What Does the Bible Say About Women Pastors?

[Mark Corbett]

When I discuss women pastors in this blog, I am referring to women in pastor positions which involve teaching men in a group and/or exercising authority over the whole church, including men. This would include all Senior Pastor positions. I am not addressing women serving as a pastor over women’s ministries or children’s ministries, which I believe the Bible allows.

I am convinced that the Bible does not allow women to serve as pastors. There are three main reasons. Each reason provides strong evidence on its own, and when combined these three lines of evidence leave no reasonable doubt about the Bible’s position on this issue.

1. The Consistent Biblical Example

In the Bible, all the examples of people who were called by God to teach gathered groups His Word were men.

In addition to offering sacrifices and serving in the temple, God assigned the priests to “teach the Isrealites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses” (Leviticus 10:11). The Old Testament priests were all men.

The twelve apostles were called to teach God’s Word. They were all men.

We don’t know with certainty who God inspired to write some of the books of the Bible. But the Bible names many of its own authors. Of the approximately 30 named authors of the Bible, every one of them is a man.

In fact, there is not a single, clear, explicit positive example anywhere in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation of a woman teaching the gathered people of God.

What about Deborah, you ask? No, the Bible only says she judged by sitting under a tree and settling the disputes of people who came to her. I’m not saying it’s impossible that she taught gathered groups God’s truth, but the Bible does not explicitly state this.

What about women prophets? No. There are women prophets in both the Old and New Testament. However, the Bible consistently separates the role of prophecy and the role of teaching. In the New Testament, if any prophecy was given in a church meeting, the prophecy was to be evaluated by others (1 Corinthians 14:29). During this evaluation, the women were to be silent (1 Corinthians 14:34).

What about Priscilla? No. Along with her husband, she privately taught Apollos, which is different from teaching the congregation as a pastor.

There really is not a single example in the Bible of a woman serving in a role that is equivalent to the job of a Senior Pastor. Was this merely an accommodation to cultural norms? No. Jesus Himself appointed the twelve apostles, and Jesus had the authority and courage to go against cultural norms, and He often did! Many women were among Jesus’ followers, and they serve as very positive examples and effective, powerful witnesses. However, for the role of teaching the whole church His truth, Jesus chose twelve men.

#2 The Church is Like the Family

The Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches that the husband is the head of his family. The Bible teaches this by teaching that children should obey their parents, and by teaching that the husband is the head of his wife (Ephesians 5:23). This truth is also seen in the verses which instruct wives to submit to their husband’s leadership (Ephesians 5:22, 24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).

It makes sense that leadership in the family prepares one for leadership in the church, which is God’s family. In fact, the Bible makes good leadership of one’s family a requirement for pastors:

1 Timothy 3:4-5 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

The church IS family, so it is appropriate that since God appoints men to lead in their families, He also appoints men to lead in His churches, which are our spiritual families.

#3 The Explicit Teaching of the Bible

The wording and context of 1 Timothy 2:12 are so clear and simple that this verse should settle the dispute about women serving as pastors. The context of this verse is a letter with instructions about conduct in a local church (1 Timothy 3:14-15). Just four verses after 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul begins to give instructions for choosing elders (whom the Bible also calls pastors or overseers in other places). So this verse does not mean that women cannot teach men math or physics or history, and it doesn’t even mean that a woman can’t teach a man something from the Bible in a private setting. It means that women can’t teach men in the gathered church setting as a Senior Pastor does. I’m not saying this is the only application, but it is certainly the primary application.

Those who come from an egalitarian viewpoint have endlessly attacked this verse by combinations of distorting its obvious meaning and denying its Biblical authority. Then, after endless attacks, they basically say, “This verse is so controversial, we shouldn’t base our conduct on it”. In this way they undermine not only this specific teaching, but the authority, clarity, and trustworthiness of God’s Word in general.

