What does the Bible say on women becoming pastors?

Paidiske said:

Nothing in that forbids teaching.

Click to expand...

Agreed - especially as the verse quoted speaks of women being veiled.
I think the verse should be 1 Corinthians 11:3, but, as you say, that does not forbid, or even mention, teaching.

I assume 1 Corinthians 11:13 goes with:
1 Timothy 2:12
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

And yet he did permit both on other occasions, which suggests that the verse in Timothy applies to a very specific circumstance.

I know teaching of younger women by older women is permitted.
Titus 2:3-5
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Chrystal-J said:

If 1 Corinthians 11:13 is to be obeyed, then it's impossible for woman to teach a man.
"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

Click to expand...

That verse context has to do with the family, not necessarily the Church.

Additionally, the criticism that it does not address teaching in that context is also correct.

What's problematic is that the verses that DO address a clear injunction against women teaching men within as doctrinal authorities remains either ignored, or cast aside into the ditches of spiritualizations, or drowned out by other verses pulled from their contexts and injected with poisonous meanings they do not at all contain.

So, Crystal, it's a sad fact that people are going to do whatever the heck they want irregardless of clear language to the contrary. The ethic-less "end justifies the means" beliefs will remain alive and well among those who claim to be biblical while accusing others of improper interpretation. It's an old, old gig, and will only get worse as this world approaches the advent, and passes on through the reign of that world leading antichrist.

So, that's why I was driven to the understanding of the distinctions between the actual body of Christ that does not have four walls, and all those (c)hurches out there with four walls. The four-wallers are going to continue vomiting the antithetical claim that they are the physical representation of the (C)hurch in their local communities and the world, regardless of the fact that unbelievers swell their ranks.

The Body of Christ Jesus, on the other hand, is not swollen and bloated by the ranks of worldly unbelievers, for unbelievers cannot enter into membership of the body of Christ Jesus.

So, we can all rest in the assurance that the cancers of unbelief will not corrupt the (C)hurch and cause her to go astray. She has always been incorrupt and pure.

Jr

Paidiske said:

And yet he did permit both on other occasions, which suggests that the verse in Timothy applies to a very specific circumstance.

Click to expand...

Assuming your claim were true, perhaps you could explain to us how the Lord's sovereign choice in the past to deviate from what is known to be His express will somehow makes it an open, unlimited allowance for today. After all, the Lord GAVE some men plural wives, so why can't all us men now go out there and take in as many wives as we wish?

Jr

Strong in Him said:

Deborah was judge over Israel because God raised her up to be one, Judges 2:16-19.
I wondered how long it would be before the out-of-context Isaiah 3:12 appeared.

Click to expand...

He did raise her up to be one. and Isaiah 3:12 tells us why.

the book of judges is really tales of the folly of Israel's rulership. every judge in that book failed at some point and committed major sins. couple that with the fact that even with Deborah being judge, you didn't see another female judge after her. you think that if the LORD was gonna open up the rulership of Israel to women we would see plenty more females leaders...

...we don't...not a one after deborah. which gives more credence to Isaiah 3:12 illustrating Deborah's position as a judgement on Israel and not an elevation of females into rulership. basically, Deborah was the LORD trolling His people.

but by all means, keep kicking against the goads on this subject.

THE W said:

He did raise her up to be one. and Isaiah 3:12 tells us why.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 3:12 is not referring or related to the book of Judges.
Isaiah is describing the judgement that will come upon the nation. Isaiah 3:1 says the Lord is about to take from Jerusalem ...... verse 4 says that he will make boys their officials. He is writing about the situation in his day, not something that happened many years before.
Verse 12 says, "youths oppress my people, women rule over them." Isaiah is writing about what is going on it the nation at that time, so what does he mean? Who was King at that time? Isaiah describes his call to prophetic ministry as being in the year King Uzziah died, Isaiah 6:1, so it is possible that he was referring to him. Uzziah was only 16 years old when he became king, 2 Chronicles 26:3, and his mother's name is also listed. (Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, for example, were over 30 when they became king, and their mother's name is not noted.) Isaiah was prophesying during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, Isaiah 1:1 - all of these men were under 30 when thy became King and in every case but one, their mother's names are given, 2 Chronicles 26:3, 2 Chronicles 27:1, 2 Chronicles 28:1, 2 Chronicles 29:1. Maybe, because they were under a certain age, their mothers still had influence over them? Or maybe, as at least one commentator has stated, they had harems and were influenced by wives and concubines who tried to rule through them?

