women as priests

If you really wanted to give women priests a different title.

They could be called a priest of Pentecost.

Or a priest of the Holy Spirit.

Love365 said:

They could be called a priest of Pentecost.

Or a priest of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Oh, I like that! It has a ring to it.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Actually all it implies is female priests. Which you support. Why were the Pagans better than Christians on this issue?

Click to expand...

Never said they were.
Read post #5.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

And they weren't pastors or elders.

Click to expand...

They were teachers and prophets.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Why didnt he then appoint women as leaders over men? Either in his time or the time of the Apostles?

Click to expand...

He appointed Deborah as judge over the whole nation.
If you want to know why he didn't appoint anyone else, you'll have to ask him.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Their part howrver is not in being clerics, which they can never legitimately be.

Click to expand...

Legitimately, according to who?
Clearly not God.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

No he was deliberate in first excluding gentiles.

Click to expand...

So if women can't be ordained because Jesus had 12 male disciples, Gentiles should not be able to be ordained because the 12 were Jewish.

Strong in Him said:

They were teachers and prophets.

Click to expand...

Not priestesses or Bishops though.

Strong in Him said:

He appointed Deborah as judge over the whole nation.
If you want to know why he didn't appoint anyone else, you'll have to ask him.

Click to expand...

and did he appoint a female levitical priestess at any time? Why couldnt Israel do what Pagans were doing? Whely were the Pagans better than God at the time?-

Strong in Him said:

So if women can't be ordained because Jesus had 12 male disciples, Gentiles should not be able to be ordained because the 12 were Jewish.

Click to expand...

Are you a Mormon who believes Apostles still exist? The Apostles appoint bishops and elders.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Are you a Mormon who believes Apostles still exist?

Click to expand...

No, are you?

You previously asked if Jesus was too cowardly to appoint a woman, if that had been his intention. Post #57.
The argument that women cannot be ordained because Jesus had only men as his closest disciples is one that has come up often. My response was to point out that he only chose circumcised Jews as his 12 closest disciples.
So logically, if clergy cannot be women because Jesus would have had female disciples if he had wanted women to lead; it follows that clergy must be Jewish, because Jesus would have appointed Gentile disciples had he wanted them.

Strong in Him said:

They were teachers and prophets

Click to expand...

Deborah was a prophetess

Strong in Him said:

No, are you?

You previously asked if Jesus was too cowardly to appoint a woman, if that had been his intention. Post #57.
The argument that women cannot be ordained because Jesus had only men as his closest disciples is one that has come up often. My response was to point out that he only chose circumcised Jews as his 12 closest disciples.
So logically, if clergy cannot be women because Jesus would have had female disciples if he had wanted women to lead; it follows that clergy must be Jewish, because Jesus would have appointed Gentile disciples had he wanted them.

Click to expand...

The same argument can be made for the Levitical priesthood. The requirement for the Levitical priesthood did not only include being male... it was a lot more stringent including, priest were not to be Gentiles. So he didn't appoint female priests under the Old covenant, he didn't appoint male gentiles either.

ralliann said:

Jew's also had rules for slaves as well. But I did read that jew's did not stop polygamy until after the diaspora, from Jewish (rabbininic) sources. Jew's were also given exemption from the Roman's, at least from Idol's . It would be difficult to continue a practice, in a culture that had no law to regulate polygamy at all, let alone frown on it. But Rome did allow religious practice and enforcement within certain provinces by religious leaders..

Click to expand...

One possibility is that polygamy continued to be practiced in the Jewish diaspora beyond the borders of the Roman empire. But I admit I have not looked into that in depth.

As to "priestess" being a slur (which I have already explained); that is stated quite clearly here: priestess - Wiktionary, the free dictionary The three meanings it gives for the terms are:

priestess (plural priestesses, masculine priest)

1. A woman with religious duties and responsibilities in certain non-Christian religions. synonyms ▲hyponyms ▼quotations ▼Synonyms: gythja, kahuna, mamaloi, mambo, miko
2. (religious slur, uncommon) A female Christian priest or minister, typically in a Protestant, Old Catholic, or independent Catholic denomination. quotations ▼
3. (colloquial, obsolete) A priest’s wife. synonyms ▲quotations ▼Synonyms: presbytera, presbyteress

CF has habitually treated speaking of Christian clergy as "priestesses" as flaming.

prodromos said:

Deborah was a prophetess

Click to expand...

