Women in Ministry

Well you are right in the sense that Paul did not speak English ... and in old-old-old English I so not know if they had the words deacon.

But Paul did use the Greek word, diakonon, that is translated deacon and minister. For some reason the translators used the word deacon or servant when the word was used concerning Phoebe. But in 22 other places the word is translated minister. Wonder why they didn't use the much more common translation of 'minister' when speaking of Phoebe?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two do not count. :laugh:

 

Thank God for the differences!!!:laugh:

 

yes

I was thinking about this verse, also, and how Paul brings the reason for this spiritual headship back to the first woman who was deceived. I believe it is for our (women's) protection that we have spiritual headcoverings. Women can be easily deceived....it is important for us to have protection.

I always discuss what I study with my husband. I generally get up earlier than the family to Bible study...usually about four thirty am. Often, I will get excited about something I believe I have found in the Scripture....I always make sure I check with Carl....if he isn't as excited, LOL, I won't pursue that particular line of study. Male headship is designed to protect the woman.

 

Groan

OOOH don't get me started on Beth Moore. I have tested her teachings and as a result avoid her Bible studies. She turned me off with her invocation against Satan and her "apologize" to Catholics Bible study!

 

Guys, guys guys

You all are missing the point about Deborah, LOL!

First, she was under her husband's headcovering...ud 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

Second, her being a judge was reflective of the spiritual condition of Israel.

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

I believe Isaiah primarily refers to the apostate queens of Israel, but the underlying principle is the same.....God's use of a woman in a prominent role serves as a judgment.

The man whom God chose to destroy Sisera, Barak, did not have enough faith to conquer..God judged him by giving the victory to a woman!

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

Having women in leadership, in Scripture, isn't a positive happening.

 

Jesus' answer to the Sadducees

I believe Paul refers back to Jesus' answer to the Sadducees, when they tried to trip Him up about the woman who had seven husbands...whose wife would she be?

Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

In this passage, that I used in an earlier posting, I believe Paul was arguing that when they became Christians gentiles were not second class citizens. They were full partners with him and with those with Jewish backgrounds. And in Gal. 3:28 this is emphasised as well as there being, in Christ, no difference between male and female. Thus, when men exclude women from significant participation in the life and ministry of the church, they negate the essence of the gospel. The essence of the gospel of Christ is that all are equal, all who turn to him are accepted. There is no division spiritually or in practice.

Here is the explanation from the SBC, Broadman Press, Layman's Bible Book Commentary, p. 74

The earlier post was as follows:

.

 

Women may have the voice of an angel or of a primadonna, but never of a John or of a Paul or Peter.

The Word of the Gospel must be PROCLAIMED and PREACHED, not whispered or whined.

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


GE
Yes, this is, "in Christ" -- not in the pulpit.

 

Sorry, my friend, but you are wrong. The best sermons I have heard in the last ten years have been by women. Paul knew that local circumstances made limitations necessary in certain places. But he also know that in Christ that would change and all are acceptable.

Accept truth where you find it.

.

What an arrogant insulting statement to make about women. And, obviously from my screen name I am not a woman.

 

Here again you are reverting to carnal thinking in understanding spiritual truths. Your logic is never going to get you to understand spiritual truths.

If you are going 40 MPH is a 25 MPH zone I cannot pull you over. I do not have the authority to do that. A police officer plays that role in our society. He and I are equal under the law but do not have the same spheres of authority. He cannot come into my home and make decisions regarding my family.


Your argument is based an a flawed suppostion that everybody is the same. Sounds like feminism and socialism is having an effect on your thinking.

The essence of the Gospel is not that we are all the same. It is that we can become what God intended us to be. Ironically and sadly your notion is close to the lie that Satan lured Eve with. Eve was tempted with being more than she was created to be and it sounded great to her. It is when we let God be God and follow his ways that we can have the freedom found when walking in truth.

I used to use this on the middle school students that I taught:
everything doesn't have to be equal to be fair.

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.

 

Before God we are all the same. Paul says this very planely in Gal. 3:28.

