Women in Ministry

[John317]

Quote:

1 Tim. 2: 11-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 34 prohibit woman from teaching, ruling and governing the local church.

Apparently, EGW missed this prohibition since she was involved in these things, frequently and specifically advocated that "consecrated women", "faithful women", and "devoted women" could in fact do these things.

Ellen White never ruled or governed local churches. She did prophesy and preach but the churches were ruled and governed by local elders and pastors, who get their authority from the church. Ellen White's authority did not derive from the church but directly from God. This is a very important distinction.

We need to go deep into the NT on this topic: the government and officers of the NT church. Who had the authority to govern and rule the church in the NT? Was it ever women?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Robert]

Who had the authority to govern and rule the church in the NT? Was it ever women?

I believe that you are majoring in minors. Besides, why should I believe anything you state on the role of women when you (and others) can't see that there's only one command (not two) in the command, "Love your neighbor as yourself"? You see if you can't get the simple stuff right I know you can't get the more complex issues down!

Rob

[Woody]

Quote:

Ellen White was called by God to be a prophet. She was ordained by God, not by the church. Her authority, unlike that of elders and pastors, didn't derive from the church.

But she is our prophet and we should accept her words as they are ....

Quote:

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women , to become pastors to the flock of God." 6 T p.322 (1900)

[Beryl]

Quote:

It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women , to become pastors to the flock of God." 6 T p.322 (1900)

Exactly! And it is the Holy Spirit that calls both men and women today, and will continue to do so until the end of time.

The prophet Joel quotes what God had told him (Joel 2:18-31) [it is all in quotation marks] regarding what He wanted to do for His people, Israel.

Then (continuing quotation marks -- this is still the word of the Lord) Joel tells us, "And afterward, I will pour out My Spirit on ALL people, Your sons AND DAUGHTERS will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on My servants, both men and women I will pour out My Spirit in those days......."

I know, you will say -- ah!! but they are not ordained!! No, they are not ordained BY MAN, but they have been ordained by God, and, after all, I guess that is the most important thing. They are out proclaiming the gospel while men still argue about it!

It just makes me wonder...............

Oh, well, back to the Greek -- can always hide behind that!

Beryl

[Robert]

Oh, well, back to the Greek -- can always hide behind that!

Beryl

LOL

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Beryl

Oh, well, back to the Greek -- can always hide behind that!

Beryl

LOL

I'll second that motion... hiding behind Greek, trivia, pseudo-scholarship, disingenuous questions, irrelevant strawmen arguments, incessantly tedious over-analysis and on, and on , and on... but with no end (conclusion) in sight...

But on a serious note, the hiding behind Greek is a very valid point that highlights a very fundamental philosophical difference in the way one approaches the use of information about the original Greek.

My approach is to use it to enlighten, broaden, expand and therefore come to a more complete understanding of the original meaning of the whole passage. This approach also requires taking into account the full range of meaning of individual words and phrases, include nuances and idiomatic implications. This requires more than a rudimentary mechanical lexical analysis and must take into account the full context, historic and textual.

The alternative approach, which we have seen amply and exhaustingly demonstrated seems to seek after the narrowest possible meaning of individual words, with very little apparent regard for other possibilities or context. The end result is quite the opposite of the approach I try to take. It ends up with the most restrictive and unenlightening understanding that merely confirms the predisposed traditional conservative position that the person started out with.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

...It has gone full circle so many times it is hard to count them all. What is being accomplished by the same comments used over and over? Same questions, same answers!...

Yes indeed! It is like having a conversation with someone with Alzheimers... Every thought and question is without any apparent memory of anything that preceded it.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

Case in point...

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Quote:

1 Tim. 2: 11-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 34 prohibit woman from teaching, ruling and governing the local church.

Apparently, EGW missed this prohibition since she was involved in these things, frequently and specifically advocated that "consecrated women", "faithful women", and "devoted women" could in fact do these things.

Ellen White never ruled or governed local churches. She did prophesy and preach but the churches were ruled and governed by local elders and pastors, who get their authority from the church. Ellen White's authority did not derive from the church but directly from God. This is a very important distinction.

We need to go deep into the NT on this topic: the government and officers of the NT church. Who had the authority to govern and rule the church in the NT? Was it ever women?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Richard]

I will say that for a woman to rule a church of God is not good and to make it clear a woman have not governor a church even Ellen G white she don't do it,But at this present time God also use woman to work okay....

[Woody]

Quote:

Oh, well, back to the Greek -- can always hide behind that!

Good One Beryl.

The other option is to "skirt" the issue by using the gays.

[Beryl]

Quote:

The alternative approach, which we have seen amply and exhaustingly demonstrated seems to seek after the narrowest possible meaning of individual words, with very little apparent regard for other possibilities or context. The end result is quite the opposite of the approach I try to take. It ends up with the most restrictive and unenlightening understanding that merely confirms the predisposed traditional conservative position that the person started out

Thank you, Tom. I heartily agree with you. Strangely, we have no references made to the Hebrew in the OT, where, for instance, Deborah was Judge (equivalent to GC President in our time). Once again, Deborah was placed in that position by God Himself. And that was in a culture where women were downgraded. I find it interesting that the captain of the army refused to go out unless he had the woman of God with him!

Another point is that we all know that all languages change with time, with words having different meanings. English changes depending on which country you come from. I well remember the problem that I had when appointed to New Zealand (1951) and trying to make myself understood in a shop -- only to find that, yes they stocked that item -- but why did I call it "that" particular name? During the 27 years I spent in New Zealand, I found that the "good old Aussie" language had also changed in my absence. I found that I was asking for something by the name that I had previously used in Aussie -- only to find I was now a stranger in my own homeland!

So, when it comes down to the nitty gritty of trying to find the EXACT meaning of a word in the language of the first century -- how can they possibly be THAT accurate? Did God really mean that we all had to understand Greek in order to know what He said? I believe not.

I am not criticising the deep study of Scripture, or even the study of Greek as such -- except when it is used instead of -- well, I think you know what I mean!

Beryl

[John317]

Woman’s Role in the Church

Does the Bible teach that there are different roles for men and women in the scheme of God’s plan for the church?

"And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7).

And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him (Gen. 2:18).

And Jehovah God caused a I sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Gen. 2:21—23).

The ancient Jewish Rabbis were fond of saying that “God had not formed woman out of the head, lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye, lest she should lust; nor out of the ear, lest she should be curious; nor out of the heart, lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand, lest she should be covetous; nor out of the foot, lest she be a busybody; but out of the rib, which was always covered,” (Edersheim, 1957, 146) indicating the modesty that was to characterize her.

The divine portrait of woman, as painted on the Biblical canvas, is remarkable indeed. The Genesis narrative distinctly lends itself to the impression that Eve, as the culmination of the creative week, was a climactic jewel in Jehovah’s handiwork.

As one wanders down the corridors of Old Testament history he is ever refreshed by encounters with such as Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Abigail, Ruth, Esther, and other noble women. Thus could the apostle Peter direct attention to those “holy women” who aforetime “hoped in God” (1 Pet. 3:5).

