Female Pastors?
- Thread starter Eleknar
- Start date
"...husband of one wife..."
[These scriptures are the guidelines set forth to determine who can be what]
Within THESE scriptures, can anyone show how women are allowed to be PASTORS ?
Don't inject any other scripture. Stick to the context.
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
[These scriptures are the guidelines set forth to determine who can be what]
Within THESE scriptures, can anyone show how women are allowed to be PASTORS ?
Don't inject any other scripture. Stick to the context.
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Upvote
0
Father Rick
Peace be with you
- Jun 23, 2004
- 8,944
- 805
- Country
- Thailand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Private
Here is the "CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT" of what you have pasted:
1 Timothy 3 said:
The same passage includes in the qualifications of a bishop that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife" and that a deacon's qualifications were to be "likewise", including "the husband of one wife".
So... is this saying that being a "husband" is mandatory?
In Romans 16:1, scripture is quite clear that Phebe "our sister" was a deacon... using exactly the same word "diakonos" as is used here in 1 Timothy.
So... does scripture contradict itself? Can a female be a deacon? If so, how can a female be the "husband of one wife"?
And... if a bishop and a deacon's qualifications are to be "likewise" the husban of one wife.. and a deacon can be a female-who is, obviously not a husband, then the same is true for both.
What then, about the Timothy passage? Are these two passages contradictory? Not at all...
In Greek, just as in English, the masculine tense is often used when referring generically to both males and females. Today, we speak of "mankind" referring to men and women as a group. It is no different here...
So... according to the context of the passage... either the gender is here being used in a generic (rather than specific) sense... or scripture contradicts itself and is therefore flawed and worthless. Which do you believe?
Upvote
0
Which translation are you taking this from?
And I believe the Biblical explanation for all this was;
If the man doesn't have his family in order, how will he be able to maintain order in the family of God.
Upvote
0
Father Rick
Peace be with you
- Jun 23, 2004
- 8,944
- 805
- Country
- Thailand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Private
I believe it was KJV I used... while I usually look at a variety of translations when doing study, I rely on the greek/hebrew as the final clarifier.
I agree that one of the points in that passage was that a leader should have his family in order. However, the qualifications there do specifically say that a deacon is to be the "husband of one wife" even referring back to the qualifications of a bishop and saying that the qualifications of a deacon parallel them ("likewise"). And since, very clearly have Phebe as a deacon, then she must fit the qualifications of a deacon.
So... how can a woman fit the qualifications of "husband of one wife"? If the wording there is believed to be referring only to a man who is married and no one else, then a single man could never be a deacon... nor could a woman be a deacon. However, if the wording is understood to be in the generic sense-- a sense in which it was commonly used, just as in english "mankind" commonly refers to all humans, male and female-- then there are no issues with Phoebe being a deacon nor with women in general being deacons-- and since these qualifications are "likewise" to bishops, there would be no issue with women being bishops either.
Upvote
0
In my Thompson Chain Reference Bible, NKJV, [the New KJV only eliminates the thees and thous, and whatsoevers, everything else is the same] the only translation I use [men tend to inject their thoughts into translations, which is why I also don't use commentaries]...Phoebe is mentioned one time, not as a DEACON, but as a SERVANT. Servant in the greek [I use the Strongest Strong's Exaustive Concordance of the Bible, as it is the most comprehensive concordance out there] Servant, is just that, a servant, such as waiting tables. Serving others. SOMETIMES it is transliterated to deacon, but not this time.
Deacon, from the greek means servant. Minister, ministry, is from the same root. It has the implication of one "waiting tables".
The question in fact is not can women be deacons, rather pastors.
Phoebe doesn't even figure into the picture here.
Bishop from the greek gives the meaning of the one in charge of the flock - The overseer. This is the ONLY ONE who needs to have his house in check, because he's in charge of the house of God. Deacons are not OVERSEERS, they SERVE as help to the BISHOP, and the people.
Paul took it a step further and said that women should NOT TEACH, and BE SILENT IN CHURCH. It's POINT BLANK.
I've heard people use these passages to say God is sexist, because women aren't given the same "rights" that men are.
