What does the Bible say on women becoming pastors?

oldhermit

Active Member
Jun 7, 2014
69
14
Texas
✟34,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This subject receives a great deal of criticism because of the volatile reaction of those who call into question the legitimacy of assigned functions in the Church. Since the restrictions these passages place upon women in the Church do not fit into the current culture, every attempt has been made to discredit, nullify, or at the very least marginalize, the principles found in these texts. To do this requires an interpretation that renders these texts contingent upon both time and culture.

The biggest problem people have in reading scripture, any scripture, is an unfortunate dependency on the practice of interpretation. The reason interpretation presents such a problem is because interpretation is the process by which one brings all available tools of exegetical research to bear upon any given text of scripture to assign meaning to the text. Peter tell us we do not have the right to approach scripture in this way, 2 Pet. 1:20. “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation….”

Scripture then, does not avail itself to human interpretation. The problem with interpretation is that it always starts with human reason being forced onto the text rather than allowing the language of the test to supply its own meaning. This typically results in the straining of the text and an attempt to change the meaning of the language. I am sure you recognize the fact that the interpretation of any text is as varied as the number of people who read it; and more often than not, these interpretations are as contradictory as they are varied.

The reason interpretation is such a problem is because scripture does not derive meaning from human interpretation. Meaning is supplied to scripture exclusively by the Lord. This supplied meaning is then conveyed to us through the grammatical structure of the text which is solely the product of the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to popular opinion, one cannot make scripture say just anything one wishes it to say. Scripture is uniquely the product of the mind of God and completely devoid of any human contribution to its content. It will therefore, say only what God intends for it to say. Anything else is a prostitution of scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

oldhermit

Active Member
Jun 7, 2014
69
14
Texas
✟34,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

My point was that when Christians gathered privately in people's homes, this was not "public worship" as later came about. It was governed as much or more by the customs of hospitality (which would see the host presiding over worship in his/her own home) than by later liturgical sensibilities about clerical rank.​
Anywhere and any time the Church assembles for worship, whether you may regard it as public or not, it is still bound by the commandments of this text which Paul says are from the Lord.​
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Anywhere and any time the Church assembles for worship, whether you may regard it as public or not, it is still bound by the commandments of this text which Paul says are from the Lord.​

Indeed, and on that point, I personally believe the ancient canons of the early church represent a correct and ideal interpretation of the texts in question. Some people, as you have pointed out, do wrongly interpret some texts by Paul (there is a particularly bogus interpretation of Romans I have seen floating about the interwebs recently which is a real facepalm moment). So correct interpretation becomes vital, and my personal approach, which I am not trying to persuade anyone else to adopt, but merely stating for the record, is to look first at the prevailing interpretation in the early Church (which usually survives today). Because as Vincent of Lerins wrote around 410 AD, “That which has been believed at all times, in all places and by all of the faithful is properly called [the faith of the Universal Church].”

I should also stress that in referring them as Pauline, I am not denying their Divine origin, because St. Paul was an Apostle who was blessed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what he and the other Apostles say is an essential and integral part of the God-sent message of the New Testament. In other words, that which is Pauline is of the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

oldhermit

Active Member
Jun 7, 2014
69
14
Texas
✟34,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Indeed, and on that point, I personally believe the ancient canons of the early church represent a correct and ideal interpretation of the texts in question. Some people, as you have pointed out, do wrongly interpret some texts by Paul (there is a particularly bogus interpretation of Romans I have seen floating about the interwebs recently which is a real facepalm moment). So correct interpretation becomes vital, and my personal approach, which I am not trying to persuade anyone else to adopt, but merely stating for the record, is to look first at the prevailing interpretation in the early Church (which usually survives today). Because as Vincent of Lerins wrote around 410 AD, “That which has been believed at all times, in all places and by all of the faithful is properly called [the faith of the Universal Church].”

I should also stress that in referring them as Pauline, I am not denying their Divine origin, because St. Paul was an Apostle who was blessed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what he and the other Apostles say is an essential and integral part of the God-sent message of the New Testament. In other words, that which is Pauline is of the Lord.
In Acts 20:30, Paul warned the elders of the Church at Ephesus that "from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." I think it is evident that such interpretations of scripture by the so-called Church fathers of the succeeding centuries are the result of such disregard for the language of the biblical text.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
In Acts 20:30, Paul warned the elders of the Church at Ephesus that "from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." I think it is evident that such interpretations of scripture by the so-called Church fathers of the succeeding centuries are the result of such disregard for the language of the biblical text.

I can’t agree on this point, because in context, Paul is talking about heresies like Gnosticism, which already were a problem (see Simon Magus in Acts or Cerinthus in the Johannine Epistles), and secondly, because scripture is in the interpretation and not the text. This is not a view incompativle with sola scriptura, but rather, nuda scriptura, which is the rejection of any understanding or interpretation of the scripture other than what you perceive.

Also, begging your pardon, but not having read the canons in question, how can you say they disregard the language of the Biblical text?
 
Upvote 0

oldhermit

Active Member
Jun 7, 2014
69
14
Texas
✟34,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I can’t agree on this point, because in context, Paul is talking about heresies like Gnosticism, which already were a problem (see Simon Magus in Acts or Cerinthus in the Johannine Epistles), and secondly, because scripture is in the interpretation and not the text. This is not a view incompativle with sola scriptura, but rather, nuda scriptura, which is the rejection of any understanding or interpretation of the scripture other than what you perceive.

Also, begging your pardon, but not having read the canons in question, how can you say they disregard the language of the Biblical text?
If you have not read post 262, Perhaps you could read that and then we can discuss the issues of interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
If you have not read post 262, Perhaps you could read that and then we can discuss the issues of interpretation.

I don’t have any qualms with what you said in Post 262, except that in rejecting exegesis, you risk reading everything out of context, and also, you literally are reading 2 Peter backwards. An alternate translation of the verse in question is that “no prophecy is an exposition of itself.” It has the effect of precluding private interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

oldhermit

Active Member
Jun 7, 2014
69
14
Texas
✟34,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I can’t agree on this point, because in context, Paul is talking about heresies like Gnosticism, which already were a problem (see Simon Magus in Acts or Cerinthus in the Johannine Epistles), and secondly, because scripture is in the interpretation and not the text. This is not a view incompativle with sola scriptura, but rather, nuda scriptura, which is the rejection of any understanding or interpretation of the scripture other than what you perceive.

Also, begging your pardon, but not having read the canons in question, how can you say they disregard the language of the Biblical text?
Then you should understand that interpretation is not a valid approach to scripture. All interpretation does is render scripture malleable rather than absolute. This serves only to minimize the language of scripture in order to assign our own meaning to the text. Human interpretation is the uninspired enemy of scripture, not an asset. The language of scripture, as you have noted, is inspired. Interpretation is not.
 
Upvote 0

Swan7

Made in the image of His Grace
Supporter
Aug 3, 2014
9,158
7,354
Forever Summer
✟435,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not sure if this is the right forum, but just wanted to ask a quick question that's been on my mind. Is it unethical or sinful (might not be the correct word) to attend church servies where women are pastors?

I read an article recently authored by a Baptist pastor who said that women shouldn't be ''leading men'' which is why women leading churches, is something Christians should avoid.

I'm not sure if there is any Scripture to back this up, could you help me out? Thanks.

It’s true that God did not want women to be pastors, but sometimes it’s necessary. Deborah became a judge because God did not see any man worthy at that time.

there is 1 pastoral woman I listen to on YouTube. Her husband passed away and he was the pastor. I believe God is working in her to teach what her husband left behind.

But whoever you do listen to must be spiritually tested. :yellowheart:
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,913
NW England
✟1,041,298.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then you should understand that interpretation is not a valid approach to scripture. All interpretation does is render scripture malleable rather than absolute. This serves only to minimize the language of scripture in order to assign our own meaning to the text. Human interpretation is the uninspired enemy of scripture, not an asset. The language of scripture, as you have noted, is inspired. Interpretation is not.

Everyone interprets Scripture - you have chosen to interpret it, as written in English, literally.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jahel

returned to old acct
Nov 18, 2019
616
248
Vancouver
✟26,770.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is what literal reading says: The old testament of God’s words are replaced with Paul’s words. So in effect Christ came to restore men and not women.

