Are Women Totally Forbidden to Teach?

Are women totally forbidden to teach when men are in the audience? Can someone please give me some Bible verses that will help clear this up?

What about women teaching at a Bible College?

Jordan

"Let your women" 1Ti 2:11-12
"under obedience" Eph 5:22; Tit 2:5; 1Pe 3:1
"saith the law" Ge 3:16; Nu 30:3-12; Es 1:20

Not my words. Where does teaching start for all people? Children learn from their parents more than they learn from school. That is what gives a child his or her whole being even the way they learn in school. Who is the most important teacher to all children? Parents, especially mothers. Teach? Wow, a woman has the greatest influence over her children and can really give the foundation of every child the greatest perspective of God and bring God the greatest glory of all Children. A woman teach? YOU bet.

Men and Fathers should be the greatest spiritual influence of life to their wives so they can be the greatest influence over their children. Father should teach also, that is a child's greatest gift from parents. Should women teach?
Should men teach? What do you think?

In Christ: Phillip

HomeFree89 wrote:
Are women totally forbidden to teach when men are in the audience? Can someone please give me some Bible verses that will help clear this up?

What about women teaching at a Bible College?

Jordan

Well, Jordan,

Two days, and no one want's to pick this one up, for fear of seeming legalistic.

The only person who said it was forbidden for women to speak was Paul, and it was in the confines of a synagogue, or church.

[color=993300]1 Corinthians 14:34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1st Timothy 2:7. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
[/color]

I am woman, I am an ordained Minister, and an evangelist.

I teach all the time.

But because of what Paul said in the Bible, which I believe is the God breathed Word, I will not Pastor a church, which is a position of authority over men, until every man around me over 30 years of age that believes in Jesus is dead or in prison, and then only if called by God to do so. But then, God has not called me to Pastor a church. When and if He does, I'll consider it carefully, to make sure I'm hearing the right voice, take a look at the circumstances, and agonize a lot, because I don't want to be a Pastor.

Your teachers are I hope learned, and accurate in their teaching. The fact that they happen to be female is irrelevant to me, and obviously to some Bible Colleges.

Of course, it might not be to them, so you are wise to be careful not to offend your sisters overmuch, or even your brothers.

On the other hand, some denominations, Methodist, and Quakers, for instance, think no shame to be taught and pastored by a women.

It all depends, you see on whether people believe that the Bible is Inerrant or Inspired. And whether they think Jewish Law is more important that Jesus's Grace.

But if a woman is called by God to Pastor, best see if God prospers her before tarring and feathering her.

Or you might find yourself fighting God.

I believe that Gamaliel said approximately the same thing to the Sanhedrin at the time our Savior was under scrutiny.

They handed Jesus over to the Romans to be killed.

If they had been smart, they would have waited to see what God wanted. And in regard to Jesus, God allowed them to make a huge mistake, since
He had already promised the Messiah would come in two different guises at two different times.

They didn't read prophecy very well, but even if they had, they might have allowed it all to happen anyway. Or God would have blinded them, regardless, because Jesus had to die, or we couldn't be saved.

They knew the law well, and you must take into consideration that Paul was in line for one of their seats, and knew the law very well also, so well that Jesus had to make a personal appearance to Paul to convince the stubborn guy to think it over.

There were also cultural differences, and most women of the time knew almost nothing except what they had heard and been taught by their parents, or by their husbands, or by Paul.

Jesus is deemed to be less legalistic. But again, Paul is the one talking.

[color=993300]Galatians 3:15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. 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.
29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.[/color]

God's allowed to change His mind...and always has been. And Paul contradicted himself.

Nice, touchy subject, isn't it?

Blessings,

Forrest

THE HEART OF WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP - AN EXAMPLE FROM THE PROPHETESS / JUDGE DEBORAH

Lets take a look at what happened with the women in the Early Church. Something caused Paul to write some very stern words to them:
1 Corinthians 14:34 (KJV) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 (KJV) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
There is one common factor with both these groups of women and that is the issue of being under authority. The Corinthian women were lacking in submission by speaking out of turn in church meetings. Paul told them that if they had questions, or opinions, it would be better for them to discuss these matters with their husbands at home instead of disturbing the meetings.
The Ephesian women were also becoming outspoken, and were obviously pursuing a dominant stance by positioning themselves over the men. Both groups of women were asked to be silent in the church gatherings because their disruption was creating havoc. These two groups of women failed to understand the importance of being under authority.
Anti-authority behaviour destroys the unity of the church. It also grieves the Holy Spirit and hinders the anointing.
Sadly, over the years, in some cases, there has been a misuse of authority where men have disregarded the important contribution of women in the home, church and society, and assumed a dominant stance and expected them to come under their harsh control. This is a far cry from God’s ideal. Then there is the other extreme where women have sought to free themselves from all restraints, and have risen up against every male authority figure. This also, is a far cry from God’s ideal. As a victim, and now survivor of spiritual abuse I am acutely aware of the fine line between Godly leadership and authoritarian control. Submission to authority, in either marriage or in a church setting ought never be forced upon a woman. Submission to authority is a voluntary response from the heart of a person who chooses to be accountable to those in leadership.
One can not deny that right throughout the Scriptures the majority of leadership positions were delegated to males. This is God’s divine order and we as women, need to embrace it as such and seek to work in with the males God has placed over us. But having said that, it is important we understand the Biblical definition of authority and leadership, as explained in the left hand column. In rare occasions such as in Deborah's case, where a woman is supreme, she, like Deborah needs to establish an accountability with Godly males in authority such as Laipdoth and Barak.
God’s ideal is for women and men to complement each other. In Luke chapter 8 it states that women accompanied Jesus in His ministry trips. I personally believe He included them because He understood how complementary females are to males.
When God chose Deborah, He also appointed a man to work together with her. His name was Barak, leader of the army. Deborah and Barak ministered harmoniously together. Barak’s name means: ‘to draw the sword like a flash of lightening.’ I see Barak as being a type of pastor. One of the pastor’s responsibilities is to speak forth the sword of the Spirit (which is the Word of God as explained in Ephesians Chapter 6).
Deborah worked on the strategy so the leader’s advancement was successful. Anointed handmaidens help their church leaders, not hinder them. Ideally male and female co-workers in the church work together on the same team, not opposing each other. In Deborah’s song, one line says ‘My heart is toward the governors.’ Leaders need women with the anointing who desire to bless their leaders, not rise up against them.
Because of Deborah’s right attitude, the male leader of the army acknowledged the anointing of God on her life. When Barak was discussing the call to arms with Deborah, he said that he would not go unless she accompanied him. I have heard it said that it was because he was timid. But that was not his character. On the day of the victory, he alone fearlessly led an entire army of ten thousand men. That doesn’t sound like a wimp to me.
I believe Barak asked Deborah go with him because he recognized and acknowledged the anointing of God upon her life. He understood how complementary she was to him as they carried out God’s purposes together.
Oh that the leaders in Christendom today would put aside their preconceived idea and recognize the anointing of God in women’s lives. Oh that the women would maintain the right heart-attitude towards their male leaders when stepping into areas of ministry under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

Bravo Delwynmm!

I've heard these very things taught before, but didn't have the scholarship to speak as well of them.

And your point on authority in Barak & Deborah is brilliant.

Gentlemen...Please, pay attention.

Blessings,

Forrest

I knew in my heart of hearts this would happen...the guys won't say anything!

I guess, Jordan, they're leaving it up to us 'ladies' to teach you.

Well, the Word is the Word. Dividing it rightly is 'equal opportunity' difficult!

All blessings to you,

Forrest

Let's have another look at Genesis.

Genesis 3v16, 'To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception, in pain you shall bring forth chilren, your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you'.

When did that change?

Maybe you have never noticed, but most of the world rulers are men.

Most pastors and evangelists are men.

It is as God says.

As for those women who are 'pastors', what are their husbands? The 'pastor's husband' doesn't have quite the right sound to it for some reason.

The fact is, the church has been poisoned with secular humanism, and it shows.

1 Tim 2v11-15 tells us the role of women. It talks about childbearing, so, with my limited knowledge, that does not seem to apply to the men.

As it is, the men probably have not answered this yet because they are busy at work, while we have time to idle on the computer.

Let us all do ourselves a favour, don't argue with God, because we can only lose.

Obey Him.

That's it.

God bless.

Forrest wrote:

I knew in my heart of hearts this would happen...the guys won't say anything!

Mind if I offer an explanation for this? This topic has been a subject of great discussion/debate on this forum in the past and can get very controversial. So, I would guess those who have been on this forum for a while are in no mood to get involved again. Like me.

My observation and opinion,

ginnyrose

ginnyrose,

You are right. It is a needless discussion.

No more involvement for me, unless absolutely necessary.

And even then...

God bless.

Here's a thought...

In Acts there is mentioned the man who had daughters who prophesied. In Acts it says that all who were in the upper room went out and preached (including women).

As it has been brought up before, Paul says that women are forbidden to speak in church... and then he says why... becuase:
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The woman is the "weaker" vessel, as it says elswhere in God's Word, and so therefor, they are not given the position of a teacher, for they, as eve, are more easily lead astray... don't get me wrong, they CAN teach and prophesy... but UNDER the authority of a man, as an oversight.

I have great respect for Sisters in teh Lord, so don't get me wrong here. But, God has an order...

As for there being neither male nor female in God's Kingdom (Gal. 3:28) it seems to me that in the context of the rest of the passage, he is saying that there is not respect of persons with God, with reguards to salvation. To say that there is now no distinction between the sexes now that we are born of God could open the door to... !!!

Just a few thoughts. Don't have time to write more, or i would, but my lunch break is over!! :(

In Christ's love,
-nathan

Why don't you ask Catherine Booth, Kathryn Kuhlman, Maria Woodworth Etter, Aimee Semple McPherson, Marilyn Hickey, Joyce Meyers, & Juanita Bynum (just to name a few) that question. ;-)

Krispy Kritter/Grannie Annie

It seems rather unfair to lump your individual experiences with female moderators with ALL women. I've had a few bad experiences with men, but that doesn't mean all men are bad. Is there a way to look past stereotypes and look at the individuals behind the scenario?

There have been/are some awesome women teachers/preachers who have impacted countless peoples lives for eternity. If Pastor Cho (of S. Korea) uses women as pastors (on purpose by the way, not as an afterthought because no men were available) then there must be good reason for women to be leaders, yes, leaders in the church today.

God Bless

Jim

I'm sure these women of God have thoroughly wrestled through this issue both in Scripture and with the male leadership in their lives. Trust me, I've heard/read alot of them and the struggle it was for them to actually obey God in this matter of ministering/teaching God's Word-and they all do with much authority. You can't deny the men and women who have been impacted by their ministries. That speaks for itself.

Everyone has their biases-if you don't prefer Joyce Meyer, oh well, many, many people do and are quite ministered to, especially those who have been abused.

Peace in Christ

Hi there

Krispy, you're right I misread what you posted about your experience about the woman moderator.

As far as entering into a nitpicky doctrinal debate about women as leaders/teachers in the church-the debate has gone on for thousands of years.

I could quote all kinds of supporting Scriptures to you, and break down the Greek..but the real issue, to me, is what the original question was, and what is practiced in the church today.

I have listed many, legitimate ministries today, and what they practice. Fruit speaks for itself;lives being transformed by the Word and power of God-of which you can dispute all you want to. You can't undo someone being saved by the gospel, which happened to be preached by a woman.

I choose to not engage in a Bible face off. You have your view, and I have mine (which is, by the Way, based on Scripture, and church history, including today). :-)

There are many excellent resources on this subject-if you look for them. But don't just come to this issue with one presuppostion; be open to all of the truth in Scripture, and history, not just a few Scriptures.

thanx for the interaction on this.

When I hear a woman teaching, I don't look for an excuse that she is a woman and should not teach me. I look for the Christ that is in her and if He comes forth I hear and learn, just like a man teaching. If Christ is not there I don't listen and won't receive anything from woman or man. It is an amazing thing that God has done, when He wants to use one of His Children and that child is in His presence and The Holy Spirit is doing the teaching, it does not matter who the person is, because it is Christ coming forth to bring truth to His brothers and sisters from God the Father by the Holy Spirit. Lets get out of the Law and into Christ. He is our Head and no matter who is hearing or speaking He is the One that we are to listen to or speak through and from. Why do people try to put God in a box and make Him the Law giver which He is, but the Law never saved or loves anyone. The Christ in you does and the Christ in me will listen to the Christ in you, who ever you are. The Law did not die for anyone and the Law did not love us first so we could love God the Father as He needs to be loved, just as we need to be loved and God the Father and Christ and the Holy Spirit know how to love because without Them there is no Love. I love you ladies and I love you men, by the Christ that is in me. I will hear the Christ in you, How do we know we are hearing Christ? First, listen then ask the Father and He will not give you a rock when bread is needed.

In Christ: Phillip

This one again ... it is not a large sigh, a mild one perhaps... For some relatively new to these surroundings as it was mentioned there has been a number of discussions on this, the new search engine would bring forth quite a bit of resources and prior discussion.

I must come along side Krispy here not specifically for his sake but because he is indeed trying to force the issue of scripture. To say "I look for ..." or that the end justifies the means is not being true to the effort that we ought to be dealing with this. I too am not interested in getting into a log drawn out rehashing of previously covered territory but I am concerned that this is something of an aberration that excuses opinion in it's place.

Maybe all that I am attempting here is to take note that the vast majority that have been here for some time are interested in one thing and that is to be faithful to the scriptures.

My understanding of this whole issue is 'simply' one of order, that which has been established by the Lord.