Nor are the feminine names that adorn the New Testament record less illustrious. The names of those women who ministered to the Master, and later those who served with distinction in the church, have become proverbial.

The Plight of Ancient Woman

In order to appreciate the role of New Testament womanhood, one must, by way of contrast, consider the plight of ancient woman as she stood in the world in general.

In the antique Greek world, women were considered inferior to men. Aristotle viewed women as somewhere between slaves and freemen. Wives led lives of seclusion and practical slavery.

In Rome women enjoyed greater practical freedom, though not legal, than in Greece, but licentiousness was rampant. Chastity and modesty among women were virtually unknown (note Paul’s reference to female homosexuality in Romans 1:26). Wives were truly second—class persons; more honor was shown to a man’s mistress than to his wife.

Though the Jewish opinion of womanhood during the time of Christ needed considerable improvement — a male’s morning prayer expressed thanks to God that the petitioner was neither a Gentile, a slave, or a woman — such attitudes were the result of heathen influences.

While women were somewhat legally inferior under the law of Moses, practically speaking, wives and mothers in Israel enjoyed the greatest of dignity. Mothers were to be honored (Ex. 20:12) and to rebel against, or show disrespect for one’s mother was a most serious offence which could be punished by death (Deut. 21:18ff; 27:16).

Though the Hebrew woman was under the authority of her father and later of her husband, she enjoyed considerable freedom and was not shut up in the harem …. Though women did not ordinarily inherit property, in a case of a sonless home the daughters might inherit (Num. 27). It was a man’s world, but Hebrew law protected woman’s person. Rape was punishable. Harlotry was forbidden (Lewis, 425).

Edersheim pointed out that the Hebrew husband was bound to love and cherish his wife, to support her in comfort, to redeem her if she had been sold into slavery, and to bury her, on which occasion even the poorest was to provide at least two mourning fifes and one mourning woman. He was to treat his wife with courtesy, for her tears called down Divine vengeance (n.d., 270)

If it be objected that the Old Testament practice of polygamy, along with its ease of divorce for men, placed women in an unfavorable status, it may be replied that such matters were tolerated in that “moonlight” dispensation due to the “hardness” of Israel’s hearts (Matt. 19:8), and were to be abolished with the introduction of the “better” system.

Womanhood in the New Testament

The very first chapter of the New Testament portends the status to be accorded women under the law of Christ; there, four women are alluded to in the legal ancestral catalog of the Lord. Though the practice of mentioning women in such lists was not wholly unknown, it is, in the words of A. B. Bruce, “unusual from a genealogical point of view” (62).

Paul affirmed that “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman . . .” (Gal. 4:4). The birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary was the turning point in human history for women.

The Savior openly defied the attitudes of His day in His frequent dealings with women. He conversed with the woman at Jacob’s well (a Samaritan at that!), a thing that shocked even the disciples (Jn. 4:27). He refused to bend to Pharisaical pressures that He shun the sinful woman who anointed and kissed His holy feet (Lk. 7:36ff). Godly women were numbered among those who ministered to the Christ (Lk. 8:3), some of them accompanying Him even to the foot of the cross (Jn. 19:25).

Though the roles of specific New Testament women will be discussed later in this presentation, it is important at this point that some general considerations be noted.

Men and Women Both Subject To Christ’s Marriage Law

Under the law of Christ, both male and female are equally obligated to the marriage ordinance; neither husband nor wife should depart from the other (1 Cor. 7:11). But should a husband (as in the case of an unbeliever) leave his wife, she is not bound (as a slave) (Arndt & Gingrich, 1957, 205) to follow the deserter (1 Cor. 7:15). And in the case of marital infidelity, the woman is granted the equal privilege of divorce and remarriage (cf. Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11, 12).

Men and Women Dependent Upon Each Other

Inspiration clearly stresses the mutual dependence of men and women in Christ. Paul says, “Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). Neither is complete without the other.

Men and Women Equal In Salvation

In the matter of salvation, both stand on equal footing before God. Paul says concerning those who have obeyed the gospel: “[T]here can be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Though, as Professor Colin Brown observes:

This, however, is not a call to abolish all earthly relationships. Rather, it puts these relationships in the perspective of salvation history. As Paul goes on to say, “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29; cf. also Rom. 10:2). All who are in Christ have the same status before God; but they do not necessarily have the same function (570).

Galatians 3:28 is certainly in harmony with 1 Peter 3:7 which makes it clear that women are “joint—heirs of the grace of life.”

Women Rule the Household

The New Testament authorizes woman a domain of authority within the home. Younger widows are advised to marry, bear children, and “rule the household” (1 Tim. 5:14).

Lenski says:

“To rule the house” means as the wife and mother in the home, to manage the household affairs. This is the domain and province of woman, in which no man can compete with her. Its greatness and its importance should ever be held up as woman’s divinely intended sphere, in which all her womanly qualities and gifts find full play and happiest gratification (676).

This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be willingly in subjection to him (Eph. 5:22, 23). Yet, he should lovingly allow her the freedom to exercise authority in the management of domestic matters, for God has ordained it.

The way in which the Church began to lift woman up into privilege and hope was one of its most prompt and beautiful transformations from the blight of paganism. Too long in the darkness, she was now helped into the sunlight (Hurst, 146).

Such a transformation impressed even the heathen world; Libanius, a pagan writer, exclaimed: “What women these Christians have!”

By divine design, man is to be the “head” of woman—in society, in the church, and in the home (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22—24). This graduation of authority rests on two bases: first, the original constitution of the sexes as created; and, second, woman’s role in the Fall.

Concerning the former, the Bible teaches woman was made as a help for man —not the reverse (Gen. 2:18,20).

Paul wrote: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11: 8,9).

And again, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13).

As to the woman’s role in the Fall, she believed Satan’s lie that she might become as God, and hence, was “beguiled” (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3) or “deceived” (1 Tim. 2:14), whereas Adam, laboring under no such deception (1 Tim. 2:14), merely sinned due to his weakness for the woman (Gen. 3:12). Accordingly, woman’s subjection was increased after her fail (Gen. 3:16).

These facts do not suggest that woman is inferior to man, but they do mean (to those who respect the testimony of Scripture) that she is subordinate in rank to man. It ought to be emphasized that as Christ’s subjection to the Father involved no deprivation of dignity (Phil. 2:5-11), so there is none in woman’s subjection to man. So, as we shall presently observe, because of these historical facts, the sphere of woman’s activity has been divinely circumscribed.

The New Testament women prophesying (Acts 2:18; 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5).

It is assumed that prophesying was preaching, hence, women of the first century preached. The word “prophesy” is from two Greek roots, pro (forth), and phemi (to speak). It is a very general term and may mean “to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort” (Thayer, 553) (cf. 1 Cor. 14:3). It can simply suggest the idea of “giving thanks and praising God” (1 Chron. 25:3). The meaning of the word in a given situation must be determined by the context, as well as other information in the Scriptures.

Paul limits the extent of a woman’s forth—speaking (teaching, etc.) when he writes: “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Tim. 2:12). The negative conjunction oude (nor) here is explanatory in force, revealing that the kind of teaching prohibited by the apostle is that which assumes dominion over the man (Lenski, 563).