One of the most common attacks on this verse is to claim that it was only meant to apply to a specific situation in Ephesus, where Timothy was instructing the church. However, the reasons Paul gives for His instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12 are found in the next couple of verses and have nothing at all to do with a local situation in Ephesus:

1 Timothy 2: 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Since Paul bases His instructions on events related to the creation of Adam and Eve and their fall, his instructions must apply to all of us.

Finally, in addition to 1 Timothy 2:12, two other verses state that overseers/elders must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6). Obviously only a man can be a husband.

Please Don’t Distort this Biblical Teaching

I’m not saying women cannot or should not be very active in many different types of ministries. My wife and I were blessed to serve the Lord for 14 years in Indonesia. We have often said that one of our most fruitful investments during that time was pouring our lives into, discipling, and training three Indonesian Christian ladies. One of these ladies was the only person we sponsored to attend Bible college. Sponsorships for Bible College was not our main focus, but we saw her potential. All three women have continued to play leadership roles in very challenging ministries since we left. That those roles do not involve teaching a gathered church or exercising authority over men does not diminish their value.

Conclusion

The direct teaching of Scripture, the Biblical role of men as the head of their families, and the consistent example of the whole Bible, all demonstrate that only men should serve as pastors.

Two notes:
1. Feel free to copy and use the graphics in this article.
2. This is a lightly modified version of an article originally posted on my blog.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

One thing we have to remember about Scripture is that we cannot take verses out of context, make them into memes, and then expect to have everyone agree with what that verse says and means.

When Paul talks about women in Timothy, for example, he is writing to specific congregations. What were the problems in those congregations? Paul also writes to men in the same way that he wrote to those women. It is likely that a group of women were causing issues in the Church just as Paul wrote to groups of men who were causing issues in the Church in other epistles. His epistle does not condemn the ordination of women. He is writing in specificity to certain congregations about exact issues.

Also, there are many Scriptural passages that give us examples of women in ordained leadership and ministry. Romans 16:1 shows that Paul is sending his epistle with Phoebe. Those carrying his letters are often ordained pastors/deacons. Since the men who carry his letters are leaders, it is logical to say that Phoebe is a leader in the Church. Paul also mentions Priscilla as a deaconess or minister. So, whether she was an ordained deacon or pastor, she is a leader in the Church. Then, Romans 16:7 mentions Junia "among the apostles." Junia is a woman and mentioned as being among the apostles. So, we can see that women were apostles.

 

[JackRT]

Also, there are many Scriptural passages that give us examples of women in ordained leadership and ministry

The issue of womens' role in the church is not as clear cut as some people would want to think. The letters of Paul, which date to the middle of the first century AD, provide some clues. For example, Paul greets Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers (Romans 16:3, 7, 15) as equals and co-workers. Junia is praised as a prominent apostle, imprisoned for her faith. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work (Romans 16:6, 12). Euodia and Syntyche are called his fellow-workers in the gospel (Philippians 4:2-3). Women were the leaders of house churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in I Corinthians 16:19), Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). Women held offices and played significant roles in group worship, such as the deacon Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and women were certainly praying and prophesying during worship (I Corinthians 11). An order of widows served formal roles of ministry (I Timothy 5:9-10). Women prophets included Mary Magdalene, the Corinthian women, Philip's daughters, Ammia of Philadelphia, Philumene, the visionary martyr Perpetua, Maximilla, Priscilla (Prisca), and Quintilla.

When we look at the bible, both old and new testaments, we realize that they emerged from an extremely patriarchal society. This society devalued women to the extent that they were not even considered to be persons before the law. Not only were they devalued but they were in many ways considered to be of inferior intellect and of a carnal nature even moreso than the male. Today we know that women are the intellectual and spiritual equals of men in every respect except physical size and strength. Jesus himslf seems to gave been largely gender blind in that he numbered women among his disciples and apostles and even close friends. Paul, at first, appears conflicted until we realize that the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were actually written pseudonomously some 60 years after Paul's death. This was more than enough time for patriarchy to once again take charge. In my personal opinion patriarchy just might be the ugliest evil that humanity has ever inflicted on itself. It still exerts its malevolent influence in some circles even today. As a Christian I am convinced that we should make every effort to ensure the full equality of women in every aspect of the life of our churches and in society at large.

