History of Women Elders and Pastors

[Taylor]

Personally, John 3:17 I have nothing against you. You can believe the way you choose and I can respect that. I believe you are sincere and truely believe that your understanding of this position is clearly in line with the Bible.

In that light...I would be interested in your answere to these questions or positions. (I've seen all your Bible texts you have put up. I do not happen to agree with all conclusions but now that you are personally convinced ..what do you say about the below..)

1. Women can not be in any position of authority over men which would mean all "boss" positions that women have are in direct contradiction to scripture.

2. Women can be in "position" over men so long as it is not a spiritual position, i.e. they can be presidents of universities, doctors in hospitals, teachers, lawyers etc so long as they are not preachers?

3. Women can preach but not be paid for it as pastors.

4. Women can preach as long as they are not ordained whether they are paid or not.

5. Women are to be silent in church and are not to speak in church.

6. The church is sinning (perhaps not knowingly) by having women pastors and this should be acknowledged and all women pastors should be terminated as kindly as possible.

7. It is not possible to come to any other conclusion othen than against women being pastors if people were to sincerely study the word of God and pray. If they did this they would all be against women pastors.

8. Women pastors say they have a calling from God (some may not as some male pastors may not...no one is perfect and no profession free of any problems) but most would be very sincere (both male and female) in saying they had received a callingto pastor. Now their only option is to walk away from that calling, and disobey their understanding of Lord's calling that they strongly are convinced of because their gender makes it wrong to have a calling to pastoral minisry therefore that calling can't be from the Lord. But that would be a correct response and they should be content to not be pastors any longer.

I truely want to know if this is what the conclusions lead to.

[Taylor]

I would just add that it DOES make me feel like a scum bag to know that :

I don't believe in what the Bible says ...

And I do that so that I can continue in some certain purposeful sin or promoting of homosexuality ...

or that I don't pray ...

I don't use the Holy Spirit ... on and on.

This is what the other side implies. So, how does that make YOU feel? Like I say ... we need an ego patrol.

I am sorry it has made you feel like a scum bag Redwood. It doesn't me feel too good either. All I can offer is what works for me. I appreciate people's counsel and their study and experties. I appreciate their concern for my soul and their wanting to "get it right". However, in the end, regardless of what anyone thinks, what matters the most is my personal Bible study and following the convictions the Lord has laid on my heart. I think that as long as people truely want to follow the Lord with their whole hearts, are wiling to study things out diligently, are willing to follow the Lord no matter what he asks of them, then they are safe. I am therefore able to rest in God's opinion of me, knowing that he wants me saved even more than I want to be saved and as long as I don't let go of his hand, I can share eternity with Him forever along with my wonderful friends and family. I know this may not heal the pain, or address the issues for others but it is what works for me.

[John317]

That the word has more than one meaning is quite clear. I could restate what has already been posted but that would be redundant.

Why do you think that all the Lexicons agree that at 1 Tim. 5: 2, the word means "older women"?

It's true, of course, that Greek words do not always have only a single meaning. Neither do English. Context is very important. But the fact is that every translation of the Bible into English reads "older women" here.

The context shows that it is talking about "older women" and not about female church officers. Again, there's not a single translation that gives the impression that it's referring to female officers of the church.

Is this text an important one for people supporting WO? If it is, all I can say is they don't have a case. Think of it: they can't find a single translation that supports their viewpoint of the verse and not a single Greek lexicon, either.

It seems like it would be better to move on and try to find other evidence, rather than try to insist that 1 Tim. 5: 2 is a support for the idea that women were elders in the NT church.

If there were women elders in the NT church, why is there only this one very obscure reference to that fact? It is the only time this word occurs in the feminine gender-- all other occurrences being in the masculine and clearly referring to males.

Well, I finally do have to go get some sleep.

I'm enjoying the dialogue very much.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Personally, John 3:17 I have nothing against you. You can believe the way you choose and I can respect that. I believe you are sincere and truely believe that your understanding of this position is clearly in line with the Bible.

