Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[Scribe]

Greetings brothers,

In regards to the question: can a woman take the office of a bishop/overseer, the answer is no.

1 Timothy 3:2 answers this question.

1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV)​

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

A break-down of the Genders for each Greek word​

“A-τὸν (ton)-Definite article /Masculine/singular) bishop-ἐπίσκοπον (episkopon)-Noun /masculine/singular) then must be blameless-ἀνεπίληπτον (anepilepton)-adjective/masculine), the husband-ἄνδρα (andra)-Noun/masculine/singular) of one-μιᾶς (mias)-feminine) wife-γυναικὸς (gunaikos)-Noun/feminine/singular), vigilant-νηφάλιον (nephalion)-adjective/masculine), sober-σώφρονα (sophrona)-adjective/masculine), of good behaviour-κόσμιον (kosmion)-adjective/masculine), given to hospitality-φιλόξενον (philoxenon)-adjective/masculine), apt to teach-διδακτικόν (didaktikon)-adjective/masculine);”

Unlike Greek nouns, adjectives have variable gender. A single adjective may have masculine, feminine, and neuter forms. An adjective uses masculine endings if it modifies a masculine noun, feminine endings if it modifies a feminine noun, and neuter endings if it modifies a neuter noun. This rule can also be understood in other languages, such as, in Spanish. To change (A-τὸν (ton)-Definite article /Masculine/singular) into a Definite article /feminine/singular), the Greek would have to read: τὴν-(ten)-Definite article /feminine/singular) followed by the modification of the Noun to a feminine and also the adjectives. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:9

1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)​

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

“Neither was the man created for the-τὴν (ten)-Definite article /feminine/singular) woman-γυναῖκα (gunaika)-Noun /feminine/singular); but the woman for the man.”

And of course, the verse itself tells you that a Bishop must be a husband of one wife. It does not say "a spouse of one". nowhere in this verse is a neuter Gender.


Thank you. and God Bless.

His point was on being blameless. He was not saying that a bishop must be married or he would have disqualified himself.
Some think he did which should make them second guess their hermeneutic. His point was that if he was married to have only one wife.

There have been women in pastor roles throughout the history of the church. Many on the mission field. There are many of them today. The culture will continue to deprecate them but not God. He will continue to call, anoint and use them and He does not really care what those infected with the leaven of the Pharisees think about it. Let them wrangle Pauls words all they want, they have issues in their hearts that make them blind to authorial intent and this also is a judgment from God. They are driven to darkness.

Meanwhile God takes those that are despised (women ministers) and is turning the world upside down and He gets all the Glory.

 

[Scribe]

On this is suggest read the scriptures and conform yourself to the scriptures. Don't read into it or attempt to explain any of it away.
Who is your God, the God of the scriptures or the God that is your feelings?

I agree, as long as we are understanding what the Holy Spirit intended us to understand from the scripture and not following a wrong interpretation which does happen from time to time. How do we correct that? By examining the whole bible and noticing when an interpretation contradicts other scriptures. That is a good sign we have made a mistake. Then by reexamining the interpretation we are not trying to explain anything away but rather capture authorial intent from a sincere heart to know God's will.

I think this is one area where both sides think they have the scripture to support them but on closer examination something smells like a Pharisee teaching the scripture about the sabbath to Jesus when he healed on the Sabbath. They had the scripture to support them but did not understand the Spirits intention on it. They could argue all day long that it was Gods word and we should just obey it and not question it but they were wrong the whole time. They did not understand authorial intent.

That is what I see going on with the effort to exclude women from ministry. They think they have Paul's words understood correctly but they seem to be making God out to be something that is not very appealing. That He would legalistically ban women from pastoring because they were female and Eve messed up and they can't be as good as men at teaching. Hunh? Really? That is what you think Paul said? Something stinks... smells like ... what is it? Ah. . .. leaven.. the leaven of the Pharisee.

So this.. "anyone who believes a woman can be a pastor is not obeying scripture" attitude sounds a lot like "anyone who heals on the sabbath can't be a prophet" to me. The very fact that God used Deborah to be a judge and a prophet, and Huldah to be the one that the King sent his cabinet to to get the Word of the Lord on the subject tells us that God would use a woman as a pastor if He so pleases.

When the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the sabbath for picking food from the field, he said have you not read about David eating the shewbread? Why do you allow for that to be an exception? By doing so you show that you know that there can be an exception.

