Apostolic Friends Forum - Can Women Pastor ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 857975)

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Good to see that we can agree on the discussion of I Tim. 2, but I would add I Cor. 14, & not allow you to dismiss it since it appears in our Greek manuscripts. Have to be out until Monday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey
A couple days is always a couple hours for you ha

I wasn't attacking, I'm responding to what are just arrogant personal insults yourself. Read what you write. Take a breath and read it again, and you tell me how you'd perceive it in someone else's shoes. If it's a personal attack by me pointing it out, then I guess the score is even.

Not really interested in discussing these appeals outside of Scripture...which have nothing to do w/ the literal text itself.

I'm not even sure what the original thought was here. Appeals outside of Scripture (into historical record, culture consideration, etc), however, are quite the normal protocal for a proper exegesis. I thought for sure you'd know that.

You haven't adequately dealt with your unbiblical distinction between "sermonizing" and preaching. I think this is a huge vulnerability for your argument.

And you have not answered my question to you regarding these matters. So, let's try it again. Are you suggesting that a sermon [in contemporary vernacular] is not to be considered preaching? Pls. don't say yes!

Smooth. Still refuse to answer. Because the fact is, there are some vulnerabilities with your position on this account. Today's "Sermonizing" , "expounding on subjects from the Text" and "contemporary vernacular" are irrevelevant to the originally intended meaning of the Text.

Because it's found it all the manuscripts we have available, I don't think one can say it's not there. But from a literary and linguistic standpoint, it certainly is suspect as being Pauline.

Contrare' Monfrare. The passage appears in most [if not all] Greek manuscripts , which numbers over 5,000. Try again. The passage is entirely Pauline as seen in his treatment of the same subject in I Tim. 2, where he also mentions women being in "silence" in the church setting. You're the one suggesting that this is anti-typical of Paul, but the literal text will not support your hypothesis that it "CERTAINLY" is suspect. Not at all, when you dig a little deeper.
Contrare? Do you realize I was agreeing that it was in ALL of the original manuscript? You're funny. 1 Cor 14 is mostly about wife's being obedient to their husbands. The concept of women speaking up does not fit the context of 1 Cor 14 in the least. Here we read from Chapters 12-14 about how to approrpriately use gifts and tongues in worship - then this weird interjection about women - then a closing which fits the rest of the Text. Don't tell me I'm the only one, That's ludicrous. At least be honest, and admit, if you want to be honest with your research that MANY scholars doubt Pauline authorship of those verses, though they except them because of not having manuscript proof. There are a few verses like this. Gordon Fee has quite a well-stated argument about this in his book on Corinthians.

Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned 7 times in the NT, the most mentioned ministry partners to Paul. Of the 7 times, Priscilla is mentioned first 5 times-- hardly split down the middle.

Will go back & look at this, as I simply quoted from memory above, but could've been mistaken. Regardless, how in the world does this invalidate Paul's clear teaching's in I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14? Talk about swatting at shadows! Does this mean that everytime I refer to a woman's name 1st, she's now a "preacher"?

It was a small point of many. I responded to your claim. The small point being, what is the significance of Priscilla being greeted first? This would indicate importance, if even a break from proper protocol. Obviously, referring to a woman's name doesn't make her a preacher. Don't be disingenous. Talk about "intellectual honesty." Sheesh. But in the context of Priscilla and who she was, what she did, and with her being named first, this seems to indicate her predominant importance in ministry. Acts 18:25-26 should be considered here too.

Interesting also that instead of just addressing the head honcho, they are always mentioned together. They were leaders of a house church where they both teached others about Jesus.

Wow, what an unbiblical assertion! Pls. provide the passage that explicitly states what you say here [i.e., "they both teached" in a house "church"]:______________? So, according to your theology, Priscilla was violating Paul's teaching in I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14 eh'?
Unbiblical assertion? Are you quite serious? Exegeting. We don't have everything explicit. We are able to collect the evidence and build a picture. Fortunately, in some cases, historians are of great help as well. Read the verses I set aside for you about Priscilla and Aquila and you tell me she's just making brownies in the other room.

If you can't provide a passage that affirms this emphatical statement, then it's merely an excercise in eisegesis. Besides, if Sis. & Bro. Smith are allowing the church to meet in their house, does this mean that she's a "preacher"? I guess we just make things up as we go along?

