Are women allowed to Preach?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,550
17,022
113
69
Tennessee
Women not usurping authority over men in the church. Women being silent in the churches as stated in 1 Corinthians 14. Wives submitting to their own husbands as to the Lord.
Who does an unmarried woman submit to? In today's world a woman does not have to submit to anyone in the strict sense that Paul stated. He said that he does not permit a woman to preach, he did not say that God does not permit it. Seems that what he was stating was based on his own personal understanding of scripture. What Paul was inspired to write in scripture was truthfully stated but not all of it was necessarily a statement of scriptural truth.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
Who does an unmarried woman submit to? In today's world a woman does not have to submit to anyone in the strict sense that Paul stated. He said that he does not permit a woman to preach, he did not say that God does not permit it. Seems that what he was stating was based on his own personal understanding of scripture. What Paul was inspired to write in scripture was truthfully stated but not all of it was necessarily a statement of scriptural truth.
An unmarried woman submits to Christ and His word.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,550
17,022
113
69
Tennessee
An unmarried woman submits to Christ and His word.
I'm sure that this is true and that an unmarried man, or even married man is to submit to Christ and His word as well. Why do you believe that there is a distinction between how a woman submits to the Lord verses how a man submits to the Lord.

Seems to me, based on my understanding of scripture, that what is true for the man must also be true for the woman as God makes no distinction between male and female, rich or poor, slave or free according to the writing of Paul.

If it were allowed by God for a woman to preach and be placed in other positons of leadership and authority but left up to man to decide to allow these things, would you be in favor of a woman being allowed to preach or placed in a position of leadership or authority.

I ask all the men this same question. If allowed by God but left up to you to decide what would be your decision. Allow or refuse to allow.

I would allow.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
I'm sure that this is true and that an unmarried man, or even married man is to submit to Christ and His word as well. Why do you believe that there is a distinction between how a woman submits to the Lord verses how a man submits to the Lord.

Seems to me, based on my understanding of scripture, that what is true for the man must also be true for the woman as God makes no distinction between male and female, rich or poor, slave or free according to the writing of Paul.

If it were allowed by God for a woman to preach and be placed in other positons of leadership and authority but left up to man to decide to allow these things, would you be in favor of a woman being allowed to preach or placed in a position of leadership or authority.

I ask all the men this same question. If allowed by God but left up to you to decide what would be your decision. Allow or refuse to allow.

I would allow.
Spiritually in Christ, there is no distinction made, but here on earth, the Lord has given us order and distinctions are made. If what you are trying to state is true, then what's wrong with gay marriage?

There are certainly husbands and wives in the churches here on earth. There are certainly males and females in the churches here on earth.

If God's word has allowed it? Absolutely! Are we not to submit authority to God's word? It's not a degrading of women issue. It's an obedience issue.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
There is a dispute among scholars if 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are even authentic. It appears that those verses appear after verse 40 in about half of the western manuscripts. That arrangement really makes verses 29-33 flow better together with verses 36-40. The reason some think that those verses are not Paul's is because they appear in two different places, which suggests to them that they were written in the margin and added later.

link > The Textual Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
14:34 Here the women are not permitted to speak in tongues in the assembly. That's the context of the passage. God is a God of order. He has given order to the church like it or not. Concerning women:

A woman may testify and sing praises in church - (Psa. 105:6).
A woman is not to be the pastor of a church (1 Tim. 3:1-7).
She may not teach nor usurp authority over the man (1 Tim. 2:11-13).
The woman is subject unto the husband. (Gen. 3)
Scripture, even the KJV, does not say anywhere that a woman may not be a pastor.

Scripture, even the KJV, does not say anywhere that a woman may not preach in the church/assembly.

The conflation of terms only causes confusion and unnecessary disagreement.

The Greek term "episkopos" (tr. "bishop" or "elder") is not the same word as "poimen" (shepherd/pastor). "Preach" is another word again (Which I don't know offhand).

If all "anti-females-as-preachers" people would carefully avoid conflation in their statements, we might get somewhere.