Yes, she proclaimed God's word to men.
She was a judge too, and sorted out men's disputes. She was also a leader - anointed by God.

Rose_bud said:

So he didn't appoint female priests under the Old covenant, he didn't appoint male gentiles either.

Click to expand...

But he appoints both today.

Strong in Him said:

No, are you?

You previously asked if Jesus was too cowardly to appoint a woman, if that had been his intention. Post #57.
The argument that women cannot be ordained because Jesus had only men as his closest disciples is one that has come up often. My response was to point out that he only chose circumcised Jews as his 12 closest disciples.
So logically, if clergy cannot be women because Jesus would have had female disciples if he had wanted women to lead; it follows that clergy must be Jewish, because Jesus would have appointed Gentile disciples had he wanted them.

Click to expand...

Not only his closest disciples but the men they also chose and put in place to be leaders of the community. They did not appoint women to those positions. One must ask the question why.

As to why Gentiles were not included in the Apostles it's because we were not the target of Christ's ministry. Christ blessed a Gentile woman who compared herself as a Gentile to a dog receiving crumbs at the table.

I think it is a legitimate question to ask why didn't Jesus either himself or through his Apostles appoint women if that was always the intent. Why were the Pagans more righteous than the Christian Church, in this regard?

Paidiske said:

One possibility is that polygamy continued to be practiced in the Jewish diaspora beyond the borders of the Roman empire. But I admit I have not looked into that in depth.

Click to expand...

That could be. But it was not mentioned in that sense. But still a possibility

Paidiske said:

As to "priestess" being a slur (which I have already explained); that is stated quite clearly here: priestess - Wiktionary, the free dictionary The three meanings it gives for the terms are:

priestess (plural priestesses, masculine priest)

1. A woman with religious duties and responsibilities in certain non-Christian religions. synonyms ▲hyponyms ▼quotations ▼Synonyms: gythja, kahuna, mamaloi, mambo, miko
2. (religious slur, uncommon) A female Christian priest or minister, typically in a Protestant, Old Catholic, or independent Catholic denomination. quotations ▼
3. (colloquial, obsolete) A priest’s wife. synonyms ▲quotations ▼Synonyms: presbytera, presbyteress

CF has habitually treated speaking of Christian clergy as "priestesses" as flaming.

Click to expand...

I just don't see why it should be any different than priest, just of the male and female persuasion. Pagans are pagans, non pagan is non pagan is all. But for you I understand your sensitive, I just don't understand the why of it, as there were pagan priests to is all.
And I do think priests are distinct in the Church.

I tend to think few are called to be pastors. Although all believers are called to be preachers of the gospel, and fill various roles in a congregation, the formal role of pastor or clergy seems better suited to a small subset. In other words, I wouldn't say "men should be priests". Rather, a small subset of men are called to the priesthood. Perhaps despite themselves. When the question of women pastors is raised, it is often (although not always) framed as if all men are called to lead churches as pastors. Rather, most men are not called to such a role. If women aren't, the same can also be said for most men. When a woman counters with "if men are pastors, then so should women", or "men are pastors and women should have the same power". I think that misses the point. To view it in terms of power dynamics saddens me. If it's about power for someone, then they should stay away from the pulpit. I won't have a power-hungry person as my pastor or priest, regardless of whether they're a man or a woman. In such cases, I'm better off leading myself. With the Lord as my shepherd, of course.

With that said, I am sympathetic to the historic mistreatment of women. I think they should have the same rights as men and should not be oppressed. If a woman is a pastor, I don't begrudge her that. However, I think the Bible is clear that the role of pastor is to be filled by a small subset of men. Men who are not power-hungry and perhaps agree to the role despite themselves. When such a formal role is called for. Not to lord it over women or any other member of the congregation for that matter.

