A woman as a Pastor? Does it make it right if there is a need for pastors?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P

phil112

Guest
So time to look at the overseer/deacon/bishop passage in 1 Timothy 3 in depth in the Greek..............................
Interesting that it is only in "modern" times that people try to bring women to the pulpit by making an effort to qualify them with scripture. There is no record of the early church doing so, at least certainly not an accepted church. It was always given to understand that that position was meant for a man. The bible speaks very clearly in some scripture in gender specific language, and this is one of such passage. Here is what one commentator thought of it some 200 years ago.
Verse 2. "A bishop then must be blameless" - Our term bishop comes from the Anglo-Saxon ([A.S.]), which is a mere corruption of the Greek episkopov, and the Latin episcopus; the former being compounded of epi, over, and skeptomai, to look or inspect, signifies one who has the inspection or oversight of a place, persons, or business; what we commonly term a superintendent. The New Testament writers have borrowed the term from the Septuagint, it being the word by which they translate the dyqp pakid of the Hebrew text, which signifies a visiter, one that personally inspects the people or business over which he presides. It is given by St. Paul to the elders at Ephesus, who had the oversight of Christ's flock, Acts xx. 28; and to such like persons in other places, Phil. i. 1; ver. 2, the place in question; and Tit. i. 7.
Let us consider the qualifications of a Christian bishop, and then we shall soon discover who is fit for the office.
First. - This Christian bishop must be blameless; anepilhpton, a person against whom no evil can be proved; one who is everywhere invulnerable; for the word is a metaphor, taken from the case of an expert and skillful pugilist, who so defends every part of his body that it is impossible for his antagonist to give one hit. So this Christian bishop is one that has so conducted himself, as to put it out of the reach of any person to prove that he is either unsound in a single article of the Christian faith, or deficient in the fulfillment of any duty incumbent on a Christian. He must be irreprehensible; for how can he reprove that in others which they can reprove in him? Second. - He must be the husband of one wife. He should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist; and have only one wife, i.e. one at a time. It does not mean that, if he has been married, and his wife die, he should never marry another. Some have most foolishly spiritualized this, and say, that by one wife the Church is intended! This silly quibbling needs no refutation. The apostle's meaning appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not appear to have been any part of the apostle's design to prohibit second marriages, of which some have made such a serious business. But it is natural for some men to tithe mint and cummin in religion, while they neglect the weightier matters of the law.
Third. - He must be vigilant; nhfaleon, from nh, not and piw, to drink.
Watchful; for as one who drinks is apt to sleep, so he who abstains from it is more likely to keep awake, and attend to his work and charge. A bishop has to watch over the Church, and watch for it; and this will require all his care and circumspection. Instead of nhfaleon, many MSS. read nhfalion? this may be the better orthography, but makes no alteration in the sense.
Fourth. - He must be sober; swfrona, prudent or, according to the etymology of the word, from swv, sound, and frhn, mind, a man of a sound mind; having a good understanding, and the complete government of all his passions.
A bishop should be a man of learning, of an extensive and well cultivated mind, dispassionate, prudent, and sedate.
Fifth. - He must be of good behaviour; kosmion, orderly, decent, grave, and correct in the whole of his appearance, carriage, and conduct. The preceding term, swfrona, refers to the mind; this latter, kosmion, to the external manners. A clownish, rude, or boorish man should never have the rule of the Church of God; the sour, the sullen, and the boisterous should never be invested with a dignity which they would most infallibly disgrace.
Sixth. - He must be given to hospitality; filoxenon, literally, a lover of strangers; one who is ready to receive into his house and relieve every necessitous stranger. Hospitality, in those primitive times, was a great and necessary virtue; then there were few inns, or places of public entertainment; to those who were noted for benevolence the necessitous stranger had recourse. A Christian bishop, professing love to God and all mankind, preaching a religion, one half of the morality of which was included in, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, would naturally be sought to by those who were in distress and destitute of friends. To enable them to entertain such, the Church over which they presided must have furnished them with the means. Such a bishop as St. Paul, who was often obliged to labour with his hands for his own support, could have little to give away. But there is a considerable difference between an apostolical bishop and an ecclesiastical bishop: the one was generally itinerant, the other comparatively local; the former had neither house nor home, the latter had both; the apostolical bishop had charge of the Church of Christ universally, the ecclesiastical bishop of the Churches in a particular district. Such should be addicted to hospitality, or works of charity; especially in these modern times, in which, besides the spiritualities, they possess the temporalities, of the Church.
