women as priests

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you have scriptures to support these women being priests? Even Moses from that list was not a priest. Aaron was the only priest among those.

Deborah, Hulda, and other women were prophetesses. Balaam's female donkey prophesied, too. But to my knowledge we have no Biblical record of God establishing a woman to a position of spiritual leadership (e.g. priestess) or to civil leadership (e.g. queen) over His people.

“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” —1 Peter 2:9

Of course, by semantic default, we all KNOW that Peter was really only referring to Christian men corporately in that verse ...

 

[BibleLinguist]

Women were not ordained priests in the OT, no.
Though interestingly, I recently read that Moses' wife, Zipporah, performed a priestly role when she circumcised their son, Exodus 4:25. It seemed she also saved his life by doing so.

As were Isaiah's wife and Philip's daughters, yes.
But the OP said "it is written that women should shout (sic) their mouths in church", and some quote 1 Timothy 2:12 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 to "prove" that women shouldn't even speak in church. Indeed there was once someone on these forums who said that his wife didn't even say "Amen" in church so as not to disobey Scripture.
So people need to be clear what they are saying. Is it that women can't speak, or sing, in church; that women can obviously speak but not preach, or that women can preach but not be ordained to lead? Because often the same verses are used for all 3.

I think it's important to understand the context of the words. Even in English, to "speak" can have more than one meaning. A "speaker" might be one who speaks, or a "speaker" might be one in a position of authority: consider the "speaker" of the House of Representatives. I can assure you that every member of that House speaks! But the "speaker" of that House is a person in a leadership role.

I understand Paul to be saying that women were not to have authority over men. They were not to be the leaders. Can they say something in church? Yes. But they are not in a position to "speak" in the sense of "usurp authority" over a man (1 Timothy 2:12). Paul's own context should be used to see what he is meaning, and this concept of authority is part and parcel with the concept of a woman's "silence." He is specifically addressing leadership.

That said, many women, and men, too, should be more restrained about the fruit of their lips in church. God should have the ultimate authority, and our attitudes should show our respect and acknowledgment of this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think it's important to understand the context of the words. Even in English, to "speak" can have more than one meaning. A "speaker" might be one who speaks, or a "speaker" might be one in a position of authority: consider the "speaker" of the House of Representatives. I can assure you that every member of that House speaks! But the "speaker" of that House is a person in a leadership role.

I understand Paul to be saying that women were not to have authority over men. They were not to be the leaders. Can they say something in church? Yes. But they are not in a position to "speak" in the sense of "usurp authority" over a man (1 Timothy 2:12). Paul's own context should be used to see what he is meaning, and this concept of authority is part and parcel with the concept of a woman's "silence." He is specifically addressing leadership.

That said, many women, and men, too, should be more restrained about the fruit of their lips in church. God should have the ultimate authority, and our attitudes should show our respect and acknowledgment of this.

Actually, I think Kroeger & Kroeger do a reasonable job of showing that there is quite a bit more to consider contextually and hermeneutically where 1 Timothy 2 is under the microscope. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum or dropped out of the sky to be then picked up by the Church. We really need to stop treating the Bible as if it was.

 

[BibleLinguist]

“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” —1 Peter 2:9

Of course, by semantic default, we all KNOW that Peter was really only referring to Christian men corporately in that verse ...

Peter was one of the most scholarly of Bible writers by today's standards, in that he frequently quoted from other sources.

"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exodus 19:6).

Unless one takes God's words here in Exodus to not apply to that people to whom He was then speaking (which would seem a bit unfair or even deceptive toward them), one must recognize that the "kingdom of priests" was fulfilled through being a kingdom having a priesthood, a priestly system in which the Aaronite males served as intercessors and teachers for the congregation.

 

[ralliann]

Sarah and Abraham were married - another great argument for reading 1 Tim 2:12 as "wife" and not "woman".

But....then celibate female priests?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Peter was one of the most scholarly of Bible writers by today's standards, in that he frequently quoted from other sources.

"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exodus 19:6).

Unless one takes God's words here in Exodus to not apply to that people to whom He was then speaking (which would seem a bit unfair or even deceptive toward them), one must recognize that the "kingdom of priests" was fulfilled through being a kingdom having a priesthood, a priestly system in which the Aaronite males served as intercessors and teachers for the congregation.

Do male Christian priests have to be circumcised too? Or not? And if not, what changed between the Law and the Gospel so they don't have to, and by whose specific authoritative interpretation are we to strictly measure? Is it that of your specific denomination?

