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

[JackH]

Moreover, you and such women pastors imagination and establishment and those who acknowledge such, only accumulate trouble for yourselves on judgement day and be destine to hell for 'lawlessness', if this kind of carnal/fleshly mentality attitude continues and even establishes in the churches of GOD.

So female pastors are destined for hell?

Do you others who would have us discriminate with women agree with this statement?

 

[Angela53510]

The Bible says no, so no.

Show me the Greek! The English translates the disputed passages wrong in most translations, so the Bible says yes, so yes!

 

[notuptome]

Show me the Greek! The English translates the disputed passages wrong in most translations, so the Bible says yes, so yes!

So how does the husband of one wife get mistranslated? Should it read the partner of one partner?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

Actually America is a republic,not a democracy.


A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy" [SUP]12[/SUP]); a republic is rule by law.

We have elements of both. We vote for the president in a democratic election. He represents the people in the republic. The republic idea goes back to pagan Rome. The democracy idea goes back to pagan Greece. There is no reason to think that either idea comes from the city whose builder and maker is God. We are here temporarily, and we are a part of a kingdom.

In the past, God selected certain kids for Israel and Judah. We don't see where God has revealed a democracy or republic as something for his people. I'm not against it for the nations. But we shouldn't think of it as an inalienable right. And there is no Biblical reason to think that if a republic had only male heads of household vote, that it is somehow being unjust.

I'm glad you vote against abortion-supporting candidates. The face is, though, several decades after women got the vote, a female voting block as emerged that votes in favor of abortion. And I'm glad you haven't used it.

I also believe we should be good stewards of whatever we have been entrusted with, including voting. But I don't think any Christian should consider another society unjust just for not being a republic, democracy, or not having women vote. That doesn't hold any water Biblically. It's also rather ethnocentric for American Christians to judge other societies that way, and it isn't right to judge our ancestors as oppressive to women because women didn't have the vote for a short time after men got universal suffrage.

 

[Utah]

So female pastors are destined for hell?

Do you others who would have us discriminate with women agree with this statement?

One cat on this site called them Enemies of Jesus Christ. Can you imagine that?

 

[MadParrotWoman]

I have found the "ignore" button quite useful...

 

[JackH]

So how does the husband of one wife get mistranslated? Should it read the partner of one partner?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You said a couple days ago that the first deacons are found in Acts 6.

I asked you several times what you meant, in that the word deacons is not there.

I'm not saying I disagree with you.

I would like to know why, exactly, you said that.

 

[notuptome]

You said a couple days ago that the first deacons are found in Acts 6.

I asked you several times what you meant, in that the word deacons is not there.

I'm not saying I disagree with you.

I would like to know why, exactly, you said that.

Those men did the work of a deacon. Seeing to the necessities of the church body. Acting at the direction of the apostles. Is there room in there for women to act in a similar capacity? I certainly think so as there are some things that only women can do when it comes to ministering to the sick and infirmed.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[JackH]

But I don't think any Christian should consider another society unjust just for not being a republic, democracy, or not having women vote. That doesn't hold any water Biblically. It's also rather ethnocentric for American Christians to judge other societies that way, and it isn't right to judge our ancestors as oppressive to women because women didn't have the vote for a short time after men got universal suffrage.[/COLOR][/FONT]

Women didn't get universal suffrage until 1920 (19th Amendment). Black men got the right to vote in 1870 (15th Amendment). White men who didn't own property got the right to vote state by state from 1812 to 1860.

That's a short time?

The point is that those who attempted to deny women the right to vote back then used the same bible verses that are used to discriminate against women today with respect to women in the ministry issues.

Were they right back then?

A society is unjust if it does not permit women to vote.

Fortunately, there are few of those left today.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

I kinda hate this argument here. Does the bible tell us that women cant vote?

If not, then it has nothing to do with the argument :/


Though even if it did, it still wouldnt be relevant. What does voting have to do with preaching? Mans laws have nothing to do with the bible.

 

[notuptome]

Women didn't get universal suffrage until 1920 (19th Amendment). Black men got the right to vote in 1870 (15th Amendment). White men who didn't own property got the right to vote state by state from 1812 to 1860.

That's a short time?

The point is that those who attempted to deny women the right to vote back then used the same bible verses that are used to discriminate against women today with respect to women in the ministry issues.

Were they right back then?

A society is unjust if it does not permit women to vote.

Fortunately, there are few of those left today.

Actually the right to vote was not intended to be universal under our constitutional republic. The only persons given voting authority were land owners. Why? Because they were the ones paying the taxes.

What we have today is a mob voting for more government handouts. If voting were restricted to only those who pay taxes I suggest the political landscape would appear quite different.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[JackH]

Those men did the work of a deacon. Seeing to the necessities of the church body. Acting at the direction of the apostles.

