Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[Tararose]

James 3

17.But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

18Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.

2 Tim 2
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing ....

 

[peldom10]

The strongest argument I find is that God gives spiritual gifts, I believe God can give a woman the skills/gifts to be pastor. Keep in mind that women also pray to God about this issue before becoming a pastor, and wait for His answer. Another compelling reason I find is that the Bible says single unmarried men cannot be church leaders:

1 Timothy 3:2 “A bishop (elder) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach”; 1 Timothy 3:12 “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well”; and Titus 1:6-7 “. . . appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination...” These three passages suggest that an elder or deacon must be a married man.
However, if that's the case even Jesus and Paul would be unqualified to be pastor.

The authority issue is about the husband and wife relationship; the husband has authority over the wife. However, any random man does not automatically have authority over a woman. If the woman is married, I do think she needs the husband's approval before being pastor. My observation with the female pastors I see is that the husbands are proud of their wives.

Please show scripture...?

 

[Dino246]

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.

Do you think that somehow the Bible is not the sole authority for those who hold a different view than you on this topic?

 

[mustaphadrink]

You are not the only person who has done lots of study my friend.

However.....no amount of study changes or explains away what is litrerally said by God in 1 Timothy 3:1-3 .......
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; "

It says what it says and no amount of study or PHD or DR. or any other names can change what God said.

YOU either accept it as it is written.....or you STUDY the ways to make it say what YOU want it to say.

YES..........it is just that simple!

Par for the course that if anyone mentions learned study, degrees or learning from men who are approved the standard response seems to be "So what."

So I will tell you so what. Without such in depth study, learning and degrees we would be the most ignorant of people just throwing around personal opinion as though it was God given, which it is not.

Since I have hit the books written by people who know what they are talking about, my knowledge of things has skyrocketed. For arguments sake, when I was studying the New Testament Church and its leadership for a Ph.D. I read over 60 books on the subject written by people from varying perspectives. I did not read one single book on the basis they were right or wrong. I read them all to give me a wide understanding of what those who know what they talking about have to say.

I now know what the NTC is all about and having said that I am still adding more books on the subject to my library just in case I missed something.

So your rather immature comment that no amount of study changes or explains away what is literally said by God in 1 Timothy 3:1-3 is sanctimoneous rubbish. The books that I read confirmed what is said in Timothy and which I have been saying for a long time now and which confirms that a pastor did not run the church in the New Testament.

Unlkike you I do not rest my case on one verse of scripture. I check all of them and there are besides Timothy and Titus 23 veres that say the government was the province of Elders, Apostles and Prophets. Not ONE verse mentions pastors. If that is not convincing enough I don't know what is.

 

[Truth7t7]

You have never been able to present any scripture that says "a women are not to be pastors"
That is a conclusion that you have made.

Not a conclusion a (FACT), a married (Man) that ruleth his house well.

Will you now lose all credibility, in denial of God's clear words below, in favor of a (Denominational Teaching)

1 Timothy 3:1-5KJV
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Personally, I find it very difficult for anyone to read 1 Timothy 3:1-2.............
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"...........

to then argue that what is printed right in front of your eyes means something other that what it literally says.

Hermeneutics are not needed.
Context is not needed.
Exegesis is not needed.

The only thing needed is the ability to READ!

"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

That either mean ONE of TWO things.

1. God said it and I accept it as such.
2. God said it and I DO NOT ACCEPT it as such and I want it to mean what I want it to mean.

YES. It is just that simple my friend!

It is just that simple. Jesus came to save men only.

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Matt 11:27
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


MANKIND
Literally. What does the above word mean?
Does it exclude women?
Is it THAT simple?

All men are created equal.
Are only men created equal?

Your rules....
Hermeneutics are not needed.
Context is not needed.
Exegesis is not needed.

The only thing needed is the ability to READ!

 

[Scribe]

Not a conclusion a (FACT), a married (Man) that ruleth his house well.

