History of Women Elders and Pastors

[David Koot]

[A]ddressing the import of the narrative.

As I said before, I do not have an interest in the subject, aside from the technical issues of Greek grammar which I have already addressed. I frankly don't feel a burden either way. I would encourage you to perhaps ask others, if you have an interest in what you refer to as the 'narrative.'

[there buster]

Quote:

if you have an interest in what you refer to as the 'narrative.'

The narrative--the story the text actually tells, describing what the deacons actually did-- I find that of some importance.

Just like my house. The rooms and the furnishings tell me more about what the structure is for than the definition of 'domicile.'

All these years, I thought it was the narrative of the Bible, the events and people and actions described, that mattered, not the individual words in isolation.

[David Koot]

There are a lot of stories and topics in the Bible. I have my hands more than full with what I am dealing with already, and barely have time to participate on C/A as it is. Simply don't have either the time or the interest in this particular topic. I encourage those who do to go for it.

[Tom Wetmore]

tu Imagine a world where people actually paid attention and actually thought and comprehended what was going on!

Context... I think that was my last question was to look at the context for more than blind lexiomania.

Hmmm...

Tom

[there buster]

Quote:

look at the context for more than blind lexiomania.

I believe that's correct. The 'brick-by-brick' approach reminds me of the painter Gainsborough, confronted with a portrait painted by a less-than-skilled contemporary. Gainsborough said:

"What beautiful texture in the velvet. Note the detail of the gold thread, the sheen on the leather. And, look, it has a head!"

I think we've just witnessed, "Oh, sorry. I didn't realize it was about something. I'm only interested in the individual words."

[John317]

What would be good would be know exactly what the responsibilities and activities of these women were-- what they did on a day-to-day basis. Were they giving Bible studies, doing evangelism, etc.? Were they actually the pastor of a local church?

There are many kinds of ministry and lots of different activities they could have been involved in.

Even those opposed to WO aren't saying women shouldn't be leaders in departments or do evangelism, etc. I think everyone would agree that God has given talents and gifts to women that are necessary to use for the gospel, and it would very foolish of the church not to use to those gifts.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

For me the bottom line is what the Bible teaches about the subject;

Quote:

What would be good would be know exactly what the responsibilities and activities

That's exactly the point. We know what the deacons actually did.

Quote:

2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

"The Twelve" had their ideas; God had His. Because the deacons are no sooner ordained than THEY become the center of God's actions, and the center of what someone dismissively called 'the narrative' of Acts.

Stephen immediately did "great signs and wonders among the people." Presumably this did not arise from his skillful handling of china and cutlery.

He is taken, gives a stirring testimony which forms the basis for Paul's later ministry. And his death sets up Saul for his later conversion. Deacon Stephen no sooner succumbs than we find Phillip performing signs and wonders in Samaria. AFTER Phillip had done the opening work, two apostles scurried up to them.

The very next episode has Phillip and the Ethiopian.

The deacons immediately became powerful evangelists and workers of 'signs and wonders.'

Phoebe was a deacon, but somehow she's merely a helper.

[Beryl]

Quote:

I think everyone would agree that God has given talents and gifts to women that are necessary to use for the gospel, and it would very foolish of the church not to use to those gifts.

........unless she had the gift of administration, together with the ability to preach, give Bible studies. amd a proven record of soul-winning, along with a motherly, listening heart --- then, of course, the gift could not be recognised because she is a woman! Strange, isn't it?

It would be unthinkable for God to give to a woman those gifts -- I wonder if anyone has told Him that?

Beryl

[Tom Wetmore]

Phoebe was a deacon, but somehow she's merely a helper.

Yes, as I posted before, the same term translated frequently in reference to men as "minister" gets downgraded when it refers to a woman to "helper" or "servant". Paul refers to himself as diakonos. And it is diakonos also that includes the "husband of one wife" qualification that the anti-WO crowd so frequently tout as the trump card for "male only" qualification for pastoral ministry.

As for Phoebe, Romans 16:1-2 clearly give enough information to strongly support that she was no mere busgirl for the Lord's supper. She was a leader and minister of the early church. The KJV word "succorer", is translated from the Greek word prostatis which means "a woman over others, governess, protectress, guardian, one who assists other from her own resources." (This word is derived from the male form which was most frequently translated as ruler, or in verb form, to rule over or govern.) The early part of verse 2 includes the Greek word diakonos to describe Phoebe. One has to understand Phoebe to be an important female leader/minister of the early church when read with Paul's further description of her as a saint and his admonition to the believers in Rome to heed her and to help her with whatever she asked of them, that Paul considered her to be a 'prostatis" to him and that he entrusted his letter to the Romans to her to deliver to them, which was typically read aloud to the group. That latter point would have put her before the group and most probably an educated woman able to read Greek, and likely lead in any discussion of Paul's letter. It is Phoebe that was the topic of the article in the Advent Review back in the 1860's that I mentioned in the other topic that suggested she had a high leadership role for the church in Rome.

Tom

[Denise]

Beryl, I think you missed this part of John's quote...

Quote:

Even those opposed to WO aren't saying women shouldn't be leaders in departments or do evangelism, etc. I think everyone would agree that God has given talents and gifts to women that are necessary to use for the gospel, and it would very foolish of the church not to use to those gifts.

I think there are alot of misunderstandings about John317. He is a kind, considerate person which we have met, and he doesn't have anything against women being leaders, etc. The only thing he is against is a woman being ordained as a Pastor or Elder, which I agree 100% with him. :)

[Woody]

Beryl, I think you missed this part of John's quote...

Quote:

Even those opposed to WO aren't saying women shouldn't be leaders in departments or do evangelism, etc. I think everyone would agree that God has given talents and gifts to women that are necessary to use for the gospel, and it would very foolish of the church not to use to those gifts.