So a woman can be a deacon, right?

And the men in Acts you are talking about are referred to as disciples, right?

 

[JackH]

So I have been watching the incredibly non-existant exegetics of a few of the men on this thread, and biting my tongue. But I am going to jump in, only to repeat myself AGAIN with a close look at what the Greek actually says, and say that those men who keep saying women can't be pastors are going to have to answer to God for their constant repeating of this false doctrine!

First of all, you don't make doctrine based on a few disputed Scriptures. Esp. when they have been translated wrongly.

AUTHORITY

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Tim. 2:12 ESV

Looks good, right men? (Excepting Elf, of course, and Stephen I guess!)

We won't even get into the fact that ESV has a firmly bias towards complementarians, which is states clearly in the footnotes of the study Bible.

More or less, the same thing that KJV says, kind of just modernizing it a bit.

"For I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a mature man, but to be at rest." 1 Tim. 1:12 KJV

Basically, the word "authority" is translated totally wrong! Of course, how simple!

But really, the noun εξουσια (exousia) is the word the New Testament uses to translate the word authority. Eg. Matt 28:18 where Jesus has been given "all authority." Or Romans 13:1 where we are to obey the authorities, because all authority is given by God.

The word in 1 Tim. 2:12 is NOT exousia, but rather αὐθεντεῖν or authentein. This word is a hapax legomena, which appears only once in the Bible. This means you cannot find the word anywhere else to compare how Paul or anyone else translated it.

In fact, you have to look at contemporaneous sources (ie, other writings from the first century) to find a definition, and there are over 50 different uses, ranging from murder and copulation to domineering. But most often it is translated domineering.

Plus, it is an infinitive, which means that in pretty much every other case in the New Testament, you translate the verb "to verb" Therefore, you either have to add words, like "usurp" and "exercise" which are verbs, and make them start with "to" to fit the proper definition and grammar of the word.

So "a woman is not to exercise a man" or "a woman is not to usurp a man". No mention of the word "authority" whatsoever in Greek! NOT AT ALL!

So if you translate it using the verb domineer, which is probably most likely, you get, "And not to domineer a man." Sounds reasonable to me! As believers we are not to domineer over other believers! Mutual submission, like Eph. 5:20 says. And then you don't have to add that extra word "exercise" or "usurp" which is needed as a verb, because authority is a noun. Just a small piece of grammar the translators seemed to miss!

Of course, we can get into the cultural reasons why women were not allowed to teach in Ephesus, home of the temple of Artemis, one of the 7 original wonders of the world. A cult dedicated to women, who were in charge, and also highly uneducated, like all the women of their culture. And we might add, a little wild, those women??

As for keeping silent, well, another poor translation, based on the 16th century treatment that women were less than people. Probably quiet would be a better word, and consistent with the Jewish rabbinical practice that students were to learn quietly before the Master. So actually, Paul is giving permission in this and other places for a woman to learn. In fact, I believe he encourages it.

As for 1 Cor. 14:33-34, a very simple explanation.

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."



In fact, the only confusion comes from the fact that the punctuation is in the wrong place!

"For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."



You see, the original Greek was in majuscules, or capitals, all squished together, and no punctuation. Very easy to put a period in the wrong place if it suits your purpose. ESV continues its translation following the culture of 16th century KJ, a very male hierarchical (as I said, they call themselves "complementarians" but you get the idea!) and they have lovingly retained the KJV mistake. LOL!



Now the reason scholars know the punctuation is in the wrong place, is because of the last part of the passage.

"As the law says". Except for in no place does it say in the law, that women should not speak, not even in the synagogue. So Paul is likely quoting someone, and being sarcastic.

I was in an Orthodox synagogue two years ago when I took Hebrew, and the women talked to each other, and to the men over the barriers separating the men from the women. They obviously had never heard of a law prohibiting women from speaking either!



So those are what are fondly known as "the two disputed passages." Of course, their are other texts, but I have been through all of them with a fine tooth comb, and none of them has any validity restricting women from ministry. Or that a man has "authority over a women" at all!

There are those pesky Roman household and Greek household codes, which Paul and Peter both try to use to have people be better witnesses to the surrounding cultures, but even if you want to go with marriage roles (which I do not!) there is simply no biblical basis for any man having authority over every woman. 



There will always be a need for women to be pastors, and despite a few exceptions made popular in the media, most women are doing a great job of teaching and preaching the Bible, especially to other women. But a good woman preacher can also preach to men, and men need to just humble their arrogant and WRONG interpretation of the Bible and listen to what women who are called by God have to say.