Will you now lose all credibility, in denial of God's clear words below, in favor of a (Denominational Teaching)

1 Timothy 3:1-5KJV
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Remember, we can just read. It is not hard. This text cannot be dismissed and state that Paul commanded pastors to be married. He would be contradicting himself.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Because they have anger and rage when they concept of a woman pastoring a church is presented to them. They seeth with hatred at the idea of a female preaching under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. It's not about the authority issue. It's a about a woman preaching and teaching the bible as a theologian that irks them. They "wish" God would ban them. They find their reasoning in these verses that they use because they hate women preachers.

 

[notuptome]

Because they have anger and rage when they concept of a woman pastoring a church is presented to them. They seeth with hatred at the idea of a female preaching under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. It's not about the authority issue. It's a about a woman preaching and teaching the bible as a theologian that irks them. They "wish" God would ban them. They find their reasoning in these verses that they use because they hate women preachers.

That is a sanctimonious statement. Only when one does not understand biblical truth do they make such blanket statements that contradict the bible.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Major]

It is just that simple. Jesus came to save men only.

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Matt 11:27
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


MANKIND
Literally. What does the above word mean?
Does it exclude women?
Is it THAT simple?

All men are created equal.
Are only men created equal?

Your rules....
Hermeneutics are not needed.
Context is not needed.
Exegesis is not needed.

The only thing needed is the ability to READ!

That is a well thought out opinion Lucy. The only flaw in it is that the original Greek language of 1 Timothy 3:1-2 does not specify MAN as "MANKIND". The literal translation is.............“if anyone aspires to the office of overseer” .

First and foremost, in this context "anyone" does not mean "any person." Though this particular word is in a neuter (genderless) form, the following verses from verse #1 are "ANTECEDENT" and specify that only men could serve as elders as only MEN can be the "HUSBANDS of one wife. All of the following pronouns in this section are specifically male, with qualifications including the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2) and managing his own household (1 Timothy 3:4).

What you just did is called "Rationalization". You are working to make the Scriptures say what YOU want them to say.

I on the other hand simply read what is written and accept them as they are.

 

[Major]

Par for the course that if anyone mentions learned study, degrees or learning from men who are approved the standard response seems to be "So what."

So I will tell you so what. Without such in depth study, learning and degrees we would be the most ignorant of people just throwing around personal opinion as though it was God given, which it is not.

Since I have hit the books written by people who know what they are talking about, my knowledge of things has skyrocketed. For arguments sake, when I was studying the New Testament Church and its leadership for a Ph.D. I read over 60 books on the subject written by people from varying perspectives. I did not read one single book on the basis they were right or wrong. I read them all to give me a wide understanding of what those who know what they talking about have to say.

I now know what the NTC is all about and having said that I am still adding more books on the subject to my library just in case I missed something.

So your rather immature comment that no amount of study changes or explains away what is literally said by God in 1 Timothy 3:1-3 is sanctimoneous rubbish. The books that I read confirmed what is said in Timothy and which I have been saying for a long time now and which confirms that a pastor did not run the church in the New Testament.

Unlkike you I do not rest my case on one verse of scripture. I check all of them and there are besides Timothy and Titus 23 veres that say the government was the province of Elders, Apostles and Prophets. Not ONE verse mentions pastors. If that is not convincing enough I don't know what is.

And what you just did is exactly what I have studied and learned and what is the downfall of men........

Proverbs 16:18-19
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. 19Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud."

From your post we can all see that from your years of in-depth study you have mastered the ability of how to speak to others in a civil and Christian manner. GOOD JOB!

In addition, I do believe that ONE Verse is adequate to speak the truth of God's Word.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

 

[Major]

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?

I did not evade your question. I just did not think that you were serious in asking it as it is so simple.

A MAN must be married, and IF he has children then according to the Scripture is verse #4 of 1 Tim.3............
"He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, "

Titus 1:5–9:
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

Neither in 1 Tim. 3 or Titus is there a demand that a Pastor/Bishop "MUST" have children.

The teaching here from Paul os obviouse which is why I did not feel that it needed to be responded to. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) In some circles this is interpreted to mean that a pastor must be married and have more than one child, but most teachers and scholars I know interpret this to mean that, if a man is married or has children, then he must be a good husband and father.

