Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[StanJ]

Of course, every precious word in my Bible is from God. But not all of them are meant for the time I live in. I do know the difference between "God breathed", as in His sacred Word, and "inspired" as in what I do, please don't misunderstand me. Was Moses inspired when he wrote those laws about bond-servants (slaves)? Yes, he was. For instance:

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Do they apply to our time? No, they do not.

Yes, they would apply IF these circumstances existed, but thankfully they don't. Christianity is NOT an existential philosophy Barrd, it is about following God's will, which is found in His Word and through the Holy Spirit.

You either recognize that NONE of the OC laws, including the ten commandments no longer apply to us under the NC, or you don't.
Picking and choosing what you will follow from the OC, is and never has been an option.
Rom 2:12 (NIV)
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

 

[Barrd]

Yes, they would apply IF these circumstances existed, but thankfully they don't. Christianity is NOT an existential philosophy Barrd, it is about following God's will, which is found in His Word and through the Holy Spirit.

You either recognize that NONE of the OC laws, including the ten commandments no longer apply to us under the NC, or you don't.
Picking and choosing what you will follow from the OC, is and never has been an option.
Rom 2:12 (NIV)
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Ahh, Stan...this is an effort to derail this thread by getting me to defend my stance on the Ten C's.
Sorry, kiddo...no can do.
If you want to discuss the Ten Commandments, start a new thread, and I will be happy to explain why I think as I do there.
This thread is about women in the ministry...another subject that is dear to my heart...

Let me add that the circumstances that existed in Ephesus in Paul's time do not exist in our time...thus the injunction he gave to Timothy about women teaching no longer applies, just as this law about beating one's servant with a rod no longer applies as the circumstances that existed in Moses time no longer exist today.
I am thankful for both of these situations...

 

[StanJ]

Ahh, Stan...this is an effort to derail this thread by getting me to defend my stance on the Ten C's.
Sorry, kiddo...no can do.
If you want to discuss the Ten Commandments, start a new thread, and I will be happy to explain why I think as I do there.
This thread is about women in the ministry...another subject that is dear to my heart...

Let me add that the circumstances that existed in Ephesus in Paul's time do not exist in our time...thus the injunction he gave to Timothy about women teaching no longer applies, just as this law about beating one's servant with a rod no longer applies as the circumstances that existed in Moses time no longer exist today.
I am thankful for both of these situations...

No, it was addressing YOUR post about OT/OC laws. You broached it, and I answered. Funny how you don't mind going off topic all the time? Is this a new tactic for you to avoid contradicting yourself?

You're God now? You know every ongoing church issue all over the world? The Bible is timelessly applicable. Your views about the cessation of Apostolic authority are not accurate at all.

 

[Wormwood]

Barrd,

Well. We agree on something. Abuse does not belong in Christ's church.

I am not trying to make light of the plight of women in America or throughout history. However, these verses simply have nothing to do with a woman's value, intellect or ability to work or get an education. It seems to me that you are allowing frustration from your past and your frustrations with the treatment of women in history to be the primary shaping force in your interpretation here. I don't know why else this would be such an emphasis for you. I think you need to step back and not allow your personal biases to play such a shaping force in your interpretation here. I mean, we all have our biases and perspectives, but we need to try to understand our own predispositions and keep them somewhat in check so we can interpret Scripture as objectively as possible.

Once again, I agree with you that women served with Paul in his ministry. The situation here is that if we take Scripture seriously, then we have to try to harmonize all those texts. Basically you are attempting to say that some of them have meaning...and actually mean things far beyond what Scripture actually records, and as a result, some other Scriptures have no meaning at all. What I am saying is that women certainly served with Paul and likely even evangelized and certainly helped him in ministry. However, they did not take positions of leadership or teach men in church gatherings as part of their worship of God. This doesn't have to be an either/or. Again, you are creating a false choice.

First, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the Law under the Old Covenent God made with Israel to a command in the New Testament about practices in church gatherings and God's desires in that regard. Second, I don't believe the Law is "done away." Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law and through faith in him we are made blameless and are no longer under the punishment of sin and death due to violation of the Law. By grace, we are made right with God and the Law does not condemn us because Christ does not condemn us.

Of course we are friends. I understand you have your convictions and I never expected I would change them. I hope that through this you simply see that those who disagree with you are not bigots seeking to mistreat or undervalue women. Moreover, I hope maybe these discussions have caused you to think about your approach to Scripture and striving to interpret them in a consistent way. We will each stand before God and give an account for how we handled His Word. Watch your life and doctrine closely. These are serious things and we need to be cautious our own agendas do not get in the way of our handling and responding to God's precious Word.

Be blessed.

 

[Barrd]

Barrd,

Well. We agree on something. Abuse does not belong in Christ's church.

Of course, WW. You would be less than a man if you did not see that. And I would lose all the respect I have for you.

I am not trying to make light of the plight of women in America or throughout history. However, these verses simply have nothing to do with a woman's value, intellect or ability to work or get an education. It seems to me that you are allowing frustration from your past and your frustrations with the treatment of women in history to be the primary shaping force in your interpretation here. I don't know why else this would be such an emphasis for you. I think you need to step back and not allow your personal biases to play such a shaping force in your interpretation here. I mean, we all have our biases and perspectives, but we need to try to understand our own predispositions and keep them somewhat in check so we can interpret Scripture as objectively as possible.