Certainly women may teach (cf. Tit. 2:3); they may, in certain ways, even teach men. There is a reciprocal teaching in singing (Col. 3:16), and privately, in conjunction with her husband, Priscilla was involved in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). But a woman may not assume the position of teacher, with the man subordinated to the role of student, without violating a New Testament command.

Was Phoebe a “Deaconess”?

On the basis of Romans 16:1-2, some have contended that:

Phoebe was a church official (deacon); the church was to “assist her,” implying her authority over the church; and, # she had been a “helper” (prostatis) of many, implying “authority, discipline, over-seeing.” All of this is alleged to show that Phoebe was a preacher-leader in the early church. However:

The word diakonos simply means a “servant” (Matt. 23:11; Jn. 2:5, etc.), and any “official” attachment to the term must be demanded by the context, as in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8.

The fact that the saints were encouraged to “assist” Phoebe did not imply her authority over them. The Greek word paristerni meant to “come to the aid of, help, stand by” (Arndt & Gingrich, 633). When Paul said, “the Lord stood by (pareste) me” (2 Tim. 4:17), he certainly was not asserting that he exercised authority over Christ!

The word prostatis (helper) does not necessitate oversight. If so, then Phoebe exercised authority over Paul, for she had been his helper as well as others! Though it is found only here in the New Testament, the term, which can connote simply rendering assistance, is used in a third century B.C. letter from a son to his father (the verbal form): “there will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me” (Moulton & Milligan, 551).

In Philippians 4:2-3, Paul comments that Euodia and Syntyche “labored” with him in the gospel; he calls them, along with others, his “fellow-workers.” Again, the assumption is made that this necessitates an authoritarian position comparable to the apostle’s. However, Christians are said to be “God’s fellow-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9); obviously, this does not suggest that we are authorized to act as deity! Countless Christian ladies have assisted gospel preachers in numerous ways without ever having become public preachers themselves.

It is said that Junia (KJV), a woman, was an apostle and thus certainly occupied a place of authority in the primitive church (Rom. 16:7).

In the first place, in the Greek text the name is Junian (in the accusative case — the gender of the name not being evident); it could either be Junia (feminine), or more likely, Junias (masculine). Origin, a writer of the third century A.D., considered it a reference to a man (Lightfoot, 96).

But secondly, it is not even certain that Junias is here identified as an “apostle.” The phrase “of note among the apostles” (ASV) is rendered by Zahn as “famed, mentioned with honor in the circle of the apostles,” (418) giving the sense of being well—known by the apostles, rather than actually being an apostle.

In the third place, the word apostle is used occasionally in the Bible in a nontechnical sense to denote a messenger. Jesus says that “one sent” (apostolos) is not greater than the sender (Jn. 13:16). The word need not imply one who has dominion over another, nor even a preacher.

What About Women Prophets in the Old Testament?

Some argue that Paul’s admonition that women be in subjection is limited by the expression, “as also saith the law” (1 Cor. 14:34), and since the law allowed women prophets (as in the case of Miriam, Huldah, and Anna), and even a woman judge, Deborah; so, preaching executives are permissible in the church today. However:

When Miriam prophesied it was “all the women” that went out after (Ex. 15:20), and there is no evidence that she preached to men.

Though Huldah was a prophetess, the solitary record of her prophesying involved some men going to her where they communed privately (2 Kgs. 22:14ff; 2 Chron. 34:22ff). It is impossible to find public preaching here.

Anna was a prophetess “who departed not from the temple” (Lk. 2:36—38). In describing the temple, Josephus (Wars, 5,5,2) says “there was a partition built for the women” that separated them from the men; this was “the proper place wherein they were to worship.” It cannot be proved that she publicly preached to mixed audiences.

Deborah was a prophetess of the hill country of Ephraim, but there is no indication that she publicly proclaimed God’s message to the multitudes; rather, “the children of Israel came unto her for judgment” (Jud. 4:5). She gave prophetic judgment as a “mother in Israel” (Judg. 5:7). The fact that she judged at all is a dramatic commentary on the sickening weakness of the Israelites during this period, and Deborah’s song (Judg. 5) laments this woeful condition. This was but one of those occasions where Jehovah accommodated His working to Israel’s weaknesses (cf. 1 Sam. 8:9; Matt. 19:8).

Is 1 Corinthians 14:33 Applicable Today?

Perhaps a further comment regarding 1 Corinthians 14:33 is in order. May this context be used to oppose women preachers?

One view contends that it may not. It is alleged that contextual considerations indicate that the meeting contemplated in 1 Corinthians 14 is not comparable to any convened in the church today, and so, these verses are not applicable to church assemblies of today (Woods, 106-112).

A more reasonable view, that also recognizes that 1 Corinthians 14 has to do primarily with a unique first century situation,i.e., the reception of spiritual gifts, sees Paul here enunciating essentially the same principle as set forth in 1 Timothy 2:12f.

H. P. Hamann writes:

If we have the same writer in both letters writing on the same matter, we have the right to allow one text to explain the other, and especially to let the clearer or more definite throw light on the less precise. So 1 Tim. 2 is the key for the understanding of 1 Cor. 14 (8).

Professor Hamann then parallels the two as in this chart.

It is certain that 1 Corinthians 14:33f lends no support to the notion of women preachers. Such are not sanctioned anywhere in the Scriptures.

Men Are Designated Leaders For Worship Assemblies

Finally, the New Testament makes it clear that the men are to lead the acts of worship in assemblies of mixed sexes.

In 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul instructs that “the men [andras— accusative plural of aner, males only] pray in every place.” Now woman may certainly pray (1 Cor. 11:5), and it would hardly be denied that she could pray in every place. However, there is a sense in which only males may pray in every place. Obviously, it is the leading of prayers in mixed groups that is confined to the man.

Commenting upon this verse, a noted Greek scholar has well said: “The ministers of public prayer must be the men of the congregation, not the women” (White, 106). The same principle, of course, would also apply to other acts of public worship.

It has become fashionable to assert that Paul’s teaching regarding feminine subordination was aimed at conformity to the culture of his day — somewhat as instructions concerning slavery; and, it is claimed, as the New Testament contained seeds for the abolition of slavery, so, it also contained the seed for woman’s eventual full equality with man in church life.

The alleged parallel is simply not valid. In the four major contexts where Paul discusses male/female relationships (1 Cor. 11:2—16; 14:33b—35; Eph. 5:22—23; 1 Tim. 2:8—15), the principle of subjection, as well as its application to specific situations, are grounded upon historical facts of Old Testament history, and not upon culture.

[Note: Some contend that the principle in 1 Corinthians 11:2—16 is binding today, but not Paul’s specific application (Roberts, 183f), while others believe that both the subjection principle and its specific application are required today (Jackson).]

While it is important to study ancient culture so as to better understand the Bible, it must not be an overriding factor in interpretation. To substitute “culture” for a stated apostolic reason, is to turn exegesis into eisegesis (Sproul, 13f).