And I've also heard the rhetoric about how that was for then...this is now... JESUS CHRIST, THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY, AND FOREVER. - Bible
I've heard how since Jesus didn't say it, it was just Paul.... ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN...- Bible
They accept Paul's teaching on GRACE, but draw the line at women keeping silent in church.
So, why are people in denial about this subject?
Upvote
0
Father Rick
Peace be with you
- Jun 23, 2004
- 8,944
- 805
- Country
- Thailand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Private
As I said, I rely primarily on the original languages.
The word "diakonos" (transliterated as "deacon") is the exact same word used to describe BOTH Phoebe and in the Timothy passage.
In Timothy, it says that the qualifications for "bishop" (episcopos) and "deacon" (diakonos) are "likewise" (Hosautos) which means "in the same manner", "the same thing", or "the same way"... so whatever applies to one applies to the other. The qualifications for one apply to the other and vice versa. If you read the actual list of qualifications there, they are actually just a rephrasing of the same things for each.
In the Greek, we have the exact same word there (diakonos) as in the Romans passage the describes Phoebe as a "servant" (diakonos). In once place the translators chose to interpret the word, and in the other place transliterate it... yet it IS the same word both places.
The Romans passage, however, does not stop with calling Phoebe a "diakonos" but clarifies saying she is a "succorer of many" (KJV). The word there is "prostatis" literally:
As I've already pointed out, the qualifications for the two were the same. So... if the qualifications for deacon allow a woman to serve in that role, then they equally allow a woman to serve as a bishop. The qualifications are "hosautos" or "the same thing".
No.. that is NOT what Paul said. That is adding into what he actually said.
He actually said that "I do not allow a woman to teach". He does not say that it is a rule for all churches-- he simply gives his personal preference and clarifies that it is simply his personal preference.
Note.. Paul repeated says "I want.." or "I do not allow". Several times in the NT, Paul does this.. making a distinction between what is his preference and what is actually God speaking/giving commands.1 Timothy said:
A great example of this is found in 1 Corinthians:
Notice in the portions I highlighted... Paul is giving instructions-- some from "the Lord" and some just from him and "not the Lord"? Not only must we be careful not to take away from scripture... we also must be careful not to add in things not there.
No one is in denial... simply being careful not to add to scripture what it does not actually say. If Paul makes it clear that something was his personal preference, then we have to accept the fact that is how he did things in that specific church-- and as such it is an acceptable way of doing things. But, that doesn't mean that every apostle was doing it the same way in the churches they were overseeing-- and since we see in a different place Paul recognizing that Phoebe was "set over" others, apparently it doesn't seem to be even an "across the board" policy for him.
Upvote
0
marksman007
Old Hand
I believe that we get our knickers in a twist over this issue is due to the fact that the NT church was nothing like the church today. Consequently, we compare apples with oranges instead of apples with apples.
In the NT church, there was no such thing as pastors, male or female leading the church. It was led by a plurality of male Elders, all of whom were chosen from within the local assembly based on their quality of life, not theological qualifications as they had none.
The five ministries of Ephesians 4 worked along side the Elders, not over them. Whilst there is no indication of the gender of the five ministries, one has to accept that no female was referred to as an apostle. The nearest they got to it was as a helper for the apostles.
The word for teacher is "didaskalos" and there is not one reference to a female having this ministry. Priscilla was not referred to as a "didaskalos". If she was, that would have been the word used, but it wasn't.
There was only one church in each town i.e. the church at Corinth, not the churches at Corinth. The Elders were responsible for the church in Corinth, not the Baptist church in Corinth. Their responsibilities were that of oversight, preaching and teaching, pastoring and correction.
They received double honour, not pay, if they were involved in preaching and teaching which indicates that some were and some weren't.
Today,we have a religious system, not a church, that operates as 35,000 different tribal groups, all of which are contrary to God's word if you believe Jesus prayer in John.
Once your foundation is wrong, everything else is wrong in most cases. The end result is you justify the unscriptural to validate denominational tradition, one of which is you have paid pastors/priests/ministers who are brought in from outside the local congregation to run it. These people are selected on the basis of fealty to the denominations traditions, their theological education and their submission to denominational leadership, none of which is in scripture.