I have to admit, when a drunk driver took my David from me and our kids, it was one heck of a reality check. One doesn't mind so much being the submissive little wife, when one has a good husband looking after her and her family. Yes, open doors for me, pull out my chair, take out my garbage, pay my bills...and I will stay home with the kids and cook and clean and love my life as a woman. But what happens when that love, and comfort, and support is gone, and I have to figure out how to take care of me and our kids all by myself, when I never prepared for anything except being the happy little housewife? What happens when I suddenly have to "man up"? What happens when I have no choice but to be a woman in a man's world, fighting for my family's survival?
You're probably right...my frustration probably does color my views on this issue. I just simply refuse to believe that God ever intended such a situation to come to pass in the first place. Why would He give me the ability to do what I do if He did not intend for me to do it? If that makes sense. It really isn't a matter of "usurping authority over a man" as it is being able to share with him, and him with me, on an equal footing. I believe that this is what God intended, and what Jesus tried during His life to foster in His church. We are brothers and sisters, not rivals, fevvinsake...do you understand?

Once again, I agree with you that women served with Paul in his ministry. The situation here is that if we take Scripture seriously, then we have to try to harmonize all those texts. Basically you are attempting to say that some of them have meaning...and actually mean things far beyond what Scripture actually records, and as a result, some other Scriptures have no meaning at all. What I am saying is that women certainly served with Paul and likely even evangelized and certainly helped him in ministry. However, they did not take positions of leadership or teach men in church gatherings as part of their worship of God. This doesn't have to be an either/or. Again, you are creating a false choice.

This is typical male chauvinism here. You concede that women served with Paul in his ministry, but you want to limit how they served, when Paul did not. And you totally ignore the ladies who walked with Jesus...his "other disciples"...you know, the ones who bought their food and paid for whatever else they needed out of their own funds. This is not me, adding to scripture. Paul tells us about women who did serve in positions of authority, and the gospels do speak of the ladies who followed Him and supported Him out of their own money. The Bible actually has quite a bit to say about these women, I don't have to attempt to give those texts meaning at all. The problem is reconciling them with your verses from Timothy, which is where you and I do not agree.

First, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the Law under the Old Covenent God made with Israel to a command in the New Testament about practices in church gatherings and God's desires in that regard. Second, I don't believe the Law is "done away." Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law and through faith in him we are made blameless and are no longer under the punishment of sin and death due to violation of the Law. By grace, we are made right with God and the Law does not condemn us because Christ does not condemn us.

We all have our pet peeves, I guess. Trying to toss away the rule book is, in my opinion, like...how did you put it earlier?...like tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Of course we are friends. I understand you have your convictions and I never expected I would change them. I hope that through this you simply see that those who disagree with you are not bigots seeking to mistreat or undervalue women. Moreover, I hope maybe these discussions have caused you to think about your approach to Scripture and striving to interpret them in a consistent way. We will each stand before God and give an account for how we handled His Word. Watch your life and doctrine closely. These are serious things and we need to be cautious our own agendas do not get in the way of our handling and responding to God's precious Word.

Ahh, WW...no, my friend, you are not a bigot seeking to mistreat or undervalue women. However, there are, unfortunately, still men in the church who are, and who do use these kinds of verses to justify themselves. You think I have an "agenda" and I can see why you think so. But you refuse to consider that the "agenda" just might be on the other foot...

Be blessed.

And you, as well, WW.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, I understand. I am very sorry for your loss and I am sure you had to take on a whole lot of responsibilities and struggles due to that tragic event. I cannot imagine...

Yes, we are co-laborers with Christ. I truly believe that. I don't pretend to understand why God has commanded some of the things he commanded, but I suppose it is not for the servant question his Master's business.

I still don't understand how you can say I limit women, but Paul did not. I didn't write 1 Tim. 2. Paul (by the Holy Spirit) did. Your argument sounds to me like you are saying, "If women cannot do everything, then they can do nothing." That is obviously not what I believe. To me, it is like saying, "God must have appointed Herod to be king of Judea because he liked him more than Jesus. After all, why give Herod authority and power and make Jesus a lowly carpenter?" Submission is not a bad thing. If only Christans really embraced the idea that the last will be first, then I think we would see poverty, persecution and service as the highest calls of the Kingdom rather than resisting them and trying to prove our worth and gifting by being in charge.

 

[Barrd]

Yes, I understand. I am very sorry for your loss and I am sure you had to take on a whole lot of responsibilities and struggles due to that tragic event. I cannot imagine...

I had never imagined, either, WW. But I assure you, it is a cruel world out there to a woman alone. Here I was, a little 127 pound blonde...trying to shoulder my way into a man's world. There were days in the beginning when I worked 18 and 20 hours for days on end, with little or no sleep, doing whatever drudge work I could get. And you'd be amazed at the people who compete for these filthy jobs. Do you have any idea what some folks will do for the price of a bottle of whiskey? I am ashamed to admit it, but, yes, I stood in line with...well, I stood in line, even to sell my blood. There was only one "job" I would not take, even though I got more offers for that kind of "work" than anything else. I'd been told often enough that women couldn't do yard work...we couldn't mow a lawn, or take care of a garden, or clean out a garage...those kinds of things were "man's work", although, God knows, I did enough of it. But this was a job only a woman could do...and it would pay much better than the other...I was nearly desperate enough to do even that...my landlord had given me notice, my kids were hungry, and I had nowhere to turn...when a kind friend told me I could stay with her till I found my feet. Because of that saint, I was able to go to the local Junior College, and from there things got a lot easier.
I've often wondered what happened to these women in the Bible...they couldn't even inherit from their own fathers! They had no choice at all, it seems to me, but to take that offer that I refused...what else is left for them? You will probably get upset with me all over again, but I do not believe for a minute that those laws were ever God's idea. You've probably heard me say, many times...God wrote the Ten Commandments. Moses wrote the rest of 'em. Did God endorse them. Yes, He did. Why? As Jesus said, God gave the law of divorce for the hardness of men's hearts...note, women could not, at that time, divorce their husbands, so it was not given for the hardness of women's hearts. And whose idea was it for multiple wives in the first place? Not God's...I believe Lamach was the first man recorded in the Bible to have more than one wife. You can bet it wasn't a woman's idea to share her husband. Men's hearts, WW...and I don't see that they've changed much in...what is it? Over six thousand years?
Not saying we gals are "better" than you guys...but we are much more...what is the word I'm looking for? Nurturing? Soft-hearted? Emotional? Fiercely protective of our families? From what I have seen...and I've not seen everything...but just from what I have seen among the people I know, it is not women who are the ones who wanted things like "no fault divorce" or even "abortion on demand". It is a woman's natural instinct to care for her family, to protect her child, even in the womb.