Any organization, religious or secular and including marriage, that fails to include women in leadership roles right up to the very top is guilty of several evils. First, it is the insult to the women themselves by viewing them as less worthy. Second, it is the insult to God by denigrating half of God’s creation. If we continue to treat women in this way, then the human race is condemned to stand on one foot, see with one eye, hear with one ear and think with one half the human mind ---- and it shows.

 

[Mark Corbett]

One thing we have to remember about Scripture is that we cannot take verses out of context, make them into memes, and then expect to have everyone agree with what that verse says and means.

When Paul talks about women in Timothy, for example, he is writing to specific congregations. What were the problems in those congregations? Paul also writes to men in the same way that he wrote to those women. It is likely that a group of women were causing issues in the Church just as Paul wrote to groups of men who were causing issues in the Church in other epistles. His epistle does not condemn the ordination of women. He is writing in specificity to certain congregations about exact issues.

Also, there are many Scriptural passages that give us examples of women in ordained leadership and ministry. Romans 16:1 shows that Paul is sending his epistle with Phoebe. Those carrying his letters are often ordained pastors/deacons. Since the men who carry his letters are leaders, it is logical to say that Phoebe is a leader in the Church. Paul also mentions Priscilla as a deaconess or minister. So, whether she was an ordained deacon or pastor, she is a leader in the Church. Then, Romans 16:7 mentions Junia "among the apostles." Junia is a woman and mentioned as being among the apostles. So, we can see that women were apostles.

Raphael,

Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully to my post.

I agree that we must not take verses out of context. In the context of 1 Timothy, Paul does not mention any types of specific problems in the church in Ephesus which would limit his prohibition on women leading and teaching men to that church. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, does give us the basis for his prohibition:

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

The reason Paul himself gives for his prohibition is that Adam was formed first and that Adam was not the one deceived. Neither of those reasons are a local issue in the church in Ephesus.

Phoebe may very well be a deaconess. The same word can be used more generally of one who is serving the church, but I have no problem with thinking she might have been an ordained deaconess. The New Testament describes two church offices. The first is called by three different names: pastor/overseer/elder. The second is the role of deacons. Elders had authority over the whole church and were responsible for teaching. Deacons are given neither of these roles.

I’ve written a more detailed response concerning Phoebe here.

With regard to Junia, the Greek allows different translation:

CSB Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

ESV Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

NIV Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Even if Junia is being called an apostle here (which is far from certain), it does not mean she was an apostle in the same sense as Paul, Peter, and John. The word “apostle” can also mean a designated messenger, and the Bible uses it this way in several places:

ESV 2 Corinthians 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengers (Greek: same word as “apostles”) of the churches, the glory of Christ.

ESV Philippians 2:25 I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger (Greek: same word as “apostle”) and minister to my need,

May God bless us as we continue to study His Word and seek His truth together.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Paul, at first, appears conflicted until we realize that the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were actually written pseudonomously some 60 years after Paul's death.

JackRT,

Although there are egalitarians who are overall theologically conservative evangelicals, your comment indicates to me that you are not. That does not mean that your thoughts are automatically wrong, but it does mean that we do not share a common view of the Bible. Your belief that Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus means that you think these letters contain a falsehood:

ESV 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

ESV 2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus,

ESV Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,

Not only does the author claim to be Paul, the author explicitly claims to be an Apostle. If a person falsely claiming to be a M.D. sent a letter with medical advice, we would say that person was committing a serious deception. How much more so if a person falsely claims to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ uses that claim to give direction to churches. If you view the Bible as containing this type of serious deception, your view is so distant from my own that discussions of a specific point of interpretation will be very difficult between us.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Raphael,

Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully to my post.

