Can women be Pastors?

[calibob]

It does according to GOD through Paul.

1Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; BUT they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Oh goodie, a Lawyer. My study buddy and I last night jumped from Genesis to Hebrews regarding Melchizedek. Here's what we were led to.>

Hebrews 7:12-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him,
“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”

18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (C.O. bible gateway.)

 

[Noose]

Paul was writing about real time 2000 years ago. Before anyone even thought about giving ladies the right to vote, go to college or wear pants.

Every time Paul talked about these rules real time 2000 years ago, he referenced the hierarchy set in the garden of Eden some real time 6000 years ago. And what this means is that these real time rules are never real time but timeless.

Voting?! we are talking about spiritual hierarchy and authority here, not casting ballots and other humanly activities.

 

[Noose]

Oh goodie, a Lawyer. My study buddy and I last night jumped from Genesis to Hebrews regarding Melchizedek. Here's what we were led to.>

Hebrews 7:12-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him,
“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”

18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (C.O. bible gateway.)

This idea is rogue, from what we can tell, Jesus made law even stricter: you were told do not kill but i tell you whoever hates his brother is a murderer. Read Matthew 5 but it has nothing to do with changing the law for those who understand because "...the heavens and the earth shall pass but not one jot from the law..."

Jesus making a better covenant doesn't mean the law is changed, it means the law was a prophesy and the new covenant is the fulfillment of that prophesy through Jesus.

 

[calibob]

This idea is rogue, from what we can tell, Jesus made law even stricter: you were told do not kill but i tell you whoever hates his brother is a murderer. Read Matthew 5 but it has nothing to do with changing the law for those who understand because "...the heavens and the earth shall pass but not one jot from the law..."

Jesus making a better covenant doesn't mean the law is changed, it means the law was a prophesy and the new covenant is the fulfillment of that prophesy through Jesus.

I didn't make it up. It was copy pasted from Hebrews via Bible gateway. Pastor means shepherd, not boss.

 

[calibob]

Many churches have several ministries and thus several pastors. I'd agree The senior pastor must be male their's usually a youth pastor for the youth ministry and a women's pastor for the womens ministry. a pastor for the outreach ministry etc. can a former addict or ex-con be responsible to the senior pastor for the prison or outreach ministry as long as the chain of command stays intact? Why can't the pastor in charge of the Women's ministry be a female? Should a man preach about feminine hygiene?

 

[calibob]

I used to work at a wedding chapel. According to Nevada State law a wedding minister can only work 20 hours a week. And a certified minister has to have a flock of 8 congregants. We stayed open 24/7/365 and yes we hired female pastors to perform weddings.

lwc.jpg

• calibob
• Jul 31, 2018

 

[calibob]

I would stand against divorced pastors. That's why I never perused that calling.

 

[Dino246]

If you have nothing; say nothing. The only one you are fooling is yourself if that.

Do you know what a circular argument is? If the term doesn't have any meaning to you, don't assume that it has no meaning at all. It's a flaw of reasoning... a surprisingly common one on this forum. I'd give you the meaning, but you likely won't accept it from me, so I'll suggest you go and look it up for yourself.

 

[Dino246]

Yes, Paul said it.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

You quoted the text accurately, and it doesn't say, "A woman submitting to a man is not a pagan thing, it is about authority" and it doesn't say "the head of every woman is any man". Further, Paul qualifies it by saying, "However, in the Lord...".

Q. Does Christ have authority over the Church? absolutely

Without a doubt, yes.

Q. Does men have authority over women according to Paul? absolutely

Without a doubt, no. You have no authority over my daughter, and I have no authority over your wife (assuming you're married).

1 Corinthians 14:34 women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

You can only submit to an authority and Paul here is not talking about women submitting to the Lord but to men by being silent.
As much as it sounds bad to some ears, it is what it is, no sugar coating, no clever interpretations.

As I wrote in response to Lightbearer, this verse refers to "the Law" but the Law doesn't actually say that... anywhere. Paul knew the Law better than you and I do... and he would have known that such a saying simply isn't there. It's most likely a quote (preferred) or a later addition.

Eph 5:22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Yes, wives submit to the husbands as to to the Lord. A command, no clever interpretations needed, just as the church submits to God.

