Celibacy: Doesn’t this Contradict “the husband of one wife?”



Q. How could Paul command in 1 Tim. 3: 1-2 that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, and for the Apostles to have handed down a tradition that teaches that priests and Bishops do not have to be married, or worse, are forbidden to be?!


BFHU:
I can see how you read the passage as commanding marriage but that is simply your interpretation. It could also be interpreted as “no more than one wife”. We know that priests and bishops were as first drawn from the married men. But Jesus gave the leaders of His Church the authority to bind and loose and even at the very birth of the Church celibacy began to be practiced even by the married. Why Celibacy? Priests and bishops were needed. The Church did not have the leisure to await the next generation before ordaining priests and bishops. So these were first taken from among the married. But they gave up conjugal rights. Jewish priests had to abstain from sex before offering sacrifice which was infrequent for any one priest. But the Christian priests offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice every day so celibacy became the norm.Why Can’t Catholic Priests Get Married?

Q. You mentioned several Catholic doctrines that supposedly do not have refutations.


BFHU:
I never said there are no refutation for Catholic Doctrines. Protestants, athiests etc. try to refute Catholic doctrine all the time.

Q. The whole notion that the Catholic Church is handing down oral teaching that is parallel to the Bible and comes directly from the Apostles is false.


BFHU:
Why? Do you have scripture to support this opinion?

Q. The early church quoted the scriptures to support the authority of what they said. So much so that we can reproduce the entire New Testament from their writings alone, save for about eleven verses.


BFHU:
And this proves that Catholic oral teaching is not in line with scripture? How so?

Q. 1 Tim. 4: 1-3 where Paul warns of some who would depart from the faith, forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats.


BFHU:
The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry. All are free to choose marriage if that is what they believe is God’s will for their vocation. If a man chooses to become a priest he may not marry after his ordination. Does our culture forbid anyone from being a physician? No. But not just anyone can set up a medical practice. They must meet certain criteria. So it is with the priesthood. This line of reasoning to condemn the Catholic Church and a celibate priesthood is ridiculous. Besides our practice aligns with Scripture:

Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Q. The question I would like to point out to you is, were these early church leaders quoting these scriptures in their letters back and forth to one another openly and saving these letters for posterity, while, in the back rooms, passing on the oral tradition that we can’t eat meat on Friday and priests and Bishops cannot marry???


BFHU:
You misunderstand because of lack of knowledge of the Catholic Faith. Both not eating meat on Fridays and priestly celibacy are merely disciplines they are not on the same level at all as dogma or doctrine or scripture. They are rules of the Church that can be changed when necessary. We are no longer required to abstain from meat on Fridays and there are some rites in the Catholic Church that still ordain married men. And it is theoretically possible that the rule could change and all rites could ordain married men. But in general, we prefer to imitate Christ in this matter and ordain to the priesthood, “eunuchs for the Kingdom of God”.

Q. Is it possible to reconcile these facts, or to continue to believe that the Catholic religion has not tried to make laws for God or taught an oral tradition that can not possibly be from the Apostles, or the early church leaders???


BFHU:
Where does Scripture say that the leaders of the Church are bound only to the rules of the Apostles? Where does the scripture teach sola scriptura? These are traditions of men. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Q. More specifically, regarding some of the other doctrines you mentioned. The scriptures plainly say that Joseph took Mary to Himself but did not “know her” until after she gave birth to her firstborn Son. (Matt. 1: 18-25). I am not inferring anything here; rather the scripture clearly implies that he did eventually know her.


BFHU:
I understand why you interpret this this way. But it is not imperative to always interpret “until” the way you are. Because Scripture does NOT actually affirm that Joseph “knew Mary”. This is merely a later Protestant interpretation.
What Did the Reformers believe about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Mary Ever Virgin

I Sam 15:35 Samuel did not see Saul again until</strong> the day of his death;

2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.

Did Samuel see Saul after his death? Or did Michal have children after her death? Scripture is not so uniform in its use of “until” as Protestants might think so using it to prove that Joseph knew Mary is futile.

Advertisements

24 Responses

  1. Hello BFHU,

    I appreciate your comments. I also appreciate your taking the time to address many of mine. I will be very brief here because I have very little time, but I would like to give a more detailed response and ask a few more questions in the near future. First let me say that I am not a Protestant; please do not refer to me as one. I am a Christian only, a member of Christ’s church. I am thanking you ahead of time for refraining.

