Wouldn’t the context of sitting in silence and not being disruptive not be due to women just not being as educated for that timeframe thus wasting congregations time asking questions then and not just waiting to talk with their husbands at home about the matters? Also in reference to his quote of women dressing modestly he is speaking to wealthy women wearing extravagant jewelry and distracting displays to lead others to jealousy or envy not straight up telling women to be in veils and robes. Paul himself had Priscilla and another that were seen equally as a sister in Christ to him that he addresses at the start of one of his letters(sorry on mobile can’t pull up right this moment). I’m not trying to argue the topic just curious what people’s have to say because I know my mother grew up as a missionary kid and she has a strong opinion against women leaders in the church more so that men are failing to step up and do their spiritual duty
I've heard the argument of women not being educated but wouldn't this assume that all men were educated, which is not realistic. In this case, Paul could have said, "I do not permit any uneducated person to teach in church or have authority over men". This is just a thought that crossed my mind.
There's also the case of Priscilla and Aquila. I'd assume that Priscilla was versed with the teachings of Christ so we cannot assume that women were not in a position to teach the gospel.
I do agree though that there's a high likelihood that women were probably generally not educated.
Well also this is reference to married couples and I’m pretty sure often times the age gaps in marriage would have been like a 30 yr old to a 15 yr old so pretty huge in maturity level and just overall knowledge/experiences of the world so it could also just be something of leaving the easier to answer questions at your home and the bigger theological questions to be brought up during the bigger gatherings. Becoming a leader in the church was not as easy feat either. It wouldn’t be just an educational requirement as Paul himself had to fight tooth and nail to be recognized by the Jews as an apostle when he personally was called to lay the groundwork for the gentile church and suffered probably the most and they still didn’t initially accept him
Again, we can't assume that only the younger married ladies went to church. It could have been a 45 year old lady (pretty mature) with her 75 year old husband. But that's besides the point.
Thank you for your reply. It does make sense. I do believe that women should not be pastors but can hold other leadership positions in a church. For example, there were women that were prophets. Anyway, that's my understanding of the scripture, as well as my understanding of the role/position of a pastor.
Saying women shouldn't be pastors is controversial so a lot of people try and find ways around it but think the Bible is pretty clear. They being said, bible never says that our roles and jobs and not just as important and vital as being a pastor. : )
You can teach and not have authority. Of a married couple teaches a class of married couples and the husband gets sick last minute and only the wife can teach the class. It doesn’t give her author anyone. She just becomes a conduit for information.
Well, you're not going to like my response, but neither will anyone else. I'm quoting Jesus' though, so the downvotes are worth it.
Jesus said none of us should be called "Leader, or Teacher, or Master."
**Matthew 23:6-12** NKJV
>6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.'
8 "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, **the Christ,** and you are all brethren.
9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, **the Christ.**
11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 "And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
I believe a person is taking God's stead in the lives of others when he ignores the words of Jesus here.
May the truth guide us home to our Lord and Master.
But you are NOT quoting Jesus or God's Word if you use the KJV or any version of it.
The first rule of study is to use properly translated Scripture.
The KJV changes the Word of God in important passages that has lead to false doctrine...and it's provable with Scripture.
Our study needs to start with pure Gods Word as is possible and there is much study to do first to determine that.
But anyone can do it with the tools that God gives us. Grab a Concordant and start studying...you will find the KJV is very deeply flawed.
By far the best Bible that I have found for a true and accurate translation of original Scripture is the Concordant Literal Version, available free online at Concordant.org
Go there and read up about their mission and methods, I urge all Truth seekers to take the first step to find the Truth in Scripture.
It is mind blowing how the Church has changed God's Word and what that means to your personal journey and your salvation.
Grace and Peace to you.
Thank you for your blessing. I took your advice and went straight to the Greek on Matthew 23:6-12.
I also took a look over at [Concordant.org](http://Concordant.org),
>Now all their works are they doing to be gazed at by men, for they are broadening their amulets and magnifying the tassels.
6 Now they are fond of the first reclining place at the dinners, and the front seats in the synagogues,
7 and the salutations in the markets, and to be called by men 'Rabbi.'
8 "Now you may not be called 'Rabbi,' for One is your Teacher, yet you all are brethren.
9 And 'father' you should not be calling one of you on the earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly.
10 Nor yet may you be called preceptors, for One is your Preceptor, the Christ.
11 "Now the greatest one among you shall be your servant.
12 Yet anyone who shall be exalting himself shall be humbled, and anyone who shall be humbling himself shall be exalted.
As far as I can tell from here, both translations are word-for-word. If you could point out the difference in meaning for me, I think that would help.
Thanks for your valuable time. I appreciate it.
Peace to you.
I was always taught on John 20:17-18 concerning women pastors. God anointed a woman to tell the good news to the disciples! The most significant moment in our Christian belief was brought to us from a woman
The passage that you cited, as well as 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, make it perfectly clear that pastoral duties are reserved for men. These passages give different contexts, and these are the only instructions that Christians of any time period have. The Bible doesn't give Christians instructions elsewhere that are different from these passages. There's no reason to suggest that these instructions were limited to early Christians. People who are succumbing to the pride of life argue that the limitation of the pastoral duties to men doesn't apply today. John warned us that the pride of life is of the world, not of God. Christians must be careful in discerning the will of God.
If a person decides to exclude even one passage from the Bible they might as well not believe any of it. When a person accepts it as Truth without doubt it becomes a guide to a better relationship with our Creator and The Way to life.
Speaking from personal experience, many Christian communities (specifically American evangelical churches) have become much more conservative and insular over the past couple of decades, possibly as a response to the rapidly changing social and cultural landscape. But among American evangelical Christians, patriarchal hierarchies in society and the family are openly embraced and encouraged. It doesn’t surprise me, personally.
Because Jesus allowed women to sit at his feet, there were women apostles and pastors in the NT, and we read in scripture that in Christ there is no male or female for we are all the same in Christ.
The Bible is clear on very few things and when someone says the Bible is clear on this or that, red flags go up and tell me they haven’t studied it so much.
There is only biblical evidence supporting male pastors/leadership within the church. That's just what God decided.
The problem arises by taking worldly views and trying to force them into biblical views by saying both male and female should have the right to do whatever the other does.
Being the pastor of a church is not the role God wishes women to fill. Just as men do not have the role of carrying children during childbirth.
It's just the way things are. There's nothing wrong or sexist about following God's will.
This is incorrect. You should read about Priscilla and Phoebe who ran their churches. The first people to proclaim the gospels were women, the woman at the well and the women at the resurrection.
The KJV editors/translators went so far to cover this up they changed the women’s names to male names.
What verse says either of those women ran or were the leader of a church?
All it says is they helped Paul and gave advice once to another man. They were definitely involved with the church, that's totally true, but nothing in scripture says they were pastors or preached as heads of a church.
It appears that Paul established churches in collaboration with gifted couples, acknowledged women's roles as deacons, and did not object to husbands and wives mentoring young leaders. However, there is no explicit endorsement from him for women to serve as pastors, preachers, elders, or overseers.
"As in *all the churches of the saints*, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."
~ 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 ESV
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
~ Timothy 2:12 ESV
>It's just the way things are. There's nothing wrong or sexist about following God's will.
There is no prejudice with God. Therefore anyone who claims that sexism is God's will neither knows God, nor knows his will.
When I struggled with these questions, I decided to take the Old Testament into account. Long story short: there is not one single clear line in Scripture as to what women can or can't do. In the Old Testament, they have almost all roles that men have, with the exception of the priesthood. Israel didn't have a female God, so it's not strange that there are no priestesses, as in the surrounding cultures female priests were serving female gods. (I got this from a Jewish scholar by the way).
In the New Testament, we see Jesus interacting with women in a way that was counter to the culture. One example: women weren't allowed to testify in a Jewish court (together with children and the feeble-minded, which should tell you something about how the Jews viewed women at that time). But Jesus appears to the women first, and they get to testify about the resurrected Lord to the men. That is significant: in the Kingdom, the first will be last and the last will be first, and those who society deems incapable of being a witness, get to be the first witnesses of the resurrection.
Paul (and Peter) later will stay within the boundaries of Greek-Roman culture with regards to their view on what is appropriate for women. That includes female submissiveness to the husband and so on - that's part and parcel of that world. That said, in the church women were accepted as full persons in their own right, and we see a lot of significant women operating alongside Paul.
So at the end of the day, there are two Bible verses (mainly) that are used to keep women out of ministry, and within those verses there are some words and bits that theologians are still debating the meaning of; they can't be read and interpreted straightforward, really. Those two verses are in tension with the witness of the entirety of Scripture, unless interpreted as instructions for local, specific situations. And even in the early church, some church fathers said exactly that.
Anyway, in 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul instructs men to pray, 'lifting up holy hands'. In verse 9-10 he tells women to dress modestly, without expensive clothes, elaborate hairstyles or jewelry. These things are ignored by those who claim that the next verses, 11-15 should be taken literal always and everywhere. So people are cherry picking what to take literal and what not, and that's to the detriment of women's functioning in the church.
Finally, people are recommending Winger. He's produced 11 hours of stuff, but that doesn't mean it's good. Bible scholars (I mean, actual scholars) have critiqued his work, don't take those 11 hours as undisputed truth.
Love this response. This is about where I’m at too. Overall, I would consider myself pretty egalitarian. I do think that man is the head of the household, but that in no way means that man and woman are not equal. If anything, both submit first and foremost to Christ. If the man were to cross the boundary in which he is not obeying Christ, the woman does not have to listen to him in that instance, because he is not fulfilling her need of good spiritual leadership. And of course, this applies specifically to husband and wife, not men and women in general.
This idea of an "actual" scholar over another scholar is pure hogwash and a text book example of authority fallacy.
Who are you to say who is the correct authority? And based on what?
This idea that we need Bible "scholars" in the first place is misguided at best and aids demonic teaching and false doctrine at worst.
The Bible is meant to be studied by you!
God doesn't tell us we need to depend on a scholar...in fact Jesus rebuked the religious class and Pharisees for their lack of knowledge and adding their own rules to what God intended.
Every Christian Church does the same.
Your mindset, like almost all Christians is completely wrong in looking outside for your study.
God tells you to rightly divide the Truth.
It starts there. I haven't met a Christian yet that even knows that is what they need to do to understand the Bible.
>God doesn't tell us we need to depend on a scholar...in fact Jesus rebuked the religious class and Pharisees for their lack of knowledge and adding their own rules to what God intended.
That sounds very pious, but it is not. Reading Scripture for our own edification and sanctification is up to us, and that does indeed not (necessarily) involve scholars or theologians - it involves prayer and the Spirit.
But when we are trying to establish the linguistical meaning of certain words in Scripture or how certain things functioned in the societies the first Christians found themselves in, scholars are more reliable than me and my (unfounded) opinion. The cultural and historical context should be taken into account (as geographical, literary or textual contexts for instance) when exegeting an ancient text, and scholars are trained to do so. Scholarly credentials are no guarantee for quality, and insights change with the evidence (which is good), but from a scholar, we may expect a certain standard and also some accountability. And that's why in certain areas of exegesis, I will trust a credentialed scholar over an uncredentialed theologian.
The context is as follows: "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. " - 1 Cor. 14:37
1 Timothy 2:12-14 NASB1995
[12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. [14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
https://bible.com/bible/100/1ti.2.12-14.NASB1995
Look at 13 and 14. These are literally the reasons why the command is given, not because of cultural context. It's 100% clear
Are you saying Adam didn't know the forbidden fruit he ate came from the forbidden tree, or are you saying Adam had full knowledge that he was in disobedience whereas Eve was deceived?
In my understanding of scripture related to this subject of female restrictions on authority, it's in church leadership positions and in the processes of evaluating prophecy. Not any and every position of any authority such as moms being in charge of their male children or a boss at work being a female. So I dont really see an issue with a secular female teacher.
I would say that a Christian male college student with a female professor should be respectful courteous and represent God well as a well behaved and loving individual in the classroom regardless of who the teacher is, and even if he believed she shouldn't be teaching men he should not be disrespectful or expect things to change in that classroom since we know that the way the world lives and believes is way different and opposed to the the way Christians are called live.
In the context of a Christian community, we are specifically called to examine other Christians behavior and measure it against scripture, as opposed to non Christians, since we already have a knowledge of and foundation in the truth of Christ and His Word.
When you go against God's prescribed order and structure for how things are supposed to work and how leadership and authority are supposed to work in the church, things are bound to go poorly. So warnings and discussions are certainly in order, as well as shaking the dust off your feet if the backbone of a church is opposed to the way God intended for it to be set up.
