Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

Oops, Paul put the husband in your "honorable mention" position in Romans 16:3. ["Priscilla and Aquila"]

Spurgeon comments:

"I should not wonder but he put them in order according to quality rather than according to the rule of sex. He named Priscilla, first, because she was first in energy of character and attainments in Divine Grace. There is a precedence which, in Christ, is due to the woman when she becomes the leader in devotion and manifests the stronger mind in the things of God. It is well when Nature and Grace both authorize our saying, “Aquila and Priscilla,” but it is not amiss when Grace outruns Nature and we hear of, “Priscilla and Aquila.”"

 

1. The wearing of a head covering has nothing to do with culture (or, as you say, "pre-cultural ...design."
2. The whole command and issue of wearing a head-covering is irrelevant to a woman being a pastor. That is a completely different subject dealt with in many other passages, an unrelated topic.

Let's consider the topic of the head-covering of a woman.
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)
--Paul calls this an ordinance. An ordinance is a command. It is the same word that we would use as in city ordinances. They are laws that are to be obeyed, not broken. Paul ends the chapter with the ordinance of the Lord's Supper--a command that we remember to keep on a regular basis. But a head-covering is a command for a woman to keep all the time that she is in a church service.

Throughout the first 16 verses Paul establishes no fewer than six reasons why a woman should wear a head-covering in the church service.

1. It is to indicate the headship of the man (vs.3-6)
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
--The head of the woman is the man, even as the head of the man is Christ. This establishes headship. The veil or head-covering is a sign of headship, showing the submission of the woman to the man, which was taught in the Fall, and is so until now. Man and woman are equal, but in the marriage there is order. And man is the head of the house. We have different roles, and man is the head of the house. The head-covering signifies that the woman has taken her proper place in the home, and that the man is the head of the home.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
--A man must have his head uncovered.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
--It is such a shame for a woman not to wear a head covering, that if she is that rebellious her head should be shaven or bald. That is how great the importance of this command is.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Corinthians 11:3-6)
--The same truth is repeated for emphasis. If she refuses to be covered with a head-covering that let her head be shaven.
Note here that there are two different Greek words used in verses six and five, as compared to verse 15.
In verses 5 and 6 the Greek word is, [FONT=&quot]\"akatakalupto\".
In verse 15 the Greek word is, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]\"peribolaiou,\"
They are both translated "covering." But the first word refers specifically to a head-covering other than the hair, and the second one refers specifically to the hair. If you look in the ASV you would see the difference where in verses 5 and 6 the translation is "veil." Thus the head-covering spoken of in verses 5 and 6 is not hair or long hair. It is definitely a head-covering of some sort.

2. A head covering indicates God's order in creation. (vs.8,9)
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)
The man is created first; the woman second.
The head covering is worn to indicate this. It also is somewhat related to headship. But more than that it shows God's order in creation.

3, The head covering is worn as a sign to the angels. (vs. 10)
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:10)
--Angels have never been redeemed. They don't understand salvation and desire to look into it. Although we may not understand this verse completely it is in the Bible and we must believe it by faith. A woman must wear a head covering because of the angels.

4. The woman must wear a head covering because of a sense of propriety. (vs.13)
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (1 Corinthians 11:13)
Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? (1 Corinthians 11:13) WEB
--It is the right thing to do. It is not appropriate for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled or uncovered. It is like the verse is saying "Have a sense of decency!

5. A woman must wear a head covering b[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ecause of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female) and the woman's natural covering. (vs. 14,15)
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:14-15)
--Nature itself teaches us this, and in more than one way.
One of the most beautiful things to behold is a woman with long hair.
One of the most ugliest things to behold is a man with long hair done up in a pony tail hanging behind his back.

6. The sixth reason is it is the practice of all the churches.
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)
--This, perhaps is the strongest of Paul's arguments.
Paul says: if you are going to be contentious about this matter than go away, we don't want you around. We don't have a custom of being contentious, rather a custom of unity. This is the practice of all of God's churches. There is no dispute about it, no arguing about it; it is an ordinance, a command of God.

These are six solid reasons why a woman should wear a head covering. I don't believe they can disputed. They certainly were not just for the first century, or simply can be passed off as cultural. If this command is cultural then so also is the Lord's Supper which follows immediately after.

[/FONT]

 

And you use this as an argument for a female pastor?
Does Spurgeon also agree with that feeble argument?

 

It was in response to your convoluted well-Paul-was-really-addressing-only-Andronicus-Junia-was-just-Mrs-Andronicus-and-Paul-only-mentioned-her-to-be-polite spiel.

 

It's all really a moot point.
Junia could have been a man, but that even doesn't matter.
They are mentioned as "kinsmen and fellow prisoners," and that is all.
How do you make a stretch from "kinsmen and a fellow prisoner," to a female pastor?

 

Well, I was trying to lighten the mood a little while still holding to my viewpoint, but I see it was not appreciated.

I wasn't talking about ordaining sodomites, but it's amazing that you would equate them with women in your perverse statement!

And to prove that you are wrong, God does indeed call women as pastors, despite your errant interpretation of the scriptures and knowledge of the early church. I've known several conservative, Spirit-filled and Spirit-led women who served as pastors. They didn't doubt their calling, and their fruits were evidence of same. God has shown that He works independently of the opinions of Paul, and you!

 

Glad to see we are in agreement about something.

 

I would never tell a woman who was convinced of her calling and whose fruits of service bear witness to the truth of that calling that she was not actually called by God. I wouldn't try to put God in that box and tell Him whom He could or could not call.

The witness, evidence, and fruits of God calling women as pastors puts the matter beyond all controversy. Thus, these women would only be disobedient if they did not respond to God's call.

