Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
-
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.
S
For the sake of the thread I am reposting what I have written before:
The act of teaching from scriptures such as exegesis or expository teaching to edify those that are hearing is not exercising authority over a person and this is part of the error that has created this unbiblical ban on a women teaching scriptures.
The meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 in context of the wife toward the husband is that of respect. It could very well mean Suffer not a wife to Teach as in Correcting as in Usurping authority over him. Teaching him like she does one of the kids that needs correction.
This is not a forced hermeneutic in an effort to free women to be allowed to be bible teachers. It is a more natural hermeneutic considering the theological context of other passages that say the same things. Using the rule of hermeneutics of finding other passages that speak about the same subject especially those passages that use strikingly similar words and phrases we find the following:
Look at 1 Peter 3 and 1 Tim 2 Compare the similar sentences in each passage...
1Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Now Look at 1 Tim 2
9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
It is impossible not to notice that the topic is the same.
Peter sounds like he is quoting Paul (and I am of the opinion that he was) and yet by reason of Peter being a bit more verbose the authorial intent of Peter is made plain and it is never discussed as applying to instructions on how women can teach or not teach the bible while men are present. Everyone understands the subject matter of Peter as it relates to the attitude of the wife toward the husband.
Paul is most likely talking about the same thing and uses the word woman and man instead of husband and wife but it is the same subject matter as made obvious by the reference of Adam and Eve.
We have a much stronger reason to believe that if Paul was here right now and we could ask him "what did you mean by a woman cannot teach a man" that he might say "did you understand what Peter said?" and he might say "I was talking about the exact same thing?" A woman's attitude toward her husband.
We allow women to have authority over us at work. Are we sinning?
How does one who believes 1 Tim 2:12 means any woman cannot have authority over any man going to justify submitting to a female at work. But they do. Are they hypocrites?
If we create an explanation that excuses us from submitting to the authority of a female boss at work but not allowing women to hold leadership positions in the church based on this verse we are saying that we are not fully obedient to that verse. We only obey it at church but not at work.
Your not going to get out of this one easily. But I will enjoy watching you try.
You said the following:
"It’s important to understand that Paul does not prohibit women from teaching in all contexts (Titus 2:3; Acts 18:25-26), only from teaching the Bible to men in the church.
Notice that Paul prohibits women from doing two distinct things.
1.
Women may not teach the Bible to men in the church.
2.
Women may not exercise authority over men in the church."
You say that this scripture does not prohibit women from teaching in all contexts only to men in church. That is obviously eisegesis.
You would actually have a stronger argument if you said that you believed it taught that a woman cannot teach a man in all contexts since it does say "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man"
However, the bible or church or pulpit are not mentioned at all. Therefore you added them and this you have no authority to do.
So you made that up. You put that in there. It does not say "I suffer not a woman to teach (the Bible in church) nor to usurp authority over the man (In a leadership position in church) Therefore it is possible that Paul did not have pulpit ministry in mind at all.
It is actually IMPOSSIBLE that Paul could have had pulpit ministry in mind since Pulpits had not yet been invented.
So we can eliminate the possibility of "pulpit teaching" being Paul's authorial intent.
In hermeneutics your can eliminate those things that would not apply to the culture at the time. It is impossible that Paul was talking about a woman teaching a Sunday School Class where men were present because Sunday School classes were not invented yet. It is impossible that he meant Teaching the book of Revelation, because the book of Revelation had not yet been written. Therefore Paul did not have these things in mind. Many of the things people have said about this verse Paul could not have meant.
You stated the following:
The nature of women is the second reason Paul gives for prohibiting them from teaching or exercising authority in the church.
Paul says, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim 2:14). Paul is saying something about the natural constitution of men and women, that men as a class are naturally more fitted to teach and have authority in the church, but women are not.
And though Grudem may have said this is a popular view I can guarantee you even without looking it up that Grudem does not agree with this interpretation. I know him well and I know he is much smarter than this.
You see it would be impossible for it to mean that men are more naturally fitted to teach and that is the reason why men should teach and not women. Because this would be against the nature of what salvation and redemption has wrought in us.
Teaching the bible by the calling and empowering of the Spirit does not rely on the maleness of the human species nor his natural abilities.
The woman is not less saved, less redeemed, or less able to comprehend the spiritual things of God than a man can.
God does not rely on the natural abilities of the man to teach the Spirit empowered word of God. God can take an uneducated man and empower him with the Spirit to understand and to teach the word of God. And so why would an uneducated woman not also be illuminated and empowered by the Spirit to preach the Word of God?