If God wants to call a woman to be a pastor, anoint her with the Holy Spirit and gifting to do so and to preach and teach the bible, who are you to say "she can't because she is a woman." God will do as he pleases and is not bound to your misconceptions of what Paul wrote.

If you are completely surrendered to Christ with every fiber of your being and refuse to justify any sin in your life you will be filled with light and illumination and the Spirit will make all things known to you.

 

[Dino246]

On this is suggest read the scriptures and conform yourself to the scriptures. Don't read into it or attempt to explain any of it away.
Who is your God, the God of the scriptures or the God that is your feelings?

This is the same approach that says, "Judas went and hanged himself... God and do thou likewise... What you are about to do, do quickly."

There is some merit in reading the text at face value. There is much greater merit in learning the context and understanding the text within that context. One can do so and still conform oneself to the text, and avoid reading into it or explaining it away. After all, a text without a context is merely a pretext.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

This is the same approach that says, "Judas went and hanged himself... God and do thou likewise... What you are about to do, do quickly."

There is some merit in reading the text at face value. There is much greater merit in learning the context and understanding the text within that context. One can do so and still conform oneself to the text, and avoid reading into it or explaining it away. After all, a text without a context is merely a pretext.

Well first off I'm not talking about cherry picking scriptures.
And of course he read scripture in context which is the Crux of my point.
Problem is too many people get too liberal with their interpretations, they do it to satisfy their feelings about it. Which brings you back to, who is your god? Your own stomach or the God of the scriptures?

 

[Dino246]

In regards to the question: can a woman take the office of a bishop/overseer, the answer is no. 1 Timothy 3:2 answers this question.

1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV)​

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

A break-down of the Genders for each Greek word​

“A-τὸν (ton)-Definite article /Masculine/singular) bishop-ἐπίσκοπον (episkopon)-Noun /masculine/singular) then must be blameless-ἀνεπίληπτον (anepilepton)-adjective/masculine), the husband-ἄνδρα (andra)-Noun/masculine/singular) of one-μιᾶς (mias)-feminine) wife-γυναικὸς (gunaikos)-Noun/feminine/singular), vigilant-νηφάλιον (nephalion)-adjective/masculine), sober-σώφρονα (sophrona)-adjective/masculine), of good behaviour-κόσμιον (kosmion)-adjective/masculine), given to hospitality-φιλόξενον (philoxenon)-adjective/masculine), apt to teach-διδακτικόν (didaktikon)-adjective/masculine);”

My references have tis, not ton as the first pronoun. The same references have tis in 1 Timothy 5:16, where the English has "Any woman". What is the source for your Greek text?

And of course, the verse itself tells you that a Bishop must be a husband of one wife. It does not say "a spouse of one". nowhere in this verse is a neuter Gender.

I have addressed this issue in a previous post.

1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)
“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

“Neither was the man created for the-τὴν (ten)-Definite article /feminine/singular) woman-γυναῖκα (gunaika)-Noun /feminine/singular); but the woman for the man.”

This verse says nothing whatsoever about gender roles within the Church.

 

[Dino246]

Well first off I'm not talking about cherry picking scriptures.
And of course he read scripture in context which is the Crux of my point.
Problem is too many people get too liberal with their interpretations, they do it to satisfy their feelings about it. Which brings you back to, who is your god? Your own stomach or the God of the scriptures?

Do you think that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is "liberal", satisfying their feelings, or has their stomach as their god?

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Do you think that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is "liberal", satisfying their feelings, or has their stomach as their god?

Not always but generally, unless convinced that I am wrong, which happens sometimes. And I'm not sure where I stand on some issues yet. But I think that the very existence of this forum proves that we all do. Are you willing to be wrong in the event that you are indeed wrong.

 

[Dino246]

Not always but generally, unless convinced that I am wrong, which happens sometimes. And I'm not sure where I stand on some issues yet. But I think that the very existence of this forum proves that we all do.

I strongly disagree. I don't think you are liberal just because you differ with me. I don't think you are merely satisfying your feelings, or have your stomach as your god. Nor do I necessarily think you are a Pharisee, or a legalist, or a literalist, or any other demeaning pigeon-hole name I can muster.

Unless you prove otherwise by your interaction with me (or with others), I just think you're someone whose ideas have been shaped by different influences than mine have. I can foresee what your response to that will be; save it, and think about what I wrote first.

Are you willing to be wrong in the event that you are indeed wrong.

Awkwardly worded, but yes. I have done so several times since joining this forum.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I strongly disagree. I don't think you are liberal just because you differ with me. I don't think you are merely satisfying your feelings, or have your stomach as your god. Nor do I necessarily think you are a Pharisee, or a legalist, or a literalist, or any other demeaning pigeon-hole name I can muster.