BTW, do you drive to church in your car? Where do you find evidence for permission of that in the scriptures? Just wondering how far you would go in your legalism. Maybe you should be a member of the Churches of Christ or Primitive Baptists who don't use musical instruments because they can find no direct, stated, specific evidence for this practice in the New Testament. At least they are consistent.

P.S. Not meaning to attack you by using the term "legalism." I just cannot find another term to fit what seems to me to be your position.

 

DHK, it is though you read my book and lifted these six reasons right off the pages of my book on this subject. I know you didn't read my book but we are in perfect agreement here except for your first statements.

Perhaps either I did not make myself clear or you misunderstood me. It is the positions of the man and woman that is based upon the precultural design of God from creation. Part of that precultural design or creation design for the order between man and woman is that they are types of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22-30). The headcovering is simply a "sign" or symbol of the woman's subjective POSITION to the man and confirms the pre-cultural design by God.

However, you are wrong when you say the wearing of the sign of submission to the man's position of authority has nothing to do with women's right to the office of the Pastor. The very symbol or sign reaffirms they are not qualified to take the position of authority over men in the assembly and thus not qualified to be ordained to such offices in the churches.

 

Spurgeon also made the well known statement about female preachers likened to dogs who can be taught to walk on two legs. He said that dogs can be taught to walk on two legs but it is not according to their nature and the same is true of women who preach.

 

It is true that in the Scriptures one of the signs of a ungodly nation is that women and children take the leadership over men (Isa. 3:12). When a nation is so lapsed into ungodliness where every man does that which is right in his own eyes and men will not take their responsible positions of leadership in a nation then God will use a "Deborah" at the shame of a "Barak."


Isa. 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Jud 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

Hence, the only commentary upon such women being used by God is the shameful condition of the men who are either so apostatized and/or ungodly that God raises up women to do the job that the Word of God reveals to be the responsibility of the men.

This is an absurd argument! The Bible does explicitly not only mention the proper roles of men and women several times in the Bible but makes it abundantly clear that such roles are based upon God's design from creation rather than any cultural considerations whereas a "car" is never mentioned once in scriptures. What you call "legalism" is purely the explicit and clear revelation of God's Word (1 Cor. 14:33-38; 1 Tim. 2:9-11; 1 Tim. 3:1-10; etc.).

Another absurd argument. The term "psalm" can be found in the New Testament and there is sufficient evidence that the very term is characteristic of songs accompanied by musical instruments.

DHK has based his position squarely upon the explicit precepts of scripture. On the other hand, you have stooped to take Biblical examples to overturn and reinterpret clear Biblical precepts thus pitting scripture against scripture.

Anyone who has an ounce of sound Biblical hermeneutics knows that doctrine is established first by clear explicit precepts and then supported by examples and/or parables, types, etc, and never visa versa. You do not interpret precepts by examples but examples by precepts! Why? Because you can always find examples IN THE SCRIPTURES that are BAD EXAMPLES and contrary to every Biblical precept. For example, the Bible provides explicit precepts against lying, adultery and stealing but you can find abundant BIBLICAL EXAMPLES of lying, adultery and stealing. To take these BIBLICAL EXAMPLES and attempt to explain away the BIBLICAL PRECEPTS against such things is absurd and that is the very principle you have used in your attempt to establish Biblical support for women pastors.

 

One may use it as an argument that a woman is not qualified to be ordained to such an office. What I was saying is that was not the context. Paul was not writing about a woman wearing a head covering as an apologetic for women not being pastors. That application can be made. But that wasn't his main purpose in writing that passage.

 

I totally agree

 

Someone asked way back in this thread where the Bible says how a woman should dress or do her hair while preaching. I had referred to the fact some denominations use that as permission for a woman to preach.

1 Corinthians 11 addresses this. KJV refers to praying and prophesying. Those groups point out the word translated as prophesying is in other places translated preaching, hence their line of reasoning.

You may agree with them or disagree with them, but either way they are basing their teaching on what they believe the Bible teaches, not bowing to the culture of today.

 

The phrase "praying and prophesying" is also a synonym for public worship as a whole as John Gill points out in his commentary. Hence, it does not mean that as individuals they publicly lead prayer or publicly speak to the congregation as that is in direct contradiction to 1 Cor. 11:33-38 but rather they are not permitted to participate in the worship service under the leadership of men uncovered.

Your interpretation would pit scripture (1 Cor. 11) against scripture (1 Cor. 14:33-38; 1 Tim. 2:9-11).

 

It is not my interpretation, just passing along what some folks teach and why they say they teach it.

And just so you know, they consider your interpretation to pit scripture against scripture.

But my whole point is not women should be ordained (I don't believe men should be ordained in the manner we now do it, either) but rather that not all who support it do so in bowing to modern culture.

It is possible to disagree on this issue and both sides be standing up for what they honestly believe scripture says.

Both cannot be right, obviously. But it is not necessarily a cultural issue.

 

Well, I have seen in this thread women pastors equated with sodomites and compared to dogs. I'd hate to be where some of you are because you've got some judgment coming. Some of you remind me of the first century legalists and Pharisees who tried to tell Jesus what He could and couldn't do.

For those who claim that women are not allowed to teach men spiritually, consider this: According to Mark and Luke, the announcement of Jesus's resurrection was first made to women. According to Matthew and John, Jesus actually appeared first to women -- in John, to Mary Magdalene alone. Whereas some say that women are not qualified or authorized to teach men, the four Gospels have it that the risen Christ commissioned women to teach men, including Peter and the other apostles, the fact of the resurrection, which is the very foundation of Christianity.