Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[marksman]

Another red herring. :wub:

In #24 the Barrd gave a list of women from the OT and NT and what do you do? You reply with a list of males. That is NOT what the Barrd discussed, hence a red herring fallacy by you.

Actually I much prefer rainbow trout to red herrings.

 

[marksman]

Here is another good expository on this issue;

https://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9

The problem with that it is the product of A denomination. My sources are not A denomination , it is the whole counsel of God to be found in the thoughts and writings of men from all over the place. That way I avoid being the captive to one specific way of thinking. That to me bearing in mind that the church is very disjointed and dispersed in their thinking, is the best way to go then I don't miss out on the gems that are out there if you care to look for them.

 

[marksman]

Hence all YOUR pretexts.

And which ones are those? Do I detect a note of cynicism?

 

[marksman]

Junia is a woman's name. Adding an s to the end does not make her a man.
"Kinsman" is a generic term...just like "mankind". I think you know that. If you don't, I'm wasting my time on someone with no education.

​And you are threatening to report me. Just to clear things up for you I was educated to year 10. In my 20s I attended two years of bible college full time and obtained a degree in theology. Later on I went to two universities, one of which was the best one in the country and obtained three degrees. At the same time I graduated from a six month leadership course at my church and I have several diplomas in IT from a local community college and I have lectured at Bible College.

Perhaps an apology for your claim I have no education is in order.

 

[StanJ]

The problem with that it is the product of A denomination. My sources are not A denomination , it is the whole counsel of God to be found in the thoughts and writings of men from all over the place. That way I avoid being the captive to one specific way of thinking. That to me bearing in mind that the church is very disjointed and dispersed in their thinking, is the best way to go then I don't miss out on the gems that are out there if you care to look for them.

Nothing wrong with any teaching if it is sound. This is a majority view. YOU just won't admit it nor can you refute it, other than opining.

Lack of commitment/submission to the authorities that Jesus Himself established here on earth, is how the world ends up with Jim Jones and all his ilk.

[Removed]

 

[StanJ]

​Because of the priesthood of all believers we should all be servants but that doesn't make us teachers. In fact it says be not many masters which means teacher as it is the same Greek word didaskalos.

James was warning that teachers have much more responsibility and accountability than the non-teachers, which is why he warned those he wrote to, to NOT all seek being teachers, just as not all young people should head off to Bible college when they graduate from high school. By the same token, if one cannot teach, then one shouldn't try, especially if they get it wrong all the time.

 

[StanJ]

​And you are threatening to report me. Just to clear things up for you I was educated to year 10. In my 20s I attended two years of bible college full time and obtained a degree in theology. Later on I went to two universities, one of which was the best one in the country and obtained three degrees. At the same time I graduated from a six month leadership course at my church and I have several diplomas in IT from a local community college and I have lectured at Bible College.

Perhaps an apology for your claim I have no education is in order.

[removed]

The Barrd has nothing to apologize for in correcting your errors, even though she is a woman.

 

[StanJ]

And which ones are those? Do I detect a note of cynicism?

ALL of them, and much more than a note believe me.

 

[Wormwood]

Oz,

Thank you for your response.

We have OT examples of women in active ministry:

We also have NT examples of women in ministry. Let us not confuse participation in ministry with the elimination of any kind of role distinctions. Since I know argumentation and rhetoric is important to you, I would classify this as a false choice or false dichotomy. It does not have to be all or nothing here. This is the very argument I felt was incredibly weak in the Fuller articles. The notion is that if we accept 1 Timothy 2 "as is" then it is an absolute prohibition and therefore contradicts the passages in 1 Cor 11 and those elsewhere that imply women served in various capacities in ministry is just not true. I do accept the notion that women prophesied, aided the ministries of Jesus and the Apostles and even taught in informal settings (such as Aquilla and Priscilla). So lets not paint this as "an anti-woman" position. This is a straw man and I am not "anti-woman" in any sense of the word. As I mentioned before, I believe that women are able to serve in just about any capacity in the local church but I do accept 1 Tim. 2 and other texts to be meaningful passages that address the role of eldership and leading the local congregation in doctrinal instruction.