Your interpretation suggest that Paul is saying that the redemption of Jesus Christ was sufficient to transform and equip a degenerate heroine shooting drunkard off the streets and turn him into the worlds greatest bible preacher but Jesus cannot do that with a woman because her femaleness? The woman cannot be delivered from some natural faults that you think she has but a man can? Jesus can't transform the mind of a crack smoking woman and make her a saved healed Bible preacher but he can do so with a man. Because a woman is likely to be deceived because remember what happened to Eve?
That is some serious false doctrine and a view of God that is not the God of the Bible, not the salvation of Jesus Christ and not the view that God has of women. And that you could say it and not recognize the error makes everything you say suspect.
Please find repentance if that is what you think God is like. I fear that you have been infected with the leaven of the Pharisees.
The act of teaching from scriptures such as exegesis or expository teaching to edify those that are hearing is not exercising authority over a person and this is part of the error that has created this unbiblical ban on a women teaching scriptures.
The meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 in context of the wife toward the husband is that of respect. It could very well mean Suffer not a wife to Teach as in Correcting as in Usurping authority over him. Teaching him like she does one of the kids that needs correction.
This is not a forced hermeneutic in an effort to free women to be allowed to be bible teachers. It is a more natural hermeneutic considering the theological context of other passages that say the same things. Using the rule of hermeneutics of finding other passages that speak about the same subject especially those passages that use strikingly similar words and phrases we find the following:
Look at 1 Peter 3 and 1 Tim 2 Compare the similar sentences in each passage...
1Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Now Look at 1 Tim 2
9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
It is impossible not to notice that the topic is the same.
Peter sounds like he is quoting Paul (and I am of the opinion that he was) and yet by reason of Peter being a bit more verbose the authorial intent of Peter is made plain and it is never discussed as applying to instructions on how women can teach or not teach the bible while men are present. Everyone understands the subject matter of Peter as it relates to the attitude of the wife toward the husband.
Paul is most likely talking about the same thing and uses the word woman and man instead of husband and wife but it is the same subject matter as made obvious by the reference of Adam and Eve.
We have a much stronger reason to believe that if Paul was here right now and we could ask him "what did you mean by a woman cannot teach a man" that he might say "did you understand what Peter said?" and he might say "I was talking about the exact same thing?" A woman's attitude toward her husband.
We allow women to have authority over us at work. Are we sinning?
How does one who believes 1 Tim 2:12 means any woman cannot have authority over any man going to justify submitting to a female at work. But they do. Are they hypocrites?
If we create an explanation that excuses us from submitting to the authority of a female boss at work but not allowing women to hold leadership positions in the church based on this verse we are saying that we are not fully obedient to that verse. We only obey it at church but not at work.
Your not going to get out of this one easily. But I will enjoy watching you try.
You said the following:
"It’s important to understand that Paul does not prohibit women from teaching in all contexts (Titus 2:3; Acts 18:25-26), only from teaching the Bible to men in the church.
Notice that Paul prohibits women from doing two distinct things.
1.
Women may not teach the Bible to men in the church.
2.
Women may not exercise authority over men in the church."
You say that this scripture does not prohibit women from teaching in all contexts only to men in church. That is obviously eisegesis.
You would actually have a stronger argument if you said that you believed it taught that a woman cannot teach a man in all contexts since it does say "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man"
However, the bible or church or pulpit are not mentioned at all. Therefore you added them and this you have no authority to do.
So you made that up. You put that in there. It does not say "I suffer not a woman to teach (the Bible in church) nor to usurp authority over the man (In a leadership position in church) Therefore it is possible that Paul did not have pulpit ministry in mind at all.
It is actually IMPOSSIBLE that Paul could have had pulpit ministry in mind since Pulpits had not yet been invented.
So we can eliminate the possibility of "pulpit teaching" being Paul's authorial intent.
In hermeneutics your can eliminate those things that would not apply to the culture at the time. It is impossible that Paul was talking about a woman teaching a Sunday School Class where men were present because Sunday School classes were not invented yet. It is impossible that he meant Teaching the book of Revelation, because the book of Revelation had not yet been written. Therefore Paul did not have these things in mind. Many of the things people have said about this verse Paul could not have meant.
You stated the following:
The nature of women is the second reason Paul gives for prohibiting them from teaching or exercising authority in the church.