And, once again, John146, Genesis 3 DOES NOT SAY "the woman is subject unto the husband". You accuse other translations of corrupting the word... sheesh! It says that God said to the woman "... but he shall rule over you." It's a statement of consequence, not a command to be in subjection! Look at the context and tell me you believe God commanded that women "must" suffer in childbirth, or that men "must" sweat from the face when producing food, and "must" eat their food in sorrow? I certainly hope not.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
There is a dispute among scholars if 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are even authentic. It appears that those verses appear after verse 40 in about half of the western manuscripts. That arrangement really makes verses 29-33 flow better together with verses 36-40. The reason some think that those verses are not Paul's is because they appear in two different places, which suggests to them that they were written in the margin and added later.

link > The Textual Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
that would be interesting

even without it, on the copy/pastes I did, the remark is made by the author that Paul was telling more than women to clam up

there were all those noisy and out of order people abusing tongues

there are many sounding gongs in churches and in this forum from time to time too ;)

as it is, ripping that section our of context and wielding it like a club does no service to anyone
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
that would be interesting

even without it, on the copy/pastes I did, the remark is made by the author that Paul was telling more than women to clam up

there were all those noisy and out of order people abusing tongues

there are many sounding gongs in churches and in this forum from time to time too ;)

as it is, ripping that section our of context and wielding it like a club does no service to anyone
IMO, obsession with the letter of those verses is majoring in the minors. There are so many other crucial issues to focus on. And the fact that the possibility even exists that those verses are not authentic, for me magnifies that conclusion immensely.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
Scripture, even the KJV, does not say anywhere that a woman may not be a pastor.

Scripture, even the KJV, does not say anywhere that a woman may not preach in the church/assembly.

The conflation of terms only causes confusion and unnecessary disagreement.

The Greek term "episkopos" (tr. "bishop" or "elder") is not the same word as "poimen" (shepherd/pastor). "Preach" is another word again (Which I don't know offhand).

If all "anti-females-as-preachers" people would carefully avoid conflation in their statements, we might get somewhere.

And, once again, John146, Genesis 3 DOES NOT SAY "the woman is subject unto the husband". You accuse other translations of corrupting the word... sheesh! It says that God said to the woman "... but he shall rule over you." It's a statement of consequence, not a command to be in subjection! Look at the context and tell me you believe God commanded that women "must" suffer in childbirth, or that men "must" sweat from the face when producing food, and "must" eat their food in sorrow? I certainly hope not.
Are you saying God has allowed women to be pastors over a local church but they are not an elder? Is this anti-female? Women cannot be elders?

Genesis 3 and Ephesians 5:22-23 God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of the husband. The husband is the head of his wife.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
There is a dispute among scholars if 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are even authentic. It appears that those verses appear after verse 40 in about half of the western manuscripts. That arrangement really makes verses 29-33 flow better together with verses 36-40. The reason some think that those verses are not Paul's is because they appear in two different places, which suggests to them that they were written in the margin and added later.

link > The Textual Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
I have something to study now. Yay. From Is 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 an interpolation?

One of the answers to the question about what 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 means suggests that the passage is a later interpolation. From the quote by J.W. Wartick, included in the answer, there are several external clues to suggest we should omit the passage:

  • It "moves" depending on which scribal branch a manuscript belongs to (i.e., Western manuscripts have the passage after verse 40).
  • Some manuscripts include distigmai marking that the scribe was uncertain about the passage in some way.
  • One important manuscript has been corrected to omit the passage altogether.
  • Clement does not quote this passage
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
An additional piece of evidence, at least for me, is that verse 34 says that the law says that women should be in subjection to men. Nowhere does the law of Moses say that, and I don't know of any instance where Paul called anything other than the law of Moses, the law. There may be, but I don't know about it.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
An additional piece of evidence, at least for me, is that verse 34 says that the law says that women should be in subjection to men. Nowhere does the law of Moses say that, and I don't know of any instance where Paul called anything other than the law of Moses, the law. There may be, but I don't know about it.
it could be as simple as paul was saying the civil law at Corinth said this.. especially if it is not found in Mosaic law.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
From a link in the above link > MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text Without 1 Cor 14.34–5 (this is a pdf)