1 Cor. 11:5, “And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head”; so women had active public ministries.

As you mentioned above, women had public ministries in the OT. I dont see this as indicative the the cross removed role distinctions between men and women.

I Cor. 14:26, ” What then shall we say, brothers [and sisters]? [3c] When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” The word, “adelphoi” means “brothers” but it also means “brothers and sisters.”

I must say that this is truly a head scratcher. So you are arguing, on the basis of the generic term "adelphoi" that Paul is explicitly teaching that both men and women teach in the public assembly? Yet Paul specifically says in verse 34-35

“the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34–35, ESV)

I just do not follow your logic here at all. You are saying that the generic term "adelphoi" overrides the specific command of Paul, using "the Law" (not a specific heretical teaching or contextual problem with women in Corinth) as rationale as to why women should have an attitude of submission rather than teaching authority in the church. So, because "adelphoi" can refer to both men and women that this carries more weight that Paul specifically telling women to not teach but remain in submission. This is like me saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, we have all come here to teach, learn and grow. Ladies, you cannot teach." Then someone saying, "well because you said "Ladies and gentlemen, we are all here to teach..." this means that you want women to teach ...regardless of what you said after that." I just dont know how to respond to this other than just pointing to the plain language of the passage which clearly shows that even though Paul is clearly addressing men and women, he also clearly prohibits those women he is addressing from teaching in the assembly. Its just that simple. I just dont know how the language could be any more clear and to miss it suggests that someone is determined to see something that isnt there.

• 
  

  Gal. 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  
  

Clearly this is a passage about the application of grace to all people and has nothing to do with role distinctions in the home, church or workplace. No one is arguing here that women are inferior to men or that women do not have the same inheritance or value in Christ any more than one would argue a child has less value in Christ than authoritative parents or a boss has more value than his servant because of the authority he/she has.

Eph. 5:21, ” Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

The context of Eph. 5:21 clearly lays out how we "submit to one another." It is an error to suggest that this implies mutual or reciprocal submission. Αλλελων does not always indicate a reciprocal action. For instance, John 4:33 says "So the disciples were saying to one another, "No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?" Obviously the disciples were not all the disciples took turns saying this back and forth to each other. Some were saying it and others were listening. Likewise we are told to "wash one another's feet." Obviously this does not mean I was every person's feet and every person then washes mine. A person's foot only needs to be washed once by one person. Luke 12:1 says "so many thousands of people had gathered together that they were stepping on one another." Truely it would be a feat if every person somehow managed to step on every other person in the crowd while themselves being stepped on by every person! Revelation 6:4 speaks of a situation in which men would "slay one another." Clearly not everyone is being killed by everyone else and they themselves are killing everyone who is killing them! No, some were killing and others were dying.

The point is simple. This Greek word does not always imply a reciprocal, two-way action. As one author put it, "Though the use of allelon in these exhortations makes every Christian a potential actor and at the same time a potential recipient of the action, only the circumstances will determine who fulfills which role in any given situation. And the circumstances of life usually dictate that at any given time some persons will have the role of actor and others will have the role of recipient of the action, with no thought or necessity of mutuality or reciprocity in that situation."

In the context of Eph. 5, Paul expounds upon the command to submit to one another by illustrating various circumstances by which some are actors and others are recepients. By your rationale, parents should submit to their parents in the same way that children submit to their parents...if both are Christian. Clearly, this is not what Paul is teaching.

It is your 'estimation' and seems to harmonise with your closing women down in public ministry among men. In context of 1 Cor chs 11-14, the ministry of prophecy was manifested in the Christian assembly. To deny this is to go against the context.

How am I going against the context?!