Somewhere I have a Tee shirt that says:
MEN struation
MEN opause
MEN tal anxiety
Every notice how all our problems start with MEN?

Another of my favorites says:
Do you want to talk to the man in charge?
Or the woman who knows what's going on?

Yes, we are co-laborers with Christ. I truly believe that. I don't pretend to understand why God has commanded some of the things he commanded, but I suppose it is not for the servant question his Master's business.

That's because you cannot accept that the rule Paul gave was not intended for all churches through all of time, but for that particular church at that particular time. No other explanation fits into God's character...and, as any writer knows, your characters must be consistent, if they are to be believable...

I still don't understand how you can say I limit women, but Paul did not. I didn't write 1 Tim. 2. Paul (by the Holy Spirit) did. Your argument sounds to me like you are saying, "If women cannot do everything, then they can do nothing." That is obviously not what I believe. To me, it is like saying, "God must have appointed Herod to be king of Judea because he liked him more than Jesus. After all, why give Herod authority and power and make Jesus a lowly carpenter?" Submission is not a bad thing. If only Christans really embraced the idea that the last will be first, then I think we would see poverty, persecution and service as the highest calls of the Kingdom rather than resisting them and trying to prove our worth and gifting by being in charge.

Are you seriously comparing Christ's power and authority with Herod's? Herod was a ruler, but Jesus was "a lowly carpenter"? Truly?
Could Herod heal the sick? Could he command food to feed 5000 people to come from a little boy's lunchbox?
Could Herod command the winds and waves to "be still"?
WW...could Herod forgive sins?
When Herod died, he stayed dead, didn't he?
Jesus chose to come here as "a lowly carpenter". You've heard me say it often enough...He didn't come here to debate with scholars, although, even as a 12 year old Boy, He could hold His Own with the best Jerusalem could produce...no He came here for simple people....fishermen, carpenters, tent makers, and yes...simple little housewives like me. Paul, bless his heart, had the best education money could buy at that time...but it didn't help him recognize his King when He came, did it?
But don't you think that this Man Who "had nowhere to lay His head" ever went without anything He or His disciples needed. God called certain women to attend to His needs, supplying Him from their own funds.
Now, don't you find it strange at all that it was these women, who were obviously women of means, who took this responsibility on themselves, and not one man stepped up to help defray the costs? I'm sure that, even then, feeding 13 fully grown men, (men do like to eat, don't they?) and finding accommodations for them in the various towns they traveled to was not an easy task, nor was it "cheap". Yet these ladies did it, without calling attention to themselves. WW, it was not these gals who were worried about who would sit at Jesus right and left hands, was it?
Who, then, according to Jesus, would be "the greatest among them"? Who will sit in those coveted places beside Him? I do not pretend to know...but it seems to me that those women have every bit as much right if not more, to these honors.
And yet, I'll bet such a thing never entered their pretty little heads...
It wasn't the women, my friend, who were worried about "being in charge"...and it still isn't, to this day.
All we want is the right to stand beside our brothers as equals, to be recognized and loved for who we are, and not put in some imaginary "second class" status, to wait until the man has finished talking before we dare to utter a peep. No, dear man...it is the men who are so concerned about someone "usurping authority" over them...
Ridiculous...

 

[tom55]

So, you do not believe that a woman could be an apostle?

There were no women apostles in scripture.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Junia is a girl's name.

Yes, Junia is a girls name but what you quoted does not say she was an apostle.

And what of the women who were Jesus' disciples, who financed the ministry from their own funds?

That doesn't make them apostles, leaders or elders of a Church.

What will you make of the Catacombs of Priscilla?

http://honorsaharchive.blogspot.com/2008/07/early-christian-imagery-in-catacombs-of.htmlhttp://honorsaharchive.blogspot.com/2008/07/early-christian-imagery-in-catacombs-of.html

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/early-christian1/v/catacomb-priscilla#!

The Khan Academy link is a video. You can fast forward to about the 8:13 mark or just watch the entire video and learn something. In the other link look for the word "Orant". This is nothing new. It has been known for years. What you and people like OzSpen are choosing to falsly believe is that there were women priest/priesteses/elders/leaders of churches. You have twisted scripture, history and the description of art to fit YOUR beliefs. How sad!

 

[Barrd]

So, you do not believe that a woman could be an apostle?

There were no women apostles in scripture.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Junia is a girl's name.

Yes, Junia is a girls name but what you quoted does not say she was an apostle.

And what of the women who were Jesus' disciples, who financed the ministry from their own funds?

That doesn't make them apostles, leaders or elders of a Church.

What will you make of the Catacombs of Priscilla?

http://honorsaharchive.blogspot.com/2008/07/early-christian-imagery-in-catacombs-of.htmlhttp://honorsaharchive.blogspot.com/2008/07/early-christian-imagery-in-catacombs-of.html

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/early-christian1/v/catacomb-priscilla#!