The New Testament abounds with examples of godly women who, consistent with their assigned roles, served their Master with dignity and honor. Yes, women whose names will still be mentioned with admiration long after the modern-day feminists are gone and forgotten!

God’s women make a vital contribution to the kingdom of Christ on earth. Whether they are continuing steadfastly in prayer (Acts 1:14), doing good works and almsdeeds (Acts 9:36), showing hospitality (Acts 12:12; 16:14; 1 Tim. 5:10), teaching the Word in harmony with divine authority (Acts 18:26; Tit. 2:3,4), being good wives (Prov. 31:10ff), rearing godly children (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14,15), or accomplishing various other commendable tasks, let us “rise up and call them blessed.”

[John317]

The following is an argument in favor of women becoming pastors and elders. Let's discuss it along with the opposite viewpoint.

Introduction

Traditionally, fundamentalism has often held that women are not permitted to teach men, or to hold offices of authority over men in the church. This point of view is based on some of Paul's comments on women, which are being misunderstood, as we shall see.

Once we see that the starting point for traditional thinking on this subject is deficient on exegetical grounds we realize the need to find an alternative understanding. No complete attempt will be made here to explore all of the possible resolutions to the problem, but we will survey some solutions sufficient for the lay reader.

The traditional view is based on the following passages:

I Cor. 14:34,35 Let the women keep silent in the church for they are not permitted to speak. . .in church.

I Tim. 2:12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint.

Tit. 2:3ff Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible. . .

These three passages constitute the heart of the case against women teaching and/or leading anything other than the other women and children in the church. No other passages add substantively to the position. Even the Titus reference does nothing to support the idea that women may not teach men. It only tells what they should teach women and children.

A closer examination of these passages will reveal that neither of the first two verses does in fact teach what the male-only theologians claim they do.

I Corinthians 14:34,35

The statement "let the women be silent in the church. . ." does not refer to women teaching. Such an understanding disregards the context in which the statement was made.

This statement is in the midst of a prolonged discussion about the lack of decorum and order in the Corinthian church. The Corinthians evidently had a very severe problem controlling their meetings. In chapter 11 we read that the women were ignoring social convention, quite possibly because they were being caught up in ecstatic worship experiences.4 When they threw off their head coverings during a meeting, they created the impression that they were "loose women." Later in the same chapter, the fact emerges that the whole church was behaving in a profoundly irreverent way during their love feasts. Ignoring the needs of others, they would slop down their own food. Some were visibly drunk!

When the meeting would begin, they were excessively taken up with the ecstatic gift of tongues. Evidence in chapters 12 and 14 indicates they were freely speaking in tongues without any interpretation, and without taking turns. This was creating a confused jumble of unintelligible gibberish. The meetings had degenerated to the point where an outsider would have said that they were "mad".

In light of these abuses Paul finally issues a series of authoritative commands in ch. 14:26-35. First he encourages them to continue with group participation in vs 26. However, this is tempered by his insistence that they control the input of the people in a way that preserves order and decorum in the meeting. The practice of tongues was severely restricted and controlled. There should be no more than 3 tongues, they had to be interpreted into the native language of the area, and they had to be done in order-- not all at once (vs. 27" each in turn").

Similar stipulations are given for the practice of prophecy. While encouraging the others to pass judgment on the content of the prophecy, Paul is insistent that "if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent." This is reinforced and emphasized in the next verse when he says, "for you can all prophesy one by one so that all may learn. . ." The repeated order to take turns clearly indicates the Corinthians were in the habit of interrupting the one speaking. We know from ch. 11:18 that Paul said, "I hear that when you gather together as a church, divisions exist among you. . .." The divisions in the church must have been openly visible in that they would heckle and argue with each other in the meeting (cf. 11:18). Possibly they were standing to shout down anyone with whom they disagreed.

Paul was certainly concerned about confused and disorderly meetings aggravated by frequent interruptions. Because everyone is jabbering away at once, the content of good theology was not being communicated. A visit to one of these meetings clearly would have been more like a visit to a milling school of fish than an orderly coherent and reverent fellowship meeting. This is why Paul supplies the theological basis for orderliness in the next verse, ". . .for God is not a God of confusion but of peace. . .."

It is in this context that Paul says "let the women keep silent. . ." Should we understand this as a short teaching on the normative role of women in the church? If so, it would mean that Paul has changed the subject. He would no longer be discussing how to control chaos in the church meetings, but abruptly turning aside to discuss the role of women in the church in general. Yet, this seems impossible because vss. 39,40 are still on the subject of balanced use of the gifts and order in the meetings, "let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner."

Thus it is clear that the reason for addressing the women at this point in the book is that the women were also involved in interrupting and wrangling. In the first century the women usually sat together rather than with their husbands in Jewish synagogues. Paul copied extensively in the area of structure and practice from synagogues, apparently including this practice. One source of evidence for this seating arrangement is the passage we are studying in I Cor. 14. It seems that the women were sitting together when they heard a point being made that they did not agree with. Following the general pattern of things in Corinth, they would begin to fuss with each other about it--possibly even calling out refutations and heckling the speaker! Otherwise, how could Paul's informants have witnessed division in the meetings?

Again, this is the context in which Paul says, "let the women be silent." Seen in this light, the statement is nothing more than a rebuke to the women for the part they were playing in the general atmosphere of confusion and hostility. "Tell the women to shut up as well!" would be the sense of what Paul is saying.

The language of vs. 34,35 supports this interpretation. When Paul says, "If they desire to learn anything let them ask their own husbands at home. . ." he implies that they were currently asking their questions in the church meeting. In other words, as the speaker made his points, he (or she) might be interrupted with a barrage of questions which likely included challenges to the position being taken, but were in any event, disruptive of the meeting. Therefore Paul says (so to speak), "tell them to wait until they're at home to ask their questions."

The male-only interpretation has no adequate explanation for why this phrase is present in this text. We do not know of any major interpretive school today holding that women are not allowed to ask questions in church at all. Interpreters usually resorted to the explanation that this refers to a formal church service, rather than an adult education meeting for instance. Unfortunately, since this distinction is unsupported in the Bible, it seems a little ridiculous.

We must understand the words in this verse in a way that remains consistent with the context. This passage certainly is not teaching that women cannot speak at all in church, because of the passage mentioned earlier in ch. 11:1-16. How can a woman pray or prophesy if she is not permitted to speak? This contradiction has never been answered satisfactorily by male-only interpreters.

If we understand the phrase, "not permitted to speak" woodenly, we cannot explain how they may teach other women or children in this passage. Nevertheless, the traditional male-only interpretation allows for women to teach within this limited context. Indeed, how would any church in America operate if it completely muzzled its women?

We see here an inconsistency of the worst kind. How can anyone demand that the words be taken literalisticlly without even regarding the context on one hand, while at the same time allowing a breech of the literalistic meaning in the case of women and children? The passage says that they are not permitted to speak in church! Surely we must either enforce that rule consistently, or we should try to understand the distinctions made in the text.