You are asking me to believe the following based on your interpretation:
1. Even though Paul does not mention the assembly of believers when referring to women prophesying, but does on three different occasions when he calls for them not to teach but to be in submission, that we should still assume women prophesied in the assembly (and therefore were teachers and elders as well).
2. Paul is only saying women should be silent because of contextual situations in these specific congregations (to which we have no historical evidence) even though the literary context says nothing of the sort, but rather implies universal application due to creation, the Law and so forth.
3. Paul would use "the Law," creation, and his (and the churches) normative practice as rationale to silence particular women in a limited context who are ignorant or heretical.
4. Paul sees the ignorance and heresy of these women to be of greater significance than the ignorance or heresy of men, which is why he singles them out and demands all women in these cities to be silent even though the problem is with a specific few.
5. That the Holy Spirit would inspire the Apostle Paul to write these generic, universal prohibitions to women in general without reference to the specifics of their situation to be preseved for all believers and that future generations would learn to read between the lines to discover that is not at all what God means. Rather, when he says women cannot teach and must learn in submission in the assembly to the congregations in Corinth and Ephesus, that he actually means women should teach or else those believers are sexist and "anti-woman."

And yet my argument is simply this:

1. Paul does not specifically mention the assembly in the context of speaking about women prophesying and we see many occasions where people (including women) publicly prophesied outside the assembly of believers.
2. When Paul does specifically mention the assembly of believers, he always says women are to not teach or have authority and uses creation and the Law as his rationale. We should therefore accept this as a binding prohibition in the assembly of believers.

Therefore, women can prophesy and teach, but not in the formal setting of gathered believers.

So how am I the one that is going against the context here!?

Why can't you submit to what the Bible teaches? Women prophesy (1 Cor 11:5) and they exercise that gift in the assembly of believers (1 Cor 14:6; 14:26). Therefore, the 'silence' of women in 1 Cor 14:33-36 is incongruous with that understanding and seeks another examination/interpretation.

I never made the argument that women cannot prophesy. And they most certainly did not do this in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Again, to use 1 Cor. 14:26 to argue they did when a few sentences later Paul explicitly forbids it is just a baffling leap to me. The only way a person can read 1 Cor. 14:26-35 and determine that women prophesied in the assembly is if they have already determined this to be true before actually reading that section of Scripture. I think if you were to pull any person off the street and had them read this section (even using the phrase "brothers and sisters") and then ask them if this passage teaches that women can teach and prophesy in the local assembly, no one would say, "yes." At least no one with a reading comprehension level beyond that of a 2nd grader. I am not trying to be mean here, but I think sometimes scholars can do such mental gymnastics that they can convince themselves of all kinds of things when a child reading the text would clearly know better. Scholarship should help us explore the depth and rationale of Scripture in greater detail, not turn it on its head. When scholars find ways to take explicit prohibitions (whether its women pastors, greed, or homosexual unions) and turn them into positive affirmations, we should proceed with great caution.

 

[StanJ]

I never made the argument that women cannot prophesy. And they most certainly did not do this in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Again, to use 1 Cor. 14:26 to argue they did when a few sentences later Paul explicitly forbids it is just a baffling leap to me. The only way a person can read 1 Cor. 14:26-35 and determine that women prophesied in the assembly is if they have already determined this to be true before actually reading that section of Scripture. I think if you were to pull any person off the street and had them read this section (even using the phrase "brothers and sisters") and then ask them if this passage teaches that women can teach and prophesy in the local assembly, no one would say, "yes." At least no one with a reading comprehension level beyond that of a 2nd grader. I am not trying to be mean here, but I think sometimes scholars can do such mental gymnastics that they can convince themselves of all kinds of things when a child reading the text would clearly know better. Scholarship should help us explore the depth and rationale of Scripture in greater detail, not turn it on its head. When scholars find ways to take explicit prohibitions (whether its women pastors, greed, or homosexual unions) and turn them into positive affirmations, we should proceed with great caution.

Paul was dealing with an issue of disorder in Corinth WW. This is the context of 1 Cor 14, so it has to be kept in mind when commenting on it. Paul did confirm this was corporate worship in v26 where he says; "when you all come together".
To think it says otherwise is to completely ignore the context here. That some scholars over think issues is true, but the majority view should always be considered when trying to exposit scripture in any scenario.

 

[marksman]

Another red herring. :wub:

In #24 the Barrd gave a list of women from the OT and NT and what do you do? You reply with a list of males. That is NOT what the Barrd discussed, hence a red herring fallacy by you.