At the time Paul wrote, it would have been rare for an adult man to be single or childless.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

That is a well thought out opinion Lucy. The only flaw in it is that the original Greek language of 1 Timothy 3:1-2 does not specify MAN as "MANKIND". The literal translation is.............“if anyone aspires to the office of overseer” .

First and foremost, in this context "anyone" does not mean "any person." Though this particular word is in a neuter (genderless) form, the following verses from verse #1 are "ANTECEDENT" and specify that only men could serve as elders as only MEN can be the "HUSBANDS of one wife. All of the following pronouns in this section are specifically male, with qualifications including the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2) and managing his own household (1 Timothy 3:4).

What you just did is called "Rationalization". You are working to make the Scriptures say what YOU want them to say.

I on the other hand simply read what is written and accept them as they are.

In the post I quoted, you were trying to define it as male by it's English use. Now you want to move the goal posts.
The Greek was discussed at length previously.

 

[Major]

In the post I quoted, you were trying to define it as male by it's English use. Now you want to move the goal posts.
The Greek was discussed at length previously.

That is not the case at all.

I said what it said because I posted from an ENGLISH translation sister. ALL ENGLISH translation are rooted in the original Greek from which Paul wrote it.

 

[Dino246]

(redacted)

 

[Dino246]

That is a sanctimonious statement. Only when one does not understand biblical truth do they make such blanket statements that contradict the bible.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You make such sanctimonious statements frequently. Your quotation of 1 Timothy 4:3 is at least as sanctimonious as anything Scribe posted.

You're a hypocrite, Roger. Get yourself sorted.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

That is not the case at all.

I said what it said because I posted from an ENGLISH translation sister. ALL ENGLISH translation are rooted in the original Greek from which Paul wrote it.

Let me remind you.

Hermeneutics are not needed.
Context is not needed.
Exegesis is not needed.

Make up your mind.

Whether Greek or English we will disagree.
Since I have no plans to become an ἐπισκοπή or διάκονος you have nothing to fear from me personally.

 

[Diakonos]

This is unmitigated sexism disguised as biblical interpretation. ONE woman was deceived, NOT all women. That Eve was deceived says nothing at all about any other woman. It says nothing at all about Eve's nature (nor about Adam's).

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:12–14)


.....Why did Paul give this as the reason he doesn't allow women to teach/exercise authority?

In the unfortunate case that you might not know what "for" means, here is the definition of "for":

(Please explain to me what this means in context)

 

[notuptome]

You make such sanctimonious statements frequently. Your quotation of 1 Timothy 4:3 is at least as sanctimonious as anything Scribe posted.

You're a hypocrite, Roger. Get yourself sorted.

You judge based on your personal opinion.

The problem with carnal believers is that they appear just like unbelievers. No evidence of Gods grace in their speech.

For the cause of Chris
Roger

 

[Scribe]

I did not evade your question. I just did not think that you were serious in asking it as it is so simple.

A MAN must be married, and IF he has children then according to the Scripture is verse #4 of 1 Tim.3............
"He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, "

Titus 1:5–9:
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

Neither in 1 Tim. 3 or Titus is there a demand that a Pastor/Bishop "MUST" have children.

The teaching here from Paul os obviouse which is why I did not feel that it needed to be responded to. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) In some circles this is interpreted to mean that a pastor must be married and have more than one child, but most teachers and scholars I know interpret this to mean that, if a man is married or has children, then he must be a good husband and father.

At the time Paul wrote, it would have been rare for an adult man to be single or childless.

And therefore if the meaning is "IF" he has children he must rule them well, it also should be interpreted "If" he is married then he must be Faithful to his ONE wife, having only One wife. Not that he MUST be married. You cannot allow for "IF" he has children but not allow for "IF" he is married which is definitely the intent and anyone can see that from taking into consideration that he means "If" he has children, and his other instructions on the benefits of being single like himself he MUST mean "If" he is married, then married to only one wife not more than one. There is not even any question about it for me. I get it. I think those that insist that he is saying that he MUST be married are twisting. Emphasizing the word "husband" as though that was Paul's point when it was about being blameless. That is like some kind of dishonest trickery to interpretation. And I think they know it.