In that light...I would be interested in your answere to these questions or positions. (I've seen all your Bible texts you have put up. I do not happen to agree with all conclusions but now that you are personally convinced ..what do you say about the below..)

1. Women can not be in any position of authority over men which would mean all "boss" positions that women have are in direct contradiction to scripture.

2. Women can be in "position" over men so long as it is not a spiritual position, i.e. they can be presidents of universities, doctors in hospitals, teachers, lawyers etc so long as they are not preachers?

3. Women can preach but not be paid for it as pastors.

4. Women can preach as long as they are not ordained whether they are paid or not.

5. Women are to be silent in church and are not to speak in church.

6. The church is sinning (perhaps not knowingly) by having women pastors and this should be acknowledged and all women pastors should be terminated as kindly as possible.

7. It is not possible to come to any other conclusion othen than against women being pastors if people were to sincerely study the word of God and pray. If they did this they would all be against women pastors.

8. Women pastors say they have a calling from God (some may not as some male pastors may not...no one is perfect and no profession free of any problems) but most would be very sincere (both male and female) in saying they had received a calling. Now their only option is to walk away from that calling, and disobey the Lord's calling that they strongly are convinced of because their gender makes it wrong to have a calling therefore that calling can't be from the Lord. But that would be a correct response and they should be content to not be pastors any longer.

I truely want to know if this is what the conclusions lead to.

I would be glad to talk to you about these things, but right now it seems to be leading away from the subject. The subject is, does the Bible support women being pastors and elders? We've looked at 1 Tim 5: 2 and Titus 2: 3 so far, but we are really just getting started at looking at Bible texts on the topic. I intend to look carefully at every text related to women's role in the church, including those that have to do with pastoring and being a deacon, etc.

About paragraph #8, however, whenever anyone says they have a calling from God, we have to compare it to the words of God to see if it is in line with God's will as revealed in the Scriptures. Let's say that a homosexual believed that he had a call from God to become a pastor while practicing homosexuality. There are many who have felt this-- that God wants them to keep on committing homosexual acts and also preach for Him. Would that be a genuine calling according to the Bible?

Isn't it possible that someone may feel that God has called them to be a pastor of a church when in reality God called them to a different kind of gospel ministry? There are many kinds of ministry-- music, children,women's, evangelism, etc.

Actually, there are many things you have said above that are not conclusions I've drawn at all. For instance, Paul did not say that women can't speak in church. Even according to Paul instructions, women are able to pray and prophesy in the churches.

You say some things here that are really strange and don't even come close to my beliefs. My beliefs are in line with basic books published by the Seventh-day Adventist church and with the Bible. If you read the book, SDAs Believe, or study the Faith For Today Bible studies, then you will see what I believe and how I live my life.

Regards,

John 3: 17

[John317]

Personally, John 3:17 I have nothing against you. You can believe the way you choose and I can respect that. I believe you are sincere and truely believe that your understanding of this position is clearly in line with the Bible.

Taylor,

I can hardly believe that these are your own questions, after we met and talked about a year ago. What's happened? Are these your actual, personal questions for me or did Redwood ask you to ask me these things?

They don't sound like you. They have nothing to do with me or with how I believe or think.

I have to go. I meant to go a long time ago but I enjoy reading and writing so much. I have to sleep a little while and then get ready to go to work tonight.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Taylor]

Honestly John maybe I shouldn't have asked them. I am just asking as these are the only conclusions that I see can come from a position against women pastors. If the questions sounded mean-spirited I really do appologize. I don't mean them as mean at all. I enjoyed meeting you a year ago. No one asked me to post them. They are just the logical conclusion and are conclusions I have heard many times from many people. I wasn't trying to infer that you believed all of them. That is why I asked.

To me it is logical to come to some of these conclusions if:

1. It is a sin for women to speak in church, (After all it does say for women to be silent in church.)

2. If they aren't to be in leadership over men (I have heard people say that means any leadership not just pastoring. Others say it just means pastoring.)

3. If it is truely wrong for a woman to be a pastor and if she is sincere in wanting to follow the Lord then she must quit being a pastor.

