Should women be pastors?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Fair enough, I guess we are at an impasse in terms of scripture then. Since we both have doctrinal ideas that conflict (and presumably we both feel textual support) there are two resolutions to this:

1- we can continue arguing until one of us either gives up or starts insulting the other (not my preference), or

2- decide on the merits of this doctrine as an issue of salvation.

I tend to take the second view (at least as a starting point). Is our difference in view here an issue that will lead to the soul of the other going down the path of destruction? Or, despite our differences, are we both still Bible-believing Christians who accept the death of Christ as sufficient for all sins?

I'm sure others will disagree (and I can see their disagreements already, and how they will respond - it's happened too many times to see otherwise), but I don't think it a matter of salvation. Thus while we have our differences in this respect, I still greet you (and those like you) as brothers and sisters in Christ). I would never attend a church with a female pastor, but that is entirely a personal choice based on interpretation of scripture.

I think this is the best way to go, at least for now. While we may not agree, we can continue to share biblical views on this. At some stage in the future, the Holy Spirit may enlighten me (or alternatively, enlighten you) to the Truth of what the Truth is. But in the interim, we can only do with what God has given us with our human minds (and though some Christians like to take the moral high ground, not a single person on earth has the entire sole truth of every single part of scripture laid out to them).

Thanks for the discussion, it has been most enlightening (I have even learned a thing or two that I am still trying to digest). Best wishes,

~ Regards, Paranoid Android :)
God bless
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hi PA,

I'm going to try to keep this post shorter than my last reply to you, but feel free to ask me for more details -- I can elaborate on any of these points.

First a note: The Ephesian temple was a pretty dominant feature, and the city was well-known for its devotion to Artemis. Their depictions of her graphically emphasize fertility and the "life source" ideas they had about her. It's not surprising that such teachings leaked into the Ephesian church, and ultimately formed a gnostic belief.

You mention Ephesians 5 and Paul's use of "head" to describe the wife's relationship to the husband. That argument seems very compelling... in English. However, will you try something for me? Will you imagine that the metaphorical meanings you have of the English word "head" were taken away, and that all you had was the primary anatomical definition of the noun? Then, I ask that you re-read the passage, setting aside as best you can the fact that in English we use head to mean "chief" or "leader."

The second part of my request to you is that you consider the following information about how Paul's language dealt with their word for head -- kephale. Greek writers up to Paul's time never used kephale to mean "authority" or "boss," as we often use "head" today. We have the notion of the brain as the command-center of the body, due to our understanding of the nervous system, but this was not the Greek understanding; they spoke of the heart as being the seat of thought and decisions. For them, the head, if used metaphorically, referred to a "source," as the head of a river is its source. If you read Ephesians 5:21ff with this metaphorical meaning in mind, I think you'll find that things take a different shape then when viewed through English lenses. As Christ (the kephale of the church) is the source of life and love for his Body (the church), so the husband (the kephale of the wife) is the source of life and love for his wife, with whom he is one flesh (body).

I'm tempted to go on and on about the linguistics of it, but in the interests of brevity, I'll just wait and see if you have specific questions for me. The bottom line is that given the linguistic and literary contexts, reading kephale as "leader" is a case of importing an English assumption onto a text, not of reading it as the Ephesians would have done.

Thanks for "listening."
~Mac



Thats not what the Greek lexicon says...

κεφαλή [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]from the primary kapto (in the sense of seizing)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
  1. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
    [*] the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
    [*] metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
    1. of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
    2. of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
    3. of things: the corner stone
    [/FONT]


The word is common, many times in the book of Matthew. All of which show the meaning as head, authority, or master, chief

It is used in this verse

[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES '?

