A woman as a Pastor? Does it make it right if there is a need for pastors?

[JackH]

This exemplifies why I dared to consider looking into this matter on a deeper level. The argument could be made from the above biblical text that the abolitionists were wrong. And of course, they were not.

And those supporting slavery did in fact use the bible to promote their agenda.

Like the president said this past week: "Slavery - Jim Crow - All too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Just like those opposed to giving women the right to vote used bible verses to promote their agenda.

And some on this thread are using the very same bible verses to discriminate against women.

 

[kennethcadwell]

And those supporting slavery did in fact use the bible to promote their agenda.

Like the president said this past week: "Slavery - Jim Crow - All too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Just like those opposed to giving women the right to vote used bible verses to promote their agenda.

And some on this thread are using the very same bible verses to discriminate against women.

Yes and even so those who did use the bible to support slavery, only did what people are known for doing and that is only going by half of what the bible actually says on the subject. As it says even if you do have slaves they were to be treated then no different then the rest of your family, so in context they were family and not looked at as slaves.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

Not being the one who makes the calls is far from discrimination. Is it discrimination that you dont get the say so for every law passed in your country? And being told that you arent meant to teach is not discrimination either.

This life is but a vapor, it is meaningless, everything of this world dies. Is it really so meaningful that you get everything you want before you die? Or should your focus be doing whats right by God and trusting His judgment? Thats how I see it, anywho.

 

[JackH]

Oh the NT, and even Paul, wrote that women will prophesy. But thats not really the same thing as preaching and teaching the bible.

Vines's Espository Dictionary, last paragraph for the word prophecy/prophesy:

"With the completion of the canon of Scripture prophecy apparently passed away. 1 Cor. 13:8,9. In his measure the teacher has taken the place of the prophet, cp. the significant change in 2 Pet. 2:1. The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God for the occasion, the message of the teacher is gathered from the completed revelation contained in the Scriptures."

Doesn't that mean that to prophesy is to teach in today's world?

 

[Utah]

I gotta ask, what makes you call Him the liberator of women?

Women were 3rd class citizens, slightly higher than farm animals, but not much. Jesus liberated women time and again by welcoming them, respecting them, forgiving them, defending them, and even choosing them to bear witness to His glory. This is extraordinary considering the time and place.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

Vines's Espository Dictionary, last paragraph for the word prophecy/prophesy:

"With the completion of the canon of Scripture prophecy apparently passed away. 1 Cor. 13:8,9. In his measure the teacher has taken the place of the prophet, cp. the significant change in 2 Pet. 2:1. The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God for the occasion, the message of the teacher is gathered from the completed revelation contained in the Scriptures."

Doesn't that mean that to prophesy is to teach in today's world?

Id imagine being a prophet is taking Gods word that He has given to you and handing it out to others, where preaching His word would be taking what has already been recorded and being the one people look to to read it to you and interpret it. I dont think they are the same thing. Pastors are not inherently prophesiers.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

Women were 3rd class citizens, slightly higher than farm animals, but not much. Jesus liberated women time and again by welcoming them, respecting them, forgiving them, defending them, and even choosing them to bear witness to His glory. This is extraordinary considering the time and place.

Besides handing them His grace freely, what did He do that was looked down on by the people of that time with women?

 

[kaylagrl]

But we were never told that slaves were now to be freed by there masters, and actually the NT makes many references of submission for many people. I still take that in the way that we are all offered His grace, and no one is held in favoritism. But that God does still have order, and charges some to lead others. I dont believe those who teach are closer to God, in fact Christ kinda seemed to point that out with the pharisees. But He still seems to have wanted men to teach.

If you think I have some male ego trip problem and I feel the need to lord over you you dont have any idea who I am I am merely arguing the point that we should place Gods will over ours, and there was no word that women are allowed to be teachers, but we are taught that they should not.

You'd have to look back at my last response to women pastors.Not going to restate what I said. Of course Gods will is over ours but that doesnt mean we dont sometimes misunderstand translation and context.I dont think the context is being taken into account. I did not say you had a male ego trip. I said slave or free,Jew or Greek,male or female on cannot lord over the other that they are more to God.All are equal.You misunderstood me.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

Would you consider being the one charged with guiding the congregation and being responsible for interpreting the Word lording over anyone?

 

[kaylagrl]

Would you consider being the one charged with guiding the congregation and being responsible for interpreting the Word lording over anyone?

Not what I was saying.Look back to see what I feel on the issue please.

Btw my father is an ordained evangelist.

 

[keepitsimple]

God tells everyone to endure your suffering, and that those who suffer in His name are blessed by Him. Christ tells us that when someone strikes you, give them the other cheek. Im not going to call abolitionists evil, but God does ask that you endure suffering, and that He rewards those who do.

It goes deeper than this friend. For example, does God reward the woman who spends her lifetime enduring the hell inflicted by an alcoholic and abusive husband ... because she is instructed to "submit" to him in God's Word ? When the apostle Paul spoke of a deacon being the "husband of only one wife", does this disqualify all unmarried men from holding this office ? Did the act of abolishing slavery contravene the words of Jesus ... because "slaves are to obey their masters" ? Or were Paul's writings of that time written to a specific audience and for a specific purpose ? This is my endeavour in regards to this topic. And to read the Word of God without understanding it's context can be and is equally as dangerous, if not more than to blindly trod along in ignorance for fear that we might offend God by seeking answers to whatever question(s) we might have. He knows the intent and understands the hearts of those asking the questions.