If, however, it isn't wrong for a woman to be a pastor then she can be hired with or without pay (that would be up to her and the current opportunities,), without ordination (since ordination isn't currently avaiable.) etc.

I am just grappeling with where the conclusion of this vigerous discussion comes to. It only seems logical that if a woman is sincere in wanting to follow the Lord all the way then

A. She can go ahead and be a pastor if she has the calling or

B. She can never go ahead and be a pastor because her calling wouldn't be from the Lord becuase he prohibits women from being pastors. (I mean if the Lord really does prohibit women from bein pastors then her calling would not be from the Lord. That has heavy implications.)

John, I am not angry at you or anyone else. I deeply appologize if I have hurt you in any way. It frustrates me too that it is hard to understand each other over the internet as one can't see people's facial expressions or hear their tone of voice. I truely would never want you to agree with me on anything. What is important is to follow the Bible. We happen to see things oppositely but I am not questioning your sincerity. But the implications of taking a strong position is that it has to affect women in ministry now and in the future.

[Woody]

Quote:

Are these your actual, personal questions for me or did Redwood ask you to ask me these things?

I think I am quite capable of speaking for myself. Thank you. I did not in any way shape or form ... ask Taylor to do this. He would not do it anyway. I haven't met Taylor as you have. I assume that the two of you are therefore closer. I must say that Taylor seems far more tolerant of personal study and conviction however. And that I admire in him.

I think the questions are very fair and deserve an honest look at however. Any takers?

[Woody]

Quote:

I would be glad to talk to you about these things, but right now it seems to be leading away from the subject. The subject is, does the Bible support women being pastors and elders?

I knew this would happen. From the classic offender of switching or avoiding the topic ... he states that he can't address the questions. This is what happens when the questions get tough.

Since I started this thread ... I think I am better qualified to speak to what the subject is. I may not be a "moderator" but I do know what I started the thread for. And NO John317 ... it was not to see "does the Bible support women being pastors and elders?". That is what you hijacked it into though.

I hope this clarified this. I would be happy to see the answer put forth to "Taylor's" questions. I think he deserves an answer.

[Gregory Matthews]

Here are the issues:

1) The word has more than one meaning, that is clear.

2) One must therefore seek to understand the meaning each time it is used as the meaning in one text may not be the same as the meaning in another text.

NOTE: I have not stated a meaning for the 1 Tim 5: verse.

3) It may very well be that the Bible sometimes uses the word to mean elderly people in some cases, and to mean leaders with authority in other cases. In any case, one must carefully seek to determine the useage in every case.

4) We should not base a doctrine on one verse, but on overall teaching.

[Taylor]

Agreed! Even if you don't agree with my position or anyone else's I agree with your above post. We must study things out and realize the points you made above.

[Woody]

This is true. My grandmother was a licensed Bible worker and worked right alongside of my grandfather who was an ordained SDA pastor and evangelist. She had no desire or ambition to be an ordained pastor because she recognized the Bible's teachings on that issue and she was happy doing what she believed God had called her to do.

While I appreciated hearing this story again ... I think this story is clearly OFF the subject. And I started the subject.

[David Koot]

Well, this is very interesting. I see several people who I esteem very highly, engaged in a lively discussion, and taking opposing positions. Hmmmm . . . how can I contribute to clarity of the issue of the Greek word in 1 Tim. 5:2? First of all, I can tell you that I 'don't have a dog in that fight.' I don't feel a need to take a position in regard to women's roles in leadership, or not. However, I AM interested in NT Greek. The suggestion has been made that the word has more than one meaning. Certainly, most Greek words have a semantic range. That is nothing unique. The danger comes with relying on a source such as Strong's or other 'fluff' level lexicons, which may list a range of meanings for a word, but are not authoritative in terms of specific occurrences and grammatical considerations. Thus, it might be appropriate to say that a given word generally speaking has more than one meaning. However, that is neither here nor there. Of all those who have posted on this issue, the one person who could reasonably be considered as a Greek scholar is John317. In saying this, I take nothing away from my highly esteemed internet friends, Taylor and Redwood. It is simply a recognition of expertise. John317 has referenced numerous Greek translations and authorities on this specific occurrence of the word. Those translations and authorities have weight as credible evidence. Measured against that, the suggestion that the word can generally have more than one meaning is, again, quite immaterial.