Again, I'm going with Kroeger & Kroeger on the issue of priestesses in the Church, even if their arguments are only even half as copacetic as they seem to be. What they explain is still better than what the rest of the Church attempts to do by appealing too strongly to mere stagnant aspects of Post-1st Century Christian Tradition.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think it's important to understand the context of the words. Even in English, to "speak" can have more than one meaning. A "speaker" might be one who speaks, or a "speaker" might be one in a position of authority: consider the "speaker" of the House of Representatives. I can assure you that every member of that House speaks! But the "speaker" of that House is a person in a leadership role.

Yes, but there are Christians who take the Bible literally. Consequently, "don't speak" means "don't speak."

I understand Paul to be saying that women were not to have authority over men. They were not to be the leaders.

Deborah was - and Paul knew that.

But they are not in a position to "speak" in the sense of "usurp authority" over a man (1 Timothy 2:12).

They are if God calls them to.
Mary Magdalene went into a roomful of men and told them that Jesus was alive. She was the first to proclaim the risen Christ.
Esther influenced the king and got him to change an edict which was to have had all the Jews destroyed.
The woman at the well went back to her town and told the men to come and see; she had found the Messiah.
A young slave girl told her mistress that if Naaman went to see the prophet he could be healed - and her mistress told Naaman.
All the above could be said to have told men what to do. Was that "usurping their authority"?

"Usurp" means to snatch violently, by force.
A church which recognises that a woman has a call from God and allows that call to be tested, is not having anything snatched by force..

Paul's own context should be used to see what he is meaning, and this concept of authority is part and parcel with the concept of a woman's "silence." He is specifically addressing leadership.

Women offered their homes for the early church to meet in - and that did not mean that they made the tea and biscuits.
Paul handed his letter to Rome to a woman (Phoebe, a deacon) to deliver. He had female co-workers and there were deaconesses in the churches.

That said, many women, and men, too, should be more restrained about the fruit of their lips in church. God should have the ultimate authority,

God DOES have ultimate authority.
And if he wants to call women to preach/lead in his church, proclaim his Gospel and further his kingdom, I'd say he is entitled to do that.

 

[Strong in Him]

But....then celibate female priests?

It's not a command that people should marry; nor that they should remain single.

 

[BibleLinguist]

Mary Magdalene went into a roomful of men and told them that Jesus was alive. She was the first to proclaim the risen Christ.

If I proclaim the wonderful news of the resurrection to you, do I have authority over you?

Esther influenced the king and got him to change an edict which was to have had all the Jews destroyed.

If I smile sweetly and influence you to calm down, do I have authority over you?

The woman at the well went back to her town and told the men to come and see; she had found the Messiah.

If I tell you excitedly that you should come and see something that I just saw, do I have authority over you?

A young slave girl told her mistress that if Naaman went to see the prophet he could be healed - and her mistress told Naaman.

If I tell you something that you did not know before, do I have authority over you?

All the above could be said to have told men what to do. Was that "usurping their authority"?

None of the above told any man what to do. The information presented gave them an opportunity to choose what they might do, but it did not command them to do anything.

Esther could never have commanded the king to do anything--to the contrary, the king could have executed her if she had tried!

We must be careful not to allow our own opinions, particularly those formed within the modern decadence of society, to influence our understanding of Bible doctrines. It is best to lay aside our preconceptions before opening God's Word, and then to ask Him to show us what He wants us to know and understand. We cannot safely trust our own wisdom; we must lean on His.

 

[ralliann]

It's not a command that people should marry; nor that they should remain single.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were making a distinction of wives? Married women.
So I assumed the promotion of the idea, a woman priest would be celibate? What was your point with that please? Trying to understand.

 

[RileyG]

The idea of women clergy comes not from the gospel but from the secular advancement of women's rights. The advancement of women's rights is certainly a noble goal, but the Church is not the place for it. That is not the reason the Church exists. Jesus chose only men as his apostles to advance the gospel, And while many women have played very important roles in that, women were not chosen for it. Jesus himself demonstrated a difference between men and women. He said to Mary:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father;

But then to Thomas:

John 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side.

So to a woman he said do not touch me, but then to a man touch me. There is a difference between men and women.

Amen! Men and women are different and have different gender roles. Clergy is for men only.

 

[Strong in Him]

If I proclaim the wonderful news of the resurrection to you, do I have authority over you?

