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.
The Bible is citing OT for "Kings and Priests", citing;
The Priests and Kings were male, all heads of family, all the Elders were male, even husbands with households.
In the greater sense, once we are transformed at the resurrection or transfiguration, we shall be as "the angels", which always come in the male form.
Please do not misuse 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, 5:10.
Exo_19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
The Priests and Kings were male, all heads of family, all the Elders were male, even husbands with households.
In the greater sense, once we are transformed at the resurrection or transfiguration, we shall be as "the angels", which always come in the male form.
Mat_22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mar_12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Please do not misuse 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, 5:10.
1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Rev_1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev_5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Talk about taking things out of context:
You would have those two verses say that those who are married Elders and Deacons are less capable in the things of God than singular (single, unmarried) persons?
Are you daft?
The context is times of distress and persecution, as from the Jews and Romans. The context also says nothing about the offices of Elders/Deacons. He's talking to regular 'joe' & 'jane'.
1Co 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
You would have those two verses say that those who are married Elders and Deacons are less capable in the things of God than singular (single, unmarried) persons?
Are you daft?
The context is times of distress and persecution, as from the Jews and Romans. The context also says nothing about the offices of Elders/Deacons. He's talking to regular 'joe' & 'jane'.
Indeed. "Helpmeet" (KJB). (You are suggesting you are better at translation and language than the men who were expert in multiple languages? Why disparrage words (English) you obviously do not understand?)
Now, Eve was equally human, and shared dominion with Adam (the male). She was not equally in office/positon of the "Head" of the union. Eve is "of the body", and the example given in Genesis proves this. Not out of the Head to be over man, neither from the feet to be under man, but out of his side, to share, but the man is the Head of the union of the first church on earth. This is as the same with the Father and the Son in Heaven (both sit on the same throne, but the Father (Adam representing Him) has ultimate authority, and the Son (Eve representing Him, see Proverbs 8, etc) submits), for mankind was made in the "image and likeness" of God.
Where does Paul get this idea? Context: Genesis and original Creation of Mankind. Paul continues the same thought elsewhere (dealing with abuse of authority, or stepping over authority):
Now, Eve was equally human, and shared dominion with Adam (the male). She was not equally in office/positon of the "Head" of the union. Eve is "of the body", and the example given in Genesis proves this. Not out of the Head to be over man, neither from the feet to be under man, but out of his side, to share, but the man is the Head of the union of the first church on earth. This is as the same with the Father and the Son in Heaven (both sit on the same throne, but the Father (Adam representing Him) has ultimate authority, and the Son (Eve representing Him, see Proverbs 8, etc) submits), for mankind was made in the "image and likeness" of God.
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.
Where does Paul get this idea? Context: Genesis and original Creation of Mankind. Paul continues the same thought elsewhere (dealing with abuse of authority, or stepping over authority):
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti_2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
In fact, in Genesis, Eve made a decision without Adam (even adding to and taking away from God's word), and it cost her dearly.-
1
- Show all
Doesn't matter what 'you' "think" (thank the LORD). The koine Greek says:
Both are Masculine, not Feminine or Neuter.
Now, Wycliff (1394) has 'her', this is true and a feminine form of Nymphas (Nymfan), but this was because he was translating the Jerome (corrupted) Latin, which simply has "eius", which can be either male or female.
Col 4:15 ασπασασθεG782 V-ADM-2P τουςG3588 T-APM ενG1722 PREP λαοδικειαG2993 N-DSF αδελφουςG80 N-APM καιG2532 CONJ νυμφανG3564 N-ASM καιG2532 CONJ τηνG3588 T-ASF κατG2596 PREP οικονG3624 N-ASM αυτουG846 P-GSM εκκλησιανG1577 N-ASF
Both are Masculine, not Feminine or Neuter.
German Luther 1522 - Colossians 4:15 Grüßet die Brüder zu Laodizea und den Nymphas und die Gemeinde in seinem Hause.
Tyndale 1531 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are of Laodicia and salute Nymphas and the congregacio which is in his housse.
Coverdale 1535 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethre, which are at Laodicea, and salute Nymphas, and the cogregacion which is in his house.
Matthew 1537 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren whiche are of Laodicia, and salute Nimphas, and the congregacion, which is in hys house.
Great Bible 1539 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren whych are of Laodicia, and salute Nymphas, and the congregacyon, whych is in hys house,
Geneva 1560 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are of Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the Church which is in his house.
Bishops 1568 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren [which are] in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the Churche which is in his house.
King James 1611 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, & the church which is in his house.