You can check out the following sources: Louw-Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains, and Kittel, A Theological Dictionary of the NT. Incidentally, Louw-Nida is relied on by the Wycliffe group which translates the Bible into other languages.

Quite apart from the question of women's leadership roles, the issue here is simply the meaning of the Greek word in this specific application. That can quite easily be resolved.

Dave

[David Koot]

The so-called gold standard as a Greek-Engllish lexicon of the New Testament is commonly called Arndt and Gingrich. Any one who really wants to go to an authorative source will reference that lexicon.

[Woody]

Hi Dave. Thanks for your help. I am acutally no longer in this thread for the purpose of it's intended posting. The thread has been highjacked and I don't see honest dialogue because reasonable questions and comments are avoided and put down and the subject then gets changed by those who want to claim they are ON the subject.

The reason for my still being around is to combat the problem of arrogance. I see some here as thinking that unless you agree with them that your thoughts are UN-Biblical ... you are not using the Holy Spirit and YOU need to pray because you just don't see the light. You are just not as Holy as those who do.

Sorry ... you may not agree with this characterization. But this is what I have experienced here. I see it as a big problem. One side is being made out as believing as they do so they can go on with purposeful sinning and promoting of homosexuality. Where do the accusations end?

[there buster]

Quote:

Redwood wrote: The reason for my still being around is to combat the problem of arrogance

Quote:

David Koot wrote: I hope you [Gregory Matthews] are not, once again, attempting to sound authoritative

[Taylor]

Well, this is very interesting. I see several people who I esteem very highly, engaged in a lively discussion, and taking opposing positions. Hmmmm

Glad to see you here Dave!

I just want to clarify again, that I truely appreciate people and their study who have posted on this topic. I am not upset at anyone who disagrees with me. I have just tried to see where the conclusions are if one is against women pastors or for women pastors. It has been interesting.

I know I am not a Greek scholar that is for sure, but I do find it very interesting to study up on the meanings of words and how they are used ad which ones the writer chose to use in various instances. I do think that can have significance.

However, I do think that there are things in the Bible which are cultural or women would still be bound to head coverings etc. True we can't call sin "cultural" and therefore "right in another culture". That would be a slippery slope for sure, but I don't think that negates that some messages, even from the writings of EGW were given for a spcific person or time period. The key is that we can still learn much from those counsels and we need to apply the principales.

For instance, EGW says that every woman should know how to shoe a horse. That was very important in her day. I suspect she would say that every woman should know some basics about the mechanics of cars, not that modern women have to be able to shoe horses. The principle can be gleaned but the spedific counsel can be culturaly driven.

[David Koot]

Actually, Ichabod, I was making reference to something that did in fact happen--that is, taking excerpts from a commentary, without attribution, and presenting them as one's own study on a subject. Problem was that the cites, which referred to NT Greek, had been slightly reworded in such a way that they did not make grammatical sense. I researched it, found the cite--which made much more sense as originally worded--and also actually checked the Greek--and brought the facts out to light. When this type of improper practice is engaged in, I believe the person doing so should be called on it, both for his or her own sake and for those students who are seriously following a topic. Having said that, a much earlier edition of BAGD was, at one time, referred to as 'Arndt & Gingrich,' but since that early edition it has gone through some revisions, and now is 'commonly' known in academic circles as BAGD or 'Bagdad.'

[David Koot]

So sorry, Redwood. Personally, I just haven't gotten fired up either way. Guess its that old Anglo-Saxon tendency to not get involved unless it directly affects a person's interests. I was simply interested in the narrow issue of the Greek.