On another note, both Krispy and myself sat under a great deal of WOF teaching and I will go out on a limb and state that not all of it was a loss, but that is neither here nor there and does not help matters that truth can be gleaned from those who are teaching and preaching in situations they ought not to be and producing doctrines that are contrary to scripture, and that would be putting it very, very, mildly.

I've heard many in the last 30 years or so say that Paul is not worth listening to on many issues. Some "believers" even call Paul names and say he's also lacking in faith and also that he was a legalist or just the opposite and worse.

That's what I've read on Christian Forums from folks who have one grudge or another against whatever Pauline Epistle or doctrine in them that they disparage.

Annie you have to stay off those things ... ;-)

It's difficult to pun there as this is one of the most incredible and gut wenching things I have come across as well. We have not a peep from the apostles and they basically just got out of the way and let Paul do the bulk-work of what constitutes the New Testament. He layed out his life in toil and gut's and heart anguish ... it is just amazing the pride and ignorance, arrogance ... I must stop, it just breaks my heart.

Who is the head of a woman in the flesh?
Who is the head of a woman in the Spirit?
Even the Head of a Man is Christ and the Head of the woman is man. Does that not make the head of all Christ? Christ would not be a man, if woman had not birthed Him by God's Seed. Unless God made a man to have offspring in themselves.
Which He, God, chose not to do. A woman is a weaker vessel physically, but not spiritually. Christ is the power of the Spiritual. Is the power of Christ any different spiritually in a man or woman? We are all baptized into the same Body by One Spirit.

Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Is a woman in her heart circumcised. What?!!

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his

Romans 8:10-11 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

If the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in you, you are His and who is the Head? I think headship goes out the door when it comes to being in Christ. The woman or man is no longer under any headship except Christ. If a man exercises the Headship of Christ to the woman, who is her head the man or Christ? If a woman under the headship of Christ exercises the headship of Christ who the headship she is under? It is Christ, that is why there is no male or female in Christ, no bond or free, no Jew or Gentile. Christ's headship in a woman is not going to lord it over the man and the same goes for the man over the woman.

Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Ladies, your praise is of God, not man.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of

"any man" does not mean just man but also it means woman or whosoever.

Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Gal 5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit

That the Spirit of Christ in us will fulfill the perfect work that was intended before the foundation of the world, be it man or woman, perfect in Christ.

Ephesians 1:3-23 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Does this sound like we must keep woman from teaching when He is the fulness that fulfills all in all.

In Christ, In Christ, In Christ, He is the head over all that all might be presented perfect in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. Again: "every man;" all mankind.

That includes the Ladies also. No subordinate here except to Christ. Amen.

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together

1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Giving honour unto the wife. It was an important advance made in society when the Christian religion gave such a direction as this, for everywhere among the heathen, and under all false systems of religion, woman has been regarded as worthy of little honour or respect. She has been considered as a slave, or as a mere instrument to gratify the passions of man. It is one of the elementary doctrines of Christianity, however, that woman is to be treated with respect; and one of the first and most marked effects of religion on society is to elevate the wife to a condition in which she will be worthy of esteem. The particular reasons for the honour which husbands are directed to show to their wives, here specified, are two: she is to be treated with special kindness as being more feeble than man, and as having a claim therefore to delicate attention; and she is to be honoured as the equal heir of the grace of life.

The weaker vessel only means the "Wife contributing to the usefulness of the Husband".
In Christ they can teach man much. Not lord it over the husband because they have more honor.

Teach Man, A Christ Woman, absolutely.

In Christ: Phillip

Obviously this issue can be controversial in the Body of Christ. Yes, Scripture is always the final authority for any practice in the church.

It's always a matter of interpretation. To imply that the many women of God I have already mentioned were/are in direct disobedience to Scripture is absurd. Is Ruth Graham Lotz (Billy Graham's daughter) disobedient to Scripture? She teaches/preaches at conferences all over this country, calling people back to Jesus in repentance and humility.

Rhonda Hughey, from IHOP in Kansas City has similar conferences all over this nation. Her ministry is called Fusion Ministries-and she, along with other male teachers confront and challenge the church today (as does this site) to return to holiness and repentance and prayer, and frankly is having results of a genuine move of the Holy Spirit all over this nation. Is her ministry in rebellion, and un Scriptural?

The entire issue, speaking as a woman of God myself, and called into ministry, is over the phrase, shall not teach or have authority "over a man". These women I've mentioned are under the authority of a man. They are flowing in their gifts/callings-and are under the authority of male leadership.

And the men they are under have the wisdom and fear of God enough in them to release these women to minister to a lost and hurting church and world. The men are not threatened by these women, nor are they ignorant of Scripture.

Deborah, Priscilla (mentioned first in Scripture) and Aquila, who taught, yes, taught Apollos. The apostle Junias, Phoebe, the deacon, yes, the leader in the church, whom Paul commended. Need I go on?

All these Biblical women were under male authority and were released to operate in their callings by the wise men around them, whom they were under.

How dare we hinder the Lord from reaching this sin sick world, because the person happens to be a woman. And what a loss to the body of Christ for depriving us of all the gifts/callings locked up in the female population today because of this issue.

Many of the disputable Scriptures completely have a cultural context. Paul is not speaking of all women needing to remain silent in the church, he is speaking of a specific situation where the women were speaking out loud, and out of turn during worship services. But elsewhere in Scripture, there were women who prophecied "out loud" during worship services.

The issue is one of authority. Women do have authority, as did Eve who shared it with Adam. The original charge to have dominion over the earth was to both of them , not only to Adam. Her position of authority was, yes, under the headship of Adam, but she was not excluded from the same charge.

It's the same thing today. She has authority, and also a responsiblity to share in the great commission and to operate in the fullness of her giftings/callings.

Most women shy away from this whole thing and sit locked up afraid to move or say anything for fear of men who take Scriptures about this way too literally.

Why not rather BE the men that will be the authorities over some genuinely called women and see how God will grow his kingdom through them.

I really do honestly appreciate this web site. I love and need the messages brought forth here by the men and the women who's sermons you offer to grow and challenge us.

Thank you-I know this was long.

Simply as the scripture states when it's obviously not in any simple symbolic way. I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to have autority over the man.
Let's look in, and see that ye take not this light for darcknesse, what does I cor 10:34 K.J state? Hmm, say auctoritie
First we have to defend the Grahams and Meyers and say that they seem to preach on love and meddle it with wordlyisms, and to the table of devills full of newspaper idols.
God's table full of herbs and meats dedicat to the Lord, on Baal's table, thinges that make proud stomackes and their excess food, wine and their offering herb to images.
1 Cor 8:4 ¶ To speak of meat dedicat unto idols, we are sure that there is none idol in the world: and that there is none other god but one.
5 And though there be that are called goddes, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be goddes many and lords many)
6 but unto us is there one god, which is the father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Iesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Suche topics as a woman's subjeccion to CHrist and her housbande can really cause a man to miss the marcke and cause him to make frettings over yvell doers. SO Christ Iesus doesnot stay on the cross, yet we bear it dayly.
Hebrews 7:26 Such an high priest it becommeth us to have, which is wholy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher then heaven.
27 Which needeth not daily (as yonder high priests) to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s sins. For that did he at once for all, when he offered up himself:
28 For the law maketh men priests, which have infirmity: but the word of the oath that came since the law, maketh the son priest, which is perfect for evermore.

Once you open your eyes deception and boldness don't go together

Tarry Merritt

Hello sister,

The entire issue, speaking as a woman of God myself, and called into ministry, is over the phrase, shall not teach or have authority "over a man".

Mathew Henry on this verse;

[i]2:8-15 Under the gospel, prayer is not to be confined to any one particular house of prayer, but men must pray every where. We must pray in our closets, pray in our families, pray at our meals, pray when we are on journeys, and pray in the solemn assemblies, whether more public or private. We must pray in charity; without wrath, or malice, or anger at any person. We must pray in faith, without doubting, and without disputing. Women who profess the Christian religion, must be modest in apparel, not affecting gaudiness, gaiety, or costliness. Good works are the best ornament; these are, in the sight of God, of great price. Modesty and neatness are more to be consulted in garments than elegance and fashion. And it would be well if the professors of serious godliness were wholly free from vanity in dress. They should spend more time and money in relieving the sick and distressed, than in decorating themselves and their children. To do this in a manner unsuitable to their rank in life, and their profession of godliness, is sinful. These are not trifles, but Divine commands. The best ornaments for professors of godliness, are good works. According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion. Also, women must not think themselves excused from learning what is necessary to salvation, though they must not usurp authority. As woman was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression. But there is a word of comfort; that those who continue in sobriety, shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing, by the Messiah, who was born of a woman. And the especial sorrow to which the female sex is subject, should cause men to exercise their authority with much gentleness, tenderness, and affection.[/i]

Context is critical to what Paul was speaking and collectively it is understood to be in the Church. I am sorry but you are making a pragmatism against the ideal, which is namely one of [i]order[/i]. The problem is when we want to make this into that which is constituted as oneupmanship either way, the man under his given order or 'orders' and the woman the same.

To imply that the many women of God I have already mentioned were/are in direct disobedience to Scripture is absurd. Is Ruth Graham Lotz (Billy Graham's daughter) disobedient to Scripture? She teaches/preaches at conferences all over this country, calling people back to Jesus in repentance and humility.

I think you are reasoning from the wrong lines here sister, there is a great deal spoken to this as was mentioned earlier, will dig up the link later, I would hate for you to get the wrong idea here. There is a great appreciation and understanding of womans roles in Gods kingdom and many sisters here who have tremendous insight and understanding that share with us.

Thank you for your responses.

I think it's ironic Mike that you quoted Matthew Henry to validate your point. Why did you quote someone from church history, a commentator, when you claim the Bible is the only valid source for this issue.

And why do you offer women's sermons on this site who TEACH when there's men in the audience? Maybe you should warn the men who visit here not to read their messages. Isn't that called hypocrisy? If you're going to say the things you do, then do the right thing and remove the sermons and teachings from the women on this site because according to you, this is rebellion against Scripture.

Get over the Joyce Meyer thing!!! I have cited many other women of God that have had and do have valid public ministries. Pick another one to rip apart.

It's also ironic that Elizbeth Elliot has written many books that have blessed the body of Christ, and I'm sure many MEN have read her material and learned a thing or two. I guess that makes her disobedient as well, or at least contradicting herself.

Krispy, as far as using church history as a source, yes, it is a more than valid point, if the fruit and doctrine of the people are good examples and don't contradict Scripture. And the ones cited don't. Catherine Booth? What do you have to say against her? I'm sure her husband, William under whose authority she was, would have a thing or two to say to you.

As I said before, we can go on and on with this issue. There are many who think as I do and many who think as you do. If you don't like a woman in the pulpit, then don't listen. It's just sad to me, the lack of understanding and humility over this issue.

Peace in Christ

I think it's ironic Mike that you quoted Matthew Henry to validate your point. Why did you quote someone from church history, a commentator, when you claim the Bible is the only valid source for this issue.

Dear sister you are jumping to great conclusions here and I do not believe you have read much of what was stated without a lot of presumption on your part.

[i]In the church[/i]. This is the primary issue.

No where was there a 'ripping apart' of anyone here. No where is there any statements being made that would follow your line of reasoning. Elizabeth Elliot and Catherine Booth did not lead or pastor a [i]church[/i]. This is the whole point that is trying to be made.

There is a very good reason that many woman are presented here and that many dear sisters as I mentioned elsewhere are also present in this fellowship. But you will not get very far taking an all encompassing tactic and then jumping to conclusions. Are you really interested in finding what the original intention was that sparks so much of this 'controversy'? It is an honest question sister.

In fact if you were to look back through church history, from the apostles onward, what indeed do you find ... [i]in the church[/i]? Is scripture 'progressive' or 'fixed'?

Please give this prior thread a look sister, there is a great deal to be taken into account that may well surprise you in what is thought about this whole matter.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1751&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Can women preach/teach in church?[/url]

It might take some time to work through it but I just would ask that you might get a better overview by doing so.

(Psst, I think they have the women mp3's on here for "us women" and might not admit to listening to any of those wonderful sermons anyway!! LOL)

And you would be mistaken sister.

Ummm...

i'm not the moderator, so i don't say this paragraph commandingly, but i think that wisdom would dictate that we either shut this forum down, or get back to the origional question... It seems to me there are some feelings being hurt, sides being taken, and we are not, for the most part, being "full of grace" as our Lord Jesus was.

Intense4him, i hope that you can recieve this, but please don't poke at fun with the brothers here, because you are in essance calling us hell bound hypocrites by what you said... and for Christ's sake, don't take sides... please carefully consider your heart.

Wallbuilder, please look at your motives also for posting. Please don't slander, and please, be respectful in your heart to the brothers and sisters here who dissagree with you (for whome Christ died also). i don't know your heart, so that's why i'm asking you to examine it, and not passing judgement on you.

To everyone else; please, let's be gracious to eachother.

Phillipians 2:1-16

God bless you all. Put Jesus first and all else will follow.

Please hear my heart in this. Thank you.

In Christ's love,
-nathan

How can you call me wallpaper and then say I am not reading your posts? I am reading your posts, and responding to the points you are bringing up, not out of emotion, but out of truth and the validity of both Scripture and church history.

To infer that many of the women I have mentioned are in rebellion is deplorable to me.

Back to the original issue:

Deborah was a prophetess, who, "judged" the nation of Israel. The word Judge means "to govern, or rule". Check it out for yourself in your Hebrew lexicons. Judges 4:4.

Phoebe was a "deacon"-the same greek word diakonos used in I Timothy 3:10 speaking of those who desired to be deacons in the church. The definition for "deacon" in this passage in Romans 16:1 is, "a deacon, one who by virtue of the office assigned to him/her by the church, cares for the poor & has charge of & distributes money". This is a position of leadership/servanthood under the headship of male authority.