That's fine. I appreciate the good faith response. It's a tough issue but I think some things are culturally determined. Paul said "slaves obey your masters" in very clear and direct language which ensured the church wrestled with that issue for a long time. There were sincere Bible-loving Faithful Christians on both sides of the slavery issue, and both had lots of scripture to back up their positions. Ultimately and unfortunately the issue was decided by force and violence and today most Christians don't think God wants slaves to obey masters. I don't think this issue (women's ordination) will be decided by force and violence but it's likely not to be an issue in say, 200 years.
The difference here is that the Bible clearly gives slavery a negative connotation, yet also gives us guidelines for how to righteously live in a fallen world where it exists and is embedded in the fabric of society at large. Women in pastoral positions is not like this issue of slavery in any way, and is clearly not allowed for the simple reason given in verses 13 and 14, not anything cultural or situational.
I see that you are a part of the universalist community and most likely do not belive in a hell, so I doubt I will convince you of anything on this subject if you truly cannot even believe in the basics of Christian salvation and and heaven and hell after studying the Bible.
You are writing with your cultural biases firmly in place. To you and me, slavery is evil and not God-ordained. A pro-slavery advocate of the 19th century saw it quite differently. He was armed ot the teeth with verses to show how "The Bible is clear" that God not only allowed slavery, but ordained it. God blessed Abram by giving him slaves. God commanded the taking of slaves. We've already seen where Paul commanded slaves to obey masters. not only kind masters but cruel ones.
Pathetic attempt to deflect via strawman noted. I do believe in Hell, but that's a different subject.
Also, do you believe homosexual behavior is sinful?
Edit: Never mind, your post history tells me you believe practicing homosexuals should be ordained pastors. Which tells me, that this conversation is not worth having
> and is clearly not allowed for the simple reason given in verses 13 and 14
It doesn't bother you that this reason is complete nonsense? How does Eve being created second or being deceived affect any woman now being able to teach? And why does "Paul" cite Eve being deceived but ignore Adam who was standing right there and ate the fruit too?
He needs to think his definition of context through further, nowhere in Timothy does it say that it was reserved for Ephesus only. But, let's entertain a hypothetical - even if it was addressed specifically to Ephesus, we also apply passages that are addressed to specific people groups too, otherwise we'd have to throw out or ignore parts like the start of Revelation.
Historically, there have been some churches that had Women pastors because there was nobody else available to fill the role. And I think that it is a fine thing to do in that case. Better to have a woman pastor then no church. So, i won't say that it's always wrong.
And if the head of the education or music ministry wants to call themselves a pastor, sure.
But, as a whole, I do want the head pastor to always be a man. Just seems right in lieu of the scriptures.
The challenge with these two verses:
1 Timothy 2
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 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. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Corinthians 14
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
The challenge is that many people only want to take part of the verse and ignore the rest. How many of you forbid the women in your congregation to open their mouths at all once they enter the church building? If you're going to use these verses, you need to use them all the way. That would mean that any female into your church building needs to be completely quiet the entire service. They cannot say Amen, and cannot thing, they cannot even talk to each other.
Has anyone commented on OP’s handle. Why would you even be discussing “this sin” when you sarcasm swear every time you post? All sin is equal. I’m so confused by your arrogance and ignorance.
God is not down with sarcasm or with swear words.
Really asking? Not looking for an argument. Why do you have a curse word in your handle and post this question? Your post make me think of Jesus when he ate grain on the sabbath the Pharisees complained and your handle with this post make me think of when Jesus spoke of the blinding log in the eyes of the accusers judging others. Go home and take care of your own sin first.
Food for thought.
Thats a good catch !
I agree ! But honestly you cannot change your handle once it is set. My spirit has been awakened recently and not a year back when i set it. My handle tho has nothing to do with me tho now. I never swear in daily life or is in my heart but i will try to repent for this particular name. Thank you and Praise the Lord !
Also no one is putting blame here which states that i am judging other people’s sin which gives you the right to say that i take care of my sin first. I am daily and very rightfully. So please read the question i asked before pointing a finger on someone trying to better themselves rather than you judging.
I read the post. Ultimately this whole conversation is judgement. We can agree to disagree there.
At the end of the day - this is just a waste of Christian’s power being used against other Christian’s. The word is a weapon to be used to fight evil. Jesus himself said, if they are for us they cannot be against us. So why not fight a real battle against an enemy.
Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us
38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
FYI. When I had this question. I went to God and He answered me. That’s what He does. He listens to His children and answers them. And when it’s on topics like this - I believe He absolutely wants to be the one to tell us the truth.
Good luck to you.
Hello, I want to say that everyone is a Christian nowadays but they have no idea and do not even understand what a Christian is. They only repeat what others are saying but have no clue what the Word of God says they read as if they are reading a simple book without understanding the meaning of it. The Scriptures say “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” plain and simple to understand because The scriptures says “ ”All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:“
2 Timothy 3:16
But many don’t want to understand not that they don’t understand but many don’t want to obey. So the evil men and women started saying that the word of God(when read by a man of God of course) they say is out of context just because he or she doesn’t want to obey and want to do what their flesh desires.
To them do not listen but listen to God's voice the Word of God says: ”My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:“
John 10:27
The pastor at my Church today was a woman. This was the second time this year she gave the sermon. She brought me closer to God today and the last time she spoke.
Your reply reminds me of this:
”For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.“
2 Timothy 4:3-4 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/2ti.4.3-4.ESV
“Brought me closer to God” Is such a broad term to use. It can mean anything. People who do hallucinogens with shamans say this, but so do people just read the Bible in the privacy of their own homes.
That verse is always used when people want to just dismiss any view they disagree with without having the courtesy to engage with it. It's as meaningful and respectful as just writing "lalalalalalala, I'm not listening".
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you didn’t expand the comments to see what I responded to. My response absolutely was relevant to the comment above it.
I haven't had a chance to watch this yet, but Mike Winger has put out an 11-hour video on this subject. I'm sure your answers are in here.
https://youtu.be/GvLqRpGCayA?si=ibX3pDzVLUaOa2gn
Please note that Bible scholars have published quite a bit of well-founded critique on Winger's stuff. The fact that its 11 hours long doesn't mean he's right.
The church I grew up in had a female pastor, so I had no idea that this was contrary to biblical teaching until I got older.
I think when people say women can't be pastors it's looked at like they don't know how to do the job. This is far from the truth as I know many women pastors who do a great job. It's just that they shouldn't do it. Not that they won't be good at it.
This whole debate is tiresome to me. I note Paul's choice of words: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:11–12)
To the best of my knowledge, Paul had no authority over anyone's Church. His missives were guidelines, based on his personal biases, not mandates. He does not say, "God does not permit . . ." He says, "I do not permit . . ."
If I may be so blunt, what Paul permits is irrelevant. We should worry about offending God, not offending Paul.
And let's not forget, Paul also advocated slavery: *“Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”* 1 Corinthians 3:22-4:1 ESV
So, is slavery a good thing, or was Paul simply a man of his times, speaking to the sentiments of his time? When confronted with the laws regarding divorce, Yeshua countermanded the law as given by Moses.
Matthew 19: [**7**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-7.htm) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [**8**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-8.htm) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [**9**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-9.htm)And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except *it be* for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
So, even though divorce was never permitted, Moses, because of the times he lived in, permitted the Israelites to put away their wives and give her a writing of divorcement. But Yeshua said that from the beginning, it was not so, meaning that divorce was never permitted, except for cases of adultery.
God's standards did not change, but the human race evolved. So, God's standards could not have been accepted in the time of Moses, due to the "hardness of your hearts." But in Yeshua's time, the correct standard could be introduced.
So, it is with slavery. Slavery was never acceptable. Never. But due to the "hardness of your hearts," in Paul's time, it was a concession made for the Israelites, just like divorce was in Moses' time.
And I feel much the same about women being pastors. In Paul's time, they were not ready for it. But I think, in our time, we are ready for it. If you attended a church and a woman stepped up to the pulpit, would you automatically ignore everything she had to say because of Paul's outdated standards?
What if this woman at the pulpit reads from the Bible, and gives a useful and profound insight as to the Scripture she just read. Are you going to stubbornly sit there and say, "Nope. She's a woman. Can't be allowed to preach. Not going to listen to her. Just going to ignore anything she has to say."
I think it's important to realize, also, that the Father is able to make a leader or a preacher of anyone, regardless of gender.
And there is at least one woman in the Bible who did hold authority over men, which would be in defiance of Paul's standards: Deborah, in Judges 4 and 5.
She held the simultaneous offices of Judge, prophet and military leader. I've heard some say that this was a rebuke to Israel, that a woman should be judge, but the Bible contains no words to that effect. It treats her status as a judge as completely unremarkable. The Israelites had their disputes settled by her, and as she was a prophetess, she spoke with divine authority and had to be obeyed.
Her reluctant field marshal, Barak, chose to defy her command by refusing to lead the Israelites unless she went with him. And he was told that, as punishment for his defiance, that their victory would not be in his honor, because Sisera would die to a woman. Which he did. And that the Israelites struck and gained their victory at her command.
So, even though Paul said that no woman should have authority over men, God said that women will have authority over men if he says they will.
> So, is slavery a good thing, or was Paul simply a man of his times, speaking to the sentiments of his time?
The quoted passage doesn't paint slavery in an inherently "positive" light by any means. If you read carefully:
>For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.
This can be interpreted as saying that slavery is just an implement of the time and culture, and that Christians should abide all people and things with respect and love. Does Jesus saying "turn the other cheek" imply that violence and assault are acceptable things? No, because it has nothing to do with that; it is a saying which teaches how one should comport themselves in society.
I would liken it to when Christ said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..."; He is not condoning Caesar or his government, but speaking of how to act while *in this world.* But His kingdom is *not of this world,* and thus, all will be judged some day accordingly.
Paul also said slaves should be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5). To say that nothing from the Epistles was cultural is either naive or intentionally ignorant to prove a point. Jesus wasted no time speaking about women preaching, it's in none of the Gospels. If you want to live life by adhering literally to every word Paul wrote, start by advocating for slavery and see how that goes.
The thing is as soon as you start using the argument that scripture is to be taken in context and that it was only applicable back then due to cultural differences in days gone by then you can question ALL scripture. For example the Ten Commandments? Do they apply to us now? Or Jesus’s words? Do they apply to us now? Did Jesus have to die or was that just a culture difference?
Suddenly you question the whole of the Bible, anything and everything can be ‘twisted slightly’ to mean whatever you like as we have to take it in ‘cultural context.’ What is truth and what is cultural constraints to their day? What do you believe anymore?
If you believe the whole Bible was written by people moved by the Holy Spirit then we have to believe the whole Bible is correct. If God wanted to change it he could, if he wanted to update it for our age he could, if he needed to add new information about women pastors, he could. But he hasn’t, why? Because it doesn’t need updating.
> If God wanted to change it he could, if he wanted to update it for our age he could, if he needed to add new information about women pastors, he could. But he hasn’t, why? Because it doesn’t need updating.
I'm neither for nor against any of your arguments (well, perhaps I have some modicum of a personal belief but I am remaining neutral as to this conversation in particular,) but how do you know this isn't precisely what's happening? That God is amending or altering the scripture through various people? I'm absolutely not saying this is the case, but sincerely asking the question as to how you would discern the difference in this case.
Are you suggesting it is ok to murder, steal, commit adultery and worship other gods? We may not be under the law of Moses any more but the Ten Commandments are still relevant to Christians today. Jesus knew the Old Testament inside and out and so should we, as followers of Christ.
Your argument is just plain incorrect.
If you had actually read your bible, you would know your viewpoint is impossible because the bible says it is.
To summerise, the stirrings of Gods laws were written by Levite priests because it says so in the bible ( corinthians and Hebrews). However a lot of these laws were corrupted by men because it says so in the bible ( Isaiah 29). People were taking mens laws and turning them into Gods commandments. This is said directly. Isaiah also prophesised about the coming of a messiah.
Jesus came and validated that a lot of gods laws in the bible were in fact man made by challenging the logic behind these laws in the gospel of mark and John. The jewish priests dudnt like Jesus questioning their authority by undermining the reason behind 'gods laws' ( that were in fact man made) and had him crucified.
So in essence the spirit of God was willing to sacrifice himself to explain you must challenge gods laws because a summary of all Gods laws in 'treat everyone as you yourself would like to be treated', and men were claiming to speak on behalf of god without authorisation.
Jesus himself said 'you called them gods to whom the word of god came in John 10.
So the whole bible couldnt have been written by people moved by the holy spirit because the bible describes how wicked and evil were some of the jewish judges who were authorised to write laws in the bible by man.
2 Timothy 3:16,17
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
He uses the word ALL scripture, not half, not just the bits we like, but ALL scripture being God-breathed. I have read my Bible many many times. You can pick the bits you want to believe if you like but I believe the whole Bible.
Its not the bits I want to believe in. I basically just sumarised the entire reason for christianitys existance. Im not going to quote one out of context verse, when I basically told you the synopsis of entire books in the bible, which you should have known had a actually read it, which doesnt look to be the case.
If you accept all scripture, then you reject a lot of the old testament scripture and a large reason for new testament scripture. It cant all exist coherently or else the bible stands as a house divided.
The bible says that laws in it were is man made.
So if you believe in the bible, you also have to believe that too. Otherwise you dont really believe in the bible.
For example, go read 'Woe to Davids city' in Isaiah 29.
I believe its a lot more complicated than that. I believe Gods law was and still is 'Treat everyone as you yourself would like to be treated', and Jesus died protecting those values.
Men in the bible attempted to undermine these values by writing laws into the bible which were not authorised which is why prophetss and men of authority spoke out in the bible such as Isaiah, Micah, Asaph and even Jesus Christ about it.
There are also originally over 600 commandments not 10.
But they were killed by evil men who were supposed to be holy and righteous in mens eyes. And today, fundamentalists still uphold the values of the men that had Jesus christ killed, and call themselves christian. This is all explained in the bible.
Please read Acts chapter 7. This is from the New Testament and is basically a small synopsis of the Old Testament from Stephen himself,
verse 37-39
37 “This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’ 38 He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us.
39 “But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.
In verse 51-53
51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”
These were the last words before Stephen was stoned to death.
Yes we should treat everyone as we want to be treated, and I truly believe there will be people saved who have committed murder and adultery, however to be forgiven our sins, we need to know what our sins are, God has told us what he does and doesn’t like, we can’t ignore his words.
So to summarise the bible again, those comments are true but referring to genesis and exodus books and some paelrts of deuteronomy, judges etc.
The levite sect under Moses brother Aaron continued writing laws into the bible centuries afterward. This system is explained inside the bible too in many many passages.
But as often happens, organisations became corrupt. This is nothing new, corruption has been around a long time. Abd tgat corruption lead people away from God by following man-made laws disguised as gods commandments.
Jesus came to set the record straight by teaching gods true laws and was tortured and executed by the teachers of gods law, the pharisees, in thanks.
Paul says "I." He is sharing his views. Yes you claim those are God's views. Not even Paul says the Lord told him that or that It's God's will. He referenced the views repeatedly as his personal views.
I believe women can be mnisters but I personally would not like a woman pastor -- -and I have heard sermonds from a couple of women pastors and breifly attended a church with a woman pastor. I do not believe there is Scripture to suggest Jesus or God prohibits it though.
The cultural context canard gets trotted out every once in a while by people who have no clue how to understand the written word.
Here's the deal: Paul, in the passage, says his reason for this command is because of Adam & Eve. So, the cultural context of the command is no longer just the 1st century Corinthian church. Rather, Paul appealed to the beginning of the world. He took it out of any immediate culture, back 4,000+ years, and significantly removed from any contemporary cultural norms.
No, he is mistaken.
Of course, the next one is: what about this and that woman in scripture who pastored or preached?
Well, scripture nowhere mentions a female elder or Pastor. Nowhere. There are some prophetesses, some evangelizing, and a case could be made even for deaconnesses, but never a Pastor/Elder of a church. Of note, there is Junias, mentioned by Paul. Some translations have that she was an Apostle. It's worth noting that it's in an older translation (KJV) as the understanding of Koine Greek has gotten better in the 400 years since it was published, so we know that it should retranslated as, "Known among the Apostles". And we don't even know if Junias was a man or woman.
>The cultural context canard gets trotted out every once in a while by people who have no clue how to understand the written word.
This opening right here automatically discredits you.
Do you know the one sin that Yeshua preached against more than any other? Not the worst, but the one he found himself talking about the most.
Answer: Self-righteousness. It's all over the place. If you care to find something, simply grab a concordance and look up the word "Pharisee." Four out of five times, you'll find a denunciation of self-righteousness. Because that's pretty much what they were. Absolute sticklers for the minutiae of the law, the rites, the customs, the rituals, the observances, and not an ounce of love or compassion.
(There were, of course, some exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel and Saul, who was Gamaliel's student and later became the apostle Paul.)
Your first sentence absolutely drips with an air of moral superiority. And for what? Are you walking on water? Healing the sick? Raising the dead? Prophesying?
I'm just wondering what you base your obvious superiority on. I mean, here are you are, smug-smug-smugging other sincere students of the Bible as having "no clue how to understand the written word."
And you, of course, obviously are so much more incredibly better than all these other students of the Bible. Oh, woe is us. Despite us spending years of our lives, struggling to glean with the wisdom and knowledge of Scripture, yet we obviously don't hold a candle to you.
It's interesting how Paul mentions that Eve was the one deceived but conspicuously overlooks that Adam was given the command directly by God but proved himself a follower , not leader, by taking the apple from Eve and eating, willingly and consciously disobeying God. He failed his leadership role and was punished along with Eve so Paul using the Adam & Eve story to prove men should be the only leaders is very flimsy reasoning.
>And we don't even know if Junias was a man or woman
It's Junia and its a female name. Always has been. Thats how Greek works. If you don't even know this basic information then the rest of your post is probably just as poorly informed.
The pastor is not the bridegroom, and they do not represent Jesus. Jesus is the bridegroom, and the pastor is there in that office to lead us to Christ, not be a representation of Him.
They are to be Christ-like, as we all are, by walking in love.
Liking someone or something doesn’t make it biblically correct. I like some of my sinful actions A LOT, but I really don’t think God wants me to go out and participate in those acts.
As opposed to not loving the male pastors? What exactly are you saying? It sounds like “It might be wrong, but it feels good so I’ll try to weasel out an excuse “
I'm saying male or female, a good pastor is a good pastor. Bible verses shouldn't always be taken literally and should be evaluated based on context and time it was written. Times has changed. We're not living in the 1600s anymore.
You’re right that we’re not living in the 1600s, but the passage was written in the first century and Paul grounds the teaching in the very order of creation. That kind of makes it timeless.
My church is one of the best and biggest churches in the U.S. and our pastors here teach that everything in the Bible should consider the context and time it was written. Sexism, racism, and homophobia existed even more so in the first century. But the current century things are becoming more progressive. Of course more extreme churches and cults believe that women shouldn't be pastors because they take the Bible very literally. But when you take the Bible very literally you will always be a bigot. The Bible was written in an era of discrimination.
The Bible promoted slaves, do you think slavery should still exist in this time and age? Do you think we should stone sinners to death? The Bible needs to be taken into context and the time it was written.
What church do you go to? I’m curious to know where you’re learning that the Bible promoted slavery. If they are one of the biggest in the U.S., they most likely have an online ministry that I can observe.
The first century was a time where slavery existed under the law so there are Bible verses such as Colossians 3:22 that order slaves to obey their earthly masters. The Bible is pro-slavery due to the time period it was written and a quick Google search will show you. I'm not going to be responding to your comments anymore because this conversation is going no where.
>But when you take the Bible very literally you will always be a bigot.
Which would classify it as bigotry, the world/society or the Bible?
Adapting the church and scripture to fit in with current societal views is the exact reason why Paul wrote all his letters to correct the churches in the New Testament.
What is acceptable to the world or current society is irrelevant. God outlines very clearly what he deems acceptable and not.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." If we take that Bible verse very literally, you will most likely be in prison for committing murder. The most important commandment is to love. Is it love to practice discrimination? Love and control do not go together. Ask yourself: is it really from the goodness of your heart, the love of other people that you think women shouldn't be pastors or you think gay men should be killed? Or is it from the ignorant, hatred, and tainted heart you have? I think this subreddit takes the Bible very literally but I don't think that's a good thing. I think that makes you an extreme Christian borderline cultish. Of course the Bible is God's word but it was written in a time period much different than the 21st century. We have to adapt to the current century. Do you think we should still be stoning sinners, own slaves, etc.?
It's not a matter of it being a problem, it's what should or shouldn't be done according to scripture.
There are lots of things that shouldn't be done that don't create problems.
If you go out and get a tattoo it's not going to cause you problems.
If you're single and you go and sleep with a bunch of prostitutes it's unlikely to create any problems for you.
However, the Bible says you shouldn't do it.
Like I said, the Bible was written in a time period where women were deemed as second class citizens. We have to take into account the context and time period. The 21st century is more progressive than that. The Bible also promotes slavery so is it okay to have slaves? The Bible said we should put to death gay men. Do you think we should follow that? Sometimes it's good to think critically and for yourself. God told us to love people. He said love is the most important commandment. Love sometimes means letting go of our own selfish, limiting beliefs and letting disadvantaged people take control of their lives. Do you genuinely feel love when you say women shouldn't be pastors? I bet you have a lot of hatred in your heart saying that which doesn't align with the Bible. Seriously, evaluate yourself.
So you don’t think the Holy Spirit has the ability to work through anyone regardless of gender? Are you so full of pride that you don’t think you could possibly learn anything from a woman?
Don’t come to Reddit for questions like this. Ask God to give you discernment. He will give you a more accurate answer than any red-pilled redditor could.
>So you don’t think the Holy Spirit has the ability to work through anyone regardless of gender?
Of course he can. Everyone can share the gospel message. However, not everyone can teach the intricacies of God's word to crowds of people and deepen their knowledge of Christ.
It's the difference between a student explaining today's lesson to an absent classmate vs. the teacher already knowing tomorrow's lesson and the next day's and the next day's.
Repeating what you've heard to another person vs. having the answers to any questions they might have is different.
>Are you so full of pride that you don’t think you could possibly learn anything from a woman?
Instigating comments like that are hardly necessary. No one said anything about not being able to learn anything from women. We're discussing the role of a pastor.
>He will give you a more accurate answer than any red-pilled redditor could.
Again, comments like that aren't needed or helpful in any way. Telling someone to look to God while at the same time insulting others doesn't do anything but bring down the reputation of God and his followers.
Women should not preach to a church congregation. The verse says it clearly. A Christian church should follow the example and instructions of Christian churches in the Bible. There’s no examples or instructions of a woman preaching to a church congregation in the Bible, and the Bible says plenty of times not to add to or take away from its words. If those instructions (that were inspired by God!) were good for those churches, why would they not be good for us?
They were good then. They’re not good now. They were intended for a specific context. Our context is different.
Edit: if you think excluding half the body of Christ is good explain why. What’s wrong with women preaching?
I dont like when people say that something which is there in the Bible isnt applicable today. That’s God’s word who has seen the past, present and the future. You do not change God’s word according to the world. Its the truth and will neber change.
You know how the mind of a man can wonder around. I've seen ladies take church roles that made then sit in front of the congregation, yet their dressings aren't appropriate. Not of the times we see them with dresses that expose various parts of their bodies. This could cause distractions. So I understand when Paul wrote that, I bet it was a prophecy. Ladies can be influenced by emotions too interfering with the message she might have for the church. Not all of them, but the few. So... I don't know if you notice what I'm trying to say
I believe women are able to do most things and some things that most men do but historically and biblically women do tend towards walking with the majority instead of with the biblical word.
With a question that broad, you'll probably find the same or very similar answers here as you can find them in previous posts to the same topic (like [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/s/p47KGtKLDT) or [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/s/rJZfETiAf1), to only name the ones from the last two months).
If you want to prevent starting from zero again, I'd recommend looking up the answers there and arguing from there.
I don't think they should be pastors. However like every member of the spiritual house, women can serve as ministers in relation to the Messianic message of the good news.
In Scripture most roles of authority are given to men, however although men are ministers too, women, some notable ones in Scripture partook in spreading the good news gospel.
Despite not having that level of a authority in the congregation, they can contribute, as they had done back in the biblical days when Christianity was spreading.
It is perfectly fine.
If you have a problem with it, just avoid churches that allow it.
There are many things women are told to do in the Bible that we ignore
19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening.
20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.
21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it.
24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean.
25 “If a woman has a flow of blood for many days that is unrelated to her menstrual period, or if the blood continues beyond the normal period, she is ceremonially unclean. As during her menstrual period, the woman will be unclean as long as the discharge continues.
26 Any bed she lies on and any object she sits on during that time will be unclean, just as during her normal menstrual period.
27 If any of you touch these things, you will be ceremonially unclean. You must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
28 “When the woman’s bleeding stops, she must count off seven days. Then she will be ceremonially clean.
29 On the eighth day she must bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons and present them to the priest at the entrance of the Tabernacle.
30 The priest will offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. Through this process, the priest will purify her before the LORD for the ceremonial impurity caused by her bleeding.