Seventh. - He should be apt to teach; didaktikon, one capable of teaching; not only wise himself, but ready to communicate his wisdom to others. One whose delight is, to instruct the ignorant and those who are out of the way. He must be a preacher; an able, zealous, fervent, and assiduous preacher. He is no bishop who has health and strength, and yet seldom or never preaches; i.e. if he can preach-if he have the necessary gifts for the office.
In former times bishops wrote much and preached much; and their labours were greatly owned of God. No Church since the apostle's days has been more honoured in this way than the British Church. And although bishops are here, as elsewhere, appointed by the state, yet we cannot help adoring the good providence of God, that, taken as a body, they have been an honour to their function; and that, since the reformation of religion in these lands, the bishops have in general been men of great learning and probity, and the ablest advocates of the Christian system, both as to its authenticity, and the purity and excellence of its doctrines and morality.
CHAUCER'S character of the Clerke of Oxenford is a good paraphrase on St. Paul's character of a primitive bishop:-Of studie tookin he moste cure and hede, Nought oo word spak he more than there was nede, And that was selde in forme and and reverence, And short, and quick, and full of high sentence; Sowning in moral vertue was speche, And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teache.
Verse 3. An eighth article in his character is, he must not be given to wine; mh paroinon. This word not only signifies one who is inordinately attached to wine, a winebibber or tippler, but also one who is imperious, abusive, insolent, whether through wine or otherwise. Kypke contends for this latter acceptation here. See his proofs and examples.
Ninth. - He must be no striker; mh plhkthn, not quarrelsome; not ready to strike a person who may displease him; no persecutor of those who may differ from him; not prone, as one wittily said, "To prove his doctrine orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks." It is said of Bishop Bonner, of infamous memory, that, when examining the poor Protestants whom he termed heretics, when worsted by them in argument he was used to smite them with his fists, and sometimes scourge and whip them. But though he was a most ignorant and consummate savage, yet from such a scripture as this he might have seen the necessity of surrendering his mitre.
Tenth. - He must not be greedy of filthy lucre; mh aiscrokerdh, not desirous of base gain; not using base and unjustifiable methods to raise and increase his revenues; not trading or trafficking; for what would be honourable in a secular character, would be base and dishonourable in a bishop. Though such a trait should never appear in the character of a Christian prelate, yet there is much reason to suspect that the words above are not authentic; they are omitted by ADFG, many others, the Syriac, all the Arabic, Coptic, (and Sahidic,) AEthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac, (but it appears in the margin,) the Vulgate and Itala, and by most of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text, in which it does not appear that it ever had a legitimate place. The word covetous, which we have below, expresses all the meaning of this; and it is not likely that the apostle would insert in the same sentence two words of the same meaning, because they were different in sound. It appears to have been borrowed from verse 8.
Eleventh. - He must be patient; epieikh, meek, gentle; the opposite to plhkthn, a quarrelsome person, which it immediately follows when the spurious word aiscrokerdh is removed. Where meekness and patience do not reign, gravity cannot exist, and the love of God cannot dwell.
Twelfth. - He must not be a brawler; amacon, not contentious or litigious, but quiet and peaceable.
Thirteenth. - He must not be covetous; afilarguron, not a lover of money; not desiring the office for the sake of its emoluments. He who loves money will stick at nothing in order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to him alike, provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of reputation he may wish to get all honourably; but if that cannot be, he will not scruple to adopt other methods. A brother heathen gives him this counsel: "Get money if thou canst by fair means; if not, get it by hook and by crook."

