Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[Scribe]

Part two of post

I still think it is a problem with interpretation. Most Christians agree with the biblical teachings on the wife being in submission to the husband as to authority. So culturally we are still on board with that even if modern Feminism hates such phrases.

And this was what Paul was talking about in 1 Tim 2:12. Wife submitting to husband.

Anyone can see that when reading 1 Per 3:3 3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

And 2 Tim 2:11-12 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

And then compare the fuller context of 1 Peter 3: 1-7 with 2 Tim 2:9-14 It is very obvious that it is talking about the wife being in subjection to the husband and I don't think anyone is arguing against that based on modern culture vs ancient Jewish culture or Ancient Near East Culture.

Therefore the problem is that bad interpretations throughout church history used this verse to say that Paul said a woman can't teach in the pulpit to men as this would be usurping authority over them. This is a bad interpretation. It is not usurping authority over anyone to teach the Bible.

Leaving 1 Tim 2:12 aside for a moment and we have heard 1 Tim 3 used to say that a pastor must be married. I don't think that is the the majority interpretation throughout church history. I suppose someone will correct me if I am wrong but I think that the majority interpretation is that "IF" he is married then only to one wife. This interpretation goes back as far as any other in church history writings. To say that it is an excuse used to explain modern culture does not work as it appears as far back as one searches in writings on these verses.

So it is a matter of interpretation not culture. We are not trying to teach that a wife should not be in subjection to her own husband.

It is true that culturally women have been oppressed in ancient times, in the Near East and in Israel by those who were hard hearted and carnal but not because of anything that the Bible teaches. There is nothing in the bible that oppressed women. Men did that on their own. We don't need to reinterpret the scripture to fit our culture.
Howbeit we don't send slaves back to their owners so we do understand that what Paul said then is not to be literally done today but the spiritual truth of paying a brothers debt and encouraging a debtor to give him is freedom might apply in some way you find yourself in. Y

ou would not use "husband of one wife" as a ban on women elders simply because Paul was assuming it would be a man/husband because of the culture. This is quite different than saying that culture mandates interpretation change. His advice still stands as it relates to blamelessness and not practicing polygamy. I don't think he was trying to make a point of gender but rather of blamelessness and assuming it would be a man that would be appointed by Timothy not specifically was he saying "don't appoint a woman" it was not necessary to say it because it was probably too uncommon to mention.

The only people who believe that Paul said that a pastor has to be married are those who have been taught that is what he meant in 1 tim and titus. Someone who reads it alone without outside influence would think he meant "If" he is married, then only ONE wife. Because Paul had already been very verbose about the value of being like himself single. It is not possible that Paul would tell someone it is better to remain single if you can do so for undistracted devotion to the affairs of the Lord and not apply that same logic to a pastor. IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Major]

Did you also read what he said ...One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;?

Will you be consistent with your method of interpretation and insist that he MUST have children also?

Or will you also dodge that question because it ruins your logic about "Must be married?"

"ONE" in the Greek original is the "antecedent" of the word MAN in verse #1 or do you just want to throw that away as well????

Antecedent means that the "ONE" points to the subject of the verse which is "MAN". "IF A MAN desires the office of a bishop........".

Personally I really do not care and you can believe anything you choose to believe.

 

[Major]

You are correct. It clearly says "the husband of one wife," It does not say he must be married. The first time I read it I understood it. He cannot have more than one wife if he is married. I get it. Being a polygamist would bot be being blameless.

What is strange to me is why someone would think it means he MUST be married. That is not what it says so it is IMPOSSIBLE to read those words. IMPOSSIBLE. Just read it.

And of course I know from what Paul said in 1 Cor 7 that he would not contradict him self and say that any Christian MUST be married leader or otherwise.

How sad it is to see such effort made to prove a false dichotomy.

You are really digging the hole you are in deeper and deeper. If YOU really believe that Paul did NOT mean that a MAN should be married to one wife which makes him the husband of one wife without being married then so be it!!!

I can hardly believe anyone would think up such a strange idea just to prove that the Word of God does not mean what it says.

A Pastor, according to the literal words written in 1 Timothy must be a MAN, married to ONE Woman.

You see......the harder a man works to make nonsense out of common sense, he created NO sense at all!

 

[Major]

Sorry, that is not going to convince anyone.

Convinced me!

 

[Reformed1689]

I still think it is a problem with interpretation. Most Christians agree with the biblical teachings on the wife being in submission to the husband as to authority. So culturally we are still on board with that even if modern Feminism hates such phrases.

And this was what Paul was talking about in 1 Tim 2:12. Wife submitting to husband.