Douay Rheims 1750 (Catholic; Jesuit) - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren who are at Laodicea: and Nymphas and the church that is in his house.
Webster's 1833 - Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Young's Literal 1898 - Colossians 4:15 salute ye those in Laodicea—brethren, and Nymphas, and the assembly in his house;
Now, Wycliff (1394) has 'her', this is true and a feminine form of Nymphas (Nymfan), but this was because he was translating the Jerome (corrupted) Latin, which simply has "eius", which can be either male or female.
"... according to Tischendorf's notes on this verse the only uncial to contain this reading (autes, her) is Codex Vaticanus (B). He also lists 67** in support of the reading. To this Nestle/Aland adds cursives 0278 and 1881. ...
... The Greek text that underlies our Authorized Version reads, "autou", which is "his" in English. This is the reading found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. A few of these include uncials D, E, F, G, K, L, Psi and nearly every cursive copy (e.g. 049 056 0142 0150 0151 181 223 330 451 365 436 462 614 629 630 876 12411505 1799 1852 1960 2344 2412 etc.) It may also be noted that the Latin Vulgate, the Coptic, the Gothic and the Syriac Peshitta (150 AD) all read "his". Demonstrating that the reading has very ancient support.
The Early Church Writers also testified to the fact that Nymphas was a man and not a woman. Theodoret and "Dam.", as Tischendorf notes, both refer to Nymphas as a man. Commenting on Col. 4:15 John Chrysostom writes, "See how he cements, and knits them together with one another, not by salutation only, but also by interchanging his Epistles. Then again he pays a compliment by addressing him (i.e. Nymphas) individually. And this he doth not without a reason, but in order to lead the others also to emulate his (i.e. Nymphas) zeal. For it is not a small thing not to be numbered with the rest. Mark further how he shows the man (i.e. Nymphas) to be great, seeing his house was a church. (Chrysostom, Homily on Col.)" It is clear from Chrysostom's remarks that he fully believed Nymphas to be a man. ...
... Lastly, I wish to point out that the famed Sinaiticus reads, "autwn" along with codices A, C, P and a few cursive copies. "Autwn" (or 'their') is neuter and may be used with either the masculine form of Nymphas or the feminine form. In fact, 'autwn' (their) was a scribal blunder that has nothing to do with Nymphas at all. The reason this variant exists is because very early a scribe supposed he had found an error in the sacred text. Supposing that the pronoun "his" was referring back to the brethren in Laodicea this scribe took it upon himself to 'correct' the text not realizing that he was the one in error. Therefore, he altered "autou" (his) to read "autwn" (their), which makes little sense when read in context. "Their house" would imply that the 'brethren' in Laodicea all lived in one house. This we know is simply not true. It is very obvious that the pronoun in this sentence is referring back to Nymphas.
Both the internal and external evidence points to the fact that Nymphas was a man and not a woman ..." - https://avdefense.webs.com/nymphas.html
-
1
- Show all
S
\
Female Deacons, Male Deacons, they are both servants.
And on that note the pastors are not supposed to Lord it over people but be servants.
Maybe part of the problem is this perverted idea of leaders in church Lording it over people. Women are not supposed to do that. But neither are men.
Female Deacons, Male Deacons, they are both servants.
And on that note the pastors are not supposed to Lord it over people but be servants.
Maybe part of the problem is this perverted idea of leaders in church Lording it over people. Women are not supposed to do that. But neither are men.
-
2
- Show all
S
We all think.
I appreciate this information that you have presented. It is useful information.
I understand that you may think it is conclusive but there is still more to read from those Greek Scholars that translate it as her and a female and I will also read their side of the argument.
I may not fully decide what I THINK until I have taken three years of Greek myself. For now I am leaning toward "her" based on more modern scholarship.
I appreciate this information that you have presented. It is useful information.
I understand that you may think it is conclusive but there is still more to read from those Greek Scholars that translate it as her and a female and I will also read their side of the argument.
I may not fully decide what I THINK until I have taken three years of Greek myself. For now I am leaning toward "her" based on more modern scholarship.
S
It is not immoral to be single. It is not immoral to not have kids.
A single childless pastor is as blameless as a married man with one wife.
A single childless pastor is as blameless as a married pastor with controlled kids.
Telling someone they can't be married and be a pastor is wrong. Telling someone that they MUST be married to be a pastor is also wrong.
Common sense agrees with Paul that a single man who has the gift of celibacy will be able to spend more time in the Word of God and Prayer and study than a man with a wife and kids. Especially in this day where much more time is required from men than in ancient times when Paul said what he said.