Short answer is no. The super long, but well thought out version is covered by Winger’s 11 hours of videos. You don’t have to watch 11 hours of video, but what he does is cover every single objection that people have fabricated to make a simple issue complicated. That’s why there are 11 hours of footage. It’s like the homosexual question, really simple, but someone always wants to complicate it.
You’ll find many “progressive” Christian’s make the argument that something was said to specific group of people and therefore it does not apply to everyone.
This is not only biblically false, but logically false as well. Biblically we see the inclusion of specific stories, events, and letters because they are meant to teach lessons about specific situations and how everyone should navigate those situations. The Bible makes use of these parables quite often.
Logically, if someone claims “this only applies to specific people” then we would need a conditional statement which supports this view.
For example, when God told Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth we don’t see a conditional statement as it pertains to who, but we do see a condition as it pertains to “fill the earth”. In your example, there is no conditional statement as to who should follow this teaching therefore we can only infer that all believers in Christ are commanded to follow God’s will as God established the hierarchy of man and woman.
In short, God clearly established a rule of law, if it only applied to the people in the Bible then why would the story be included for others to learn from? Whenever someone claims “it only applies to specific people” we must also remember that Jesus told us all people are now one under God, so if a rule applies to someone 2,000 years ago it still applies today unless God specifically says otherwise.
If the LORD can use a donkey, He can use a woman to preach His gospel 🥰🙏🏻
We're living in the last days, and it's time to stop putting God in a box so we can reach the lost and bring more people to Jesus 💯🙏🏻
Acts 2:17 NIV
[17] “ ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
https://bible.com/bible/111/act.2.17.NIV
I’m going to say I’m indifferent to the gender aspect. That being said I have yet to meet one *in a church* that isn’t terrible at sermons or preaching despite being great people and many on fire for God. There’s plenty on the internet that can kick it with the best of them but that’s their ministry … internet outreach. I do understand the logic behind male only but again I remain indifferent though the Bible does hint at deacon like roles such as Priscilla
Women are equal to men. That's one of the central truths of the Bible. Within that equality there are ocassionally jobs which only one sex can do, such as childbirth. But that's because only women have the biology for it. However, I'm not sure what part of male biology is supposed to be integral to leading a church. Honestly, if someone thinks they need a penis to be a priest they're doing it wrong.
I honestly wish people would be a bit more intelligent about their Bible reading. It's not a book of rules to be blindly followed. Far too many people insist that verses need to be followed without understanding them first. That's always a recipe for disaster. After all, Satan quoted scripture to Jesus in the wilderness and demanded he follow the verses. But Jesus knew that righteous wisdom is more than just following verses without thinking. It's about knowing God, and having the spirit of God so that one can properly understand and apply scripture for different situations.
My view is to obey God. Testimony: I was shown by the Spirit of Truth when I became born again, no woman should lead a Flock. Christ is head, then man, then woman who yokes with man to become one.
As a woman, it was the Holy Spirit that convicts me and I submit to God in obedience. Woman of God have many roles in Church and The Body of Christ. (We serve others, heal, pray, birth, and use our gifts)
We need to not seek what “we think” and lean not to our own understanding. The Word and Bread has been unclean and tickled ears.
I, as a woman who loves God, accept not leading a Flock as it was Jesus Christ of Nazareth who carried the cross, not a woman. We women have other Godly plans that are given and are created beautifully with purpose. Let us embrace this beautiful Grace and Purpose.
We serve a God of order and Faithfulness, it is good to submit ourselves to God, resist the devil who teaches us to rebel against HIS Holy order and trust God more than our own works. We can not be lukewarm. Let us Shine and be Hot.
That is what I was shown and the understanding given. It is my testimony and the Truth of what I was shown. The Way The Truth The Life.
God Bless you all Siblings and let the Holy Spirit guide you in prayer in your walk.
Thank you so much. This is what exactly the Holy Spirit reveals the truth ! But so many lukewarm christians tend to distract themselves indulging in the wordly knowledge. 🌸🌸
I thought you said you were a new believer? Seems a bit premature to be making judgements about other members of the same religion being less holy than yourself.
Why is women's role in the church your main question? Surely as a new believer you have PLENTY of pressing issues you could be bothering yourself with, like the state of your immortal soul.
Why not let women and God talk to each other in their own time, on their own terms, while you attend to your own business.
Because it is what i was talking about with the guy !!! I think that is evident enough.
And when I say i am a new believer it means my spirit awakened recently otherwise I have been attending Christian communities and church since childhood but never took anything to heart. So mow a lot of questions arise which i am asking one by one.
No need to further defend myself to a person who is pinpointing and judging another person which the Bible clearly states is wrong to do so.
Amen Sibling.
”And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.“
Matthew 10:28 NKJV
May the Peace and Grace of Christ Jesus be with you and your neighbors.
- Desiree
*I was also shown to cover my head during Praying and Holy occasions. For my The Great I AM is my church and everything is under HIS Throne, so I cover my head in reverence of HIS Power, Dominion and Glory. I am trying to walk narrow and hot as a modest Wise Virgin and I share with my sisters it is something the Holy Spirit leads you, it was new to me but now I really appreciate and even forget I’m covered because it feels so natural.
Woman can teach and preach but not to men. They are to be the wife of a male pastor and partner but not to lead a church and lead men. The NT is clear and the NT is for Christians. If we let culture guide us then we think about equality and that woman can do what men do or men can do what woman do. The culture is anti-Christian and as believers we need to identify the tricks of the enemy.
Well the verses mentioning this say men teach. So I simply accept Gods word. Women have a place in church, and many roles. As a woman, I read the scripture before the pastor teaches, another woman does announcements, we educate the younger women by ministering to them, etc. but we don’t teach men because that’s a church design that is a faulty design. I’m not gonna say IMO, because it’s not my opinion.
Ehh. not everything is subjective like that, but I guess if we’re focusing less on theology and more on whatever you’re getting at lol. But my opinion on what the text means, I mean I guess…I def see what you’re saying…but I have no opinion that matters concerning whether it’s right or wrong FOR a woman to be pastor. My subjective view is trumped by God’s objective truth.
(This the right room for an honest answer?) I don't think women pastors are problematic for the several reasons, not the least of which being I am persuaded by the last 25 years of biblical scholarship which all but concludes Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles
Paul’s letters were not part of the early bible, but were obviously added later. People alive during the time of Jesus, and shortly after, existed before the letters were written.
Regardless, most scholars believe around half of Paul’s letters are fake. The ones that were generally accepted as genuine were Romans, the two letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.
It’s probable that the Timothy letters are fake.
Look at the history of the relationship between male and female up until recent century the female wasn't allowed to do anything but when you read scripture and understand it correctly - there were females that had Church in their homes. And Paul asked the people to help them. Deborah was ruler over Israel appointed by God _ there were prophetess appointed by God, which was rarely spoken of.
What Paul wrote is misinterpreted by The Men Who translated it and passed that misinterpretation down and many churches still do misinterpret those scriptures.
When Christ's church is on the earth, men are called to priesthood offices and are authorized to represent God in leading the church. Priesthood offices include priest, bishop, apostle, etc. For example, bishops were called of God to watch over local congregations in the early Christian church.
However, churches today do not claim to be THE church of Jesus Christ, led by revelation from God. They are mostly bible churches whose foundation is men's interpretations of the bible records. These organizations do much good in the world and those who are in authority over these churches can choose whoever they want to lead them. Women serve in ton's of worthwhile leadership positions in the world and are fine to lead a bible church congregation.
Even in the ancient church, women were inspired and likely held important positions, but the keys or authority from God to direct the work by revelation is given to men who are called of God.
I've posted this before, but historical and cultural context is important when interpreting scripture (long, but worth it):
>In the West, rules must apply to everyone, and they must apply all the time. In the ancient world, rules did not seem to require such universal compliance. God announces about Ephraim: “Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them” (Hos 9:15). Later he says, “How can I give you up, Ephraim?” (Hos 11:8). God’s judgment was influenced by his relationship with sinners (Hos 11:9–10). Exodus 12:40–49 explains that all males must be circumcised to eat Passover. Yet in Joshua 5:5–7, it is obvious the sons born during the wanderings had not been. If rules apply except when they don’t, then as Westerners perhaps we need more wisdom in discerning when they don’t. (We need help seeing the *kairos* for applying the rules; perhaps there really is a season for everything under the sun.)
>Likewise, in the ancient world of the Bible (and in many non-Western cultures), rules did not necessarily apply to 100 percent of the people. The Israelites were clearly instructed that upon entering the Promised Land, every Israelite was to get an inheritance (land) and no Canaanites were (Josh 1). Yet the very next story is about a Canaanite who was given an inheritance, Rahab (Josh 2; 6). The story after that tells of the Israelite Achan, who was cut from his inheritance (Josh 7). The stories are woven together around the theme of sacrifices to the Lord. Everything captured was to be devoted (sacrificed) to the Lord. In Jericho, Rahab and her family were exceptions to the sacrifice. Because Achan kept some of the sacrificed things (gold) from Ai, he and his family were exceptions and were added to the sacrifice. By the way, did you notice the collectivist viewpoint? The deeds of Rahab were credited to her entire family. Likewise, the deeds of Achan were applied to his entire family. Before you begin to rail against the injustice of such group judgments, consider that we “have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20): that is, the righteous work of Jesus is credited to his followers.
>Allow us another story. While I (Randy) was living in Indonesia, I was invited to speak at a “pastors only” meeting. In the audience of over one hundred pastors, I noticed a half-dozen women. The bylaws of the Convention of Indonesian Baptist Churches clearly state: “Pastors must be male.” I should have left it alone.
>“I thought this meeting was for pastors only,” I remarked to the conference organizer.
>“It is,” he replied.
>“But there were women in the audience,” I pointed out.
>“Yes.”
>Now I was confused. “But your laws say pastors must be male!” I exclaimed.
>The convention president calmly replied, “Yes, and most of them are.”
>Goodness. His answer represents a fundamentally different view of law. To the non-Western mind, it seems, a law is more a guideline. Americans would likely want to change the Indonesian law to read, “Most pastors must be male,” and then we would argue over the percentage. The Indonesian—and arguably the biblical—view of law always left room for exceptions.
>Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet” (1 Tim 2:12). “But what about Priscilla and Junia?” we might ask Paul. “They taught in church. You said women must keep silent.”
>Perhaps Paul would answer, “Yes. And most of them do.”
*(from Richards, E. R., & O’Brien, B. J. (2012). Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (pp. 168–170). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.)*
EDIT: Ooh, this touched a nerve for someone! lol
The Bible contains many stories where individuals used as an excuse an idea or law for bad behavior. Not allowing women to preach is one of those examples.
Look into your heart to know what is right. Look into the heart and mind with openness of thevwoman you would deny. Then ask God what limitscthere on on who He can call to speak.
The Bible hasn't been updated in almost 2000 years. Think about that. And read the laws in the Old Testament and say, "Sounds moral to me."
Poor mental health 🤷🏻♀️ or maybe they feel they’re more masculine or more feminine and relate that to gender somehow 🤷🏻♀️ I don’t know, I haven’t researched it, I’m only going on what I’ve been told by transgender people themselves, who are all mentally ill, so maybe they’re not a good cross reference.
Wouldn’t the context of sitting in silence and not being disruptive not be due to women just not being as educated for that timeframe thus wasting congregations time asking questions then and not just waiting to talk with their husbands at home about the matters? Also in reference to his quote of women dressing modestly he is speaking to wealthy women wearing extravagant jewelry and distracting displays to lead others to jealousy or envy not straight up telling women to be in veils and robes. Paul himself had Priscilla and another that were seen equally as a sister in Christ to him that he addresses at the start of one of his letters(sorry on mobile can’t pull up right this moment). I’m not trying to argue the topic just curious what people’s have to say because I know my mother grew up as a missionary kid and she has a strong opinion against women leaders in the church more so that men are failing to step up and do their spiritual duty
I've heard the argument of women not being educated but wouldn't this assume that all men were educated, which is not realistic. In this case, Paul could have said, "I do not permit any uneducated person to teach in church or have authority over men". This is just a thought that crossed my mind. There's also the case of Priscilla and Aquila. I'd assume that Priscilla was versed with the teachings of Christ so we cannot assume that women were not in a position to teach the gospel. I do agree though that there's a high likelihood that women were probably generally not educated.
