Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[Diakonos]

If I agree that the cited passage in the Law says what it allegedly says, and your explanation of the negative rhetoric is rational, then yes.

No rush; I'm in no hurry.

To be fair, if you don't agree with my reference, then you should point out the reference you think it is. It's not right to say someone's using the wrong reference if the accuser doesn't know the right one. I.e., it doesn't make sense for you to judge my answer to a question if you don't know the answer, yourself. I will only respond Biblically, without speculations...if you only respond Biblically, without speculations.
Agreed?

I need you to actually reply to this with an affirmative before I continue.

 

[Dino246]

I need you to actually reply to this with an affirmative before I continue.

I did reply with a "Yes", though it is conditional.

I don't believe such a reference exists, because I have read through the OT many times and have never found a passage that says that women are to subject themselves (and be silent). The few who have claimed a certain verse consistently claim Genesis 3:16, which definitely does not say that at all.

 

[Diakonos]

I did reply with a "Yes", though it is conditional.

I don't believe such a reference exists, because I have read through the OT many times and have never found a passage that says that women are to subject themselves (and be silent). The few who have claimed a certain verse consistently claim Genesis 3:16, which definitely does not say that at all.

I have been busy with school, but I intend to return to this sometime soon. For now, I can say this:
When Jesus said "the one who accuses you is Moses" to the Jews (John 8), He didn't quote any specific passage to back up his statement. He may have had a specific passage in mind or He may have been referring to all the writings of Moses, collectively.

Paul may have not had a single passage in mind, but rather an overarching principle he understood from the Law (which could be a reference to the torah or the entire tanak). Also, he is obviously echoing the Law, not quoting it. As one who was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle doesn't have to clarify the Biblical source(s) he had in mind in order for us to accept it.

 

[Dino246]

I have been busy with school, but I intend to return to this sometime soon. For now, I can say this:
When Jesus said "the one who accuses you is Moses" to the Jews (John 8), He didn't quote any specific passage to back up his statement. He may have had a specific passage in mind or He may have been referring to all the writings of Moses, collectively.

Paul may have not had a single passage in mind, but rather an overarching principle he understood from the Law (which could be a reference to the torah or the entire tanak). Also, he is obviously echoing the Law, not quoting it. As one who was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle doesn't have to clarify the Biblical source(s) he had in mind in order for us to accept it.

Respectfully, I disagree. Because there is no specific passage that says or implies what verse 34 says, and because the general teaching of the Law does not require women to subject themselves or be silent, I don't accept that explanation. Jesus was not claiming a specific passage, but a general truth that can be validated from Scripture; verse 34 is making a specific claim that cannot be validated from Scripture.

 

[Diakonos]

From these 2 examples, Paul and Jesus were communicating in similar ways: General truths, not quotations. Perhaps you don't agree with Paul's statement because you presuppose a contrary view of men and women's roles. It is not I who you disagree with, but the apostle of the Lord.

 

[Dino246]

From these 2 examples, Paul and Jesus were communicating in similar ways: General truths, not quotations. Perhaps you don't agree with Paul's statement because you presuppose a contrary view of men and women's roles. It is not I who you disagree with, but the apostle of the Lord.

That's a lame and dismissive argument. You can do much better.

There's another principle at work: Jesus was speaking to those who were under the Law, whereas Paul consistently held that Christians are not under the Law. It is incomprehensible that Paul would invoke a non-specific (and, frankly, non-existent) principle of the Law and hold women to silence with it, when in other passages he affirms their ability to prophesy (1 Cor 11), teach (Priscilla), act as deacons (Phoebe) and possibly apostles (Junia) and, with the exception of Tryphena and Tryphosa and the unnamed woman in Ephesus, has universal praise for women in the Church.

Sorry, with respect to you, I'm not buying it.

 

[Diakonos]

That's a lame and dismissive argument. You can do much better.

There's another principle at work: Jesus was speaking to those who were under the Law, whereas Paul consistently held that Christians are not under the Law. It is incomprehensible that Paul would invoke a non-specific (and, frankly, non-existent) principle of the Law and hold women to silence with it, when in other passages he affirms their ability to prophesy (1 Cor 11), teach (Priscilla), act as deacons (Phoebe) and possibly apostles (Junia) and, with the exception of Tryphena and Tryphosa and the unnamed woman in Ephesus, has universal praise for women in the Church.