 

Gerhard Ebersoehn wrote: The Word of the Gospel must be PROCLAIMED and PREACHED, not whispered or whined

"What an arrogant insulting statement to make about women. And, obviously from my screen name I am not a woman."

GE
Yes, that was chauvinistic; I apologise. It does not though change Pauls TIMELESS better wisdom.

 

Another timeless and better wisdom of Paul's might have been that he was of his own humble opinion it is better not to marry. Just think what the world would have been today heeded more people his advise; would we have had the present overpopulation of the world; AND: Would we not have had a purer proclamation of the Gospel and a greater part of men, 'evangelised'? Just surmising ....

 

Both surmisings give the woman a smaller role.

 

Actually I think we would not be nearly as advanced as we are. Why? If women were kept as silent as I think you are suggesting than almost all churches would be closed as women do the vast majority of the work.

It is true that Paul limited the roles of women in specific places. Why? Because of local customs and local expectations. But, as Gal. 3:28 shows he know this was not to last and that as customs changed the roles of women would change in those places.

We know from history that until Christianity became the state religion in Rome that people met in homes and that women played major roles, including preaching. When Christianity became the state religion it became respectable and that is when the upper levels of Roman society began becoming Christians. The upper levels of Roman society did not allow women to play influencial roles, and thus the church began taking on these features. This was after Paul's writings, of course. If it had not been for women up until the time of Constantine, in the 4th Century, Christianity would have, in all probability, disappeared.

I've posted on the women in the New Testament earlier and the important roles they played as well as their influrnce. Paul never criticized them or told them to stop. In fact he praised them. And we know that Priscilla taught Apollo, and that women preached during Paul's life and that he must have approved their work, else he would not have praised them. :thumbs:

 

If people were "unmarried" then both men and women would have more opportunity to be engaged in full time ministry - not just men as some might have supposed.

(Hint: there are more women in churches today than men. Men tend to be more focused on church when they are in a married state -- women will go to church either single or married).

That point is "incidental" to the discussion I know -- just thought I would mention it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. Her husband is not listed as either judge or prophet in Israel.

2. The fact that a married woman (be she Joyce Meyer, or Kay Arthur or Ann Graham Lotts...) is submitted to her husband while also having a public leadership role is not in question.

When one reads the book of judges one finds that in all cases the judge (even rotten ones like Samson) were "reflective of the spiritual condition" being "in need of judges".

There is nothing at all said in the Bible "I will appoint men judges over you if you are as bad as this -- and if you get worse then all the judges will be women".

In fact the "worst" period in Israel's history was the time of KING Manasseh according to the Bible.

Isaiah lived many centuries AFTER the time of David and Solomon all of whom came AFTER the times of the judges. Isaiah is not referring to "Israel before the times of the kings" rather Isaiah "may" have been referring to the fact that in several cases QUEENS were ruling Israel - but as with the case with "CHILDREN as their oppressors" this never happened literally it is simply a symbol.

Me too -

In Numbers 12 Miriam complains about Moses saying that SHE TOO was a prophet -- God does not deny this -- was "Israel sooooo bad at the time of Moses that Miriam was their prophet???".

Samuel and Deborah are listed as both being prophets AND judges -- who else was mentioned as BOTH a prophet AND a judge during the time of the judges?

If the argument is that a woman soldier is in same way saying a negative thing about men soldiers -- might be true.

In the case of the Judges 4 story the woman in question is NOT a prophet OR a judge, takes NO leadership role ANd actually says very little by way of "teaching" is it your argument that not only should women not actually say anything they should also not DO anything brave or courageous or else men are shamed?

Just out of curiousity - in the model you are suggesting - are "you" allowed to post your point of view here if it differs with me?:laugh:

In Christ,

Bob

 

BR:
"If people were "unmarried" then both men and women would have more opportunity to be engaged in full time ministry - not just men as some might have supposed."

GE
You're right! (and I was wrong.) Paul somewhere says that men who are married cannot serve God as they should, for they must "please" their wives. I'm a lucky one; my wife serves and pleases me!

 

And she listens to me when I preach to her.