  1. hedrick
  2. The NT speaks of us as the image of Adam, the image of Christ (both in 1 Cor 15:49) and the image of God (1 Cor 11:7 -- although women may not qualify).
  3. Cassia
    “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” Genesis 1:27The picture is complete with both, mankind as a whole, they are both created in the Image of God.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,913
NW England
✟1,041,298.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You really do not understand what I am talking about do you?

Yes I do; you read the Bible and say "because Scripture is true; every word is literally true, means just what it says, is applicable to us today. The text means exactly what is says, and everyone who says otherwise, talks of exegesis etc, is interpreting it; which is wrong."
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldhermit
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,913
NW England
✟1,041,298.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is what literal reading says: The old testament of God’s words are replaced with Paul’s words. So in effect Christ came to restore men and not women.

How do you work that one out?
Jesus did much to restore women. He healed them, forgave them, was anointed by them, Luke 7:37, John 12:3, supported financially by them, Luke 8:3, and allowed Mary to sit at his feet in the place reserved for male student Rabbis.

In all these ways, Jesus restored women.
And also by deliberately choosing a woman to be the first witness to his resurrection. Note, he didn't choose the future leaders of the church, but a woman, a so called unreliable witness who was not allowed to testify in a court of law.
Eve lost the Lord in a garden; Mary found the Lord in a garden.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It’s true that God did not want women to be pastors, but sometimes it’s necessary. Deborah became a judge because God did not see any man worthy at that time.

We cannot show that women can become pastors by citing the case of a woman becoming a judge, however.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,913
NW England
✟1,041,298.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We cannot show that women can become pastors by citing the case of a woman becoming a judge, however.

No, but it does refute the "God never wanted women to be leaders over men", argument.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, but it does refute the "God never wanted women to be leaders over men", argument.
It does. As I have said before, though, that is one of the lesser arguments against women's ordination and it plays virtually no part in the dispute when it comes to the mainstream, the large, the historic Christian communions. If it is knocked down, therefore, that doesn't do much for the argument that women should be allowed to be pastors.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Then you should understand that interpretation is not a valid approach to scripture. All interpretation does is render scripture malleable rather than absolute. This serves only to minimize the language of scripture in order to assign our own meaning to the text. Human interpretation is the uninspired enemy of scripture, not an asset. The language of scripture, as you have noted, is inspired. Interpretation is not.

This argument doesn’t work logically, because every statement even in a conversation has context and requires interpretation. For example, if one man asks another “How are you doing?” they might mean it very seriously, it might be a mere pleasantry, or even a cruel joke, depending on context. This context is only accessible through interpretation and exegesis.

In Scripture, this becomes even more important, because many statements have a spiritual meaning and others a literal meaning, and still others have both, and there are also prophetic remarks concerning future events, some of which have happened and some of which are yet to happen.

The verse in 2 Peter precludes “private interpretation” if translated that way (which is dubious, by the way), which simply relates to Paul in Galatians 1:8 talking about people who preach another Gospel outside the body of the Church he discusses in Corinthians 10. So there is a consensus patrum, a mind of the church, and this is most evident in the Patristic era before certain schisms. This is why I base my interpretation, which is something I cannot logically avoid, because all texts must be interpreted, based on what the early Christians thought it meant, versus what I think it means, because I could be wrong, whereas the people who endowed us with the Nicene Creed and the Canon of the New Testament and endured martyrdoms of unspeakable proportions at the hands of Nero, Commodus, Diocletian, Constantius, Julian the Apostate and other murderous Roman Emperors merit our trust as the people we receive the deposit of faith from, and this idea is well understood in Protestant theology (except among Landmarkists and some related movements).
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0

jahel

returned to old acct
Nov 18, 2019
616
248
Vancouver
✟26,770.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It does. As I have said before, though, that is one of the lesser arguments against women's ordination and it plays virtually no part in the dispute when it comes to the mainstream, the large, the historic Christian communions. If it is knocked down, therefore, that doesn't do much for the argument that women should be allowed to be pastors.
Allowed by whom? It's no different than men not wanting to give voting privileges or slaves the right to be free. Slaves are now free and women can vote and their are ordained females. It’s not progress buddy, but it sure is about time. Oppression isn’t good for anyone and does no one else any good either, unless of course, you have a stake in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums