Question?

Contrasting Jonah's reluctance with Jesus's willingness is insightful.

One comment about this statement:

Jesus did many things that most churches wouldn’t dream of doing. In this particular case he taught a pagan woman with questionable morals who then became his voice box to the hated Samaritans. And many churches won’t even let a woman teach?

There is no Biblical proscription against a woman telling a man how to be saved. There is, however, a Biblical proscription against women being pastors over a church. Thus, there is no contradiction between what the Bible records what the Samaritan woman did and what many churches practice with regard to church leadership.

Where and how is there a "Biblical proscription" against women being pastors over churches?

There are a number of passages that address the different roles of men and women in the home and in the church. With specific regard to women pastors:

1 Tim. 2:11-13: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

Also, 1 Tim 3:2 states: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach." "Bishop" is another word for "pastor." Obviously, a bishop cannot be "the husband of one wife" if the bishop is a woman.

Women can, of course, teach other women. (See Titus 2:3-5.)

None of this is to suggest men are better than women. It is merely the case that God has ordained different roles for men and women.

For someone who claims to believe strongly in the historicity of the whole scriptures, as defined by the early canonizers, I find it disturbing how quickly you dispense with historical context to justify a patriarchalist reading of Paul.

I do not dispense with historical context. But there is nothing in the Scriptures -- my final authority -- to indicate that the historical context of the passages I quoted modify or eviscerate their application to us today. You are, of couse, free to choose your own beliefs, but you can't very well expect me to follow your reading merely because you have labeled the passages "patriarchalist."

Steffens,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to post on my site. I enjoy your comments even more than I disagree with them. Even though I do disagree, please never perceive my questions and comments as attacks against you, but rather as comments and questions.

With that in mind I would like to clarify why I consider quoting that particular passage in Timothy to be a little misguided. To start with, within the New Testament canon, even within Paul’s letters, it seems to be rather an anomaly. There are a few other passages that read a little like it within Paul’s epistles, but nothing else quite like this.

Even more interesting are the many times that Paul, when writing to other churches, seems to put women on an even authority with the rest of the leaders in the church. The character of Lydia is particularly striking because she was a woman who had authority in the secular world and many scholars believe that she was at least a patron of the church in Philippi, if not actually a teacher and leader (Acts 16:40). When confronted by Lydia, Pricilla, Junia, etc, we have to ask how Paul can ask these “fellow prisoners, laborers in Christ . . .“ to be silent when it seems like he is commending them for doing the opposite.

Further, when looked at from the perspective of what Jesus did, allowing women to be part of his entourage, be taught (not a women’s role at the time) we have to question whether, had Jesus come today, would he have taken authority back away from women or rejoiced that so much had been given them. I find it hard to divorce the context of culture from the early followers of Jesus; especially the most prolific Paul, who said of himself he would become all things to all people so that he could by some possible means save some. Is it necessary to suggest that everything he did, by all possible ways should be exactly copied in our culture 2000 years removed? Or would Paul himself be disgusted by our inability to bring the gospel, in completeness, to the whole world without putting more legalistic rules on half of our population?

After considering how far Paul, Jesus, and all the Apostles (Male and Female) pushed the gender equality envelope way beyond the culture, can we continue to take a few passages from Paul to justify subordination?

There is another option when looking at Paul’s passage in Timothy that I believe puts his whole argument into context. First, we need to look at location. Paul is writing to Timothy about Ephesus. Ephesus was known among other things for the temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Artemis was a goddess of fertility with “temple Slaves” a plenty. Now these temple slaves were women, who were the experts about the goddess, but who also led the worship services. In these worship services, there were mass orgy’s where the temple slaves would be “embodied” by the goddess to have relations with the worshippers.

Since this is the background to Ephesian'women and the god’s, is it any wonder that Paul doesn’t really want the Ephesian women as spiritual leaders? Combine that with the fact that most women had little chance to receive education and it really is no wonder at all that Paul didn't want the Women interrupting Church gatherings with their lack of knowledge.

Blaise, thank you for your civility in this discussion.

Regarding Lydia, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that she was a pastor. The same is true for other women mentioned by Paul. Certainly, women can play important roles in the spreading of the Gospel and the work of the church. But God has decided to limit the role of pastor to men.

Regarding Artemis, there is nothing in the book of Timothy about her, let alone is there anything in that book -- or anywhere else in the Bible -- that states she is the reason for the restriction.

Regarding lack of education for women at the time, there is nothing about education in the Biblical requirements for being a pastor. If education were a requirement, many of Jesus's disciples likely would not have qualified. Thus, that also is not a reason for ignoring the restriction today.

Paul, in fact, gives us expressed reasons for the restriction. 1 Tim. 2:13-14 states: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." It is because 1) Adam was formed first and 2) Eve was the one deceived by Satan. Those facts are still true today, and thus the application is still true today.

Quick question, when is the term pastor used in the Bible and how is it exclusively limited to men? I am not sure your clear cut distinctions are as clear cut in the text.

Oh, one more thing, Who told you to read the bible like the legal code? I am pretty sure that most of the authors of the scriptures were not attempting to write in that style. Maybe it would be beneficial to read the Bible like a well written history book, or even (forgive my heresy here ) as a novel?

Not very important I know, But it would be instructive for you to research the rabbinic tradition in first century Judaism to get some background on the education of the disciples. Though they were technically unlearned men, it is quite clear that their years of studying under Jesus would have cured them of the lack of knowledge you accuse them of. This is stated not to diminish the very real lack of understanding that everyone at Jesus' time was guilty of, and most notably the disciples since they ought to have known better.

Quick question, when is the term pastor used in the Bible and how is it exclusively limited to men?

The word "pastor" is only used one time in the New Testament -- Eph. 4:11. But the words pastor, elder, and bishop are used interchangeably to refer to the same office within the local church. They are all used to refer to an "overseeing" or protecting of the "flock." So the verses I have referred to above in Titus and 1 Timothy are the ones that limit the office to men (who meet the other qualifications).

For instance, Titus 1:5,7 appear to be referring to the same office when using both the word elder and the word bishop.

Here is a good article on church government.

Who told you to read the bible like the legal code?

I have no idea what you mean by this. From what I can tell you do mean, you presume too much.

Maybe it would be beneficial to read the Bible like a well written history book, or even (forgive my heresy here ) as a novel?

Much of the Bible is a history book. It is most certainly not, however, a novel. And, yes, considering it a novel is heresy. I'm glad you were able to recognize the heresy. And, no, engaging in heresy is not "beneficial."

would have cured them of the lack of knowledge you accuse them of

I didn't accuse them of a lack of knowledge. I accused them of a lack of (formal) education. There's a difference.

Анонімний writes: Do not cash to buy a car? Don't worry, just because that's real to receive the business loans to work out such problems. Thence take a financial loan to buy all you want.