Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

  • 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.
S

Scribe

Guest
No one can dispute that women have been, are, and will be used in many powerful ways by God, in the assistance of the ministry, witnessing and many other good works BUT teaching from the pulpit is not one of them.
They do teach and preach from the pulpit. Many much better than ten thousands of male pastors. That is not a question. You would say they are being wrong. I think they are being empowered by the Holy Spirit. You would say that they are under a New Testament Law based on how you read these verses, I would say that was never Paul's intention. And I think I have the Spirit of Christ. Fortunately these anointed women don't listen to your hermeneutic and those that agree with you and they teach and preach anyway and the church has been enriched throughout history because of it.

Also, concerning 1 Tim 2; There could have been a local application to Ephesus. A problem with some of the women there. That can be supported by the context of 2 Tim 3.. "They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,"
Maybe there is a hint here of something going on with the women there concerning teaching false doctrine. A local application (the church in Ephesus) that these women should not teach. And turning it into a New Testament Law that Woman can never teach the bible in the pulpit is obvious to most people a misunderstanding of authorial intent.

You say that 1 Tim 2 has no context about husband and wife but I see the mention of Adam and Eve comparable to the mention of Abraham and Sarah in 1 Pet 3. What would you call Adam and Eve if not the very first Husband and Wife?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,519
113
They do teach and preach from the pulpit. Many much better than ten thousands of male pastors. That is not a question. You would say they are being wrong. I think they are being empowered by the Holy Spirit. You would say that they are under a New Testament Law based on how you read these verses, I would say that was never Paul's intention. And I think I have the Spirit of Christ. Fortunately these anointed women don't listen to your hermeneutic and those that agree with you and they teach and preach anyway and the church has been enriched throughout history because of it.

Also, concerning 1 Tim 2; There could have been a local application to Ephesus. A problem with some of the women there. That can be supported by the context of 2 Tim 3.. "They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,"
Maybe there is a hint here of something going on with the women there concerning teaching false doctrine. A local application (the church in Ephesus) that these women should not teach. And turning it into a New Testament Law that Woman can never teach the bible in the pulpit is obvious to most people a misunderstanding of authorial intent.

You say that 1 Tim 2 has no context about husband and wife but I see the mention of Adam and Eve comparable to the mention of Abraham and Sarah in 1 Pet 3. What would you call Adam and Eve if not the very first Husband and Wife?
Prime example of higher criticism. Won't be long until you question and undermine the blood of Christ as sufficient to atone for sin or even necessary for the atonement for sin.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Prime example of higher criticism. Won't be long until you question and undermine the blood of Christ as sufficient to atone for sin or even necessary for the atonement for sin.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I don't think you know what higher criticism means.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
7,956
4,624
113
Okay a possible working dialogue. Let's look at the first three questions and answers.

1) If Paul did not mean for a woman to teach, then why did he say it?
You answered: We have answered, you don't have to agree with the interpretation but it is not correct to say that we have refused to answer.
The answer was that He could have meant That a wife should not teach her husband in such a way as would be domineering, or forcing her views over his. Like Correcting form of Teaching. A disrespect. Like what you see when a wife corrects her husband in public Teaching him how he is wrong about something and she is going to correct him, telling him how it really should be said. It is embarrassing and not the kind of submissive spirit that she should have out of respect toward her husband. You want to apply it to Teaching the Bible in the pulpit and I think he is talking about Teaching her husband like one of the kids in the family. If it does mean teaching the bible it would still be in the context of teaching her husband something that is false doctrine that was going on in the church from the false teachers that were getting women to agree with their error and these women might have been trying to teach it to their husbands. If the husband said that they are in error with this doctrine they should submit to the husband and quit teaching it.

Your answer makes this about a husband and wife relationship. However the immediate context will not support this interpretation. There is no mention of the husband and wife in 1 Tim. 2. Paul was discussing that men should pray for leaders that we must lead a quiet and tranquil life. He then turns to the women and gives some instructions for them. Some of these women maybe married but the martial status is not under discussion here. It is simply women in general. The points of instruction for them is:
1). A woman is to adorn herself modestly. (v.9)
2). A woman is to learn in quietness with all subjection. (v.11)
3.) A woman is not permitted to teach nor have dominion over the man. (v.12)


Paul's explanation for this is given in verses 13-15. The question was why did he say this? I agree with you that it had everything to do with order in the assembly - question number 2. However, I cannot agree this has something to do with the husband and wife relationship. The immediate context will not support this as will be shown shortly.