Anyone can see that when reading 1 Per 3:3 3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

And 2 Tim 2:11-12 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

And then compare the fuller context of 1 Peter 3: 1-7 with 2 Tim 2:9-14 It is very obvious that it is talking about the wife being in subjection to the husband and I don't think anyone is arguing against that based on modern culture vs ancient Jewish culture or Ancient Near East Culture.

Therefore the problem is that bad interpretations throughout church history used this verse to say that Paul said a woman can't teach in the pulpit to men as this would be usurping authority over them. This is a bad interpretation. It is not usurping authority over anyone to teach the Bible.

Leaving 1 Tim 2:12 aside for a moment and we have heard 1 Tim 3 used to say that a pastor must be married. I don't think that is the the majority interpretation throughout church history. I suppose someone will correct me if I am wrong but I think that the majority interpretation is that "IF" he is married then only to one wife. This interpretation goes back as far as any other in church history writings. To say that it is an excuse used to explain modern culture does not work as it appears as far back as one searches in writings on these verses.

So it is a matter of interpretation not culture. We are not trying to teach that a wife should not be in subjection to her own husband.

It is true that culturally women have been oppressed in ancient times, in the Near East and in Israel by those who were hard hearted and carnal but not because of anything that the Bible teaches. There is nothing in the bible that oppressed women. Men did that on their own. We don't need to reinterpret the scripture to fit our culture.
Howbeit we don't send slaves back to their owners so we do understand that what Paul said then is not to be literally done today but the spiritual truth of paying a brothers debt and encouraging a debtor to give him is freedom might apply in some way you find yourself in. Y

ou would not use "husband of one wife" as a ban on women elders simply because Paul was assuming it would be a man/husband because of the culture. This is quite different than saying that culture mandates interpretation change. His advice still stands as it relates to blamelessness and not practicing polygamy. I don't think he was trying to make a point of gender but rather of blamelessness and assuming it would be a man that would be appointed by Timothy not specifically was he saying "don't appoint a woman" it was not necessary to say it because it was probably too uncommon to mention.

The only people who believe that Paul said that a pastor has to be married are those who have been taught that is what he meant in 1 tim and titus. Someone who reads it alone without outside influence would think he meant "If" he is married, then only ONE wife. Because Paul had already been very verbose about the value of being like himself single. It is not possible that Paul would tell someone it is better to remain single if you can do so for undistracted devotion to the affairs of the Lord and not apply that same logic to a pastor. IMPOSSIBLE.

You've really misunderstood what I said my posts.


No where did I say that an elder must be married as you say.

Yes, I understand Christians have different interpretations. The reality is when there are two mutually exclusive claims they can't both be right. One or both must be wrong, there is no room for both to be right logically.

You say in your second to last paragraph that Paul uses "husband of one wife" to preach against polygamy. Your post also indicates the fact you didn't read what I said on that objection. You yourself even admit my point, which is that the nature of the language and Paul himself assumes it is a male in leadership.

No, Paul does not use the words "don't appoint a woman." The bible also does not use the word "Trinity" but that does not mean the doctrine the term represents isn't there. The language itself by virtue of the definition of the terms excludes the possibility of female leadership because as you yourself admit it assumes male leadership. So why is this so difficult?

Please answer these questions separately: Why would Timothy appoint a man? Why would Paul assume it was a man?


You say then that it's a result of interpretation and not culture. Yet, in the very paragraph above you try to say that the scripture is a cultural issue and that Paul is only assuming it was a male to be appointed based on non-mandated cultural norms? You also again indicate here you don't understand what I was saying.

Let me spell out the interpretation vs culture issue I was trying to point out:

1) The holy spirit does not lead us to error.​

2) You and I believe mutually exclusive things.​

3) We cannot both be right.​

4) One or both of us must be wrong.​

5) One or both of us came to conclusions without the aid of the holy spirit, but rather by our own preferences, traditions, or cultural beliefs.​

Can you please demonstrate you understand what is said in the 5 items listed above? I would greatly appreciate it. I don't want to be misrepresented. If it is a failure to present it on my part I would gladly fix that.

No where have I contended that a leader in the church or in Israel is/was required to be married or unmarried. I have not made any assertions to that point here today. I also think just to be fair, that although I agree with your conclusion about "if married" I don't think that you're conclusion has been presented with any evidence that creates a requirement for that conclusion. It is a topic that is a bit to the side of the main focus of this thread though, so fair enough.



Let me ask you this about 1 Timothy 3.

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.



Please answer these separately:


1) What does verse 4 say must be managed well?

2) What are the components of a household?

3) Who manages a household?

4) What does verse 5 say must be managed well?

5) What are the components of a household?

6) Who is commanded to manage households well?


Thank you kindly sir!

 

[notuptome]

It's ok, married people are afraid to agree with Paul on this one, they are afraid they will get in trouble from you know who?

It is a carnal mind that rejects Paul's reasoning concerning not marrying and not having sex (not touching a woman) (if they have the gift) because of the benefit of the undistracted devotion to the affairs of the Lord.

Finding a way to make Paul mean that this was for a carnal Corinthian and not for anyone seeking to live a life undistracted for devotion to the affairs of the Lord is in effect a carnal attempt to reject Paul's advice. I agree.

You miss so much with your strained attempts to sound pious.

God joined Adam and Eve so it is Gods intention that men and women marry and procreate.

So much could be said but a hardened heart will not receive it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Scribe]

Please answer these separately:


1) What does verse 4 say must be managed well?

2) What are the components of a household?

3) Who manages a household?

4) What does verse 5 say must be managed well?

5) What are the components of a household?

6) Who is commanded to manage households well?


Thank you kindly sir!

I don't think we are understanding each other. Paul is not trying to explain household management. He is giving examples of blamelessness. "If" he has children they should be in subjection. But does he have to have children? No, does he have to be married? No. I don't think we need to go into all the ways a man is to manage his children well for that is not the point. The point is that if he has unruly children he should not be appointed and elder. If he is married to more than one wife he should not be appointed an elder of bishop for his is not blameless if he is married to more than one woman at the same time. He can be blameless if he is single without children. That was not the point. It it too easy to mess up. But people do. "sigh"

 

[Scribe]

"ONE" in the Greek original is the "antecedent" of the word MAN in verse #1 or do you just want to throw that away as well????

Antecedent means that the "ONE" points to the subject of the verse which is "MAN". "IF A MAN desires the office of a bishop........".

Personally I really do not care and you can believe anything you choose to believe.

I don't think you get my point. The question is "does the Man who desires the office of a bishop have to have children?" Not sure how you did not understand me.

 

[Scribe]

How sad it is to see such effort made to prove a false dichotomy.

You are really digging the hole you are in deeper and deeper. If YOU really believe that Paul did NOT mean that a MAN should be married to one wife which makes him the husband of one wife without being married then so be it!!!

I can hardly believe anyone would think up such a strange idea just to prove that the Word of God does not mean what it says.

A Pastor, according to the literal words written in 1 Timothy must be a MAN, married to ONE Woman.

You see......the harder a man works to make nonsense out of common sense, he created NO sense at all!

You dodged the question again. We already know that you believe that a pastor must be married...
The question is do you believe a pastor must have children?

 

[Reformed1689]

Scribe, I think you are confusing Major and I. Major and I are arguing slightly different points. I think this is the case after having looked at the contents of his posts. I'm not sure that

I don't think we are understanding each other. Paul is not trying to explain household management.

I did not say the focus was household management. He appeals to household management as one of the indicators of a qualified leader.

Can a man who fails to manage his household be an elder in the church?

He is giving examples of blamelessness.

Yes. One of those examples, is that the potential leader has managed their household well. Is it not?

"If" he has children they should be in subjection. But does he have to have children? No, does he have to be married? No.

Dude. For real. Stop focusing on things I haven't said. Did I say he was required to have children? No. Why is it that you absolutely insist on not reading what I write and purposely misrepresenting what I have explicitly stated?

I don't think we need to go into all the ways a man is to manage his children well for that is not the point. The point is that if he has unruly children he should not be appointed and elder.

Again, stop going after things I'm not saying. Your second sentence in this quote is exactly what I was trying to get you to look at. The potential elder is disqualified if he has unruly children.

Who is it that has the God-given duty to manage a household?

If he is married to more than one wife he should not be appointed an elder of bishop for his is not blameless if he is married to more than one woman at the same time. He can be blameless if he is single without children. That was not the point. It it too easy to mess up. But people do. "sigh"

Dude. Seriously quit this. Show me a quote of what I have said where I said he must be married with children. I did not. Cut it out. It's dishonest.


The scriptures use the management of a household as an example of someone who is qualified because they have managed the things God has given them to manage well. The point I'm trying to get through your unwilling skull is that the household management is a duty given primarily to the man. Can you at least see that much? You've half admitted it when talking about submission in the home. If the woman submits to the husband in the home, that means he is the manager. If the husband is the manager of the home... who then by default is Paul talking about when he talks about a well managed home.


Which gender has the primary responsibility to ensure that the home is managed well?

 

[Reformed1689]

You dodged the question again. We already know that you believe that a pastor must be married...
The question is do you believe a pastor must have children?

You're confusing who you're talking to...


Scribe, what is my username on this form?

 

[Scribe]

Scribe, I think you are confusing Major and I. Major and I are arguing slightly different points. I think this is the case after having looked at the contents of his posts. I'm not sure that

I did not say the focus was household management. He appeals to household management as one of the indicators of a qualified leader.



Which gender has the primary responsibility to ensure that the home is managed well?

I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that a woman should not be in subjection to her husband or that a man is not the authority of the household. The question is whether a woman can be a pastor according to the bible. Then people have tried to explain why a woman cannot be a pastor.

If your premise is that a woman cannot be a pastor because she is not the authority in the home I don't see the connection. Not from the scriptures. I imagines someone will try and make the connection but the question "Is a woman pastor biblical" I have yet to see a scripture that says she cannot.

Now understand that in my own denomination, the Assemblies of God, women are ordained but few desire the office of a pastor simply because CULTURALLY religious society is not warm to the idea. Chiefly because they have heard all their lives that woman are not allowed to pastor. They have been taught that it would be usurping authority over a man and therefore it is not allowed.

I do not think that is what the scriptures they use are saying but I understand that they think they are. We must all walk in the understanding of scripture we have with the sincere and genuine effort to follow God and to please him in all things. I will not be pressured to adapt a hermeneutic that I don't see in the scriptures because a denomination says I must do so.

If I think it is an erroneous interpretation I will reject it because pleasing God and walking in the truth of the scripture properly interpreted take precedence over denominations or men who make mistakes in interpretations.

We all claim to be seeking the truth. Well some of us claim this and some could care less what the real interpretation is and will not lift a finger to find out. "Grand pa did it this way and grand pa before him and we aren't changing even if we are wrong" is the attitude of some hearts but I can't tell which is which on an internet chat site.

So despite all of the reasons presented from people who use 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34, and 1 Tim 3, Titus 1:6 I do not read Paul saying in these texts that a woman cannot be a pastor.

Therefore I fear God and will not judge a woman as not obeying the call on her life if she claims God called her to pastor a church and is doing so. It is really between the congregation and her.

Local assemblies should be autonomous. No one has the right to decide who the pastor should be but that congregation. If they want a woman to be a pastor because they believe she is gifted and called by God to do the job that is none of my business. I will not pass judgment. And I think on that day I will hear God tell me that was a wise thing to do. Others who pass judgment and condemn her are not going to like what He says to them about it. Better let God deal with the woman and keep your mouth shut about it.

 

[Reformed1689]

I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that a woman should not be in subjection to her husband or that a man is not the authority of the household. The question is whether a woman can be a pastor according to the bible. Then people have tried to explain why a woman cannot be a pastor.

If your premise is that a woman cannot be a pastor because she is not the authority in the home I don't see the connection. Not from the scriptures. I imagines someone will try and make the connection but the question "Is a woman pastor biblical" I have yet to see a scripture that says she cannot.

Now understand that in my own denomination, the Assemblies of God, women are ordained but few desire the office of a pastor simply because CULTURALLY religious society is not warm to the idea. Chiefly because they have heard all their lives that woman are not allowed to pastor. They have been taught that it would be usurping authority over a man and therefore it is not allowed.

I do not think that is what the scriptures they use are saying but I understand that they think they are. We must all walk in the understanding of scripture we have with the sincere and genuine effort to follow God and to please him in all things. I will not be pressured to adapt a hermeneutic that I don't see in the scriptures because a denomination says I must do so.

If I think it is an erroneous interpretation I will reject it because pleasing God and walking in the truth of the scripture properly interpreted take precedence over denominations or men who make mistakes in interpretations.

We all claim to be seeking the truth. Well some of us claim this and some could care less what the real interpretation is and will not lift a finger to find out. "Grand pa did it this way and grand pa before him and we aren't changing even if we are wrong" is the attitude of some hearts but I can't tell which is which on an internet chat site.

So despite all of the reasons presented from people who use 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34, and 1 Tim 3, Titus 1:6 I do not read Paul saying in these texts that a woman cannot be a pastor.

Therefore I fear God and will not judge a woman as not obeying the call on her life if she claims God called her to pastor a church and is doing so. It is really between the congregation and her.

Local assemblies should be autonomous. No one has the right to decide who the pastor should be but that congregation. If they want a woman to be a pastor because they believe she is gifted and called by God to do the job that is none of my business. I will not pass judgment. And I think on that day I will hear God tell me that was a wise thing to do. Others who pass judgment and condemn her are not going to like what He says to them about it. Better let God deal with the woman and keep your mouth shut about it.

Which gender has the primary responsibility to ensure that the home is managed well?

 

[Scribe]

Which gender has the primary responsibility to ensure that the home is managed well?

The husband.

 

[Dino246]

"ONE" in the Greek original is the "antecedent" of the word MAN in verse #1 or do you just want to throw that away as well????

Antecedent means that the "ONE" points to the subject of the verse which is "MAN". "IF A MAN desires the office of a bishop........".

Personally I really do not care and you can believe anything you choose to believe.

It's rather funny that you cite "the Greek original" and make an elementary error. Verse 1 in the Greek does not contain the word for "man" at all.

 

[Dino246]

Which gender has the primary responsibility to ensure that the home is managed well?

Why are you yelling?

 

[TheIndianGirl]

Which gender has the primary responsibility to ensure that the home is managed well?

What does it mean, that a home is managed well? Women generally cook, clean, do laundry, etc. Men do handyman/repair work, yardwork, vacuum, etc. In many cultures, men also do the bulk of driving which includes errands. I obviously believe either man or woman can do the other person's tasks if they choose.

 

[Tararose]

Which gender has the primary responsibility to ensure that the home is managed well?[/QUOTE]


She overseeth the ways of her household....

pro 31 v 27

 

[Nehemiah6]

I obviously believe either man or woman can do the other person's tasks if they choose.

Other than child-bearing. The more the Leftists push transgenderism and gender neutrality, the more Christians should stand on the Bible truth that men and women are similar in many way, yet have distinct roles in the home and in the church. Satan is making an all-out effort to corrupt the human race at this time, therefore the Bible should be the sole authority for Christians.

 

[Tararose]

It is sad how a topic like this has to swing wildly from wide left to wide right and never find a place of accepted and balanced theology.

There is room - we should humbly concede - To be found for both sides of this issue within scripture, unlike a topic such as homosexuality.

It cannot be denied that the male pastor only side have heavier weight on those side of the seesaw as it were, but still, without using any strange reinterpretation or twisting of scripture, it is undeniable that the Lord used women at many times and in many roles throughout scripture.

I once had a sensible, reformed man of God tell me it must have been that the Lord HAD NO CHOICE but to use Deborah as a judge and a prophet, as no man was willing...

Seriously? Try telling that to Jonah!

My friend thankfully was humble enough to confess that when scrutinised, his belief made zero sense - and was actually quite blasphemous - to believe the Lord

a) was in a corner and had to forgo His plan and will on many occasions.

b) tempted / told / made Deborah (and other women) to sin - by putting her in authority over lol Israel - including her own husband by default

We all know that of course women leadership isn’t the norm in scripture. But then - neither is it unthinkable or unholy for the Lord to place a woman in a position such as Deborah, or to have a female as a deacon such as Pheobe. He is the Lord after all, and He does not change.

Those who say these instances are the exceptions, surely do not mean these are exceptions to God acting in a sinless, perfect and righteous way?

Also we must confess we are not adverse to making a doctrine out of a principle of teaching we happen to agree wIth - even if it appears only once, or a very few times 9in the bible. ( for some, the part on head covering is a prime example.)

If you take it all literally, and use zero context or common sense, You find you have to Ignore, manipulate, insert/make up/add/assume or remove meaning from the text, to explain away enough of scripture to make the rest Fit your narrative.
For example ....
1.women must NEVER teach or speak In church.

2. except when they do - and then they better cover their heads.

3. It is better for women to remain single so they can serve and focus on the Lord and not be taken up with a husband or family.

4. Women will be saved through child bearing - it is better women stay at home and keep house, have children, and ask their husbands any questions when they get home.

5.Men are the providers and women must obey and serve them as Bed-buddies and sink-slaves.

6. Unless of course you find a woman whose value is more than rubies, who makes and sells goods and buys land without your opinion, and plants vineyards, manages and oversees the household and makes a profit.

7. Worm must be in subjection to men, because they are clueless and easily deceived.

8. Except for those liked pheobe.... give her whatever she asks of you... you support her and make sure you serve her well because she’s a deaconsss and is pretty useful to Paul.

9. Women must not be in authority over a man - EVER. They must never teach a man.

10.except when they are hanging out with their husband and taking guys aside and correcting them and teaching them what the scripture mean.

And so on!

I don’t have any issue with the scriptures that bring some to these opposing conclusions, and seeming contradictions, because they all are appropriate in their context and are useful and clear for us when applied or understood in those contexts.

But what I don’t understand is why we can disregard others understanding on this so flippantly, so disrespectfully and so dogmatically, while yet we don’t treat all scripture on the topic of equal value and importance - unless it’s agrees with our opinion.