If Deborah can be a Judge and the men of Israel go to her for learning, then a woman can be a priest/minister/pastor. If Priscilla and Junia can be apostles and the former be given preeminence over her husband, then women can be priests/ministers/pastors. The only explicit prohibition I find in scripture is that of elder. Priest? Yes. Apostle? Yes. Elder? No.

There is neither male or female in Christ.

Josheb said:

If Deborah can be a Judge and the men of Israel go to her for learning, then a woman can be a priest/minister/pastor. If Priscilla and Junia can be apostles and the former be given preeminence over her husband, then women can be priests/ministers/pastors. The only explicit prohibition I find in scripture is that of elder. Priest? Yes. Apostle? Yes. Elder? No.

There is neither male or female in Christ.

Click to expand...

Deborah was a prophetess. Was it her office of prophet that she was a judge at all?

Miles said:

If it's about power for someone, then they should stay away from the pulpit.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. The desire for power is a great big red flag that this person is unsuitable for ministry!

Strong in Him said:

Yes, she proclaimed God's word to men.
She was a judge too, and sorted out men's disputes. She was also a leader - anointed by God.

Click to expand...

1. • The Orthodox Christian tradition acknowledges the prophetic role of women alongside men. Throughout history, there have been notable female saints and holy women who were recognized as prophetesses.
2. Gifts of the Spirit:
   • The Orthodox Church recognizes the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including wisdom, knowledge, and prophecy.
   • While not exclusively tied to gender, these gifts manifest in various ways within the Church. Sound spiritual teaching, preaching, and pastoral counseling reflect the word of wisdom and knowledge3.

In summary, the Orthodox tradition acknowledges the vital role of both male and female prophets and prophetesses in transmitting divine messages. Their teachings contribute to the rich spiritual heritage of the Church, fostering faith, hope, and love among the faithful.

So there is that in tradition of Church history....

Paidiske,

Thanks for your responses to my post. the below quote maybe at the heart of our differences, I would however like to understand better your position.

Do you believe there is differences in gender role in marriage and in families?
Beyond what is necessitated by the biology of reproduction, no.

Click to expand...

For me, God created people in his image, and that image included our gender. God created his image bearers to be gendered, to reveal something about his image. Procreation was commanded after the creation of people; God could have had us procreate without gender if he had so chosen. For me gender does not exist merely because of the biology of reproduction, what is your understanding?

Granting that both physical and psychological aspect of people exist across a distribution, yet across a number of attributes there are general differences. For example, physically men are on average faster, balder. stronger, hairier, taller; women with greater fat stores, survive starvation better, better at long distance ocean swimming etc. Each gender has different biological patterns and hormones.
I am firmly of the view, that even if nothing else separates the genders psychologically, that merely the physical differences above will cause differences in how we interact and our lived experiences across a broad range of areas. Do you agree with this or not?

Since I do not believe that a separate sacerdotal priesthood is required to cause the sacraments to be effective (since all believers are priest and our high priest is present with us whenever we meet in his name); and that I have no problem with women prophesying or exhorting fellow Christians, I probably do not have quite the challenges that others may in your being a presbyter/elder/"sacredotal priest". However, for those who firmly believe that the sacraments must be enabled by someone who meets their traditions historic requirements, and that without those requirements being meet the sacraments can no longer truly do what is required. Then I can see their greater angst on the issue.

ralliann said:

Deborah was a prophetess. Was it her office of prophet that she was a judge at all?

Click to expand...

Yes, Deborah was a prophet, but she was also a Judge, and as such she judged men, prophesied God's word, and led men (and women).