 
P

phil112

Guest
And here is verse 4 from the same tome. Not enough room to put it with the other post.



Verse 4. The fourteenth qualification of a Christian bishop is, that he ruleth well his own house; tou idiou oikou kalev proistamenon, one who properly presides over and governs his own family. One who has the command, of his own house, not by sternness, severity, and tyranny, but with all gravity; governing his household by rule, every one knowing his own place, and each doing his own work, and each work having the proper time assigned for its beginning and end. This is a maxim of common sense; no family can be prosperous that is not under subjection, and no person can govern a family but the head of it, the husband, who is, both by nature and the appointment of God, the head or governor of his own house. See the note on Eph. v. 22. .
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Angela, Paul says 'and the women' or however you translate it about deacons. He doesn't say that about the bishop role.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Whatever our differences, We will make a better impression on seekers observing if we are polite and civil with each other during our discussions!


Not singling anybody out in particular, because this cuts both ways:

It is quite easy to make almost any scripture appear to agree with our point of view; and to deceive ourselves into believing that we are sincere.

For example:

Eph 4:28
28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
KJV
by moving the colon, we get:

Eph 4:28
28 Let him that stole steal: no more but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
KJV

and now we have a larceny cult; or a Robin Hood cult.

I don't believe most of us would do this intentionally; but, we all aill do well to check ourselves.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Don't you discriminate all the time? Let's say you meet a man who yells angrily at you and threatens you. Then you meet another guy whose fun to talk to, friendly, and helpful. Which one will you try to make friends with, hire for a job, or invite to a party? My guess is you would discriminate against the angry man.

We discriminate all the time, and it's not always wrong to do so. Men can't give birth to babies. It's discrimination, I tell you! Discrimination! But there is nothing unjust about it.

For the bishop/ elder role, the Bible says that he must be a man.
Discrimination based on factors like gender and race is generally illegal, is is not?

It may not be illegal with respect to churches today, but it could be in the future.

Those verses in Paul were used to discriminate against women a hundred or so years ago to attempt to deny them the vote, right?

Those verses in Paul are used today to discriminate against women to deny them certain positions in churches, right?

And some who have posted here would send those women who violate the "rules" to hell. right?

One problem is, there is no consistency in what those who would have us discriminate against women say a woman can or can not do within the church.

You say a woman can not be a bishop or an elder.

Others say something different.

God is not the author of confusion.

Discrimination based on gender, like I said, is illegal in most situations.

And even if it is not illegal in some situations, in my opinion it is immoral.

Sinful behavior.

I hope somebody is giving up sinful behavior like discrimination against women for Lent (today is Ash Wednesday).

Hey, maybe it will be the Pope.
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
252
0
Haters? I see some hate coming here from people who favor female clergy against those who disagreeing with them. And you have not been late coming up with false accusing as well. That should speak in advantage of the case you are trying to make? To me it just proves the wrong of that case.
Don't be defensive, friend, you are not one of whom I speak.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Interesting that it is only in "modern" times that people try to bring women to the pulpit by making an effort to qualify them with scripture. There is no record of the early church doing so, at least certainly not an accepted church.
This post really isn't for phil112. It's for anybody who can provide an objective response.

What is an "accepted" church?

What were the first churches like?

Who pastored those churches?

Now, it has been said on this thread that the first deacons are found in Acts 6.

Perhaps. But the word deacon is not found in Acts.

So what word are we looking for?

Disciples?

Who were the first Christians?

Acts: 11:26: "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

You can find the word elders in Acts, but it would appear that word is associated with Jews, not Christians.