    Right now I would just like to ask you how you can arrive at the notion that 1 Tim 3: 1-2 can be interpreted as simply saying a bishop may have no more than one wife, when clearly he could have said it that way but chose to say that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. The only way we may arrive at your conclusion is to violate laws of language and logic. There is absolutely no indication here that an unmarried man may be a bishop. Certainly, the author of language and communication is able to do that which He invented. If we may interpret in this way, we can arrive at any conclusion we desire. My own mother for instance claims that this passage simply means that a person must not have more than one spouse, so that even women may be bishops. She takes the same liberties that the early Catholic authorities did.

    Consider the passage you quoted in Matt. 19: 12, there is absolutely no indication that Jesus is speaking of forbidding bishops to marry. Your application of it to justify Catholic Tradition forbidding bishops to marry is itself unjustifiable. Furthermore, you claim to agree that even the Apostles could not alter the Faith they had delivered, then claim that the Catholic Church some how has authorization to alter the mandatory qualifications for the overseers of the church! All of this without any convincing way to demonstrate that the ones who did such things were not the very men Paul warned about in 1 Tim. 4:1-3.

  2. BFHU:I understand why you interpret this this way. But it is not imperative to always interpret “until” the way you are. Because Scripture does NOT actually affirm that Joseph “knew Mary”. This is merely a later Protestant interpretation
    I Sam 15:35 Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death;
    2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.
    Did Samuel see Saul after his death? Or did Michal have children after her death? Scripture is not so uniform in its use of “until” as Protestants might think so using it to prove that Joseph knew Mary is futile

    Joe:
    Hello BFHU,

    You say that it is not imperative to always interpret “until” in the way that is natural and seemingly obvious in the context of Matt. 1: 24-25. I agree one hundred percent! Words are equivocal and take on the meaning that the context establishes. For example, in John chapter 5: 25 Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.” This is not speaking of hearing only. Here He means that they will hear, believe, and be in subjection to what He has said, then they will receive life. However, in Mark 4: 11-12 He says, “And He said to them, ‘To you it has been given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12. so that “Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.”” In this context, he is speaking about hearing only, without believing or being in subjection to what He has said. Even though they technically hear His voice, He does not forgive their sins. If I were to establish the meaning of the word hear in this context and then transplant that meaning to the passage in John 5, not only would I be dead wrong, I would be lost.

    To go to the context of the Samuel passages to establish the meaning of the word “until”, and then transplant that meaning to it’s use in Matt 1 in order to cling to the traditions of men, is not only illegitimate, it is also wresting with the Scriptures unto your own destruction. This is not an “interpretation” of the text, as you claim, but rather a manipulation of the text. If we desire to interpret either or both of the Samuel passages to say never again in their life, we may be able to do so without trouble. However, in Matt 1 the best we may do is to say that Joseph did not know her during her pregnancy with Jesus. In order for us to say that here, the Spirit is revealing that Joseph never knew Mary throughout their lives together, we must add something to the text that simply isn’t there, specifically that he did not know her until the day she died. Furthermore, we must remove something that is there, the part about him not knowing her until Jesus was born.

    It is thus established that the clear implication here is that Joseph did indeed know her after Jesus was born. And, why not? She was His wife! It would not be sin. Furthermore, all of the plain passages of Scripture that demonstrates that Jesus had brothers and sisters reinforces this conviction. To deny all of this, you must twist many passages in order to hang on to other doctrine that contradicts Scriptural teaching regarding the nature of man and sin, and comes from obscure men. This is dangerous. I will elaborate more on this soon.

  3. Dear Joe,

    “It is thus established that the clear implication here is that Joseph did indeed know her after Jesus was born” –Joseph Duran

    Exactly, it is ONLY an implication. The verses that talk about Jesus’ brothers and sisters prove nothing either unless you are willing to concede that St. Paul wrote all his epistles to his siblings alone.

    The Protestant interpretation is not bad or intrinsically wrong regarding all of these verses. But neither is the Catholic interpretation. Who were the Brothers and Sisters of Jesus? So we are left with two legitimate interpretations. Extra biblical writings affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. You can discount these and the faith of the ancient Christian religions if you choose to. But are you sure that your interpretation is infallible? Your pastor’s? The books or teachers from which you have learned? If not why do you trust them? How do you know they are not the “traditions of men?” Even Luther and Calvin believed int he perpetual virginity of Mary. By whose authority do you declare that your interpretation is the one and only one that could possibly be correct?