Aquila and Priscilla were Paul's "fellow workers" in Acts 16:3-who had a church that met in their house. The church during the N.T. met in people's homes. So this would be a church setting, not a tiny Bible study.

Aquila and Priscilla "explained or expounded" the Scriptures more clearly to Apollos, a man "learned in Scripture" who only knew John's baptism. Acts 18:26-this would be teaching.

The point I am trying to make is that there is room in interpretation for a woman to, yes, have a position of leadership, and yes,even teach, when it's done under male authority.

that's all, I'm done. I didn't want to have to even go there. But for the sake of truth I had to.

God bless y'all

physically women are on average smaller and more lightly built than men. At puberty, the higher testosterone levels actually make a boy's muscles stronger, weight for weight, than a girl's Emotionally women also tend to be more vulnerable in some ways. Men tend to be more assertive and decisive Many men are therefore better fitted for leadership roles than most women.

(that is no excuse for being domineering!).

I suspect that this gender issue would quickly cease to be a problem if persecution broke out. When the status, income, and social standing of one acclaimed to be a spiritual leader is removed, then only those who are truly called by God, and willing to be put in prison and die will persevere - being enabled by God. … Tested by fire…. That will reveal the truth of one’s calling.

In the meantime, I support an aspect of Krispy’s points. (don’t fall over, Krispy) The fact that thousands of women may have been spiritual leaders cannot be a criteria for me or any women. We are each accountable to God, not statistics.

I have a question: What do we do with the fact that the Bible was written essentially for men, and through the eyes of men and their issues. Ex: Proverbs uses “you” all the way through. He's talking to men, and one CAN’T gender-neutralize a lot of those examples – ex about avoiding the wayward woman. Proverbs 31 switches to the third person – not speaking TO the woman but ABOUT the woman – still speaking to men. You find that even in the epistles. If the Bible was read and studied by men back then, how could women every be in a position to teach – apart from promoting opinions and heresies?

Just think how radical it would have been for Mary to be allowed to sit at the feet of Jesus. That would have been forbidden in that day.

How does that relate to this topic.... I'm not sure? Maybe someone else sees some light.

One thing that cannot be denied is that God is placing men in the forfront of theological formation, establishing doctine, hermeneutical principles, making commentaries, confronting false teachings, etc. Just look at the names of the authors. Praise God for these godly men!

Diane

"""The article's not about "woman" - but I was afraid the men here wouldn't grant me the authority to post anything secular, unless I attributed some weakness of woman. Har"""

This does not sound like: 1Pe 3:4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price

1 Peter 3:2-9 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

given to hospitality, apt to teach;

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,

In Christ: Phillip

God's allowed to change His mind...and always has been. And Paul contradicted himself.

I haven't read close to everything on here since I haven't been on for three days, but I had to say this:

Since God was speaking through Paul there couldn't have been contradictions. That would mean there's error in God's Word, which can't happen.

Jordan

Re male leadership, there's also the fact of a man usually having a deeper voice, that carries more of the "sound" of authority. We women have to (in the natural) work harder at earning respect because we are often less physically imposing. The tragedy is that when God does give a woman authority - of any kind - people are less likely to listen. Unless she forfeits femininity, and perhaps the grace of God in her life, by being too bossy and aggressive, in an attempt to be heard at all.

Interesting comments, Jeanette, I’ve come to the point where I see no need to try to “lower my voice”, prove myself, to “win” anyone’s “recognition”, and certainly not to forfeit femininity! Whatever God may want to give me is his business and his responsibility. And I suspect that most of it is through the quiet whispers, and the quiet BEHAVIOR (May God help me!) Actually, it’s interesting how just by practising the quiet manner, people notice (and comment). I’ve had some interesting opportunities to share the Lord with agnostics, atheists, etc. If I was too assertive, male-ish, they would have raised their walls sky-high.

And now about the “women” scriptures:

One concern I have with taking these scriptures superficially is that, (besides making scripture contradict itself) we fail to grasp the abiding, universal principle that applies to ALL cultures at ALL times. For example: Most of us realize that we are not “ignoring” Jesus’ teaching on foot washing just because we don’t practise it. We immediately know that it is the PRINCIPLE that we must follow. We must be willing to be a servant to others – whatever that may mean in our culture. (People don’t need their feet washed where most of us live.)

Just imagine if we applied the same hermeneutics to the “women’s passages”: What if the church forbade ALL who were not grounded in the word, who were spiritually immature, or not sitting under good teaching and training (ex five-fold roles). Think how many of our elders would suddenly no longer be elders in our churches – because they did not qualify! Let me tell you, I know more than a few churches that that would have no leadership at all.

Eldership in too many churches has degenerated to business management, not spiritual discipleship. These leaders barely even read their bibles, let alone do some serious studying in preparation for teaching others. That cannot be “okay” just because they are the “proper gender”!! Yet, no one bats an eyelash about these men (though they sure would squawk if women took their positions) The people end up following after all kinds of heresies because their leaders fail to ground them in truth.

Applying that principle would also keep feminists from raising their ugly heads, and demanding “equal opportunities”.

Diane

I really wanted to beg off of this whole thing, there is something that had put my spirit in a tailspin of ... despondency.

Re male leadership, there's also the fact of a man usually having a deeper voice, that carries more of the "sound" of authority. We women have to (in the natural) work harder at earning respect because we are often less physically imposing. The tragedy is that when God does give a woman authority - of any kind - people are less likely to listen. Unless she forfeits femininity, and perhaps the grace of God in her life, by being too bossy and aggressive, in an attempt to be heard at all.

Oh no, no, no sister. It is not that at all ... To be honest I was hoping that some of the more ... quiet sisters here would speak to all of this, what I mean is;

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1Pe 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

[b]1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.[/b]

1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

That verse, the standout that lifts everything up with it ... [i]In the sight of God[/i] and for the true brother in the Lord it is most precious. To just divert for a minor moment. Even many years ago when my best friend and I were in more sober moments, partiers that we were .. confused, tossed and turned, half-searching, half-rebels, still, for all the lust and the hormones ... we both desired a true Godly woman, that was of this making. Why is that? What is this great appeal that cuts through even the facades that men in general must play along with to keep our 'image up', I am regressing here in many ways to pre- or true-conversion days. We did not seek them because of a perceived weakness but because of their [i]quiet strength[/i]. How much more so is it noticed even now. It was the very evidence that drew me to my wife, her peaceful demeanor, her love of the Lord ... yes, [i]without a word[/i], not no words .. it's underneath, it permeates, it cuts through on it's own. These verses are so vitally important ...

The many arguments that have come about over this issue, that one solitary word sums it up all so well ... in fact I had written quite the rant earlier and shelved it ... and it had it's launching point in it, that word;

[i]assertiveness[/i]

Diane, thank you sister, you touched the point here;

And I suspect that most of it is through the quiet whispers, and the quiet BEHAVIOR (May God help me!) Actually, it’s interesting how just by practising the quiet manner, people notice (and comment). I’ve had some interesting opportunities to share the Lord with agnostics, atheists, etc. If I was too assertive, male-ish, they would have raised their walls sky-high.

Yes they comment, more so they desire this, oh dear sisters if you only knew! We can be so warped ... it's not a gender specific thing at all. We have become so ... perplexed that we have to do a mile of explaining and ten more miles of clarifications before we can even get to the root of the matter. Paradox is such a peculiar thing ... to the world it is often, [i]foolishness[/i] indeed, but for us, the scriptures are riddled with them and to those of us who are willing to just ... divest ourselves of them, they are tremendous, beautiful, wonderful truths, they are [i]seemingly[/i] 'contradictory but we know, we know deep down. Not repaying evil for evil, suffering 'unjustly' with patience and love and forgiveness. Taking up our cross, 'dying to ourselves', doing the opposite of what the flesh would dictate ... all these things. And this one, this subject, so manipulated and contrived and compromised and over\\under explained. It is not so many of the very things thought to bear upon it. It is opposite, paradox! It breaks my heart that a woman would think that she is dis-empowered and must somehow raise herself up to ... what? The way is down for all of us! Deny yourself, lose yourself for Jesus sake and ...

Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake [i]shall find it[/i].

This usurping, this oneupmanship, this [i]assertiveness[/i]. To answer the very question posted originally is to answer no. The verse in great question and put to controversy is; '[i]in it's place[/i]' is it not? In this setting, this surrounding ... I think the woman that have gripped the truth of Peter above know this very well and their quiet acceptance and understanding speaks powerfully and truthfully all on it's own.

Feel I must reluctantly add the provisions of 'what it does not mean'. It does not mean ... most of the semi -tirades associated with it. It does not mean [i]never[/i], it does not mean woman are never to teach, never to 'prohecie' ... Oh, I cannot go on. Perhaps I should post the rant after all.

I truly pray that some of the sisters here that cannot see the truth and beauty and power that is latent within this would honesty and earnestly hear this broken heart, we need more of the woman that Peter speaks to here, truly the Church first and foremost, but the world as well. Lord, give us woman of this high precious stature.

crsschk wrote:
I really wanted to beg off of this whole thing, there is something that had put my spirit in a tailspin of ... despondency.

....Feel I must reluctantly add the provisions of 'what it does not mean'. It does not mean ... most of the semi -tirades associated with it. It does not mean [i]never[/i], it does not mean woman are never to teach, never to 'prohecie' ... Oh, I cannot go on. Perhaps I should post the rant after all.

Dear Mike,

Don't take this discussion so much to heart.

This issue is and always will be regarding the lines of authority in the church. And in the Bible, the line of authority is clear. Jesus to Husband to Wife. Or Jesus to Bishop/Pastor to the next designee, male or female.

It is merely a wise Bishop or Pastor that does not waste the talents of his congregation, for it is a rare Christian, male or female, that does not hear first of Jesus from his mother or grandmother. And many women have been gifted and called by the Holy Spirit.

Which reminds me of Timothy, who learned of Jesus from his mother and grandmother, much to Paul's great pleasure, to find so rare a disciple trained up to him, and Jesus, by those devout and pious ladies.

Blessings,

Forrest

Don't take this discussion so much to heart.

I can do no other.

This issue is and always will be regarding the lines of authority in the church. And in the Bible, the line of authority is clear. Jesus to Husband to Wife.

Precisely.

Or Jesus to Bishop/Pastor to the next designee, male or female.

ah ... not sure exactly what this could mean.

It is merely a wise Bishop or Pastor that does not waste the talents of his congregation, for it is a rare Christian, male or female, that does not hear first of Jesus from his mother or grandmother. And many women have been gifted and called by the Holy Spirit.

There is no denying any of this but seems it can still be a wedge, again an assertion ... 'Don't forget', I am not trying to draw an inference but it just seems a lot of time there has to be a holding down or holding back the full force of the spiritual aspect of order.

I was attempting to draw on the greatness and inherent power that is contained in what Peter stated. In one sense you are proving precisely what I meant by having to go on and on about 'what it does not mean' ...

Hi Jeannette,

We women have to (in the natural) work harder at earning respect because we are often less physically imposing. The tragedy is that when God does give a woman authority - of any kind - people are less likely to listen.

Perhaps I misundersood how you meant to apply it ... the matter of authority is yet another 'item' here that I think gets convoluted right into the same mix that stems from the grand verse of controversy ...

What I would like to say briefly is similar to much of the same ... complaint; If there is a Godly 'authority' at all it will be of the same type that is contained in the verses in Peter... There is an assertiveness in seeking authority on it's own merits that is problematic enough for both genders ... A very good series of messages on this that I will have to post later.

No to worry sister, we may be saying much of the same thing but applying it differently.

crsschk wrote:
This one again ... it is not a large sigh, a mild one perhaps... For some relatively new to these surroundings as it was mentioned there has been a number of discussions on this, the new search engine would bring forth quite a bit of resources and prior discussion.

Sorry, Mike!

I was really wanting to know about Bible Colleges. It just doesn't seem right for women to be getting young men ready for the ministry.

Jordan

But I was also thinking of times when some men - even in the Church - take no notice of a woman who really does have something from the Lord, using "she's only a woman" as an excuse.

Jordan, no worries brother was originally just reacting to ... I guess the possibilities and probably shouldn't have in that fashion.

The messages regarding spiritual authority mentioned earlier;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=37]Stephen Kaung[/url]

Two messgaes, about mid way down. "A Look At Authority", really recommend these...

Rightly Dividing the Word
27 Judaism and Christianity

This is a pretty long exegetical piece on the what that is surrounding the Quote: "Women keep silent in the Churches." It might help in understanding the problem in the Church of Corinth. The disruption was because of the unruly use of tongues and prophesy by the women there.

Why was the "Gift of Tongues" given on the "Day of Pentecost?" Because it was a "Feast Day," and there were gathered in Jerusalem Jews from all parts of the world. Ac 2:8-11. Some probably had remained over from the Passover, and during those 50 days many startling and wonderful things had occurred at Jerusalem. Jesus had been crucified and buried, and it was reported that He had risen from the dead, and had appeared at different times to His Disciples, and that they were expecting some special "Gift" from Heaven. Opinion was divided as to the truthfulness of all these tales. Tomorrow, the Feast of Pentecost being over, these Jews were going to depart for their distant homes, and would carry with them the strange tales they had heard. It was necessary that they should know exactly what all these things meant. The report that the disciples of Jesus had been given the power to "Speak with Tongues" spread like "Wild-fire," and soon the street in front of the house where they were stopping was filled with a crowd of Jews of all nationalities anxious to hear in their own tongue what had happened. Notice that no Tongue was an UNKNOWN Tongue. They each heard in their OWN TONGUE, the Tongue of the nation in which they had been born.