Judges 4:4-5
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Transliterally, the text states she was a prophetess and judging Israel at the time. She had authority to judge all of Israel, and that authority came directly from God. Some in the body of Christ say the only reason she led men into battle was because their leaders (male leaders) were weak, but that does not change the facts she was a Judge, she prophesied God's word to them, men came to her (she didn't have to go to them), and she was capable of leading men into battle whether she did so or not. More importantly, a Judge was a combination of both civil and religious rule. Just like Jesus. We see this in scripture first with Melchizedek. Mel was both king and priest of Salem (jeru = city, salem = peace). Actually the first ruler of both civil and spiritual/religious domains was Adam but he failed miserably when he disobeyed God. After Abraham we see the two roles combined again when God summons Moses at the burning bush but Moses refused to accept all that God commanded. Moses was supposed to return to Egypt on his own. It was a concession on God's part that Moses would speak for God and his brother Aaron (the forerunner of the Levitical priesthood) would speak for Moses. There's the division between the two roles and realms right there. That continued on until they reached the promised land. Upon fulfilling that promise (the gift of the land) God then instituted the Judges = men AND women who served in the unified roles of civil and religious rule. The civilian leaders were subordinate to the judges and so too were the priests. None of them - except for Deborah - were very good at it. Samuel would probably rate second place behind Deborah, but the point is when God sets up His rule, He combines the civil and religious rule. That changed in 1 Samuel 8 when the Israelites ask Samuel, "appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations," (1 Sam. 8:5). The record states God took that request as a rejection of Him as their king. God again acquiesced and gave them what they wanted, just as He had with Moses. What they wanted was God's second best. This is akin to God giving them over to their lusts (Gen. 3 and Rom. 1). The civil and religious rule were, once again, divided and everything God told them would happen happened. Despite David being a man after God's own heart, not a single monarch was good or just. David was a murderous adulterer.

Centuries passed and Jesus came. Jesus is King of all kings and the Great High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek (much higher than that of the Levites) and he is the first fruits. He, in turn, has made us royal priests! All power and authority has been given to him and he has given it to us. How different would the world look if we acted like that was true? The civil and religious rule have been restored.

Of course, all those examples when God combined the two, or restored the unified condition He was foreshadowing Christ - and not just any Christ (Messiah). Jesus conquered the grave and (according to Paul in 1 Cor. 15) the body raised is a spiritual body. King over the grave. Kin over sin. King over all kings, the rule far above all others. The body of flesh panted as a seed that dies and grows into a plant that produces more - according to its kind, according to its likeness (see Genesis 1).

Deborah was a prophet who judged Israel.

Remember that when reading about the prophetesses in Corinth .

The point is this: God has used women to lead throughout the scriptures. It is not the standard - statistically or normatively - but there is plenty of basis for it. All the many scriptures about men and women (including 1 Tim. 2:12) should be read in that context.

The first witnesses to the resurrection were women. That happened at a time and in a culture when women were not permitted to testify. In other words, God's first act after the resurrection was to raise up women to teach men.

Malleeboy said:

For me, God created people in his image, and that image included our gender. God created his image bearers to be gendered, to reveal something about his image. Procreation was commanded after the creation of people; God could have had us procreate without gender if he had so chosen. For me gender does not exist merely because of the biology of reproduction, what is your understanding?

Click to expand...

My understanding would be quite different. God created humankind in his image, and that image is not about our physicality, our biology, our sexed-ness (or gendered nature). To be in the image of God is to be rational, to be loving, to be creative, to be relational, to be able to exercise dominion over creation, and so on; it is not about what chromosomes or other physical characteristics we have.

If gender says anything about God at all, I would argue that it mirrors something of the distinction of persons yet unity of being in the Trinity, which we do see in some way in marriage; but I wouldn't extend that to particular gender roles.

Malleeboy said:

I am firmly of the view, that even if nothing else separates the genders psychologically, that merely the physical differences above will cause differences in how we interact and our lived experiences across a broad range of areas. Do you agree with this or not?

Click to expand...

To some extent. Certainly our lived experiences of reproduction (and everything that goes with that), are very different. In terms of differences in interaction, I tend to come down more on the nurture side of the nature/nurture argument.

Malleeboy said:

However, for those who firmly believe that the sacraments must be enabled by someone who meets their traditions historic requirements, and that without those requirements being meet the sacraments can no longer truly do what is required. Then I can see their greater angst on the issue.

Click to expand...

I see their angst. I just think it's misplaced. (I don't mean that unkindly).