    The reason I entered the Catholic Church ten years ago was because when I looked at what the earliest Christians believed, those who were taught by the disciples of Jesus I found that they believed in Catholic doctrines! Protestant doctrines were nowhere to be found except in those heretical sects who also believed other doctrines that absolutely no self respecting Protestant would ever affirm. So I can’t prove anything to you but I will take my chances with the most ancient faith that is totally in line with scripture.

  4. Hello BFHU,
    Thank you for continuing to be kind; a lot of people get angry by this point in a conversation that challenges them on such a fundamental level. Let me reiterate that I am not a Protestant. We use no creed books. We follow Christ only by the words breathed by God, which are able to make us complete and thoroughly equipped unto every good work. Unless you doubt 2 Tim 3. Luther and Calvin may have had a few good ideas, but many of their beliefs were simply unfounded and even shameful.

    I would love to address everything you have said here. Everything you have said is pertinent; this is a very important issue. The stakes are incredibly high. Unfortunately, I simply do not have time right now. I would at least like to remind you that even though you insist that there are no contradictions between the things taught by the Catholic Church, and what God says, there are plain and obvious contradictions.

    Consider what Paul said regarding the qualifications for bishopric. God, through His Apostle, says that a bishop MUST BE the HUSBAND of one wife. The Catholic Church says that a bishop MUST NOT BE the HUSBAND of one wife. Clearly, these two statements are not the same. Indeed, they are contradictory, and therefore, to follow the Catholic Church on this is to NOT follow the tradition of the Apostles.

    It may be easier for you to see this fact by considering these two statements. “In the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die.” And, “…ye shall NOT surely die.” Are these two statements really saying the same thing? If not, which one would you believe?

    Sincerely concerned,
    Joe

    P.S. Additionally, you do not understand the history as well as you have been led to believe.

  5. Dear Joe,
    Adam and Eve didn’t actually die the moment they ate the forbidden fruit. Deeper mysteries are present than what a straight reading of the text brings you to.

    You claim that scripture says:

    a bishop MUST BE the HUSBAND of one wife

    It says,

    2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate.

    NIV

    In this translation must modifies “blameless” as opposed to demanding that the bishop must be married and must only be married to one wife.

    It is perfectly legitimate to read this as requiring the bishop to have no more than one wife IF married rather than that all bishops MUST be married.

    In addition to this the actual Greek doesn’t even use the word MUST. Below are a Catholic translation, a literal Protestant translation and the translation from my Protestant Greek interlinear. English is in the NIV.

    Douay-Reims translation

    2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

    Young’s Literal Translation

    2 It behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,

    Greek Interlinear translation

    It behoves therefore the bishop without reproach to be, of one wife husband, temperate, sensible,….

    Dictionary Definition of behove

    be⋅hoove
      /bɪˈhuv/
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to be necessary or proper for, as for moral or ethical considerations; be incumbent on: It behooves the court to weigh evidence impartially.
    2. to be worthwhile to, as for personal profit or advantage: It would behoove you to be nicer to those who could help you.
    –verb (used without object)
    3. Archaic. to be needful, proper, or due: Perseverance is a quality that behooves in a scholar.
    Origin:
    bef. 900; ME behoven, OE behōfian to need (behōf behoof + -ian inf. suffix)

    Synonyms:
    2. benefit, advantage, serve, better, advance; suit, befit, beseem.

    None of the definitions or synonyms of behove seem equivalent to MUST.

    Joe, would you be willing to follow the TRUTH no matter where it might lead?

    If so then ask Our Lord to lead you to the TRUE Church, the TRUE Faith that TRUTH Himself has founded.

    • Hello again bfhu,

      of course I am willing to follow the truth wherever it may lead. I love the truth! This is why I am a Christian and a Christian only, rather than a Catholic or Protestant. The question is, are you willing to come to the truth?

      First, let me ask you, are you saying then that God and Satan were in fact saying the same thing? Because, that is what you seem to be saying about both their statements and concerning the 1Tim. 3 passage, and the men you follow refusing men to marry. If you recognize the difference in the statements then you get my point. They are not even close to the same.