I agree that we must not take verses out of context. In the context of 1 Timothy, Paul does not mention any types of specific problems in the church in Ephesus which would limit his prohibition on women leading and teaching men to that church. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, does give us the basis for his prohibition:

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

The reason Paul himself gives for his prohibition is that Adam was formed first and that Adam was not the one deceived. Neither of those reasons are a local issue in the church in Ephesus.

Phoebe may very well be a deaconess. The same word can be used more generally of one who is serving the church, but I have no problem with thinking she might have been an ordained deaconess. The New Testament describes two church offices. The first is called by three different names: pastor/overseer/elder. The second is the role of deacons. Elders had authority over the whole church and were responsible for teaching. Deacons are given neither of these roles.

I’ve written a more detailed response concerning Phoebe here.

With regard to Junia, the Greek allows different translation:

CSB Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

ESV Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

NIV Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Even if Junia is being called an apostle here (which is far from certain), it does not mean she was an apostle in the same sense as Paul, Peter, and John. The word “apostle” can also mean a designated messenger, and the Bible uses it this way in several places:

It is definitely certain that Junia is being called an apostle in the passage. There are very few, if any, biblical scholars who would dispute that. Also, yes, apostle means messenger in Koine Greek. And there are many women who are known as messengers, or apostles, in the early Church.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

JackRT,
Your belief that Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus means that you think these letters contain a falsehood:

That is far from correct; many biblical scholars, perhaps even most at this point, do not consider Timothy and Titus to have been written by Paul. The epistolary style is different from the writings considered to be Paul's and these texts seem to appear later in date. Saying something is pseudonymous does not make it false, however. It just means it was written in someone else's name or another name. The question is not does the Bible contain 'falsehoods?' but, rather, the question is what does each book mean and what is its genre and place in the Bible? There are many biblical passages that are not historically, factually, or scientifically literal for example, but they are still true descriptions of what people believed in that time.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Saying something is pseudonymous does not make it false, however. It just means it was written in someone else's name or another name.

It appears that you do not understand the meaning of pseudonymous. It comes from two Greek words.

pseudo = false

epigraphe = name, inscription, ascription

The word pseudonymous means something written under a false name.

The Bible uses the prefix pseudo with other words such as:

pseudoprophetus = false prophet (see Matthew 7:15)

pseudomarturia = false testimony (see Matthew 15:19)

pseudoxristos = false Christ (see Matthew 24:24)

pseudoapostolos = false apostles (2 Cor 11:13)

By claiming that some books in the Bible are pseudonymous you are in fact saying that they are in a significant way false. You effectively undermine the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.

It is wrong to think that the early church thought it was acceptable to write in the name of an Apostle if you were not actually an apostle. Serapion, a second century bishop in Antioch, wrote:

We, brethren, receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ himself. But those writings which falsely go under their name, as we are well acquainted with them, we reject, and know also, that we have not received such handed down to us. (I found this quote on pp. 68-69 of The Early Christian View of the Pseudepigraphic Writings)​

Although I’m sure it is not your intention to do harm, by sowing doubt about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word, in a way you yourself are giving pseudomarturia.

 

[JackRT]

Most modern bible scholars believe that Moses did not write the Torah. Based on their quite different writing styles and use of vocabulary, at least five authors (J,E,P,D and R) have been tentatively identified . "J" used Jehovah exclusively for God and may have been a person, perhaps a woman, in the court of Solomon about 950 BC. "E" used Elohim for God and wrote in the Northern Kingdom about 200 years later. "P" was concerned primarily with ritual and were probably priests writing during the Exile. "D" wrote the entire book of Deuteronomy about 625 BC. "R" were the redactors or editors who cobbled it all together. This whole process took place over some 500 years.

Other books in the Jewish canon have their own problems. Isaiah seems to have been written by three different authors. Job, Jonah and Ruth appear to be extended parables written to address certain societal issues in three different historical contexts.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

We also cannot say with any certainty that we know the authors of the Gospels since the names were attributed about a century later based mostly on legend.

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).


First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)


Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)


Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)


Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

****

As can easily be noted from the late date of certain of these documents above, they are certainly pseudonymous.