Next question was:

2) If Paul said that a woman was to remain silent and it was shameful for her to speak, why did he say this?
You answered: Again the answer has been given several times. The context suggest that they were asking questions in the assembly in a disorderly manner. Two other times in 1 Cor 14 it says to be silent in the church. Tongues without an interpreter, prophesying when it is someone else's turn to prophesy, and women asking questions. The main point of the dialogue is doing things decently and in order.

Again I agree with you, that all of these things were said to maintain the proper godly order in the assembly. The instruction that women were to keep silent is still in effect today, just as are the other inhibiting instructions: 1) Speaking in another language without an interpreter, 2) Prophesying in a disorderly manner.

Next question was:

3) Where was the woman not to teach and speak?

You answered: Already answered in 2

So you agree with me, that the location for these instructions is in the assembly. The point of contention then is in the interpretation of 1 Tim. 2. You make it about the husband and wife relationship because of what Peter had to say. Thus, you attempt to extend the contextual understanding to far for proper interpretation. We must stay within Paul's Epistle for the proper understanding.

After Paul gave the instructions to Timothy about the women, he then followed it with the discussion of assembly offices .One must ignore the Chapter breaks as they are an invention of men. So the Epistle reads in this way:

1Ti 2:7-3:5 whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

It is then easier to see the intended letter as it was written. Paul started by giving instructions to the men. He mentions he was appointed a Preacher and an Apostle, which brings ones thoughts back to assembly life. He then gives instructions for the women before he begins talking about the various offices of the assembly. It is obvious, if you let the Scriptures talk to you, that Paul did this because he wanted Timothy to clearly understand that women were disqualified from the positions he was bringing into the conversation. The portion dealing with the offices of the assembly.

No one can dispute that women have been, are, and will be used in many powerful ways by God, in the assistance of the ministry, witnessing and many other good works BUT teaching from the pulpit is not one of them.
Absolutely crystal-clear. I really don't know what all the debating is all about. Other than it being the natural inclination of a sinning, rebellious and depraved heart.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
7,956
4,624
113
They do teach and preach from the pulpit. Many much better than ten thousands of male pastors. That is not a question. You would say they are being wrong. I think they are being empowered by the Holy Spirit. You would say that they are under a New Testament Law based on how you read these verses, I would say that was never Paul's intention. And I think I have the Spirit of Christ. Fortunately these anointed women don't listen to your hermeneutic and those that agree with you and they teach and preach anyway and the church has been enriched throughout history because of it.

Also, concerning 1 Tim 2; There could have been a local application to Ephesus. A problem with some of the women there. That can be supported by the context of 2 Tim 3.. "They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,"
Maybe there is a hint here of something going on with the women there concerning teaching false doctrine. A local application (the church in Ephesus) that these women should not teach. And turning it into a New Testament Law that Woman can never teach the bible in the pulpit is obvious to most people a misunderstanding of authorial intent.

You say that 1 Tim 2 has no context about husband and wife but I see the mention of Adam and Eve comparable to the mention of Abraham and Sarah in 1 Pet 3. What would you call Adam and Eve if not the very first Husband and Wife?
How in the world are you going to remain silent, have no authority over men and be a pastor at the same time? Doesn't make sense to me.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
How in the world are you going to remain silent, have no authority over men and be a pastor at the same time? Doesn't make sense to me.
Not sure what you are asking. Were you wondering how Deborah accomplished being a judge and a prophetess?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,519
113
I don't think you know what higher criticism means.
Face the music. You constantly seek a way around scripture rather than receiving what it has to say.

I can hardly wait until you write your own commentary to correct all the errors in all the other commentaries.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
7,956
4,624
113
Not sure what you are asking. Were you wondering how Deborah accomplished being a judge and a prophetess?
Do you assume that Deborah stands in the same office as a Church pastor? I think you need to hit the books buddy. The Holy Spirit through Paul has laid down the order of the Church. Purposefully clearly unequivocally beyond all refutation. You either receive these doctrines and commandments (and they are commandments), or the Church has every right to excommunicate you.