The "Sign" of the "Gift of Tongues" was very appropriate. Every Jew would understand it. Like "Healing" it was a "Kingdom Sign." It furnished Peter with a "Text" for his sermon. His text was-- "This is THAT." This is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel, that it shall come to pass in the "Last Days," saith God, "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh," etc. Joe 2:28-32. While Peter said "This is that," he did not say this is the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel, for what happened that day was only a partial fulfilment, for there were no wonders in the heavens and on the earth, such as blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke, with the sun turned into darkness, and the moon into blood. The complete fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel awaits the future. The prophecy of Joel has nothing to do with the Church. It relates to Israel. It belongs to the "Day of the Lord," which is the Millennium. Joe 1:1-3:21. A careful reading of the context shows that the "Gift of Tongues" is not to be given until after the Jews have been gathered back to their own land and been converted, then the Lord will pour out His Spirit upon them and they shall prophesy, etc. Again the prophecy shall not be fulfilled until after the "Latter Rain" has been restored to Palestine, which "Latter Rain" is not Spiritual but literal, as the context shows. Palestine today is suffering for water. It is a curse that came upon it because the Children of Israel turned aside to worship other gods. De 11:13-17. The "Former" and "Latter Rain" are to be restored (Joe 2:23-27), and the land of Palestine shall again blossom as the rose, and be covered with vineyards and olive groves. Isa 35:1-2.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was but a "foretaste" of what is to happen after the Lord Jesus Christ comes back, and was used by Peter as an argument for the Jews to repent nationally at that time that their sins might be blotted out, that the "Times of Refreshing," the fulfilment of the Prophecy of Joel, might come. Ac 3:19-21. From this we see that the "Gift of Tongues" is a "Kingdom Sign," that it has nothing to do with the Church, or this Age, and when the need for it in that "Transitional Period" passed it ceased, and is not to be restored until Christ comes to set up His Kingdom.

While it is true, as has been already stated, that there is a bestowal of the Holy Spirit separate and following the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, which is given to impart power, there is no command or exhortation in any of the Epistles that we should pray for another Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, with its accompanying gift of "Speaking with Tongues." We might as well look for another Calvary as for another Pentecost in this Age.

The second account of "Speaking with Tongues" is recorded in Ac 10:44-48. This occurred in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea, and was to convince Peter and the Jews that accompanied him, that the Gentiles also were included in the Church. Ac 11:15-18.

The third account is found in Ac 19:1-7. When Paul visited Ephesus he found some disciples of John the Baptist, who probably had been converted by the preaching of Apollos, but who were ignorant of the work of the Holy Spirit, whom, when they had been properly instructed and baptized Paul laid his hands on, and the Holy Spirit came on them and they "spake with Tongues" and prophesied. This "Sign" was to convince these 12 disciples that there was such a thing as the Holy Spirit. See Ac 19:2. When Peter and John went to the Samaritans and laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit, it was not evidenced by "Speaking with Tongues." Ac 8:14-17. So we see that the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" may be received without the testimony of "Speaking with Tongues."

It was not the "Sign" of "Speaking with Tongues" that converted the Jews on the Day of Pentecost, it was Peter's sermon, and Peter did not speak with "Tongues," but in the ordinary language of the people, and his sermon was interpreted by the Disciples who received the "Gift of Tongues," to the foreign Jews who were present. This led to the conversion of many, and fitted them to carry the Gospel to their home land. They doubtless received the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit," for Peter told them that if they repented and were baptized (with water) they would receive the "Gift" of the Holy Spirit. Ac 2:38. But we are not told that with the "Gift" of the Holy Spirit they received the power to "Speak with Tongues." Those who spoke with "Tongues" on the Day of Pentecost only needed the "Gift" for that special occasion, and we are nowhere told that they exercised it afterward.

The only Epistle where the "Gift of Tongues" is mentioned is the First Epistle to the Corinthians the twelfth to the fourteenth chapters inclusive, and there it is looked upon with disfavor. The "Gifts of the Spirit" are enumerated in 1Co 12:4-11. They are nine in number, and the "Gift of Tongues" is next to the last, showing that it is of minor importance. It must not be forgotten, that, while there are "Nine Gifts" of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow that these "Gifts" are dispensed regularly and in equal proportions, and that each individual may possess all of them, for we are told in verse 11, that the Holy Spirit divides to every man severally as He will, and the inference is that some "Gifts" are limited to certain periods or stages of the world's history, as for instance the "Gift of Tongues" to the Apostolic Period, and in the future to Israel in the commencement of the Millennial Age.

Again we must not forget the condition of the Church at Corinth to whom the Epistle to the Corinthians was written. The walk of the members was carnal, they tolerated all kinds of sinful practices, and were filled with sectarianism and vainglory. 1Co 3:1-4; 5:1-2. It is no wonder then that some of them for the purpose of display sought the "Gift of Tongues." For this Paul reproved them, "women keep silent in the Churches" and said-- "Let all things be done decently and in order," for God is not the author of CONFUSION. 1Co 14:33,40. It also appears from 1Co 14:34-35, that the women of the Church were prominent in the "Speaking with Tongues Movement," and for this cause Paul commanded that they keep "silent" in the churches, and if they wanted to know anything to ask at home of their husbands.

From this it would appear that the "Speaking with Tongues" in the early church was for a "Sign," that it was not for edification, nor was it the practice of the Apostles. The Apostles emphasized the "Filling" of the Spirit, but not the "Baptism," and nowhere in their Epistles do they affirm that "Speaking with Tongues" is an evidence that one has been Baptized with the Holy Spirit, and is necessary for such evidence. Paul says-- "Wherefore `Tongues' are for a `SIGN,' not to them that believe, but to them that BELIEVE NOT." 1Co 14:22. Therefore the "Believer" is not to seek the "Gift of Tongues" for any witness to himself. It is also strongly hinted that "Speaking with Tongues" is peculiarly open to SPURIOUS IMITATION. Satan is always on the watch to take advantage of any opportunity to "ape" the "Gifts" of the Holy Spirit, and when those who claim to have the "Gift" of "Speaking with Tongues" speak in an inarticulate and unintelligible manner, and behave unseemly, it is an evidence of the work of the Devil, for the Holy Spirit is always dignified, quiet, and edifying in His manifestations.

As has been already said the Church is the BODY OF CHRIST. Now a body is made up of different members and organs, each of which has its own peculiar function, and limitation. If one is diseased or improperly functions the whole body suffers. Even the muscles and joints have their functions, and the Apostle says that the Church, as the "Body of Christ," is to be-- "FITLY JOINED TOGETHER and compacted by that which every JOINT supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of EVERY PART." Eph 4:11-16. That is, every individual member of the Church, even though he be but an insignificant JOINT, must function properly, or there will be schism. Any undue emphasizing, or dislocation of any Scriptural truth, only tends to disturbance in the "Body of Christ," the Church.

As a negative argument it is well to note the OMISSIONS of the "Gift of Tongues" in the Apostolic Church. There is no record that the 3000 converts of the Day of Pentecost, or the 5000 converts of a short time afterward, nor the converts at Samaria who received the Baptism of the Spirit by the laying on of hands (Ac 8:14-17), received the "Gift of Tongues." With the exception of the Church at Corinth, where the "Gift" was of no practical value, the Churches do not appear to have possessed the "Gift." The Apostles did not consider it of sufficient importance to mention it in their Epistles to the Churches, and the fact that it has never been a doctrine of the Church, is evidence that it does not belong to the Church, but was simply a Judaistic SIGN.

It is not proper to use the word "Pentecostal" in connection with the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Pentecost was a Jewish Feast, and was associated with the Jewish calendar, and has no meaning outside of that fact. The "Baptism" of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was not a "Pentecostal Blessing," it had nothing to do with the day. The Feast Day was utilized simply because, as has been stated, it was a suitable occasion to reach those Jews of all lands who had come up to the Feast and were soon to depart for their homes.

We must not forget that other "Gifts," beside those mentioned, that were bestowed upon the Church in that "Transition Period," passed away with the Period. The Apostles were a "Gift" to the Church (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11-12), but they passed away. The New Testament Prophet was a "Gift," but as soon as the Canon of Scripture was closed his office ceased. This was anticipated by Paul when he said-- "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail (cease)." 1Co 13:8. During that "Transition Period" the dead were raised to life. Are they still raised? Prison doors miraculously opened and prisoners were set free. Handkerchiefs, and aprons and "Shadow Casting" (Ac 5:15) were used as instruments of healing-- have they any such power today? It is not a question of what God can do, but what He has been doing in the Church for the past nineteen centuries. There is just as strong faith in the Church today as in Apostolic times. To demand and depend on physical signs is not of faith. The distinguishing difference between "Judaism" and "Christianity" is, that "Judaism" is a "Ceremonial Religion," largely dependent upon "Signs," while "Christianity" is a LIFE. Those "Transition Days" were days of "GRACE" to the Jews, and when they failed to profit by them, they were scattered over the earth and "Judaism" passed into a state of ECLIPSE.

When this occurs in the Church the impossibility of the Church growing with the interruption of unruly tongues (languages) that no one understood and prophecy in an unruly manner would reek havoc in the Church. Thus the reason for the statement: "Women keep silent in the Churches. The statement is surrounded with the proper use of these gifts.

In Christ: Phillip

crsschk wrote:

Don't take this discussion so much to heart.

I can do no other.

This issue is and always will be regarding the lines of authority in the church. And in the Bible, the line of authority is clear. Jesus to Husband to Wife.

Precisely.

Or Jesus to Bishop/Pastor to the next designee, male or female.

ah ... not sure exactly what this could mean.

It is merely a wise Bishop or Pastor that does not waste the talents of his congregation, for it is a rare Christian, male or female, that does not hear first of Jesus from his mother or grandmother. And many women have been gifted and called by the Holy Spirit.

There is no denying any of this but seems it can still be a wedge, again an assertion ... 'Don't forget', I am not trying to draw an inference but it just seems a lot of time there has to be a holding down or holding back the full force of the spiritual aspect of order.

I was attempting to draw on the greatness and inherent power that is contained in what Peter stated. In one sense you are proving precisely what I meant by having to go on and on about 'what it does not mean' ...

That's a pity, since I believe in the direct authority of the Bishop or Pastor to direct the teaching of his congregation, and using whatever tools he needs or has, male or female, to further his teaching of the congregation in church.

Delegation of teaching, even to a woman, does not dilute the authority of the person (Bishop or Pastor) who gives it, nor their responsibility to see it taught as given.

Blessings,

Forrest

Philip, I read your article. Thankyou for posting it! While, I question a few points, certainly this one stands out as being replete with truth:

It was not the "Sign" of "Speaking with Tongues" that converted the Jews on the Day of Pentecost, it was Peter's sermon,

We could say the same thing about many of our important values – including gender order. Those things, as important as they are in our lives, IN THEMSELVES, are not the path to salvation. They do not make us right before God, or even make us mature believers. History aught to prove that:
Many sects/denominations have constructed an admirable gender “order”, but in closer examination, we can see infighting, bitterness, lack of maturity, etc. As I’ve asked elsewhere, “Why do we Christians keep on trying to stand on a wobbly leg?

Certainly, for we women, there is no virtue in absolving ourselves from spiritual responsibilities by hiding behind what we view as proper order. God has convinced me in no uncertain terms of this sin. Even “proper order” can become an idolatrous way of avoiding the cross: WE will try to live the “right” life in our own strength. We will try to create something that works. (we hope).

Proper order – God’s way, WILL occur when members are rightly aligned under their Head: Christ. Apart from that, they are merely attempting to create a form of godliness, using scripture to support their attempts. But it won’t work! It produces all kinds of strife, competition for recognition, status, equality, dominance, etc. It all merely builds walls between people.

"Women keep silent in the Churches. The statement is surrounded with the proper use of these gifts.

In other words, immaturity is the real problem. And THAT aught to be a paramount concern today!

I find it interesting that 1 Corinthians 13 occurs in the middle of the issues surrounding the gifts in the church. We typically extract it and use it at weddings. But in doing so, we have cut this “part” away from the body – that is, its context. It is meant to be the solution for the controversies over gifts. If we did that we wouldn’t get sidetracked by the never-resolving issue of gender roles, and we would value the greater importance of godly character. (the theme of 1 Corinthians.)

"Love never fails."

Diane

That's a pity, since I believe in the direct authority of the Bishop or Pastor to direct the teaching of his congregation, and using whatever tools he needs or has, male or female, to further his teaching of the congregation in church.

Delegation of teaching, even to a woman, does not dilute the authority of the person (Bishop or Pastor) who gives it, nor their responsibility to see it taught as given.

Is this pragmatism? [i][b]In the Church[/b][/i] or "In Church" to use your words. I am unsure what the pity is here. What do you mean by delegation? In the place of a pastor? Before a congregation, however that congregation assembles? Is this not the whole dispute that has Paul so pinned up against a wall with accusations and insinuations? Please don't get me wrong here it is difficult to ascertain much of this problem because it keeps criss-crossing other elements that are already understood of woman who taught and gave prophecy and so forth ... I am attempting to nail this thing down to straight fundamental understanding of what Paul meant in the context he spoke of it, is it a practical matter only or is it a spiritual matter of order simultaneously? I may well be in error myself but something that continues to puzzle me is just why a proper understanding of spiritual submission is so ... fought against.

It just seems quite 'natural' spiritually speaking but even ... inherently, that there are roles defined that don't really need all this extra explanation. We do not or perhaps it is will not place our opinion to the test of what scripture demands and rather than do so gladly it is often reluctantly.