Sorry, with respect to you, I'm not buying it.

Consider this:
When certain skeptics acknowledge the accuracy of the events in Daniel 11:1-35, they say that "it's too accurate for Daniel to have known them ahead of time" (because they presuppose the nonexistence of divine prophecy). They conclude that Daniel (or a pseudo-Daniel) wrote down these events after they took place. My lame and dismissive argument to them is that Jesus said Daniel was a prophet, and that's good enough for me. We don't have to be aware of a confirming verse or understand everything God's Word says to accept it.

So do you accept Paul's statement?
“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)

 

[Dino246]

Consider this:
When certain skeptics acknowledge the accuracy of the events in Daniel 11:1-35, they say that "it's too accurate for Daniel to have known them ahead of time" (because they presuppose the nonexistence of divine prophecy). They conclude that Daniel (or a pseudo-Daniel) wrote down these events after they took place. My lame and dismissive argument to them is that Jesus said Daniel was a prophet, and that's good enough for me. We don't have to be aware of a confirming verse or understand everything God's Word says to accept it.

So do you accept Paul's statement?
“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Your "lame and dismissive argument" is "It is not I who you disagree with, but the apostle of the Lord."

If that's all you have to offer, I'm out. I'm here for respectful discussion, not stupid games.

 

[Angela53510]

My dear......you can disagree with me all you want to. I did not have any input on 1 Timothy where the CONTEXT of 1 Timothy 3:1-2 is .......a MAN!

"This 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;

The CONTEXT is that A MAN must be a one woman MAN!

Now you can read it in Greek, English, Russian, French, Hebrew......."A MAN" means .....A MAN. A MASCULINE human being!!!

Now I suggest that since you do not like what God said....you take it up with Him when you see him and please remember, I just read what He said and accept it......no more and no less.

If you had read the Greek, no where does the word MAN spear in that passage. So it does make a BIG difference which language you use!!

As far as being a one woman husband, that is addressed to husbands, reminding them not to be polygamists. Why did Paul not write that to the women? Because in those cultures women did not have multiple husbands, or polyandry.

"Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν," 1 Tim 3:1-2 Koine Greek SBL.

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα,
One woman man OR
One wife husband.

No words like ander or even anthropos which is usually gender less, although in the past, English men translating the Bible assumed it meant man, when it meant people.

 

[Diakonos]

Your "lame and dismissive argument" is "It is not I who you disagree with, but the apostle of the Lord."

If that's all you have to offer, I'm out. I'm here for respectful discussion, not stupid games.

Respectful discussion? I'm all for it; For starters, let's Biblically judge the content of our responses instead of calling them lame, dismissive, and stupid I have much more to offer. The example of Jesus confirming a detail about Daniel is just like Paul confirming a detail from the Law.

Some NT examples that give insight into the OT that we otherwise would (probably) not discover from the OT alone:

-The exact length of the drought in Elijah’s time was not mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Kgs. 18:1).
James tells us that it was exactly 3 years and 6 months (James 5:17).

-The names of the two men who opposed Moses and Aaron are not mentioned in the Old Testament (Exodus 7:11, 22).
Paul tells us their names were Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8).

-The existence of Jacob’s well is not mentioned in the Old Testament.
John tells us of it (John 4:6)

-The prophecy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene is not mentioned in the Old Testament.
Matthew tells us that this prophecy was fulfilled (Matt 3:23).

-Jeremiah's prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver and the potter's field is not mentioned in the Old Testament.
Matthew tells us that this prophecy was fulfilled (Matt 27:5).

The affirmation of women's subjection (1 Cor 14:34)
Paul tells us that the Law says women are to subject themselves (in recognition of an ordered structure = the assembled church- verses 23, 28, 33-35).

A single source of apostolic authority on a matter is sufficient for our acceptance. Your need to understand a confirming OT reference to accept something an Apostle says is unnecessary. Just believe God's Word as it is and "lean not on your own understanding" (Prov 3:5).

I rest my case

 

[Aidan1]

It is not my intention to cause an argument or division among the faithful with that question just discussion in a Christian and civil manner.

I have always simply posted the Word of God as it is written. I post this question in order to properly attempt to teach the Word of God....PEROID!