2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Tim 3:5
"having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!"
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
7,169
2,055
113
Prime example of higher criticism. Won't be long until you question and undermine the blood of Christ as sufficient to atone for sin or even necessary for the atonement for sin.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
that is a low blow. to suggest one would undermine the foundational truth of the Blood of Christ and the atoning absoluteness of the Blood of Christ and equate that to women pastors or no women pastors is ridiculous.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
7,956
4,624
113
that is a low blow. to suggest one would undermine the foundational truth of the Blood of Christ and the atoning absoluteness of the Blood of Christ and equate that to women pastors or no women pastors is ridiculous.
The thing is........it's a very slippery slope. First its female pastors then.....things tends to go downhill very rapidly.

That has been my observation anyway. It is inconceivable to me that a woman pastor could actually speak with the authority of Christ.

As far as I'm concerned I would be offended by any woman having authority over me in the Church, but I wouldn't be attending any Church with a woman pastor to begin with.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Deborah should not be used as a New Testament church example.
Certainly the principle applies. Jesus did not change God's ability to call a woman and give her authority if He so chooses. Jesus did not establish a New Testament Law that was more restrictive on women than even the Jews were ever aware of in the Old Testament.
Quite the opposite was the tenor of the New Testament. The entourage of women among His disciples must have been an irritation to the Pharisees, and it still is among those infected with the leaven of the Pharisees.

Peter pointing out the women that spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel's prophesy that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh and that your Daughters and Handmaidens shall prophesy (a spoken gift) and the inclusion of women being given power from on high to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth make God's intention very clear that women also were included in this great calling and what God did when he called and empowered Deborah on an individual level or as a unique exception, He was now making the norm for any and all women who can receive the empowering of the Holy Spirit and prophesy, preach and turn the world upside down under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

Deborah and Huldah both reveal that if God used women as spiritual authorities in the OT it is even much more likely that He would be doing so under the New Covenant when the day of Pentecost specifically made a point of the women being included in this new mission.

I am persuaded that if people cannot see the undertow of the inclusion of women dramatically pointed out in the Gospels and in Acts and Paul's writings, they are reading with filters of bad hermeneutics that is keeping them from noticing the obvious.

But wisdom is justified of her children. This battle will rage until Jesus comes again, and I don't expect those who have denomination ties to this doctrine of excluding women from the pulpit to change over night.

It will cost them. They might not want to pay the price. However, if at any time they do see that the proper interpretation is that women can preach in church, and they decide to go with the denominational teaching that she cannot, being not true to themselves and what they really think God is saying, but choose denomination over God they have become an idolater, loving the praise of men rather than God and are choosing denomination over God and this will not go unpunished. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. God knows our hearts and we cannot fool Him.

The Pharisees also claimed scripture for their erroneous interpretations of sabbath and of excluding women but they were wrong. So pronouncing anathemas on those that do not exclude women from the pulpit never supports their hermeneutic it only makes them look like belligerent Pharisees who cannot prove their case.

God is not at all like what they are trying to say that He is. They have missed Jesus teaching altogether and are trying to establish some new form of rules to put upon the shoulders of women that God never intended. They attempt to put upon the shoulders of a woman a burden they themselves would not carry and expect her to be happy about it. Pharisees.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The thing is........it's a very slippery slope. First its female pastors then.....things tends to go downhill very rapidly.

That has been my observation anyway. It is inconceivable to me that a woman pastor could actually speak with the authority of Christ.

As far as I'm concerned I would be offended by any woman having authority over me in the Church, but I wouldn't be attending any Church with a woman pastor to begin with.
I would respect a man's right to such an opinion more if they would apply it to the work place as well. The minute they say it is ok to submit to the authority of a female at work but not in the church demonstrates that they are not true to their convictions.

If one really feels it is a sin to submit to the authority of a female, they should not work for one. If they make exceptions it is not because Paul taught such and exception, they made that up on their own. They are violating their conscience for MONEY.