      I notice that you seem to attempt to use the English translation you prefer, rather than the best understanding of the original Greek. That is fine. Definition number one begins, “To be necessary…” Definition number three begins, “…to be needful…” So yes, this word does indeed carry an imperative meaning.

      Even if you want to go strictly with definition number two, it says, “to be worthwhile to, as for personal profit or advantage: It would behoove you to be nicer to those who could help you.
      –verb (used without object)”

      Tell me, I guess your name is Pam (I hope it is alright for me to call you that), if the Holy Spirit says that it is good to do this and we know to do good and we do it not (though we are able), what do you call that? James says it is sin. If the men you follow refuse a bishop to marry, how much worse is that? Especially when God says that, it is better and profitable for him to marry?

      Consider carefully what the definition says, “It would behoove you to be nicer to those who could help you.” If God said this, and certainly, He has said many things like it, then men came along and said, “You CANNOT be nicer to those who could help you,” would they be teaching God’s Word? Even if God says merely that a bishop SHOULD be the husband of one wife (The modifier applies to the entire list of qualifications, not just to being blameless.), and the men you believe refuse bishops to marry, how can you say that they are saying the same thing that God says, or that they are following the Apostle’s tradition (teaching)?

      Even if all God said was that it behooves a bishop to be the husband of one wife, and you interpret that as “it’s alright to,” and if a bishop desires to take a wife, then what man may refuse him? So, even if that was all God said we would have the following:

      God said that a bishop may marry.
      Certain men said that a bishop may NOT marry.

      Who are we to believe? Hmmm…it’s not hard for me to figure out. Do you still say that there is no contradiction? Moreover, as Paul said to the bishops of Ephesus, that AFTER HIS DEPARTURE savage wolves would come in AMONG THEM, not sparing the flock, and that FROM AMONG THEM (the bishops, men who could claim a lineage back to those who ordained them and ultimately the Apostles) men would rise up, speaking perverse things, and draw away the disciples after themselves (Acts 20: 17-32); the men you follow seek to confuse God’s Word to establish their own authority. He also prophesied to Timothy, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2. speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1Tim. 4: 1-3).”

      You gave a poor answer to this point earlier. You claimed that the Roman Catholic Tradition does not refuse men to marry because they do not have to be bishops. You implied that if they choose to be bishops, they choose not to marry. You said that not all men qualify to be doctors either. You do err not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. He was speaking specifically about bishops when he said that it “behooves” them to be the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. He was speaking specifically about the qualifications of bishops when he said that they (should) be married. If it is a faithful saying that a bishop merely should be the husband of one wife, and a bishop desires to marry, and the men you believe in forbid it, how can you fail to see that they are contrary to God and fulfill Paul’s warning? How can they be following Paul’s teaching? How can you claim that the Catholic Tradition is not forbidding that man to marry, whom the Scriptures explicitly authorize to marry? Is this not a contradiction?

      Clearly, you and the men you believe in are approaching the Scriptures as a lawyer seeking loopholes in a contract. You are not seeking to understand the Will of God, to bring yourself into subjection to Him; rather, you are seeking to confuse the matter in order to escape the doctrines kept by the Scripture, to “liberate” yourself from God. They seem to have done so a little at a time through several hundred years of history. You seem to do so because their religion makes you feel good, and you seem to think that we have been commanded that if we cannot prove something false to our satisfaction, we are free to believe whatever we will, rather than to prove that it is good and to hold only to that.

      Thank you for your time.

  6. Pam, Blessings to you! Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth! I lift you in prayer as you are a constant witness to our Lord and our Faith! I praise the Holy Spirit for his guidance in your life and your words. You are truly kind and constantly polite to all you come at you! Praise to our King as his servants do His good works here on earth! May your tongue, your words and your mind continue to be a blessing to all that you reach in this world. Trust me you bring many to Him by your example! Peace be with you!

    🙂 Ally

  7. Thanks Ally for your encouragement and prayers.

  8. Very nicely said Joseph.

    • Dear Justin,

      thank you for your encouragement. I must admit that I do often err in my way of saying things. At times, I have come across as harsh and unloving. I want it to be clear that I do love all people and want desperately for them to come to God in truth. It is the truth that sanctifies (John 17: 17) and IF WE CONTINUE IN HIS WORDS we will be His disciples in deed, and we will know the truth, and THE TRUTH WILL MAKE US FREE (John 8: 31-32). I am trying to choose my words more carefully in my writing to people so as not to get in the way of Him who loves them.

      Concerning the passage at 1Timothy 3: 1-7, speaking of the qualifications of bishopric, it has come to my awareness that the original Greek is significantly more rigid than I have alluded to in my comment above. The original Greek indicates that a man must possess, and continue to possess, all of the qualifications set forth in the passage before being considered for the candidacy for bishopric. The verb in the original Greek is not an Imperative, as an imperative commands a change from one state to another, i.e. from being unmarried to being married. He is not commanding unmarried Bishops to get married. The verb in the Greek is a Present Active Indicative, which is a statement that the traits discussed must already be possessed and must continue to be possessed by any candidate for the office of bishopric. In my statement above, I granted her the definition of the word used in the English translation that she preferred just to make a point. I just want to be clear on that.

      Thanks again Justin, and would you mind terribly my asking if you are a Christian?

  9. It makes perfect sense that a bishop, should not have more than one wife, and I believe and understand that this is in the spirit of love in which Paul wrote,

    ***************
    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    A bishop must have a good reputation. He must have only one wife, be sober, use good judgment, be respectable, be hospitable, and be able to teach.
    *************
    I think it makes no sense to imply that an unmarried man is somehow unfit to be a bishop, and to further imply that if he is unmarried that, this somehow is the work of the anti-Christ is beyond reason, compassion and love.

    -Can the church choose a man with more than one wife to be a bishop, no it can not.

    -Can the church choose a man with only one wife to be a bishop, yes it can, but prefers not to.

    -Can the church choose a man with no wife to be a bishop, yes it can, and prefers to choose this man.

    *****************
    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    For example, some men are celibate because they were born that way. Others are celibate because they were castrated. Still others have decided to be celibate because of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone can do what you’ve suggested, then he should do it.”
    **************

  10. One more thing, I choose the God’s Word translation, because it is not a Catholic bible, I choose it to show that even none catholic translate it similarly to Catholic’s

    If you choose a bible that supports your believes then good for you, but ultimately I will be judged by what I believe and not bye what you believe,

    And it is clear that you believe that the catholic church is wrong, and post scripture that are suppose to prove that,
    but any christian can do that to, but I feel that it is not very christian to do so, Because I think that we believe in the same God, But in case you don’t.

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    Don’t let anyone deceive you about this in any way. [That day cannot come unless] a revolt takes place first, and the man of sin, the man of destruction, is revealed

  11. I think the most important thing having had a Mother in ministry is one thing is going to come first. Your ministry and your flock, your job OR your family.

    If you are in ministry, either one or the other is going to suffer somewhat. You just can’t be devoted to both. I know wayyyyy to many people in all forms of ministry who either have a family in trouble because of their commitment to the Church or the Church is suffering because the person is taking card of their job.

  12. *sorry the last sentence is supposed to be “taking care of their family

    • No worries regarding the minor misstatement Happy. I am not here to nit-pick, as some may believe. I am concerned about us trusting God in truth. God says what he means and means what He says. We must trust Him and what He says. I can understand your point, however I believe that to approach religious practices that way is trusting human wisdom and judgment rather than trusting God. If God wants it that way, we should certainly practice that way. He says if they are not the husband of one wife and have their children in subjection with all gravity, how can they lead the house of God? This is in contradistinction to what you said. You said that a man could not run well the house of God if he has a family and rules it well at the same time. Do you see what I mean?

  13. no, sorry.

    • No apologies Happy,

      Let me try again, maybe I misunderstood you. I believe you said that a person cannot do both well at the same time. Paul says that they must be the HUSBAND (not a wife) of one WIFE (not husband), and have their children in subjection with all gravity, and that they must rule well their own house before being considered for the office. The Greek language dictates that these qualifications must already be possessed and must continue to be possessed by these men before hand. Chapter 2 begins the context in which he begins speaking to the men, then switches to speak to the women, and finally switches back to the men to indicate the necessary qualifications to even be considered for the office of a bishop.

      Now I must run. Thank you for your time.

      • I am just saying that I have not seen it done well, one suffers in my opinion. The only time I have seen someone be able to give 100% is when they are not married.

        -” and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Corinthians 7:38).

        Maybe this is the quote that is most appropriate.

  14. the bible must be read and taken as a whole with no contradiction,

    1. We know that it is righteous to be celibate
    ========
    Still others have decided to be celibate because of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone can do what you’ve suggested, then he should do it.” (Matthew 19:12)
    ==============

    also
    – The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:27-34)
    ===========

    also
    -” and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Corinthians 7:38).

    – Also Paul was celibate, so you don’t have to be married to preach.
    =============
    “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion”
    (1 Corinthians 7:9)

    The church does not forbid anyone from getting married, Marriage is a sacrament, in fact in the eastern-rite, priests can be married, and married Anglican priest that decide to join the catholic church, can stay married and join the church as a priest.
    It just that the Latin -rite has adopted this rule, but it is not
    an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule.

    • To Happy and Rico,

      I am very glad we are discussing what the Bible in fact says because this is the only way to know for sure if something is true or not. I am sorry that I do not have time to offer much in reply to the things you have said but I would like to say two brief things for your consideration. I would like to discuss it in more detail in the future.

      First, Paul was not a bishop. He was and evangelist and an apostle, but we have no indication that he was a bishop. Peter was a bishop, and he was married. John said that he was an Elder, which is a term used interchangably with the terms Bishop, Overseer, and Pastor to indicate the same office.

      The other thing I would mention is that the 1Cor. 7 passage is speaking to the congregation in general, but the 1 Tim 3 passage is speaking specifically of the necessary qualifications a man must possess in order to be considered for the office of a Bishop. Therefore, I do not think you can look to the one to void the other.

      I would like to mention just one more thing. I do not think that only men can be Bishops because I think they are superior to women. As an unbeliever I tended to think that women were superior to men. I thought they were the backbone of society. I saw men like children living life as though they were playing games, they even call it having “game” and getting women pregnant and then bailing out to go and play their “game” elsewhere. I saw women stepping up and doing what ever they had to in order to take care of their kids. I think women are awesome.

      Nevertheless, even if God did choose to make women more capable of leadership than men, it would not necessitate the notion that woman may be Bishops. In such an event God could have reasons for doing such that we could never fathom. He has his own reasons for doing all He does, and he confounds the wisdom of the wise. I will trust Him.

      Now, I no longer believe that women are better than men as I am a Christian now, and I know some amazing Christian men, and I know God’s Word. I believe men and women are equal. I know that men and women are different. There is significantly more difference between a brother and his sister than there is between any two men of any race or age and between any two women of any race or age. God created men and women with different characteristics for a reason and He chose to make man the leader. I believe He chose to make one the leader over the other as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church. I believe He used marriage, men and women being made one flesh, and this headship arrangement to begin teaching how He would save us by making us one with Jesus as a bride is to her husband.

      So, I believe women can not be Bishops because of what God says rather than because of my personal feelings. Furthermore, I do not qualify to be a Bishop any more than any woman, as I am not married and do not have children. One necessary qualification disqualifies you and another disqualifies me, yet I will not attempt to bend Scriptures to allow myself the opportunity to be a Bishop. I will bow before my King even when I can not understand His reasons.

      Thank you and have a happy day.

  15. I agree with you completely. Jesus chose men to be his apostles and head His church. Also, John says in Genesis that the church is the bride of Christ. Well if the church is the bride of Christ, then the representative of Christ on earth-an ordained priest-must be a male. This is in no way treating women as inferior. After all, one of Christ’s closest friends of earth was Mary Magdaline. According to Scripture, she was the first person to see Christ after His resurrection.

    • Yes! Thank you! Jesus loves women. He often admired the great faith of various women of diverse ages and ethnic background. It is faithfulness and true love Jesus desires to see in us. That requires us to be in subjection to Him and the role He has designed for us. We must desire to please Him.

      Again, thank you, and God bless your continued search for His lovely face!

      • I don’t think that anyone here thinks that Jesus thinks women are inferior or not loved by him or that they should be priest.

        I don’t know of any Catholics who think that.

  16. It was not my intent to suggest that anyone here does think that. I was attempting to make clear the fact that I have no personal reason for making the claim that women may not be Bishops, Pastors, Elders, or Overseers, but that my reasons are biblical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: