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.
When Eve was made for Adam, the term used to describe her role was ezer kenegdo.
Re: Hebrew ezer kenegdo. In Genesis 2:18, the word "helpmeet" does not occur. The Hebrew expression ezer kenegdo appears, meaning "one who is the same as the other and who surrounds, protects, aids, helps, supports." There is no indication of inferiority or of a secondary position in an hierarchical separation of the male and female "spheres" of responsibility, authority, or social position.
The word ezer is used twice in the Old Testament to refer to the female and 14 times to refer to God.
For example, in the Psalms when David says, "The Lord is my Helper," he uses the word ezer.
Click
and click again.
Re: Hebrew ezer kenegdo. In Genesis 2:18, the word "helpmeet" does not occur. The Hebrew expression ezer kenegdo appears, meaning "one who is the same as the other and who surrounds, protects, aids, helps, supports." There is no indication of inferiority or of a secondary position in an hierarchical separation of the male and female "spheres" of responsibility, authority, or social position.
The word ezer is used twice in the Old Testament to refer to the female and 14 times to refer to God.
For example, in the Psalms when David says, "The Lord is my Helper," he uses the word ezer.
Click
and click again.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
T
Which parts of what I wrote do you find disagreeable? All I said was, God gives people spiritual gifts (including women) and that that verses which say a church leader needs to be married man maybe should not be taken literally (and so we should consider the context of the text), because if we do, even Paul and Jesus would be unqualified to be pastor.
But, I understand why someone who only considers a few verses and takes them literally would believe women cannot be pastors. People who agree with women being pastors look into a lot of other factors as well: spiritual gifts, (how Jesus treated women (he taught Marta which is unusual as women did not receive education back then, he appeared first to women after his death (the first missionaries were women)), how God uses women for leadership postions (Deborah), Priscilla taught Aquillas, etc.
With Priscilla teaching Aquillas, do you at least agree that a married woman can teach another man? (as Priscilla was married).
But, I understand why someone who only considers a few verses and takes them literally would believe women cannot be pastors. People who agree with women being pastors look into a lot of other factors as well: spiritual gifts, (how Jesus treated women (he taught Marta which is unusual as women did not receive education back then, he appeared first to women after his death (the first missionaries were women)), how God uses women for leadership postions (Deborah), Priscilla taught Aquillas, etc.
With Priscilla teaching Aquillas, do you at least agree that a married woman can teach another man? (as Priscilla was married).
I intentionally exaggerated a little to make a point...
If we interpret things as you suggested (=> the authority not referring to marriage only, and it's a matter of study what Paul meant by "usurping" (in your interpretation not husband's but MALE) authority and what is the context to properly understand him)... we then come to the worldview where every woman is spiritually inferior to every men, and always has to be spiritually babysat by men, because man is somehow spiritually more capable and she will walk into error the second she isn't under male supervision. In fact, a lot of churches in the West basically hold this view albeit I exaggerated it, but they're not too far from it. In Eastern Orthodox and Catholic there's the also veil or scarf in the church to physically symbolize the right to be silent. You're wrong that there are no words, because it is said in the Bible through the very phrase referring to woman "usurping AUTHORITY" (of man) when interpreted as you suggest.
If we interpret things as you suggested (=> the authority not referring to marriage only, and it's a matter of study what Paul meant by "usurping" (in your interpretation not husband's but MALE) authority and what is the context to properly understand him)... we then come to the worldview where every woman is spiritually inferior to every men, and always has to be spiritually babysat by men, because man is somehow spiritually more capable and she will walk into error the second she isn't under male supervision. In fact, a lot of churches in the West basically hold this view albeit I exaggerated it, but they're not too far from it. In Eastern Orthodox and Catholic there's the also veil or scarf in the church to physically symbolize the right to be silent. You're wrong that there are no words, because it is said in the Bible through the very phrase referring to woman "usurping AUTHORITY" (of man) when interpreted as you suggest.
If there is a female teacher in the school, her scientific knowledge comes from God, but her knowledge is the same as other male teachers, what kind of situation is that?
I think this kind of question is similar to the topic of Jesus facing the Sabbath.
Q:you can't do anything in The day
Jesus answer:why not?
I think this kind of question is similar to the topic of Jesus facing the Sabbath.
Q:you can't do anything in The day
Jesus answer:why not?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I agree with you whole heartedly. A woman should not be allowed to Pastor, Teach or have authority over men in the assembly meetings. There is a distinct Biblical order:
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Also agree that the "head covering" for the woman, is still to be done today. This was a common practice until around the late 1950's and 60's. Although many women at that time wore "hats" rather than a "veil". This probably demonstrated a drifting away from the proper teaching at that time. When the "Woman's Liberation" movement picked up steam in the 1960's, the practice of the "head cover" was dropped by most denominational churches. Today it is rarely practiced and is generally scoffed at by many professing Christians. This could be a serious matter, since Paul asserted:
1Co 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
By extension, the woman having her head unveiled would be dishonoring Christ. Sadly, I witnessed Steven Lawson ( a minister connected to Legonier Ministries), give a three day exposition of 1 Cor. 11, on the "head covering" and he proved in his exposition that it should be done but since it seemed to have no impact on his congregation, he just blew it off and did nothing to enforce it.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Also agree that the "head covering" for the woman, is still to be done today. This was a common practice until around the late 1950's and 60's. Although many women at that time wore "hats" rather than a "veil". This probably demonstrated a drifting away from the proper teaching at that time. When the "Woman's Liberation" movement picked up steam in the 1960's, the practice of the "head cover" was dropped by most denominational churches. Today it is rarely practiced and is generally scoffed at by many professing Christians. This could be a serious matter, since Paul asserted:
1Co 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
By extension, the woman having her head unveiled would be dishonoring Christ. Sadly, I witnessed Steven Lawson ( a minister connected to Legonier Ministries), give a three day exposition of 1 Cor. 11, on the "head covering" and he proved in his exposition that it should be done but since it seemed to have no impact on his congregation, he just blew it off and did nothing to enforce it.