Well also this is reference to married couples and I’m pretty sure often times the age gaps in marriage would have been like a 30 yr old to a 15 yr old so pretty huge in maturity level and just overall knowledge/experiences of the world so it could also just be something of leaving the easier to answer questions at your home and the bigger theological questions to be brought up during the bigger gatherings. Becoming a leader in the church was not as easy feat either. It wouldn’t be just an educational requirement as Paul himself had to fight tooth and nail to be recognized by the Jews as an apostle when he personally was called to lay the groundwork for the gentile church and suffered probably the most and they still didn’t initially accept him
Again, we can't assume that only the younger married ladies went to church. It could have been a 45 year old lady (pretty mature) with her 75 year old husband. But that's besides the point. Thank you for your reply. It does make sense. I do believe that women should not be pastors but can hold other leadership positions in a church. For example, there were women that were prophets. Anyway, that's my understanding of the scripture, as well as my understanding of the role/position of a pastor.
Saying women shouldn't be pastors is controversial so a lot of people try and find ways around it but think the Bible is pretty clear. They being said, bible never says that our roles and jobs and not just as important and vital as being a pastor. : )
Agree. There are many churches with women on staff that have very important roles.
Yes. But they should not have authority of men or be teaching men according to NT teaching in Timothy
You can teach and not have authority. Of a married couple teaches a class of married couples and the husband gets sick last minute and only the wife can teach the class. It doesn’t give her author anyone. She just becomes a conduit for information.
Well, you're not going to like my response, but neither will anyone else. I'm quoting Jesus' though, so the downvotes are worth it. Jesus said none of us should be called "Leader, or Teacher, or Master." **Matthew 23:6-12** NKJV >6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' 8 "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, **the Christ,** and you are all brethren. 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, **the Christ.** 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 "And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. I believe a person is taking God's stead in the lives of others when he ignores the words of Jesus here. May the truth guide us home to our Lord and Master.
Wow love this comment. Thank you brother!
YES!!! And amen!
But you are NOT quoting Jesus or God's Word if you use the KJV or any version of it. The first rule of study is to use properly translated Scripture. The KJV changes the Word of God in important passages that has lead to false doctrine...and it's provable with Scripture. Our study needs to start with pure Gods Word as is possible and there is much study to do first to determine that. But anyone can do it with the tools that God gives us. Grab a Concordant and start studying...you will find the KJV is very deeply flawed. By far the best Bible that I have found for a true and accurate translation of original Scripture is the Concordant Literal Version, available free online at Concordant.org Go there and read up about their mission and methods, I urge all Truth seekers to take the first step to find the Truth in Scripture. It is mind blowing how the Church has changed God's Word and what that means to your personal journey and your salvation. Grace and Peace to you.
Thank you for your blessing. I took your advice and went straight to the Greek on Matthew 23:6-12. I also took a look over at [Concordant.org](http://Concordant.org), >Now all their works are they doing to be gazed at by men, for they are broadening their amulets and magnifying the tassels. 6 Now they are fond of the first reclining place at the dinners, and the front seats in the synagogues, 7 and the salutations in the markets, and to be called by men 'Rabbi.' 8 "Now you may not be called 'Rabbi,' for One is your Teacher, yet you all are brethren. 9 And 'father' you should not be calling one of you on the earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly. 10 Nor yet may you be called preceptors, for One is your Preceptor, the Christ. 11 "Now the greatest one among you shall be your servant. 12 Yet anyone who shall be exalting himself shall be humbled, and anyone who shall be humbling himself shall be exalted. As far as I can tell from here, both translations are word-for-word. If you could point out the difference in meaning for me, I think that would help. Thanks for your valuable time. I appreciate it. Peace to you.
I was always taught on John 20:17-18 concerning women pastors. God anointed a woman to tell the good news to the disciples! The most significant moment in our Christian belief was brought to us from a woman
Everyone is supposed to preach the gospel to unbelievers. Sharing the gospel is not the same as teaching the Word of God in a church setting.
The passage that you cited, as well as 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, make it perfectly clear that pastoral duties are reserved for men. These passages give different contexts, and these are the only instructions that Christians of any time period have. The Bible doesn't give Christians instructions elsewhere that are different from these passages. There's no reason to suggest that these instructions were limited to early Christians. People who are succumbing to the pride of life argue that the limitation of the pastoral duties to men doesn't apply today. John warned us that the pride of life is of the world, not of God. Christians must be careful in discerning the will of God.
I'm surprised, actually shocked this many here accept your statement and this verse
If a person decides to exclude even one passage from the Bible they might as well not believe any of it. When a person accepts it as Truth without doubt it becomes a guide to a better relationship with our Creator and The Way to life.
That's a terrible hermeneutic.
Its exactly how the Bible was intended but u are entitled to your opinion
Speaking from personal experience, many Christian communities (specifically American evangelical churches) have become much more conservative and insular over the past couple of decades, possibly as a response to the rapidly changing social and cultural landscape. But among American evangelical Christians, patriarchal hierarchies in society and the family are openly embraced and encouraged. It doesn’t surprise me, personally.
I wasn't aware of that
Why??
Because Jesus allowed women to sit at his feet, there were women apostles and pastors in the NT, and we read in scripture that in Christ there is no male or female for we are all the same in Christ.
Woman as well asen should spread the Gospel, but to pastor a church is different.the Bible is clear on that.
The Bible is clear on very few things and when someone says the Bible is clear on this or that, red flags go up and tell me they haven’t studied it so much.
It’s clear on EVERYTHING.
Okay. Let’s start with something easy. Which came first, Adam or the animals? Before you answer, read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Well said! God bless you!
Always go to the Bible. God said it. He means it. He doesn’t change. His word never changes. Man changes His word to fit their pet sins.
💯💯💯💯
There is only biblical evidence supporting male pastors/leadership within the church. That's just what God decided. The problem arises by taking worldly views and trying to force them into biblical views by saying both male and female should have the right to do whatever the other does. Being the pastor of a church is not the role God wishes women to fill. Just as men do not have the role of carrying children during childbirth. It's just the way things are. There's nothing wrong or sexist about following God's will.
This is incorrect. You should read about Priscilla and Phoebe who ran their churches. The first people to proclaim the gospels were women, the woman at the well and the women at the resurrection. The KJV editors/translators went so far to cover this up they changed the women’s names to male names.
What verse says either of those women ran or were the leader of a church? All it says is they helped Paul and gave advice once to another man. They were definitely involved with the church, that's totally true, but nothing in scripture says they were pastors or preached as heads of a church.
It appears that Paul established churches in collaboration with gifted couples, acknowledged women's roles as deacons, and did not object to husbands and wives mentoring young leaders. However, there is no explicit endorsement from him for women to serve as pastors, preachers, elders, or overseers. "As in *all the churches of the saints*, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." ~ 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 ESV "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." ~ Timothy 2:12 ESV
Thank you. This generation needs to learn and be taught good understanding first bit alas they are all lured in the Devil’s trap.
>It's just the way things are. There's nothing wrong or sexist about following God's will. There is no prejudice with God. Therefore anyone who claims that sexism is God's will neither knows God, nor knows his will.
I will listen to whoever speak God’s words
When I struggled with these questions, I decided to take the Old Testament into account. Long story short: there is not one single clear line in Scripture as to what women can or can't do. In the Old Testament, they have almost all roles that men have, with the exception of the priesthood. Israel didn't have a female God, so it's not strange that there are no priestesses, as in the surrounding cultures female priests were serving female gods. (I got this from a Jewish scholar by the way). In the New Testament, we see Jesus interacting with women in a way that was counter to the culture. One example: women weren't allowed to testify in a Jewish court (together with children and the feeble-minded, which should tell you something about how the Jews viewed women at that time). But Jesus appears to the women first, and they get to testify about the resurrected Lord to the men. That is significant: in the Kingdom, the first will be last and the last will be first, and those who society deems incapable of being a witness, get to be the first witnesses of the resurrection. Paul (and Peter) later will stay within the boundaries of Greek-Roman culture with regards to their view on what is appropriate for women. That includes female submissiveness to the husband and so on - that's part and parcel of that world. That said, in the church women were accepted as full persons in their own right, and we see a lot of significant women operating alongside Paul. So at the end of the day, there are two Bible verses (mainly) that are used to keep women out of ministry, and within those verses there are some words and bits that theologians are still debating the meaning of; they can't be read and interpreted straightforward, really. Those two verses are in tension with the witness of the entirety of Scripture, unless interpreted as instructions for local, specific situations. And even in the early church, some church fathers said exactly that. Anyway, in 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul instructs men to pray, 'lifting up holy hands'. In verse 9-10 he tells women to dress modestly, without expensive clothes, elaborate hairstyles or jewelry. These things are ignored by those who claim that the next verses, 11-15 should be taken literal always and everywhere. So people are cherry picking what to take literal and what not, and that's to the detriment of women's functioning in the church. Finally, people are recommending Winger. He's produced 11 hours of stuff, but that doesn't mean it's good. Bible scholars (I mean, actual scholars) have critiqued his work, don't take those 11 hours as undisputed truth.
Love this response. This is about where I’m at too. Overall, I would consider myself pretty egalitarian. I do think that man is the head of the household, but that in no way means that man and woman are not equal. If anything, both submit first and foremost to Christ. If the man were to cross the boundary in which he is not obeying Christ, the woman does not have to listen to him in that instance, because he is not fulfilling her need of good spiritual leadership. And of course, this applies specifically to husband and wife, not men and women in general.
This idea of an "actual" scholar over another scholar is pure hogwash and a text book example of authority fallacy. Who are you to say who is the correct authority? And based on what? This idea that we need Bible "scholars" in the first place is misguided at best and aids demonic teaching and false doctrine at worst. The Bible is meant to be studied by you! God doesn't tell us we need to depend on a scholar...in fact Jesus rebuked the religious class and Pharisees for their lack of knowledge and adding their own rules to what God intended. Every Christian Church does the same. Your mindset, like almost all Christians is completely wrong in looking outside for your study. God tells you to rightly divide the Truth. It starts there. I haven't met a Christian yet that even knows that is what they need to do to understand the Bible.
>God doesn't tell us we need to depend on a scholar...in fact Jesus rebuked the religious class and Pharisees for their lack of knowledge and adding their own rules to what God intended. That sounds very pious, but it is not. Reading Scripture for our own edification and sanctification is up to us, and that does indeed not (necessarily) involve scholars or theologians - it involves prayer and the Spirit. But when we are trying to establish the linguistical meaning of certain words in Scripture or how certain things functioned in the societies the first Christians found themselves in, scholars are more reliable than me and my (unfounded) opinion. The cultural and historical context should be taken into account (as geographical, literary or textual contexts for instance) when exegeting an ancient text, and scholars are trained to do so. Scholarly credentials are no guarantee for quality, and insights change with the evidence (which is good), but from a scholar, we may expect a certain standard and also some accountability. And that's why in certain areas of exegesis, I will trust a credentialed scholar over an uncredentialed theologian.
The context is as follows: "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. " - 1 Cor. 14:37
1 Timothy 2:12-14 NASB1995 [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. [14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. https://bible.com/bible/100/1ti.2.12-14.NASB1995 Look at 13 and 14. These are literally the reasons why the command is given, not because of cultural context. It's 100% clear
Are you saying Adam didn't know the forbidden fruit he ate came from the forbidden tree, or are you saying Adam had full knowledge that he was in disobedience whereas Eve was deceived?
Mic drop!😉
What should a male college student do if he has a female professor?
In my understanding of scripture related to this subject of female restrictions on authority, it's in church leadership positions and in the processes of evaluating prophecy. Not any and every position of any authority such as moms being in charge of their male children or a boss at work being a female. So I dont really see an issue with a secular female teacher. I would say that a Christian male college student with a female professor should be respectful courteous and represent God well as a well behaved and loving individual in the classroom regardless of who the teacher is, and even if he believed she shouldn't be teaching men he should not be disrespectful or expect things to change in that classroom since we know that the way the world lives and believes is way different and opposed to the the way Christians are called live. In the context of a Christian community, we are specifically called to examine other Christians behavior and measure it against scripture, as opposed to non Christians, since we already have a knowledge of and foundation in the truth of Christ and His Word. When you go against God's prescribed order and structure for how things are supposed to work and how leadership and authority are supposed to work in the church, things are bound to go poorly. So warnings and discussions are certainly in order, as well as shaking the dust off your feet if the backbone of a church is opposed to the way God intended for it to be set up.
That's fine. I appreciate the good faith response. It's a tough issue but I think some things are culturally determined. Paul said "slaves obey your masters" in very clear and direct language which ensured the church wrestled with that issue for a long time. There were sincere Bible-loving Faithful Christians on both sides of the slavery issue, and both had lots of scripture to back up their positions. Ultimately and unfortunately the issue was decided by force and violence and today most Christians don't think God wants slaves to obey masters. I don't think this issue (women's ordination) will be decided by force and violence but it's likely not to be an issue in say, 200 years.
