Are Women Pastors Biblical???

[Marilyn C]

Sure.

#1. 1 Timothy 2.:12......
" I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man

#2. ! Timothy 2:13;
" rather, she is to remain quiet."

#3. 1 Tim. 2:14.......
" For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

#4. I Corinthians 14:34-35
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

#5. 1 Corth. 14:35.......
"If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Hi Major,

Thank you for all those scriptures.

So....do we put our own interpretation on God`s word based on the English word, knowing that it is limited in translation?

Or do we actually check out what God actually said based on the original Greek word, knowing that there are many Greek words for ONE English word?

 

[crossnote]

3) Those passages reflect nothing more than what was the cultural norm back then

My 2 cents...The problem with this and similar 'write off' explanations is that it ignores the fact that Paul takes his case back to Adam and Eve (1Tim 2:14) thus transcending cultural and societal excuses.

 

[forgiven61]

My 2 cents...The problem

we have 2 separate groups both proclaiming scriptures through research. each group has the correct interpation . on another note it was said this would probably be closed. its gaining new breath

 

[Marilyn C]

My 2 cents...The problem with this and similar 'write off' explanations is that it ignores the fact that Paul takes his case back to Adam and Eve (1Tim 2:14) thus transcending cultural and societal excuses.

MMM.....the reference to Adam & Eve, refers to Adam being the source, being formed first and the woman out of the man. Thus the woman is not to usurp authority over the man, as scripture tells us.

``to have authority over a man.` (2 Tim. 2: 12)

`Have authority over,` Greek word ` authenteo,` meaning to act of oneself, dominate, usurp authority over.

Clearly Paul is saying that women are not to usurp authority over men, as the woman was not made first and also was deceived.

This does not say that women cannot have correct authority in the Body of Christ.

 

[Marilyn C]

Yes sir. I have been exposed to every one of those explanations and even more than those. But again, it simply comes down to obedience to what is actually said in the Scriptures.

Allow me to say this. Right now, in my church we have a woman music minister. A woman chairman of the Finances. A woman in charge of Community Outreach. I do not know how many Bible teachers, probably 5 or 6.
Now because every woman in the church has READ the Bible and understands what is written right in front of them, not a single woman would accept the position of a Deacon or an Ordained Pastor.

They would not accept them because the Word of Of God says that ....."If A MAN.....and HUSBAND of one wife".

Just because God`s word does NOT say `woman` in the scripture does not mean women cannot be elders etc. It is only giving the details of what a man in eldership. We can`t take a position from what is not mentioned.

 

[Musicmaster]

Just because God`s word does NOT say `woman` in the scripture does not mean women cannot be elders etc. It is only giving the details of what a man in eldership. We can`t take a position from what is not mentioned.

So, if I may, are you appealing to an argument from silence in the above?

Also, in your post 165, what is "correct authority" for a woman in the body of Christ? Would you define that for us so that we understand exactly what you're sayin? I don't like loose ends left open to misunderstanding.

Much appreciated.

Thanks

MM

 

[crossnote]

MMM.....the reference to Adam & Eve, refers to Adam being the source, being formed first and the woman out of the man. Thus the woman is not to usurp authority over the man, as scripture tells us.

``to have authority over a man.` (2 Tim. 2: 12)

`Have authority over,` Greek word ` authenteo,` meaning to act of oneself, dominate, usurp authority over.

Clearly Paul is saying that women are not to usurp authority over men, as the woman was not made first and also was deceived.

This does not say that women cannot have correct authority in the Body of Christ.

So if they are not to have authority over men, that leaves 'correct authority' as pertaining to other women and children.

 

[Marilyn C]

So, if I may, are you appealing to an argument from silence in the above?

Also, in your post 165, what is "correct authority" for a woman in the body of Christ? Would you define that for us so that we understand exactly what you're sayin? I don't like loose ends left open to misunderstanding.

Much appreciated.

Thanks

MM

Hi MM,

I quite understand. `Correct authority,` is related to all the gifts and ministries. We are to submit to one another, - `submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord.` (Eph. 5: 21) We are to respect and appreciate each other`s gifts & offices, for -

`the whole Body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share causes the growth of the Body fro the edifying of itself in love.` (Eph. 4: 16)

Marilyn

BTW read my next post for more.....

 

[Marilyn C]

So ......there are no denominational organisations with business connections to the Government`s rules to include GLB (etc) persons into leadership etc in God`s word. Yet many are operating this way.

Also there is no one man `lording it over` as the correct functioning of the Body, only those in error. Yet many operate that way.

Then there is no written credentials required by man`s authority for leadership in God`s word. Yet many operate that way.

So how would Phillip`s daughters who prophecy function today? Out in the foyer?