It may also be significant that vs. 34 uses the present infinitive (lalein) for the words "to speak." The present tense in Greek not only speaks of the time of the action, but also the kind of action. In this case, the action is linear, or on-going. This allows for the impression that twittering or chattering was involved, not merely an isolated comment now and then. Thus we could read that, "it is improper for a woman to jabber in church."

To summarize:

1. Women are allowed to speak in a church meeting according to I Cor.11.

2. They (like the men) were not permitted to disrupt the meeting by speaking out of order, or by chattering away with each other.

3. Women could prophesy, pray, and no doubt speak in other ways as well when they were recognized and had the floor.

I Timothy 2:12-15

The main, or best text for the male-only position on church leadership is from I Tim. 2:12ff. According to the extreme male-only view, this passage is teaching that women are not only disallowed to teach or lead, they are constitutionally incompetent to do so, because they are too easily deceived! For example, Earle, a contemporary commentator, says, "Since she was so easily deceived, she should not be trusted as a teacher." Even women writing in the traditional vein have not hesitated to affirm that,

. . .it is undoubtedly true that on account of her greater spiritual capacity, the woman is more open to deception in the supernatural sphere. . .

On the other hand, there are several questions that must be answered by the male-only interpreter before we can admit that such a reading is possible. These questions stem from three problem areas:

1. Inconsistency in Pauline application of the teaching.

2. Implausible use of the Old Testament by Paul.

3. Lack of any supporting critical evidence.

Inconsistency in Pauline Application

First, we would have to question a "deception proneness" interpretation when we compare this passage to that in Tit. 2:3,4. One wonders, why these women (if they are so easily deceived) are allowed to teach the other women and children--the very ones that are most vulnerable to falsehood themselves? Is Paul enunciating a different view of the nature of women in Titus? Or do we need a different understanding of the passage in Timothy?

How can we believe that Paul would only fear women teaching men if, in fact, there is a basic defect of this sort in all women? Yet, at first glance, it would seem that by quoting the Old Testament in defense of the point that he is making, he must be arguing that all women are alike in this respect.

Women are also specifically allowed to prophecy in public, which would undoubtedly open the door to the same danger--that of deception-prone women foisting falsehood on the church. Why does Paul allow women to practice this gift, but does not allow them to teach?

We find the resolution to this problem when we realize Paul did not believe women are more easily deceived than men, and he is actually quoting Genesis for a different 1qreason, as we shall see.

Paul's Use of the Old Testament

Traditional, male-only interpreters cannot account for the way Paul is allegedly using the Old Testament in I Timothy 2. In vs. 14, Paul reminds us that ". . .it was not Adam that was deceived, but the woman, being quite deceived, was carried away into sin."

Is Paul arguing that all women from that time to this have been easier to deceive than men? If this is true, it would appear that Paul is guilty of reading into the text of Gen.3 something that simply is not there. To draw such a conclusion from this text would be improper and illogical. How does it follow from Gen. 3 that women are more easily deceived than men? The passage only teaches that Eve was in fact deceived. It nowhere asserts that this weakness has become endemic to the feminine gender.

Any modern interpreter who tried to prove such a disturbing point from an isolated occurrence would be rightly criticized for committing a serious logical error. For instance, it would be as easy to argue that all first-born sons are violent because Cain was. In both cases, a universal trait is being attributed to an entire class of people on the basis of a single incident, without any logical or exegetical reason.

Possibly Paul had a special revelation indicating that women are more easily deceived, but this does not seem to be the case. Rather than appeal to a revelation that he has received, he appeals to Genesis 3 for his evidence, and expects us to understand what he sees there. Thus we would expect to see him sound interpretive principles to derive the meaning of the text.

In addition, how could Paul adduce the principle of deception-proneness for women from Gen. 3 when it occurred before the fall of mankind?13 If women had innately the flaw of deception proneness, then it would seem they had this flaw by virtue of the way God created them. This follows from the absence of any influence from the fall at the time that the serpent chose the woman for his attack.

Therefore, according to traditional thinking, Eve would seem to be the product of a flawed design on God's part. This conclusion flies in the face of the verdict of God that His creation was "very good." These problems disappear, however, if we conclude that Paul is not arguing that women are more easily deceived than men.

Lack of Supporting Evidence

No convincing evidence from history, nature or contemporary observation confirms that women are more prone to deception than men in the area of theology or in any other area. On the contrary, in the course of church history, men have been a very fertile seed-bed for heresy and deception, usually without any help from their under-educated women. Indeed, a student of church history must be appalled at how ineffective the suppression of women has been in preventing error in the church.

How unusual it is to find a doctrine in the Bible that does not seem to square with reality at all! Yet science has failed to demonstrate any deception proneness in women. Why would we be unable to observe such a tendency if it is real?

Of course, we do not judge the truths of Scripture by the latest "conclusions" of modern science. However, it certainly is prudent to re-think any interpretation that seems to be so contradictory to observation. This is nothing more than a call for a critical interpretation (i.e. one that makes sense).

An example will help us to understand this principle. Atheistic authors have argued that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat because of references to the, "four corners of the earth." Yet the same authors will refer to the "sunrise," even though it is now well known that the sun does not rise, or circle the earth, but that the earth revolves around the sun. It is in the eye of the reader that the sun appears to rise.

It is possible, even likely, that readers of the Bible may have understood the phrase, "four corners" to be referring to a flat earth during that period in history when the earth was believed to be flat. Later however, observation showed that the earth was actually round. It was then necessary to return to the text of the Bible and find out whether it actually taught a flat earth or not.

It did not. This conclusion required a reassessment of the meaning of some passages in Scripture--not a change in the content of the Bible, but a change of the reader's understanding of it. Speaking from a Christian point of view, we believe God knew the Earth was round all along. It is we who sometimes misread passages that are actually correct, thinking that they affirm something that is false.

We are not tampering with the text at all by trying to understand it in a way that best squares with the observable world and with reason. Only in cases where there is an unavoidable conflict between science and scripture would we question the data of scientific observation, and it is doubtful whether such a case exists.

We need a hermeneutical methodology must allow us to handle passages where critical considerations make it difficult to make sense of a passage. The interpreter should first determine through exegesis what is the possible range of meaning in the passage. This phase should be conducted with the utmost liberality, since it is not seeking a conclusion, but only to eliminate certain unacceptable conclusions. Within the permissible readings (of which there are often more than one) we can then use reason, scientific observation, and other hermeneutical sources to determine the most likely reading.

Yet this is often not the method used. Scholars have tended to focus on the interpretation they prefer, finding support for it, instead of simply finding out how much latitude exists in the text, and admitting the plausibility of other views that are within those limits.

It is particularly painful for the educated modern woman (or man) to listen to Bible teachers and preachers defending the idea that women have the trait of deception proneness, regardless of how endearing the teacher thinks it is. A common approach is to claim that women are more emotional than men. This characteristic, it is argued, is so pleasant that it makes up for the weakness in the area of gullibility.

The careful observer today will see that, while some fit this scenario, there are exceptions both among men and women.16 These exceptions are not allowed for in the traditional view. No women are permitted to teach. No wonder even some evangelical authors have been tempted to say that Paul was giving his own confused opinion in this area.