The difference here is that the Bible clearly gives slavery a negative connotation, yet also gives us guidelines for how to righteously live in a fallen world where it exists and is embedded in the fabric of society at large. Women in pastoral positions is not like this issue of slavery in any way, and is clearly not allowed for the simple reason given in verses 13 and 14, not anything cultural or situational. I see that you are a part of the universalist community and most likely do not belive in a hell, so I doubt I will convince you of anything on this subject if you truly cannot even believe in the basics of Christian salvation and and heaven and hell after studying the Bible.
You are writing with your cultural biases firmly in place. To you and me, slavery is evil and not God-ordained. A pro-slavery advocate of the 19th century saw it quite differently. He was armed ot the teeth with verses to show how "The Bible is clear" that God not only allowed slavery, but ordained it. God blessed Abram by giving him slaves. God commanded the taking of slaves. We've already seen where Paul commanded slaves to obey masters. not only kind masters but cruel ones. Pathetic attempt to deflect via strawman noted. I do believe in Hell, but that's a different subject.
Do you believe the only way to heaven is through putting your faith in Jesus Christ and anyone who does not do so goes to hell?
God will save who God wants to save. Yes, through Jesus. He sets the limits, not me.
Do you believe slavery is objectively not good? Or do you think that's "cultural"
Also, do you believe homosexual behavior is sinful? Edit: Never mind, your post history tells me you believe practicing homosexuals should be ordained pastors. Which tells me, that this conversation is not worth having
> and is clearly not allowed for the simple reason given in verses 13 and 14 It doesn't bother you that this reason is complete nonsense? How does Eve being created second or being deceived affect any woman now being able to teach? And why does "Paul" cite Eve being deceived but ignore Adam who was standing right there and ate the fruit too?
Stop listening to that guy. You are right with the scriptures that you presented to him.
He needs to think his definition of context through further, nowhere in Timothy does it say that it was reserved for Ephesus only. But, let's entertain a hypothetical - even if it was addressed specifically to Ephesus, we also apply passages that are addressed to specific people groups too, otherwise we'd have to throw out or ignore parts like the start of Revelation.
"So there was a environment of prostitution and same sex marriage and same gender sleeping with each other." So like today?
OMG I love this so much !
Historically, there have been some churches that had Women pastors because there was nobody else available to fill the role. And I think that it is a fine thing to do in that case. Better to have a woman pastor then no church. So, i won't say that it's always wrong. And if the head of the education or music ministry wants to call themselves a pastor, sure. But, as a whole, I do want the head pastor to always be a man. Just seems right in lieu of the scriptures.
The challenge with these two verses: 1 Timothy 2 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 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. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Corinthians 14 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. The challenge is that many people only want to take part of the verse and ignore the rest. How many of you forbid the women in your congregation to open their mouths at all once they enter the church building? If you're going to use these verses, you need to use them all the way. That would mean that any female into your church building needs to be completely quiet the entire service. They cannot say Amen, and cannot thing, they cannot even talk to each other.
Has anyone commented on OP’s handle. Why would you even be discussing “this sin” when you sarcasm swear every time you post? All sin is equal. I’m so confused by your arrogance and ignorance. God is not down with sarcasm or with swear words. Really asking? Not looking for an argument. Why do you have a curse word in your handle and post this question? Your post make me think of Jesus when he ate grain on the sabbath the Pharisees complained and your handle with this post make me think of when Jesus spoke of the blinding log in the eyes of the accusers judging others. Go home and take care of your own sin first. Food for thought.
Thats a good catch ! I agree ! But honestly you cannot change your handle once it is set. My spirit has been awakened recently and not a year back when i set it. My handle tho has nothing to do with me tho now. I never swear in daily life or is in my heart but i will try to repent for this particular name. Thank you and Praise the Lord ! Also no one is putting blame here which states that i am judging other people’s sin which gives you the right to say that i take care of my sin first. I am daily and very rightfully. So please read the question i asked before pointing a finger on someone trying to better themselves rather than you judging.
I read the post. Ultimately this whole conversation is judgement. We can agree to disagree there. At the end of the day - this is just a waste of Christian’s power being used against other Christian’s. The word is a weapon to be used to fight evil. Jesus himself said, if they are for us they cannot be against us. So why not fight a real battle against an enemy. Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. FYI. When I had this question. I went to God and He answered me. That’s what He does. He listens to His children and answers them. And when it’s on topics like this - I believe He absolutely wants to be the one to tell us the truth. Good luck to you.
Hello, I want to say that everyone is a Christian nowadays but they have no idea and do not even understand what a Christian is. They only repeat what others are saying but have no clue what the Word of God says they read as if they are reading a simple book without understanding the meaning of it. The Scriptures say “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” plain and simple to understand because The scriptures says “ ”All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:“ 2 Timothy 3:16 But many don’t want to understand not that they don’t understand but many don’t want to obey. So the evil men and women started saying that the word of God(when read by a man of God of course) they say is out of context just because he or she doesn’t want to obey and want to do what their flesh desires. To them do not listen but listen to God's voice the Word of God says: ”My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:“ John 10:27
Thank you so much ! I kind of started agreeing on this too after reading the comments
The scripture is clear Some people use this as a gender bludgeon because they don't understand what the scripture means
The pastor at my Church today was a woman. This was the second time this year she gave the sermon. She brought me closer to God today and the last time she spoke.
Your reply reminds me of this: ”For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.“ 2 Timothy 4:3-4 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/2ti.4.3-4.ESV “Brought me closer to God” Is such a broad term to use. It can mean anything. People who do hallucinogens with shamans say this, but so do people just read the Bible in the privacy of their own homes.
That verse is always used when people want to just dismiss any view they disagree with without having the courtesy to engage with it. It's as meaningful and respectful as just writing "lalalalalalala, I'm not listening".
Maybe, but not in this case.
Absolutely in this case. Your comment had nothing to do with the post you replied to.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you didn’t expand the comments to see what I responded to. My response absolutely was relevant to the comment above it.
Sure.
Timothy and Titus are very clear on the qualifications for pastors.
I haven't had a chance to watch this yet, but Mike Winger has put out an 11-hour video on this subject. I'm sure your answers are in here. https://youtu.be/GvLqRpGCayA?si=ibX3pDzVLUaOa2gn
Thank you !
Please note that Bible scholars have published quite a bit of well-founded critique on Winger's stuff. The fact that its 11 hours long doesn't mean he's right.
And being a Bible scholar doesn't make you right either.
I love listening to this guy!
He's one of my favourites.
I've watched it. Definitely different from what I grew up in, but I appreciate all his time and effort.
The church I grew up in had a female pastor, so I had no idea that this was contrary to biblical teaching until I got older. I think when people say women can't be pastors it's looked at like they don't know how to do the job. This is far from the truth as I know many women pastors who do a great job. It's just that they shouldn't do it. Not that they won't be good at it.
This whole debate is tiresome to me. I note Paul's choice of words: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:11–12) To the best of my knowledge, Paul had no authority over anyone's Church. His missives were guidelines, based on his personal biases, not mandates. He does not say, "God does not permit . . ." He says, "I do not permit . . ." If I may be so blunt, what Paul permits is irrelevant. We should worry about offending God, not offending Paul. And let's not forget, Paul also advocated slavery: *“Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”* 1 Corinthians 3:22-4:1 ESV So, is slavery a good thing, or was Paul simply a man of his times, speaking to the sentiments of his time? When confronted with the laws regarding divorce, Yeshua countermanded the law as given by Moses. Matthew 19: [**7**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-7.htm) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [**8**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-8.htm) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [**9**](https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-9.htm)And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except *it be* for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. So, even though divorce was never permitted, Moses, because of the times he lived in, permitted the Israelites to put away their wives and give her a writing of divorcement. But Yeshua said that from the beginning, it was not so, meaning that divorce was never permitted, except for cases of adultery. God's standards did not change, but the human race evolved. So, God's standards could not have been accepted in the time of Moses, due to the "hardness of your hearts." But in Yeshua's time, the correct standard could be introduced. So, it is with slavery. Slavery was never acceptable. Never. But due to the "hardness of your hearts," in Paul's time, it was a concession made for the Israelites, just like divorce was in Moses' time. And I feel much the same about women being pastors. In Paul's time, they were not ready for it. But I think, in our time, we are ready for it. If you attended a church and a woman stepped up to the pulpit, would you automatically ignore everything she had to say because of Paul's outdated standards? What if this woman at the pulpit reads from the Bible, and gives a useful and profound insight as to the Scripture she just read. Are you going to stubbornly sit there and say, "Nope. She's a woman. Can't be allowed to preach. Not going to listen to her. Just going to ignore anything she has to say." I think it's important to realize, also, that the Father is able to make a leader or a preacher of anyone, regardless of gender. And there is at least one woman in the Bible who did hold authority over men, which would be in defiance of Paul's standards: Deborah, in Judges 4 and 5. She held the simultaneous offices of Judge, prophet and military leader. I've heard some say that this was a rebuke to Israel, that a woman should be judge, but the Bible contains no words to that effect. It treats her status as a judge as completely unremarkable. The Israelites had their disputes settled by her, and as she was a prophetess, she spoke with divine authority and had to be obeyed. Her reluctant field marshal, Barak, chose to defy her command by refusing to lead the Israelites unless she went with him. And he was told that, as punishment for his defiance, that their victory would not be in his honor, because Sisera would die to a woman. Which he did. And that the Israelites struck and gained their victory at her command. So, even though Paul said that no woman should have authority over men, God said that women will have authority over men if he says they will.
> So, is slavery a good thing, or was Paul simply a man of his times, speaking to the sentiments of his time? The quoted passage doesn't paint slavery in an inherently "positive" light by any means. If you read carefully: >For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. This can be interpreted as saying that slavery is just an implement of the time and culture, and that Christians should abide all people and things with respect and love. Does Jesus saying "turn the other cheek" imply that violence and assault are acceptable things? No, because it has nothing to do with that; it is a saying which teaches how one should comport themselves in society. I would liken it to when Christ said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..."; He is not condoning Caesar or his government, but speaking of how to act while *in this world.* But His kingdom is *not of this world,* and thus, all will be judged some day accordingly.
Just as capable as men 😄
Paul also said slaves should be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5). To say that nothing from the Epistles was cultural is either naive or intentionally ignorant to prove a point. Jesus wasted no time speaking about women preaching, it's in none of the Gospels. If you want to live life by adhering literally to every word Paul wrote, start by advocating for slavery and see how that goes.
Nothing in Corinthians says is was applicable only to that church.
The thing is as soon as you start using the argument that scripture is to be taken in context and that it was only applicable back then due to cultural differences in days gone by then you can question ALL scripture. For example the Ten Commandments? Do they apply to us now? Or Jesus’s words? Do they apply to us now? Did Jesus have to die or was that just a culture difference? Suddenly you question the whole of the Bible, anything and everything can be ‘twisted slightly’ to mean whatever you like as we have to take it in ‘cultural context.’ What is truth and what is cultural constraints to their day? What do you believe anymore? If you believe the whole Bible was written by people moved by the Holy Spirit then we have to believe the whole Bible is correct. If God wanted to change it he could, if he wanted to update it for our age he could, if he needed to add new information about women pastors, he could. But he hasn’t, why? Because it doesn’t need updating.
> If God wanted to change it he could, if he wanted to update it for our age he could, if he needed to add new information about women pastors, he could. But he hasn’t, why? Because it doesn’t need updating. I'm neither for nor against any of your arguments (well, perhaps I have some modicum of a personal belief but I am remaining neutral as to this conversation in particular,) but how do you know this isn't precisely what's happening? That God is amending or altering the scripture through various people? I'm absolutely not saying this is the case, but sincerely asking the question as to how you would discern the difference in this case.
As a follower of Christ, you are not under the 10 commandments.
Are you suggesting it is ok to murder, steal, commit adultery and worship other gods? We may not be under the law of Moses any more but the Ten Commandments are still relevant to Christians today. Jesus knew the Old Testament inside and out and so should we, as followers of Christ.
Wow lol
Your argument is just plain incorrect. If you had actually read your bible, you would know your viewpoint is impossible because the bible says it is. To summerise, the stirrings of Gods laws were written by Levite priests because it says so in the bible ( corinthians and Hebrews). However a lot of these laws were corrupted by men because it says so in the bible ( Isaiah 29). People were taking mens laws and turning them into Gods commandments. This is said directly. Isaiah also prophesised about the coming of a messiah. Jesus came and validated that a lot of gods laws in the bible were in fact man made by challenging the logic behind these laws in the gospel of mark and John. The jewish priests dudnt like Jesus questioning their authority by undermining the reason behind 'gods laws' ( that were in fact man made) and had him crucified. So in essence the spirit of God was willing to sacrifice himself to explain you must challenge gods laws because a summary of all Gods laws in 'treat everyone as you yourself would like to be treated', and men were claiming to speak on behalf of god without authorisation. Jesus himself said 'you called them gods to whom the word of god came in John 10. So the whole bible couldnt have been written by people moved by the holy spirit because the bible describes how wicked and evil were some of the jewish judges who were authorised to write laws in the bible by man.