The Khan Academy link is a video. You can fast forward to about the 8:13 mark or just watch the entire video and learn something. In the other link look for the word "Orant". This is nothing new. It has been known for years. What you and people like OzSpen are choosing to falsly believe is that there were women priest/priesteses/elders/leaders of churches. You have twisted scripture, history and the description of art to fit YOUR beliefs. How sad!

Tom, we are obviously not going to come to any kind of a meeting of the minds on this.
Given that the RCC has been one of the very worst for oppressing women throughout the ages, I already know that any conversation between you and I on this issue is bound to be unprofitable.

Suffice it to say...if I believed as you do, I would be a Catholic...and my family would have been torn apart.
I thank God that He has made me as I am.

 

[StanJ]

The following is the CORRECT rendering if Rom 16:7, and is the majority view of Greek scholars, one of whom is the author of the MOUNCE translation. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom+16%3A7&version=MOUNCE

 

[Angelina]

I think if Adam had of protected his wife better, we wouldn't even be discussing this issue.

 

[StanJ]

I think if Adam had of protected his wife better, we wouldn't even be discussing this issue.

Apparently he wasn't talking with her enough, so she started looking for other interaction. It been a problem ever since with men tuning out their wives.

 

[Wormwood]

Barrd,


No, I strongly disagree with you that Moses wrote the laws other than the 10 commandments and God simply endorsed them. I think that is a very dangerous view that is once again seems to be based out of convenience and your own personal agenda rather than anything remotely found in Scripture. I really think you need to be careful here. You are discrediting God's revelation for the sake of your personal egalitarian agenda.

Barrd, I don't like sexism, period. It doesn't make it any better when it comes from the female side. I think commercials, shirts etc. that make either women or men look stupid or incompetent because of their gender is uncalled for. I don't think God approves of such nonsense and it doesn't make it right just because women have often been on the short side of the stick on such portrayals. I'm surprised as someone who knows the pain of sexism that you would celebrate those kinds of quotes and shirts.

If the Scripture is only cultural, you need to explain why. So far you have given no explanation from a Biblical point of view that holds any water. You explaination of Greek word meanings are just not accurate and your scenarios for Corinth and Ephesus are entirely imagined do not explain why Paul would point the the Law and creation for his rationale. Not to mention there is no historical precedent for your arguments.

Barrd, you are clearly not following me. Jesus was born in humility and was subject to Herod's rule (and the rule of Pilate). He lived this way, not because he was not less valuable...clearly......he lived this way because it was the will of the Father. You need to understand that God designed creation with a purpose and you and I have roles and we are to live them faithfully. You seem to think that it is all about authority and thrones....it is about obedience and faithfully living God's call for your life. Jesus' role led him to the cross...and yet you seem to want to say that Paul's notion that a woman's role in the congregation should not include eldership and teaching is some sort of attack on your value and is unjust. I just don't think you get it.

 

[Barrd]

I think if Adam had of protected his wife better, we wouldn't even be discussing this issue.

I totally agree, Angelina. Ol' Adam wasn't doing his job.

Just like a man, to be sitting his naked butt in the shade, while his wife has to go find food.

And then, when God calls him on his neglect, he reacts just like a man...
He blames it on his wife.

 

[Barrd]

Barrd,

No, I strongly disagree with you that Moses wrote the laws other than the 10 commandments and God simply endorsed them. I think that is a very dangerous view that is once again seems to be based out of convenience and your own personal agenda rather than anything remotely found in Scripture. I really think you need to be careful here. You are discrediting God's revelation for the sake of your personal egalitarian agenda.

What I know for a fact is that God Himself wrote the 10 Commandments, and that, by their very nature, they are immutable. The rest of "The Law of Moses, not so much.

Barrd, I don't like sexism, period. It doesn't make it any better when it comes from the female side. I think commercials, shirts etc. that make either women or men look stupid or incompetent because of their gender is uncalled for. I don't think God approves of such nonsense and it doesn't make it right just because women have often been on the short side of the stick on such portrayals. I'm surprised as someone who knows the pain of sexism that you would celebrate those kinds of quotes and shirts.

I do see your point.
Would it help if I told you that the second one, about "the woman who knows what's going on" was actually bought for me by my boss, a man, who gave it to me as a gift? He thought it was "cute".

The other one I can't remember who gave it to me. It was a birthday present.

I don't know if it makes you feel any better, but I also bought my son a tee that says "No woman, no sammiches" and a hat that asks "Why can't I attract women like crazy, instead of crazy women?"

My daughter gave her husband a can cozy that reads "Stupidity is not a crime. You may go." He loves it. I will not repeat the slogan on her cozy...except to say that it refers to her as Beautiful, Intelligent, Talented, and Cute. It goes on to call her a Honey.

Tongue in cheek disease seems to run in my family. If you are easily insulted, you probably wouldn't be comfortable around here.

If the Scripture is only cultural, you need to explain why. So far you have given no explanation from a Biblical point of view that holds any water. You explaination of Greek word meanings are just not accurate and your scenarios for Corinth and Ephesus are entirely imagined do not explain why Paul would point the the Law and creation for his rationale. Not to mention there is no historical precedent for your arguments.

I can only tell you what I believe, WW. I keep telling you that I am not a scholar, yet you keep expecting me to behave as if I were.
What I am is a writer. And I know that God loves His sons and His daughters equally. For Him to insist that one sex "submit" to the other would be out of character for God as He is revealed to us by His Son, Jesus Christ. And every writer knows that you can't have your main protagonist acting out of character.

Jesus is my "historical precedent". He did not treat women any differently than men. He spoke to them, face to face, just as if they were men.
And then, He did the most amazing thing, WW.
He LISTENED to them. (You might want to try that, sometime. You'd be amazed at what you might learn.)