 

[keepitsimple]

Two very interesting and substantive points were made in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia regarding our primary passage, 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

Favoring this suggestion, it may be noted that elsewhere in Paul’s writings aner occurs fifty times and gyne occurs fifty-four times in close proximity within eleven distinct contexts, and in each case these terms bear the meanings “husband” and “wife” rather than “man” and “woman”…Indeed it may be argued that, if Paul had intended to speak about man in relation to woman in 1 Tim. 2, rather than about husband in relation to wife, he would have used anthropos, “man,” rather than aner, in contrast to gyne, as he did in 1 Cor. 7:1. Alternatively, Paul could have used the very terms that most stress gender, arsen, “man,” in contrast to thelys, “woman,” as he did in Rom. 1:26f.[SUP]32[/SUP]
​

This would seem to be one of the most powerful and significant arguments against the idea that Paul in 1 Timothy 2 had men and women in general in mind. Apparently, Paul could have specified “male” and “female” in the most general terms as he had done before in Romans 1:26. The fact that he chose to use words that are mainly translated as “husband” and “wife” when in close contextual range of each other makes a more compelling case for the argument that both 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 may have a more limited application than many would like to admit.

 

[kaylagrl]

It goes deeper than this friend. For example, does God reward the woman who spends her lifetime enduring the hell inflicted by an alcoholic and abusive husband ... because she is instructed to "submit" to him in God's Word ? When the apostle Paul spoke of a deacon being the "husband of only one wife", does this disqualify all unmarried men from holding this office ? Did the act of abolishing slavery contravene the words of Jesus ... because "slaves are to obey their masters" ? Or were Paul's writings of that time written to a specific audience and for a specific purpose ? This is my endeavour in regards to this topic. And to read the Word of God without understanding it's context can be and is equally as dangerous, if not more than to blindly trod along in ignorance for fear that we might offend God by seeking answers to whatever question(s) we might have. He knows the intent and understands the hearts of those asking the questions.


Thank you for that post !! Finally someone who makes some sense.Great response.

 

[KJV1611]

Two very interesting and substantive points were made in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia regarding our primary passage, 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

Favoring this suggestion, it may be noted that elsewhere in Paul’s writings aner occurs fifty times and gyne occurs fifty-four times in close proximity within eleven distinct contexts, and in each case these terms bear the meanings “husband” and “wife” rather than “man” and “woman”…Indeed it may be argued that, if Paul had intended to speak about man in relation to woman in 1 Tim. 2, rather than about husband in relation to wife, he would have used anthropos, “man,” rather than aner, in contrast to gyne, as he did in 1 Cor. 7:1. Alternatively, Paul could have used the very terms that most stress gender, arsen, “man,” in contrast to thelys, “woman,” as he did in Rom. 1:26f.[SUP]32[/SUP]
​

This would seem to be one of the most powerful and significant arguments against the idea that Paul in 1 Timothy 2 had men and women in general in mind. Apparently, Paul could have specified “male” and “female” in the most general terms as he had done before in Romans 1:26. The fact that he chose to use words that are mainly translated as “husband” and “wife” when in close contextual range of each other makes a more compelling case for the argument that both 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 may have a more limited application than many would like to admit.

We don't have to doubt what was written or intended, it's written exactly right in our KJV bibles. You can make the bible say anything you want using that type of logic.

 

[kaylagrl]

We don't have to doubt what was written or intended, it's written exactly right in our KJV bibles. You can make the bible say anything you want using that type of logic.

Please dont derail this into a KJV only argument. I like certain verses in KJV others have better translations.Jesus didn't carry a KJV under his arm.Different translations can be clearer than KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

Please dont derail this into a KJV only argument. I like certain verses in KJV others have better translations.Jesus didn't carry a KJV under his arm.Different translations can be clearer than KJV.

I'm not derailing anything, I'm stating a fact.

 

[keepitsimple]

I'm not derailing anything, I'm stating a fact.

As am I. "If" the below is true, would it give you cause to consider ? Would or could it change anything in your view ? Not looking to upset anybody here. Just seeking for truth. God's truth. And allowing for the fact that I might not have understood everything in His Word correctly ... which wouldn't upset me at all

it may be noted that elsewhere in Paul’s writings aner occurs fifty times and gyne occurs fifty-four times in close proximity within eleven distinct contexts, and in each case these terms bear the meanings “husband” and “wife” rather than “man” and “woman”

 

[kaylagrl]

I'm not derailing anything, I'm stating a fact.

Which fact is that?

 

[kaylagrl]

The NT also tells us that women should work at home and take care of the children, and that they should submit to their husbands. Christ told us He did not come to change the laws. And everything in the NT does seem to go by it. So I dont believe that that verse was written for roles, but for the grace that is given to us all freely. Christ never once asked a woman to lead, teach or be in charge of the household, and I still cant see how that could be Gods will.

Do you believe in tithing?

 

[WebersHome]

God merely tells us He decides who He wants to be in charge, and that we
should follow Him. I do not see the harm in this, and am not sure why
anyone would feel such a need to fight it.

Some people are compelled to fight it because it is in their nature to oppose
God rather than submit to His wishes. They honestly can't help it any more
than a gay person can help being gay. (Rom 8:5-8)

=======================================