By claiming that some books in the Bible are pseudonymous you are in fact saying that they are in a significant way false. You effectively undermine the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.

"God's Word" is a person not a book. The Bible is a human document from beginning to end. The Bible can be read on at least two levels. At the superficial level everything is accepted as literally true and inerrant. At this level the reader does not have to employ much discernment, faith is completely sufficient. However, many at this level eventually come to realize that there are historical errors, there are scientific errors, there are contradictions and there are unfulfilled prophesies and that efforts to reconcile these difficulties usually involve stretching credulity and intelligence beyond the breaking point. At this point some turn away from the Bible and Christianity and become atheists or agnostics. At this same point others begin to dig past the superficial words in a search for the real Christian message, the authentic words of Jesus. These find that the message and the words are still there but that they have simply been overlaid by the rubble of interpretation, Christology, midrash and mythology. This investigation can be demanding and scary work but in the end leads to a greater understanding of what the Bible is about and just what Jesus was about.


The Bible can be read on at least two levels. At the superficial level everything is accepted as literally true and inerrant. At this level the reader does not have to employ much discernment, faith is completely sufficient. However, many at this level eventually come to realise that there are historical errors, there are scientific errors, there are contradictions and there are unfulfilled prophesies and that efforts to reconcile these difficulties usually involve stretching credulity and intelligence beyond the breaking point. At this point some turn away from the Bible and Christianity and become atheists or agnostics. At this same point others begin to dig past the superficial words in a search for the real Christian message, the authentic words of Jesus. These find that the message and the words are still there but that they have simply been overlaid by the rubble of interpretation, christology, midrash and mythology. This investigation can be demanding and scary work but in the end leads to a greater understanding of what the Bible is about and just what Jesus was about.

 

[bekkilyn]

One of the universities I've attended in the past was affiliated with the Southern Baptist church and we studied about the different authors of the Pentateuch even then, and that was many years ago. It's been pretty accepted for a long time now that they were't all Moses, or even written in the time frame of Moses, and it was a pretty conservative school.

I had a very difficult time for a while trying to come to terms with sticking to surface literal/superficial methods of scripture interpretation, and some of the utterly ridiculous ways some people have tried to explain away the contradictions. Once I finally got past the idea that I *had* to believe scripture in that way, and took a more contextual view, I was no longer stunted in my spiritual growth as a Christian. I'm pretty convinced that God wouldn't have given us brains (yes, even women) if he didn't expect us to use them to the fullest of our abilities and God-given gifts.

 

[Albion]

Also, there are many Scriptural passages that give us examples of women in ordained leadership and ministry.

Let's correct that. Women in leadership, yes. Women in "ministry?" Well, ministry has a number of different meanings. BUT Women as clergy--deacons, presbyters, bishops? No.

That's where the advocates of Women's Ordination falter and have to turn to generalities such as arguing that God loves everyone, that the Jews at that time were sexists (so what does that say about the authority of Scripture?), or that God's opinion changes with the times.

 

[Mark Corbett]

I had a very difficult time for a while trying to come to terms with sticking to surface literal/superficial methods of scripture interpretation, and some of the utterly ridiculous ways some people have tried to explain away the contradictions. Once I finally got past the idea that I *had* to believe scripture in that way, and took a more contextual view, I was no longer stunted in my spiritual growth as a Christian. I'm pretty convinced that God wouldn't have given us brains (yes, even women) if he didn't expect us to use them to the fullest of our abilities and God-given gifts.

Rebecca,

Thanks for sharing your experience and your thoughts.

You seem to feel that the only alternative to surface literal/superficial methods of scripture interpretation are methods which end up undermining the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word in significant ways.

There are plenty of theologically conservative Bible scholars who interpret the Bible using their brains and considering the context. And yes, some of them are women.

But when applied to Paul’s prohibition on women serving as elders in churches, notice how far a view like yours must go. The view which you seem to be supporting actually says that the Bible is WRONG when it prohibits women from serving as elders based on the account of the creation and fall.