Submission and authority are so closely interwoven ... whose [i]authority[/i] is it that we are speaking of anyway? What is it we seek? Authority for ourselves, power? Or that the Lord be truly glorified? It really does come done to this ... I could but pray the messages from Stephen Kaung would be given a prayerful hearing, it sheds so much light on this amongst many, many other tremendous matters.

I am not at odds with you sister, but something is just breaking upon me collectively over all these matters of roles of ourselves as [i]Brethren[/i], 'in the church', in our marriages, in all things ... Do we not desire to get at the very roots of these things?

...[i]to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.[/i]

Submission and authority are so closely interwoven ... whose authority is it that we are speaking of anyway?

It occurred to me that there is a multidimensional aspect to authority. Certainly, for some here their church authority figures may not know Genesis from Revelation. In the sense of spiritual authority, they have none, simply by their ignorance. Yet they ARE authorities, and there is a place for ORDER in all organizational structure. We certainly can, and must submit to them, without giving them our souls.

Then there is the authority of truth within the wider body of the church past and present. In other words there are those who HAVE authority by virtue of their scholarship, walk with God, etc. And THOSE are also ones to whom we must submit. As I pointed out before, these authorities seem to be men. I am comforted and blessed by this Godly provision. And I willingly submit - not merely because of their gender, but because of what they teach. After all, there are countless men out there who are promoting heresies too.

I realize that whatever I speak, whether from the kitchen table, the cyberspace forum, the music stand, or the pulpit must come under the scrutiny of God-given authorities. I submit, simply by letting my own preunderstanding, cultural biases, personal preferences be judged in light of their teachings. That is a hard and painful process, and includes surrender of my mind to God. And I have a long way to go.

There may be a place for “whatever the Word says to ME”, but there is a danger that that makes ME an authority in something that I do not have. (my apologies to those in women’s bible studies who practise that)

And now, I will practise what I preach and include a quote from “Introduction to Biblical Interpretation” by Dr. William Klein, Dr. Craig Blomberg, and Dr. Robert Hubert. This is one OF FOUR criteria to be used in evaluating Biblical interpretations:

“It works in the crucible of Christian experience – producing godliness, and other valid Christian qualities, and advancing God’s kingdom.”

In other words, if our particular interpretation of the Word fails to do that, it may just be incorrect. I think that this statement can be applied to this thread.

Diane

Love" proves itself on here.

Diane

UniqueWebRev wrote:

That's a pity, since I believe in the direct authority of the Bishop or Pastor to direct the teaching of his congregation, and use whatever tools he needs or has, male or female, to further his teaching of the congregation in church.

Delegation of teaching, even to a woman, does not dilute the authority of the person (Bishop or Pastor) who gives it, nor their responsibility to see it taught as given.

Crsschk wrote:

Is this pragmatism? [i][b]In the Church[/b][/i] or "In Church" to use your words.

It may indeed be pragmatism, inasmuch as any truly sold out to Christ believer can be pragmatic. But one can be quite spiritual in one's contact with God, and still be practical in life.

And I was speaking about the transfer of assigned authority within a church congregation inside the Church Corporate.

I am unsure what the pity is here.

I considered it a pity that you were being distressed by simply the discussion of the matter again, since as a moderator, you have seen this argument come and go many times before.

What do you mean by delegation? In the place of a pastor? Before a congregation, however that congregation assembles?

I consider the Pastor of a church to be in headship over the congregation in the same way that a husband is over a wife, and that Christ is over the church corporate.

We cannot exist sperately from one another, and indeed are blood and bone of each other in Christ.

But whether it is within a marriage, or a church, there is an intimacy, a dependence and an interdependence on one another. I do not think that Paul ever disdained women as workers in the congregation, but merely was keeping the spiritual authority where God had placed it...in the hands of the man chosen to be in authority.

To me, if the Pastor of a church has work to be delegated, even if it is teaching, it can be delegated to whom he chooses, male or female. They become merely the carrier of the message, and not the author of it. And the responsibility for the accuracy of the message lies on the Pastor, and his control of his messengers.

It is the same within a marriage, where the husband decides spiritual goals and lessons, but then must go to work, and delegates the teaching of those goals and lessons to the wife for the benefit of their children.

Women are not incapable of spiritual gifts, and are the spiritual equal of men. They are merely not to be in headship or authority over men within the church, or within a Christian mariage. And a woman that is passing on the message of her Pastor to other men is merely a voice he is using, even as a man uses the hands and voice of his wife to teach their children.

Is this not the whole dispute that has Paul so pinned up against a wall with accusations and insinuations? Please don't get me wrong here it is difficult to ascertain much of this problem because it keeps criss-crossing other elements that are already understood of woman who taught and gave prophecy and so forth ... I am attempting to nail this thing down to straight fundamental understanding of what Paul meant in the context he spoke of it, is it a practical matter only or is it a spiritual matter of order simultaneously?

Mike, I believe it is both, but not in the same ways.

As a practical matter, God uses men and women interchangably to get His work done, and considers them all to be equal in the spirit, but as a practical matter, must place the responsibility and therefore the authority on one of the two in a marraige, or within a church setting.

But I do see men as being a bit paranoid about women getting one step out of bounds, lest their masculine pride be hurt. And since a woman is ordered not to love her husband, but to respect him, I think God took that into consideration of the relationship order between them. He needs respect; she needs love.

God purposely made men and women to complement each other, not to be in competition with each other, and He made woman for man that 'he' should not be alone. Oddly, nothing is said about woman's needs or desires until after the fall.

I rather think that men have overdone the contempt of women over the eons, and indeed, have a fear of women taking their place from them. And since women often have to be everything to themselves, and their children, when their men are killed in war, or their husbands desert them, I do think that men's fear of women just taking over, and doing without them is somewhat understandable. And I think that the Devil uses it to torment us all.

Yet even though Adam had the greater sin in the fall from grace, and God placed the greater burden on man, men have been placing the majority of the blame on Eve ever since, guarding themselves from women as though Eve was the devil, instead of the serpent that deceived Eve.

God gave man the authority over his wife and family, but women have been beaten down for eons by the culture of men, as if somehow women really are, somehow inferior to men, instead of just different.

I think of women in the Middle East and Asia that are disdained as a rule, and wonder that Western thought ever allowed women to progress, except for the nasty habit men have of getting themselves into wars, and consequently having to turn over a good deal of authority to women while they were off fighting.

I am quite glad to be female, and wouldn't take on any of the burden of a man if I didn't have to. But God made me capable of independence, and called me to do certain work for Him. So I do it, and simply don't worry about it. God is more than capable of calling me to order.

I may well be in error myself but something that continues to puzzle me is just why a proper understanding of spiritual submission is so ... fought against.

Never having been in a church setting for long, I have never experienced it, just as I have never been overly aware of gender problems in the workplace, or at home. They exist, but I have always found myself able to work with them. To me, all these things are partnerships, and some people are better at some things than others.

The spiritual authority of the male over the female in their marriage carries with it responsibility. If the man picks up the responsibility, I have no problem with him having the authority.

But when a man doesn't recognise his responsibility, I, and most women, will ignore that man's authority out of sheer self defense, for someone has to get the work done, the children fed and clothed, and so forth. Any problems you are having in discerning a natural line of spiritual and temporal authority is due to other men not shouldering their burdens, and to the Evil One's interference between the sexes to provoke these difficulties.

It just seems quite 'natural' spiritually speaking but even ... inherently, that there are roles defined that don't really need all this extra explanation. We do not or perhaps it is will not place our opinion to the test of what scripture demands and rather than do so gladly it is often reluctantly.

Submission and authority are so closely interwoven ... whose [i]authority[/i] is it that we are speaking of anyway? What is it we seek? Authority for ourselves, power? Or that the Lord be truly glorified? It really does come done to this ... I could but pray the messages from Stephen Kaung would be given a prayerful hearing, it sheds so much light on this amongst many, many other tremendous matters.

I am not at odds with you sister, but something is just breaking upon me collectively over all these matters of roles of ourselves as [i]Brethren[/i], 'in the church', in our marriages, in all things ... Do we not desire to get at the very roots of these things?

Those of us who put Christ first will still have our flesh to contend with, and the devil's interferance in our dealings with one another.

...[i]to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.[/i]

Spiritually, we all, men and women, must be conformed to Christ's image. The problem lies when we, as humans, get in the way of each other as spiritual beings. And all of us have to deal with that, and each other, until we are gloriefied...part of the penalty of the fall, all this handwringing over whether men are being too harsh, or women too froward. It is our natural condition.

Take a deep breath, and let it go. It is Christ that is important, and His work. If we can get that done, then we are doing well, no matter whether practical concessions are made on the basis of getting that work done.

Blessings,

Forrest

Take a deep breath, and let it go.

What might this say to the very point that I am at such pains to get across ...

I considered it a pity that you were being distressed by simply the discussion of the matter again, since as a moderator, you have seen this argument come and go many times before.

But I do see men as being a bit paranoid about women getting one step out of bounds, lest their masculine pride be hurt.

And since a woman is ordered not to love her husband, but to respect him, I think God took that into consideration of the relationship order between them. He needs respect; she needs love.

?
Sister, that is practically absurd, and really taking 'order' to ridiculous extremes...

Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

The spiritual authority of the male over the female in their marriage carries with it responsibility. If the man picks up the responsibility, I have no problem with him having the authority.

But when a man doesn't recognise his responsibility, I, and most women, will ignore that man's authority out of sheer self defense, for someone has to get the work done, the children fed and clothed, and so forth. Any problems you are having in discerning a natural line of spiritual and temporal authority is due to other men not shouldering their burdens, and to the Evil One's interference between the sexes to provoke these difficulties.

In other words you will ignore and usurp that area that is not yours to do to 'get the job done', that is pragmatism in full definition. What you fail to recognize here that the provoking is of your own making and are confusing natural authority with spiritual authority. I am having no delusions of misunderstanding the differences, the vast point is in the muddling of the two. And you would have me giving up and letting go?

What I am distressed over is that we are not getting it here at all it seems. Again, I plead, please give Stephen Kaung a hearing it is so vitally important to understanding all this for [i]both[/i] genders.

Might I start all over again with this. I could not care [i]less[/i], I repeat [i]less[/i] about some paranoia, some deep seated worry about women doing the things that are so patently obvious when the weak willed male does not take care of the normal, functional responsibilities that are inherent as providing for his family, as to ... Ah, this generation pains me to no end that it has to be reintroduced to that which used to come so normally, naturally ... "common sense" it seems has been rooted out of the gene pool, so much for evolution.

What I am wondering here out loud is if the very opposite may not be true; That some of the women are getting all up in arms about a paranoia that doesn't exist as it is being forwarded here. Surely there are men who have this all wrong and are pumped up with pride, who wish to 'hold down' or have this fear spoken of, but for the true man of God inwardly that instinct must die like all the other wrong spirited attributes. Inferiority, contempt, might there be the reverse here an insinuation of such by attempting to get to the root of the matter?

Some more painful and practically guaranteed misunderstandings I will forward ...

If my recollection is correct you have stated that you are an ordained minister? I would challenge that scripturally, has that ever occurred to you, is there any true basis for this? Of what need are you of such a title? Let me say also that there is even more of a problem with this in the obvious settings of men and men 'making' or proclaiming other men an ordination without any spiritual footing. They are ordained alright, I believe I can go online and get a certificate of such in a matter of minutes, but it has no worth, no value than the ink printed on the paper spiritually speaking. This is very much along the lines that Philologos spoke of in the 'joining of the two into one flesh' by the 'magic" of priest-craft or whoever is preforming the ritual. I could baptize a person in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and have it mean absolutely nothing if that person does not convert by dying to his or herself and give place to new birth. No different in saying the sinners prayer as a coaching or 'leading in' such. The sinner prays from his core, the convert has a conversion and thus a testimony or it is all playing with words.

There is something of an insinuation here and let me say I hate it, hate presuming, guessing, but with the possible repercussions of being misunderstood and fearing no correction ... That somehow we have found it "O.K." to skirt things in scripture because we find that those who are not doing or keeping their responsibilities are failing so we may interject our own personal experience and our own personal exceptions. We therefore create a new category and aberration that cannot be held up scripturally. If we bring the challenge to the new thing the knee-jerk reaction is against the one bringing the question. In this instance, what does that say about the one reacting? Is there something to protect? Is there a fear of losing something? The larger question in this is what need is there for titles to be set forth anyway ... This well could get away from me if I don't clarify it better. The one large note I continue to see throughout scripture is that these titles are functional and are [i]given[/i] not touted. We have those today presenting themselves "as" 'prophets', 'apostles', so on and so forth. It almost always has the air of "look at me!" "Don't you recognize that I am ______?" well, frankly no. If one must draw there own attention to these things I am afraid they have already lost their credibility by having to force the issue. Fruit is recognizable without a display. Do take that with the generalization I would have it.

Yes, Paul made mention of his apostleship but in a different way as one born out of season and with a whole litany of clarifying and self denunciating pieces of context. How different we can be in this realm, justifying and pragmatising, defending ... Ah, what does that say about the ownership and ruling of the flesh?

Somehow I have to get this back to the elusive point but now feel compelled to reset the calibration by balancing again the "what is not meant", so it is in this hour. You sisters here are more loved than you know and I would be a liar and convicted if I just let go to keep some fallacious peace that would not cause any trouble by a perception of offendedness. Indeed it is true as a moderator here that it is of a primary purpose to keep the warring factions at bay, keep the wrong spirit out and conduct towards civility, all those things. Love compels me to get at bottom here. I would set all the 'other' things aside to just try and concentrate on the notion and the meaning of what this is all about. The constant interjection of and mudding the waters by way of the [i]'not sayings'[/i] is a distraction and only adds confusion to the matter.

I should have been more forceful perhaps rather than framing things in a question style about spiritual authority that I believe is inherent at the root of the matter when it comes to this business of women as 'preachers' and what is to be understood as teachers, as 'deaconess' as 'prophetess'.

Trying to regain some footing here went all the way back to the beginning of this ...

I am woman, I am an ordained Minister, and an evangelist.

I teach all the time.

But because of what Paul said in the Bible, which I believe is the God breathed Word, I will not Pastor a church, which is a position of authority over men, until every man around me over 30 years of age that believes in Jesus is dead or in prison, and then only if called by God to do so. But then, God has not called me to Pastor a church. When and if He does, I'll consider it carefully, to make sure I'm hearing the right voice, take a look at the circumstances, and agonize a lot, because I don't want to be a Pastor.

By your own admission you would 'consider it' and I am stating that you cannot consider it because it is an impossibility by the very scriptures you used just before hand and had emboldened.

1st Timothy 2:7. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

That is a complete contradiction and pragmatism, you would usurp that which is not given and will not be given depending on your 'circumstances'.

[i]"until every man around me over 30 years of age that believes in Jesus is dead or in prison"[/i]

What a terrible insinuation, I do not know how I missed this the first go around. Is there something here that would make the scriptures pliable to the younger generation, to practical circumstance, to borrowing from the scriptures to make a case? Or am I completley missing something here?

You are not a minister and I am not a minister either. You cannot be any more a minister than I a prophetess. It is useless and contradictory, actually detrimental in either case to state so. You can and do [i]minister[/i] as a function and very well at that with all you have experienced and shared so forthrightly here. You cannot however make a concession that is against scripture. A man may have given you this title but I cannot see where you could scripturaly underpin it. This is not hand-wringing "over whether men are being too harsh, or women too froward" it is only so by making it so. Pray to God you hear my heart in this and moreover the appeal to Gods own word.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Usurp! Usurp! Usurp! This is the issue. It is out of order and this penchant to continue to evade the very spiritual principle ... There are emphatically [i][b]No[/b][/i] woman preachers, pastors, teachers in that [u]context[/u]. Any woman leading a congregation is in error and in contradiction, there are no concessions given, attributed or made practical by failure, by circumstance or by any other means other than that which we would attempt to force into the matter and that is usurping itself.

There is something instinctive that tells that a woman by self proclaimed effort, having placed herself into [u][i]position[/i][/u] is already out of order. Woman are not to be leading congregations period. It is understood spiritually ... Dear God why is it not? Even in 'teaching' roles it is often suspect and difficult to ascertain or to explain correctly. I would rather pray someone else could further and better extrapolate it all, someone who has a better knowledge of the scriptures in this regard.

None of this has anything to do with how I feel or how I think. When I first read Paul's admonishen and reading it many times since then there has been not the minutest sense of difference of what he meant. It appears to be almost an absurd stating of the obvious, especially as he went on to show forth the pecking order of Gods design, these things are understood again 'instinctively' ... I cry out again, why the usurping?

When I framed the question earlier about "whose authority" I meant it as Gods Authority, as a recognition of spiritual authority, no different than the soldiers coming back to report that [i]"No man ever spoke like This Man"[/i]. It was and is understood intuitively even by those who have not the Spirit of the living God as a manifestation within them. If they are able to perceive it, what pray tell is our trouble? ...

Another example. One that I have come to understand was more of a similar statement of facts than a set of instructions;

[i]Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.[/i] 1Co 14:29-33

Oh, this is rich with importance, even to take this up from it's context could not help notice the very context before it about "silence" and order in dealing with tounges, in fact taking note of something fitting here as well;

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

How is it then ... brethren? Would he be attributing to something here to an emphasis on [i]every one of you [u]has[/u][/i] ______ as if to say that this would be very unlikely, [i] every one[/i] ...

A slight diversion there.

What I wanted to point out was of the spiritual authority in the verses above. The linchpin to all of this is in;

[i]the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets[/i]

That is [i]THE[/i] authority. If there are two or three true, real prophets or even those 'prophesying' it is not the [b]position[/b], it is not the 'title', it is not those which determine, but the Spirit, the Holy Spirit. If there is the recognition of His Presence speaking [i]through[/i] one or the other the 'natural' notice would be ... intuitive and the giving place easy, simple, reactive. Silence would come instantaneously it would seem, but perhaps Paul had the same problems that we have in getting ourselves to come to terms with spiritual truth.

What is it that compels us, supposedly dead to all these attributes of self proclamation, to turn tail and wish to be 'known as' whatever it may be? There is a seeking after things supposedly not for our benefit but for others that is denied by the effort, to secure a title of when it is generally placed by those who make a recognition of it. This is what I just do not understand, this is that which grieves me in relation to women seeking after roles not of their proscription and of males touting their so called 'Prophetic' office. Not to mention that by and large this very office has much more to do with teaching or bringing forth revelation that is already fixed in exegesis, explanation, teaching over the crystal ball futuristic comings of economic collapse, catastrophe that it is now have been made to be understood. It is given, not taken. It is generally and I am thinking here of one of the many points well expressed by Mr. Kaung that those who have spiritual authority never sought it, have a real difficult and hard time even accepting it because they know enough of their stature to be completely bankrupt of trusting in and of themselves, have the principle of understanding that cries out like Jeremiah; "[i]Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child[/i]" or moses, "[i]And Moses said before the LORD, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?[/i]"

But in it's place we have the great usurping and an even greater boasting within the self seeking and self proclaiming, "I have something to say!"
"Listen to me!" it screams rather than the the trembling and reverential fear that would practically run from such a weighty responsibility.

It is this inverse of spiritual authority that causes such a distress, practically speaking it is stealing and stolen goods belong to the owner, they are instantly devalued when they are in turn presented or represented as ones own.

I pray that there would be a whole lot of proper taking of this within the very failure of poor communicating that is inherent here. I know I am not expressing or explaining this as well as I could wish to.

To look out broadly across the landscape of where we are today the great emphasis I believe is on the men who have compromised along with the worlds ways of doing things. To go about so much backpedaling from this standpoint, to de-construct that which has been built up as 'acceptable' primarily as the 'Church' is seemingly an effort in futility and one that will give place to hostility and a grand measure of misunderstanding as to [i]why[/i].

That we as a gender have failed in such great part as to not only the distinctiveness of roles as men, as fathers, husbands, leaders, pastors, teachers ... There is always a certain cringing in tossing around the word 'we' here as if it was all inclusive, it is similar to us having to apologize for the Holocaust or slavery or what have you. I understand the inrush of woman feeling compelled to have to pick up the slack or take matters into their own hands in conjunction with the failures of those men who will not fulfill their God given roles in whatever placement given them, beyond normal responsibilities. It is this that I carefully would forward that I think has weakened the church by the very means though to save it, that we now have women out of place in their roles teaching and pastoring beyond proper limits and men accepting all of this as proper, true and well ... pragmatic.

On the flip-side again and at long last the very Godly attributes that are so powerful for the placement and roles of women are subverted by all this. The sisters that contribute here by and large are of such great worth I could hardly speak to it all. I do not know how to express the certain almost mystical quality that cut's through in silent speaking, somehow it does, somehow the intuitiveness cut's through even in such a strange setting as this. Whatever the case there is something wrong at the very source and I find it difficult to just chuck off the felt responsibility of addressing it at that level. We just do not need all this excess baggage that has been now brought to bare as part and parcel of our current understanding. This level of humanism that goes undetected is not of the Lord but of the world.

Last of the very last. If it is not overtly obvious enough let me express this which I know to be true. The way of this mind works in a state of constant adjustment. It is the result of the very ... conditioning of absorbing so much profound truths contained here in this place. These old fashioned saints, these old fashioned paths are so contrary to our present state of understanding that I could swear that there is not only whatever the current count of abomination\\denominations there are at present but that we are talking about two different religions altogether. It is that much of a distinction. The effort here is so vitally important. The women that partake here and forgive me even to have to make this distinction it is only in application to all the above, we are of the One and Same Spirit and that you find the same grip of ... spiritual thirst and spiritual hunger fed by all this, hardly does it need to be spoken. Some of you have spoken with great heart and great [i]gut's[/i] on a variety of matters, would to God that the milestone be tied around my neck before causing the slightest stumbling by my own bumbling ways of expression, forgive me before hand and even while in the midst of all this. It is not exasperation that brought all this forth, but true concern and heartfelt earnestness to get to the very bottom of it all.

[i]For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is [u]not permitted[/u] unto them to speak; [u]but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law[/u]. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a [u]shame[/u] for women to speak in the church.

What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you [u]are the commandments of the Lord[/u]. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Let all things be done decently and in [b]order[/b].[/i] 1Co 14:33-40

And since a woman is ordered not to love her husband

I must say that there's been a strange wind blowing through SI lately, unorthodox ideas, wrong doctrines being put forth. It's rather disturbing. May the Lord set straight that which is crooked in our thinking, and give us a more perfect knowledge of Himself.

If anyone needs His intervention and wisdom here, it is I.

Brother Paul

What is spiritual authority?

Honestly, I'm not trying to test anyone... just wondering ... maybe we have different understandings of this. Did the Pharisees have spiritual authority? I think that they did, though it wasn't right. (but then, maybe they didn't, really) Would I submit to them if I lived in Jesus' day and was a Jewish woman. Of course I would! (order and love) - but I couldn't let them have control of my mind and soul (if I had surrendered that to Christ, of course). Surely God wouldn't be pleased with that!

Maybe there is a need to define "submission" ex: Is there the possibility of godly submission and ungodly submission?

I would think that our definition must transcend our own culture (remembering that very few in human history have had the "freedoms" we have - to do what we want - choose spouses, denominations, religous activities, carreers etc etc.)

Could some of you men respond to my last post (back a few) with comments about authority, and let me know if you think I'm getting blown away in the wind - based on what I wrote.

a strange wind

Diane

Some who didn't care as much for true-truth, would buy his tapes and change what he had said by erasing parts

Someone once said: The smaller the unit of scripture - the greater the risk of misinterpreting. :-(

Diane

Dear Jeannette,

How gracious, fair and very perceptional this is. You have proven one of the points I was almost at pains to express; that indeed you sisters are precious. Left off with some misgivings as to whether this all was too overbearing.

Wouldn't attribute it so much as to 'personal' as it takes something almost elusive to bring offendedness personally, but you addressed it accurately, that it is a deep spiritual reaction and that I have found is the most difficult to express accurately. At the same time there the things that I won't continue to dreg back up here, more than enough said to it. But they have been long brewing indeed and felt it time to address them more head on and I can't apologize for it, only wonder if it may have been better articulated. The unfinished part of all this and the stopping short of it was that it too often seems that we leave off these things without any ... conclusions and there is a compulsion to rectify that by not beating it to death as much as to not back away or just give up because of perceptions or difficulties.

I also recognize the inherent difficulties in expression here, my own being of a combination of addressing things in specific and simultaneously in general. It bob's and weaves back and forth, in and out, at once to a question, comment or statement and then furthering on to that which is more general. It can cause some misunderstanding and confusion and why there often has to be a bit of clarifying reply over reply. A lot of unfinished thought and thought being stirred up leaving with things to chew on a bit more.

Then there is just the loquacity of it all to begin with ... :-?

The matter of usurping in general gave me pause to far more of the eye plank matter. How it applies to the checks of the Spirit, that last measure of percentile that wont give sway to the Holy Spirit, the drift to the flesh ...

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

But please, don't let this prevent you from hearing our spirit too, that we are not seeking to usurp authority, even if some of what we say may seem like that. Or if there is still, unawares, something of carnal rebellion in our hearts, this is not our desire, and we are willing, and actively seek, for the Lord to deal with it.

What a beautiful statement, it sent chills through me. I would like to say I haven't but am glad you did say so, need to keep this more so in the front of my thoughts.

God bless you sister.

Where does submission to authority begin and end? I recognise and respect the local leaders but can't submit to

I don’t see anywhere in scripture any suggestion that at times we must NOT submit to someone! I suspect that (unconsciously) we use these words like the world would – in terms of a hierarchal chain – like you do what the one with more power than you tells you to – about following orders – as if our lives are lived military fashion.

I view Christ’s foot washing demonstration as his ultimate teaching model of submission: the servant position, servant leadership. Jesus even washed Judas’s feet! Is there ever a time when we shouldn’t “wash someone’s dirty feet” – ie submit?

I am wondering if we blur submission and authority in a way that makes them both hazy - and by doing so, we are misunderstanding Christ’s intentions for us - and that's how we create unnecessary disputes.

Now, re: authority – that’s another story. What is it?
What is spiritual authority? (Let's avoid pleonizing, or we'll have Sis GA on our case;-) )

EDIT: upon examination of hypotasso (submit) I see that it has a wider semantic range than I thought.
One explanation from the theological dictionary: "Wives are called to put aside their own agendas in submission to their husbands. The ideal, of course, is that this will be mutally voluntary."

The word "voluntary" seems to be an important aspect of submission: ex voluntarily submit to the Father, governing authorities.. etc

Diane

Who has set us free? Who is the Christian's covering? How do we go back into bondage?

Christ has set us free. No man can set anyone free or be their covering.

Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

So denying the covering of Christ brings us back into bondage, men and women.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.

2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Where is a Christians freedom?

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

A woman does not need to be under headship anymore. Her headship is Christ, so is the mans.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours

How is the husband the head of the wife? As Christ, not in himself but in Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

In This Love a woman only needs Christ as her head.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

A woman in Christ is presented to Christ Himself not having spot or wrinkle or blemish, so she is Holy and acceptable to God in Christ Jesus.

This is the mystery of Christ in you the Hope of Glory. Like a woman covering which is her hair and her glory so is Christ her covering and Glory.