And how will each person `teach and admonish one another?` Also out in the foyer?

 

[Major]

Just because God`s word does NOT say `woman` in the scripture does not mean women cannot be elders etc. It is only giving the details of what a man in eldership. We can`t take a position from what is not mentioned.

I can not agree with that opinion Marilyn.

You are saying to ignore what God did actually say and instead accept what He did not say. Now just think about that for a moment.

Isn't that exactly where the Mormon faith and JW's came from?

 

[Major]

So ......there are no denominational organisations with business connections to the Government`s rules to include GLB (etc) persons into leadership etc in God`s word. Yet many are operating this way.

Also there is no one man `lording it over` as the correct functioning of the Body, only those in error. Yet many operate that way.

Then there is no written credentials required by man`s authority for leadership in God`s word. Yet many operate that way.

So how would Phillip`s daughters who prophecy function today? Out in the foyer?

And how will each person `teach and admonish one another?` Also out in the foyer?

You said...........
"Then there is no written credentials required by man`s authority for leadership in God`s word. Yet many operate that way".

However, the Bible says in 1 Timothy 3:1-3........
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

If that is not a written list of credentials given by God ......then what is it?

 

[Major]

Hi Major,

Thank you for all those scriptures.

So....do we put our own interpretation on God`s word based on the English word, knowing that it is limited in translation?

Or do we actually check out what God actually said based on the original Greek word, knowing that there are many Greek words for ONE English word?

Sister.....your original position was......"We should not base doctrine on only ONE Scripture.

To that I gave you several Scriptures to confirm the ONE .

Now you are suggesting that we ignore the all the English translations and base our understanding on the Greek language.

Now it has been 50 years since I studied Greek. I never use it because no one here in Florida speaks it so my memory is very bad of it.

However, Let’s look at the context of 1 Timothy 3:1. The word “overseer” in Greek in that Scripture is in the feminine. What follows is verse 2, which says..............
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach”.

Now context and the GREEK says that Because Paul clearly says the overseer must be a man, then we can understand why some translations insert the word “office” in verse one because the position is what is being spoken about, not the person. So what we have is It would be the office that is feminine. But, the one who occupies the office is masculine.

Furthermore, in the same Scripture of 1 Tim. 3>2, the phrase “husband of one wife” in the original Greek that you are demanding is is ἄνδρα μιᾶς γυναικὸς, andra mias gunaikos.

andra = man, husband. “A man, i.e, an adult male person.”
mias = “One, the first cardinal numeral.”
gunaikos = Woman, wife,

 

[Musicmaster]

Hi MM,

I quite understand. `Correct authority,` is related to all the gifts and ministries. We are to submit to one another, - `submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord.` (Eph. 5: 21) We are to respect and appreciate each other`s gifts & offices, for -

`the whole Body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share causes the growth of the Body fro the edifying of itself in love.` (Eph. 4: 16)

Marilyn

BTW read my next post for more.....

I absolutely understand what you're saying when it comes to the organizational structuring posture within most church organizations. I've been there for several decades now.

However, I'd like to offer to you what you likely already know: Referencing the unity and mutual submission as the mechanism for there being no distinctions in function within the Church is a fallacious over-application of that principle, being forced upon all other stand-alone principles as the chief, governing definition. That would be like me saying that, because there is an instruction for a man to instruct his "son" (singular in the test) in the ways of the Lord, that men are therefore allowed to have only one son, and that if he has more than one, he only has to instruct just one of them in the ways of the Lord. Different scenario, but similar misapplication.

Additionally, perhaps we all need to slow down a bit and define some things:

1) The modern day, institutional model is man-made
2) The entanglements of institutionalism with government due to regulations and tax oversight...mainly because they had no choice with government that sees itself as an authority over those institutions, as with all public institutions
3) The lone, top authority of the "senior" pastor within the "pastoral model" is the institutional model's replacement of Christ's Headship by way of another top authority, and who many times rule over the elders; some of them citing the authoritarian rule of elders as bad, pointing at a hand full of organizations, affiliated and independent (most institutional elders are not elders of biblical stature, granted)
4) Inclusive of all the many other trappings within the institutional model, some good, some not so good, including the massive expenditures and plethora of false teachings (such as "tithing to this church" falsehood and a hoard of other lies and socially engineered theologies)

When you point at those things, and (what appears to be) assume their differences from other models of gatherings as a reason for departures from the clear language of scripture, I'm not so sure that would be something to hold up as justification for such a broad spectrum denial of the Lord having established only the men as standing in the place of doctrinal authority in teaching. The one or two exceptions (or perceived exceptions) in history don't serve as license for inclusion in the function of doctrinal authority within the Church overall. That would be like me pointing at the hand full of women who led as doctrinal authorities, and did little more than create a cultic branch or total departure of the varying types we can point at today. Not all women would mislead.