Dave

[David Koot]

Yes, Taylor, the whole issue is interesting indeed--but one I personally haven't seriously dug into. I do like the concept of empathy--trying to understand another person's position. A good tool IMO is what they call 'pillow talk.' A pillow has four sides and, of course, the middle. First side represents, 'I'm right, you're wrong.' Second side is, 'You're right, I'm wrong.' Third side is, 'There is some right and wrong on both sides.' Fourth side is, 'There are more important concerns than this issue.' The middle is, 'There is some truth in each perspective.'

Dave

[Gregory Matthews]

Have you actually studied BAGD, or did you get this info from a secondary source? Seems if you actually are familiar with the source, you would refer to it by its proper title. I hope you are not, once again, attempting to sound authoritative when in fact you are relying on second-hand information.[\quote]

David, I referenced my own personal copy.

I am well aware that I did not cite its full formal title, just as you did not. Its full formal title is longer than that which you cited.

It referenced it by its truncated common title, which is exactly how scholars cite it in an informal context and is a form by which it is commonly recognized.

By the way, I do not claim any great knowledge of any of the Biblical languages. But, I do have available in my personal library authorative reference works on the Biblical languages.

NOTE: I am not saying that it would not be recognized by BAGD. Perhaps that is a better way of citing it. But, then, citing it by its full title might be the best way. In any case, it is recognized by A & G.

[Gregory Matthews]

It has sbeen suggested to me that some people believe that I have stated how the I TIm. verse should be translated. That has never been my intention. My intention has been to say that while I have an opinion as to how it should be translated, I have not intended to state that opinion.

There are two reasons why I have not done this:

1) While I have an opinion, I would like to see someone challenge it without knowing that it is my opinion. I like to think, at least, that I am opaen to considering challenges to my opinion.

2) I will suggest that within the I Tim. text there is evidence as to its meaning. I will suggest that good scholarship will discover that evidence. I encourage people to look closely enough at the Biblical texts to determine what the Bible teachs, and not to simply rely upon some superficial comment that I might make.

NOTE: My personal position, in general, is to support women in leadership and for ordination. But, I recognize that honest, sincere, people may reach a different conclusion. I can respect those who do that. I wall again suggest that we do not base our doctrinal beliefs on any one text, but on an overall Biblical picture.

[David Koot]

It referenced it by its truncated common title, which is exactly how scholars cite it in an informal context and is a form by which it is commonly recognized.

[David Koot]

I will suggest that within the I Tim. text there is evidence as to its meaning. I will suggest that good scholarship will discover that evidence.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

I will suggest that within the I Tim. text there is evidence as to its meaning. I will suggest that good scholarship will discover that evidence.

That has been done, and the meaning is incredibly obvious. This is not a difficult word to understand in the Greek. It has already been referenced here by someone who is very competent in the field, John317. I am not at the office now, but will be glad to provide additional cites in the next day or so.

Quote:

I encourage people to look closely enough at the Biblical texts to determine what the Bible teachs, and not to simply rely upon some superficial comment that I might make.

Well said. I would simply suggest that you be careful to avoid giving the appearance of being an authority on NT Greek when, as you have pointed out, you are not. Often, 'superficial comments' can do more harm than good.

I believe that Gregory Matthews, while not claiming to be an authority on Greek was simply quoting a source he had. Um David...I believe (and am not sure this is true) but doesn't Gregory Matthews have theological training with many years of experience as a pastor or chaplain? While I recognize that John loves Greek and loves to study it and knows a lot I would guess that the only real authority on Greek would be someone who majored in Greek and perhaps who spoke it fluently themselves and who had an keen interest and understanding of historical context.

I also have seen much of the evidence that Tom has put forth and while I don't think he is a theological authority either, I do think it has merit. (Like you pointed out, one doens't have to have a theology degree to know a lot.)

If some words have more than one meaning, or specific words were chosen which denote gender or duties, or age or function I think they need to be part of the equation.

But that is just my 2 cents.

But I am not here to pick a fight with anyone.

Happy New Year Everyone!

[David Koot]

Um David...I believe (and am not sure this is true) but doesn't Gregory Matthews have theological training with many years of experience as a pastor or chaplain?