It should be a source of profound embarrassment to the church today that it finds itself in the position of defending an indefensible generalization of this type, in spite of the fact that such is not specifically taught in Scripture. We do find today that higher education is often useful in preventing deception proneness. Both males and females are better empowered to judge an argument's cogency when they are trained to do so. No wonder some conclude that Paul is arguing that women are more credulous than men because he was making the error of attributing the credulity of ancient women to their gender, when the real cause might have been their lack of formal education.18 While some modern interpreters have suggested this answer, the error is actually being made on the part of the male-only interpreter. In fact, Paul did not believe that women were more easily deceived than men.

It is most unusual to see in scripture a major, high-impact truth based on only one verse. It is even more unusual (if not totally unprecedented) to see that truth based on an implication rather than a direct statement--an implication which in turn is based on an apparently improper interpretation of an Old Testament passage.

The proposition held forth, then, by the male- only interpreter--that women should not teach or lead because they have an innate tendency to be deceived--can be characterized in the following way:

It cannot be harmonized with the Pauline position on women teaching other women and children, and in fact, is contradictory to that position (See Tit. 2:3,4 above).

It is based on a faulty interpretation of Genesis 3.

It is unconfirmed by history, by modern scientific observation, or other sources.

It is based on scanty evidence, in fact on a possible implication from one questionably interpreted verse in the Bible.

From these points, we see that the traditional male-only interpretation of this passage is not as strong as it may have seemed at first glance. In fact, these problems call out for a different solution to the problem--a solution that is readily available.

Proposed alternatives

Careful reading in I Timothy indicates some problems with the women in Ephesus. Chapter 5:13,15 indicates that some were ". . .idle gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. . . some have turned aside to follow Satan."

The passage we are studying in Chapter 2 also suggests that all was not as it should be. When Paul says that he is not allowing a woman to ". . . exercise authority over a man. . . "(2:12), he is actually using language that is stronger than it seems in most modern translations.

The word authority in this verse is not exousia (the usual word), but rather the word authenteo.This later word, used only here in the NT, is a strengthened term with negative connotations. Exousia, on the other hand, has no such negative connotation. Exousia is used of the authority of God, and of legitimate leaders. Authenteo comes from an early root whose meaning is unclear. It is sometimes translated "to domineer," or "to lord over".21

Some have suggested that the women in this church were guilty of misusing their freedom in Christ, including false teaching, to try to take over the running of the church.22 In such a case, Paul would not be speaking to a normal situation, but to a threatening division or at least disruption in the local church. If this scenario is correct, there might be good reason to prohibit the women from teaching publicly. If they were attempting to exert undue influence, a teaching ministry would only tend to facilitate their usurpation.

The best argument against this position is the fact that Paul does not justify the rule against women teaching and domineering based on strategic considerations, but on Old Testament theology. Thus, it is felt, we cannot argue that this is a special situation.

In answer to this objection, are two points, as we shall see:

1. The argument from Genesis 3 only relates to the issue of women domineering over men, not to their ability to teach.

2. The case made by Paul is only intended as a general maxim, not as an absolute.

Paul's Use of Gen 3

In the Greek grammar of vs. 12, there is a division between the issue of teaching, and that of domineering over men. The actual statement in Greek is,

"for to teach, I am not allowing, neither to domineer over a man, but to remain quiet, for it was Adam who was first created. . ."23

Some scholars argue that both the infinitives "to teach" and "to domineer" refer to the same object (andros, man).24 Others argue that they do not. So B.P. Payne translates,

"To teach, however, on the part of woman I am not permitting, nor to lord it over a man. . ." He also states that "man" in this sentence is the object of "lord it over" and is too far removed from "to teach" to be understood naturally as qualifying the meaning of that verb as well."

The context is the main factor determining how to read this construction. I think a proper analysis of this passage and the following verses shows that the entire passage is a commentary on Genesis 3 and the origins of gender roles.

In Genesis, we see two facts which, when combined, issued in God's decree,

I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Gen. 3:16b)

These two facts were:

1. Adam was created first

2. Eve was deceived

Either one of these facts alone would not have resulted in God making the statement He did. It was the combination of the two that led to the verdict mentioned.

Therefore, Paul would reasonably bring up both of these events in connection with the issue of women domineering over men. Since God said, ". . .he shall rule over you," we see a theological basis for authority within marriage. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the women to usurp authority, and thus reverse in the church what has been established in the home.

The male-only view--that Paul was reflecting on the nature of woman in general rather than simply analyzing the reasons for God's judgment in Gen. 3--has difficulty explaining why Paul would bring up the fact that Adam was created first. An example of the tortured arguments that result can be seen in Guthrie's explanation,

. . .the priority of man's creation places him in a position of superiority over woman, the assumption being that the original creation, with the Creator's own imprimatur upon it, must set a precedent for determining the true order of the sexes.

This conclusion should be decisively rejected! Scripture never warrants using a term like "superiority" to describe the relationship between men and women. Even when the doctrine of headship is clearly taught, Scripture never suggested that superiority is the issue. Understood properly, this election to authority will be seen as an added responsibility--that of initiating self-sacrifice--not as a privilege.

According to the Bible, we can submit to authority without admitting that the person in authority is superior by nature. Otherwise, we would have no basis for ever submitting to another. Also, Christ was submissive to the Father, but it does not follow that the persons of the Godhead are not equal.31 In the same way Paul affirms that in Christ, "there is neither male nor female" with regard to equality.

What Adam did have was priority, not superiority. It was because of his prior creation that God put man in authority in Genesis 3 (along with the fact that the woman had been deceived). It was not because man was somehow greater than the woman.

Therefore we return to the point made earlier, that in 1 Tim. 2 Paul mentioned these two facts (the priority of Adam, and the deception of Eve) not because they illustrate the true nature of women, but because these were the two factors that led God to decree, ". . . he shall rule over you."

That Paul's attention was focused on the whole text of Genesis 3, and on vs. 16 in particular, is further clear because he reflected on the woman's problems with childbirth in the following verse. This comment would be completely out of context unless his thinking was flowing directly from Genesis 3:16.33 This is clear in spite of the fact that the verse itself is not quoted in the passage.

We can also draw another conclusion if Paul was commenting on the factors that led to Genesis 3:16. If he was discussing the origin of male authority in marriage then he was not discussing any notion about women being deception prone.

We conclude that the issue of women teaching only came up in 1 Timothy because teaching was being used as a forum for those who were trying to usurp authority in the church. If so, the rule against women teaching in vs. 12 was related to the strategic needs of the hour, rather than eternal theological principles, or the innate, unchangeable nature of women. For these reasons, we also realize that the rule can change.

Women In Authority a Maxim, Not an Absolute

Finally, we are left with the question of women in authority as opposed to women teaching. Of course it would be wrong to domineer in any situation, whether male or female. In addition, it seems that Paul believed the pattern of sexual roles established in Gen. 3 for the marriage relationship also apply in general to the church.