Unless you prove otherwise by your interaction with me (or with others), I just think you're someone whose ideas have been shaped by different influences than mine have. I can foresee what your response to that will be; save it, and think about what I wrote first.


Awkwardly worded, but yes. I have done so several times since joining this forum.

Well ok, that's fine, I mean I agree that we don't have to be demeaning, nor do we have to be judgemental. I know my words seem extreme, and I don't mean them to be extreme, or judgemental. I mean I'm guilty myself of the same things, we are only human and aren't perfect by any means.

And yes, I do tend to word things awkwardly, often. Sorry it's one of my quirks.

 

[Angela53510]

I have heard that not even Calvin taught the things that those who claim to be Calvinists say.

I guess hyper Calvinist would have been a better word. Teachers coming after Calvin certainly extended his theologies to an absurd extreme. Certainly, true Reformers and Calvinists, who trust in God's sovereignty, do not decide who God has saved and who he has not saved. As Christians, we need to accept our brothers and sisters as fellow heirs in the Kingdom of God, and allow God to work in their hearts!

 

[CS1]

Apparently, you took great exception to me not taking the time to mention every woman that God has used over the past 6,000 years.

The individuals, who are responding to my posts, treat my comments as if I am some sort of woman hater. Throwing all sorts of Scripture at me about how God used this woman or that. I am well aware but I am also well aware, that those doing so, are trying to cloud the Truth in human reasoning. The reasoning goes like this:

Paul could not have meant for women to keep silent and not teach in the assembly because one must except the way God used women throughout history. They often prophesied and spoke aloud in various places. Therefore, women obviously have the right to teach and speak wherever they like. God used men in many great ways but all were not Apostles.

The problem with this reasoning is, that it does not bring one any closer to muting the literal words, given by Paul, in those two Epistles.

Further they refuse to answer the questions which are raised or should be raised:

1) If Paul did not mean for a woman to teach, then why did he say it?
2) If Paul said that a woman was to remain silent and it was shameful for her to speak, why did he say this?
3) Where was the woman not to teach and speak?
4) Why were all of Jesus' Disciples men?
5) Why were all of the Apostles men and not one single woman?
6) Why is there no mention of a woman Elder/Preacher?
--- (Please don't give some verse that does not mention this person holding this office. That would be subjective reasoning not proved by objective Truth). ---
7) Why did women call their husbands and ones with authority, "lord" in the Old Testament?
--- (Could you imagine a woman calling her husband "lord" in this day and age) ---

First off I did not call you a "women hater" that is something you say. 2. You did not answer my points or question but gave back more to me. I am not going to play that game with you.

 

[notuptome]

His point was on being blameless. He was not saying that a bishop must be married or he would have disqualified himself.
Some think he did which should make them second guess their hermeneutic. His point was that if he was married to have only one wife.

There have been women in pastor roles throughout the history of the church. Many on the mission field. There are many of them today. The culture will continue to deprecate them but not God. He will continue to call, anoint and use them and He does not really care what those infected with the leaven of the Pharisees think about it. Let them wrangle Pauls words all they want, they have issues in their hearts that make them blind to authorial intent and this also is a judgment from God. They are driven to darkness.

Meanwhile God takes those that are despised (women ministers) and is turning the world upside down and He gets all the Glory.

Paul was not a church pastor so his marital status is not a disqualifier.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Scribe]

Paul was not a church pastor so his marital status is not a disqualifier.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

He was not disqualified to be a pastor. If an elder would be disqualified for being single because it would be considered scandalous or not being "blameless" then Paul being single would not be blameless. Your not being reasonable in your hermeneutic and must create an illogical idea (just made up out of thin air) that an elder must be married but not an apostle. If there was something about being single that made the elder "not blameless" it would also be "not blameless" for other ministry "overseer" positions. Otherwise you are making up your own rules by trying to find some kind of "reason" why it would apply only to an elder, such as talking about the value of having object lessons about marriage life to speak to the congregation about, or the relationship of Christ and the church and marraige, which none of these things would NOT apply to an apostle being able to use the same object lessons in teaching, so it does not make sense. You're just making stuff up about why it applies to an elder and not an apostle.

 

[Scribe]

Further they refuse to answer the questions which are raised or should be raised:

1) If Paul did not mean for a woman to teach, then why did he say it?