Not today you don't; nor I over you.
But women had few rights in those days; I doubt that it was considered "proper" for a single woman to go into a roomful of men and tell them what was what.

If I smile sweetly and influence you to calm down, do I have authority over you?

Have you read the book of Esther?
It was against the law to approach the king without being summoned. Esther asked the Jews to fast and pray for 3 days - as she would. Then she was going to the king - though it was against the law - and "if I perish, I perish", Esther 4:16.
There was a lot more than "smiling sweetly" involved.
Jews still celebrate her courage each year in the feast of Purim.

If I tell you excitedly that you should come and see something that I just saw, do I have authority over you?

Again, this was about a woman approaching a man - actually a whole townful of men - and saying "come and see."

If I tell you something that you did not know before, do I have authority over you?

No, but you are teaching me - and some say that Paul forbade that as well.

None of the above told any man what to do. The information presented gave them an opportunity to choose what they might do, but it did not command them to do anything.

Well all I can say is that if you have a Minister/vicar who commands you what to do and how to live your life, you're in the wrong church.
This does not happen.

Esther could never have commanded the king to do anything--to the contrary, the king could have executed her if she had tried!

He could have executed her for approaching her without permission; disobeying his law.
There is no doubt that, in that scenario, Esther took the initiative. She even told Mordecai to tell the Jews to fast and pray for her.

We must be careful not to allow our own opinions, particularly those formed within the modern decadence of society, to influence our understanding of Bible doctrines.

You mean just as Jesus didn't allow his beliefs and society's opinions, to influence his ministry and teaching of God's word?

In that society, women were even lower than 2nd best. They had very few rights, if any at all.
They "belonged" to their fathers while they were young and handed over in marriage as soon as it could be arranged. They could be divorced on a whim. They weren't educated or asked what career they wanted. Their job was to provide, and care for, children. They were unclean at certain times of the month and after the birth of a child. If that child was a girl, they were unclean for twice as long.
They were considered to be unreliable witnesses and not asked to go to a court of law.
These are the beliefs and attitudes that existed in Jesus' time - promoted by religious leaders and well as society. Pharisees used to thank God every day that they had not been born a woman.

Yet into this society came Jesus.
He taught that in the beginning God had made both male and female and that men should not divorce.
He touched an unclean, bleeding woman and called her "daughter".
He spoke to a Samaritan woman and revealed to her that he was the Messiah.
He allowed Mary to sit at his feet and learn from him - in just the same way that student Rabbis would learn from their masters. What's more, he said that she had chosen the best thing.
He chose a woman to be the first witness to his resurrection. Not his disciples, the future leaders of the church - an "unreliable" woman.
He healed the daughter of a foreign, and therefore Gentile, woman.
Jesus loved and empowered women in a way that his society did not.

He also told his followers that they were to love as he loved.
So what does the church do? For some time they "banned" women from proclaiming the Good News from a pulpit - and some still do so even now.
It was many years before some sections of the church would ordain woman - and some still won't, even now. Women were, have been and sometimes are treated appallingly for daring to want to obey God. Although it's quite alright to send them onto the mission field, (where, incidentally, Gladys Aylward founded several churches.)
Women on these forums who have said that they are preachers and/or ordained have been told that they are being disobedient, that they are sinning or deluded, that God allows such sins because we are in end times or quite simply that they are wrong and should not be doing what God has called them to do.

So much for following Jesus' example and showing love.

 

[Strong in Him]

Amen! Men and women are different and have different gender roles. Clergy is for men only.

Obviously no one's told God that.

 

[ralliann]

Obviously no one's told God that.

Did God tell anyone to install female priests?

 

[Strong in Him]

Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were making a distinction of wives? Married women.
So I assumed the promotion of the idea, a woman priest would be celibate? What was your point with that please? Trying to understand.

Sorry, no I probably misunderstood.
The statement was made that Scripture says, in plain language, that a woman cannot teach or "have authority over" a man.
I was challenging the "plain language" bit - because some translations say that it should read, "a wife must not have authority over ...". If it should read "a wife", Paul is talking about a woman submitting to her husband - as he does elsewhere, including 1 Cor 14 where he says that if a woman wants to learn anything she should ask her own husband at home.

Yet these words are often read as "a woman cannot have authority over a man, therefore a woman cannot be ordained."

 

[Strong in Him]

Did God tell anyone to install female priests?

