Dr. Robert S. Morley

This has to do with male and female identity and the image of God. Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are equal in rank. You're not completely equal of you don't have equal rank. A player is not equal to the captain. The co-pilot is not equal to the pilot. A soldier is not equal to an officer.

The Three Persons of the Godhead are Coequal The Bible depicts God as a plurality of three persons of equal rank, existing in mutual submission. This plurality in the Godhead first gets seen when “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Gen. 1:26). The Bible speaks of the equality of the Son, “Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Php. 2:5-6). And, of the Spirit’s deity, the Bible says, our “body is the temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 6:19). Male and Female Depict God’s Image When “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27), the male and female were both made in the image of God. This image does not reflect the physical attributes of gender (though it’s seen in both gender roles), for God is Spirit. The female was equal to the male, depicting the image of God equally. And in their marriage union, they reflected the image of God in this way too. Consequently, when “God said unto them . . . subdue . . . and have dominion” (Gen. 1:28) in calling them to rule, the male and female depicted the image of perfect unity between persons of equal rank. Equality Lost and Restored It was only after the Fall that the male began to rule over the female when God pronounced to the woman, “thy husband . . . he shall rule over thee.” Subsequently, any aberration from the equality seen in the male and the female reflection of the image of God depicts the consequences of the Fall (Gen. 3:16), not the original image that reflects the nature of God (Gen. 1:27-28), nor the redemption in Christ back to the design (Gal. 3:28). Male rule does not reflect the image of God, except where Jesus relinquished His equality for our salvation. But, just as all authority was given back to Him (Matt. 28:18), women in Christ have had the equality they forfeited returned in Him (Gal. 3:28). For He came to redeem us from the curse of a tarnished image of God where the joy of ruling together as equals, in mutual submission, was lost.

The professor used this humor to criticize what he saw as the fallacy of gender-specific Church roles in Christ. He seemed to think it was on topic. I thought it was hilarious.

Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Pastors This list has been doing the rounds on the internet at least since 2005. But in case you’ve missed it, here are the top ten reasons why men should not be ordained as ministers. This insightful, and satirical, list was compiled by the late Dr David M. Scholer, a former New Testament professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. Enjoy! 10. A man’s place is in the army. 9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent. 8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work. 7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation. 6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments. 5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshippers. 4. An ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination. 3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership. 2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church. 1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take. (Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism, Marg Mowczko)

Please just watch the story, Tony. I have been in missions for many years and have seen women like this lead men, as Deborah did Barak. The way God uses them dismantles the restrictive views some have of 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

We've been watching this women's testimony. In my estimation, she's a modern-day Junia. May it inspire all who listen, regardless of your view of gender and the role of pastor. Btw, brother Rick posted this last night:

In an essay titled, Baptist Theology, Anthony L. Chute writes the following on the varieties of Baptists: Although Baptists agree in the main with the theological commitments above, there are distinctives that set a number of Baptist groups apart from each other. General Baptists affirmed a general atonement whereas Particular Baptists affirmed limited atonement. Southern Baptists formed their denomination in reaction to the refusal of the Triennial Convention (a network of northern and southern Baptists) to appoint slave owners as missionaries; the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., was formed after the American Civil War and is the nation’s oldest and largest African-American religious convention. Missionary Baptists were actively involved in missions at the turn of the nineteenth century, which gave rise to Primitive Baptists who decried mission agencies as unscriptural rivals to the local church. Landmark Baptists look to the past with their understanding that Jesus founded the Baptist church in the first century, while Seventh-Day Baptists look to the last day of the week as the day when Baptist churches should gather for worship. (Baptist Theology, The Gospel Coalition) Anthony L. Chute (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is associate professor of church history and associate dean of the School of Christian Ministries at California Baptist University, where he has taught since 2003. Similarly, University Avenue Baptist Church writes: Baptists come in all shapes and sizes and are not the same. Currently, there are over 64 separate Baptist denominations in the United States and the diversity is surprising. For example, Primitive Baptists ardently defend predestination; so do Regular Baptists and Reformed Baptists. But Free Will Baptists believe just the opposite. Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists don’t believe in missions. Swedish Baptists and German Baptists live primarily in the midwest; Northern Baptists (who later became American Baptists) were strongest in the northeast. Southern Baptists began in the south and still have their largest numbers there. Some Fundamentalist Baptists believe that the first Baptist church was started in 31 A.D. and that “nobody is a true Bible fundamentalist unless he is a fundamental Baptist.” The Alliance of Baptists are at the complete other end of the theological spectrum as they embrace diversity and nonconformity. The list goes on and on. (What Kind of Baptist? University Avenue Baptist Church) Baptists have historically sought to identify themselves by obedience to the Scriptures, which is commendable. They have often repented, made changes, and accommodated different views. It appears that they are perhaps, once again, at a juncture of a hard choice because some in the Body of Christ, even in their ranks, have seen it biblical that women can be pastors. Perhaps another group of Baptists is about to emerge. One that accepts women as co-heirs who are co-equal for all the church roles in Christ. Understanding the council of the Scriptures is only by God’s grace. As we seek God’s face to know what is best, let us be sure that we are gentle and loving to one another, avoiding slander so that God does not resist us. For “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (James 4:6). In the end, God will judge us, not so much by our zeal for what we believed was in His word but by our obedience to what His word meant. There is a difference. The Pharisees were blind though they sought the Scriptures. Even Jews who came to Christ struggled to incorporate the gentiles. More recently, Baptist antiabolitionists, those who held anti-suffrage views, and segregationists battled with change too. Change is invariably hard, and in an age where LGBTQ+ and gender-mutilating views are on the rise, we must be cautious. But we must not conflate those issues with the idea of women being pastors because it will only serve to cloud understanding. Zeal can become misdirected, and obedience does not come to the proud, so may God bless us as we venture on in a world where our love for God is seen in our obedience to His commands and where our love for one another identifies us more than the beliefs that constantly divide. Thank you to all who have contributed to the discussion.