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] legei [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5719) autoiv o Ihsouv, Oudepote anegnwte [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5627)[/FONT] en taiv grafaiv, Liqon on apedokimasan [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5656)[/FONT] oi oikodomountev [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5723)[/FONT] outov egenhqh [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5675)[/FONT] eiv kefalhn gwniav; para kuriou egeneto [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5633)[/FONT] auth, kai estin [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5748)[/FONT] qaumasth en ofqalmoiv hmwn?[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]When you look at the word in other verses it clearly shows that the meaning is head. Esph 1:22 shows this

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head(kephale) over all things to the Church"

This verse clearly takes shows your argument is flawed not to mention the enormous amount of other verses in matthew that show this..[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]In fact please show me, in all of ancient greek, where this word "head"(kephale) is used for A: called the head of the persons, or head, has a meaning of authority or B. your argument, that is means a non authoritative source.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
P

ParanoidAndroid

Guest
I never said Adam was blameless, I said he was less culpable due to him commiting one form of disobediance. While Eve commited 2 forms of sin, that of disobedience and that of deceit.

Both were responsible, but a greater weight is on Eve's shoulders. There is a reason why Satan went for Eve and not Adam. He knew she was the weaker vessel
That wouldn't be the way I'd put it. The Serpent went for Eve because when God gave the command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Eve had not been created yet.

Thus when she was created, she only had Adam's word to go by as to whether he was truthful or not about God's commands. The Serpent (Satan) played on this doubt - the Serpent, after all, being the craftiest of all creatures in the Garden, according to the scriptures. The Serpent said to Eve:

"Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1).

The Serpent knew very well that Eve was not present when God gave the order, and he played on this doubt. Did God really say this? Are you sure? Absolutely certain? Are you sure this isn't what you've been led to believe?

As an aside, this is not too different to the claims non-Christians level at us Christians today - "are you sure God told you that Christ died for your sins"? "Are you absolutely certain he was the figure you believe him to be"? "You weren't there, after all, so how do you truly know"?

While I don't in any way suggest that Genesis 3 was foreshadowing modern scepticism of Christianity, the analogy is still apt - the Serpent played on the fact that Eve was not present when God gave the command, and therefore planted a seed of doubt in Eve's mind, which spiralled into Adam's EQUAL sin of disobeying God by listening to the claims of Eve (if anything Adam is more culpable since he WAS there when God gave the command not to eat of the fruit).

It had NOTHING to do with Eve being the "weaker vessel".

~ PA
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0
P

ParanoidAndroid

Guest
Thats not what the Greek lexicon says...

κεφαλή [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]from the primary kapto (in the sense of seizing)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
  1. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
    [*] the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
    [*] metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
    1. of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
    2. of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
    3. of things: the corner stone
    [/FONT]


The word is common, many times in the book of Matthew. All of which show the meaning as head, authority, or master, chief

It is used in this verse

[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES '?

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] legei [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5719) autoiv o Ihsouv, Oudepote anegnwte [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5627)[/FONT] en taiv grafaiv, Liqon on apedokimasan [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5656)[/FONT] oi oikodomountev [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5723)[/FONT] outov egenhqh [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5675)[/FONT] eiv kefalhn gwniav; para kuriou egeneto [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5633)[/FONT] auth, kai estin [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5748)[/FONT] qaumasth en ofqalmoiv hmwn?[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]When you look at the word in other verses it clearly shows that the meaning is head. Esph 1:22 shows this

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head(kephale) over all things to the Church"

This verse clearly takes shows your argument is flawed not to mention the enormous amount of other verses in matthew that show this..[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]In fact please show me, in all of ancient greek, where this word "head"(kephale) is used for A: called the head of the persons, or head, has a meaning of authority or B. your argument, that is means a non authoritative source.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Hi CiC,

I do understand what you're trying to say. But I think what is being pointed out to you is the Hebrew symbolism behind the "Head" and "Heart". In modern English, we deem the "head" as the centre of knowledge/wisdom, and the "heart" as the place from where emotion flows, but in Roman-Hebrew times this was not the case.

While I didn't actually look at the Greek terms referring to "headship" or any such, as you have, the symbolism of these organs (particularly in reference to modern views) is completely and utterly different than our modern images suggest.

I think that's what Macrina was saying (at least, that's what I interpreted her views as saying).

~ PA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macrina
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,771
7,916
NW England
✟1,041,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That wouldn't be the way I'd put it. The Serpent went for Eve because when God gave the command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Eve had not been created yet.

Thus when she was created, she only had Adam's word to go by as to whether he was truthful or not about God's commands. The Serpent (Satan) played on this doubt - the Serpent, after all, being the craftiest of all creatures in the Garden, according to the scriptures. The Serpent said to Eve:

"Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1).

The Serpent knew very well that Eve was not present when God gave the order, and he played on this doubt. Did God really say this? Are you sure? Absolutely certain? Are you sure this isn't what you've been led to believe?

As an aside, this is not too different to the claims non-Christians level at us Christians today - "are you sure God told you that Christ died for your sins"? "Are you absolutely certain he was the figure you believe him to be"? "You weren't there, after all, so how do you truly know"?

While I don't in any way suggest that Genesis 3 was foreshadowing modern scepticism of Christianity, the analogy is still apt - the Serpent played on the fact that Eve was not present when God gave the command, and therefore planted a seed of doubt in Eve's mind, which spiralled into Adam's EQUAL sin of disobeying God by listening to the claims of Eve (if anything Adam is more culpable since he WAS there when God gave the command not to eat of the fruit).

It had NOTHING to do with Eve being the "weaker vessel".


:thumbsup: :amen:

And this DOES fit - perfectly, I'd say - with Paul's words in 1 Tim. "LET the women learn" - i.e allow them to. At that time, women were not allowed to or have an education. But Paul says they SHOULD be allowed to learn, otherwise they'll be deceived as Eve was.

She was deceived - tricked - because she had not heard God's command for herself and so it was easy to suggest that she may have misheard when Adam told her. If you read what she said to the serpent in Genesis 3:3, she added to what Adam had been told; her words to the serpent were, "God did say ' you must not eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it'," God didn't say that.
We can argue that it was implied - how do you eat fruit from a tree without touching it? - but God did not say those words.
So either;
a) Eve had been told exactly what God said but just decided to embellish it a bit, (though as the fall had not yet happened, she didn't know how to be dishonest),
b) she had misheard Adam when he passed on God's command, (maybe she'd even been talking at the time, which would also fit with Paul's words "let the women learn in silence and submission), and Satan played on her doubt.

As Paul correctly says, Adam was not deceived. No - he knew EXACTLY what God had said to him directly, and Satan could not have planted doubt in his mind in that way. He knew, and wilfully chose to disobey and take the fruit anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
~ Christ Head of the Global Church
~ Overseer Head of the Local Church
~ Husband Head of the House (wife).
The problem is the middle line isn't one Paul ever associated with the other two. He did describe the flow of headship God, Christ, husband, wife, but church leaders don't fit into that sequence. As a husband and father I get my authority in the family from God not from my pastor.

Paul also compare Christ relationship with the church to a husband and wife. Christ is to the church as a husband is to his wife. Paul did not say Christ is to the church as the overseer is to the local congregation. You are trying to establish gender guidelines for church leadership by extending a comparison beyond how the bible uses it.

There is a flow of headship in Paul's description in 1Cor, but while it ends with husband and wife, can you really say there is a flow of femininity? Is Christ female compared with God and every husband female in comparison to Christ? Actually iirc C.S.Lewis made just such a claim, that compared to Christ we are all female. But Lewis, a confirmed bachelor most of his life, was just a little bit weird when it came to sexuality. We are the bride of Christ, but it is a metaphor, not a description of the sexuality of the resurrection body. In fact Jesus taught the opposite, that in the resurrection we will be like the angels, our sexuality will no longer be relevant. While gender is relevant in marriage, why should it be relevant in the church? I am not married to my pastor and my role in the family is not passed on through my pastor. Relationships in the church are based on who we are in Christ, and in him as in the resurrection, there is neither male nor female Jew not Greek.

So if Christ is the head of our global church, and on an individual level, the husband is the head of the wife, on a localised level, who would be the head overseer of a local church?
Is there even supposed to be a head overseer?
 