Well obviously he has - though not in the Catholic church - because many male clergy are recognising women's calling, and are training and ordaining them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not today you don't; nor I over you.
But women had few rights in those days; I doubt that it was considered "proper" for a single woman to go into a roomful of men and tell them what was what.


Have you read the book of Esther?
It was against the law to approach the king without being summoned. Esther asked the Jews to fast and pray for 3 days - as she would. Then she was going to the king - though it was against the law - and "if I perish, I perish", Esther 4:16.
There was a lot more than "smiling sweetly" involved.
Jews still celebrate her courage each year in the feast of Purim.


Again, this was about a woman approaching a man - actually a whole townful of men - and saying "come and see."


No, but you are teaching me - and some say that Paul forbade that as well.

Well all I can say is that if you have a Minister/vicar who commands you what to do and how to live your life, you're in the wrong church.
This does not happen.

He could have executed her for approaching her without permission; disobeying his law.
There is no doubt that, in that scenario, Esther took the initiative. She even told Mordecai to tell the Jews to fast and pray for her.


You mean just as Jesus didn't allow his beliefs and society's opinions, to influence his ministry and teaching of God's word?

In that society, women were even lower than 2nd best. They had very few rights, if any at all.
They "belonged" to their fathers while they were young and handed over in marriage as soon as it could be arranged. They could be divorced on a whim. They weren't educated or asked what career they wanted. Their job was to provide, and care for, children. They were unclean at certain times of the month and after the birth of a child. If that child was a girl, they were unclean for twice as long.
They were considered to be unreliable witnesses and not asked to go to a court of law.
These are the beliefs and attitudes that existed in Jesus' time - promoted by religious leaders and well as society. Pharisees used to thank God every day that they had not been born a woman.

Yet into this society came Jesus.
He taught that in the beginning God had made both male and female and that men should not divorce.
He touched an unclean, bleeding woman and called her "daughter".
He spoke to a Samaritan woman and revealed to her that he was the Messiah.
He allowed Mary to sit at his feet and learn from him - in just the same way that student Rabbis would learn from their masters. What's more, he said that she had chosen the best thing.
He chose a woman to be the first witness to his resurrection. Not his disciples, the future leaders of the church - an "unreliable" woman.
He healed the daughter of a foreign, and therefore Gentile, woman.
Jesus loved and empowered women in a way that his society did not.

He also told his followers that they were to love as he loved.
So what does the church do? For some time they "banned" women from proclaiming the Good News from a pulpit - and some still do so even now.
It was many years before some sections of the church would ordain woman - and some still won't, even now. Women were, have been and sometimes are treated appallingly for daring to want to obey God. Although it's quite alright to send them onto the mission field, (where, incidentally, Gladys Aylward founded several churches.)
Women on these forums who have said that they are preachers and/or ordained have been told that they are being disobedient, that they are sinning or deluded, that God allows such sins because we are in end times or quite simply that they are wrong and should not be doing what God has called them to do.

So much for following Jesus' example and showing love.

Banning them implies that women at one time preached from the pulpit as priestesses. Which we know from the apostolic age they did not.

If you are going to accuse those of us who actually adhere to the deposit of the faith as being unloving then you must also accuse Jesus and the Apostles of being unloving as well. They were willing to break all kinds of social norms but the different roles of men and women they did not break. Was our Lord too cowardly to appoint a woman? If that was his genuine intention?

 

[ralliann]

Sorry, no I probably misunderstood.
The statement was made that Scripture says, in plain language, that a woman cannot teach or "have authority over" a man.
I was challenging the "plain language" bit - because some translations say that it should read, "a wife must not have authority over ...". If it should read "a wife", Paul is talking about a woman submitting to her husband - as he does elsewhere, including 1 Cor 14 where he says that if a woman wants to learn anything she should ask her own husband at home.

Yet these words are often read as "a woman cannot have authority over a man, therefore a woman cannot be ordained."

Well a woman is subject to her father, before marriage, and the only other option is celibate female priests?

For a heading of these verses I put the last verse first ( a bit long but does speak to the subject)

Vows to the Lord stand or made void by male authority

Num 30:16 These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.

Num 30:3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth;
4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;
7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.

9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;
11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
16 These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.

 

[ralliann]

Well obviously he has - though not in the Catholic church - because many male clergy are recognising women's calling, and are training and ordaining them.

Where?

 

[Paidiske]

Where?

In the Anglican church, for a start. God calls women to ministry, and the church recognises that vocation and ordains and gives us authority to minister in these roles.