Paul says, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim 2:14). Paul is saying something about the natural constitution of men and women, that men as a class are naturally more fitted to teach and have authority in the church, but women are not.
And though Grudem may have said this is a popular view I can guarantee you even without looking it up that Grudem does not agree with this interpretation. I know him well and I know he is much smarter than this.
You see it would be impossible for it to mean that men are more naturally fitted to teach and that is the reason why men should teach and not women. Because this would be against the nature of what salvation and redemption has wrought in us.
Teaching the bible by the calling and empowering of the Spirit does not rely on the maleness of the human species nor his natural abilities.
The woman is not less saved, less redeemed, or less able to comprehend the spiritual things of God than a man can.
God does not rely on the natural abilities of the man to teach the Spirit empowered word of God. God can take an uneducated man and empower him with the Spirit to understand and to teach the word of God. And so why would an uneducated woman not also be illuminated and empowered by the Spirit to preach the Word of God?
Your interpretation suggest that Paul is saying that the redemption of Jesus Christ was sufficient to transform and equip a degenerate heroine shooting drunkard off the streets and turn him into the worlds greatest bible preacher but Jesus cannot do that with a woman because her femaleness? The woman cannot be delivered from some natural faults that you think she has but a man can? Jesus can't transform the mind of a crack smoking woman and make her a saved healed Bible preacher but he can do so with a man. Because a woman is likely to be deceived because remember what happened to Eve?
That is some serious false doctrine and a view of God that is not the God of the Bible, not the salvation of Jesus Christ and not the view that God has of women. And that you could say it and not recognize the error makes everything you say suspect.
Please find repentance if that is what you think God is like. I fear that you have been infected with the leaven of the Pharisees.
There is nether male nor female in Christ Jesus...
-
2
- Show all
P
Well to all that think we are living in the last days then let god decide what he will do.
But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'"
But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'"
-
1
- Show all
Let's answer:
[1] No. See Acts 1:15, 2:1-4,33.
[2] Yes. See John 20:2.
[3] Not necessarily. The "spirit of Prophecy" is actually the gift of Prophecy (which is the "testimony of Jesus"), see Revelation 19:10, 2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11.
Notice, in all of those things, none of them deal with the office/position of "Priest/High Priest", "Apostle", "Elder/Bishop/Presbyter", or "Deacon". They are separate and distinct offices only for the male.
[1] No. See Acts 1:15, 2:1-4,33.
[2] Yes. See John 20:2.
[3] Not necessarily. The "spirit of Prophecy" is actually the gift of Prophecy (which is the "testimony of Jesus"), see Revelation 19:10, 2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11.
Notice, in all of those things, none of them deal with the office/position of "Priest/High Priest", "Apostle", "Elder/Bishop/Presbyter", or "Deacon". They are separate and distinct offices only for the male.
There is nether male nor female in Christ Jesus...
Basically correct. Women can teach just fine, even from 'the pulpit', 'street corner', etc. The matter of church office/position is differing entirely from such. They cannot be in the office/position of "Priest/High Priest", "Apostle", "Elder/Bishop/Presbyter", "Deacon". Paul was dealing with matters 'authority' and incorrect use thereof. Teaching is basically instructing. It is not commanding. The same position that a woman as a wife has in the home church, is the same she can hold in the larger church (congregation) gathering. Can she teach her children in the home? Yes, so then she can teach in the church. Doe the woman/wife take the postion of the head of the home, the husband? No, thus she cannot take such a place in the larger context. To do so, is the same theological position Lucifer had in regards the Son of God in Heaven. He sought to usurp authority and poition that did not belong to him. That is stepping beyond the bounds/position granted him. Could Lucifer teach, and disseminate information from Christ in Heaven? Yes. When he was cast out, he took his theology and gave it to Eve, and she bought into that same lie. She thought she could rise above her sphere/office/position, and because of such fell far below her original position (she became a sinner subject to a sinner - satan). So will all women who seek to do the same in knowledge (not speaking of the ignorant, for God winks there, and calls all to repent).
I have. Thoroughly.
Let's go in chiastic reverse:
Phoebe.
Consider the word itself in its other uses:
G1249
διάκονος
diakonos
Total KJV Occurrences: 30
So the word simply means one who serves or ministers to another. It can specify an office, such as "Deacon", but only when it refers to the males among the Church. See Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8,12.
See the two offices/positions?
These are identified as special positions, among "all the saints which are at Philippi". For not everyone carries the office of "Bishop/Elder" or "Deacon" therein.
In vs twelve, we see the distinction between a "deacon" which is "the husband" (male), which "rule(s)" "their children" and "their houses" (home church) well, and the "wife" (female) who is not a "deacon" in such office as the Husband is. She may indeed be a server, one who ministers to others, in the church, but is not classed as a "Deacon" (office/position). The "deacons" are of the some qualifications as "Elders" in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
The head of household, is the husband, which is why the translators translate the words as "man" (vs 5) and "his" (vs 4,5) and "he" (vs 7), rather than 'one' (meaning any person). The context is the "husband" (vs 2; G435, "ανδρα"), which is only a male according to scripture.
Let's go in chiastic reverse:
Phoebe.
Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Rom 16:1 συνιστημι δε υμιν φοιβην την αδελφην ημων ουσαν διακονον της εκκλησιας της εν κεγχρεαις
Rom 16:1 συνιστημιG4921 V-PAI-1S δεG1161 CONJ υμινG4771 P-2DP φοιβηνG5402 N-ASF τηνG3588 T-ASF αδελφηνG79 N-ASF ημωνG1473 P-1GP ουσανG1510 V-PAP-ASF διακονονG1249 N-ASF τηςG3588 T-GSF εκκλησιαςG1577 N-GSF τηςG3588 T-GSF ενG1722 PREP κεγχρεαιςG2747 N-DPF
"διακονον" N-ASF, is simply the koine Greek word for "servant", and is only used as "Deacon" where it mean a position of office, in regards to specially chosen males among the church of Jesus Christ.
Consider the word itself in its other uses:
G1249
διάκονος
diakonos
Total KJV Occurrences: 30
minister, 14
Mat_20:26, Mar_10:43, Rom_13:4 (2), Rom_15:8, Gal_2:17, Eph_3:7, Eph_6:21, Col_1:7, Col_1:23, Col_1:25, Col_4:7, 1Th_3:2, 1Ti_4:6
ministers, 6
1Co_3:5, 2Co_3:6, 2Co_6:4, 2Co_11:15 (2), 2Co_11:23
servant, 4
Mat_23:11, Mar_9:35, Joh_12:26, Rom_16:1
deacons, 3
Php_1:1 (2), 1Ti_3:8, 1Ti_3:12
servants, 3
Mat_22:12-13 (2), Joh_2:5, Joh_2:9
So the word simply means one who serves or ministers to another. It can specify an office, such as "Deacon", but only when it refers to the males among the Church. See Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8,12.
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
See the two offices/positions?
[1] Bishops/Elders
[2] Deacons.
These are identified as special positions, among "all the saints which are at Philippi". For not everyone carries the office of "Bishop/Elder" or "Deacon" therein.
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
In vs twelve, we see the distinction between a "deacon" which is "the husband" (male), which "rule(s)" "their children" and "their houses" (home church) well, and the "wife" (female) who is not a "deacon" in such office as the Husband is. She may indeed be a server, one who ministers to others, in the church, but is not classed as a "Deacon" (office/position). The "deacons" are of the some qualifications as "Elders" in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
The head of household, is the husband, which is why the translators translate the words as "man" (vs 5) and "his" (vs 4,5) and "he" (vs 7), rather than 'one' (meaning any person). The context is the "husband" (vs 2; G435, "ανδρα"), which is only a male according to scripture.
I have. Thoroughly.
Phoebe is just a person who serves, and does not hold the office/position of authority as one ordained among men do.
These are just servants. Same word. They do not hold church office/position, even though they were males who served others.
Finally, the text of Romans 16:1 is a single text often taken out of its context to try to support a false doctrine. The Bible teaches that every doctrine needs to be taught clearly in the mouth of two or three witnesses, and there is no other even supposed support for women "deacons" anywhere in scripture, which is why this is the only text that is gone to, and it needs a faulty translation to attempt the doctrine, from contradictory translations.
Since the "Deacons" (office/position) are clearly the "husband/s" and not the "wi(ves)", we can also go back and see the other office/position, "Elder/Bishop" before it. For Judas' office of "bishoprick" was to be male alone, notice:
drawing from:
The office of "Elder/Bishop" is male alone. Thus goes also for "Deacon".
Consider, that it was only among males that the first "Deacons" were chosen:
No women were selected for the office/position of the first "Deacons".