Upvote 0
P

ParanoidAndroid

Guest
:thumbsup: :amen:

And this DOES fit - perfectly, I'd say - with Paul's words in 1 Tim. "LET the women learn" - i.e allow them to. At that time, women were not allowed to or have an education. But Paul says they SHOULD be allowed to learn, otherwise they'll be deceived as Eve was.

She was deceived - tricked - because she had not heard God's command for herself and so it was easy to suggest that she may have misheard when Adam told her. If you read what she said to the serpent in Genesis 3:3, she added to what Adam had been told; her words to the serpent were, "God did say ' you must not eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it'," God didn't say that.
We can argue that it was implied - how do you eat fruit from a tree without touching it? - but God did not say those words.
So either;
a) Eve had been told exactly what God said but just decided to embellish it a bit, (though as the fall had not yet happened, she didn't know how to be dishonest),
b) she had misheard Adam when he passed on God's command, (maybe she'd even been talking at the time, which would also fit with Paul's words "let the women learn in silence and submission), and Satan played on her doubt.

As Paul correctly says, Adam was not deceived. No - he knew EXACTLY what God had said to him directly, and Satan could not have planted doubt in his mind in that way. He knew, and wilfully chose to disobey and take the fruit anyway.
I see the train of thought you're making, and while I largely agree that there is no problem with women learning, the fact that you are quoting only half the verse (that is "let the women learn") fails to take in the context of that passage which referred to the unequal level of knowledge between men and women in ancient biblical times "let women learn in full submission without speaking"). Therefore, I don't think Genesis' account of the Serpent's deception of Eve is biblical agreement with Paul. As far as I can tell, this would be taking the Bible beyond its intended use.

However, I've never been a stickler for knowledge - any knowledge, regardless of where it comes from, as long as it can be verified and agreed as accurate. And I've never been a stickler for who is allowed access to this knowledge - men, women, whatever. So in a generic sense I agree, though biblically I find it hard to use this reference as a basis for that. There is no prohibition in scripture that prevents any person (either male or female) from learning new things in the modern world.

~ Regards, PA
 
Upvote 0
P

ParanoidAndroid

Guest
The problem is the middle line isn't one Paul ever associated with the other two. He did describe the flow of headship God, Christ, husband, wife, but church leaders don't fit into that sequence. As a husband and father I get my authority in the family from God not from my pastor.

Paul also compare Christ relationship with the church to a husband and wife. Christ is to the church as a husband is to his wife. Paul did not say Christ is to the church as the overseer is to the local congregation. You are trying to establish gender guidelines for church leadership by extending a comparison beyond how the bible uses it.

There is a flow of headship in Paul's description in 1Cor, but while it ends with husband and wife, can you really say there is a flow of femininity? Is Christ female compared with God and every husband female in comparison to Christ? Actually iirc C.S.Lewis made just such a claim, that compared to Christ we are all female. But Lewis, a confirmed bachelor most of his life, was just a little bit weird when it came to sexuality. We are the bride of Christ, but it is a metaphor, not a description of the sexuality of the resurrection body. In fact Jesus taught the opposite, that in the resurrection we will be like the angels, our sexuality will no longer be relevant. While gender is relevant in marriage, why should it be relevant in the church? I am not married to my pastor and my role in the family is not passed on through my pastor. Relationships in the church are based on who we are in Christ, and in him as in the resurrection, there is neither male nor female Jew not Greek.
Absolutely granted, you are quite right. No direct input is given. However, since Paul does bring up the order of creation (man created first), I think it is worth referring to the order of creation as God saw it in terms of the ancient Christian Church.

As such, it is also true that this "middle statement" is not directly referred to:

~ Christ/Global Church
~ Overseer/Local Church
~ Husband/Wife

However, each of these represent a narrowing down of the Christian vision of God's plan. While it is absolutely true that the middle section is not specifically quoted, the reference to God's view on the order of creation (in my biblical opinion) suggest by nature that such a train of thought should occur, first from the Global scale, then on to the local scale, and then into the individual scale. Otherwise, what we're left with is:

~ Christ/Global church
~ Husband/Wife
~ who cares about the rest - as long as the job gets done.....