Well, since the Early church met in houses, I think saying the person teaching in the home could be considered a "preacher" or "one proclaiming the good news," as well as be identified as a leader. Who is making things up? You're good at using the right technical words (like exegesis), but you get angry when people apply exegesis, and insist on your emphatic "clear and plain meaning of scripture." That's not very "exegetical" if you ask me :)

This was before platforms, pulpits, microphone and big king-sized chairs where the elite men of God sit above the low-lifes.

Could care less about "king-sized" chairs. But, you apparently do not honor the God-called ministry that labors night & day for the kingdom, who is constantly on call, & under attack by satan. Besides, Ezra read the law from a platform of some sort, as well as a pulpit if memory serbes me right. Not hardly "before platforms"!
Talk about assumptions. Aren't we all "under attack" from Satan? Isn't he desiring to sift us all of wheat? You engage in pastor worship, my friend. Ezra reading the law up on a huge rock is the same as the Church in Acts meeting in homes? Let's be consistent here. Show me where in Acts the "preacher," who you call the "main preacher" sits in a special seat, puts himself above others. Did you know they usually were ALL seated? That one will blow you away. Peter standing up on Pentecost was an exception to the normal week-to-week worship. Point being, yes, this pulpit obsession is not a part of the Text. So when you draw lines like "they can teach in this setting, but not on a pulpit" then you show inconsistency. I'll give to you that you at least seem fairly consistent that a women should never teach a man about Jesus. Way to go.

1 Tim needs to be understood in its fuller context first, before we can understand the verse specifically. For example, who was Hymenaeus? What primary problem is Paul addressing? Is "peacefulness" or 'silence" the right translation? 2:8 makes us feel like there was some very angry disputes, and malicious bickering going on. Were they arguing over upper-class women parading their wealth at worship? Were they dressing like the priestesses of Artemis?

Just continuing the discussion...

Cont'd

Quote:

the entire epistle of i tim. Was addressed "so that you may know how to behave yourself in the house of god, which is the church...." and from this setting he commands, "i do not allow a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man. She is to remain silent." who in their right mind would read this & say, "o' god must believe in women preacher's"? Absolutely no one w/ an honest heart!
calm yourself. You get really taken away by this subject to the point where it hinders discussion. Use this knowledge that you dug out to the extent that you wrote a book, and be confident in the discussion. Now... To the topic: Using this as a prohibition from women teaching in the church, without fully trying to understand the context of why it was said is dangerous. We must be careful to not be more lenient than god intended, nor should we be too strict, binding more things to the word that aren't there. The text prohibits (seems to) women taking authority "over a man." i think the issue is authority. This is why many contemporary scholars are comfortable with women ministering, under the authority of their husband (or accountable to), but to be an autocrat, and in a position where they are publicly correcting and rebuking men does not seem appropriate. On the other hand, telling someone about jesus, participating in bible study, testifying, operating in spiritual gifts... None of these have any prohibition against women. Now... On the flip side, i am open to fully understanding what paul's intent was in the letter. Here's the ivp:

When paul instructed men and women (some think husbands and wives were specifically in view) in his churches (see also 1 cor 11:2-16; 14:33-35), the immediate problem was disturbances in the worship service. On the one hand, changing attitudes about the man-woman relationship led women to assert themselves in the worship service in ways that threatened unity and perhaps also reflected a disregard for biblical and cultural distinctions between men and women. Disruptions by women included inquiring about the meaning of prophecies (1 cor 14:33-35) and teaching men (1 tim 2:11-12). But the present passage also reveals that the anger and arguments of some men were contributing to the disruption of the church's worship service. As pointed out above (see on 2:1), paul drew upon certain material in such cases in order to restore peace to the community by encouraging appropriate behavior. In this his concern both for biblical patterns and for the perceptions of those outside of the church is evident.

joel's prophecy of the last days includes both men and women. Is women in this chapter really the same word for "wife?" and how does that change the meaning of the text? And paul's "i do not permit" -- is it in the aorist tense or present tense, or even future indicative? Is this a temporary discouraging of women teaching or a timeless principle for the church? Does it relate to the current situation or something for the whole church? As one theologian puts it:
An already established universal rule on women not teaching would already be understood by timothy. Paul would not be writing in the present active indicative mood.

nice try, but not hardly. An already esablished rule on women dressing midestly would've also been established, so now i suppose that we should also drop his teachings on modesty also???? Try again! And whether aorist, present, perfect, or future tense matters not, the force of the scripture still stands for the "church". You're simply raising smoke screens.
i love your responses. "no way! Your're wrong! Try again" ha. Geez. And i thought we were having an educated discussion :) smoke screens? The evidence i bring up is not my own, but of notes of others who have exegeted this text. It deserves a response other than "no way."