A single pastor will not require as much financially also making it easier to plant churches where none exist. It is nothing to a man to sleep in a tent or small shed while planting a church in a jungle. Not something doable with a family in tow.
We know that there are spiritual benefits to being single and content.
But if he burns let him marry, it would be better that he be married as a pastor if he does not have the gift of celibacy.
Marriage is an earthly relationship. We are not married in heaven. Our chief goal in life is to spread the Gospel, not everyone thinks that marriage and kids is the chief goal in life. A single pastor devoted to ministry is at least AS blameless as a married man with one wife.
A lot of people don't seem to get Christ's model of leadership through serving. How many "shepherds" today would endure what Jesus had to endure? But this is what it takes.
A shepherd is the person who feeds the sheep. People will naturally flock to people who are given spiritual insight and take care of their spiritual needs, pray for them, encourage them, etc. God Himself establishes the offices naturally. You can know whom God appointed to counsel by people flocking to them to ask for advice. What is the today church's need for all these names and titles? And I think this is what is going amiss, people like to organize these things themselves, as opposed to God sorting them out naturally as only He knows.
And this has been going wrong for many centuries. In early church they all spoke as it was their turn, as God moved them. The offices were appointed according to the works servants of God did, in the time when going out and teaching about Christ meant being imprisoned and beaten and worse. It's easy to call oneself a "teacher" today. And at the same time, in spite of servants fulfilling different missions back then, I don't see in the Bible, this almost a caste system among the believers that exists today, this laymen vs clergy division with various "offices" that give some believers more and some less importance. Manufacturing some spiritual capability difference between men and women is just one little cog in this system. Yea, people will say "blabla but of course we are all just servants" but they don't really mean it, just observe special robes that only the clergy can wear, just to note one example. There's a lot of such self importance in things like these that sits there covertly. And so called Protestants readily inherited this layman vs clergy system from the Catholics and NEVER corrected it back to how it was in the early apostolic church...
A shepherd is the person who feeds the sheep. People will naturally flock to people who are given spiritual insight and take care of their spiritual needs, pray for them, encourage them, etc. God Himself establishes the offices naturally. You can know whom God appointed to counsel by people flocking to them to ask for advice. What is the today church's need for all these names and titles? And I think this is what is going amiss, people like to organize these things themselves, as opposed to God sorting them out naturally as only He knows.
And this has been going wrong for many centuries. In early church they all spoke as it was their turn, as God moved them. The offices were appointed according to the works servants of God did, in the time when going out and teaching about Christ meant being imprisoned and beaten and worse. It's easy to call oneself a "teacher" today. And at the same time, in spite of servants fulfilling different missions back then, I don't see in the Bible, this almost a caste system among the believers that exists today, this laymen vs clergy division with various "offices" that give some believers more and some less importance. Manufacturing some spiritual capability difference between men and women is just one little cog in this system. Yea, people will say "blabla but of course we are all just servants" but they don't really mean it, just observe special robes that only the clergy can wear, just to note one example. There's a lot of such self importance in things like these that sits there covertly. And so called Protestants readily inherited this layman vs clergy system from the Catholics and NEVER corrected it back to how it was in the early apostolic church...
-
1
- Show all
Verse 3 clearly refers to a married couple, because any man does not have authority over every woman. THE head of THE woman is THE man. Further, because the verse is not God-Christ-Man-Woman, it is quite possible that God did not have lines of authority in mind.
You should have kept reading; verse 14 says, "For her hair is given her as a covering".
Finally, there is some relevant research that would make Paul's comments about head covering completely irrelevant today. Let's just say that first-century medical understanding was definitely not 21st century medical understanding. I won't bore you with data that don't align with your preconceived ideas though.
You should have kept reading; verse 14 says, "For her hair is given her as a covering".
Finally, there is some relevant research that would make Paul's comments about head covering completely irrelevant today. Let's just say that first-century medical understanding was definitely not 21st century medical understanding. I won't bore you with data that don't align with your preconceived ideas though.
Good Greek students know that the word here for "covering" is not the same Greek word used in verses 4-7, for instance. The Greek word for "cover" used in verse 15, is only found here in this letter. The sense is, that the long hair is likened to a natural covering of the woman's head. It is her glory but because it is her glory it should be covered by a veil. The Greek words used in verses 4-7, mean something that is put on to cover something else.
These Greek words can be found elsewhere in Scripture and help us to understand how the word "cover" should be understood,
Mark 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands
Luke 23:30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
1Pet 4:8 above all things being fervent in your love among yourselves; for love covereth a multitude of sins:
In each case, it is obvious that this is something being put on or over the subject.