And that's not something that I feel God would say.

Is there even supposed to be a head overseer?
You're absolutely right, there is no "head overseer" (unless we consider Jesus as such a role, but nothing biblical suggests that). My comments were given incorrectly. I was simply referring to those who were given the role of authority within each of the localised churches of Christianity to act as the role of overseer as God prescribed in the scriptures. Apologies for speaking (err, typing) incorrectly...

~ PA
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You're absolutely right, there is no "head overseer" (unless we consider Jesus as such a role, but nothing biblical suggests that).
:doh: He is THE ONLY head, all else are in subjection to Him. What do you think be still and know that I AM God means?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Macrina

Macrinator
Sep 8, 2004
10,896
775
✟22,415.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey Mac,

Thanks for the comments,

Believe it or not, I totally agree with this. I am well-versed in the symbolism of the head and heart in English compared to those of Jewish audiences. The heart was where the decisions were made (not the brain).

However, and I hope this doesn't spoil the goodwill here - it still remains that Ephesians 5 suggests the views of "submission of women". However (and hopefully to bring back that spirit of goodwill), that submission is not a "ruling over" in the sense of Genesis 3:16, which has been partially restored. As such, we are still left with the same imagery of Christ being the head of the Church (or if you will, the Church submitting to the Will of Christ, or even Christ being the source of the Love of the Church), and thus the same Husband/wife imagery still exists in Ephesians - though as above, not in the abusive sense of Genesis 3:16, but a more Christ-like restoration of life.

Thus in the same way the local overseer of a church still needs a role - and I cannot biblically find support for women to take this role. Christ/Church, Husband/Wife, Overseer/Local congregation - in my biblical opinion, the standards are the same.

As an aside to this in terms of husbands "ruling" over wives and wives "submitting", I would like to quote a favourite theologian of mine - the late D.B Knox - "Sin has debased headship into dominance, and submission into servility. But for the Christian, this should not be so" (Doctrine of God, volume 1). It's not directly related to the topic, but since we are referencing Ephesians quite a lot I really wanted to discuss it just to put a voice out there. There is a very public view that by "submitting" the woman is putting themselves as somehow "less than" the man, and by being the "head", the man is somehow "domineering" the woman. Biblically speaking, none of these is correct, and I hope my previous comments in this thread have addressed the clarity of what this position means.

Thanks for your comments, and I wish you all the best :yum:

~ Regards, PA

Hello again PA,

No spoiling of goodwill here. Your respect for my POV, even if you disagree with it, goes a long way (I wish such things were more common on the internet).

So, I'm going to attempt to put in my own words what I think you believe, and I'd like you, if you would, to tell me if I'm reading you correctly. Apologies in advance if I mischaracterize anything -- I assure you it's not my intention to do so. I've just had good results in the past from trying to see if I can paraphrase someone else's position in words they themselves would accept; it makes it easier to pinpoint methodological differences and similarities.

***

Well, my understanding of your view of Ephesians 5: You are aware that "head" did not connote "leader" in Paul's language, and that when used metaphorically, it often meant "source." This fits in with your belief that the submission of wife to husband is not that of slave to master, and not license for the husband to abuse his power.

However, you do see the wife called to submit to the husband in ways that he is not called to submit to her, giving him a unique authority in the marriage. This in some way reflects relationships within the Godhead.

Since you view this marital standard as based on foundational truths (not situational adaptations), you extrapolate that this principle should also be applied to gender relations in a broader context: Women should not have a "senior" position in the church, because it disturbs this order and would be inconsistent, in your view, with the principle of wifely submission to the husband.

***

Am I understanding you correctly? Before I dig any deeper, I want to be sure I'm not mis-reading anything. What's worse than arguing against a position no one actually holds? ;)

~Mac
 
Upvote 0

Macrina

Macrinator
Sep 8, 2004
10,896
775
✟22,415.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey, just as an added aside, over the past few pages of this thread, as I read back on what I have posted to both those who agree and disagree with female pastors, I find myself arguing with both sides, even though I hold belief in one view over the other..