THE W said:

the book of judges is really tales of the folly of Israel's rulership.

Click to expand...

What evidence do you have for that? We are told that when there were judges there was peace in the land and the people followed God, but as soon as the judges died, the people turned away and worshipped other gods, Judges 2:16-19. I'd say Judges was more about the folly of the nation and their inability to follow God unless someone kept them on the straight and narrow.

THE W said:

couple that with the fact that even with Deborah being judge, you didn't see another female judge after her.

Click to expand...

So? What does that mean?

THE W said:

...we don't...not a one after deborah.

Click to expand...

Like I said; so?

THE W said:

which gives more credence to Isaiah 3:12 illustrating Deborah's position as a judgement on Israel

Click to expand...

Not at all; you've just drawn that conclusion, and decided that it "fits".
Why would Isaiah be saying that the Lord was going to punish Israel for their sins because Deborah - whom the Lord raised up and who brought peace for 40 years - had once been a judge in the land?

THE W said:

but by all means, keep kicking against the goads on this subject.

Click to expand...

It's your opinion that that's what I'm doing. I could equally say, "keep misinterpreting Scripture to make it fit the explanation that you have found."

Strong in Him said:

Isaiah 3:12 is not referring or related to the book of Judges.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to directly address the situation in judges, it just has to apply to it, which it does.

The passages starts with "as for my people". Children oppress them, women rule them. Not the ruler, the people.

Strong in Him said:

What evidence do you have for that?

Click to expand...

. .. The book of Judges

Gideon making a golden calf out of the the people's gold, Samson the womanizer, Deborah the female. Yeah LORD gave them judges in accordance with their behavior.

Strong in Him said:

So? What does that mean?

Click to expand...

So we look at the the clear prohibitions against female leadership in the new testament, and the fact there was no female leadership in Israel besides one instance for 1000s of years of its history where Isaiah tells us why that occurred, and this lines up to the conclusion that females are not called to leadership in the church.

Strong in Him said:

Why would Isaiah be saying that the Lord was going to punish Israel for their sins because Deborah - whom the Lord raised up and who brought peace for 40 years - had once been a judge in the land?

Click to expand...

Because being lead by a woman was a form of humiliation.

Strong in Him said:

. I could equally say, "keep misinterpreting Scripture to make it fit the explanation that you have found."

Click to expand...

And you'd be wrong like with every other point you've made here.

SwordmanJr said:

Assuming your claim were true, perhaps you could explain to us how the Lord's sovereign choice in the past to deviate from what is known to be His express will somehow makes it an open, unlimited allowance for today. After all, the Lord GAVE some men plural wives, so why can't all us men now go out there and take in as many wives as we wish?

Jr

Click to expand...

I don't think it is open and unlimited. It's limited to those whom God sovereignly calls.

If we are called to be submissive to our husbands, how are we to teach them? What if they disagree with our teaching and we are called to submit to that?

Chrystal-J said:

If we are called to be submissive to our husbands, how are we to teach them? What if they disagree with our teaching and we are called to submit to that?

Click to expand...

Well, there are a number of issues there.

First, I would say that marriage is meant to be mutual submission; we submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21), not only wives to husbands.

Second, just because a woman has a teaching role a) doesn't mean she will be married, b) doesn't mean she will exercise that role with her husband, even if she is married. My husband, for example, chooses to worship in a different church to the one where I minister. And sure, we talk about and discuss things and I share my opinions with him, but he isn't routinely relating to me in that role.

And third, submission doesn't mean abdicating our own judgement.

THE W said:

It doesn't need to directly address the situation in judges, it just has to apply to it, which it does.

