"Church Norris?"  That would be Walker, Texas Pastor.  My opinion on women elders is found in 1 Tim. 3, and I believe that passage is not trumped by Gal. 3:28.
[/quote]

I agree...Galatians 3:28 does NOT trump I Tim 3......It says that men and women should minister, to demonstrate the fruits of the spirit.....That is not making them Elders or Pastors in a church..Just demonstrating what God has done in their life

1 Timothy 3:1-2
“This is a true saying, If a man (ei tis) desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
ei tis (i tis); if any Strong’s Greek-Hebrew Dictionary, Strong’s 1536.
ei tis- whoever, whatever, Thayer’s Definitions 1536.
The original does not say “man” at all but instructs,
“If any desire the office of a bishop, (he/she) desires a good work....”
Paul knew the Greek language. He would not have used a word that can mean either
man or woman if he had intended to limit overseers to males only! If Paul had intended a
male ministry he would have used the all male word, “aner” 435 in this text. Paul did
not just slip up in this scripture. In all his admonitions concerning the ministry he uses
words that include both sexes! Yet translators were bound by their own traditional
ideas and translated with male words not found in the original! Just as their hatred of the
Sabbath caused the translation of “sabbatismos” 4520, in Hebrews 4:9 to become “rest”
instead of the correct translation, “Sabbath rest.” In both cases they knew better.
3
The word “he” is not in the original text above, it is inferred from the verb used in the
third person, he/she/it. (I is first person, you is second person, and he/she/it is third
person.) This verb form can include both male and female. The original Greek is not
limited to the male gender.
The translators added maleness to this scripture also.
1 Timothy 3:5
“For if a man (tis) know not how to rule his own house, how shall
he take care of the church of God?”
tis “an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:” Strong’s 5100
It should be, “For if anyone know not how to rule...”
Also, “his” and “he” were not in the original text, but indicate third person (he/she/it).

Should we use common sense translation of tis to mean one/anyone/any or should we use a traditional but stressed translation of the Greek tis to mean specificall any man or a man?  True and accurate translation (eg:  baptism: a transliteration into English rather than a true translation meaning "immersion" which most of us accept it to mean but just live with the present day politics of translation!) is to be desired to accurately understand God's words to us through inspired writers such as Paul.  If we can't get that accuracy, how can we ever correctly understand what is actually being said?

The most accurate translation of 1 Tim 3 says if one desires or anyone desires.  Translating it naturally as it was used by Paul without the stress of making it into something it is not (meaning a male only gender translation) brings this verse into agreement with other passages and cures some of the conflicts in translation that more and more people are seeing.

I had thought a long these lines also.  God does not like gender roles confused.  Women are told not to wear men's clothing.  I wonder if that is exactly what that means or is it symbolic?

[/color]


To accept Christ do we not have to adhere to His Word, or do we only have to say I believe but tell Jesus We dont really want his rules? I have always understood this as part of the package. When we accept Christ we also accept what He has laid out for us to follow. His plan for the way we should live,, I thought that was the whole point, to die to our flesh and fleshly desires and submit to His will for our life through Him and yes His rules.

God Bless

Flapjack...  You are a Marine?  My son is a Marine... my husband is Navy.  23+ years.

I have a question to the topic... WHY would a woman want to be an Elder?  No thanks... Knowing that we are equal sojourners in Christ is enough for me.  I have my covering...  it is the Blood of Jesus...  for that... I submit to Him.  No one in the Church has authority over me, unless I submit anyway... and I reserve that for my husband.  It's a choice.  "Submit yourselves" is what it says.

And just because a woman teaches, it does not mean she is in authority over a man. If he is walking with God, the spirit would witness to him if she is speaking truth and it would be GOD who is sending it to him, through her ... submission to that word, would be between he and GOD, the woman would only be speaking what God told her to any way. 

A man who says a woman can't teach... is foolish.  I teach all the time, I teach truth to ANYONE who will listen.  I have no authority to make them submit to it...  the Holy Spirit in us does that.  If you reject the truth and say .. "You can't teach me, you are a woman"... 

Please...  do you not know GOD?  He can use a fisherman to teach or even a donkey to complete his will...  hey, he can even use MEN!!   

And that is good preachin, whether you say AMEN or not!    

flapjacklambo


I disagree.  When we are in Christ, there is no gender, race, or life status.  We all stand equal before Christ and because of Christ.

Regarding, women being in subjection to men (or husbands depending on particular translation of the NT).  For a really good article on that see Al Maxey's recent study.  All Christians are in subjection to each other.  If a man and a woman are married and both are Christians, then they are in subjection to each other and the husband rulling over the wife (wife in subjection) is strictly based on the historical, geographical location of where they live (eg:  Rome, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Washington DC, Dallas, Hong Kong, etc).  God made man and woman equal in the Garden.  That status changed because of sin.  God allow that change to remain in effect until the Cross when he brought everyone back into an equal state though his son's sacrifice and resurection.  There were female apostles in the early church.  There were elders/bishops (yes, there is evidence of that fact that has been discovered in recent years), there were female ministers/teachers/evangelists, and there were female "deacons."  That is a historical and biblical fact.

The main problem we have in understanding Scripture and how it was written is the hermeneutical principles we use to come to a conclussion.  If we try to understand it just from a black and white view (ink on paper from the 20th/21st Century vantage point) we run into alot of problems which cause misunderstandings and the extreme legalism that has been a major thorn in the side of church growth because of all the divisions it has caused.  If we use a historical view of understanding Scripture, then at least from our vantage point of 20 centuries down stream, we can kind of get an idea of what the writer was trying to convey.  We can also see where translation has been effected by traditions that have no business being included in the understanding of what was said.  Some of what Paul wrote is open to alot of interpretation because of these factors.  Gender is one of those interpretations.  As we learn more about the laws, customs, and problems of the time frame with the help of intense archaelogical research that has been a rather recent factor on the age scale, we can get better understanding of what was being addressed by Paul and why.

Got to go.   if I'm lucky, I'll be back in a couple of days to read replies.  If not:

May God continue to bless each and every poster here as they strive to understand God's revealed words to us.

You can't reinlist... there could be women over you in authority in the chain of command, and you don't believe in that.  Right?