1 Timothy 3:1-2.........
"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".

According to the written Word of God, a Pastor can only be a "Male/Man".

Now, before anyone argues that point or disagree with me, remember that the "One" who said..."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" also was the "One" who said......
"if a "MAN" desire the office of a bishop".

The old Major did not have anything whatsoever to do with what Jesus Christ placed into the Word of God. The old Major just reads it and accepts it as it is written so your disagreements will be with Christ and not me!!!!

Now the question must be WHY would God do that?

1 Timothy 2:13-14 .....
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

It’s important to understand that Paul does not prohibit women from teaching in all contexts (Titus 2:3; Acts 18:25-26), only from teaching the Bible to men in the church.

Notice that Paul prohibits women from doing two distinct things.

1.
Women may not teach the Bible to men in the church.
2.
Women may not exercise authority over men in the church.

Teaching and exercising authority in the church are the two primary responsibilities of elders, pastors, or bishops. Thus, women are not to hold the office of pastor, but neither are they to perform these particular functions of a pastor over men in the church.

Again, for the inquisitive minds the question is still...WHY is that the case.

I will give you what I think is the reason behinds God's direction.

1.
The creation order is the first reason Paul gives for prohibiting women from teaching or exercising authority in the church.
Paul doesn’t ground his command in cultural considerations or a particular problem with the women in the Ephesian church. Rather, he grounds his command in creation. He says that the reason women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the church is that....
“Adam was formed first, then Eve”. Paul means that God established Adam as the head and authority of his wife, Eve. God designed men to lead.

2.
The nature of women is the second reason Paul gives for prohibiting them from teaching or exercising authority in the church.
Paul says, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim 2:14). Paul is saying something about the natural constitution of men and women, that men as a class are naturally more fitted to teach and have authority in the church, but women are not.
Dr. Wayne Grudem says, “This is by far the most common viewpoint in the history of the interpretation of this passage” (Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth 70).

Answer to the OP theme question : No

 

[notuptome]

If you had read the Greek, no where does the word MAN spear in that passage. So it does make a BIG difference which language you use!!

As far as being a one woman husband, that is addressed to husbands, reminding them not to be polygamists. Why did Paul not write that to the women? Because in those cultures women did not have multiple husbands, or polyandry.

"Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν," 1 Tim 3:1-2 Koine Greek SBL.

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα,
One woman man OR
One wife husband.

No words like ander or even anthropos which is usually gender less, although in the past, English men translating the Bible assumed it meant man, when it meant people.

Your personal bias aside Adam was given by God headship over the family. By direct authority of God Christ was given headship over the church.

Argue if you wish that the translation was not word for word in 1 Tim 3:1-2. I believe it was a dynamic translation based on how the translators viewed the whole of scripture.

When you violate the standard men only pastors you open the door to all kinds of unqualified persons to adorn the pulpits of the church. The divorced men and the sodomites male and female will feel at liberty to call themselves fit to pastor the sheep. This is evident in the church so called in this modern time. Ichabod written above the door.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[101G]

It is not my intention to cause an argument or division among the faithful with that question just discussion in a Christian and civil manner.

I have always simply posted the Word of God as it is written. I post this question in order to properly attempt to teach the Word of God....PEROID!

1 Timothy 3:1-2.........
"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".

According to the written Word of God, a Pastor can only be a "Male/Man".

GINOLJC, to all
First time posting here, Addressing the OP, and thanks for the topic. posting the WORD of GOD, and reading the WORD of GOD, is a different animal from UNDERSTANDING the WORD of GOD. the Wisdom of God is the principle thing, and in all thy getting get understanding.

I would like to discuss each point of this topic. I'm in the position that there is neither male nor female in the body of Christ. but for the purpose of this discussion, I will use the terms "male", and "female", for clarity, and for the edifying of the saints.

starting with 1 Timothy 3:1-2, not saying that anyone is right or wrong, for I haven't read all the posts, but for discussion sake, I'll address this part of the OP first, and the rest as we get to each point of contention. this qualification here, in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 is for a married man, yes, a qualification, and not an APPOINTMENT to the office itself. this qualification was for married men only, who had a "DESIRE" for the office. for the apostle qualifies it by stating, " the husband of one wife", children under subjection. well everyone was not married, as the apostle himself. we can clearly see that this qualification is "ONLY", for a man, (male), who is Married, and have children. this is great, because it spell out the rules for a married man ... "Who desire" the office, but not APPOINTED" into the office. see the difference now? understand this is not the actual office appointment, but the qualification for a man who is married that seeks or "DESIRE" the office, this is simply the application of what a qualified man for the office need to meet. and here's why I say this.