-
1
- Show all
Paul must not have ever read this scripture, for he tells of women in positions of authority. Perhaps it was because their authority was with men and not over a man? And what about Deborah listed as a leader in the book of Judges?
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
S
It would require 3 days of confusion to make it hard to understand. Simply read it:
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
It is an appeal to their customs to make a point. But then he says... we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
So NO the Christians did not require women to cover their heads.
It is amazing that people don't notice verse 16.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
It is an appeal to their customs to make a point. But then he says... we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
So NO the Christians did not require women to cover their heads.
It is amazing that people don't notice verse 16.
S
Col 4:15Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
No one can say for certain that this verse proves that a woman was pastoring a house church but no one can say for certain that Nympha was not the pastor of the church that met in her house.
I think she probably was. We will find out when that which is perfect is come.
No one can say for certain that this verse proves that a woman was pastoring a house church but no one can say for certain that Nympha was not the pastor of the church that met in her house.
I think she probably was. We will find out when that which is perfect is come.
-
1
- Show all
Actually, verse 16 has been terribly misunderstood by many. It has certainly not been ignored. Let's break this verse down:
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (KJV).
Two Greek words need to be examined herein: The word translated "contentious" and "custom". The Greek word translated "contentious" is: φιλονεικος, an adjective meaning "argumentative, quarrelsome or contentious" and the Greek word translated "custom" is συνηθειαν, a compound noun, which literally means "common habit" and by inference "assembly habit or acceptance". Now let's put it together:
1 Cor. 11:16 But if any one seems to be argumentative, we have no such assembly habit, neither the assemblies of God.
Thus, Paul is saying, 1st. Is there anyone who wants to argue about the things I just said, 2nd Arguing is not an acceptable habit in the assembly. 3rd. Nor in any of the assemblies of God.
So Paul was not telling them that the veil was not a custom or practice, he was reiterating the fact that being quarrelsome was not acceptable. We saw this same kind of statement from Paul in these verses:
1Co 14:37-38 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (KJV).
Two Greek words need to be examined herein: The word translated "contentious" and "custom". The Greek word translated "contentious" is: φιλονεικος, an adjective meaning "argumentative, quarrelsome or contentious" and the Greek word translated "custom" is συνηθειαν, a compound noun, which literally means "common habit" and by inference "assembly habit or acceptance". Now let's put it together:
1 Cor. 11:16 But if any one seems to be argumentative, we have no such assembly habit, neither the assemblies of God.
Thus, Paul is saying, 1st. Is there anyone who wants to argue about the things I just said, 2nd Arguing is not an acceptable habit in the assembly. 3rd. Nor in any of the assemblies of God.
So Paul was not telling them that the veil was not a custom or practice, he was reiterating the fact that being quarrelsome was not acceptable. We saw this same kind of statement from Paul in these verses:
1Co 14:37-38 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
S
I know you were replying to awelight but I will comment on this. Maybe it was a schism of women infected by false teachers.
In 2 Tim 3 there is a hint of some things going on with women being seduced by false teachers.
5 having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. From such turn away.
6 For of this sort are those who creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
In 2 Tim 3 there is a hint of some things going on with women being seduced by false teachers.
5 having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. From such turn away.
6 For of this sort are those who creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I don't get your point here. This verse in the KJV reads:
Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. There is some disagreement here by some Greek scholars as to the feminine nature of the word translated house. Whether it goes to the person or the church. Ecclesia is always feminine. thus "house" maybe feminine because it is modifying "church". Either way, here is what John Gill had to say on this verse:
Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea,.... Where there was a church mentioned in the following verse, of which see on Gill Rev_2:10.
And Nymphas; which some, unskillful in the Greek language, have took for a woman; whereas it is the name of a man, as the following words show; and is a contraction of Nymphios, or Nymphidios, or Nymphodoros:
and the church which is in his house. This man seems to have been an inhabitant of Laodicea, and that the church there met at his house to worship God, to pray unto him, sing his praise, hear his word, and attend on all ordinances: or his own family was brought up so strictly to the observance of these things, that they looked like a little church of themselves.
Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. There is some disagreement here by some Greek scholars as to the feminine nature of the word translated house. Whether it goes to the person or the church. Ecclesia is always feminine. thus "house" maybe feminine because it is modifying "church". Either way, here is what John Gill had to say on this verse:
Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea,.... Where there was a church mentioned in the following verse, of which see on Gill Rev_2:10.
And Nymphas; which some, unskillful in the Greek language, have took for a woman; whereas it is the name of a man, as the following words show; and is a contraction of Nymphios, or Nymphidios, or Nymphodoros:
and the church which is in his house. This man seems to have been an inhabitant of Laodicea, and that the church there met at his house to worship God, to pray unto him, sing his praise, hear his word, and attend on all ordinances: or his own family was brought up so strictly to the observance of these things, that they looked like a little church of themselves.