I can say from my Seminary experience in a Southern Baptist Seminary, (they do not believe women can be preachers, at least in the US!) that a woman called by God to be a pastor has a huge battle to fight to find a pastorate, or be accepted. I've seen some terrible men preach in Seminary, and get called the minute they finish their degrees (I've seen some awesome men of God, too!)

No woman in their right mind would fight to be a pastor if God had not truly called her. And those same women that I have met are all brilliant women who could have found careers in any field, but chose to obey God instead. That is the true sign of the calling of a pastor. Obeying God no matter what the cost!

It has been a week since this was posted.

None of you who would have us discrimination against women refuted anything in it?

Why not?

The only response was by ELECT:

"blah blah blah women are not to be pastors period
periods one reason not to pollute the alter"

That's his spelling of alter as mine would be altar.

And guess who "liked" ELECT's response quoted above.

Right, tribesman.

 

[Mary96]

From my own research into if woman can be pastor or not.


Can they be? Certainly.


Does the Bible prohibit such things? Absolutely.


Can one be a Christian and disobey a clear instruction from the Bible? Certainly.


Personally, I would not join a congregation or sect that permits women to act as pastors because it is indisputably contrary to Biblical instruction.


But that said…


Women have the unique privilege to teach their children who God is by raising them under the admonition of the bible.


Women are teachers just not in the church! doesn't mean they aren't capable, God just wants them teaching in a different context.

Just my opinion

 

[Utah]

I have found the "ignore" button quite useful...

My Lady, I know where you're coming from, believe me, but the problem with using the ignore button is that when you ignore people who share false teachings, you're empowering them as they go unchecked. Its the same thing as not voting because you don't like the politicians, and bad politicians are elected by good people who don't vote. Same thing here, false teachings are spread by good people who ignore them and don't refute them.

 

[presidente]

Angela53510 wrote,

"As the law says". Except for in no place does it say in the law, that women should not speak, not even in the synagogue. So Paul is likely quoting someone, and being sarcastic.

Sarcasm as an exegetical key seems rather deseparate. One man I knew said this saying should be in quotes. I thought, I hope people don't start putting the 'not' in 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' or 'Do not murder' in quotes, or we might all be in trouble.

'Law' could also refer to Jewish traditional law. There are laws about men canceling women's vows. I'm not convinced of an absolute silence view. Other scriptures speaks of women prophesying, and chapter 11 just might have public prophesying in view. Paul may have a particular issue in mind.

What is your comment on the fact that Paul said that if anyone desired to be a bishop, let him be a man?

There are those pesky Roman household and Greek household codes, which Paul and Peter both try to use to have people be better witnesses to the surrounding cultures, but even if you want to go with marriage roles (which I do not!) there is simply no biblical basis for any man having authority over every woman. 



There seems to be a very common approach to 'exegesis.' Usually, I associate it with liberals, but I've seen conservatives doing it, too.

Here is the formula.
1. Take a passage.
2. Find some historical fact somehow related to the text.
3. Argue that because of this historical fact, the text doesn't really mean what it says. The author was just saying this because of some cultural situation.

You may be able to find plenty of 'household code statements' in history. And you may be able to put Paul and Peter's instruction to husbands and wives in that 'genre' of literature. But that doesn't make their teachings any less authoritative.
The Israelites could have said, "The Torah requires altars to be made of uncut stones. But since we see that Canaanites in the time of Moses made their altars of uncut stones, that must be the reason for the command, so we don't have to follow it." Basically, they would be saying, "Because X piece of cultural and historical information exists, we don't have to obey God."
There may have been plenty of household codes that told slaves to obey their masters, wives to obey their husbands, and children to obey their parents before Paul and Peter came on the scene. But that doesn't mean that we don't have to follow their instructions. What it does mean is that some of these household codes had some good things in them. Maybe the apostles recognized these things as good when they gave their authoritative apostolic teaching. Men are made in the image of God, and some philosophers had good things to say. Paul quoted a philosopher to the Athenians. One of them had urged the people to build monuments to the unknown God.

I've seen the same steps above used by homosexuals trying to argue away Romans 1.

 

[presidente]

Women didn't get universal suffrage until 1920 (19th Amendment). Black men got the right to vote in 1870 (15th Amendment). White men who didn't own property got the right to vote state by state from 1812 to 1860.

That's a short time?

50 years considering how long people have been around is a short period of time.

The point is that those who attempted to deny women the right to vote back then used the same bible verses that are used to discriminate against women today with respect to women in the ministry issues.

Who cares? Why should we think God cares much if women get the right to vote or if all men get the right to vote? The Torah allowed Israel to have a king the Lord appointed. If God cared so much about voting, He could have commanded, suggested, or mentioned it through the prophets.