Anyone identified as a disciple in Acts could have pastored the first churches, which likely were small groups that congregated in homes.

Right?

And please don't quote Paul's letters.

Paul had not written those letters at this point in time.

Paul had just been converted.

What did Jesus want?

That seems to me to be the question you should try to answer.
 
Last edited:
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Don't be defensive, friend, you are not one of whom I speak.
He is as defensive as the Steel Curtain used to be.

You probably are a big fan of Penguins.

And you know I'm not talking about nuns like some of those who would have us discriminate against women might think.

They are so confused.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Hmm! Let's see - I spend hours on looking closely at the Greek, and writing a thoughtful post, rather than simply accepting differing translations, and you don't read the post!

Praise God! There are many others who do! LOL
I appreciate your effort but it simply is not persuasive. There is no getting around the husband of one wife.

I respect your ministry to the sick and infirmed but you do not meet the biblical qualification to the office of pastor. I do not believe that anyone would deny that you are a servant and a disciple of Christ. I also believe that you would serve without the title because the service is greater than the title.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
I respect your ministry to the sick and infirmed but you do not meet the biblical qualification to the office of pastor. I do not believe that anyone would deny that you are a servant and a disciple of Christ.
You said yourself that the first deacons are in Acts 6.

Were any of those first deacons you speak of pastors?

Were they likely chosen from those designated as disciples in Acts?
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
Your post here does not help bringing this thread back into a serious discussion. It just spawn further pie throwing.
Tribesman your posts have not helped either in some cases.Your tone has not been very civil.I hardly think you should be lecturing anyone about pie throwing. I believe you still own MPW an apology for your comment about her doing evil.That was uncalled for and out of line. I'll take care of my own posts,I have not thrown "pies" at anyone. I dont need a warning from you.
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
252
0
He is as defensive as the Steel Curtain used to be.

You probably are a big fan of Penguins.

And you know I'm not talking about nuns like some of those who would have us discriminate against women might think.

They are so confused.
Penguins are my favorite team on ice, but not in Sunday school.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
Dunno if what you typed in bold was a typo or not, but certainly true you show to have problems with discussing any issues where you have people disagreeing with you. And you talk about seriosity. When where you serious in this thread? Just ranting about in hysteria. All I see from you is throwing pies. Like a child: i am right because I say so and you are wrong. That's all to gather from your posts.
That was a typo.Tribesman I dont know if this is something you are doing on purpose or not but anyone who disagrees with you you call "emotional" or "hysteria". I have,many posts back given my reasons,and Scriptures,with what I believe.I posted what a male pastor said on the subject,so many pages back that I couldn't find it now.Every time someone disagrees with you they're "throwing pies" I dont know how many bakeries we've cleaned out in this thread according to you,but I doubt a pie could be found in the greater New York area.Or the whole east coast! People disagree with you "pie throwing".Now who's being childish?

Look over my posts in all threads.One person wrote me and said" I was unkind in my post to you but you were gracious to me" and they thanked me.I have no problem discussing issues with respectful people.What I do have a problem with is people who insist on name calling and damning people to hell when ,the last time I checked,the job of righteous judge was taken by Christ himself. I get my back up when people start packing my bags for hell,telling me Im evil etc. I dont do it,no one on here has that authority. Though many seem to think they do.I have been very serious in this thread but when people get on with non sense like the" perfect woman" yes I get a laugh. But run back to the first of this thread and you'll find I am very serious.I have female pastors in my family,most are married.They are Godly women and I dont take kindly to people saying they hate Jesus,whoever said that. That is a pure judgement call. Someone once said "judge not" it seems to be a favorite verse around here.So dont take my joking about some ridiculous post as not being serious,I am dead serious.