Barrd, you are clearly not following me. Jesus was born in humility and was subject to Herod's rule (and the rule of Pilate). He lived this way, not because he was not less valuable...clearly......he lived this way because it was the will of the Father. You need to understand that God designed creation with a purpose and you and I have roles and we are to live them faithfully. You seem to think that it is all about authority and thrones....it is about obedience and faithfully living God's call for your life. Jesus' role led him to the cross...and yet you seem to want to say that Paul's notion that a woman's role in the congregation should not include eldership and teaching is some sort of attack on your value and is unjust. I just don't think you get it.

Jesus did what He did to redeem us from sin, WW.

How could you possibly know what God's call on someone else's life might be? I believe with all of my being that God has called me, first to write and also to preach. And He has equipped me to do these things.

I don't think you get it, WW. I do not think it is all about "authority and thrones". Those things do seem to be important to the men, however. While the ladies were quietly going about, making sure the guys had a clean, comfortable place to sleep, and enough food to eat, the guys were arguing about who would sit where in Heaven. Did you somehow miss that fact?

You totally ignored a large part of my post. Why is that?

Jesus chose to come here as "a lowly carpenter". You've heard me say it often enough...He didn't come here to debate with scholars, although, even as a 12 year old Boy, He could hold His Own with the best Jerusalem could produce...no He came here for simple people....fishermen, carpenters, tent makers, and yes...simple little housewives like me. Paul, bless his heart, had the best education money could buy at that time...but it didn't help him recognize his King when He came, did it?
But don't you think that this Man Who "had nowhere to lay His head" ever went without anything He or His disciples needed. God called certain women to attend to His needs, supplying Him from their own funds.
Now, don't you find it strange at all that it was these women, who were obviously women of means, who took this responsibility on themselves, and not one man stepped up to help defray the costs? I'm sure that, even then, feeding 13 fully grown men, (men do like to eat, don't they?) and finding accommodations for them in the various towns they traveled to was not an easy task, nor was it "cheap". Yet these ladies did it, without calling attention to themselves. WW, it was not these gals who were worried about who would sit at Jesus right and left hands, was it?
No, WW, it was the men...specifically the Zebedee boys...who were worried about who would sit where.
Who, then, according to Jesus, would be "the greatest among them"? Who will sit in those coveted places beside Him? I do not pretend to know...but it seems to me that those women have every bit as much right if not more, to these honors.
And yet, I'll bet such a thing never entered their pretty little heads...
Didn't you point out to me that the last would be first? These ladies were definitely last.
It wasn't the women, my friend, who were worried about "being in charge"...and it still isn't, to this day.
All we want is the right to stand beside our brothers as equals, to be recognized and loved for who we are, and not put in some imaginary "second class" status, to wait until the man has finished talking before we dare to utter a peep. No, dear man...it is the men who are so concerned about someone "usurping authority" over them...
Ridiculous...

 

[StanJ]

What I know for a fact is that God Himself wrote the 10 Commandments, and that, by their very nature, they are immutable. The rest of "The Law of Moses, not so much.

You may want to carefully read Exodus 34 then rethink this so-called fact you think you know?

 

[Wormwood]

Tongue in cheek disease seems to run in my family. If you are easily insulted, you probably wouldn't be comfortable around here.

I have a very thick skin and I am all for joking around. However, we have been talking about the nature of roles and the dangers of sexism as it relates to the NT. I just find it odd that in one minute you are posting adds about men keeping their women in line and the horrors of such concepts and then turn to jokes about men being big oafs that need a woman around to tie their shoes or whatever. I guess it is just helpful for me to try to figure out what exactly we are talking about. Are we talking about the Bible and sexism or are we making jokes about male and female stereotypes? *insert blonde joke here*

Jesus is my "historical precedent". He did not treat women any differently than men. He spoke to them, face to face, just as if they were men.
And then, He did the most amazing thing, WW.
He LISTENED to them. (You might want to try that, sometime. You'd be amazed at what you might learn.)

You really amaze me. I have been reading and responding to your detailed comments for weeks as well as reading and responding to an article you posted that you asked me to read so I would understand your views. Then you infer that I dont listen and dont want to learn (all the while saying you arent a scholar which apparently means I shouldnt expect a coherent hermenetutical argument from you to validate your views). The fact is, I have been listening. And so far I have learned that your views seem to be more based in your personal biases and history and are even willing to throw biblical revelation under the bus if it will advance your egalitarian cause. I'd prefer not to subject myself to such "learning."

I don't think you get it, WW. I do not think it is all about "authority and thrones". Those things do seem to be important to the men, however. While the ladies were quietly going about, making sure the guys had a clean, comfortable place to sleep, and enough food to eat, the guys were arguing about who would sit where in Heaven. Did you somehow miss that fact?

You seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth. In one moment you are demanding women be elders, pastors and teachers and declare any notion of taking 1 Tim. 2 at its word is abusive and sexist. In the next moment you start talking about how women are so humble and its the guys who are guilty of fighting for power while the ladies have always been such humble servants with no interest in leadership or authority. Which is it?

My simple point, which you seem to intentionally keep trying to twist, is that Jesus lived out his role as a peasant man from the backwoods of Galilee under the authority of Roman rulers and a corrupt Jewish religious establishment. He could have come to the earth as a king and demanded obedience, but he came to serve and surrender his life. This is a lesson for all of us. We are each to live out the roles we are given in life and do it in a humble and gracious way. Just because God does not give someone the opportunity to be an elder, pastor or president does not mean they are inferior nor that sexism and oppression is at play. That is my very simple point.

Now, don't you find it strange at all that it was these women, who were obviously women of means, who took this responsibility on themselves, and not one man stepped up to help defray the costs? I'm sure that, even then, feeding 13 fully grown men, (men do like to eat, don't they?) and finding accommodations for them in the various towns they traveled to was not an easy task, nor was it "cheap". Yet these ladies did it, without calling attention to themselves. WW, it was not these gals who were worried about who would sit at Jesus right and left hands, was it?