was all of this concerning a local problem of false teachers? What evidence do we have that paul's commendation of priscilla teaching being just to young women? That certainly isn't even implied.

wrong again friend. Paul was the one who admonished that the "older women teach the younger women". I suppose that priscilla was exempt from his clear teachings? on the contrary, priscilla wasn't, but what she did and how she ministered should help us understand pauline theology on this matter.

there are many instances of paul praising women who teach the truth (such as priscilla), see acts 18:2,18,26; 1 cor. 16:19; and romans 16:3; phoebe, a "diakonon" servant/minister in romans 16:1, junia in romans 16:7, "outstanding among the apostles" nympha, and "her house church"-- the only leader mentioned by name in laodicea, col. 4:15. Also euodia and syntyche who "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel" verbally wrestling with unbelievers, phil. 4:1-3. He hails many other women as co-workers in christ jesus. If paul had issued a blanket edict against all women teaching everywhere paul would have reprimanded these women instead of praising them!

and which one of these were teachers/preachers in a church setting:__________? Biblical example pls.! You're describing women who were helpers, just as the text says about phoebe. It's not at all clear if junia was a man or woman, but the name is a 3rd declension masculine noun heavily tipping the scales in favor of a man. Sorry charlie, try again! Besides, i deal w/ every one these "examples" in my book, dealing w/ the greek as well.

yes, paul is clear that the issue in 1 tim is public settings (where everyone is gathered) and these women could have just gone house-to-house teaching. I'm not sure how public that is. Then again, what is a "public" setting in paul's day? I think that would = house church. What do you think? Most agree that junia is a female. Of course you'd argue otherwise. It's no coincidence of how many women paul was greeting in rom 16. It was interesting that her name was changed at some point to junias (masculine) before being changed back to junia (feminine). Have you read the book by epp on junia? Junia, the female apostle. Yeah, there's reason to insist she's a man! :) who is nympha, and "her house church?" there just seems to be enough to keep this subject open and on the table. Makes me believe the letter to timothy was correcting something else, other than a universal application for women teaching. As in all epistles, he is addressing a unique situation.

what does the word prophesy mean in paul's usages? It does not exclusively refer to foretelling of events. Granted, prophesy is certainly not teaching, but on the matter of preaching, i don't see a difference here. Both are inspired utterances intended and given to the church for its edification.you ignore the primary definition of prophecy here, inporting your theology, not the actual text. Prophecy is always done spontaneously in the bible, it's not a sermon from the scriptures, as attempted to pass in contemporary ecclessiology. Pls. Show where anyone "prophesied," taking a scriptural text in the bible:_________? I'm sure i know your response here, but will just wait before i address it.
i'm glad you realize this :) you seem bent on "sermon from the scriptures" as if the current homiletic style was the same as the first century, who didn't have anything printed!

you are always "amazed" at everything i say. Everything you say is a homerun, and everyone else is a strike out. Now that's amazing to me! Yes, paul was very egalitarian.

"the head of the woman is man." yea', reeeeeeeeeal "egalitarian"? oh, but keep reading in the same chapter. Paul clears it up for you: "in the lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. "sounds pretty egalitatarian to me! And the head metaphor isquite common in roman times, which does not denote hierachy, as much as refer to "source of life." for you to believe paul was demoting women to some second-rate position with his head analogy, means you've missed everything paul said to the corinthians!!

i challenge you to consider a class on the pauline epistles. No other nt figure said that there was no more class distinctions between jews or greeks or men and women. Paul's working and dealing with women is unprecedented.

gal. 3:28 is in salvifical context & does no violence to his plain teaching in i tim. 2 & i cor. 14. You're meshing contexts, which is poor hermeneutics.

i most certainly am not. Paul makes this statement and one's similar multiple times in his writings. It's no isolated. I believe this is why he likely had to go back and correct a few things, because people forgot about social order in the process.

i think 1 tim 2 needs to be discussed and i can understand the passion on the issue. I'm not certain enough to make a position on this. Fact is, is this really a problem in north america? The congregations of women pastors are 80% women -- in other words, men aren't flocking there. But neither does this exclude women from being sent as apostles and missionaries and into their neighborhoods, to tell people about our master jesus.