The number of offices of the church is two: -- first, the office of bishop, presbyter [elder], or pastor; and, secondly, the office of deacons.

That the titles "bishop," "presbyter," and "pastor" designate the same office and order of persons, may be shown from Acts 20: 28-- episkopous poimainein (cf. 17-- presbuterous); Phil. 1: 1; 1 Tim. 3: 1, 8; Titus 1: 5, 7; 1 Peter 5: 1, 2-- presbuterpous.... parakalo ho sumpresbuteros... poimanate poimnion...episkopountes.

Conybeare and Howson: "The terms 'bishop' and 'elder" are used in the New Testament as equvalent,-- the former denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the latter the rank, of the office."

Lightfoot, in his Commentary on Philippians (pp. 95, 96), says, "It is a fact now genereally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the language of the N.T. the same officer in the church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episkopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbuteros)."

The evidence supporting such a view is (1) the fact that the same qualifications are demanded from all; (2) the fact the same duties are assigned to all; and (3) the fact that the texts held to prove higher rank of the bishop do not support that claim.



The Great Commission applies to all who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. If you and I believe Christ and accept Him, then we each have a responsibility to convey to others what we have learned and experienced.

Men and women, according to the Bible, have different work to do both in the family and in the church. For instance, Jesus' mother Mary was a great witness for Christ, but Jesus didn't commission her to be one of the 12 disciples. Priscilla, along with her husband, opened the Scriptures and taught Apollos the truth of the gospel. That was her ministry. She studied the Bible with people and opened to them God's Word and no doubt prayed with them. Yet she wasn't an elder or overseer or pastor. But again, according to the Bible, it isn't necessary for everyone to do the same things and have the same responsibilities in helping to spread the good news of gospel.

If you study the history of the Christian church during the last 2000 years, you find that with few exceptions, women didn't serve as elders, pastors or priests until about the 1960s. Quakers were one of the few exceptions. So was Montanism, in the 3rd and 4th century A.D.

But the fact that women weren't elders, pastors, bishops or priests during those years certainly did not mean that women didn't have important ministries or work in the church. Quite the contrary.

It would be good to go into greater detail about exactly what women have done in the church from the first century and onward. That aspect could be taken up more appropriately on the thread, "Women In Ministry."

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

Is there dissuasion of my particular form of participation...? Yes? No?

Then let this be the Parthian’s Parthian shot:

>>Conybeare and Howson: "The terms 'bishop' and 'elder" are used in the New Testament as equvalent,-- the former denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the latter the rank, of the office."<<

Sorta like – wife and virgin, eh? :-)

>>Lightfoot, in his Commentary on Philippians (pp. 95, 96), says, "It is a fact now genereally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the language of the N.T. the same officer in the church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episkopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbuteros)."<<

And all..., are priests? Yes?

>>...it isn't necessary for everyone to do the same things and have the same responsibilities in helping to spread the good news of gospel.<<

Agreed; however, is it necessary to proscribe simply by gender? Anyway,

The Great Commission is taken to apply to you, me, all – regardless of gender, right? What then of

“baptizing them”; or, I like the way YLT words Matthew 28:19, to wit:

“disciple all the nations”

Discipling connotes shepherding/pastoring, does it not?

So, given the vagaries of disparate .org structuring...,

are .orgs correct to pejoratively institute gender-specific dogmas re the “baptizing” and “discipling” aspects of the Great Commission?

Sorry. I had a response to your message all written out and then when I tried to post it, something happened so it disappeared. I'll write another later. Gotta go to bed now in order to be ready for work tonight.

I'll be back tomorrow.

That is the purpose of the thread, and of the section.



We are focusing on the Gk. NT, which was written in 'street Greek.' Etymological info is helpful. However, in some cases the words developed meanings which were specific to the NT Christian church, which could be different than their classical meaning.



Since this thread, and the section, are devoted to NT Greek studies, perhaps the questions you raised could be addressed in a separate thread, in some other section.

Dave

I find that over-parsing the Greek, though epistemic, is poor conveyance of Theological communication.

Sorry, my bad.