Click to expand...

Only in an "if I squeeze this square peg hard enough it will fit into that round hole" sort of way.

THE W said:

The passages starts with "as for my people". Children oppress them, women rule them. Not the ruler, the people.

Click to expand...

I know they were ruling over the people. I was reflecting on what, or who, those words might have referred to; who were the women?
In Isaiah's time, women weren't ruling over the people - Kings were. So why would he have said "women rule over my people"? As I said, one explanation is that the Kings had harems and were being heavily influenced by them. Maybe they had wives from other countries and the wives relatives were pressuring the women to make the King decide certain things.
A lot of marriages in those days were for political reasons, or convenience; it was how the countries made treaties with each other.

THE W said:

I
. .. The book of Judges

Click to expand...

No, I meant what evidence do you have that this book is about the folly of the leaders, rather than the folly, and sins, of the people?

We are clearly told that whenever the people didn't have a judge, they turned away from the Lord and worshipped other gods, Judges 2:16-19. We are also told that the Lord was with that judge.
Yes, the judges themselves made mistakes and were no perfect - who is? But when they were ruling over the land, the people worshipped God and were free from their enemies.

THE W said:

Gideon making a golden calf out of the the people's gold, Samson the womanizer, Deborah the female.

Click to expand...

Gideon who was called a mighty warrior by an angel and saved the nation from the Midianites, Samson who defeated the Philistines and Deborah under whose rule the land had peace for 40 years.
They weren't perfect - neither were David, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul etc etc. But people shouldn't be defined by their mistakes; God was still with them and worked through them.

THE W said:

Yeah LORD gave them judges in accordance with their behavior.

Click to expand...

The behaviour of the people was to turn away from God and worship idols. God gave them judges who followed him and turned the people back to God. When the judges died, the people clearly weren't strong enough to follow God on their own; they fell into bad ways again until they got another judge.

THE W said:

So we look at the the clear prohibitions against female leadership in the new testament, and the fact there was no female leadership in Israel besides one instance for 1000s of years of its history where Isaiah tells us why that occurred, and this lines up to the conclusion that females are not called to leadership in the church.

Click to expand...

Another "I'm going to squeeze this square peg til it fits into this round hole" statement.

THE W said:

Because being lead by a woman was a form of humiliation.

Click to expand...

Not for the people of Deborah's time it wasn't - they had victory over their enemies and peace in the land for 40 years.

THE W said:

And you'd be wrong like with every other point you've made here.

Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion.

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
What does this scripture mean then?

Chrystal-J said:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
What does this scripture mean then?

Click to expand...

You left out the verse before that, which requires husbands and wives to submit to one another.

I think every couple works out exactly what this means in their own marriage. I would say in big-picture terms it means both husband and wife treating each other's needs, desires, life goals, etc. as equally important. Not sacrificing one person for the other but working together as a team to help both grow.

In my marriage, I have had - since the first time I ever told my then-fiance that I felt maybe God was calling me to ministry - my husband's complete and unwavering support in what I do. In turn, I try to give him my complete and unwavering support in what he does. That's not always easy, but it's how we try to live out submitting to one another.

The bible says:
21 And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.

21 and 22 together explain that.

Chrystal-J said:

The bible says:
21 And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.

21 and 22 together explain that.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's my point. The verses belong together, and wifely submission is in the context of mutual submission.

Why does it say the husband is the head of the wife? It never says that the wife is the head of the husband.

Chrystal-J said:

Why does it say the husband is the head of the wife? It never says that the wife is the head of the husband.

Click to expand...

There are different views on that, but the one that I find most helpful says that Paul is stressing family unity; it's the husband who gives the family its name, its public identity, (is the "head" or "source" of the family in that sense) and for a wife to pull away from her husband would be to destabilise the family. What he's not doing is setting the husband up as his wife's boss for life.

Chrystal-J said:

I assume 1 Corinthians 11:13 goes with:
1 Timothy 2:12
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Click to expand...

I don't know how that could possibly be any clearer.People tend to see what they want to see,but the thing is ,the argument is really with the Author.