I believe that we’re talking past one another here Siena. I don’t discount or even minimize modern exegesis out of hand, especially if done in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I likewise don’t undervalue the testimony of those first believers, even if they were surrounded by an extremely pagan world. Remember though, I’m a fundamentalist at heart and will not accept a change to the traditional understanding of a verse or passage without extremely solid support for an altered understanding of it. I’m not saying that I’m completely against it, just that I’m not going to change my mind just because someone makes a new claim. So far, while I have seen some evidence to support the understanding that you suggest, I find just as much evidence to speak against that view as well, including the actions of those females who have claimed the title of “Pastor”. It’s going to be an uphill battle for you to convince me that you’re right, but if you are, then the Holy Spirit will guide me to it.
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right; I'm simply pointing out what I consider to be errors in your logic.
The scripture you cited (Timothy) is commonly used by people with your view. However, they fail to take into account the background against which the writing in 62 AD or thereabouts takes place and regularly neglect the unusual use of Paul's word for "authority". Another scripture on the same topic is commonly cited in 1 Corinthians also neglecting the direct historical circumstances.
I don’t discount or even minimize modern exegesis out of hand, especially if done in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Spirit
A good position to take IMO.
Should say, “topic commonly cited in 1 Corinthians also neglects”
I should think that the real problem with “modern exegesis” in this context is that we are talking about a fundamental structure of the Church.
The Church was instituted in Apostolic times. The verses written were written in those times, and dictated the function and form of that church structure.
If there was confusion on some aspect, it would necessarily have to be dealt with at that time, since the Church existed, and needed to be operated in conformance with the will of God.
It makes no logical sense to argue that Paul dictated the method of church leadership, and it was accepted and implemented as we all know it was, but that secretly Paul used language so that later the Church could “get it right”, when they were sufficiently enlightened.
In order to accept the idea that God intended females to be pastors and leaders, one has to also believe that in Apostolic times, the Apostles misunderstood what Jesus told them, what God revealed to them, and thus prevented women called by God from taking up their calling.
Then we need to believe that somehow God was ineffectual in communicating the truth of what He really wanted, so that for century after century, women He called to service were denied the ability to perform that service by the Church God supposedly was leading and directing.
If one then believes that God still reveals to us today, you have an even HARDER problem with this, because He should have been able to reveal this throughout the history of the Church. At least those who believe God’s revelation was completed can argue that we are just a lot smarter than every believer of the past 1900 years, that they all misunderstood what was written, but now we know better.
Which isn’t an entirely rediculous argument. However, given that it leads to accepting something that perfectly coincides with a modern shift in thinking on the subject that is quite detached from biblical adherance, and pushed by the same class of scholars who also believe homosexuals can be leaders, that divorce is OK, that sex outside of marriage is just fine, and that pretty much anything in the modern culture is really what God intended, one has to look very carefully to make sure we aren’t just applying our own desires to our intepretation of scripture.