Ephesians 5:30-33 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Christ is Mystery in every relation ship especially to Christ and the Body of Christ the Church where male and female are equal.

This is our perfection where only one headship is necessary.

Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

And you women.

In Christ: Phillip

A while later, I realised (I believe) that you have read into what Forrest wrote, a completely different meaning from what she intended. And by 'intended', I don't for a split-second mean to imply that she wrote anything other than an open-hearted exposition of her technical stance.

It is particularly her description of the state a community would have had to have reached, before she would take on a pastoral role to them, which seemed to stir you up. Honestly, I think she was describing a situation in which there were no men, not that she [i]wanted[/i] there to be no men [i][b]so[/b][/i] that she could [i]take over[/i]. I mean, I think she was trying to describe a last-chance-saloon type of scenario - not [i]wishing[/i] it on anyone.

Also, I think you were ab-reacting to the idea of a woman 'priest', with God-given responsibility for the souls of others as an elder would be, as if this is a set-up which God never endorses. Again, I'm just thinking out loud here, that maybe the problem in your mind is more with the making of a claim to a [i]title[/i] of 'pastor'. And I suspect that all of us sisters would be in agreement there.

Thought I was reading it straight forward ... It really brings this whole thing full circle again.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

In all honesty it wasn't until this morning that I even began looking at commentaries in this regard. But maybe they could bring some clarity to this. That may make this a bit long and the main verse in question will do likewise in a subsequent reply.

[b]1Co 14:34-35 -[/b]
Here the apostle, 1. Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home. They are to learn in silence with all subjection; but, says the apostle, I suffer them not to teach, 1Ti_2:11, 1Ti_2:12. There is indeed an intimation (1Co_11:5) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophecy in their assemblies, which the apostle, in that passage, does not simply condemn, but the manner of performance, that is, praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, which, in that age and country, was throwing off the distinction of sexes, and setting themselves on a level with the men. But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs. They are not permitted to speak (1Co_14:34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation: I suffer them not to teach. But praying, and uttering hymns inspired, were not teaching. And seeing there were women who had spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church (see Act_22:9), and might be under this impulse in the assembly, must they altogether suppress it? Or why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly exercised? For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home. Note, As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home.

2. We have here the reason of this injunction: It is God's law and commandment that they should be under obedience (1Co_14:34); they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks, which speaking in public seemed to imply, at least in that age, and among that people, as would public teaching much more: so that the apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the church, in the assembly. Shame is the mind's uneasy reflection on having done an indecent thing. And what more indecent than for a woman to quit her rank, renounce the subordination of her sex, or do what in common account had such aspect and appearance? Note, Our spirit and conduct should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God has made, we should observe. Those he has placed in subjection to others should not set themselves on a level, nor affect or assume superiority. The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man.

Matthew Henry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Co 14:34 -
Let your women keep silence[/b] ... - This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. “They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking” - Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers.

In 1 Cor. 11, Paul had argued against their doing this in a certain manner - without their veils 1Co_11:4, and he had shown, that “on that account,” and “in that manner,” it was improper for them to assume the office of public teachers, and to conduct the devotions of the church. The force of the argument in 1 Cor. 11: is, that what he there states would be a sufficient reason against the practice, even if there were no other. It was contrary to all decency and propriety that they should appear “in that manner” in public. He here argues against the practice on every ground; forbids it altogether; and shows that on every consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them even so much as “to ask a question” in time of public service. There is, therefore, no inconsistency between the argument in 1 Cor. 11: and the statement here; and the force of the whole is, that “on every consideration” it was improper, and to be expressly prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to be inspired, but to all; it does not refer merely to acts of public preaching, but to all acts of speaking, or even asking questions, when the church is assembled for public worship. No rule in the New Testament is more positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken; compare 1Ti_2:11-12.

[b]To be under obedience[/b] - To be subject to their husbands; to acknowledge the superior authority of the man; see the note at 1Co_11:3.
As also saith the law - Gen_3:16, “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

[b]As also saith the law[/b] - Gen_3:16, “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Albert Barnes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Co 14:34 -
Let your women keep silence in the churches -[/b] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1Co_11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.
But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chap. 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, etc., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God.

[b]But - to be under obedience, as also saith the law -[/b] This is a reference to Gen_3:16 : Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.

Adam Clarke

~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Co 14:34 - Let your women keep silence in the churches[/b],.... This is a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy; in which he would be understood of men only, and not of women; and is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the apostle forbids and condemns, and not without reason:

[b]for it is not permitted unto them to speak[/b]; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue; there, we are told (b), the men came to teach, and the women לשמוע, "to hear": and one of their canons runs thus (c);

"a woman may not read (that is, in the law), בצבור, "in the congregation", or church, because of the honour of the congregation;''

for they thought it a dishonourable thing to a public assembly for a woman to read, though they even allowed a child to do it that was capable of it.

[b]But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.[/b] In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.

(b) T. Hieros Chagiga, fol. 75. 4. & T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 3. 1. (c) Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 12. sect. 17. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 23. 1.