How do you know this, Barrd? Do you have a Bible verse that says, "not one man stepped up to defray the costs"? You have a really bad habit of creating historical scenarios to portray men in a negative light and women in a better light. Wasnt it Joseph of Arimethia that used an expensive, new burial plot to put the body of Jesus in? How do you know the disciples didnt use their own funds to help provide for Jesus. Didnt Jesus ask them to give the multitudes something to eat and they basically answered that there was no way they could provide for all these people? Yes, we know some women helped provide for Jesus in his ministry. But we do not know that ONLY women provided for Jesus.

Moreover, I imagine if Jesus had chosen 12 women to follow him we would see various sins that would need correction there as well. What is your point? Only men crave authority and power? If so, then why are we having this discussion since clearly you have no interest in leadership or authority since you are a humble woman who would never desire such things. smh

 

[Barrd]

I have a very thick skin and I am all for joking around. However, we have been talking about the nature of roles and the dangers of sexism as it relates to the NT. I just find it odd that in one minute you are posting adds about men keeping their women in line and the horrors of such concepts and then turn to jokes about men being big oafs that need a woman around to tie their shoes or whatever. I guess it is just helpful for me to try to figure out what exactly we are talking about. Are we talking about the Bible and sexism or are we making jokes about male and female stereotypes? *insert blonde joke here*

Ahh, WW...men are men, and women are women. And I, for one, say "Hooray for the differences!"
But oppression, of anyone, for any reason, is wrong, and you will never convince me that God approves of such.

Do you think I've never heard blonde jokes before? Darling, I think I've heard every blonde joke there is.
But I think I have the problem figured out.
Do you know what a brunette between two blondes is? Of course, you've heard this one. She's a translator. Funny, huh?
But do you know what a brunette between two blondes really is?
She is ignored.

You really amaze me. I have been reading and responding to your detailed comments for weeks as well as reading and responding to an article you posted that you asked me to read so I would understand your views. Then you infer that I dont listen and dont want to learn (all the while saying you arent a scholar which apparently means I shouldnt expect a coherent hermenetutical argument from you to validate your views). The fact is, I have been listening. And so far I have learned that your views seem to be more based in your personal biases and history and are even willing to throw biblical revelation under the bus if it will advance your egalitarian cause. I'd prefer not to subject myself to such "learning."

Oh, how you have misunderstood me! Dear man, any woman could tell you that men in general have a habit of tuning women out. I don't know how many times I've heard wives complain "He never listens to me!" And it's true. Even my own David had a habit of tuning me out at times.
But even I can admit that we sometimes do it to our husbands as well.
I think not listening to each other is not so much a sexism problem as it is a humanism problem...do notice my tongue firmly inserted in my cheek, here.
No, I haven't made a minute study of church history. I am much more interested in how Christ relates to our lives in the 21st century. I don't feel a need to wallow in the dust of centuries past.

You seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth. In one moment you are demanding women be elders, pastors and teachers and declare any notion of taking 1 Tim. 2 at its word is abusive and sexist. In the next moment you start talking about how women are so humble and its the guys who are guilty of fighting for power while the ladies have always been such humble servants with no interest in leadership or authority. Which is it?

Maybe you missed it. I said that all we want is to be accepted and loved for who we are. Women can be and do pretty much whatever we set our minds to. God did not put limits on our minds, so why should we let anyone else do so?

My simple point, which you seem to intentionally keep trying to twist, is that Jesus lived out his role as a peasant man from the backwoods of Galilee under the authority of Roman rulers and a corrupt Jewish religious establishment. He could have come to the earth as a king and demanded obedience, but he came to serve and surrender his life. This is a lesson for all of us. We are each to live out the roles we are given in life and do it in a humble and gracious way. Just because God does not give someone the opportunity to be an elder, pastor or president does not mean they are inferior nor that sexism and oppression is at play. That is my very simple point.

And yet, He is the King of Kings...and He does demand obedience.
Your "simple point" fails.

How do you know this, Barrd? Do you have a Bible verse that says, "not one man stepped up to defray the costs"? You have a really bad habit of creating historical scenarios to portray men in a negative light and women in a better light. Wasnt it Joseph of Arimethia that used an expensive, new burial plot to put the body of Jesus in? How do you know the disciples didnt use their own funds to help provide for Jesus. Didnt Jesus ask them to give the multitudes something to eat and they basically answered that there was no way they could provide for all these people? Yes, we know some women helped provide for Jesus in his ministry. But we do not know that ONLY women provided for Jesus.

I do not have one single Bible verse that says that there were men supporting Jesus out of their own funds. Do you?
Joseph of Arimethia was not one of those who regularly traveled with Jesus, was he? Yes, he gave Jesus his tomb. He couldn't know that Jesus wouldn't be needing it for long. It was a beautiful and loving thing for him to do.
Do you think that Jesus expected the men to run out and buy food for all those people? Or was He testing their faith? I suspect it was the latter.
Why do you think the Bible makes a point of telling us about these women, but never mentions any man supporting Jesus' ministry? The few references we have of one of the male disciples holding the money bag are not good...

Moreover, I imagine if Jesus had chosen 12 women to follow him we would see various sins that would need correction there as well. What is your point? Only men crave authority and power? If so, then why are we having this discussion since clearly you have no interest in leadership or authority since you are a humble woman who would never desire such things. smh

Well of course women sin. Did I ever say we didn't?
WW, I did not seek to be a pastor. It just sort of happened. And here I am, doing what God has asked me to do.
We are having this discussion because a man I love and respect seems to think that I have no right to do what I do...and that breaks my heart.