I think there are alot of misunderstandings about John317. He is a kind, considerate person which we have met, and he doesn't have anything against women being leaders, etc. The only thing he is against is a woman being ordained as a Pastor or Elder, which I agree 100% with him.

It's nice Denise that you believe in John317 ... but this is not the place to discuss personalities. Perhaps you could start a John317 support thread.

Besides ... the church has already decided against what you said he believes. The vote was overwhelming for ordination. So, we do need to support our church. Constantly saying that a decision has not been made is destructive to the actions made by our church on the issue. And I am not saying you have done this but the person you are so supporting has.

Perhaps those of us who are willing to acknowledge the decisions of our church body should pray more.

[David Koot]

Yes, as I posted before, the same term translated frequently in reference to men as "minister" gets downgraded when it refers to a woman to "helper" or "servant". Paul refers to himself as diakonos. And it is diakonos also that includes the "husband of one wife" qualification that the anti-WO crowd so frequently tout as the trump card for "male only" qualification for pastoral ministry.

[there buster]

Quote:

The masculine form had acquired a technical meaning, and cannot properly be compared with the feminine form. See BAGD:

"The masc. prostavth" took on a technical sense and is found w. this mng. in Jewish [schürer III4, 89] as well as in pagan [Dit., Or. 209, Syll.3 1109, 13; CIG I, 126; GHeinrici, ZWTh 19, 1876, 516ff.—EZiebarth, Das griech. Vereinswesen 1896, index s.v.; WOtto, Priester u. Tempel im hellenist. Ägypten II ’08 p. 75, 1] religious circles)."

(Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.)

The balance of your post consists of unsupported speculation as well as evident extrapolation based on your incorrect understanding of the referenced Greek word.

Quote:

I would simply suggest that you be careful to avoid giving the appearance of being an authority on NT Greek.

You misstated what the revered BAGD (blessed be he!) actually said. It says the masculine took on a technical sense, but not that as you assert, "cannot properly be compared with the feminine form."

In Phoebe was in fact serving in that technical sense, Paul would have no better word to describe it. He would be comparing her status with the masculine form. And if he was indeed using it in that technical sense for a woman, the context would reveal it.

The balance of your post consists of your extrapolation of the lexical entry without regard to the context. This led, in turn to the declaration concerning a 'incorrect understanding of the Greek word." So I draw attention to your earlier statement, and suggest that you avoid making declarations as though you were an authority on NT Greek.

Blessings.

[David Koot]

You misstated what . . . BAGD . . . actually said. It says the masculine took on a technical sense, but not that as you assert, "cannot properly be compared with the feminine form."

[there buster]

Quote:

it is quite clear from your posts that you are not an authority on NT Greek.

Ah, yes, the thinly veiled personal attack. I will refrain from saying what your posts make clear about you, and instead get back to the issue at hand.

Your last post was all detail and ignored the substance. Given that the masculine form had acquired a technical meaning, and further given your assertion that it could not be compared to the feminine, that still leaves this:

Quote:

If Phoebe was in fact serving in that technical sense, Paul would have no better word to describe it. He would be comparing her status with the masculine form. And if he was indeed using it in that technical sense for a woman, the context would reveal it.

[David Koot]

Ah, yes, the thinly veiled personal attack.

[there buster]

Quote:

And if he was indeed using it in that technical sense for a woman, the context would reveal it.

An unsupported assertion on your part.

Amazing!

[David Koot]

You have here made a very general statement. You have provided no textual support.

[there buster]

You contested the simple fact that context determines meaning.

You might as well contest that 1+1=2.

[Woody]

Beryl, I think you missed this part of John's quote...

Quote:

Even those opposed to WO aren't saying women shouldn't be leaders in departments or do evangelism, etc. I think everyone would agree that God has given talents and gifts to women that are necessary to use for the gospel, and it would very foolish of the church not to use to those gifts.

I think there are alot of misunderstandings about John317. He is a kind, considerate person which we have met, and he doesn't have anything against women being leaders, etc. The only thing he is against is a woman being ordained as a Pastor or Elder, which I agree 100% with him.

[David Koot]

By the way, John317, I would be interested in your comments on my treatment of 'diakonos.' Would you agree, or see it differently? What about prostatis generally, masc. vs. fem., and as used in Rom. 16?

Dave

[Stan]

OK you guys. Enough fighting here. I would like to get my thread back. Can you start your own "fighting" thread please. How can I ask nicely?

Is there a moderator here or not? Oh, I forgot ... he is busy participating.

I want my thread back.

If you know who it is, I would like to know...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

OK you guys. Enough fighting here. I would like to get my thread back. Can you start your own "fighting" thread please. How can I ask nicely?

Is there a moderator here or not? Oh, I forgot ... he is busy participating.

I want my thread back.

If you know who it is, I would like to know...

Me too, Stan. I tried to find out who it is, about 4 days ago. Greg said he doesn't know either. I have been offline for about two days and just came back online now.

[Woody]

I made a mistake. There were actually two moderators participating in that thread. I was under the impression that only one was the official moderator of "Real Issues In Adventism" forum. But I could have been wrong. I will admit that knowing who the official moderator of a forum is not always readily available or I am not always aware.

[Woody]

Me too, Stan. I tried to find out who it is, about 4 days ago. Greg said he doesn't know either. I have been offline for about two days and just came back online now.

Interesting John. I personally asked you to do something about it. If you are not the official moderator of the "Real Issues in Adventism" forum ... then I guess you couldn't do anything about it. But since there were two moderators participating in this hijacking ... I would have hoped that one of you would have stepped up to the plate. But perhaps I have assumed wrong. And if I have ... then I apologize to all.