Once you believe that the Bible is simply wrong in some of what it teaches, you have departed do far from my own view that I admit it will probably be difficult for us to discuss specific points of doctrine. We don’t share enough common ground.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Let's correct that. Women in leadership, yes. Women in "ministry?" Well, ministry has a number of different meanings. BUT Women as clergy--deacons, presbyters, bishops? No.

That's where the advocates of Women's Ordination falter and have to turn to generalities such as arguing that God loves everyone, that the Jews at that time were sexists (so what does that say about the authority of Scripture?), or that God's opinion changes with the times.

I disagree; at least in my catholic, lower case 'c', understanding of Scripture, the offices of deacon and apostle were a type of early ordination. In fact, in catholic traditions, we receive our concept of ordination from the laying on of hands and by pointing out to the early Church offices mentioned in Scripture.

When that person is a man, nobody has an issue. As soon as a woman is shown to be in the exact same position and situation, suddenly, it may be more 'general' and not an ordained position. However, Phoebe, Priscilla, and Junia are all mentioned as holding the same positions of males that we do agree were the earliest 'prototypes' if you will of ordained people.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

It appears that you do not understand the meaning of pseudonymous. It comes from two Greek words.

pseudo = false

epigraphe = name, inscription, ascription

The word pseudonymous means something written under a false name.

The Bible uses the prefix pseudo with other words such as:

pseudoprophetus = false prophet (see Matthew 7:15)

pseudomarturia = false testimony (see Matthew 15:19)

pseudoxristos = false Christ (see Matthew 24:24)

pseudoapostolos = false apostles (2 Cor 11:13)

By claiming that some books in the Bible are pseudonymous you are in fact saying that they are in a significant way false. You effectively undermine the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word.

It is wrong to think that the early church thought it was acceptable to write in the name of an Apostle if you were not actually an apostle. Serapion, a second century bishop in Antioch, wrote:

We, brethren, receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ himself. But those writings which falsely go under their name, as we are well acquainted with them, we reject, and know also, that we have not received such handed down to us. (I found this quote on pp. 68-69 of The Early Christian View of the Pseudepigraphic Writings)​

Although I’m sure it is not your intention to do harm, by sowing doubt about the truthfulness and authority of God’s Word, in a way you yourself are giving pseudomarturia.

Excuse me; Koine Greek was a part of my graduate program. You are taking the prefix of the word, as it is in Koine Greek, and trying to make it the same as a contract word in English. The word is 'pseudonymous' and it comes from those parts, but we have a meaning assigned to it. It does not mean that that text is false, which is what you said, it just means that the author assigned another name to it other than his/her own 'real' name.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Excuse me; The word is 'pseudonymous' and it comes from those parts, but we have a meaning assigned to it. It does not mean that that text is false,

Raphael, you say that if 1&2 Timothy and Titus are pseudonymous, this does not mean that their text is false. But consider all the parts of the text which would be false if the Apostle Paul did not write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus:

NIV 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

According to your interpretation, Paul did not write the letter, so verse 1 contains false text.

NIV 1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

If the actual Apostle Paul did not write 1 Timothy, then it becomes extremely unlikely that the Timothy mentioned here was a true son in the faith to the author. So verse 1:2 contains false text.

1 Timothy 1:13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

Not only is the author falsely claiming Paul's name, he is falsely claiming Paul's personal history. And if Paul did not write this we do not know if he would have used precisely the same description of his history. More false text.

1 Timothy 1:
18 Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well,
19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.
20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

If Paul did not write this, we have no good reason to believe the author had a spiritual son named Timothy, or that he knows anything about prophecies made about Timothy, or that we can trust the information about Hymenaeus and Alexander.

NIV 1 Timothy 2:7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle-- I am telling the truth, I am not lying-- and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

If Paul did not write this then the author has the audacity to exclaim that he is telling the truth and not lying even as at that very moment he claims to be someone he is not, namely an apostle.