This site (and forum) facilitates open discussion where brothers and sisters in Christ can share their views. I have never tried to be disrespectful. Disagreements are inevitable. This platform allows us to get to know how one another sees Scripture. This way we can learn from one another, learn to love one another despite our differences, and pray for one another. We have the Scriptures to test what is said by those who share.

Here is another example of gender neutrality: “I will make you to become fishers of men” (KJV). Were the disciples (are we) only to fish for men? No, because the term "men" here is from the gender-neutral term anthrōpōn.

I repeatedly did that when people brought interpretations that ignored the importance of the KJV to this site.

I enjoy hearing from you, TGL, but I don't understand this one. You appear to be saying two things. You begin by crediting my approach, then you say true believers are in the minority and follow that up by saying I'm in the minority, but then you discredit the denominations I put forward as examples of those who have embraced my approach.

The slippery slope fallacy. That's like arguing "that those denominations that began accepting" slavery is a sin, "were then more apt to begin accepting LGBTQ+ people." Btw, where again does Scripture clearly state women should not be pastors?

Vs 1: “If a man” – the term “man” here is a gender neutral word, meaning anyone. It’s not too unlike the use of “man” in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Vs 2: “the husband of one wife” – this phrase shows the bishop is male. But it also shows that he is married. Is that a requirement? Vs 4: “One that ruleth well his own house” – the verse continues, “having his children in subjection with all gravity.” This shows that he is a man with children. Is that necessary? Vs 5: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house” – the word “man” here is again the gender neutral term tis and not anér (man). Vs 12: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” – This passage shows that a deacon is a man, married, and with children. Note, this is a continuation of the previous passage, shown by verse 8 beginning with, “Likewise . . .” Consequently, taken from verse 1, the implied logical meaning of the passage is V1 If anyone . . . V2 if a man . . . V2 if married . . . V4 and if with children . . . V5 if he has a house (household) . . . V8 Likewise, must the deacons . . . V12 if married . . . if with children . . . and if with houses (households) . . . Gender, marriage, and children are not prerequisites. The moral issues are. Paul simply used the typical candidate as a template rather than showing every variation. Titus follows the same way: For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. V6: “If any” – the word “any” is from the same gender neutral word tis that is translated “man” in 1 Timothy 3:1. Paul typically states what he wants to counter. Verse 34-35 is a belief held by some in the Corinthian church. In verse 36, he responds emphatically against this, saying, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” Here's an extract from a post of mine: Now, someone may rightly ask, surely Paul would not advocate following God’s law only to immediately refuse the idea. But, was it God’s “law” that Paul was referring to that says women ought to keep silent? No! A careful search will reveal no such law in the Bible. So what “law” was Paul referring to then? Paul was quoting the Jewish oral law (Talmud) in vs 34-35 that some in the church apparently still wanted to embrace. And, in vs 36, we see Paul reasoning against this restriction on women. Firstly, he is clearly flabbergasted by such a notion. Then, through rhetorical questions, he refutes their logic to keep such a custom. Paul points out that the word did not come from men, but, by implication, that it is from God. And, that it also did not only go to men, but, by implication women too. The logic being that there was no reason to restrict women from speaking because they “learn” just fine directly from God and His word and don’t need to be instructed by their husbands at home in order to learn. This explains the grammar and obvious tone in verse 36. TALMUDIC QUOTES: Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5) No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1). For a glimpse into the prevailing mindsets around that era, here is Adam Clarke's comment on Verse 34: “Let your women keep silence in the churches] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are ….” Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” Adam Clarke Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-13: At the beginning of the letter, Paul says that he had requested Timothy “to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul addresses one of these different doctrines, the idea of female religious superiority. It was the prevalent belief in Ephesian religion that man came from a woman deity and subsequently sinned. Consequently, men were to be subject to women teaching them. This idea had apparently infiltrated into the local church. Paul’s instruction corrects this. He tells Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11). This correction, describes the proper demeanor in which both men and women should learn. Except, in this case, it was evidently the women who needed it. “Let the woman learn” was huge progress in that women were often uneducated and relegated to the sidelines of life, including among the Jews. “[I]n silence” suggests an environment conducive to learning. And, “with all subjection” is a call to appropriate Christian behavior. This is not unlike Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Here Paul is addressing the cult religion in Ephesus that taught women were the source of truth. (See 1 Timothy 2: Why Does Paul Tell Women To Shut It?). Prohibiting the exercise of authority over one another is not foreign to Christianity. Consider Jesus’ prohibition on disciples having authority over one another in Matthew 20:25-27. Scripture requires interpretation. And, difficult passages require all the more attention. For example, why did Paul switch