 

[Wormwood]

And I, for one, say "Hooray for the differences!"
But oppression, of anyone, for any reason, is wrong, and you will never convince me that God approves of such.

Can you show me where I tried to convince you that oppression was right?

Do you know what a brunette between two blondes is? Of course, you've heard this one. She's a translator. Funny, huh?

Ha, I had not heard that one. I dont really know any blonde jokes. My brain has forgetten them long ago. Saving storage space for something more useful, like movie lines or music lyrics I suppose. haha

Oh, how you have misunderstood me! Dear man, any woman could tell you that men in general have a habit of tuning women out. I don't know how many times I've heard wives complain "He never listens to me!" And it's true. Even my own David had a habit of tuning me out at times.

Haha, well I think men are often misunderstood in this area as well. We listen, but we often dont engage as we tend to be problem solvers rather than merely trying to express ourselves. My wife will say I do not talk with her enough. It is not that I dont listen, but that I dont process things that way. I try to solve the problem whereas my wife likes to just talk about it. Many women, I have found, want to invest in the conversation whereas guys want to skip the conversation and just solve the problem. At least that has been my experience. So I guess the point is, listening and conversing are two different things. Besides, how do you know Jesus didnt tune any women out. haha

No, I haven't made a minute study of church history. I am much more interested in how Christ relates to our lives in the 21st century. I don't feel a need to wallow in the dust of centuries past.

Well, I dont think 2,000 years of brilliant Christians reflecting on Scripture is merely "dust" that we ought not to wallow in. You should read people like Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, Luther, etc. You may find that they were brilliant people with incredible insights. Just because something is shiny and new does not mean it is improved. Personally, I am very skeptical when someone comes up with an entirely new interpretation of Scripture that is supposed to be the right understanding that apparently has eluded Christians for 2,000 years. Every generation has the notion that they are the smart ones and every previous generation were ignorant cavemen. I have found the opposite is generally true. Most High School graduates could not wade through an elementary school reading level from 100 years ago. People back then genrally had a much longer attention span and gave themselves to the study of Greek, Hebrew, and daily study of the Scriptures. Now we have people who can barely muster up the attention span to form a coherent "tweet" and their theology isnt even knee deep and is swimming with individualism and cultural whims.

Maybe you missed it. I said that all we want is to be accepted and loved for who we are. Women can be and do pretty much whatever we set our minds to. God did not put limits on our minds, so why should we let anyone else do so?

Um, because God desires it to be a certain way? You know, once again this sounds exactly like the homosexual hermeneutics. "Nevermind what the Bible says. We just want to be loved and accepted and we can contribute as teachers and leaders of the church. Why would God not want us to be accepted or desire us to use our gifts for his Kingdom?" (Once again, not comparing female teaching, with homosexuality. Just the exact same logic at play. Forget what the Bible says, this is about my personal rights, love and acceptance. Id prefer to stick with the Bible and what it says rather than how you feel and what your mind tells you.)

And yet, He is the King of Kings...and He does demand obedience.
Your "simple point" fails.

AFTER he washed feet, was spat upon, beaten, flogged, mocked and died on a cross. He lived as a peasant and servant and was raised with the name above every name. When we die and go to heaven, gender distinctions and roles will cease. Not before. Point remains valid.

I do not have one single Bible verse that says that there were men supporting Jesus out of their own funds. Do you?
Joseph of Arimethia was not one of those who regularly traveled with Jesus, was he?

So... you dont have a Bible verse saying men did not help Jesus with their funds...which is what you were trying to argue. How do you know Joseph didnt travel with Jesus? He didnt offer his expensive grave to a stranger. It is certainly possible he followed Jesus. Maybe so, maybe not. The Bible doesnt say, so neither should you act as if it does. You are prone to imagine scenarios and create doctrine out of those imaginations. Let's speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent, shall we?

Why do you think the Bible makes a point of telling us about these women, but never mentions any man supporting Jesus' ministry?

I guess so you can imagine scenarios and rewrite the Bible by what it doesnt say? You know, it also doesnt say Jesus never married, so I guess he got married. In fact, it doesnt say he had kids either and I am sure he likely had 10 or 20. Wow, this is fun. You know what, I just discovered I am the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandson of Jesus himself! Barrd, your logic is the stuff of fairy tales and cult groups. I think you should stop teaching your home group, if for no other reason than your teaching and hermeneutics are incredibly dangerous.

WW, I did not seek to be a pastor. It just sort of happened. And here I am, doing what God has asked me to do.

Hmmm, I find that interesting that God would ask you to do something his Word prohibits. Did he come to you in a dream and say, "Barrd, I need you to teach a home group. My Kingdom depends on it!"? This reminds me of a conversation I had on this board a few months ago where a homosexual said something very similar. Went something like, "I didnt ask to have these attractions. It is how God made me and I am only doing what he put in my heart to do." Apparently God likes to contradict himself in his personal revelations to people on this board.

 

[Barrd]

Can you show me where I tried to convince you that oppression was right?

In your insistence that women must be silent in the church, and cannot hold any but secondary roles.
This is oppression.

Ha, I had not heard that one. I dont really know any blonde jokes. My brain has forgetten them long ago. Saving storage space for something more useful, like movie lines or music lyrics I suppose. haha

Darling, if you were a little blonde with...uh...well, who wears extra large tee shirts...chances are you would also know loads of blonde jokes.
Speaking of song lyrics:

"I took an IQ test and I flunked it of course
I can't spell VW, but I drive a Porsche!
Cuz I'm a blonde, yeah, yeah, yeah!"

Haha, well I think men are often misunderstood in this area as well. We listen, but we often dont engage as we tend to be problem solvers rather than merely trying to express ourselves. My wife will say I do not talk with her enough. It is not that I dont listen, but that I dont process things that way. I try to solve the problem whereas my wife likes to just talk about it. Many women, I have found, want to invest in the conversation whereas guys want to skip the conversation and just solve the problem. At least that has been my experience. So I guess the point is, listening and conversing are two different things. Besides, how do you know Jesus didnt tune any women out. haha

I remember going to see the doc a couple of years ago. There were two other women waiting, and we immediately got to talking. Before long, we each knew the names of each others' husbands, kids, and pets, and intimate details about each others' lives. Heck, we even knew what the other two were cooking for supper that night.
While we were chattering away, a man came in, and settled into a seat across from me. He sat quietly, while first one lady was called, and then the other.
It was down to him and me. I began to rummage in my bag for my little Bible that I always carry with me, when I realized that he was eyeing me, a huge grin on his face. I raised my eyes to his.
"I'll never figure you girls out," he chuckled.
"Huh?" (That was my clever come back.)
"Were those women friends of yours?" he wanted to know.
"Uh...not really." (More clever repartee...)
"And yet the three of you were here, talking as if you'd known each other all your lives. I have friends I've known all my life, but we don't talk to one another like that."

But I digress. How do I know Jesus never tuned any woman out? Well, there was a woman who wanted Him to heal her daughter...but He didn't really "tune her out", did He? And in the end, He did heal her daughter.
I like the way Mark tells it:

Mar 7:24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
Mar 7:25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
Mar 7:29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
Mar 7:30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

Well, I dont think 2,000 years of brilliant Christians reflecting on Scripture is merely "dust" that we ought not to wallow in. You should read people like Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, Luther, etc. You may find that they were brilliant people with incredible insights. Just because something is shiny and new does not mean it is improved. Personally, I am very skeptical when someone comes up with an entirely new interpretation of Scripture that is supposed to be the right understanding that apparently has eluded Christians for 2,000 years. Every generation has the notion that they are the smart ones and every previous generation were ignorant cavemen. I have found the opposite is generally true. Most High School graduates could not wade through an elementary school reading level from 100 years ago. People back then genrally had a much longer attention span and gave themselves to the study of Greek, Hebrew, and daily study of the Scriptures. Now we have people who can barely muster up the attention span to form a coherent "tweet" and their theology isnt even knee deep and is swimming with individualism and cultural whims.

You do have a point, WW, and it is a good one.
However, either Jesus Christ is relevant to every time, in every place--or He is not relevant at all.

Um, because God desires it to be a certain way? You know, once again this sounds exactly like the homosexual hermeneutics. "Nevermind what the Bible says. We just want to be loved and accepted and we can contribute as teachers and leaders of the church. Why would God not want us to be accepted or desire us to use our gifts for his Kingdom?" (Once again, not comparing female teaching, with homosexuality. Just the exact same logic at play. Forget what the Bible says, this is about my personal rights, love and acceptance. Id prefer to stick with the Bible and what it says rather than how you feel and what your mind tells you.)

Once again, God never did say that being female was an abomination. Therefore, apples and oranges.

AFTER he washed feet, was spat upon, beaten, flogged, mocked and died on a cross. He lived as a peasant and servant and was raised with the name above every name. When we die and go to heaven, gender distinctions and roles will cease. Not before. Point remains valid.

Uh...are you saying that we need to go through all of that before we can be recognized as equals?
But I thought the whole point was that Jesus did that for us. It was our sin...including the sin of bigotry...that put Him on the cross.
Wasn't it?

So... you dont have a Bible verse saying men did not help Jesus with their funds...which is what you were trying to argue. How do you know Joseph didnt travel with Jesus? He didnt offer his expensive grave to a stranger. It is certainly possible he followed Jesus. Maybe so, maybe not. The Bible doesnt say, so neither should you act as if it does. You are prone to imagine scenarios and create doctrine out of those imaginations. Let's speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent, shall we?

Wasn't Joseph a member of the Sanhedrin?

Luk 23:50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
Luk 23:51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

You might also look here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Joseph-of-Arimathea.html

Personally, I always kinda suspected Joe of being "the rich young ruler", although I have absolutely nothing to base that on.

I guess so you can imagine scenarios and rewrite the Bible by what it doesnt say? You know, it also doesnt say Jesus never married, so I guess he got married. In fact, it doesnt say he had kids either and I am sure he likely had 10 or 20. Wow, this is fun. You know what, I just discovered I am the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandson of Jesus himself! Barrd, your logic is the stuff of fairy tales and cult groups. I think you should stop teaching your home group, if for no other reason than your teaching and hermeneutics are incredibly dangerous.

Darling, I do not generally discuss sexism with my church...basically because the subject never comes up.
We don't have any bigots on either side of this issue.

Hmmm, I find that interesting that God would ask you to do something his Word prohibits. Did he come to you in a dream and say, "Barrd, I need you to teach a home group. My Kingdom depends on it!"? This reminds me of a conversation I had on this board a few months ago where a homosexual said something very similar. Went something like, "I didnt ask to have these attractions. It is how God made me and I am only doing what he put in my heart to do." Apparently God likes to contradict himself in his personal revelations to people on this board.

Are you seriously comparing a call to preach with homosexual desires?
Methinks you are getting desperate, my friend.

If I told you that God "came to me in a dream" you would not believe me. And I'm quite sure that you do not believe that God still speaks with His followers, nor does He send angels to them with messages. And yet, I am quite sure that He interacts with His people in all of these ways.

Because of the warm feelings I have for you, WW, I will let the comparison of my ministry to homosexuality pass...with this caveat.
One day, you and I will stand before the Lord, where we will give an account for every idle word that we have spoken...