Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[Dino246]

My mistake. I forgot that Timothy was pastoring at Ephesus.
What is your source for this "Eve created before Adam" heresy being prominent in 1st century Ephesus? (I want to be on the same page as you).

I'll address this separately.

Do you know what the "imperative tense" means in a Greek phrase like this? When a Biblical writer uses the imperative tense this way, it indicates that this is required of us, entailing necessity, and expectation to fulfill.
So as I was saying,


Here are some examples of this usage of the imperative tense:

View attachment 225980
View attachment 225981View attachment 225982View attachment 225983
View attachment 225984

2nd person imperatives are always commands.

As I was saying, If you didn't understand James' command to count trials as joy, does that mean you won't accept it until you understand why he said that?

Similarly, Paul used the imperative tense in his statement about not letting women teach. Although our English translations don't reflect that, they can be hard to miss without careful inspection. It is, indeed, required of us to follow his example from his tone to Timothy. Additionally, In another place, he tells us to imitate him.

There is certainly a sense in which an "imperative" is a command. There is also a sense in which an imperative is instructive. When you are teaching a new skill to someone, you show them and say, "Do it this way". That's an imperative form, but it is not a "command". There is no direct consequence if they do it a different way, unless you treat it as a command, or there is an explicit command structure involved, such as in the military. In the instructive sense, the imperative is used because it is a good practice, beneficial to the recipient, is efficient, or safe, or has some other value. However, there is no particular punishment for not doing so.

So, we do not see eye to eye on the nature of James' statement. Now can we please focus on the thread topic?

 

[Dino246]

Just look at what happened to Stephen in Acts 7. Verse 54 says they gnashed on him with their teeth. The high and holy ones accuse others of sin because they cannot tolerate the truth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Now read those words while looking in a mirror.

 

[Dino246]

My mistake. I forgot that Timothy was pastoring at Ephesus.
What is your source for this "Eve created before Adam" heresy being prominent in 1st century Ephesus? (I want to be on the same page as you).

While it's not the only source, a concise summary is chapter 16 of Charles Trombley's Who Said Women Can't Teach? (Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos, 1985, reprinted 2003).

 

[Major]

Just look at what happened to Stephen in Acts 7. Verse 54 says they gnashed on him with their teeth. The high and holy ones accuse others of sin because they cannot tolerate the truth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I agree completely!

 

[Diakonos]

I'll address this separately.


There is certainly a sense in which an "imperative" is a command. There is also a sense in which an imperative is instructive. When you are teaching a new skill to someone, you show them and say, "Do it this way". That's an imperative form, but it is not a "command". There is no direct consequence if they do it a different way, unless you treat it as a command, or there is an explicit command structure involved, such as in the military. In the instructive sense, the imperative is used because it is a good practice, beneficial to the recipient, is efficient, or safe, or has some other value. However, there is no particular punishment for not doing so.

I agree that some forms of the imperative are not commands. That is why I pointed out that it was a "second-person imperative" (which are always commands. Present tense imperatives and other kinds of imperatives can be things other than commands, but the second person imperatives are always commanded. There is a reason God chose Greek for the new testament. It is razer-sharp in its precision and meaning.

So, we do not see eye to eye on the nature of James' statement. Now can we please focus on the thread topic?

The reason I brought up the example in James 1:2 is to point out that he is using the same imperative form that Paul used in 2 Tim 2:12. It is "instruction" (if that term makes you more comfortable) for us. It wasn't just his personal preference; it was imperatively given to the entire church by the Holy Spirit. In his corresponding conversation in 1 Cor 14:34-37, he calls this "the Lord's commandment", entailing a universal (not cultural) significance. And this also clarifies that it is not merely "instruction"...but a commandment.

 

[Diakonos]

While it's not the only source, a concise summary is chapter 16 of Charles Trombley's Who Said Women Can't Teach? (Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos, 1985, reprinted 2003).

I don't have that book, obviously. What is the name of the heresy?
and by the way, the title of the book attacks a straw man. Women can teach, they just can't teach men

 

[Dino246]

I don't have that book, obviously. What is the name of the heresy?
and by the way, the title of the book attacks a straw man. Women can teach, they just can't teach men

It's not a "named" heresy, and I didn't title the book.

 

[Dino246]

The reason I brought up the example in James 1:2 is to point out that he is using the same imperative form that Paul used in 2 Tim 2:12. It is "instruction" (if that term makes you more comfortable) for us. It wasn't just his personal preference; it was imperatively given to the entire church by the Holy Spirit. In his corresponding conversation in 1 Cor 14:34-37, he calls this "the Lord's commandment", entailing a universal (not cultural) significance. And this also clarifies that it is not merely "instruction"...but a commandment.

Agreed; some things are "commands" while some things are merely "instructions". Your inclusion of "(not cultural)" seems to be a corrective comment on my position, which is not a "merely cultural" argument at all. Rather, it is an argument rooted in the cultural context, which is a legitimate component of a thorough hermeneutical approach.

Since you appear to believe that Paul's "command" in 1 Corinthians 14 is clear and straightforward, you should have no trouble identifying the passage in "the law" which "also saith" that women shall be in submission and be silent. Paul knew the Law very well, after all.

Again, you should have a clear and straightforward explanation as to why an option for learning is only provided for married women; other women are apparently irrelevant (please don't respond with anything that is based on speculation).

You should also have a clear and straightforward explanation why Paul writes, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (KJV) which sounds an awful lot like negative rhetoric. Exactly what did the Corinthians think, that Paul would write such an admonition?

I haven't yet seen a clear, coherent, rational explanation for any of these issues, from anyone who is a complementarian.

 

[Diakonos]

It's not a "named" heresy, and I didn't title the book.

You probably didn't mean to. But it looks like your Logos library spit out the refference after pasting something. Is this the book you were refering to?

 

[Dino246]

View attachment 225999View attachment 226000
You probably didn't mean to. But it looks like your Logos library spit out the refference after pasting something. Is this the book you were refering to?

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying or asking.

 

[Diakonos]

my position, which is not a "merely cultural" argument at all. Rather, it is an argument rooted in the cultural context, which is a legitimate component of a thorough hermeneutical approach.

If I haven't already mentioned this: This issue of women teaching men is a theological issue. And...it was also culturally relevant in the 1st century. They are not mutually exclusive. So the fact that a certain cultural atmosphere may have existed, does not negate the theological angle of this issue. "I do not allow women to teach men...because Adam was created first, and the woman was deceived."

Since you appear to believe that Paul's "command" in 1 Corinthians 14 is clear and straightforward, you should have no trouble identifying the passage in "the law" which "also saith" that women shall be in submission and be silent. Paul knew the Law very well, after all.

Again, you should have a clear and straightforward explanation as to why an option for learning is only provided for married women; other women are apparently irrelevant (please don't respond with anything that is based on speculation).

You should also have a clear and straightforward explanation why Paul writes, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (KJV) which sounds an awful lot like negative rhetoric. Exactly what did the Corinthians think, that Paul would write such an admonition?

I haven't yet seen a clear, coherent, rational explanation for any of these issues, from anyone who is a complementarian.

I already know how to articulate all of these passages. But to track down the references and cross-references might take some time. Today is my day off so I have been able to respond quickly today. But this will have to be pushed into next week (I am a college student).

If I tell you where in the Law Paul is referencing, and explain his "negative rhetoric" in 1 Cor 14, will that satisfy you in regard to my comment that connects "the commandment of the lord" to "not allowing women to teach men,"?
I would like to know your level of openness before I cast my pearls.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do

 

[Dino246]

If I haven't already mentioned this: This issue of women teaching men is a theological issue. And...it was also culturally relevant in the 1st century. They are not mutually exclusive. So the fact that a certain cultural atmosphere may have existed, does not negate the theological angle of this issue. "I do not allow women to teach men...because Adam was created first, and the woman was deceived."

I already know how to articulate all of these passages. But to track down the references and cross-references might take some time. Today is my day off so I have been able to respond quickly today. But this will have to be pushed into next week (I am a college student).

If I tell you where in the Law Paul is referencing, and explain his "negative rhetoric" in 1 Cor 14, will that satisfy you in regard to my comment that connects "the commandment of the lord" to "not allowing women to teach men,"?
I would like to know your level of openness before I cast my pearls.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do

If I agree that the cited passage in the Law says what it allegedly says, and your explanation of the negative rhetoric is rational, then yes.

No rush; I'm in no hurry.

 

[Diakonos]

If I agree that the cited passage in the Law says what it allegedly says, and your explanation of the negative rhetoric is rational, then yes.

No rush; I'm in no hurry.

Sounds good. And to make it fair, if you don't agree with my reference, then you should point out the reference you think it is. It's not right (or logical) to say someone's using the wrong reference if the accuser doesn't know the right one. I.e., I will only respond Biblically, without speculations...if you only respond Biblically, without speculations.

Hope you don't mind my humor

 

[mustaphadrink]

And what you just did is exactly what I have studied and learned and what is the downfall of men........

Proverbs 16:18-19
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. 19Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud."

From your post we can all see that from your years of in-depth study you have mastered the ability of how to speak to others in a civil and Christian manner. GOOD JOB!

In addition, I do believe that ONE Verse is adequate to speak the truth of God's Word.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

"In addition, I do believe that ONE Verse is adequate to speak the truth of God's Word"

That is the difference between you and me. What I believe is irrelevant unless it is backed up by scripture and is supported by scholarly dissertation.

Plus and this is a very big plus, in all christian teaching institutions, you are taught NEVER to base a doctrine on one verse of scripture.
That is a posiiton I have adopted since I was given the gift of teaching.

 

[Major]

"In addition, I do believe that ONE Verse is adequate to speak the truth of God's Word"

That is the difference between you and me. What I believe is irrelevant unless it is backed up by scripture and is supported by scholarly dissertation.

Plus and this is a very big plus, in all christian teaching institutions, you are taught NEVER to base a doctrine on one verse of scripture.
That is a posiiton I have adopted since I was given the gift of teaching.

I agree! And that is why God said in MORE than ONE place that only MEN are to be Pastors. You just talked yourself out of your own thesis my friend.

 

[Dino246]

I agree! And that is why God said in MORE than ONE place that only MEN are to be Pastors.

Not in the Bible, He didn’t.

 

[Dino246]

I find it sad that people who believe they are following what Scripture says with regard to ministry roles (and restrictions) are so willing to invent things that Scripture doesn't say.

The word "pastor" appears exactly once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 4. It is translated from the Greek word poimen which is normally translated "shepherd".

It is not used in any passage where women are allegedly restricted.

It is not used in any passage where requirements for leadership are given.

It is not used in any passage where "elder" also appears.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I agree! And that is why God said in MORE than ONE place that only MEN are to be Pastors. You just talked yourself out of your own thesis my friend.

Two things. God did not call pastors to be head of the church. He called Elderrs, some of whom might have the gift of shepherding.

I have no idea what you mean when you said I talked myself out of my own thesis. I have not written a thesis here.

 

[Major]

Two things. God did not call pastors to be head of the church. He called Elderrs, some of whom might have the gift of shepherding.

I have no idea what you mean when you said I talked myself out of my own thesis. I have not written a thesis here.

Exactly my point! I agree!

 

[Diakonos]

If I agree that the cited passage in the Law says what it allegedly says, and your explanation of the negative rhetoric is rational, then yes.

No rush; I'm in no hurry.

To be fair, if you don't agree with my reference, then you should point out the reference you think it is. It's not right to say someone's using the wrong reference if the accuser doesn't know the right one. I.e., it doesn't make sense for you to judge my answer to a question if you don't know the answer, yourself. I will only respond Biblically, without speculations...if you only respond Biblically, without speculations.
Agreed?