So in the end they are a hypocrite and dishonest. And therefore their hermeneutic becomes irrelevant because their not obedient to their own rules.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,519
113
I would respect a man's right to such an opinion more if they would apply it to the work place as well. The minute they say it is ok to submit to the authority of a female at work but not in the church demonstrates that they are not true to their convictions.

If one really feels it is a sin to submit to the authority of a female, they should not work for one. If they make exceptions it is not because Paul taught such and exception, they made that up on their own. They are violating their conscience for MONEY.

So in the end they are a hypocrite and dishonest. And therefore their hermeneutic becomes irrelevant because their not obedient to their own rules.
The workplace is not the church. You cannot justify what happens in the secular with what God has ordained in the Spiritual. Pastors are a gift of God to the church. Judges and employers are not specifically ordained by God like pastors in the church. More higher criticism influence.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The workplace is not the church. You cannot justify what happens in the secular with what God has ordained in the Spiritual. Pastors are a gift of God to the church. Judges and employers are not specifically ordained by God like pastors in the church. More higher criticism influence.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Thank for making my point.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Do you assume that Deborah stands in the same office as a Church pastor? I think you need to hit the books buddy. The Holy Spirit through Paul has laid down the order of the Church. Purposefully clearly unequivocally beyond all refutation. You either receive these doctrines and commandments (and they are commandments), or the Church has every right to excommunicate you.

2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Tim 3:5
"having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!"
If God chose to empower women with the Holy Spirit and use them as spiritual authorities in the Old Testament (Deborah, Huldah) it is impossible that Paul would teach that God would never do that again. Can you imagine Paul teaching that? Paul would never tell God what He can do with women.

I won't strive in a spirit of contention over this topic. If you want to present reasons for your interpretations of scripture they are always welcome and I think everyone is edified by hearing how each person presents their exegesis.

No one is going to change their minds based on emotional anathemas threatened upon those who don't agree. The conversation ends at that point. If that is all you are going to do, just consider yourself as having had the last word and go feel good about yourself.

Meanwhile others will continue presenting reasons for their hermeneutic in a spirit of mutual edification.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The workplace is not the church. You cannot justify what happens in the secular with what God has ordained in the Spiritual. Pastors are a gift of God to the church. Judges and employers are not specifically ordained by God like pastors in the church. More higher criticism influence.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
You cannot justify that hermeneutic of "suffer not a woman to usurp authority over a man"

You take up the Adam and Eve example to make your point and then abandon it as soon as you enter the work place. This is not honest.

You cannot demonstrate from the text that Eve was given the right to have authority over the man in secular settings. You made that up.

This is not higher criticism, please learn what that means. It is as annoying as the inapplicable use of the word "liberal" when someone does not agree with you.

 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,519
113
You cannot justify that hermeneutic of "suffer not a woman to usurp authority over a man"

You take up the Adam and Eve example to make your point and then abandon it as soon as you enter the work place. This is not honest.

You cannot demonstrate from the text that Eve was given the right to have authority over the man in secular settings. You made that up.

This is not higher criticism, please learn what that means. It is as annoying as the inapplicable use of the word "liberal" when someone does not agree with you.

The first thing you abandon is context. Authority in the church while reflective of what is established in Gods order of things cannot be expected to be followed in secular matters of unregenerate mankind.

I would appear that you support a line of thinking that lifts itself above the wisdom and knowledge of God. I understand that you feel uncomfortable when its are exposed as just another misguided soul following an already failed line of reasoning.

When you question scripture you eliminate any reasonable basis for discussion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Oct 19, 2020
723
160
43
Traditions are interesting. We know from the first few Centuries (Church Father's era) only a few people of most populations could actually read. Generally, the only people who owned Bibles were the ones who could read them. And that led to even worse traditions.

I said that to say this, maybe the majority of women could not read in Paul's day. The Disciples show their knowledge of the Tanakh so Yiddish men probably were the educated ones (Paul is a great example of being educated in the Torah). Maybe part of Paul's statement here is based upon who can read God's Word vs who could not (back then).

Today, everyone can basically read enough to survive. Much different than 1,600 - 5,000 years ago.