So, you have erred in regards the 'pronouns' (like "τιςG5100 X-NSM", since thy refer back to the noun Husband "ανδραG435 N-ASM".
Phoebe is just a person who serves, and does not hold the office/position of authority as one ordained among men do.
Joh 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
Joh 2:5 λεγει η μητηρ αυτου τοις διακονοις ο τι αν λεγη υμιν ποιησατε
Joh 2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
Joh 2:9 ως δε εγευσατο ο αρχιτρικλινος το υδωρ οινον γεγενημενον και ουκ ηδει ποθεν εστιν οι δε διακονοι ηδεισαν οι ηντληκοτες το υδωρ φωνει τον νυμφιον ο αρχιτρικλινος
These are just servants. Same word. They do not hold church office/position, even though they were males who served others.
Finally, the text of Romans 16:1 is a single text often taken out of its context to try to support a false doctrine. The Bible teaches that every doctrine needs to be taught clearly in the mouth of two or three witnesses, and there is no other even supposed support for women "deacons" anywhere in scripture, which is why this is the only text that is gone to, and it needs a faulty translation to attempt the doctrine, from contradictory translations.
Since the "Deacons" (office/position) are clearly the "husband/s" and not the "wi(ves)", we can also go back and see the other office/position, "Elder/Bishop" before it. For Judas' office of "bishoprick" was to be male alone, notice:
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
drawing from:
Psa 109:5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
Psa 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
Psa 109:7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Psa 109:9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Psa 109:10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Psa 109:11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
Psa 109:12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
Psa 109:13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
The office of "Elder/Bishop" is male alone. Thus goes also for "Deacon".
Consider, that it was only among males that the first "Deacons" were chosen:
Act 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Act 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Act 6:1 εν δε ταις ημεραις ταυταις πληθυνοντων των μαθητων εγενετο γογγυσμος των ελληνιστων προς τους εβραιους οτι παρεθεωρουντο εν τη διακονια τη καθημερινη αι χηραι αυτων
Act 6:2 προσκαλεσαμενοι δε οι δωδεκα το πληθος των μαθητων ειπον ουκ αρεστον εστιν ημας καταλειψαντας τον λογον του θεου διακονειν τραπεζαις
Act 6:3 επισκεψασθε ουν αδελφοι ανδρας εξ υμων μαρτυρουμενους επτα πληρεις πνευματος αγιου και σοφιας ους καταστησομεν επι της χρειας ταυτης
Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
No women were selected for the office/position of the first "Deacons".
So, you have erred in regards the 'pronouns' (like "τιςG5100 X-NSM", since thy refer back to the noun Husband "ανδραG435 N-ASM".
Simple, because a 'pronoun" always refers back to a previously given noun, and in this case the noun is "Husband", a male. The King James Translators were wise, pious, prayerful and studious men. Please come to understand language and its syntax and use, before approving Dino246's errors. Yes, the pronoun can mean 'anyone', 'one', but the context dictates it's closed meaning. By this, is meant, among males which are husbands (since children are involved, along with the wife and household) having the connected specified qualifications. Members of the church are as "little children" (John 13:33), and as such, one with proper authority, needed to know how to 'rule' over their own smaller church (home) first, before engaging the larger.
These offices/positions were always male among God's people: ["God", as Jesus], "Husband" (as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc), "Father", "Son", "Priest/High Priest" (Aaron, etc), "King" (David, Solomon, etc), "Apostle" (Peter, James, John, Paul, etc), "Bishop/Elder" (John, etc), "Deacon" (Stephen, etc).
These offices/positions could be either male or female: "Teachers", "Prophets" (Daniel or Deborah, Amos or Anna, Isaiah or his wife, Malachi or Miriam, Hosea or Huldah, David or daughters of Philip, etc), and these gifts could go to either as well: "workers of miracles", "gifts of healing", "tongues/languages", "interpretation of tongues/languages".
These office/positions could only be female: "Queen" (Esther, etc), "wife" (Eve, Sarah, etc), "mother", "daughter".
These offices/positions could be either male or female: "Teachers", "Prophets" (Daniel or Deborah, Amos or Anna, Isaiah or his wife, Malachi or Miriam, Hosea or Huldah, David or daughters of Philip, etc), and these gifts could go to either as well: "workers of miracles", "gifts of healing", "tongues/languages", "interpretation of tongues/languages".
These office/positions could only be female: "Queen" (Esther, etc), "wife" (Eve, Sarah, etc), "mother", "daughter".
-
1
- Show all