Because you are a servant of the denomination, not God, you have to support their views no matter how unscriptual they are, or else you don't keep your job.
You have to support women priests because that is what the denomination says. However, this does not make it right, the same as you can preach salvation by works but with all the will in the world, it will never be right.
Until all the decision making is based on the Word of God and the Word of God alone, man will be ruled by a religious spirit that seeks to make man's wisdom greater than God's. That is the very thing that Christ was crucifed for by the religious leaders of today.
When we rely on man's wisdom, we crucify Jesus all over again every time we do it.
If we want evidence for our error, we only have to look at the fact that only 1% of churches in the USA are growing; approximately 1 million are leaving the institutionalised church every year for a more authentic experience of NT living based on lay leadership and the priesthood of all believers; and the fact that on average 1,600 so called pastors are fired from or leave their positions every month.
In Australia, there are 10,000 ex pastors who left the ministry because of burnout and unrealistic expectations.
None of this happened in the NT church and unless we start asking some pertinent questions we are doomed to repeating our mistakes.
If anyone wants a fuller discourse about this go to my website.
In the NT church, there was no such thing as pastors, male or female leading the church. It was led by a plurality of male Elders, all of whom were chosen from within the local assembly based on their quality of life, not theological qualifications as they had none.
The five ministries of Ephesians 4 worked along side the Elders, not over them. Whilst there is no indication of the gender of the five ministries, one has to accept that no female was referred to as an apostle. The nearest they got to it was as a helper for the apostles.
The word for teacher is "didaskalos" and there is not one reference to a female having this ministry. Priscilla was not referred to as a "didaskalos". If she was, that would have been the word used, but it wasn't.
There was only one church in each town i.e. the church at Corinth, not the churches at Corinth. The Elders were responsible for the church in Corinth, not the Baptist church in Corinth. Their responsibilities were that of oversight, preaching and teaching, pastoring and correction.
They received double honour, not pay, if they were involved in preaching and teaching which indicates that some were and some weren't.
Today,we have a religious system, not a church, that operates as 35,000 different tribal groups, all of which are contrary to God's word if you believe Jesus prayer in John.
Once your foundation is wrong, everything else is wrong in most cases. The end result is you justify the unscriptural to validate denominational tradition, one of which is you have paid pastors/priests/ministers who are brought in from outside the local congregation to run it. These people are selected on the basis of fealty to the denominations traditions, their theological education and their submission to denominational leadership, none of which is in scripture.
Because you are a servant of the denomination, not God, you have to support their views no matter how unscriptual they are, or else you don't keep your job.
You have to support women priests because that is what the denomination says. However, this does not make it right, the same as you can preach salvation by works but with all the will in the world, it will never be right.
Until all the decision making is based on the Word of God and the Word of God alone, man will be ruled by a religious spirit that seeks to make man's wisdom greater than God's. That is the very thing that Christ was crucifed for by the religious leaders of today.
When we rely on man's wisdom, we crucify Jesus all over again every time we do it.
If we want evidence for our error, we only have to look at the fact that only 1% of churches in the USA are growing; approximately 1 million are leaving the institutionalised church every year for a more authentic experience of NT living based on lay leadership and the priesthood of all believers; and the fact that on average 1,600 so called pastors are fired from or leave their positions every month.
In Australia, there are 10,000 ex pastors who left the ministry because of burnout and unrealistic expectations.
None of this happened in the NT church and unless we start asking some pertinent questions we are doomed to repeating our mistakes.
If anyone wants a fuller discourse about this go to my website.
Upvote
0
What about Junia?
A word used only 4 times in the entire New Testament? Yeah. Right.
Sorry, both singular and plural are used for church(es) within a city.
I'm somewhat familiar with the Brethren tradition. I can't say that's not one of the valid structures of church governance, but I have no reason to believe it is the only one.
Upvote
0
Uhmmm... it says she was a HELP to many, and DEACONS DO NOT SUPERVISE LIKE BISHOPS DO. DEACONS WOULD FALL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A BISHOP.
Paul gives reasons for his contention; namely Eve was the one decieved, not Adam.
