To seize, and hold in possession, by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp the prerogatives of the crown; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him. (Websters, Source)

The Greek word translated "usurp" is used only once in the entire Bible, and is authenteo. Now, according to Thayer's lexicon, this is defined as:

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

Now, if a man were to preach on his own authority, we would condemn him. The Bible does not teach that a preacher preaches on his own authority but is granted the authority of God - because he is teaching God's will. Paul makes mention of this several times (2 Corinthians 10:8, 13:10), disciples of Christ are given such authority (Luke 9:1) and, as is in accordance with the Bible's teaching that you must either be for Christ or against him, we are told that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1; Colossians 2:10). When someone preaches, expounds on the Bible, he does not do so on his own authority but by the authority of God (2 Peter 1:10) and when he teaches he does not do so by his own authority either (John 14:26)

Thus, if a woman preaches on her own authority, she disregards God. The same goes for men. We've all seen the people who say "you must believe/do X because I say so", it is to those people that this verse speaks.

Incidentally, should you choose to interpret this verse as saying a woman must not have any authority at all over men, rather than saying she must not act on her own authority nor steal authority from rightful holders, then you condemn a great swathe of people. For example, a woman with servants/slaves, who is a manager in a company, or even a woman who is a moderator on a message board are sinning! You must also condemn certain women in the Bible who are not condemned by the Bible - for example, you have no choice but to condemn Deborah (Judges 4:4) who was not condemned by God. Are you willing to do that?

Verse 15 ("she shall be saved in childbearing") is the most problematic verse here. The only way I see to avoid the perverse and contradictory interpretation I outlined above is to say that this is saying Woman will be saved by a particular child's bearing. Jesus. Because Woman bore the Son of God, she shall be saved - as everyone has that capacity. So why, we should ask ourselves, did Paul mention this especially to women? Why didn't he just say, because of Jesus, all people can be saved? There must be a reason he addressed it specifically to women. Considering that just before this verse, he was talking about Eve, and the curse on Eve ... the birth of Christ broke the curse on Woman. (Recollect what the word "notwithstanding" means) We live with one foot in the world and one in the spirit - the flesh being with us - and so, we are forced to bear the physical curse, because the flesh and the world remain unredeemed until Christ's return, but the spirit..is a different matter. The spirit has already been redeemed - hence you have eternal life now, not just in the future. Christ broke the curses (plural) of Genesis - man is no longer under a sentence of death, his life need not be sorrowful either, and woman is no longer under the rule of man. The physical curses are still there - we're not in the new earth yet - so man still has to toil for food and woman still has pain (sometimes) in childbirth. But the spiritual part of the curse has been broken on the cross.

If I had to paraphrase this passage, I would say that Paul has basically said: Women, shut up, listen and learn. Don't disrupt the preacher, steal his place or use your own authority to preach and teach without leave. Remember that Adam was made first, then Eve, and the serpent attacked and deceived Eve, but not Adam. In spite of that, woman will be saved through the birth of Christ, if they all continue in faith, charity and holiness with sobriety.

Modern women can continue to ignore blatent scripture and twist and make things up as they please it is no and will always be wrong.

You seem to have forgotten the male proponents of women's ministry.
Men, too, can ignore scripture

Now...what about Junia, Phoebe, and the like?

-Emma

[Saved_4ever]

It may be helpful to define "usurp", as its really not used often anymore:

3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

Hello?... is anyone home?.... Hello?

It's quite obvious there's no point in continuing this disscusion with you.

[Broken]

Well, I don't know about you, Saved_4Ever, but personally I agree with the KJV's translation here. You'll notice that they did not write simply "to govern", but "usurp authority". They had good reason for this
I gave the etymology of authenteo, as well as its primary and other definitions - I can see no reason to disagree with the KJV translators' decision on this.

[suzie]

1 Timothy 2:12; "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.."(NIV)

The meaning of the Greek word translated "to have authority" or "authentein" occurs only here in the NT and was rarely used in the Greek language.  It is not the usual word for positive, active authority, but rather it is instead a negative term which refers to the unsurping or abuse of authority. Thus, the prohibition is against some abusive activity.

[Tibby]

To add to what Suzie said, The problem with your argument, Broken, about using KJV, we are using a 21st century definition here. This is a 17th century book written in 17th century English. Now, they say England and America are 2 countries divided by a shared language. Imagine how different British England THEN, and American English now are! Think about this:

If I say “That is tight” I mean that is cool, but in England ,if I say “That is tight” it would mean that is tight wadded, that is mean or cruel.

If I say you are mean, here in America, that make you a cruel person. If I said you where mean in English, it would mean you were not generous.

If I say I need a rubber in America, I mean protection, if say I need a rubber in English, it is an eraser for a pencil! THAT would be embarrassing!

 In America, I ask “What are you doing ON the weekend?” in England, I ask “What a re you don’t AT the weekend?”

If I spilled milk, in America, I’d say “I spilled milk” in England, “I spilt milk”

If I’m in an restaurant in America, and ask for the police, I am being robs for something, but I ask for in in England, I am asking for the Check!

I can go ON and ON, the point it KJV was written in England centuries ago! Using a modern Dictionary isn’t going to do much good.

[Broken]

To add to what Suzie said, The problem with your argument, Broken, about using KJV, we are using a 21st century definition here. This is a 17th century book written in 17th century English. Now, they say England and America are 2 countries divided by a shared language. Imagine how different British England THEN, and American English now are!

I know that is a problem with using the KJV I was partly using it because I think Saved_4Ever prefers it - judging by the picture in his signature.
The language has changed, but I seriously doubt the word "usurp" has! It still means to take possession of unlawfully!

The reason I said the KJV had the better translation here is because "to usurp authority" has both a very different meaning than "to have authority", and also because it captures the sense of the Greek word better than simply "having".

As Suzie said:

The meaning of the Greek word translated "to have authority" or "authentein" occurs only here in the NT and was rarely used in the Greek language.  It is not the usual word for positive, active authority, but rather it is instead a negative term which refers to the unsurping or abuse of authority. Thus, the prohibition is against some abusive activity.

The passage is not just talking about having authority, full stop, but about a specific way of gaining/using it which is unlawful.

If I say “That is tight” I mean that is cool, but in England ,if I say “That is tight” it would mean that is tight wadded, that is mean or cruel.

Actually, where I come from in England, "tight" means drunk

I can go ON and ON, the point it KJV was written in England centuries ago! Using a modern Dictionary isn’t going to do much good.

In many respects, you're right. There are a lot of occasions where the KJV is confusing to an argument due to the meanings of words having changed - and of course the difference between UK and American English. But, certainly in the UK, I don't think the word "usurp" has or had a different meaning to the one I quoted, and I doubt it is different in the US.

[Tibby]

To add to what Suzie said, The problem with your argument, Broken, about using KJV, we are using a 21st century definition here. This is a 17th century book written in 17th century English. Now, they say England and America are 2 countries divided by a shared language. Imagine how different British England THEN, and American English now are!

I know that is a problem with using the KJV I was partly using it because I think Saved_4Ever prefers it - judging by the picture in his signature.
The language has changed, but I seriously doubt the word "usurp" has! It still means to take possession of unlawfully!

Good point.

If I say “That is tight” I mean that is cool, but in England ,if I say “That is tight” it would mean that is tight wadded, that is mean or cruel.

Actually, where I come from in England, "tight" means drunk .

Really? What part are you from? This reference about Tight came from a Friend I know who lived near the Oxford Area. He lived in Africa for the first part of his life, maybe he got it from there. We both spent a whole weekend together says “tight this “ and “Tight that” lol, when he said “abortion was tight” I had a feeling we where using to different meanings… lol, good times, good times!

In many respects, you're right. There are a lot of occasions where the KJV is confusing to an argument due to the meanings of words having changed - and of course the difference between UK and American English. But, certainly in the UK, I don't think the word "usurp" has or had a different meaning to the one I quoted, and I doubt it is different in the US.

Yes, just ask and Shakespearian Actor or Rennie, they will tell you the same thing. Read Beowulf one day, no the original text… Hey, it is English, too, right? lol

[suzie]

Actually Tibby, I was not really in disagreement with Broken at all.....The Greek word authentein was a term that equated to unsurping of authority.....this word has such a negative connotation in the Greek language that it carries the concept of sovereign domination.  Paul was dealing with a woman who was spreading false doctrine.

[Tibby]

I know. I wasn't referring to you. This woman was a gossip, plain and simple. What I'm wondering is why Paul though he needed to say she was a women. Many time, he doesn't even bother to menton who the person is, just the sin. But he said women from some reason...

No pot of that, we are focusing one one part of the Verse. What about "teach" the word before "usurp"? A women shall not teach a man. What is he referring to there?

[suzie]

There are a few things to keep in mind when looking at this passage.

1Timothy2:11-12 seems to be a general prohibition on teaching and authority exercised by women. It is not directed to only a certain level of persons : "ordained vs non-ordained", "pastors vs missionaries"; nor is it limited to only a certain style of teaching "preaching vs sharing", "seminary teaching vs writing theological books." In other words, if this were a trans-cultural absolute prohibition on women teaching and exercising authority in the church, then it prohibits all such activity. 1-2 Timothy shows the heretical activity combatted with a deviant approach to sexuality in 1Tim 4:3, 5:11-15; a particular focus on deluding women who were generally uneducated as in 2Tim 3:6-7.

In the first epistle to Timothy, Paul alternated his concern for Timothy and his concern for this church. Paul poured out his concern for the church of Ephesus in 1Tim 2:1-1Tim 4:5.
The overall picture shows us God wants to save everyone. The particular examples are what  God wants to do with men and women. Within the last example, women, Paul begins by talking about women in general, then switched to a particular woman, then switched back to women in general.

Paul did not use aner, the Greek word for men throughout the first seven verses of 1Timothy 2. Instead he used anthropos, the Greek word best translated as "person"  or "human". He continued using anthropos: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the (person) Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all (humans).."

As Paul speaks to women regarding their responsibilities in the church, He began by saying "Likewise, I want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to  worship God."  The NIV begins this verse with "I also," however, it would communicate Paul's intent more clearly if also were translated "likewise" or "in some other way". This word in the Greek is like a literary equal sign. Paul deliberately chose this word to highlight the similarities, not the differences of men's and women's roles in the church. Though the text does not specifically exhort women to pray, it implied by the way Paul chose to begin this sentance. Paul wanted everyone to pray-- both men and women in a godly manner.  Chrysostom was an early church commentator and he understood this and even added the words "to pray" to this verse to complete its meaning.

The church of Ephesus is where Priscilla was a founding leader and she spent much time along with her husband, teaching and correcting Apollos, discipling him for leadership.

[Broken]

Really? What part are you from? This reference about Tight came from a Friend I know who lived near the Oxford Area. He lived in Africa for the first part of his life, maybe he got it from there. We both spent a whole weekend together says “tight this “ and “Tight that” lol, when he said “abortion was tight” I had a feeling we where using to different meanings… lol, good times, good times!

I'm from the North of England, Newcastle, near the border with Scotland. It might be a regional thing I keep finding that I'll use what I think is a common word (like "tat", "canny", "spelk") and find that it either has a different meaning or is an unknown word elsewhere in the country! (FYI: a tat is a tangle, canny means nice, and a spelk is a splinter). We have more in common, linguistically, with Scotland than with the south of England, so tight might mean something else again down there lol

Yes, just ask and Shakespearian Actor or Rennie, they will tell you the same thing. Read Beowulf one day, no the original text… Hey, it is English, too, right? lol

Yep, it is indeed English Old English, as opposed to Middle English (Chaucer), Early Modern English (KJV) and Modern English (what we speak). Actually, do you see the image in my sig? The bottom lot of words, they're in Old English.

No pot of that, we are focusing one one part of the Verse. What about "teach" the word before "usurp"? A women shall not teach a man. What is he referring to there?

Well, given that Paul was obviously fond of and knew well, Prisca/Priscilla, and that she taught a man, I don't see how it can be as absolute as it does look. I'd venture a guess that he was drawing the two things, authority and teaching, into the one condemnation - the issue of taking authority or using the wrong authority to do something. Perhaps Paul was saying don't teach with the wrong authority, as well as don't use your own authority/steal authority over a man?

That'd be my idea, anyway.

[Tibby]

I'm from the North of England, Newcastle, near the border with Scotland. It might be a regional thing I keep finding that I'll use what I think is a common word (like "tat", "canny", "spelk") and find that it either has a different meaning or is an unknown word elsewhere in the country! (FYI: a tat is a tangle, canny means nice, and a spelk is a splinter). We have more in common, linguistically, with Scotland than with the south of England, so tight might mean something else again down there lol

Yes. Here in America, we learn each other dialect because we spend so much time making fun of each other. We have Guys like Jeff Foxworthy and Chris Rock to “bridge the gap” for their cultures. The guy I was talking about had all kinds of crazy words. In America, we joke about the British vocabulary, but it is on joke. He called the local lake “dodgy” and I’ve already told you are the “tight” thing. lol, you crazy UKers! So, do you consider yourself English or Scottish? Sorry, the extent of my knowledge of English Geography comes from Stephen R. Lawhead books! Lol

Yep, it is indeed English Old English, as opposed to Middle English (Chaucer), Early Modern English (KJV) and Modern English (what we speak). Actually, do you see the image in my sig? The bottom lot of words, they're in Old English.

Yeah, Modern English takes so much from the Languages of the local people, it is NOTHING like old English. I forget all the names, but it is like 100s of different English Dialects over the world today! At least 3 for each English speaking Nation.

Well, given that Paul was obviously fond of and knew well, Prisca/Priscilla, and that she taught a man, I don't see how it can be as absolute as it does look. I'd venture a guess that he was drawing the two things, authority and teaching, into the one condemnation - the issue of taking authority or using the wrong authority to do something. Perhaps Paul was saying don't teach with the wrong authority, as well as don't use your own authority/steal authority over a man?

That'd be my idea, anyway.

Well, I didn’t have an answer either. I was just wondering.

Hey Saved, where’d ya go, buddy?