to using the singular "woman" from "women," and "the man" from "men"? After all, he had been addressing plural "men" and "women" in the prior verses. "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1 Tim. 2:8-10). Note, the word translated as "woman" (gynē) is also used for "wife." Is he only talking about "a woman" in a married relationship to "the man" (andros), a term also used for "husband"? What does "all" mean in, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"? Does "be in silence" mean "a woman" cannot speak at all? Why does Paul say, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? Though she was the one "deceived," they were both in "the transgression." What does he mean by, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"? Was it a shame that Eve co-ruled with Adam? (Gen. 1:27-29). Was it a shame that God appointed Deborah as a judge in Israel when He could have raised a man like Barak for the job? Except that he asked that she go with him into the battle, was it a shame that he was led by her? No. Here is commentary regarding that passage in Isaiah: Barnes – “This is not to be taken literally, but it means either that the rulers were under the influence of the "harem," or the females of the court; or that they were effeminate and destitute of vigor and manliness in counsel.” Benson – “Weak and effeminate rulers. Or, perhaps he speaks of the wives and concubines of their kings and great men, who, by their arts, gaining an ascendency over their husbands, induced them to act as they desired, though frequently to the people’s prejudice, and in a manner contrary to all the laws.” Pulpit – “There is no allusion to female sovereigns.” It is no uncommon on forums for related issues to be brought up that speak to the topic. As I see it, Junia being an apostle challenges a false belief that excludes a woman from leadership roles with authority to teach men. These you quoted also said the following: Barnes – “and ‘if’ this expression meant that they "were" apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business.” Clarke – “Junia may probably be the name of a woman, the wife of Andronicus." “Whether this intimates that they were noted apostles or only highly reputed by the apostles, is not absolutely clear; but the latter appears to me the most probable.” Poole – “but other teachers are sometimes called apostles” Ellicott – disputes it, but also said: “An ambiguous expression, which might mean, and, judging by the word alone, would perhaps more naturally be taken to mean, “distinguished as Apostles themselves.” This sense is not to be disregarded as absolutely impossible, for the title “Apostles” does not appear to have been limited to the Twelve.” Regarding the disputes, are commentators of equal status who think otherwise wrong? Because Ellicott chose one way he is an ally, but if he chose the other way that he thought quite plausible, would he be wrong? Here are my comments on extracts from the commentators' comments you posted: other teachers are sometimes called apostles Matthew Poole My comment: According to Poole, they are possibly designated as apostles by being teachers. To you: What of 1 Tim. 11-12? How can Junia teach with authority? Diodati thinks that by apostles in this verse are meant the evangelists; and that the meaning is, that these persons were noted messengers of the churches; My comment: A noted messenger has a message. To you: How could Junia (KJV female) be a messenger and not be able to speak to a congregation (according to your understanding of 1 Cor. 14:3-35, etc.)? The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23. Albert Barnes. My comment: Barnes concedes the possibility. To you: Do you? Besides the twelve and Paul, there were others who were called apostles. Those who are named are James, the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silvanus (Silas) and, possibly, Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1,2,:6), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7).

The issue appears to be about accentuation or rather, the lack thereof: CBMW - the accent itself . . . was not part of the original text . . . The original text would have had simply Iounian, which could be either the accusative masculine of Junias or the accusative feminine of Junia. CBE International - the Greek form used in Rom 16:7, Iounian, depending on how it is accented, has been understood as referring either to a woman named Junia or to a man named Junias. More specifically, Iounian ends with an “n” because in Rom 16:7 it is a direct object and therefore in the accusative case, and no NT occurrence of the name gives us an example in a different case. As a result, accentuation is an important factor. But the oldest Greek NT manuscripts contained no accents (accents did not become common until the ninth century). Paul himself certainly did not include accents in his letters. Church history shows favor for a feminine translation. Most translations too. Importantly for this forum, the KJV interpreters chose Junia.

Thanks, TGL. Btw, you might not have noticed, but I have several evangelistic posts. Here are three: The Bible Is Both Good News and Bad News Are You Saved and Assured of Your Salvation? Am I Going To Heaven? If I could have chosen my ministry, I would have been an evangelist because seeing people come to Christ is the most beautiful thing. Ministry is far broader than winning souls, though, and I am happy that I have been assigned and enabled, primarily, for other work. Ephesians 4:11-16 states, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Your concern for who I serve is on my conscience too. For example, I am currently teaching someone in Asia who had advertised that they were willing to pay for a Bible instructor. Though it is a small amount, after three sessions, I said that payment wasn't necessary and that I was willing to do it for free. I did not like the idea that I was being paid for what I would have given anyway. Having been a missionary, I know that the Lord has always provided. And, as for our books, they are intentionally sold at the lower end and we typically point out where our material can be found for free.