Ciao

Let me start with the L-W cite on this occurrence:

"87.51 kefalhvb, h`" f: (a figurative extension of meaning of kefalhva ‘head,’ 8.10) one who is of supreme or pre-eminent status, in view of authority to order or command - ‘one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over.’ o{" ejstin hJ kefalhv, Cristov" ‘who is the head, (even) Christ’ Eph 4.15; panto;" ajndro;" hJ kefalh; oJ Cristov" ejstin, kefalh; de; gunaiko;" oJ ajnhvr, kefalh; de; tou` Cristou` oJ qeov" ‘Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ’ 1 Cor 11.3."

Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.

Secondly, here is the BAGD cite:

"2. fig.—a. in the case of living beings, to denote superior rank (cf. Artem. 4, 24 p. 218, 8 hJ kef. is the symbol of the father; Judg 11:11; 2 Km 22:44) head (Zosimus of Ashkelon [500 ad] hails Demosth. as his master: w\ qeiva kefalhv [Biogr. p. 297]) of the husband in relation to his wife 1 Cor 11:3b; Eph 5:23a. Of Christ in relation to the church Eph 4:15; 5:23b. But Christ is the head not only of the church, but of the universe as a whole: k. uJpe;r pavnta Eph 1:22, and of every cosmic power k. pavsh" ajrch`" kai; ejxousiva" the head of all might and power Col 2:10. The divine influence on the world results in the series (for the growing distance from God with corresponding results cf. Ps.-Aristot. De Mundo 6, 4): God the k. of Christ, Christ the k. of man, the man the k. of the woman 1 Cor 11:3c, a, b (s. on gunhv 1)."

Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.

Thirdly, here is Kittel, which I do not have online, so will post an excerpt:

"In 1 Cor. 11:3 . . . we learn that to the direct subjection of the man to Christ corresponds the fact that the man is eikwn kai doksa theou, and to the position of man a kephalh of the gunh corresponds the fact that she is the doksa andros. eikwn kai doksa have the same sense of image ande reflection; this is fixed by the allusion to Gen. 1:27. The same point emerges freom v. 8 f., where the being of woman as doksa, and indirectly of man as eikwn kai doksa, is explained by the fact that the origin and raison d'etre of woman are to be found in man. Hence man is the image and reflection of God to the degree that in his created being he points directly to God as Creator. Woman is the reflection of man to the degree that in her created being she points to man, and only with and through im to God. In this relation of man and woman we are dealing with the very foundations of this creaturehood . . . Not merely as a Christian, nor historically, but ontologically and by nature woman lives of man and for him . . ."

Kittel, v. III, p. 678

Regards,
Dave

If you see evidence in the NT that Bishops, overseers, and presbyters or elders are two or three different offices, please present it so we can talk about it.



Both male and female believers in Christ, who've been baptized into Christ and are thus members of Christ's body the church, are priests in NT sense of the word. That is, all believers have equal access to God and to salvation. But the NT does not mention priests as a separate office in the organization of the church. For instance, Paul doesn't address any of his letters to priests, as he does to bishops and ministers or deacons and elders. Neither does the book of Acts refer to them, nor the NT letters that describe the church officers, such as Eph. 3: 11-14; 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Even the book of Hebrews, which concerns the NT priesthood, does not teach that the church is to have leaders called "priests". Christ is our only High Priest, and all who follow Him are priests, irrespective of sex. But that way of using the term is not describing a church office or function.

Do you have a different view or do you believe the NT contradicts the view I've described?



In our modern society, especially since about the middle of the 20th century, it has been increasingly emphasized that all humans are the same except for physical differences. Manhood and womanhood, and what it means to be either, has been minimized to the point where it is viewed as inconsequential. But this is not the Biblical view. For instance, in the Old Testament, only men were priests (although pagan religions had priestesses); only men were the heads of their tribes, such as the 12 tribes of Israel; and in the New Testament, Christ chose only men as the heads of the new, reconstituted Israel, His church. And throughout eternity, the foundations of the city of God will only have the names of men written on them (Rev. 21: 14), a constant reminder that God does distinguish between males and females.

God gave men and women different roles and the Bible is full of things that show that God is concerned that people make a distinct difference between them. God doesn't want men wearing women's clothes, and women to wear men's clothes. Paul's direction that women not be able to rule over men in the church, and the direction that in the family the husband is the head of the wife shows that in God's view, the difference between men and women is important. I'm well aware this is not a politically correct or popular viewpoint. It goes against the views of our modern society and our Western culture at the beginning of the 21st century.



There is no question that the Great Commission is intended for all who hear the gospel and believe it. We're all commanded to carry the Good News to everyone we come in contact with. The NT shows that women may pray as well as "prophecy" in the church assembled for worship, and certainly they can study the Scriptures with people, including men, as Priscilla did. The Bible also gives both men and women the right and responsibility of becoming evangelists. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on this point. As I read the literature on the subject of women in ministry, I'm not seeing articles making the argument that the Bible proscribes women from being part of the gospel ministry. History shows the important work women have done in the church in spreading the gospel. The question is whether the Bible teaches that women may become church officers, specifically, whether they should occupy the offices of bishop, overseer, elder, or pastor.

If we ask the question why it matters whether women or men are in those church offices, we need to look closely at what the NT says about the qualifications and responsibilities of the people in the various offices. What does the NT say about the elders, bishops, or overseers; or how does the Bible use those terms?

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

I'm inclined to be in total agreement with your post, and I think you've summed up the meaning of the word "head" as used in 1 Cor. 11: 3 and Eph. 5: 23.

It doesn't mean that men are better or superior to women. There are some women who are more intelligent and talented and able than men; and there are some men who are more intelligent, etc., than women. God uses women equally as He does men.

The headship of men has reference, then, not to superiority in intellect or to God's use of women and men, but rather to the fact that in God's plan, men are to play a certain role in leadership, i.e., protection and decision-making, both in the home and in the church.

It's important to recall that in Eden, sin occurred when Eve took over the man's position of teaching and headship, and Adam allowed it to happen. Adam became passive and failed to fulfill the role God intended him to fulfill, and Eve rebelled against God's plan by trying to usurp the authority of her husband. I think this idea plays a big part in the Bible's instructions in 1 Cor. 11: 1-16; 14: 34; and especially in 1 Tim. 2: 11-15.

Quite a bit has been written making the case in recent years that the word Kephalee in Eph. 5: 23 and 1 Cor. 11: 3 does not refer to authority but rather to "source" or "origin." One strong piece evidence that shows the error of this view is found in 1 Cor. 11: 3 itself where it says, "The head of Christ is God." If Kephalee means "source" there, it would signify that the Arian view is correct, that Christ is a created being and has His origin or source in God the Father. This, of course, is contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

By the way, the authority of Christ is God, but it doesn't mean that God the Father is superior in quality or ability to Christ. Christ voluntarily submits to God's authority. This voluntary submission by Christ to God the Father is Christ's glory and also God's glory. The Bible makes the comparison between this relationship and the relationship between man and woman.

(Does anyone think that God abuses His headship over Christ in order to abuse Him or dominate Him? Neither are men, in God's plan, to misuse the headship in that way.)

Then there's also the fact that in a search of the way Kephalee is used in Greek literature outside the Bible, the evidence is overwhelming that it signifies authority, as the evidence in the writings of Paul also establish.

Thanks for all that very good research.

Best regards,
"John 3: 17"

Yes, from Homer onward, it referred to what is 'first, supreme,' 'prominent, outstanding.' There was an interesting twist given to the word by the gnostics. They did, indeed, appear to use it with reference to 'source' or 'origin.' HOWEVER, gnosticism is not in harmony with Scripture, NOR was the gnostic use of the word in harmony with the long-standing meaning, from Homer on through post-canonical times. Thus, to attempt to apply the gnostic view to Paul's writings would seem to do violence to both the language and the beliefs and intent of the Biblical writer. Such an approach is, however, in harmony with the determination of some to find SOME apparent justification for their beliefs.

Dave




[/quote]

Do you have a quote from Gnostics showing exactly how they used the word, Kephalee?

I know there were various Gnostic groups, such as the Montanists, who had women as officers in their groups, a practice which was condemned by both the Eastern and Western churches of that time.

(The Eastern church had slightly different practices from those in the West. For instance, it had many more deaconesses because of the sensitivity about the importance of the separation of men from women. These assisted in the preparation of women for baptism and also made sure that women understood the teachings prior to their baptism.)

I'll do some more research into the occurrence of the word outside the Bible. I believe there are only a few times when it was used where it MAY have the meaning of source, but even those do not unquestionably use it that way, as far as I understand the material at this point.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"