Additionally, it would make no sense, in Paul's argument, to say what he said in verses 4-7, then simply erase the argument in verse 15. The veil for the woman demonstrates her willingness to be in subjection to her husband, if married and in subjection to Jesus Christ, if single. A firm and committed action to veil her personal glory during the assembly meeting. This is proper and right in the sight of God. I would say, no one would except as proper, if a man sat in the assembly meeting with a baseball cap on.
S
I will concede that even if I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Nympha was a woman I cannot prove that she was a pastor based on this verse alone;
15Give my greetings to the brothersc at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
It is very possible that Nympha was a wealthy woman who had a large house and maybe even a courtyard which was common for the houses of the middle class and above in those days. It is possible that she welcomed the church to meet in her house and Paul is simply acknowledging her for her hospitality.
This could be the same if it was a male. We can't say that if it was a male he was the pastor but if it was a female she must have just been loaning the use of her house. That is a bias we bring to the possible interpretations.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Paul pointed out a woman who specifically taught a man the Bible as a Teacher would a student, correcting their understanding and leading them into an understanding of Jesus more perfectly? Then everyone would know that it is fine for women to teach men the bible and they would realize they must have misunderstood authorial intent of 1 Tim 2:12 and that it is not talking about teaching men the bible. I have a feeling that even if we found such a verse an elaborate explanation would be invented using quotes from early church writers (some who's own salvation is suspect) that would explain why that verse does not mean what it says.
24Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit,d he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
Priscilla here, as in other passages where she is mentioned is mentioned first and most scholars I have read believe this is intentional as Priscilla was the one called and operating in the ministry gifts and recognized by the apostles as taking the lead in teaching.
Give my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus.
The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord.
We can know that Pricilla and Aquila were both ministers of Jesus Christ and that Pricilla is named and included as such. We can know that she took Apollos aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. That is called TEACHING. And "in church" would have been in their house, so your not getting out of it that easy if you say she didn't do it in church. LOL
These scriptures and others like them help us to see that women were active in ministry that included teaching men.
15Give my greetings to the brothersc at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
It is very possible that Nympha was a wealthy woman who had a large house and maybe even a courtyard which was common for the houses of the middle class and above in those days. It is possible that she welcomed the church to meet in her house and Paul is simply acknowledging her for her hospitality.
This could be the same if it was a male. We can't say that if it was a male he was the pastor but if it was a female she must have just been loaning the use of her house. That is a bias we bring to the possible interpretations.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Paul pointed out a woman who specifically taught a man the Bible as a Teacher would a student, correcting their understanding and leading them into an understanding of Jesus more perfectly? Then everyone would know that it is fine for women to teach men the bible and they would realize they must have misunderstood authorial intent of 1 Tim 2:12 and that it is not talking about teaching men the bible. I have a feeling that even if we found such a verse an elaborate explanation would be invented using quotes from early church writers (some who's own salvation is suspect) that would explain why that verse does not mean what it says.
24Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit,d he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
Priscilla here, as in other passages where she is mentioned is mentioned first and most scholars I have read believe this is intentional as Priscilla was the one called and operating in the ministry gifts and recognized by the apostles as taking the lead in teaching.
Give my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus.
The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord.
We can know that Pricilla and Aquila were both ministers of Jesus Christ and that Pricilla is named and included as such. We can know that she took Apollos aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. That is called TEACHING. And "in church" would have been in their house, so your not getting out of it that easy if you say she didn't do it in church. LOL
These scriptures and others like them help us to see that women were active in ministry that included teaching men.
S
They all wear their hats in church today. It's a new thing. It is not considered disrespectful. No one will try to take your hat off when you come in the doors today. That is old school. They don't tuck their shirts in anymore either. It helps cover fat so it is not such a bad idea. Sometimes they leave their shoe laces undone. The most shocking... not shaving for 3 days and preaching. It is the "I just hitchhiked to church and I have been wearing these same jeans for 5 days" look. (These are the preachers I am talking about) And that incessant blue jean jacket even in the summer. Church has changed bro.
-
1
- Show all
Please don't play in the Greek if you are not an experienced Greek student. A little Greek knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
You pointed out that the Greek word τις was under discussion. But how is it used here? Does it help your case? NO.
τις in this case, is a pronominal adjective - used in the nominative case. It is singular in number and masculine in gender. This does not help your case.
You pointed out that the Greek word τις was under discussion. But how is it used here? Does it help your case? NO.
τις in this case, is a pronominal adjective - used in the nominative case. It is singular in number and masculine in gender. This does not help your case.