God made men and women different. God gave Moses commands that had men inherit land and not women. (Land could go to girls if their father died with no sons if they married within their father's clan.) God gave men the right to cancel their wive's vows, but not vice versa.

The New Testament says the bishop is to be a man.

Sorry if the Bible doesn't conform to your idea of gender sameness. God made men and women different, and He was within His rights to do so.

Americans and some Europeans are obsessed with equality, reading it into the Bible when it isn't there. They say stuff like all sins are equal. How is that Biblical? Or God loves everyone equally. How does that square with what Jesus said in the book of John about God loving those who keep Jesus' commandment? Equal, equal, equal. Maybe the Greeks obsessed about the golden mean the same way.


Were they right back then?

A society is unjust if it does not permit women to vote.

Fortunately, there are few of those left today.[/QUOTE]

 

[presidente]

It has been a week since this was posted.

None of you who would have us discrimination against women refuted anything in it?

Why not?

My reason for not posting is because I was super busy and haven't been keeping up with the thread.

You kind of botched that sentence a bit with the word 'discrimination', but reading a sentence like that makes me want to roll my eyes. Why bring the political philosophy into our discussion of the Bible.

Don't you discriminate all the time? Let's say you meet a man who yells angrily at you and threatens you. Then you meet another guy whose fun to talk to, friendly, and helpful. Which one will you try to make friends with, hire for a job, or invite to a party? My guess is you would discriminate against the angry man.

When you were in school, you probably took math tests that were graded in such a way as to discriminate against those who didn't learn the material and weren't able to demonstrate their knowledge on the test.

If you applied for an electrical engineering job, and you had a degree in it, and someone else with a degree in art history ad no electrical engineering experience applied for the job, wouldn't it be right to discriminate? It might even be immoral for a hiring manager to not discriminate against the art history major, since it would be bad stewardship not to do so.

We discriminate all the time, and it's not always wrong to do so. Men can't give birth to babies. It's discrimination, I tell you! Discrimination! But there is nothing unjust about it. God made us different from women. He wants wives to submit to their husbands. There is nothing unjust about that.

For the bishop/ elder role, the Bible says that he must be a man. There is nothing wrong with that. Who cares about political issues like discrimination when we are talking about this.

 

[MarcR]

This is not intended to be taken as a reversal in my thinking! It is just a linguistic discovery worthy of exploration.

As I have mentioned on other threads, the first century church observed both the Sabbath on the seventh day and the Lord's day on the first day of the week.

An implication that has not occurred to me before is that the Synagogue would as likely be referred to as the ἐκκλησία
as the Church. If the restriction was in respect for Jewish traditions in the Synagogue so as not to compromise the Church's witness; then the application in our time would be quite different. I'm not yet totally persuaded that this was the case; but it is worthy of exploration.

 

[Angela53510]

Angela53510 wrote,

Sarcasm as an exegetical key seems rather deseparate. One man I knew said this saying should be in quotes. I thought, I hope people don't start putting the 'not' in 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' or 'Do not murder' in quotes, or we might all be in trouble.

'Law' could also refer to Jewish traditional law. There are laws about men canceling women's vows. I'm not convinced of an absolute silence view. Other scriptures speaks of women prophesying, and chapter 11 just might have public prophesying in view. Paul may have a particular issue in mind.

What is your comment on the fact that Paul said that if anyone desired to be a bishop, let him be a man?

There seems to be a very common approach to 'exegesis.' Usually, I associate it with liberals, but I've seen conservatives doing it, too.

Here is the formula.
1. Take a passage.
2. Find some historical fact somehow related to the text.
3. Argue that because of this historical fact, the text doesn't really mean what it says. The author was just saying this because of some cultural situation.

You may be able to find plenty of 'household code statements' in history. And you may be able to put Paul and Peter's instruction to husbands and wives in that 'genre' of literature. But that doesn't make their teachings any less authoritative.
The Israelites could have said, "The Torah requires altars to be made of uncut stones. But since we see that Canaanites in the time of Moses made their altars of uncut stones, that must be the reason for the command, so we don't have to follow it." Basically, they would be saying, "Because X piece of cultural and historical information exists, we don't have to obey God."
There may have been plenty of household codes that told slaves to obey their masters, wives to obey their husbands, and children to obey their parents before Paul and Peter came on the scene. But that doesn't mean that we don't have to follow their instructions. What it does mean is that some of these household codes had some good things in them. Maybe the apostles recognized these things as good when they gave their authoritative apostolic teaching. Men are made in the image of God, and some philosophers had good things to say. Paul quoted a philosopher to the Athenians. One of them had urged the people to build monuments to the unknown God.

I've seen the same steps above used by homosexuals trying to argue away Romans 1.

Completely missed the Greek in my post! Way to go!