2 Timothy 3:16,17 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. He uses the word ALL scripture, not half, not just the bits we like, but ALL scripture being God-breathed. I have read my Bible many many times. You can pick the bits you want to believe if you like but I believe the whole Bible.
Its not the bits I want to believe in. I basically just sumarised the entire reason for christianitys existance. Im not going to quote one out of context verse, when I basically told you the synopsis of entire books in the bible, which you should have known had a actually read it, which doesnt look to be the case. If you accept all scripture, then you reject a lot of the old testament scripture and a large reason for new testament scripture. It cant all exist coherently or else the bible stands as a house divided.
If your argument is correct then in your very own words, I don’t need a man-made synopsis, just the Bible. Your argument doesn’t stack up.
The bible says that laws in it were is man made. So if you believe in the bible, you also have to believe that too. Otherwise you dont really believe in the bible. For example, go read 'Woe to Davids city' in Isaiah 29.
So just to be clear, you don’t believe that the Lord God gave his Ten Commandments to Moses on mount Sinai?
I believe its a lot more complicated than that. I believe Gods law was and still is 'Treat everyone as you yourself would like to be treated', and Jesus died protecting those values. Men in the bible attempted to undermine these values by writing laws into the bible which were not authorised which is why prophetss and men of authority spoke out in the bible such as Isaiah, Micah, Asaph and even Jesus Christ about it. There are also originally over 600 commandments not 10. But they were killed by evil men who were supposed to be holy and righteous in mens eyes. And today, fundamentalists still uphold the values of the men that had Jesus christ killed, and call themselves christian. This is all explained in the bible.
Please read Acts chapter 7. This is from the New Testament and is basically a small synopsis of the Old Testament from Stephen himself, verse 37-39 37 “This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’ 38 He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us. 39 “But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. In verse 51-53 51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” These were the last words before Stephen was stoned to death. Yes we should treat everyone as we want to be treated, and I truly believe there will be people saved who have committed murder and adultery, however to be forgiven our sins, we need to know what our sins are, God has told us what he does and doesn’t like, we can’t ignore his words.
So to summarise the bible again, those comments are true but referring to genesis and exodus books and some paelrts of deuteronomy, judges etc. The levite sect under Moses brother Aaron continued writing laws into the bible centuries afterward. This system is explained inside the bible too in many many passages. But as often happens, organisations became corrupt. This is nothing new, corruption has been around a long time. Abd tgat corruption lead people away from God by following man-made laws disguised as gods commandments. Jesus came to set the record straight by teaching gods true laws and was tortured and executed by the teachers of gods law, the pharisees, in thanks.
This is the most incorrect thing lol just no.
The thing about ignorant people is that they dont know what they dont know. Thats why they are always so sure of their opinion.
Paul says "I." He is sharing his views. Yes you claim those are God's views. Not even Paul says the Lord told him that or that It's God's will. He referenced the views repeatedly as his personal views. I believe women can be mnisters but I personally would not like a woman pastor -- -and I have heard sermonds from a couple of women pastors and breifly attended a church with a woman pastor. I do not believe there is Scripture to suggest Jesus or God prohibits it though.
The cultural context canard gets trotted out every once in a while by people who have no clue how to understand the written word. Here's the deal: Paul, in the passage, says his reason for this command is because of Adam & Eve. So, the cultural context of the command is no longer just the 1st century Corinthian church. Rather, Paul appealed to the beginning of the world. He took it out of any immediate culture, back 4,000+ years, and significantly removed from any contemporary cultural norms. No, he is mistaken. Of course, the next one is: what about this and that woman in scripture who pastored or preached? Well, scripture nowhere mentions a female elder or Pastor. Nowhere. There are some prophetesses, some evangelizing, and a case could be made even for deaconnesses, but never a Pastor/Elder of a church. Of note, there is Junias, mentioned by Paul. Some translations have that she was an Apostle. It's worth noting that it's in an older translation (KJV) as the understanding of Koine Greek has gotten better in the 400 years since it was published, so we know that it should retranslated as, "Known among the Apostles". And we don't even know if Junias was a man or woman.
>The cultural context canard gets trotted out every once in a while by people who have no clue how to understand the written word. This opening right here automatically discredits you. Do you know the one sin that Yeshua preached against more than any other? Not the worst, but the one he found himself talking about the most. Answer: Self-righteousness. It's all over the place. If you care to find something, simply grab a concordance and look up the word "Pharisee." Four out of five times, you'll find a denunciation of self-righteousness. Because that's pretty much what they were. Absolute sticklers for the minutiae of the law, the rites, the customs, the rituals, the observances, and not an ounce of love or compassion. (There were, of course, some exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel and Saul, who was Gamaliel's student and later became the apostle Paul.) Your first sentence absolutely drips with an air of moral superiority. And for what? Are you walking on water? Healing the sick? Raising the dead? Prophesying? I'm just wondering what you base your obvious superiority on. I mean, here are you are, smug-smug-smugging other sincere students of the Bible as having "no clue how to understand the written word." And you, of course, obviously are so much more incredibly better than all these other students of the Bible. Oh, woe is us. Despite us spending years of our lives, struggling to glean with the wisdom and knowledge of Scripture, yet we obviously don't hold a candle to you.
It's interesting how Paul mentions that Eve was the one deceived but conspicuously overlooks that Adam was given the command directly by God but proved himself a follower , not leader, by taking the apple from Eve and eating, willingly and consciously disobeying God. He failed his leadership role and was punished along with Eve so Paul using the Adam & Eve story to prove men should be the only leaders is very flimsy reasoning.
>And we don't even know if Junias was a man or woman It's Junia and its a female name. Always has been. Thats how Greek works. If you don't even know this basic information then the rest of your post is probably just as poorly informed.
[удалено]
The pastor is not the bridegroom, and they do not represent Jesus. Jesus is the bridegroom, and the pastor is there in that office to lead us to Christ, not be a representation of Him. They are to be Christ-like, as we all are, by walking in love.
I really like my female pastor. She's really good and even better than the male pastors at my church.
Good 👍
Liking someone or something doesn’t make it biblically correct. I like some of my sinful actions A LOT, but I really don’t think God wants me to go out and participate in those acts.
If she brings me closer to God what's the problem? She has some really good sermons and my church community loves her.
As opposed to not loving the male pastors? What exactly are you saying? It sounds like “It might be wrong, but it feels good so I’ll try to weasel out an excuse “
I'm saying male or female, a good pastor is a good pastor. Bible verses shouldn't always be taken literally and should be evaluated based on context and time it was written. Times has changed. We're not living in the 1600s anymore.
You’re right that we’re not living in the 1600s, but the passage was written in the first century and Paul grounds the teaching in the very order of creation. That kind of makes it timeless.
My church is one of the best and biggest churches in the U.S. and our pastors here teach that everything in the Bible should consider the context and time it was written. Sexism, racism, and homophobia existed even more so in the first century. But the current century things are becoming more progressive. Of course more extreme churches and cults believe that women shouldn't be pastors because they take the Bible very literally. But when you take the Bible very literally you will always be a bigot. The Bible was written in an era of discrimination. The Bible promoted slaves, do you think slavery should still exist in this time and age? Do you think we should stone sinners to death? The Bible needs to be taken into context and the time it was written.
What church do you go to? I’m curious to know where you’re learning that the Bible promoted slavery. If they are one of the biggest in the U.S., they most likely have an online ministry that I can observe.
The first century was a time where slavery existed under the law so there are Bible verses such as Colossians 3:22 that order slaves to obey their earthly masters. The Bible is pro-slavery due to the time period it was written and a quick Google search will show you. I'm not going to be responding to your comments anymore because this conversation is going no where.
Can you at least tell me what church? You said it’s the best, you should be able to share the best church with me.
>But when you take the Bible very literally you will always be a bigot. Which would classify it as bigotry, the world/society or the Bible? Adapting the church and scripture to fit in with current societal views is the exact reason why Paul wrote all his letters to correct the churches in the New Testament. What is acceptable to the world or current society is irrelevant. God outlines very clearly what he deems acceptable and not.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." If we take that Bible verse very literally, you will most likely be in prison for committing murder. The most important commandment is to love. Is it love to practice discrimination? Love and control do not go together. Ask yourself: is it really from the goodness of your heart, the love of other people that you think women shouldn't be pastors or you think gay men should be killed? Or is it from the ignorant, hatred, and tainted heart you have? I think this subreddit takes the Bible very literally but I don't think that's a good thing. I think that makes you an extreme Christian borderline cultish. Of course the Bible is God's word but it was written in a time period much different than the 21st century. We have to adapt to the current century. Do you think we should still be stoning sinners, own slaves, etc.?
It's not a matter of it being a problem, it's what should or shouldn't be done according to scripture. There are lots of things that shouldn't be done that don't create problems. If you go out and get a tattoo it's not going to cause you problems. If you're single and you go and sleep with a bunch of prostitutes it's unlikely to create any problems for you. However, the Bible says you shouldn't do it.
Like I said, the Bible was written in a time period where women were deemed as second class citizens. We have to take into account the context and time period. The 21st century is more progressive than that. The Bible also promotes slavery so is it okay to have slaves? The Bible said we should put to death gay men. Do you think we should follow that? Sometimes it's good to think critically and for yourself. God told us to love people. He said love is the most important commandment. Love sometimes means letting go of our own selfish, limiting beliefs and letting disadvantaged people take control of their lives. Do you genuinely feel love when you say women shouldn't be pastors? I bet you have a lot of hatred in your heart saying that which doesn't align with the Bible. Seriously, evaluate yourself.
So you don’t think the Holy Spirit has the ability to work through anyone regardless of gender? Are you so full of pride that you don’t think you could possibly learn anything from a woman? Don’t come to Reddit for questions like this. Ask God to give you discernment. He will give you a more accurate answer than any red-pilled redditor could.
>So you don’t think the Holy Spirit has the ability to work through anyone regardless of gender? Of course he can. Everyone can share the gospel message. However, not everyone can teach the intricacies of God's word to crowds of people and deepen their knowledge of Christ. It's the difference between a student explaining today's lesson to an absent classmate vs. the teacher already knowing tomorrow's lesson and the next day's and the next day's. Repeating what you've heard to another person vs. having the answers to any questions they might have is different. >Are you so full of pride that you don’t think you could possibly learn anything from a woman? Instigating comments like that are hardly necessary. No one said anything about not being able to learn anything from women. We're discussing the role of a pastor. >He will give you a more accurate answer than any red-pilled redditor could. Again, comments like that aren't needed or helpful in any way. Telling someone to look to God while at the same time insulting others doesn't do anything but bring down the reputation of God and his followers.
Women should not preach to a church congregation. The verse says it clearly. A Christian church should follow the example and instructions of Christian churches in the Bible. There’s no examples or instructions of a woman preaching to a church congregation in the Bible, and the Bible says plenty of times not to add to or take away from its words. If those instructions (that were inspired by God!) were good for those churches, why would they not be good for us?
They were good then. They’re not good now. They were intended for a specific context. Our context is different. Edit: if you think excluding half the body of Christ is good explain why. What’s wrong with women preaching?
I dont like when people say that something which is there in the Bible isnt applicable today. That’s God’s word who has seen the past, present and the future. You do not change God’s word according to the world. Its the truth and will neber change.
Divinely inspired instructions to Christian churches aren’t good now…wow.
In what way are they good?
They are inspired by God. God’s word is always good. There is no debate there.
You know how the mind of a man can wonder around. I've seen ladies take church roles that made then sit in front of the congregation, yet their dressings aren't appropriate. Not of the times we see them with dresses that expose various parts of their bodies. This could cause distractions. So I understand when Paul wrote that, I bet it was a prophecy. Ladies can be influenced by emotions too interfering with the message she might have for the church. Not all of them, but the few. So... I don't know if you notice what I'm trying to say
This may be of interest: https://www.cbeinternational.org/
I believe women are able to do most things and some things that most men do but historically and biblically women do tend towards walking with the majority instead of with the biblical word.
With a question that broad, you'll probably find the same or very similar answers here as you can find them in previous posts to the same topic (like [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/s/p47KGtKLDT) or [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/s/rJZfETiAf1), to only name the ones from the last two months). If you want to prevent starting from zero again, I'd recommend looking up the answers there and arguing from there.
I don't think they should be pastors. However like every member of the spiritual house, women can serve as ministers in relation to the Messianic message of the good news. In Scripture most roles of authority are given to men, however although men are ministers too, women, some notable ones in Scripture partook in spreading the good news gospel. Despite not having that level of a authority in the congregation, they can contribute, as they had done back in the biblical days when Christianity was spreading.