To their own husbands, not to men generally.

Again, command or not, Adam had authority over Eve and men have authority over women. Fathers have authority over sons/ Teachers have authority over students/ Masters have authority over servants/ Mothers have authority over daughters.

Authority, yes. Men having authority over women generally, no.

 

[Fhndou]

To my view pastors are guided by the Holly Spirit, anointed to preach the word of God and save people's lives. Annoitment is not gender based, so I strongly support wemen as pastors.
My simple answer is "YES"

 

[Dino246]

To my view pastors are guided by the Holly Spirit, anointed to preach the word of God and save people's lives. Annoitment is not gender based, so I strongly support wemen as pastors.
My simple answer is "YES"

Thanks for sharing, and welcome to CC!

 

[calibob]

To my view pastors are guided by the Holly Spirit, anointed to preach the word of God and save people's lives. Annoitment is not gender based, so I strongly support wemen as pastors.
My simple answer is "YES"

Ditto Dino, welcome aboard!

 

[lightbearer]

Do you know what a circular argument is? If the term doesn't have any meaning to you, don't assume that it has no meaning at all. It's a flaw of reasoning... a surprisingly common one on this forum. I'd give you the meaning, but you likely won't accept it from me, so I'll suggest you go and look it up for yourself.

You misunderstood. Circular argument does not apply. To say it does is to say nothing and shows you have nothing as a rebuttal. Which is what you should of said rather than imply Paul who was led by the Spirit to share what he shared wasn't what he shared.

lightbearer said:
Paul through Christ Bluntly states.
1Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Except, it doesn't.

YOU SAY THAT IT DOESN'T bluntly state that women should remain silent, that they are commanded to be under obedience as also the law states. But it clearly does. Paul who was inspired and moved according to GOD's will penned it for all whether we like it or not.

 

[lightbearer]

Hebrews 7:12-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him,
“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”

18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (C.O. bible gateway.)

Let's take a look at Heb 7 starting at verse 11.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

For through the tribe of Levi was the priesthood according to the Law. of which Aaron was of.

12 For (BECAUSE) when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

Because there is a change in the priesthood there is necessarily a change in the Law also because the Law states the priesthood be through Aaron not Melchizedek.

This is confirmed in the following verses in which you shared.

13 For (BECAUSE) the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.

14 For (BECAUSE) it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

According to context the change in the Law was that which mandated who was to be priests. That is all that is stated here in Hebrews 7.

Let's jump to Hebrews chapter 8 now.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

So if the GOD's laws are in our hearts and minds the ministration has changed also. The ministration went from the priests sharing the the book of the Law from parchment and that which was written of GOD on Tables of stone to the LORD writing HIS Laws in our hearts and minds.

Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
(2Co 3:3-5 KJV)

The New Covenant GOD's Laws in our hearts and minds.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

SO Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ (word; GOD's Law) down from above) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ (word; GOD's Law) again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word (Christ) of faith, which we preach; For Christ (the Word in the heart and mouth) is the end of the law (on parchment and Tables of Stone) for righteousness to every one that believeth.
(Rom 10:4-8; Deut 30:11 -14)

 

[Dino246]

You misunderstood. Circular argument does not apply. To say it does is to say nothing and shows you have nothing as a rebuttal. Which is what you should of said rather than imply Paul who was led by the Spirit to share what he shared wasn't what he shared.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is you who does not understand. If your argument is fallacious, as a circular argument is, no rebuttal is required, for the argument has no merit.

By the way, since you're so certain that you're correct, you might want to learn proper English grammar: the correct past tense is "should have said", not "should of said". : )

YOU SAY THAT IT DOESN'T bluntly state that women should remain silent, that they are commanded to be under obedience as also the law states. But it clearly does. Paul who was inspired and moved according to GOD's will penned it for all whether we like it or not.

The same circular reasoning repeated. Your argument is simply fallacious and illogical.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

I think a woman possess greater power in supporting a preacher than being a preacher herself.

 

[Noose]

You quoted the text accurately, and it doesn't say, "A woman submitting to a man is not a pagan thing, it is about authority" and it doesn't say "the head of every woman is any man". Further, Paul qualifies it by saying, "However, in the Lord...".