We say "in general," because this principle is to be seen as a general maxim, not as an absolute. The fact that God does not always consider it inappropriate to have women in authority over men, even at the highest level, can be demonstrated to those who accept the inspiration of the Bible by the case of Deborah the prophetess in Judges 4.

This example is significant for two reasons. First, the one who placed Deborah in authority was God, according to Judges 2:16. This is important, since she was very authoritative in Israel according to ch. 4:4. There is no evidence in the text that she was under anyone else's authority.

Secondly, all of the reasons Paul named for the restrictions on women in I Timothy were already present at the time of Deborah's judgeship. We can be sure that this question has nothing to do with the advent of the church age, because we already know Paul's reasoning on the matter, which cites Genesis as his basis. Therefore, regardless of how we interpret Paul's view of Genesis, we must admit that God established a woman as judge over Israel in the face of those same factors.

This demonstrates that I Tim. 2:12 is a norm, or a maxim, rather than a moral absolute. If we view it as an absolute, we condemn God for what He did earlier.

To summarize the alternative understanding of I Tim. 2:

Paul was concerned about turmoil, false teaching, and division in the Ephesian church.

The women were forbidden to teach in that church because they were involved in causing some of the trouble.

Paul backs up his position against the women usurping authority with an analysis of Genesis 3:16, showing that there were good reasons behind God's ruling that husbands were to be the head of the home. This ordering of roles was not to be undermined in the church.

If, on the other hand, conditions were not threatening the stability of the church due to usurpation, the ban on teaching would not apply.

Finally, in a situation where the men are not accepting the responsibility of leadership, God may go to women even in this role.

Conclusion

Once we see the weaknesses of the traditional view of women, we still have to determine what our view on the role of women should be. We lack space here to fully develop this area of theology, but we can indicate the general direction of our thinking.

The passages used by male-only interpreters have been dealt with above. The following points should also be considered on the positive side.

1. Women Served in the New Testament Church as Deaconesses. In I Tim.3:11, Paul mentions "women" (gunaiki) in connection with the office of deacon. There is some debate as to whether he is referring to female deacons, or to the wives of deacons.

However, there are two reasons why we should understand the reference to mean female deacons. First, if Paul was worried about the qualifications of deacon's wives, would he not be even more concerned with the qualifications of elder's wives? Yet, he fails to give any qualifications for the wives of elders in the passage. It would seem that the best explanation is that he is referring to deaconesses in vs. 11, rather than to deacon's wives. In the case of elders however, female elders are not mentioned, because female leadership is not contemplated.

If true, this squares with the Pauline position on female leadership in the church. It seems that Paul felt that it is not normative for women to be in a submissive role in the home, but to change hats and become a leader (at the highest level) in the church. However, this idea cannot be extended to leadership at a lower level, even when men are among those being led, because the women leaders are under the oversight of the elders.

The second reason for holding that the gunaiki (women) in I Tim. 3:11 are deacons is that Paul mentions a female deacon in Romans 16:1. Here again, some authors hold that this is an example of the generic use of the word deacon, rather than a reference to the office. There is no good reason for taking this line. Paul's use of the masculine noun here to refer to a woman indicates that he is referring to the office of deacon.

Therefore, women held the office of deacon in the New Testament church-- a position that was important, and authoritative within limits established by the elders.

2. Women prophesied in the church assembly, and therefore probably also taught there. I Cor.11:5 mentions women praying and prophesying in public assembly. Since prophecy was viewed as one of the great gifts, it is difficult to see why a woman would be allowed to prophecy, but not to teach. This fact surely is an embarrassment to those who think women were more easily deceived. Deception proneness would be a devastating drawback for a prophet, no matter how that gift is understood.

Finally, if women were to be "silent" in the assembly, as Moo claims, how were they able to pray or prophecy?

3. Paul made extensive use of the service of women, probably including a spoken ministry. When Paul refers to women as his "fellow workers", or as being "outstanding among the apostles," he is recognizing their ability to do Christian work. It is very doubtful that Paul would attribute such praise to work that was not based on the ministry of the word. The fact that he had women traveling with him, and planting churches, clearly implies that they were speaking out with good teaching and evangelism. It is very difficult to reconcile the fact that Paul recognized female co-workers in church planting with the idea of women being silent in the churches.

4. Finally, as we have seen in the case of Deborah, God can and will go to female leadership even at the highest level, especially if the men are unwilling or unable to get the job done. So often the loudest voices raised in the church to oppose women leading are those of men who are not effectively serving the needs of the church themselves. Well might a stuffed-shirt male oppose female ministry in the church, because these men are the very ones who will be replaced first by women!

In the time of Deborah, Barak was deprived of honor when defeating the Midianites because of his cowardice. Today, many male-only workers will be deprived of the honor of defeating Satan if they try to protect their right to do nothing at the expense of women who want to serve.

Much of the church today hobbles about on one foot because it is unwilling to give women their rightful role as competent hard-hitting Christian workers.

[Woody]

Please tell me ... why do we need all of this? I thought the members here did a fine job of demonstrating the Biblical support and the instructions of Ellen White in supporting Women Pastors. Why do we need this one? If the folks on the anti WO crowd would not read and respond to what we already presented ... then why should we read and respond to this?

[nuff sed]

.........then why should we read and respond to this?

Yeah, it about wore me out just scrolling past it!

[Woody]

Yeah, it about wore me out just scrolling past it!

Oh Yeah ... I need to get high speed scrolling just for this purpose.

[Beryl]

Yes, I'm not going to read all of that! Better things to do with my time. The facts are that God has given to ALL of us thecall to "go, and teach all nations" -- and God has promised the outpouring of His Holy Spirit on both male and female, so -- I guess we just ignore those who say we can't, and we get on with it!

Incidently, for those who point out that, while EGW was a prophetess, and preached in that role, she was not the equiv of today's GC President -- did they expect God to give her EVERY job to do? It was a full time job being God's spokesperson, and the one who led the church (including the President) in their work without asking her to take on the role of president!

To use that argument as "proof" that God would not use a woman to lead the church (as He did with Deborah as Judge (GC Pres.)of Israel) is not an argument at all.

Beryl

[Woody]

Again ... it just goes back to being cultural.

A few words from our President on this issue of culture ...

Quote:

In Let's Talk, a web forum where Adventist youth pose challenging questions to Jan Paulsen (the President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists), one particular question and his rather diplomatic answer deserves some scrutiny.

Paulsen was asked by a teen "Why can't a woman who feels a call to ministry be ordained?"

Paulsen's response:

"For Seventh-day Adventists, ordination to the gospel ministry means ordination to serve the entire world church anywhere the minister is called. Within many countries and cultures , women are excluded from exercising leadership, whether political, religious, or social ." He adds, "The Adventist Church has placed a high value on unity and worldwide consensus on this issue, and at the 1990 General Conference in Session it voted that women would not be ordained to the gospel ministry in our denomination. The issue was revisited at the 1995 General Conference session and this approach was confirmed. Again, it was a matter of the global Adventist Church saying, in the interest of unity, "No--at least not now ."

IOW ... we have to wait for culture to catch up with God.