So, yes, we can indeed point at the fact that there is no perfect model for gathering that's not riddled with imperfections. House churches have theirs, the institutional model has theirs, and the commune model has theirs, et al. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

Thanks

MM

 

[bobinfaith]

Hi Bob,
I hear your heart. Now I have only addressed the scriptures given as the basis for this view. If we are to be honest then that is what we should be looking at. If there are more scriptures to bring forward then that is what should happen. However based on the scriptures presented they do not show me that women cannot be shepherds over others. I see that role of shepherd, pastor in the light of mentoring and guiding others in their walk in the Lord. Obviously women do best with women and men with men. However senior men and women (mature in the Lord) are a great gift to the Body of Christ and should thus be appreciated. Yes women can be good at business, but to lead an organisation as the sole leader is not for women or for men as I don`t see any scriptural basis for that. Leadership in scripture is always plural. The duties and responsiblities of leading an organisation go far beyond a pastor`s office. Because an organisation is connected to the government through rules, regulations, etc. It eventually leads to `partnering with the world system.` Just think of the many who have bowed to the values of the world system, (respect, tolerance, inclusiveness etc with all many of degenerate lifestyles). Other requirements are coming and the organisations will comply as they are partnering with the world system. `Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship, (partnering) with the world (system) is enmity with God? ` (James 4: 4)
Marilyn.

Hello Marilyn;

There are many more Scriptures but I felt the few I posted would suffice in getting the teaching across, the roles God had/has for women in the Old/New Testaments and today. It does not teach that women cannot be shepherds over others, only what God anointed these women servants.

When we hone in to what has been discussed, Are Women Pastors Biblical??? I feel you truly believe God can anoint women to shepherd, pastor or elder (all is synonymous) and provide you with Biblical Scripture.

Is this what I'm understanding from you? If so, then please say so. If you have already provided this then bear with me in this long topic and reiterate.

I'm going to leave opinion out, then please only present what you believe and interpret in Scripture and I will arrive at a common ground with you, again.

Common ground, meaning, I will respect your interpretation and belief, but there are two sides to this discussion and I will maintain my conviction or firmly held belief.

God bless you, Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

I can not agree with that opinion Marilyn.

You are saying to ignore what God did actually say and instead accept what He did not say. Now just think about that for a moment.

Isn't that exactly where the Mormon faith and JW's came from?

So when Jesus said to Peter `Do you love me more than these?` (John 21: 15) What sort of `love` was that, Major? Sexual, friendship, godly etc And when Jesus said a third time to Peter, `Do you love me?` is it the same `love` as the first time? (John 21: 17)

The same English word but with different meanings in Greek.

That is the same as the English words `silent,` and `speak.` One word in English but different meanings in Greek. Thus we need to look up the Greek to see what God actually meant.

 

[Marilyn C]

You said...........
"Then there is no written credentials required by man`s authority for leadership in God`s word. Yet many operate that way".

However, the Bible says in 1 Timothy 3:1-3........
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

If that is not a written list of credentials given by God ......then what is it?

However most denominations require written credentials of MAN not God.

 

[Marilyn C]

Sister.....your original position was......"We should not base doctrine on only ONE Scripture.

To that I gave you several Scriptures to confirm the ONE .

Now you are suggesting that we ignore the all the English translations and base our understanding on the Greek language.

Now it has been 50 years since I studied Greek. I never use it because no one here in Florida speaks it so my memory is very bad of it.

However, Let’s look at the context of 1 Timothy 3:1. The word “overseer” in Greek in that Scripture is in the feminine. What follows is verse 2, which says..............
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach”.

Now context and the GREEK says that Because Paul clearly says the overseer must be a man, then we can understand why some translations insert the word “office” in verse one because the position is what is being spoken about, not the person. So what we have is It would be the office that is feminine. But, the one who occupies the office is masculine.

Furthermore, in the same Scripture of 1 Tim. 3>2, the phrase “husband of one wife” in the original Greek that you are demanding is is ἄνδρα μιᾶς γυναικὸς, andra mias gunaikos.

andra = man, husband. “A man, i.e, an adult male person.”
mias = “One, the first cardinal numeral.”
gunaikos = Woman, wife,

We don`t ignore the English translations but as those who would `feed the flock,` we need to be aware that the English is limited and we need to explain that the original Greek has different meanings than what we can presume by the English.

 

[Marilyn C]

I absolutely understand what you're saying when it comes to the organizational structuring posture within most church organizations. I've been there for several decades now.

However, I'd like to offer to you what you likely already know: Referencing the unity and mutual submission as the mechanism for there being no distinctions in function within the Church is a fallacious over-application of that principle, being forced upon all other stand-alone principles as the chief, governing definition. That would be like me saying that, because there is an instruction for a man to instruct his "son" (singular in the test) in the ways of the Lord, that men are therefore allowed to have only one son, and that if he has more than one, he only has to instruct just one of them in the ways of the Lord. Different scenario, but similar misapplication.

Additionally, perhaps we all need to slow down a bit and define some things:

1) The modern day, institutional model is man-made
2) The entanglements of institutionalism with government due to regulations and tax oversight...mainly because they had no choice with government that sees itself as an authority over those institutions, as with all public institutions
3) The lone, top authority of the "senior" pastor within the "pastoral model" is the institutional model's replacement of Christ's Headship by way of another top authority, and who many times rule over the elders; some of them citing the authoritarian rule of elders as bad, pointing at a hand full of organizations, affiliated and independent (most institutional elders are not elders of biblical stature, granted)
4) Inclusive of all the many other trappings within the institutional model, some good, some not so good, including the massive expenditures and plethora of false teachings (such as "tithing to this church" falsehood and a hoard of other lies and socially engineered theologies)

When you point at those things, and (what appears to be) assume their differences from other models of gatherings as a reason for departures from the clear language of scripture, I'm not so sure that would be something to hold up as justification for such a broad spectrum denial of the Lord having established only the men as standing in the place of doctrinal authority in teaching. The one or two exceptions (or perceived exceptions) in history don't serve as license for inclusion in the function of doctrinal authority within the Church overall. That would be like me pointing at the hand full of women who led as doctrinal authorities, and did little more than create a cultic branch or total departure of the varying types we can point at today. Not all women would mislead.

So, yes, we can indeed point at the fact that there is no perfect model for gathering that's not riddled with imperfections. House churches have theirs, the institutional model has theirs, and the commune model has theirs, et al. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

Thanks

MM

I don`t see anyone as having the total authority over the flock. Scripture always presents a plural leadership.

Imperfections of character, yes, that is why those mature give grace and assistance to the weaker ones. And the other imperfection involves us all coming to maturity of the knowledge of Christ, (the truth). (Eph. 4: 13) That is why we see the names of the denominations as to the truth that was clarified and then contained. However the Holy Spirit has swept across all denominations and brought the great truths of the Lord that is bringing us all to the unity of the faith....(Eph. 4: 13)

 

[Marilyn C]

Hello Marilyn;

There are many more Scriptures but I felt the few I posted would suffice in getting the teaching across, the roles God had/has for women in the Old/New Testaments and today. It does not teach that women cannot be shepherds over others, only what God anointed these women servants.

When we hone in to what has been discussed, Are Women Pastors Biblical??? I feel you truly believe God can anoint women to shepherd, pastor or elder (all is synonymous) and provide you with Biblical Scripture.

Is this what I'm understanding from you? If so, then please say so. If you have already provided this then bear with me in this long topic and reiterate.

I'm going to leave opinion out, then please only present what you believe and interpret in Scripture and I will arrive at a common ground with you, again.

Common ground, meaning, I will respect your interpretation and belief, but there are two sides to this discussion and I will maintain my conviction or firmly held belief.

God bless you, Marilyn.

Hi bob,

Yes I do believe that women can be part of a plural `leadership.` They can be shepherds, elders, those who are mature in the Lord and who are mentoring others, bringing them to maturity in the Lord. This is in ever day life and functioning with other mature believers.

I do not see the word pastor of an organisation as the correct term. CEO would be more accurate. And that is whom so ever the people (democracy) chose and decide to pay for. Thus a CEO of a business.

The encumbrance of those extra responsiblities, it seems to me to limit the Pastoral office.

Hope that is clearer. Marilyn.

 

[Musicmaster]

I don`t see anyone as having the total authority over the flock. Scripture always presents a plural leadership.

Imperfections of character, yes, that is why those mature give grace and assistance to the weaker ones. And the other imperfection involves us all coming to maturity of the knowledge of Christ, (the truth). (Eph. 4: 13) That is why we see the names of the denominations as to the truth that was clarified and then contained. However the Holy Spirit has swept across all denominations and brought the great truths of the Lord that is bringing us all to the unity of the faith....(Eph. 4: 13)

I don't understand throwing in the red herring of "total authority over the flock" and such. I never said anything at all to that effect. I only addressed doctrinal authority in teaching. Yes, there are some "pastors" who lord it over their following, and elder groups that lord over their followers, but I never gave a whisper of approval for such. There are many good pastors, and there are bad ones. There are good elders, and there are bad ones.

But, that's ok. I agreed with you that the organizational structure is man-made, and that doesn't seem to sink in, so I'll back out of this peacefully.

Have a blessed one.

MM