I don't know why this is, but why do I hold one particular belief on this, and yet find myself arguing against both sides of the debate? And more so that I find disturbing (to my own theological views) why is it those I agree with (in theory, at least) that I find my comments most vehemently opposed?

On a very personal note, I have never found myself in such a position before. It's rather strange, truth be told.

~ Regards, PA


I get that all the time. I've recently been in another couple of threads in which I've voiced a "conservative" view on the topic, and it feels like I've been attacked by the liberals for being hateful, and by the conservatives for not being hateful enough. Sometimes you can't win, eh? :p
 
Upvote 0

AngelusSax

Believe
Apr 16, 2004
5,252
426
41
Ohio
Visit site
✟15,490.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I get that all the time. I've recently been in another couple of threads in which I've voiced a "conservative" view on the topic, and it feels like I've been attacked by the liberals for being hateful, and by the conservatives for not being hateful enough. Sometimes you can't win, eh? :p

This phoenomenon is nothing new. It's called thinking for yourself and getting attacked by all sides for it. Often in groups of people (liberal or conservative), anything outside of the lock-step talking points is considered attack-worthy, even if those non-lock-step talking points wind up leading to a general agreement with the attacker's end-position.

Perhaps one day we can get past this. Until then, some people will have to continue to win by losing.
 
Upvote 0

Macrina

Macrinator
Sep 8, 2004
10,896
775
✟22,415.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
CreedIsChrist said:
Thats not what the Greek lexicon says...
Which lexicon are you using? Bauer? I ask because Bauer has some flaws in its entry on kephale, and Liddell & Scott, which is older and much more extensive, does not attest to any usage of kephale as "leader."


CreedIsChrist said:
When you look at the word in other verses it clearly shows that the meaning is head.
Right. "Head." If I said, "Here, CIC, put this hat on your head," would you then look around for your pastor, so you could put it on him? After all, he is your leader, and your head is your leader, so your head must be your pastor. Do you see the distinction I'm making? The word for the same anatomical part does not connote the same things in ancient Greek as it does in modern English -- different metaphors tend to be used.


CreedIsChrist said:
In fact please show me, in all of ancient greek, where this word "head"(kephale) is used for A: called the head of the persons, or head, has a meaning of authority or B. your argument, that is means a non authoritative source.
A: I can't show you any examples where kephale carried a "boss" connotation, because there aren't any in classical Greek or in the Greek of Paul's day.

B. You ask for examples of kephale meaning source. Very well, here are a few:

Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 125: "The virtuous one... will be the head of the human race and all the others like the limbs of a body which draw their life from the forces in the head." Philo explicitly states that this does not refer to external honors and position.

Artemidorus Daldiani, Oneirocritica 1.35: "The head resembles parents in that it is the cause of one's living."

Orphic Fragments 21a: "Zeus is the head, Zeus is the middle, and from Zeus all things are completed."


Additionally, please note: The Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written did have the connotation "leader" for their word for "head" -- rosh. When the translators of the Septuagint put the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, they only used kephale in those cases where rosh had a clear anatomical meaning (such as putting a hat on one's head). Where the Hebrew scriptures used rosh to connote leadership/authority, they turned to other Greek words, even though it meant they had to sacrifice the literal anatomical meaning; they did this so that they could impart the sense of the word to Greek readers who would not think of "leader" when they read kephale. (Most often, the LXX writers used archon in such cases, but there were other nouns employed, as well.)

It is also worthwhile to note that the connotation of kephale as "source of life" would explain why Paul chose to use it in addressing the Ephesian church, with its proximity to teachings about Artemis and/or women in general as the source of life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willtor
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The OT view is that the male Adam was punished for listening to his wife, the female Adam. So that's extended to the NT today where women are refused interpretation. There is no whole interpretation allowed. To me that is lack of love acted out in suppression of half of the interpreation of scripture according to the new covenent. That is why the church's prayers will never be answered. Mankind have been released from the curse by God but men still hold women under the curse by silencing their voice.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The OT view is that the male Adam was punished for listening to his wife, the female Adam. So that's extended to the NT today where women are refused interpretation. There is no whole interpretation allowed. To me that is lack of love acted out in suppression of half of the interpreation of scripture according to the new covenent. That is why the church's prayers will never be answered. Mankind have been released from the curse by God but men still hold women under the curse by silencing their voice.