Examples like this could be multiplied, and are probably even more prevalent in 2 Timothy, which is a more personal letter. So yes, practically speaking, if these letters are pseudonymous, then many parts of the text are false. You seem to believe instructions to the church about the role of women are false, so even your own view shows how a wrong belief that Paul did not actually write these letters severely undermines their reliability and authority in the lives of believers today.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Raphael, you say that if 1&2 Timothy and Titus are pseudonymous, this does not mean that their text is false. But consider all the parts of the text which would be false if the Apostle Paul did not write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus:

NIV 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

According to your interpretation, Paul did not write the letter, so verse 1 contains false text.

NIV 1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

If the actual Apostle Paul did not write 1 Timothy, then it becomes extremely unlikely that the Timothy mentioned here was a true son in the faith to the author. So verse 1:2 contains false text.

1 Timothy 1:13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

Not only is the author falsely claiming Paul's name, he is falsely claiming Paul's personal history. And if Paul did not write this we do not know if he would have used precisely the same description of his history. More false text.

1 Timothy 1:
18 Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well,
19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.
20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

If Paul did not write this, we have no good reason to believe the author had a spiritual son named Timothy, or that he knows anything about prophecies made about Timothy, or that we can trust the information about Hymenaeus and Alexander.

NIV 1 Timothy 2:7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle-- I am telling the truth, I am not lying-- and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

If Paul did not write this then the author has the audacity to exclaim that he is telling the truth and not lying even as at that very moment he claims to be someone he is not, namely an apostle.

Examples like this could be multiplied, and are probably even more prevalent in 2 Timothy, which is a more personal letter. So yes, practically speaking, if these letters are pseudonymous, then many parts of the text are false. You seem to believe instructions to the church about the role of women are false, so even your own view shows how a wrong belief that Paul did not actually write these letters severely undermines their reliability and authority in the lives of believers today.

It just means that he didn't write it. Also, how does it make it 'false?' The text is the text. The texts do truly exist and are not recent fabrications. They are still authentic; they were just written by someone other than Paul. The Bible is a collection of books with many genres, literary styles, and stories. Some of the books are not historically or scientifically literal; other books reflect only the social views that they had in their own time. That does not make them 'false.' That just means that they reflect the genres and understandings of their own time.

 

[Mark Corbett]

It just means that he didn't write it. Also, how does it make it 'false?' The text is the text.

Good question. Imagine that I had signed up using the name "John Piper". If I merely used his name you could argue about whether or not I was being false (imo, even using his name would be false). But, imagine further that in my writing I mentioned the degrees the real John Piper had and even some of his personal experiences as if they were my own. And imagine that I did not do this in a way which was obvious satire, but I was really trying to lead people to believe I was the famous John Piper so that they would pay more attention to what I wrote. Would that be false?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Good question. Imagine that I had signed up using the name "John Piper". If I merely used his name you could argue about whether or not I was being false (imo, even using his name would be false). But, imagine further that in my writing I mentioned the degrees the real John Piper had and even some of his personal experiences as if they were my own. And imagine that I did not do this in a way which was obvious satire, but I was really trying to lead people to believe I was the famous John Piper so that they would pay more attention to what I wrote. Would that be false?

It doesn't make your writing false. It just means you used a pseudonym.

 

[Mark Corbett]

It doesn't make your writing false. It just means you used a pseudonym.

I doubt most people will see it that way. But if you see it that way, then do you believe all the content of 1 Timothy other than then the author's name and the author's use of fabricated personal details is true?

 

[Albion]

I disagree; at least in my catholic, lower case 'c', understanding of Scripture, the offices of deacon and apostle were a type of early ordination.

Deacon was. "Apostle" means only one who is sent forth.

Surely none of us thinks that someone who's called an "Apostle" in the New Testament but isn't one of the Twelve isn't being added to their number like Matthias.

When that person is a man, nobody has an issue.

Of course not. All the Biblical qualifications for those offices are explicitly for men and history records that only men were so ordained.

As soon as a woman is shown to be in the exact same position and situation,

There are none, however.

Not one of the women you mentioned in your post was ordained a deacon, priest, or bishop.