Man is the one over the woman, not visa versa
Paul had to remind them of this, much like he would have to do today
Biblicly, the man was over the house, the woman was created to help the man.
The world has changed all that. The world doesn't see things like God does. The world are the ones who say God is sexist. The world are the ones who want to replace the role of the man with women.
If the folks back then could adhere to his policies, why don't we now?
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
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
Father Rick
Peace be with you
- Jun 23, 2004
- 8,944
- 805
- Country
- Thailand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Private
It may be translated into English in some versions as "help". KJV does a bit better job with "succorer".
The word in greek is "prostatis" which literally means:
While I would agree with you that a deacon would fall under the authority of a bishop, that doesn't mean that a deacon was not in a position of authority... just that there was more than one level of authority see in scripture.
Yes, Paul does give his reasons for his pov... but that doesn't change the fact that Paul made it clear it was just his pov and not a command for all churches.
To draw a parallel, I may have a really good, biblically-based reason for having a church I pastor give money to an orphanage in Africa. I may give scriptural principles to the congregation... but that doesn't mean every church everywhere should be giving money to orphanages in Africa. Or again, I could give lots of good, scriptural principles for why a church should have a Sunday School program so that there is good teaching in the scriptures. A Sunday School program is a good thing to have in a church-- it's ONE good way of providing teaching... but it's not the only way.
Paul clearly says to the church there that this is his personal opinion... and gives reasons for that opinion. He does NOT say that it is THE way things are to be done in every church everywhere.
It doesn't say that man is "over" the woman. That is an interpretation, based on the fact that in English "head of" can mean "in charge of". Once again, this is an translation/interpretation issue. In the passages you are referring to, Paul says that man is the "kephale" of the woman. That greek word "kephale" does NOT connotate one being set "over" another... but is more a word of foundation, that from which another derives. The same word is sometimes translated as "very" or "chief" as in the chief (or foundational) cornerstone. A better way of understanding it is as in "the head of" a river. The head of a river is the source from which the rest of the river flows, it doesn't rule over the rest of the river.
And in the passage referring to man being "the head of the woman" it actually elaborates that the woman was created from the man-- she was derived from him, or came from him. In the same passage it says that God is "the head of" Christ. Since scripture is clear that while Christ is "the son of" (is derived from) the Father yet they are both equally God-- not one above the other, then this is a much more accurate understanding in English of "kephale".
You're making an assumption that that is not what we are doing... when in fact, I've shown scripture to support my position. I can also provide ample historical evidence from early church history to confirm what I am saying as well... however, I've kept my support from a strictly biblical perspective.
Upvote
0
You are really digging deep now!
Come on.....
My greek is different from your greek???????????????????
Come on........................
I'm about to get my greek on!!!
I'm an ol'fashion "greek geek"
I really prefer the origional Strongs, what did you say you were using, I hope it aint....google greek!
Upvote
0
Father Rick
Peace be with you
- Jun 23, 2004
- 8,944
- 805
- Country
- Thailand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Private
Uhhh... Strong's is NOT "the original". It is a good tool for those with limited knowledge of Biblical languages, I agree... but it is very limited in it's scope.
I usually use Greek and Hebrew lexicons.. as well as having studied the languages (in other words, not just looking up individual words in Strong's). FYI, Strong's is actually tied into the "Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary"... but there are quite a number of other Greek/English dictionaries known for being as good or better in their scholarship.
With that said, the definitions I have presented here are actually from the "Thayer's and Smith's"-- the dictionary that Strong's draws from. I use that in my posts online since that is all most people have access to, so that you can check it out for yourself and see that it says the same thing I'm saying.
If you're looking for online sources for Greek dictionaries/lexicons, you might want to look at http://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0013314/greekg/diction.htm which has a number of different Greek/English dictionaries available. There are also a few tools available at http://www.greek-language.com/lexical.aids/#Lexicography .
Upvote
0
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
Why are you twisting my words? I never said Strong's was the origional;
I said , and I quote, "I PREFER THE ORIGIONAL STRONG'S".
The reason, is because it gives the "ROOT".
You are really digging deep here father, if you would go as far as to pervert my quote.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