I recall visiting a garden, I think at at one of the duPont estates, that included statues of Adam and Eve. Eve was depicted as handing an apple to Adam. Adam was depicted as taking the apple in his right hand. However, he was holding his left hand behind his back. If you looked in his left hand you saw that he was already holding an apple.
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I recall visiting a garden, I think at at one of the duPont estates, that included statues of Adam and Eve. Eve was depicted as handing an apple to Adam. Adam was depicted as taking the apple in his right hand. However, he was holding his left hand behind his back. If you looked in his left hand you saw that he was already holding an apple.
;) That must be why Jesus told us not to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing ^_^
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Absolutely granted, you are quite right. No direct input is given. However, since Paul does bring up the order of creation (man created first), I think it is worth referring to the order of creation as God saw it in terms of the ancient Christian Church.
But is Paul using the creation order to establish the order of church leadership? He certainly does mention Adam was formed first, but it is part of a series of points drawn from Genesis 2&3, we also have Eve being deceived and the promise of redemption through the birth of a child. This is not: creation order shows God's plan for the church, but the creation and fall illustrates a point Paul is making. Here we get into circular arguments, if as in the traditional teaching, Paul is proclaiming women are never to teach, say a word, or have any authority in the church, then you can argue Paul is using the creation order, and the fall to illustrate his point. But if that is not what Paul is saying in verses 11&12, then it is a different point Paul is illustrating here and Paul is not using the creation order to describe church leadership.

The problem is, we don't know the specific problem Paul was addressing here. However if it was a protognostic Eve cult then Paul's reference to Eve in the Genesis account was contradicting that rather than talking about the basis of church leadership.

As such, it is also true that this "middle statement" is not directly referred to:

~ Christ/Global Church
~ Overseer/Local Church
~ Husband/Wife

However, each of these represent a narrowing down of the Christian vision of God's plan. While it is absolutely true that the middle section is not specifically quoted, the reference to God's view on the order of creation (in my biblical opinion) suggest by nature that such a train of thought should occur, first from the Global scale, then on to the local scale, and then into the individual scale. Otherwise, what we're left with is:

~ Christ/Global church
~ Husband/Wife
~ who cares about the rest - as long as the job gets done.....

And that's not something that I feel God would say.
And it is not what God does say. We also read:

1Cor 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

It is just that the bible never ties church leadership into the order of creation. Marriage was established in the creation Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And this is repeated again and again in the NT. And of course marriage is used as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the church, but it is only Christ who is described as the bridegroom, never church leaders. Instead we have a new order in the body of Christ and it is one where there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek. It is one thing for marriage to remain the same before the resurrection, but church leadership is new, why should it hark back to the old order rather than be built on the new? And if that connection is not made in the NT, why should we do it?

You're absolutely right, there is no "head overseer" (unless we consider Jesus as such a role, but nothing biblical suggests that). My comments were given incorrectly. I was simply referring to those who were given the role of authority within each of the localised churches of Christianity to act as the role of overseer as God prescribed in the scriptures. Apologies for speaking (err, typing) incorrectly...

~ PA
It is a problem though in that often the churches with most problems with women ministers are the ones who also tend to have a single minister in leadership.

On Judges 4, it appears that Deborah has been given the role as a Judge of Israel, which is not in contradiction of being given the role of the overseer of Christ's Church.
She was spiritual and political lead of God’s people on earth. The only difference is that this was Old Covenant and would be more bound by the Torah than the NT church. If male leadership is a principle established in Genesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macrina
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If male leadership is a principle established in Genesis.
Prophesy is second in line after apostles. The NC has men and women prophesying, so theory does not hold up.
And what is taken for OT leadership is imo prophesy that has come true to this day that men will dominate women. Until there is equal interpreation so it will remain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.