Your View On Women As Pastors

So you think scripture is inconsistent?

 

You spent a significant number of bytes describing how this verse is to be interpreted, then state "There is no room for doctrinal interpretation there."

Which is it?

 

Don't forget about Huldah who was called by the title of prophetess, and used the words "Thus saith the Lord" in the Word of God.

Back to the O/P

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

1 Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.​

Doesn't a strictly literal interpretation of these passages demand that women not even be allowed to speak to other women and/or children in a teaching capacity within the church environs?

Personally, I don't think so.
I'll probably get flak for this but I believe these passages were in response to a local problem in Asia Minor where the Hellenic Mystery Cults, fertility rites and godess/female priestcraft thrived.

Paul does use the words "your women" (however this personal pronoun is used only in the "traditional" texts). It is absent from Tischendorf and WH texts.

Anyway, if strictly literal and global in scope it would seem that it excludes even female sunday school teachers and single women from the mission field.

Women have enough to do with the care and nurturing of children.
Besides, why add the following admonishment to their list?:

NKJ James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.​

HankD

 

In places, mostly in the OT, yes.

Tim Reynolds

 

Please provide examples of this rather inflammatory assertion....

 

I will cite two. First, there are the accounts of the resurrection in the four gospels. Second, in Deuteronomy 14.20-35, there are two accounts of God's reaction to the response of the Israelites to the report of the spies that were sent to do reconnaissance in Canaan. In 14.24 only Caleb was mentioned as having been faithful. In 14.30, Caleb and Joshua are mentioned.

Tim Reynolds

 

How is the first example an example of inconsistency?

(The second is easily handled, but the first is more problematic).

 

Wow! How sad. And of course this is not just about copy errors you asserted that Paul was inconsistent in his positions. And now that the resurrection is inconsistent. So much for inspired scripture.

 

You make a good point. This is a good example of why context is essential. Lack of context leads to improper application (in this case, barring women from preaching).

 

The time of writing makes no difference here. I go to mid-eastern nations where the men and women still sit apart from each other just as they did in the time of Christ. Will you say that they are wrong and you are right just because of your ethnocentrism. All the world is wrong and you are right just because you live in America. Many Americans think that way.

Again, in many countries the culture has not changed since the time of Christ. That doesn't make your culture right; in fact it makes your culture wrong and father apart from Christ if anything.

Secondly, what else does the Scripture say on the topic.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

1 Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.​

Not only does it tell them to keep silent, it tell them (in a pastoral epistle) that they are not to have any authority over a man, not to teach any man. That excludes pastoring completely. They cannot teach men. They cannot have any authority over men. They cannot pastor. That puts an end to it.

 

No where can it be gleaned that this is what he intended to say.

Your hatred of America is showing. This is blatantly false and unfounded.

Secondly, what else does the Scripture say on the topic.

I agree with your position but America is not the issue. However a very liberal interpretation of scripture leads to this fallacy.

 

Context, including (but not limited to) time and place, is essential to any readingo of scripture, and required for proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Discarding context results in improper eisegesis.

Ethnocentrism? That's just plain silly. And to answer our question, no, they're not wrong to sit as they do. The chapter in question doesn't say it's wrong for people to sit in a certain manner in church. The context of the chapter is saying that, when women are sitting outside, they need to remain silent; they must rely on the husbands, who are getting instruction from the pastor, to give them instriction later, at home.

Lifting it from the context as you did, women are likewise, then, not permitted to be teachers in elementary schools, college professors, police officers, judges, or elected officials.

 

It is true that spiritual things can only be understood by the spiritual mind.

 

Spot on!......

 

Please dispense with the personal accusations filled with undue emotion.
I love America, went to college there, and have sent all my children there for there post-secondary education. You have no idea of what I think of America, so stop right there with the false innuendo and accusations.

Realize what "ethnocentrism" is. It is something that is natural and common to every man all around the world. A man born and raised in India will believe that his country is better than yours just because he is an Indian. His patriotism to his own country will blind him to the worth of other nations. That is true for the nation of Israel, Iraq, America, etc. Wherever you go people think that their country is best because they were born and raised there. It is called ethnocentrism.

That is what was coming out in John's answer. There are many countries, to this day that have a very similar culture to the time of Jesus. Does that make their culture wrong and American culture right? Of course not. Does the fact that American culture has differed so much from Biblical times void the principles being taught in the Bible? No, it does not, and that is the excuse John is using to justify women as pastors. Culture has nothing to do with this. The principles taught in the Bible are true and timeless without respect to culture.

 

DHK, I'm not using the verse to justify women as pastors. I'm saying that the verse wasn't written to exclude women as pastors. Big difference.

 

To me there is little difference. It does exclude women as pastors.
If a woman cannot have authority over a man, nor even teach a man it is obvious that she cannot pastor.

In the 1Cor.14 passage, which harmonizes with 1Cor.11:3, it is teaching that a woman must be in subjection to her husband. If that be so, she cannot be a pastor. That also harmonizes with the qualifications of a pastor who must have his house in order. He is the head of the house. He is to teach the woman. The woman is to go to him for spiritual leadership.

 

Then Paul was a heretic and Jesus a loser.

 

Anyone who pastors knows that it is not unusual in our day for a woman to know their Bible better than their husband.

 

Huh? Was either an elder in a church?