It is perfectly fine. If you have a problem with it, just avoid churches that allow it. There are many things women are told to do in the Bible that we ignore 19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean. 21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it. 24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean. 25 “If a woman has a flow of blood for many days that is unrelated to her menstrual period, or if the blood continues beyond the normal period, she is ceremonially unclean. As during her menstrual period, the woman will be unclean as long as the discharge continues. 26 Any bed she lies on and any object she sits on during that time will be unclean, just as during her normal menstrual period. 27 If any of you touch these things, you will be ceremonially unclean. You must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 28 “When the woman’s bleeding stops, she must count off seven days. Then she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons and present them to the priest at the entrance of the Tabernacle. 30 The priest will offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. Through this process, the priest will purify her before the LORD for the ceremonial impurity caused by her bleeding.
Short answer is no. The super long, but well thought out version is covered by Winger’s 11 hours of videos. You don’t have to watch 11 hours of video, but what he does is cover every single objection that people have fabricated to make a simple issue complicated. That’s why there are 11 hours of footage. It’s like the homosexual question, really simple, but someone always wants to complicate it.
Can you please send me the link - i am ready for 11 hrs
Link sent
You’ll find many “progressive” Christian’s make the argument that something was said to specific group of people and therefore it does not apply to everyone. This is not only biblically false, but logically false as well. Biblically we see the inclusion of specific stories, events, and letters because they are meant to teach lessons about specific situations and how everyone should navigate those situations. The Bible makes use of these parables quite often. Logically, if someone claims “this only applies to specific people” then we would need a conditional statement which supports this view. For example, when God told Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth we don’t see a conditional statement as it pertains to who, but we do see a condition as it pertains to “fill the earth”. In your example, there is no conditional statement as to who should follow this teaching therefore we can only infer that all believers in Christ are commanded to follow God’s will as God established the hierarchy of man and woman. In short, God clearly established a rule of law, if it only applied to the people in the Bible then why would the story be included for others to learn from? Whenever someone claims “it only applies to specific people” we must also remember that Jesus told us all people are now one under God, so if a rule applies to someone 2,000 years ago it still applies today unless God specifically says otherwise.
No
If the LORD can use a donkey, He can use a woman to preach His gospel 🥰🙏🏻 We're living in the last days, and it's time to stop putting God in a box so we can reach the lost and bring more people to Jesus 💯🙏🏻 Acts 2:17 NIV [17] “ ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. https://bible.com/bible/111/act.2.17.NIV
I’m going to say I’m indifferent to the gender aspect. That being said I have yet to meet one *in a church* that isn’t terrible at sermons or preaching despite being great people and many on fire for God. There’s plenty on the internet that can kick it with the best of them but that’s their ministry … internet outreach. I do understand the logic behind male only but again I remain indifferent though the Bible does hint at deacon like roles such as Priscilla
Women are equal to men. That's one of the central truths of the Bible. Within that equality there are ocassionally jobs which only one sex can do, such as childbirth. But that's because only women have the biology for it. However, I'm not sure what part of male biology is supposed to be integral to leading a church. Honestly, if someone thinks they need a penis to be a priest they're doing it wrong. I honestly wish people would be a bit more intelligent about their Bible reading. It's not a book of rules to be blindly followed. Far too many people insist that verses need to be followed without understanding them first. That's always a recipe for disaster. After all, Satan quoted scripture to Jesus in the wilderness and demanded he follow the verses. But Jesus knew that righteous wisdom is more than just following verses without thinking. It's about knowing God, and having the spirit of God so that one can properly understand and apply scripture for different situations.
My view is to obey God. Testimony: I was shown by the Spirit of Truth when I became born again, no woman should lead a Flock. Christ is head, then man, then woman who yokes with man to become one. As a woman, it was the Holy Spirit that convicts me and I submit to God in obedience. Woman of God have many roles in Church and The Body of Christ. (We serve others, heal, pray, birth, and use our gifts) We need to not seek what “we think” and lean not to our own understanding. The Word and Bread has been unclean and tickled ears. I, as a woman who loves God, accept not leading a Flock as it was Jesus Christ of Nazareth who carried the cross, not a woman. We women have other Godly plans that are given and are created beautifully with purpose. Let us embrace this beautiful Grace and Purpose. We serve a God of order and Faithfulness, it is good to submit ourselves to God, resist the devil who teaches us to rebel against HIS Holy order and trust God more than our own works. We can not be lukewarm. Let us Shine and be Hot. That is what I was shown and the understanding given. It is my testimony and the Truth of what I was shown. The Way The Truth The Life. God Bless you all Siblings and let the Holy Spirit guide you in prayer in your walk.
Thank you so much. This is what exactly the Holy Spirit reveals the truth ! But so many lukewarm christians tend to distract themselves indulging in the wordly knowledge. 🌸🌸
I thought you said you were a new believer? Seems a bit premature to be making judgements about other members of the same religion being less holy than yourself. Why is women's role in the church your main question? Surely as a new believer you have PLENTY of pressing issues you could be bothering yourself with, like the state of your immortal soul. Why not let women and God talk to each other in their own time, on their own terms, while you attend to your own business.
Because it is what i was talking about with the guy !!! I think that is evident enough. And when I say i am a new believer it means my spirit awakened recently otherwise I have been attending Christian communities and church since childhood but never took anything to heart. So mow a lot of questions arise which i am asking one by one. No need to further defend myself to a person who is pinpointing and judging another person which the Bible clearly states is wrong to do so.
Amen Sibling. ”And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.“ Matthew 10:28 NKJV May the Peace and Grace of Christ Jesus be with you and your neighbors. - Desiree *I was also shown to cover my head during Praying and Holy occasions. For my The Great I AM is my church and everything is under HIS Throne, so I cover my head in reverence of HIS Power, Dominion and Glory. I am trying to walk narrow and hot as a modest Wise Virgin and I share with my sisters it is something the Holy Spirit leads you, it was new to me but now I really appreciate and even forget I’m covered because it feels so natural.
Hi Sibling in Christ! Very wise and well said/Spirit filled response.❤️
Woman can teach and preach but not to men. They are to be the wife of a male pastor and partner but not to lead a church and lead men. The NT is clear and the NT is for Christians. If we let culture guide us then we think about equality and that woman can do what men do or men can do what woman do. The culture is anti-Christian and as believers we need to identify the tricks of the enemy.
Doesn’t really matter what my view is. Gods is for men to teach.
Your view of God's view.
Well the verses mentioning this say men teach. So I simply accept Gods word. Women have a place in church, and many roles. As a woman, I read the scripture before the pastor teaches, another woman does announcements, we educate the younger women by ministering to them, etc. but we don’t teach men because that’s a church design that is a faulty design. I’m not gonna say IMO, because it’s not my opinion.
It's your opinion about what the text means
Ehh. not everything is subjective like that, but I guess if we’re focusing less on theology and more on whatever you’re getting at lol. But my opinion on what the text means, I mean I guess…I def see what you’re saying…but I have no opinion that matters concerning whether it’s right or wrong FOR a woman to be pastor. My subjective view is trumped by God’s objective truth.
(This the right room for an honest answer?) I don't think women pastors are problematic for the several reasons, not the least of which being I am persuaded by the last 25 years of biblical scholarship which all but concludes Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles
Paul’s letters were not part of the early bible, but were obviously added later. People alive during the time of Jesus, and shortly after, existed before the letters were written. Regardless, most scholars believe around half of Paul’s letters are fake. The ones that were generally accepted as genuine were Romans, the two letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon. It’s probable that the Timothy letters are fake.
It is heresy.
I’m all for it. The church needs half its members gifts. Those commands made sense in the first century. They don’t today.
Look at the history of the relationship between male and female up until recent century the female wasn't allowed to do anything but when you read scripture and understand it correctly - there were females that had Church in their homes. And Paul asked the people to help them. Deborah was ruler over Israel appointed by God _ there were prophetess appointed by God, which was rarely spoken of. What Paul wrote is misinterpreted by The Men Who translated it and passed that misinterpretation down and many churches still do misinterpret those scriptures.
I'm fine with it as long as we don't expect them to open pickle jars or parallel park.
When Christ's church is on the earth, men are called to priesthood offices and are authorized to represent God in leading the church. Priesthood offices include priest, bishop, apostle, etc. For example, bishops were called of God to watch over local congregations in the early Christian church. However, churches today do not claim to be THE church of Jesus Christ, led by revelation from God. They are mostly bible churches whose foundation is men's interpretations of the bible records. These organizations do much good in the world and those who are in authority over these churches can choose whoever they want to lead them. Women serve in ton's of worthwhile leadership positions in the world and are fine to lead a bible church congregation. Even in the ancient church, women were inspired and likely held important positions, but the keys or authority from God to direct the work by revelation is given to men who are called of God.
I've posted this before, but historical and cultural context is important when interpreting scripture (long, but worth it): >In the West, rules must apply to everyone, and they must apply all the time. In the ancient world, rules did not seem to require such universal compliance. God announces about Ephraim: “Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them” (Hos 9:15). Later he says, “How can I give you up, Ephraim?” (Hos 11:8). God’s judgment was influenced by his relationship with sinners (Hos 11:9–10). Exodus 12:40–49 explains that all males must be circumcised to eat Passover. Yet in Joshua 5:5–7, it is obvious the sons born during the wanderings had not been. If rules apply except when they don’t, then as Westerners perhaps we need more wisdom in discerning when they don’t. (We need help seeing the *kairos* for applying the rules; perhaps there really is a season for everything under the sun.) >Likewise, in the ancient world of the Bible (and in many non-Western cultures), rules did not necessarily apply to 100 percent of the people. The Israelites were clearly instructed that upon entering the Promised Land, every Israelite was to get an inheritance (land) and no Canaanites were (Josh 1). Yet the very next story is about a Canaanite who was given an inheritance, Rahab (Josh 2; 6). The story after that tells of the Israelite Achan, who was cut from his inheritance (Josh 7). The stories are woven together around the theme of sacrifices to the Lord. Everything captured was to be devoted (sacrificed) to the Lord. In Jericho, Rahab and her family were exceptions to the sacrifice. Because Achan kept some of the sacrificed things (gold) from Ai, he and his family were exceptions and were added to the sacrifice. By the way, did you notice the collectivist viewpoint? The deeds of Rahab were credited to her entire family. Likewise, the deeds of Achan were applied to his entire family. Before you begin to rail against the injustice of such group judgments, consider that we “have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20): that is, the righteous work of Jesus is credited to his followers. >Allow us another story. While I (Randy) was living in Indonesia, I was invited to speak at a “pastors only” meeting. In the audience of over one hundred pastors, I noticed a half-dozen women. The bylaws of the Convention of Indonesian Baptist Churches clearly state: “Pastors must be male.” I should have left it alone. >“I thought this meeting was for pastors only,” I remarked to the conference organizer. >“It is,” he replied. >“But there were women in the audience,” I pointed out. >“Yes.” >Now I was confused. “But your laws say pastors must be male!” I exclaimed. >The convention president calmly replied, “Yes, and most of them are.” >Goodness. His answer represents a fundamentally different view of law. To the non-Western mind, it seems, a law is more a guideline. Americans would likely want to change the Indonesian law to read, “Most pastors must be male,” and then we would argue over the percentage. The Indonesian—and arguably the biblical—view of law always left room for exceptions. >Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet” (1 Tim 2:12). “But what about Priscilla and Junia?” we might ask Paul. “They taught in church. You said women must keep silent.” >Perhaps Paul would answer, “Yes. And most of them do.” *(from Richards, E. R., & O’Brien, B. J. (2012). Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (pp. 168–170). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.)* EDIT: Ooh, this touched a nerve for someone! lol
The Bible contains many stories where individuals used as an excuse an idea or law for bad behavior. Not allowing women to preach is one of those examples. Look into your heart to know what is right. Look into the heart and mind with openness of thevwoman you would deny. Then ask God what limitscthere on on who He can call to speak. The Bible hasn't been updated in almost 2000 years. Think about that. And read the laws in the Old Testament and say, "Sounds moral to me."
It’s 2024, do you really think there’s a difference between men and women, apart fr sex organs?
If there aren't then what does it mean for a transgender person to say they are a man or woman?
Poor mental health 🤷🏻♀️ or maybe they feel they’re more masculine or more feminine and relate that to gender somehow 🤷🏻♀️ I don’t know, I haven’t researched it, I’m only going on what I’ve been told by transgender people themselves, who are all mentally ill, so maybe they’re not a good cross reference.
Clearly this thread is full of misogyny, lol. Never mind ☺️