When it comes to marriage ... I think that it was God who blessed it. He created it. He considers divorce a sin. He only considered or allowed divorce under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts. GOD personally opposes ALL divorce. As I do. I do not believe there is ANY reason for divorce. There may be reason for seperation but not divorce.

If God opposes something like Divorce ... I personally have to oppose it under all circumstances. And I've been divorced. I know of the pain that this sin causes.

First of all, I really cannot adequately explain that passage in Timothy. There are a number of illogical points that are incongruent with the rest of the letter to Timothy and the reality of what is expressed by Paul about the women in Romans 16, especially Phoebe. One illogical point is the "order of creation" idea. The actual order of creation progressed from lower to higher forms, elemental parts to completeness. If first in order means higher in importance, authority or whatever, monkeys, sheep, fish, and birds clearly trump Adam and Eve. Given the progressive nature of creation it seems God saved the higher more complex forms for last meaning that woman was the crowning act of creation. The other incomprehensible point is verse 15 which suggests that women are saved through childbearing. What is that all about!

Regarding "'Deaconess' is not Pastor" -actually in terms of the original Greek the terms are not that far apart. (Only the RSV translates Romans 16:1 as "deaconess".) The word translated as pastors in Ephesians 4:11 (the only time so translated) is poimen or "shepherd." Shepherds were consider among the lowest of servants. Diakonos was likewise a servant. The word "minister", the most frequent English translation of diakonos, really means "one who serves or ministers to others" which is really another way of saying servant. Paul actually favored the lower, more extreme term doulos, "slave" to refer to himself.

These terms from which we get our current ecclesiastical offices were nontechnical common words used in everyday Greek usage regarding quite nonreligious roles and functions in society at large. The idea that pastoral ministry is a call to serve, is entirely consistent with Christ's own commission to be the servant of others as he graphically demonstrated in the upper room and commanded his disciples to follow his example. The kingdom of heaven turns the human order of things on its head - the first shall be last, the least are the greatest, become as little chidren, to live you must die, blood as cleansing agent... God loves a paradox! It is abundantly clear that the NT church followed this idea diligently by giving church leadership the title of "servant". Given the low position women held in those times, elevating them to positions of respect and leadership seems consistent with the upside down kingdom of God. (Take a look at Paul instruction to Timothy in regarding the place of the most overlooked women - old widows...) But over the course of the nearly 2000 years since clergy have taken on terms on the other end of that spectrum - "Father" "Reverend" "Elder". And those who hold on to that traditional thinking argue for the qualifications of ministers in terms of "authority" and "headship".

Tom

That may be true, BUT, she refered to various ministers, including her own husband, as a "servant of the Lord", a term by which she also referred to herself and which was applied to her regularly during her lifetime and even to this day.

See points above...

Tom

I agree with Beryl that God was telling Adam & Eve what would happen as a result of their sin.

He also tells them that the earth will produce thorns and thistles to make their work harder. Do we see Christian leaders telling us to go out and make sure our land is producing thorns and thistles, because that is what God ordained? Or does every farmer and gardener spend his/her time and effort trying to remove the thorns and thistles?

It also says that women would suffer in childbirth. In the days of Queen Victoria, when the first modern anaesthetics were invented, one of the first people to make use of them was the Queen herself, during one of her many times of childbirth. The leaders of the official Church at the time condemned this, because God had ordained women to suffer pain in childbirth.

By what we do as Christians, are we lifting the burden that the curse has placed on our fellow humans, or are we trying to reinforce it and make it heavier?

aldona

Hmmm?

Let me analyze this:

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Okay, I know that God sees and describes Himself as doing what He does not prevent. In this case Adam & Eve gave dominion over to Satan because it had been given them. They lost it by default because "for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage."

So maybe God is saying, "Look, you choose another leader and because of this you will have pain in childbearing. Instead of being equals the male population will try to dominate you since they are physically stronger. It will become a men's world under the new caretaker." Maybe...I'll think about it. Computing, computing, computing....

Robert

Absolutely correct, Aldona!

I recall years ago getting a blank stare and stunned silence in small church SS class by asking the question, "Are we supposed to live up to and be faithful to the curse?" and commenting along the lines you have.

The whole point of the plan of salvation, which was promised at the end of the pronouncement of the curse, was to reverse the curse of sin. Another way of saying that is to be overcomers, which is a significant theme of Revelation. We have been freed from the curse of sin and are being sanctified to realize God's ideal.

Tom

Tom and Aldona ... Thank you. WELL SAID.

I like what you said TOM. We are freed from the curse of sin and are being sanctified to realize God's ideal. Thanks.

So ... Going back to "God's ideal" ... As Stan said beginning this topic ... "Seventh-day Adventists believe that all people, male and female, are created equal" That would be the ideal that we need to return to would it not?

Even if you debate that women are or should be equal ... We do need women pastors to reach in their own unique GOD given way , the people that only they can reach with their unique approach and talents. We as men do not even think the same way as women. Any married person will explain that to you. So ... we need their unique loving way of thinking to reach those who can relate to that. And even those that can't relate to it ... we all need to be more rounded in our approach to each other and to God.

What Aldona says has merit, but I still would like to know that Paul is writing about in his letter to Timothy.

Rob

Robert,

I haven't forgotten your question. When I said I cannot adequately explain 1 Timothy 2:8-15, it is not that it is beyond explanation so much as it is not easily or succinctly done, as would be most effective in this format. I am also taking some time to refresh my understanding, in particular reviewing what a very helpful book, Men and Women in the Church, has to say about this passage. Even summarizing what that book has to say, which I think does explain it quite satisfactorily, is no simple task. The author spends 4 chapters and more than 50 pages discussing that short passage.

As a preliminary matter, it might be helpful to give some serious thought to the following questions/points:

-- Is this entire passage to be taken at face value with its literal meaning applied as it reads?

-- Does it express a universal truth, meaning that it is true for all time, all Christians in all circumstances?

-- If the answer is yes, then why does nobody seem to push for or apply the very first verse, requiring all men to pray with uplifted hands? And why does this not apply to women? Are they free to assume a different prayer posture? And do they not need to worry about the anger and quarreling part either?

-- Taken literally, men are free to dress extravagantly and immodestly, wouldn't you think?

-- The logical corollary to women cannot teach men is that men cannot learn anything from women. Does this make sense?

-- If women cannot teach men, in church, (not expressly stated although commonly applied), can a woman teach men indirectly through other media (books, radio, etc.) or in other contexts other than church? What makes the difference?

-- If the answer to the first two questions is no, maybe or an equivocal or qualified yes, where do you draw the line and why?

-- Does Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:11 include women, that God gives some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers? Reconcile that with 1 Timothy 2.

-- How do you reconcile Paul's words with Jesus' command to Mary to "go" and tell the gospel to men? (John 20:17) Or with Jesus sending the Samaritan woman back to her village as the first evangelist? Both did some teaching and certainly were not silent.

-- And how does the 1 Timothy passage reconcile with Romans 16, especially the role of Phoebe?

-- And finally, for now, what about Priscilla, who taught Apollos in the very same place, Ephesus? (See Acts 18:23-28)

-- Might this passage be of limited application to a particular time, place and circumstances?

Tom

This is an easy one if you look at it from the human nature side.

Paul's counsel to men is instead of fighting with your fists, lift up your hands to God in prayer. That sin (fighting) primarily is a temptation to men, while women are tempted to gain attention through immodest dress.