We have answered, you don't have to agree with the interpretation but it is not correct to say that we have refused to answer.
The answer was that He could have meant That a wife should not teach her husband in such a way as would be domineering, or forcing her views over his. Like Correcting form of Teaching. A disrespect. Like what you see when a wife corrects her husband in public Teaching him how he is wrong about something and she is going to correct him, telling him how it really should be said. It is embarrassing and not the kind of submissive spirit that she should have out of respect toward her husband. You want to apply it to Teaching the Bible in the pulpit and I think he is talking about Teaching her husband like one of the kids in the family. If it does mean teaching the bible it would still be in the context of teaching her husband something that is false doctrine that was going on in the church from the false teachers that were getting women to agree with their error and these women might have been trying to teach it to their husbands. If the husband said that they are in error with this doctrine they should submit to the husband and quit teaching it.

2) If Paul said that a woman was to remain silent and it was shameful for her to speak, why did he say this?

Again the answer has been given several times. The context suggest that they were asking questions in the assembly in a disorderly manner. Two other times in 1 Cor 14 it says to be silent in the church. Tongues without an interpreter, prophesying when it is someone else's turn to prophesy, and women asking questions. The main point of the dialogue is doing things decently and in order.
You may not agree with the interpretation but you cannot say we refused to answer.

3) Where was the woman not to teach and speak?

Already answered in 2

4) Why were all of Jesus' Disciples men?

Did you forget about the many women constantly mentioned in the Gospels as being disciples? Maybe you meant "Apostles?"
or maybe the 70?

5) Why were all of the Apostles men and not one single woman?

It was God's plan.

6) Why is there no mention of a woman Elder/Preacher?
--- (Please don't give some verse that does not mention this person holding this office. That would be subjective reasoning not proved by objective Truth). ---

Pricilla Taught Apollos. There are plenty of women mentioned in the NT that were co workers with Paul and had churches in their homes and were points of contact between Paul and the church thus signifying a spokesperson role. It is not known what role some of the men mentioned played and yet assumptions are made about their influence among the local assemblies, why not assume the same about the women called coworkers, and hosting house churches? Your rejection of these verses as not strong enough is understandable but the same logic must be applied about the verses that are not specific about the men who are mentioned.

7) Why did women call their husbands and ones with authority, "lord" in the Old Testament?
--- (Could you imagine a woman calling her husband "lord" in this day and age) ---

Respect. And this is the truth that should be emphasized. A wife should respect her husband and submit to his authority.

And we are back to the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 again. The wife should not Teach/Correct/Domineer her husband and often that means not saying something when she is tempted to. Being quiet when she might want to tell him that he is wrong.

As you read through Proverbs you see that this contentious wife issue is a motif that is brought up often. It is addressed because it is common to all marriages. Paul taught about it to all the churches and Peter repeated it (1 Pet 3).

Now you may still insist that the subject is about a woman preaching or teaching the bible in the church when men are present and that is your right, there are many that you can fellowship with that will agree with you and y'all can happily exclude women from your pulpits until Jesus comes back again. However, you can't say that no one is answering your questions. You can only say that you don't agree with the answers.

However, those of us who do not think he was excluding women from pulpit ministry and who are blessed to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation in anointed women ministers of God will do so until Jesus comes again and rejoice with those women who hear "Well Done.." and receive eternal rewards for obeying the call of God and who are you to judge another man's servant?

 

[notuptome]

He was not disqualified to be a pastor. If an elder would be disqualified for being single because it would be considered scandalous or not being "blameless" then Paul being single would not be blameless. Your not being reasonable in your hermeneutic and must create an illogical idea (just made up out of thin air) that an elder must be married but not an apostle. If there was something about being single that made the elder "not blameless" it would also be "not blameless" for other ministry "overseer" positions. Otherwise you are making up your own rules by trying to find some kind of "reason" why it would apply only to an elder, such as talking about the value of having object lessons about marriage life to speak to the congregation about, or the relationship of Christ and the church and marraige, which none of these things would NOT apply to an apostle being able to use the same object lessons in teaching, so it does not make sense. You're just making stuff up about why it applies to an elder and not an apostle.

Your denominational entanglements prevent you from seeing the rather obvious pitfalls of a single man counseling married men or women. Single women in counseling presents many opportunities for scandalous appearances.

I realize that nothing will prevent you from pursuing this unbiblical path because you simply want to argue sound bible doctrine.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

Your denominational entanglements prevent you from seeing the rather obvious pitfalls of a single man counseling married men or women. Single women in counseling presents many opportunities for scandalous appearances.