Clement of Alexandria († pre AD 215) cites 1 Cor 14.6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20 yet calls both men and women without distinction to silence in church, indicating that 1 Cor 14.34–5 was not in his text of 1 Corinthians. Further evidence of a text of 1 Corinthians 14 without vv. 34–5 is that none of the Apostolic Fathers or the next generation of church fathers gives any indication of awareness of 1 Cor 14.34–5.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
I'm starting to wonder if someone with a disposition like loyaldisciple's added verses 34-35 to the bible.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
I'm starting to wonder if someone with a disposition like loyaldisciple's added verses 34-35 to the bible.
That is utter nonsense. On that premise, you could wonder about anything in Scripture which is at variance with your own ideas.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
That is utter nonsense. On that premise, you could wonder about anything in Scripture which is at variance with your own ideas.
Your comment makes me wonder how much you know about textual criticism. A number of people with vastly superior knowledge compared to your's disagree that it's a nonsensical idea.
 
Last edited:
L

loyaldisciple

Guest
Before I say what I'm going to say, understand I do not think women should be pastors nor should they teach men their age or older, (thus pretty much cutting out preaching sermons in a regular service.)

That said, if you think 1 Cor. 14 is why, I really won't ever be learning from you either. You've proven you are incapable of understanding the Word past your own myopic prejudices/stuff someone else taught you.

Here's why. Look at verse 35. "If there is anything they desire to learn." You dare to use that to prove women shouldn't teach? Really?

When was the last time you listened to a teacher out to learn instead of teach?

I still don't think women should teach with all the restrictions included above, but not from Corinthians. Paul was teaching church etiquette here, not who are teachers. Why would a woman desire to learn during a gathering? Because she didn't get what the preacher was saying! Not because she was the preacher! Basic etiquette. Even works today. Don't ask questions during a teaching.

Gabby woman here. I still sometimes don't get something and want to ask hubby immediately. Rude. Not orderly. (And, had you kept those two verses in context, you'd remember it was all about orderly, not gifts.) So, to avoid disrupting service, I write down the question and ask hubby later.

Oh, and if he doesn't know either, we're going to ask the teach next time we see him... but before or after church, because not going to interrupt him the next week either.
You continue to believe that I choose to follow scripture simply because it meets my own thinking or my own agenda. This is where you make your big mistake in judging my thoughts. I don't cherry pick the Bible believing in any scriptures because they suit my own agenda nor my own worldly opinions. I believe in the word of the Bible PERIOD. If you choose to believe anything other than that, then you have fallen away from the truth. I have not "proven" as you say, my thoughts or biases towards anything. What I have proven is my desire to follow the word as spoken. It really doesn't matter what you believe my motives might be. God knows that I trust Him very much and that I do not sit around second guessing nor questioning His word. When I see that He has told me something, I believe it.

I listen to my "teacher" all of the time. In fact, I have read the Bible before and recently decided to read it again from beginning to end. What I don't listen to is this world, this society nor anyone who tends to agree with it. You are free to judge me as you wish and you are free to claim I am judging others. However, when I provide actual scripture it is not I that is judging anything. It is God delivering those words "through me" in order to teach or help someone with something.
 
L

loyaldisciple

Guest
Well, you were trained poorly in the Word, so maybe it's a good thing not to be trained like you.
You are free to possess whatever opinion you like, Ms. Depleted. For me to be trained poorly in the word, then you must be saying the Bible is wrong because it is those very words I have been referring to and following all along. At the very same time you accuse someone else of "judging", you are proving yourself to be the one doing the real judging.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,385
5,724
113
That is utter nonsense. On that premise, you could wonder about anything in Scripture which is at variance with your own ideas.
This is one of his favourite phrases when he disagrees with someone. Dismiss their opinion/observation as "nonsense".

Not every piece of scripture has manuscript variance and notable alterations so no, the accusation that anything in scripture could be questioned on that basis is unfounded.
 

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
That is utter nonsense. On that premise, you could wonder about anything in Scripture which is at variance with your own ideas.
It's not at variance with his own ideas. It's at variance with other scripture, including what Paul has said elsewhere.

But then, this is what you always find unless you let go of the letter and seek the spirit of the word.