Women, (females), has already held, and was, in the OFFICE of Bishops, (married, and unmarried) which is the office of what we in the west call the office of Pastor. and we have clear scripture to support this. scripture, Romans 16:3 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:". if one just look up the word "helpers", here in Romans 16:3, one will see that it is the Greek word, G4904 συνεργός sunergos (sïn-er-ğos') adj. which means,
a co-laborer, i.e. coadjutor.
[from a presumed compound of G4862 and the base of G2041]
KJV: companion in labour, (fellow-)helper(-labourer, -worker), labourer together with, workfellow
Root(s): G4862, G2041

my source for this definition, is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments. and if one would notice in the definition, a helper is identified as a "coadjutor", and if anyone is catholic, they would recognize this word right off the bat, for it means, 1. an assistant. an assistant to a bishop or other ecclesiastic. 2. a bishop who assists another bishop, with the right of succession. one while online can find this definition at dictionary.com. here in Roman 16:3, the two Bishops/Pastors, Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, was in assistance in appointing the women Phebe our sister, who by the way was a bishop hereself, to the overseering business at the newly form church at Rome, see starting at verse 1 of chapter 1.

so we clearly see women was already in the office of Bishop/Pastor and in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, it was just the qualifying application of a married man who .... "DESIRE" .... the Office of Bishop/Pastor. what was his qualifications was to seek, or desire that office.

for if one just read the chapter, they will see, to be a bishop/Pastor, one..... "must be"... this ... and, or that... BEFORE, BEFORE, BEFORE, becoming a Bishop/Pastor, just read the qualification, they are right there. it is God who ordain/apoint in his Church.

if anyone have any, question, or concerns about what was just posted, please feel free to indulge in conversatation.

I hope this would open up, as well asn start, or reset a good discussion, on the facts, and the truth, about women Pastors/Bishops.

PICJAG,
101G.

PS, also note that our sister Phebe, as the bible clearly states she was a BISHOP/PASTOR already.

 

[101G]

Your personal bias aside Adam was given by God headship over the family. By direct authority of God Christ was given headship over the church.

Argue if you wish that the translation was not word for word in 1 Tim 3:1-2. I believe it was a dynamic translation based on how the translators viewed the whole of scripture.

When you violate the standard men only pastors you open the door to all kinds of unqualified persons to adorn the pulpits of the church. The divorced men and the sodomites male and female will feel at liberty to call themselves fit to pastor the sheep. This is evident in the church so called in this modern time. Ichabod written above the door.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

thanks for the reply, second, intresting assessment. not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this, I thought Adam, by God was given LEADERSHIP of the Family, not to "RULE", but the FIRST to LEAD. for he had the "HEADSHIP", already, by being the First.

this is why I say this, Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." rule "OVER Thee", is not the same as "RULE Thee". in order to have the "RULE OVER" is by permission. that's why when a woman marries a man, she gives "permission", to the Husband to "LEAD", and not direct. so when one understand the difference between "RULE OVER" vs "RULE" then one will know what is expected in a married relationship. but in the beginning, God gave both the man and the woman the responsibility of Governship, supportive scripture, Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
not "HIM", but "THEM".

When you violate the standard men only pastors you open the door to all kinds of unqualified persons to adorn the pulpits of the church.
that's why qualifications was set, if any "DESIRE" the office. to stop, as you stated, "unqualified persons to adorn the pulpits", but not only the pulpits, but any office holding positions.

be blessed,

PICJAG,
101G

 

[Scribe]

Rev. Donna Barret

Rev. Donna Barrett, Founding Pastor of Rockside Church, Appointed General Secretary

Pastor Donna Barrett stepped down as Lead Pastor after 15 years. She has accepted the position of General Secretary of the Assemblies of God. Below are three related articles:

News Article from Assemblies of God

 

[101G]

To all, as long as God is the one who is appointing, who can say anything aganist God?