Without a doubt, no. You have no authority over my daughter, and I have no authority over your wife (assuming you're married).

Fleshly thoughts.
The hierarchy and authority being spoken about is a spiritual authority more than it is fleshly. In the same manner, the Father has authority over the son. It doesn't mean that you being a father wherever you are, have a direct authority over my son but in a spiritual sense, you do.

1 Corinthians 14:34 women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
If your daughter was to be in my presence, she must keep quiet and if my wife is in your presence in a church setting, she too will keep quiet. The idea that women can teach men is usurping authority according to Paul.

The pagan context is your own theory, there's nothing in that text that says Paul was addressing some pagan beliefs. It was a command for them and us and those to come.

As I wrote in response to Lightbearer, this verse refers to "the Law" but the Law doesn't actually say that... anywhere. Paul knew the Law better than you and I do... and he would have known that such a saying simply isn't there. It's most likely a quote (preferred) or a later addition.

The law says that men rule over women:

Gen 3:16To the woman He said: “I will sharply increase your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Gen 2:
23And the man said:
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man she was taken.”

Adam gives Eve her authority as per the law. You can not give another person authority if you don't have authority to do that.

This also doesn't mean that i'm the one to give your daughter a name, she will take her husbands name some day which symbolically means she is in submission to the authority of the husband.

To their own husbands, not to men generally.

True but there's no such thing as husband and wives in a church setting, there's only men and women and Paul was not addressing a household but a church. And in that sense, the husbands/Men are the head of the wives/women as Christ is the head of the church and not a house hold. The reason women are supposed to keep quiet and be in submission as per the law.In the house hold setting, they can talk as much as they want.

Authority, yes. Men having authority over women generally, no.

Generally, a man is the head of a woman just as Christ is the head of the church.
Specifically and in the household, a man is still the head of the woman.

Anything apart from the above is unbiblical.

 

[tumeric]

he who is first is last / the EGOS of men have prevented half of the people on earth from using their intelligence to find and/or develop medicines and so many other discoveries long before they were discovered or made / we men still let our EGOS keep women intelligence in the DARK AGES

 

[tumeric]

JESUS THE CHRIST called the CHILDREN TO HIM ( JESUS DIDN'T CALL ONLY THE MALE CHILDREN ) / is there a difference when a woman preaches the gospel ?????????? is there any difference in anyone who preaches the gospel ----even a male or female CHILD ???????

 

[Dino246]

Fleshly thoughts.
The hierarchy and authority being spoken about is a spiritual authority more than it is fleshly.

And your scriptural support for this is...?

The idea that women can teach men is usurping authority according to Paul.

No it isn't. First, you're fudging your paraphrase, and second, the word authentein likely does not mean "usurp authority". It's inconsistent with the context.

The pagan context is your own theory, there's nothing in that text that says Paul was addressing some pagan beliefs. It was a command for them and us and those to come.

It's not my theory; it's well-attested in the research literature.

The law says that men rule over women:
Gen 3:16 To the woman He said: “I will sharply increase your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

No, it doesn't. It says that (as a consequence of sin) men will rule over women. There is no law in the entire OT that is given to someone other than the one expected to fulfill the law. Do you sweat while you eat your food? If not, by your reasoning, you're breaking the "law" (v. 19). Did God "command" that childbirth would be painful? Obviously not. He said that it would be... that's a consequence, not a command.

Gen 2:
23And the man said:
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man she was taken.”

Adam gives Eve her authority as per the law. You can not give another person authority if you don't have authority to do that.

This passage has nothing whatsoever to do with authority.

True but there's no such thing as husband and wives in a church setting, there's only men and women and Paul was not addressing a household but a church.

Simply wrong, and contrary to your position anyway.

And in that sense, the husbands/Men are the head of the wives/women as Christ is the head of the church and not a house hold. The reason women are supposed to keep quiet and be in submission as per the law.In the house hold setting, they can talk as much as they want.

Generally, a man is the head of a woman just as Christ is the head of the church.
Specifically and in the household, a man is still the head of the woman.

A man is the head of his own wife only. As I said before, this does not give men general authority over women.

Anything apart from the above is unbiblical.

Thanks for your opinion.