I noticed that you did not call Barrd's list a red herring. I wonder why? ESpecially as she did not discuss anything.

 

[marksman]

Clearly this is a passage about the application of grace to all people and has nothing to do with role distinctions in the home, church or workplace. No one is arguing here that women are inferior to men or that women do not have the same inheritance or value in Christ any more than one would argue a child has less value in Christ than authoritative parents or a boss has more value than his servant because of the authority he/she has.

Thankyou Wormwood. Nice to see that there is someone else who is not pushing a barrow and ignoring context.

 

[marksman]

Well then maybe you should respond like you actually have all that education instead of making fallacious assertions?
The Barrd has nothing to apologize for in correcting your errors, even though she is a woman.

​Can you show me the errors in this post please?

 

[marksman]

Nothing wrong with any teaching if it is sound. This is a majority view. YOU just won't admit it nor can you refute it, other than opining.

Lack of commitment/submission to the authorities that Jesus Himself established here on earth, is how the world ends up with Jim Jones and all his ilk.

People of your ilk use the same excuses to avoid ANY form of submission, when indeed the Bible teaches us to submit to another all the time.

And who is to say what teaching is sound. I have been told many times that empty vessels make the most sound. Many years ago the Brethren eschewed the gifts of the spirit as they considered the teaching wasn't "sound." In the Charismatic renewal in the 60s in the UK, they were in the forefront of establishing churches that were comfortable with the gifts of the Spirit. But the teaching wasn't "sound." So who decides what is sound? Those before the charismatic renewal or those after the charismatic renewal?

Having read the story of Jim Jones, it was obvious that his followers considered his teaching very "sound."

"People of your ilk" is an attack on me and is very derogatory so I have reported it to the moderators. Such a comment suggests you need to step away from the discussion and take a big breath.

 

[Barrd]

Let's see....
Abigail.
She defied her husband's authority.
After Samuel's death, David fled for his life from court, and was roughing it with his men in the hills. Shearing time came around, and David sent to one of the wealthiest men in the area...Nabal...requesting payment for services rendered. It gets a bit tricky here...it seems these "services" consisted of David and his men not attacking Nabal's shepherds and flocks. Nabal got a bit surly...evidently, he didn't think he should pay what amounted to a protection racket.

At this point David must stand his ground or lose face with his followers. He orders four hundred of his men to gather up their arms and follow him down from the hills to attack Nabal's house.
Long story short, Abigail learns of these things, and takes action.
Here is an example of a woman acting on her own authority. Her name rings down through history as one of the world's first "liberated women"...

 

[marksman]

And yet my argument is simply this:

1. Paul does not specifically mention the assembly in the context of speaking about women prophesying and we see many occasions where people (including women) publicly prophesied outside the assembly of believers.
2. When Paul does specifically mention the assembly of believers, he always says women are to not teach or have authority and uses creation and the Law as his rationale. We should therefore accept this as a binding prohibition in the assembly of believers.

Therefore, women can prophesy and teach, but not in the formal setting of gathered believers.

So how am I the one that is going against the context here!?

You are not going against the context Wormwood. You are stating the context which other refuse to admit to because they want to push a certain barrow. The feminist spirit is very alive and well in the church.

 

[OzSpen]

I noticed that you did not call Barrd's list a red herring. I wonder why? ESpecially as she did not discuss anything.

That's because it wasn't a red herring fallacy. It's time you learned the nature of fallacies and when you commit them. I know I'm engaging in thinking that is impossible for you to grasp. Sadly. opcorn:

 

[Barrd]

Two amazing women were Deborah and Jael.

Marksman may not like it very much, but God raised up a woman to judge Israel. Deborah fascinates me. Perhaps because I was named for her.
It impressed me that Deborah summoned Barak, and ordered him to ride into battle against Sisera's army of chariots...but Barak would not go without her. Evidently, women could also be warriors in her time.
Anyway, the story of Deborah occurred in approximately 1125BC. Deborah is the only woman judge mentioned in the Book of Judges. The people of her time had no difficulty in accepting her as a judge. This suggests that judges were seen as ‘God’s people’, and their gender was unimportant.

Jdg 4:14 And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.

Who will deny that Deborah was a powerful woman?
And successful:

Jdg 4:15 And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.

Enter Jael.
Abandoning his army, Sisera fled on foot away from the battlefield, towards the encampment of Jael, the Kenite woman
Jael was the wife of a man named Heber, who had ties of kinship with the Israelites, and who was also on good terms with the Canaanites.
Evidently, Sisera saw the encampment of Heber and his wife, Jael, as a refuge.
He couldn't have been more wrong.
Jdg 4:18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.
Jdg 4:19 And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.
Jdg 4:20 Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.
Jdg 4:21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

Meek, submissive, subservient little homemakers?
Not these women!

It's after midnight here. This woman needs her beauty sleep.
Tomorrow, I will discuss some of the ladies from the NT.
G'night, guys! :wub:

 

[Barrd]

​And you are threatening to report me. Just to clear things up for you I was educated to year 10. In my 20s I attended two years of bible college full time and obtained a degree in theology. Later on I went to two universities, one of which was the best one in the country and obtained three degrees. At the same time I graduated from a six month leadership course at my church and I have several diplomas in IT from a local community college and I have lectured at Bible College.

Perhaps an apology for your claim I have no education is in order.

If you seriously have all this education as you claim, then you should know that Junia is a woman's name.
And you should know that "kinsman" is a generic term, and does not refer only to men.

Let's just say, I'm a bit...skeptical. After all, anyone can claim anything over the internet. I could claim to be the lost princess of Kaninoni...you would have no way of proving that I am not.

If you want me to appreciate your education, you'll have to show me that you know words like "kinsman".

 

[Barrd]

Okay...as promised, let's look at a couple of important women in the New Testament.
I'm going to start with my favorite lady in the entire Bible.
Mary Magdalene.

Mary has been falsely branded for lo, these many years, as a prostitute. The Bible says no such thing about her. Why, then, has she been given that shameful label?

Some think she was confused with the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. Now, that is a beautiful story of forgiveness and love, and it also shows that Jesus was close to women during His life...but it is not Mary's story.
Mary Magdalene had a serious illness, but the nature of the illness is unspecified; later celibate male writers linked Mary’s illness, her ‘demons’, with her sexuality - which may have been a comment about their own demons, not Mary's.
And of course, Mary Magdalene as the sinful woman is the perfect foil for The Blessed Virgin Mary. A fabulous literary device.

Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus Christ. Now, I can just see the shocked look on a couple of male faces, but it is true. Jesus had a group of female disciples that followed Him on His travels, just as the men did. It was not uncommon for men and women to travel together, moving in separate groups. The women who followed Jesus...Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Suzanna, and, Luke tells us, many others...not only followed Him as the men did, but they also supported His ministry out of their own funds.

Luk 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Luk 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

You might want to think about that, guys, before you go dissing the women who were important to Jesus. These gals were not only His disciples, every bit as much as any of the 12...but they were His financial backers. Let's not bite the hand that feeds...

But I digress. Back to Mary Magdalene.

Mary and the rest of Jesus' female disciples followed Him to the cross. The only male disciple who dared to stand with Him at His death was John. But Jesus' female disciples, along with His mother and a couple of other women who were close to Him, stayed with Him to the very end...and beyond.
The ladies also followed Him to the tomb, and saw where He was laid to rest.
Then, on Sunday morning, the girls were back, with spices, to anoint His body. And they were the first to hear, from angels, no less, of Jesus' resurrection.

Luk 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Luk 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Luk 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
Luk 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
Luk 24:5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
Luk 24:6 He is not here, but is risen...

And finally, the first to see Him after His resurrection was not, as one might have supposed, Peter, spokesman for the 12, or even John, the Beloved Disciple.
No...the first one to whom He chose to reveal Himself was a woman. Mary Magdalene, who has been called "Apostle to the Apostles", because Jesus sent her to "go and tell..."

Joh 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Joh 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Joh 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Obviously, Mary was someone very close to Jesus, and very important to His ministry.