1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

that word, "SET", is the Greek word, ordain, G5087 τίθημι tithemi (tiy'-thee-miy) v.
θέω theo (the'-ō) [an alternate in certain tenses]
1. to place.
2. (properly) to lay in a passive or horizontal posture.
{in the widest application, literally and figuratively; differs from G2476, which properly denotes an upright and active position, while G2749 is properly reflexive and utterly prostrate}
[a prolonged form of a primary theo theh'-o (which is used only as alternate in certain tenses)]
KJV: + advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, X kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make, ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down
Compare: G2476, G2749

and here, an apostle, prophet, or a teacher, is a PASTOR, having the oversight, responsibility, of feeding the flock of God. which the apostle Paul clearly states that he was.
the very next chapter, 1 Corinthians 13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
1 Corinthians 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

here, the apostle us, not only is he an apostle, as in 1 Corinthians 12:28, appointed, but also a prophet, "And though I have the gift of prophecy,", so being a prophet is a gift, a work, and not an office. and he tells us that he is a PASTOR/BISHOP, "and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge". there it is, Pastor. how do we know that this is a pastor?, answer, OT, Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding."
there it is, ""and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge"

please understand, Pastoring is a "GIFT", and not an "OFFICE", but a "WORK", just a a prophet, or teacher. and pastor, which is one of the Holy Ghost Gifts, which is the first one the list, (see 1 Corinthians 12:7-11).

PICJAG,
1012G.

 

[Dino246]

Respectful discussion? I'm all for it; For starters, let's Biblically judge the content of our responses instead of calling them lame, dismissive, and stupid I have much more to offer. The example of Jesus confirming a detail about Daniel is just like Paul confirming a detail from the Law.

Some NT examples that give insight into the OT that we otherwise would (probably) not discover from the OT alone:

-The exact length of the drought in Elijah’s time was not mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Kgs. 18:1).
James tells us that it was exactly 3 years and 6 months (James 5:17).

-The names of the two men who opposed Moses and Aaron are not mentioned in the Old Testament (Exodus 7:11, 22).
Paul tells us their names were Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8).

-The existence of Jacob’s well is not mentioned in the Old Testament.
John tells us of it (John 4:6)

-The prophecy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene is not mentioned in the Old Testament.
Matthew tells us that this prophecy was fulfilled (Matt 3:23).

-Jeremiah's prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver and the potter's field is not mentioned in the Old Testament.
Matthew tells us that this prophecy was fulfilled (Matt 27:5).

The affirmation of women's subjection (1 Cor 14:34)
Paul tells us that the Law says women are to subject themselves (in recognition of an ordered structure = the assembled church- verses 23, 28, 33-35).

A single source of apostolic authority on a matter is sufficient for our acceptance. Your need to understand a confirming OT reference to accept something an Apostle says is unnecessary. Just believe God's Word as it is and "lean not on your own understanding" (Prov 3:5).

I rest my case

We will have to disagree on this point. I don't find your case anywhere near compelling. To me, it amounts to, "Shut up, don't think, and just accept what I tell you."

That's how cults operate. I'm not interested.

 

[Major]

If you had read the Greek, no where does the word MAN spear in that passage. So it does make a BIG difference which language you use!!

As far as being a one woman husband, that is addressed to husbands, reminding them not to be polygamists. Why did Paul not write that to the women? Because in those cultures women did not have multiple husbands, or polyandry.

"Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν," 1 Tim 3:1-2 Koine Greek SBL.

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα,
One woman man OR
One wife husband.

No words like ander or even anthropos which is usually gender less, although in the past, English men translating the Bible assumed it meant man, when it meant people.

So then how would you then explain the words......"HUSBAND of one wife"? Do you know what the Greek word is for HUSBAND????

The word translated "husband" in 1 Timothy 3:2 is the Greek word "aner" which means man. There is no reason to give it a different meaning in 1 Timothy 3:2.

 

[Diakonos]

We will have to disagree on this point. I don't find your case anywhere near compelling. To me, it amounts to, "Shut up, don't think, and just accept what I tell you."

That's how cults operate. I'm not interested.

So do you accept Paul's statement or not?
"[women] are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says"

 

[Major]

So do you accept with Paul's statement or not?
"[women] are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says"

Women are subject to the Word of God just as you and me are.