I know what I believe.I was in ministry for 20yrs.Have you been in ministry Tribesman? I take it very,very seriously.I take Gods calling very seriously.I can tell of hardships Ive gone through in ministry that no one here would be willing to endure.I am not some hysterical female.Many men could not follow where I have been,the people and places and things Ive had to face in ministry.But people were saved,marriages restored,people were healed and encouraged.Jesus commands us to go.Not stay in our comfortable homes and go to church on Sunday and dump our coins in the plate.He commands us to go!! I hear so many self righteous people on here sending people to hell.Which have you have gone,left the comfort of home and actually brought the gospel to the world? Sure we can discuss in here and act like the big Christian. Who has gone into the world like we were commanded.I dont mean over the water cooler at work either.What have you given up to go preach and share the gospel? As one who spent 20yrs in the ministry Tribesman I dont consider myself childish,hysterical and not serious.Do not mistake me.I have put feet to my words.I have gone.What have you done to prove you are serious about sharing the gospel more than attacking other Christians on a discussion site? Jesus commands us to go,have you?

Finally I did not become a licensed evangelist,though I was asked to do so.But I did continue in ministry.There has been a lot of talk on here of what women should do.There are opinions on both sides and each are entitled to them.But I have been out there in the front lines with people in ministry and I know what they go through.I know the trials they face that they cant share with their congregation. Ive prayed with pastors and their wives ready to give up. Ive had them cry on my shoulder because they didnt think they could carry on.I know what the ministry is about.And all this argument on this thread doesn't mean a heap of beans to God.What are we doing for HIM? We should all,I mean all, be convicted. Stop judging peoples hearts.What have YOU done for the cause of Christ?! How have you lifted the burden of your pastor and family?Have you gone? Or is your ministry on a discussion board? I wonder.

Is that serious enough Tribesman or will you dismiss it as pie throwing? Im pretty sure I know the answer.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
You said yourself that the first deacons are in Acts 6.

Were any of those first deacons you speak of pastors?

Were they likely chosen from those designated as disciples in Acts?
The text clearly says seven men. Does it seem reasonable to you that the daily ministration of the widows would have been done by men without a woman present?

The apostles did the preaching. The early inter testament period necessitated a consistent presentation of the doctrines of the faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
Angela, Paul says 'and the women' or however you translate it about deacons. He doesn't say that about the bishop role.
First, I come from a tradition that doesn't have bishops, but rather "elders." I have been in churches which only allow men in the position, and I am now in a church that has both men and women. Both churches have been characterized by people who love Jesus, and reach the world for Christ in many ways.

Second, I thought I thoroughly presented the case for elders not being genderized. BUT the position of leadership has some strict qualifications with regards to sexual immorality. In other words, men who are philanderers, adulterers, or homosexuals are disqualified from the positions. The women don't seem to need this warning, as sexual sins are not the issue, but rather other things, such as slander and the need to stay faithful.

There are no male pronouns in that section from verses 1-7 in 1 Timothy. And yes, a man is specifically instructed to refrain from extra-maritial activities. That does not limit women from being deacons, as that is not an issue which concerns them in that culture.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
First, I come from a tradition that doesn't have bishops, but rather "elders." I have been in churches which only allow men in the position, and I am now in a church that has both men and women. Both churches have been characterized by people who love Jesus, and reach the world for Christ in many ways.

Second, I thought I thoroughly presented the case for elders not being genderized. BUT the position of leadership has some strict qualifications with regards to sexual immorality. In other words, men who are philanderers, adulterers, or homosexuals are disqualified from the positions. The women don't seem to need this warning, as sexual sins are not the issue, but rather other things, such as slander and the need to stay faithful.

There are no male pronouns in that section from verses 1-7 in 1 Timothy. And yes, a man is specifically instructed to refrain from extra-maritial activities. That does not limit women from being deacons, as that is not an issue which concerns them in that culture.
Well I have been taught that the husband of one wife includes men who have been married and divorced and remarried as being disqualified to pastor the church.

That will make me an equal opportunity offender.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
The text clearly says seven men. Does it seem reasonable to you that the daily ministration of the widows would have been done by men without a woman present?

The apostles did the preaching. The early inter testament period necessitated a consistent presentation of the doctrines of the faith.
Did the seven also preach?

Didn't Philip, one of the seven, travel extensively preaching?

After the seven, don't we see more disciples?

You already identified the seven as deacons. Are the next group of disciples deacons also?

Were any of this next group of disciples women?

Once Philip, for example, left a place after preaching, who was responsible for pastoring the converts?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Discrimination based on factors like gender and race is generally illegal, is is not?
In certain areas under US law it is, but freedom of religions is protected by the Bill of Rights.

My question is, why do you appeal to secular political philosophy and law? Isn't what God wants more important.

NOT discriminating based on gender is against God's law in some areas. If a man marries a man, that is contrary to God's law. In the temple, priests had to be a certain gender, age, and from a specific family line. So 'discrimination' isn't always illegal. Sometimes God requires certain types of discrimination.

It may not be illegal with respect to churches today, but it could be in the future.
If that were the case, we should obey God rather than men.


Those verses in Paul were used to discriminate against women a hundred or so years ago to attempt to deny them the vote, right?
Which verses related to the topic at hand were used to argue against women having a vote? And how is this even relevant to the topic at hand? Why should we think God cares so much about women voting, or men voting for that matter. If God has given some 'right' to vote, then why didn't the prophets mention it?

Those verses in Paul are used today to discriminate against women to deny them certain positions in churches, right?
Do you have any Bible verses in mind or are you just taking a stab in the dark?

And some who have posted here would send those women who violate the "rules" to hell. right?
I haven't kept up with the whole thread. I remember someone mentioning that that idea had bee discussed. But what does that prove?

You say a woman can not be a bishop or an elder.

Others say something different.
The Bible says 'the husband of one wife' (or 'one woman man.')

God is not the author of confusion.

Then don't be confused.

And even if it is not illegal in some situations, in my opinion it is immoral.
If you think all gender-based discrimination is immoral, then your opinion is wrong. And if you thought hard enough, you'd probably realize you do it. If you were a father, would you let your boys go in the women's rest room?

Sinful behavior.
Sinner's violate God's laws, not yours.
 
P

phil112

Guest
.........................Verses 8 to 10 really get into further qualifications for deacons.

"Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. [SUP]9 [/SUP]They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [SUP]10 [/SUP]And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless." 1 Tim. 3:8-10

Then using parallel instructions to the women deacons in verse 11, Paul turns to the women overseers! ESV, KJV and HCSB and other complimentarian versions translate the word γυναῖκας (guvaikas) as wives, whereas more egalitarian versions like NIV and the Message both translate this word as "women" or "deaconesses" in the USB interlinear...............................
Angela, you have not proven there ARE women "overseers" so saying that is portraying scripture inaccurately. You are giving opinion and presenting it as fact.

Your silence on my commentary post makes me wonder if you read it. Surely you aren't ignoring others words and expecting them to read yours?

That commentary was written in 1821. Clearly the author, using the word "he" as specifically as he does, sees that position as for men. Now if you have looked at this topic honestly and thoroughly, you must know about the gender specific references the bible uses. Yet you have avoided any post I have made that mentions that.

You went from 1 Timothy 3:1&2 to 8-11. What about verse 4? How do you reconcile the language with your doctrine?
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
In this as in any issue on the forum there are two (or more) divergent points of view.


On both sides of the issue there are three distinct approaches to discussing it:


1) Clearly state your position based on your understanding of Scripture

(a) presuming that those who disagree are equally well motivated
(b) presuming that those who disagree have something fundamentally wrong with them

2) Intentionally misstate the other person's position, make snide remarks and hurl insults like Jack H


3) make a joke of the other person's position because you have nothing to say. like MadParrotWoman.


Remembering that non-believers are watching, we need to decide which approach presents the best witness.