[Beryl]

Quote:

Within many countries and cultures , women are excluded from exercising leadership, whether political, religious, or social....

Thanks, Redwood. That clears the air. That means that all of the huffing and puffing, looking at the Greek that no-one speaks any more, and trying to prove what can't be proved, has all been in vain.

As I pointed out in my first post on this subject (wow! that was a while ago!) the culture in the NT days was still patriarchal -- which it still is in many of the tribal regions of the world, where many women are downtrodden, and treated more like slaves than loving wives. To a certain extent it is like that in many of our aboriginal communities, but Christianity is changing that.

Our culture changed many years ago, brought about, to a large extent, following World War 1, and more so after World War 2. The same would have happened in America, starting earlier with the abolishment of slavery, then later with the World Wars, and

equal rights regardless of skin colour.

With the changing of culture came changes in the workplace -- and probably a lot of "freedom" that is not good for people -- but we have to live with it, AND change our approach to witnessing (not the message) because of the change in culture.

This is where the women ministers in this Division are at a disadvantage to the ones in US. Now, I am open for correction on this, but I understand that, male or female, when a ministry student graduates they are entitled to be called "pastor", and then when ordained they take the title of "Elder". Am I correct?

In this Division they leave college just as plain Mr, Mrs. or Miss, and only get the title of Pastor upon ordination or Commisioning. These ministers (male and female) in their positions as pastors of their churches are brought into contact with the others church pastora (Non SDA churches). These pastors have not necessarily had the training that our men and women have had, but they have a title -- the SDA one have no title. In many cases the non-SDA pastors would call our young men and women "Pastor" -- even as a courtesy. They do not necessarily understand our system of ordination.

The males working in Aboriginal communities automatically seem to be given the title of Pastor by the people they are serving. So far we do not have any female ministers (at least in this Conference) working fulltime in Aboriginal communities -- but that will change as more and more aboriginal people throughout Australia graduate from our Aboriginal college here in Western Australia (Mamarapha). When I go into an Aboriginal community I automatically get called "Auntie" which is their title of respect for a woman.

Quite apart from the question of ordination, there is a need for men and women in ministry -- anywhere in the world -- to be able to be given a title which sets them apart from the general church congregation in the public eye.

If anyone is interested in the history of culture in the Bible, I would like to recommend a very-easy-to-read book, "Wake Up Your Bible Study" by Richard W Coffen, by Autumn House Publishing, a division of Review and Herald.

Beryl

[melvin mccarty]

Let's remember Beryl that Jesus took a dim view of "titles". He said his disciples are not to use titles. He said that his followers are family and brothers and sisters are on a first name basis.

mel

[Woody]

Quote:

He said his disciples are not to use titles.

Hey .... I like this thought. That would put both Men and Women Pastors on the same level playing field. I think most would be agreeable to this.

[John317]

Below are 8 Greek words that are sometimes translated as "minister" in the NT. None of these refer to women as pastors, elders, or ministers of local churches. Interestingly, however, the Greek noun, hyperetes, Strong's #5257, is used by the KJV and RSV at Luke 1: 2 with reference to men and women "ministers," (NASB, NIV, "servants").

1) Leitourgos-- Strong's # 3011-- a masculine noun. Gives no references to women as ministers or pastors.

a) Of government officials, Romans 13: 6: "ministers" (NKJV).

Of Paul, Romans 15: 16: "a minister of Jesus Christ"

c) Of Epaphroditus, Phil. 2: 25: "minister to my need" (RSV); "one who ministered to my need" (NKJV).

d) Of the angels, Hebrews 1: 7: "ministers" (NKJV).

e) Of Jesus Christ, Hebrews 8: 2: "a Minister of the [heavenly] Sanctuary" (NKJV).

2) Didomi-- Strong's #1325-- a verb, usually meaning to give.

a) Of communication of our mouth, Eph. 4: 29: "minister" (KJV); "impart" (NKJV; RSV).

3) Epichoreegeo-- Strong's #2023-- a verb. (No references to Women "ministers".)

a) Of God, 2 Cor. 9: 10-- Masculine Participle-- "he that ministereth" (KJV); "He who supplies" (NKJV).

Of God, Gal. 3: 5-- Masculine Participle-- "He that ministereth" (KJV); "He who supplies" (NKJV).

c) Of the Head, Col. 2: 19-- "ministered" (KJV).

d) Of the believer, 2 Peter 1: 5-- "add to your faith" (KJV)

e) 2 Peter 1: 11-- "an entrance shall be ministered unto you" (KJV).

4) Hieroupgeo , Strong's #2418, usually means priesthood. 4 occurrences. Gives no references to women as "ministers."

a) Of Paul, Romans 15: 16-- "ministering the gospel of God" (KJV; NKJV).

5) Parecho-- Strong's # 3930-- verb: usually means "to offer," "give," "brought," "kept."

a) Of fables and genealogies, 1 Tim. 1: 4, "minister questions" (KJV), "cause disputes" (NKJV); "promote" (CSB).

6) Hypereteo-- Strong's #5256-- verb, "to serve," "to minister," "to provide for."

a) Of David, Acts 13: 36, "served" (KJV; NKJ).

Of Paul's hands, Acts 20: 34, "ministered" (KJV); "provided" (NKJV).

c) Of Paul's acquaintances, Acts 24: 23, "minister" (KJV); "to provide for" (NKJV).

7) Hyperetes-- Strong's #5257-- noun: servants, officers, ministers, attendants.

a) Of eye-witnesses of the Lord, including apostles, disciples, women followers, Luke 1: 2, "ministers of the word," (KJV; NKJV; RSV; ); "servants of the word" (NASB; NIV).

Of the Jewish attendant in the synagogue, Luke 4: 20, "minister," (KJV); "attendant" (NKJV).

c) Of John, Acts 13: 5, "minister" (KJV); "assistant" (NKJV); "to assist" (RSV); "helper" (NIV).

d) Of Paul, Acts 26: 16, "to make thee a minister" (KJV); "to appoint you to serve" (RSV); "to appoint you as a servant" (NIV).

e) Of Paul and Apollos, 1 Cor. 4: 1, "ministers" (KJV); "servants" (NKJV; NIV; RSV; NASB).

8) Epichoreegeo-- Strong's #5523-- to supply further, to superadd, to supply

a) Of God, 2 Cor. 9: 10, "minister bread," (KJV).

Of ability that God gives His ministers or servants [diakoneo with masculine indefinite pronoun, hence: "if any man minister" KJV], 1 Peter 4: 11, "the ability which God giveth" (KJV); "supplies" (NKJV).

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

It has been asked before and I will ask again ... that the Greek business go to the Greek thread. I thought this had been solved ... but it has somehow crept back. We already had to resurrect this thread from Cyber Hell because of the invasion of Greeks ... So I do not want this thread destroyed again.

Thanks John317

[melvin mccarty]

where is the text which indicates that any of this applies to 2007?

mel

[Beryl]

Quote:

where is the text which indicates that any of this applies to 2007?

The answer to that is easy, Mel -- such a text does not exist. It was cultural in their day, and our culture has changed, and somehow we must change with it.

Beryl