I realize that nothing will prevent you from pursuing this unbiblical path because you simply want to argue sound bible doctrine.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

if that were true then Paul should not have provided godly counsel on marriage then huh?. You can't provide biblically anything to refute what was said so you result in insults.

 

[Scribe]

Your denominational entanglements prevent you from seeing the rather obvious pitfalls of a single man counseling married men or women. Single women in counseling presents many opportunities for scandalous appearances.

I realize that nothing will prevent you from pursuing this unbiblical path because you simply want to argue sound bible doctrine.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

It is much more likely that you are being entangled by your own denominations rules. You can enforce a rule on your pastors in your denomination but you cannot prove conclusively that Paul intended to force marriage upon elders, bishops and deacons. The statement is much more likely to mean that IF they are married they must not be married to more than one wife. And this is the most agreed upon hermeneutic in the history of Christian commentaries and theological academic discussions. You do realize that your view is a minority view among theologians don't you? Maybe you think it is majority view, which is possible if you are used to an isolated culture.

It Paul meant "If" he is married, and "If" he has children, then it is sound biblical doctrine to agree with him.

Therefore coming up with reasons why it is a good idea for pastors to be married is the reason for your rule not because Paul said so.

You are in danger of two errors. 1) doing the same thing the Catholics did when they tried to forbid marriage on their pastors, you would try and enforce marraige on pastors, when Paul made it very clear in 1 Cor 7 that it is a choice and not a command.
For all saints including those who desire the office of a bishop.

and 2) putting a burden on a pastor unnecessarily that God never intended to satisfy your denominational legalism and distract from his calling.
For some men a wife is a helper in the ministry, for some men who have no necessity they accomplish more in ministry without the distraction (1 cor 7). Not everyone has this gift but for those who do, it is not for us to judge them. Who are you to judge another man's servant, he must answer to God for his call, and if God called him to stay single and be a pastor he would do well to run the race with his eyes on Him who he will answer to and not be concerned about your denominational rules.

Scripture is my only rule of faith and practice, not denominational rules.

 

[notuptome]

It is much more likely that you are being entangled by your own denominations rules. You can enforce a rule on your pastors in your denomination but you cannot prove conclusively that Paul intended to force marriage upon elders, bishops and deacons. The statement is much more likely to mean that IF they are married they must not be married to more than one wife. And this is the most agreed upon hermeneutic in the history of Christian commentaries and theological academic discussions. You do realize that your view is a minority view among theologians don't you? Maybe you think it is majority view, which is possible if you are used to an isolated culture.

It Paul meant "If" he is married, and "If" he has children, then it is sound biblical doctrine to agree with him.

Therefore coming up with reasons why it is a good idea for pastors to be married is the reason for your rule not because Paul said so.

You are in danger of two errors. 1) doing the same thing the Catholics did when they tried to forbid marriage on their pastors, you would try and enforce marraige on pastors, when Paul made it very clear in 1 Cor 7 that it is a choice and not a command.
For all saints including those who desire the office of a bishop.

and 2) putting a burden on a pastor unnecessarily that God never intended to satisfy your denominational legalism and distract from his calling.
For some men a wife is a helper in the ministry, for some men who have no necessity they accomplish more in ministry without the distraction (1 cor 7). Not everyone has this gift but for those who do, it is not for us to judge them. Who are you to judge another man's servant, he must answer to God for his call, and if God called him to stay single and be a pastor he would do well to run the race with his eyes on Him who he will answer to and not be concerned about your denominational rules.

Scripture is my only rule of faith and practice, not denominational rules.

God chooses whom He desires to have as pastors of the local congregations. You err when you consider that I have denominational affiliations. The bible remains unchanged in the admonition that only married men are called to be pastors.

God does not force men to marry for any ministry. That is kind of a stupid concept. God is never without qualified men whom He can call to pastor churches. Only men feel as though they must rush to Gods aide and ordain men because God is not moving as they would like.

Time spent waiting for God is not time wasted.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Scribe]

God chooses whom He desires to have as pastors of the local congregations. You err when you consider that I have denominational affiliations. The bible remains unchanged in the admonition that only married men are called to be pastors.

God does not force men to marry for any ministry. That is kind of a stupid concept. God is never without qualified men whom He can call to pastor churches. Only men feel as though they must rush to Gods aide and ordain men because God is not moving as they would like.

Time spent waiting for God is not time wasted.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

God does not call the qualified, He qualifies those he calls.

 

[kohelet]

Course they are.