John Gill

~~~~~~~~~

Christinyou wrote:
Who has set us free? Who is the Christian's covering? How do we go back into bondage?

Christ has set us free. No man can set anyone free or be their covering.

Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

So denying the covering of Christ brings us back into bondage, men and women.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.

2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Where is a Christian's freedom?

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

A woman does not need to be under headship anymore. Her headship is Christ, so is the man's.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

How is the husband the head of the wife? As Christ, not in himself but in Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

In This Love a woman only needs Christ as her head.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

A woman in Christ is presented to Christ Himself not having spot or wrinkle or blemish, so she is Holy and acceptable to God in Christ Jesus.

This is the mystery of Christ in you the Hope of Glory. Like a woman covering which is her hair and her glory so is Christ her covering and Glory.

Ephesians 5:30-33 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Christ is Mystery in every relation ship especially to Christ and the Body of Christ the Church where male and female are equal.

This is our perfection where only one headship is necessary.

Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

And you women.

In Christ: Phillip

Mike,

Phillip has marshalled more defenses of my position than I ever could myself.

All the comentaries, even that which speak of Paul's ordinances on how women were to dress when they were going to speak and teach in the congregation, keep mentioning over and over one thing.

"AS IT WERE UNDER THE LAW"

We are under grace, or our salvation is false.

In grace, under Christ, there is no more male or female, bond or free.

If this were not so, what gifts could be poured out to me, a woman, in dreams and visions?

Or do you think that women are not given gifts of the Spirit?

Mike, you are so troubled by a sense of riven order that you do not even hear me when I say I do not want to take the authority of a Pastor, except under the most extreme conditions of war and tribulation.

You say I can be ordained, but it means nothing.

Well, it meant a good deal to me, to place myself in jeopardy in a time when speaking the truth about Jesus will get you put in jail all too soon even here in America.

By being ordained I went public with my ministry, my service to Christ. And you know something...I was absolutely terrified at the idea. It was God who called me, and He did not call me to be a pastor, and I do not teach in a church setting, nor take any authority over a man that that man does not want to be under, in Christ.

I was called to write. And in writing, I must teach, or there is no truth in me.

And that ordination that you write is as nothing...well, I at least take it seriously. Tell me, when you drive by an accident on the freeway or on a busy highway, do you back up half a mile to see if someone needs help or prayer? Yes, a clergy card came with my pointless little ordination, and the police, by law, have to let me by.

Will you pick up that responsibility for me, along with all the others, so I can sit at home, and tend to my housewifery?

I am ordained as a minister of the gospel, a servant of the good news, as an evangelist, by Dr. Ford of St. Luke Evangelical Ministries. I write about Jesus, and Christianity. And that is called teaching by just about anyone.

I have no husband to submit to...he was apostate, and an adulterer, and he deserted me after I was severly injured in an auto accident. So I submit to Christ, and since it is He that lifted me out of bed at 3:00 in the morning with a red hot staff in the diaphragm last July, if you have objections, speak to Him about it, for He is my cover, and my authority.

And in case you didn't know, I am your BROTHER in Christ, for I too am a Son, and an Heir of the promise.

I am distressed for your confusion about Spiritual Authority, but I am not confused in myself, nor have I any ambitions to do more than what God has already told me to do.

I don't set foot in any Congregational Church Setting, lest I overstep my authority! I would rather forgoe fellowship than endure some of the mealy mouthed, people pleasing rhetoric most Pastors are preaching these days. And since I can't stand up and correct such a man, I'll stay at home, and have church with those that will visit me.

And I don't even try to teach verbally any man I meet on the street, or in a store, or at a doctor's office, for I am very conscious of men's overgreat concern for their own authority. I ask those I meet to visit my website, and see if they like what they find there, and if they do, to pass the website on. No more, no less.

And do you know, I don't even attempt to [i]write[/i] with a sense of spiritual authority.

I speak casually in my articles about Jesus, and life as a Christian, and occasionally write an article, as prompted by the Holy Spirit, asking those who visit the site a few important questions, or pointing out the very real fact that everyone has to choose between Jesus and not-Jesus, or face the consequences.

I obey Paul's directives literally, even though I think he is much misunderstood by those that wish to retain all authority in their hands.

But even if I were not in obedience to Paul, I am commanded by God to pursue the Great Commission. I am not eliminated from my duty to speak of Jesus to others just because I am a woman. I am interested in guarding Christ's spiritual authority, not my own. As you have pointed out so clearly, I have none.

Whose spiritual authority are you interested in promoting?

Blessings,

Forrest

Suppose I as an authority (we’re pretending, okay?) wrote a letter to a particular family, and on page three wrote: “Please remove all your houseplants. Don’t leave any of them.” Of course, based on other dialogue and circumstances the recipients would see the importance of this directive.

But, let’s just suppose, that (imagining that I became a timeless authority) 900 years later people would read that same letter and as a result ban all houseplants. What they may not have realized was that when I gave the direction, many houseplants had a parasite that could harmfully affect humans – maybe excrete toxins. Maybe I had even mentioned on page one the issue of parasites, and the readers where not observing context. But maybe that was just common knowledge at that time, and that information was only available in the history books.

The attempts to be meticulously literal observers of my words would miss the mark terribly. After all, by their day plants were not diseased. In fact, NOT having them could harm them. They NEEDED houseplants absorb air pollution.

I highly suspect that if God would step onto our turf right now, he’d say, "No, no, no, you are missing my point!" A Bible expositor said: “Literal is not always correct!” In fact, it could be sheer rebelliousness(ex the Jewish religious leaders). This penchant for literalness may be even a vise of the devil who seeks to WEAKEN and destroy the church. Frankly, THAT is what has been happening for centuries because of this issue – and still is!

For example:
Just last week I encountered some Christian women who had grown up in conservative evangelical churches. They had fallen prey to TV “prophets”. I felt sickened listening to them. They invited me to join in their awesome “Bible” study. They also believe that they are not enlightened and God has called them to be teachers in the church, only the church won’t let them. Let me say, THESE WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE TEACHING ANYONE!

What I find so tragic is that when certain people are not expected to teach, there is not much concern about them learning (the pitfall of Jewish tradition) No wonder they fall into so many traps!

My concern is that while countless are falling prey to the devil because they are not properly grounded, far too many Christians are more concerned about whether women should teach men or not. People are missing God’s point!

I believe that if the church could let go of this obsession, and start noticing all the sheep (like the women) who are being devoured because they do not have their minds prepared and are not equipped to stand against the forces of evil, then maybe the church could get back to business: Make disciples.

Does it not mean ANYTHING to anyone that women in the first century couldn’t even read, let alone study the scriptures! They were totally uneducated. Would you want THEM teaching you today? Up until recently women were not educated like men – even my mom was not allowed to go past grade school because in her country higher learning was for the boys.

There may be a reason Paul talked about weak-willed women, old wives tales, etc. They were products of their society.

Is that the kind of product we’d still like to put out of our churches?
Is that the product of the New Covenant?(see Phillip's post)

Diane

If we take your thinking out to it's logical conclusion it would be impossible for us to understand anything written in the Bible, and we could safely say that the Bible is not relevent today because there is no way we can possible understand what God really meant.

Might I suggest that this could be faulty logic?
By understanding the spirit of the word, and God's heart - will we not actually obey him better!!

I'd like to think that the Holy Spirit had enough forsight to think of that before He gave Paul the words to write.

I lack answers ... just processing my thoughts and trying to unravel the cobwebs that entangle us in fruitless Christian living. If I felt that long hair, skirts, silence, headcoverings, etc were the answer GOD INTENDED, I'd be there in a jiff, but I think that we may be misunderstanding our Lord, and also Paul. Not to diminish the value of any of that - it's just that God calls us to surrender our hearts and minds to him, not just our exteriors and outer behaviors.

Hi Forrest,

Phillip has marshalled more defenses of my position than I ever could myself.

A woman does not need to be under headship anymore. Her headship is Christ, so is the man's.

Or do you think that women are not given gifts of the Spirit?

Why would I, have made no reference to nor given any indication whatsoever. I am at pains to just stick to the main, root point.

Mike, you are so troubled by a sense of riven order that you do not even hear me when I say I do not want to take the authority of a Pastor, except under the most extreme conditions of war and tribulation

That is not what you said, perhaps that is what you may have wanted to say or failed to say. But again we would be talking of hypotheticals or 'what if' scenarios. Isn't this curious why we do these sort of things. We are placing a principle at the expense of an aberration, a possibility that may or may not come. If it did ... then I would do such and so.

You say I can be ordained, but it means nothing.

All I am asking here is, is there scriptural warrant for this?

And yes, that you would 'consider' it I cannot see squaring either, it seems to be a justifying without the same scriptural backing.

And that ordination that you write is as nothing...well, I at least take it seriously. Tell me, when you drive by an accident on the freeway or on a busy highway, do you back up half a mile to see if someone needs help or prayer? Yes, a clergy card came with my pointless little ordination, and the police, by law, have to let me by.

This confuses the matter it seems to me. What or who determines what is the 'clergy'. Who appointed woman to be 'ministers'? Does one have to be under a functioning local church to be part of the 'clergy'? Real questions here, I am not attacking ... this raises more questions than answers.

Will you pick up that responsibility for me, along with all the others, so I can sit at home, and tend to my housewifery?

Is that necessary? For all the attempts to get down to the spiritual roots of the matter, to the floor of the basement ...

I am ordained as a minister of the gospel, a servant of the good news, as an evangelist, by Dr. Ford of St. Luke Evangelical Ministries. I write about Jesus, and Christianity. And that is called teaching by just about anyone.

And you can do all that without any 'title' can you not? Or is there a new dictate whereby we half side with questionable practices and at the same time distance ourselves from them ... I am almost more alarmed, if that is the word, at those that have setup this system where spiritual principles are pragmatised and freely they can bestow titles and therefore confusion ... what does the history of the church speak to all this, is this not a very recent and modern development? The true church that is, apostolic, biblical. Am I really asking too much for a closer examination of scriptures here?

I have no husband to submit to...he was apostate, and an adulterer, and he deserted me after I was severly injured in an auto accident. So I submit to Christ, and since it is He that lifted me out of bed at 3:00 in the morning with a red hot staff in the diaphragm last July, if you have objections, speak to Him about it, for He is my cover, and my authority.

Again unfair ... I am attempting to address a spiritual principle not an attack on personal situations. You know my heart far better than that.

I am distressed for your confusion about Spiritual Authority, but I am not confused in myself, nor have I any ambitions to do more than what God has already told me to do.

Well don't be, I am not confused in that sense. I have gone at length attempting to ... I think there is much being missed, Jeannette picked up on it ... Whatever God tells us to do will square with what He has already spoken.

And do you know, I don't even attempt to [i]write[/i] with a sense of spiritual authority.

Thank God! Me neither, the minute we do it is disaster. ... Stephen Kaung, did I mention those messages ? ;-)

I obey Paul's directives literally, even though I think he is much misunderstood by those that wish to retain all authority in their hands.

But even if I were not in obedience to Paul,

Paul's directives are the Lords as well, Peter, James, John, there is no distinctions and that I think is part of the great trouble with all this.

I think we are talking past each other here. This is not about lording it over anyone but just trying to grapple with the reasons behind Paul's admonishens.

Members,

If i felt that long hair, skirts, silence, headcoverings, etc were the answer GOD INTENDED, I'd be there in a jiff

I have actually started going to a Mennonite church for the past few weeks, and as you probably already know they do all these things literally. They also wash one another's feet and a host of other things that most people today have phased out because they seemed antiquated.

I'll tell you one thing the mennonites have going on is a great reverence for God and his word. I actually feel like a blemish there, but I am really enjoying the sound teaching. They even read the scriptures that talk about Hell and judgment.

Anyways to get back to your comment that I quoted I don't think most people would be there in a jiff.

I was attending a Pentecostal church for the past few years and I was always told that the scriptures pertaining to women teaching and the way they should dress was limited to the women at Corinth.

I have studied the scriptures pertaining to these things and I don't believe they have been nullified.

The problem today is that there are so few men who are fit to be in leadership, I mean if you go by the standards set in Timothy. (Which are still the standards to use). The other thing about the Pentecostal church I attended the women were more dedicated than the men especially in the areas of service and prayer. In spite of all this , we do not have the right to go beyond what is written and appoint a woman pastor. Even if it seems right to us.

fruitless Christian living

I believe the reason for this is that we have ignored the order that God set forth in his word, not to mention almost everything else that didn't tickle our fancy,(loving our enemies, not looking at another woman lustfully who is not our wife,etc.)

Who is actually fulfilling the Great Commandment? I know I fall painfully short!

Murray

I think this is the kind of situation which Forrest is talking about. The Lord is preparing His people, and He seems to be starting with certain individuals who will become a small "nucleus" of life and hope in the gathering darkness. Not necessarily in leadership in the ordinary way, but to be a place, a "city of refuge" if you like (to use an Old Testament term) for those who flee persecution, or who are seeking God.

An orderly one? I do understand all the things we might bring to this as to current or possible things that may or may not be going on. There is a degree that would beg off of all this to more seemingly important matters, there are certainly those. But it is an observable trait again that it leads off to side issues that casts the main matter off to one side and never has any resolution. I am just as willing and tempted to do as much frankly, but at the same time I am not feeling particularly weary over it ... beating a dead horse as the parlance would have it in continuing on the same points ... I would rather not nor is this another insinuation other than against myself.

What is the default spiritual mechanism over things thought doubtful, is it to assert or to revert?

What is the default spiritual mechanism over things thought doubtful, is it to assert or to revert?

Revert:
To slip from a higher or better condition to a former, usually lower or poorer one: backslide, lapse, regress, relapse, retrogress.

Reverting is not an option.

"[u]If you continue in my word[/u] then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

If you talk to a wall long enough will it become a window?

The only 'IF' is to continue in His Word.
If we do the Holy Spirit Will bring truth and it will set us free.

Something to remember, God the Father set His order in place and even Christ is in subjection to His order.

1 Cor. 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

In His Love
pastorfrin

Well said Annie, very well said. Commentaries are interesting in that they are also the 'folders' of those who came before us.

Hi pastorfin,

Interesting how definitions can be given;

[b]Revert
REVERT', v.t.[/b] [L. reverto; re and verto, to turn.]

1. To turn back; to turn to the contrary; to reverse.

Till happy chance revert the cruel scene.

[Instead of revert, in this sense, reverse is generally used.]

2. To drive or turn back; to reverberate; as a stream reverted.

REVERT', v.i.

1. To return; to fall back.

2. In law, to return to the proprietor, after the determination of a particular estate. A feud granted to a man for life, or to him and his issue male, or his death or failure of issue male, reverted to the lord or proprietor.

REVERT', n. In music, return; recurrence; antistrophy.

Ye Old Websters 1828 Dictionary

Had this more in mind before really looking it up. Along with that the idea of submission to ... A verse keeps wanting to have some expression in all this discussion;

Problem is I cannot for the life of me figure out where I am drawing it from, it is on the order of [i]pushing yourself forward[/i], the wrong kind of assertiveness, the opposite of Jesus washing the disciples feet.

But was also musing a bit on the classic "how much can I get away with" mentality that often new believers even old ones for that matter can measure things by. Nothing by accusation again, perhaps still looking at the dynamics of asserting and usurping.

Edit:

Something to remember, God the Father set His order in place and even Christ is in subjection to His order.

That is a very profound thing to dwell on.

Mike,

I want to answer several points that you have brought up along the way, but I need some information to not be talking in the dark, or past you, as you put at the end of your last post to me.

I don't intend for them to be trick questions or to necessarily use them in the arguments I may make. I want to know what I need not talk about in a fully reasoned study of authority in the church.

I feel as if what I am saying is not being heard. You may feel the same way. But I think it is valuable to continue the discussion.

Please tell me:

Which spiritual gifts, if any, are made available to women?

How old should a teacher be when they may begin teaching?

How old should a Pastor be to being leading a church?

What is the denomination your beliefs are closest to?

Do you think women may teach her children about God, if her husband permits, or she has no husband?

Do you think women may teach other women about God, if her husband permits, or if she has no husband?

Do you think women may teach their husbands if they are pagans?

In your church, is the line of authority from the Bishop to the Pastor, the Denominational Board to the Pastor, or the Church Elders that select the Pastor?

What duties do Elders or Deacons in your church have?

Do you believe that the concept of spiritual authority in the Church Corporate should be the same for all denominations?

Do you believe the Bible, having been written through men, is Inerrent & God Breathed or Inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Is a Pastor's spiritual authority in the church under his responsibility absolute or relative?

Under what conditions could a man disobey his pastor in a spiritual matter?

Have you studied in a seminary, and if so which one?

Do you think that training in a seminary is a requirement for a Pastor or Teacher?

In your church, does a man or a woman teach Sunday School?

Thank you for your patience with me in this very difficult discussion.

Blessings,

Forrest

Forrest

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

1Cr 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Gal 3:28 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.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.

These are all Paul's statement. Paul has certain circumstances and situations to deal with in his ministry. But his full attention is not on those situations and circumstances but on Christ and His place in the Body of Christ. There is only one Head of the Body, be it anyone or wife or husband or Jew or Gentile or any other that believes that the circumstances or situation override the position we have in Christ, there is no position at all. How could anyone want to be under authority of anyone except Him? Since He is our life and our only life, when it comes to God and His salvation in Christ. If in the world we have circumstances and situations that are in line with what Paul dealt with in the world then where do we need to be? Not in the Law and certainly not arguing about who is in submission. We are all in submission to God in Christ Jesus.

1Cr 16:16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with [us], and laboureth.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Hbr 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

Jam 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Proud man proud woman are resisted by God. Humble man and humble woman God gives abundant Grace.

If the problem in the church is women taking over and using the gifts outside the Spirit of God then Paul's admonition is good and proper and should be done in the church.

If a woman is in Christ in the church, she is no different than the man in Christ. She should be listened to as much as the man. The Spirit of God leads both man and woman for His glory. There is a definite difference for those that are in Christ and those that are not. Christ is the life of all those that are in Him and Him in them, the Father in Christ, Christ in the Father and they in man and woman. How can man say there is any difference in the spirit of a man and the spirit of a woman if it is the Spirit of Christ. Our freedom is in Christ both man and woman. Why would God give the same Spirit of both if there was to be a man over the woman. Christ is over the man, the man is over the woman, How does this give authority of anyone but Christ for both. The man is over the woman for one reason, God made her simply a physically weaker vessel, that is the Pot of Clay is a little different, praise God.

We are subject to The Father who's abode is with us by the Christ in us because they are One, and the Holy Spirit in us also, because the Trinity is One. We have it all, both man and woman. Let us give greater honor to the weaker vessel and love them the way Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for Her, His Bride. Hear ye Him through both man and woman. Not lording it over anyone.

In Christ: Phillip

Philip,

You have cited alot of scripture, but it still does not undo what Paul said about the woman usurping authority over man when it comes to leading the church.

Philip said:

If a woman is in Christ in the church, she is no different than the man in Christ. She should be listened to as much as the man.

Paul said:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Timothy 2:12

Murray

Now...children!

Let's all play nice!

And Krispy, I'm allergic to acetominophen, regardless of the name. But my, you Southerner's do make it sound like it's a naughty thing to take!

Give Mike time to answer - I need the information to find out where his cogs and wheels turn!

We're already both in agreement to abide by the literal gospel. What we want to discuss is why!!!

And to us, the why is very important, not just doing it, 'cause we have different reasons...kind of!

Thanks for the comedy act!!! 8-)

I'll be back later tonight!

Blessings,

Forrest

You Marine guys are whimps. Tylenol? I like to chew raw aspirin. Gets to the bloodstream faster.

:-x

Brother Paul

p.s. Keep up the straight shooting, Steve. Your clean, honest posts encourage me. May the Lord continue to bless and grow you.

Not sure what you mean here. "insinuation" against you? God forbid!!! Since being in SI I have grown to love and respect you too much in the Lord to make insinuations! Again I can't imagine why you should have thought it possible that I should...

Not in the least sister. I did mean very much my own self here and did not want it to be taken as an insinuation towards others about going on and on. With that I do believe I will gracefully bow out here momentarily. I think that whatever else might be said would only compound the situation.

Forrest,

I don't intend for them to be trick questions or to necessarily use them in the arguments I may make. I want to know what I need not talk about in a fully reasoned study of authority in the church.

I feel as if what I am saying is not being heard. You may feel the same way. But I think it is valuable to continue the discussion.

Please tell me:

Well I do feel the same way to some extent and recognize the sort of unintentional or who knows perhaps intentional cherry picking that we can do in these discussions. [i]Not an accusation[/i]. It happens. I do it just as easily. I think I have failed largely to get across the main point that I am finding contrary to scripture and will leave off with the commentaries in a subsequent and last post instead, not to prove, not to buttress, not even knowing what they might have to say. If all this effort was or is causes some more thinking and searching the scriptures for their true intent and meaning at the source, than I am happy to dislodge from it. To be honest could hope for more but ... perhaps would further the thought to address what you have asked me here in these series of questions.

I did attempt them honestly but found a problem right from the get go because you are asking me what "I think" in large part and "I think" it is irrelevant what I think on those questions. It was difficult not to take them as somewhat baiting regardless of your intentions and I have no reason to believe ill will or the like.

Some of them were downright ... provocative to say the least, not offended but bemused at such foolish things being asked when you already well know the answer to them.

I will not partake in this because I do not wish you to be forming your responses off this questionnaire that may be proving something of my point anyway ...

If you want to know where "I am coming from" I will appeal one last time to Stephen Kaung's messages on authority, which to my recollection may not even speak to this matter directly. But they certainly express an understanding of what spiritual authority is and I think if we can grasp that we may well better be able to grasp this present issue.

To the commentaries.

Similar to 1Co 14:34, this needs it's own fuller context, all of 1 Corinthians, all of 1 Timothy. These are only the main verses in question.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[b]1Ti 2:12 -
Nor to usurp authority[/b] - A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws: In multis juris nostri articulis deterior est conditio foeminarum quam masculorun,; l. 9, Pap. Lib. 31, Quaest. Foeminoe ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt; et ideo nec judicis esse possunt, nec magistratum gerere, nec postulare, nec pro alio invenire, nec procuratores existere; l. 2, de Reg. Juris. Ulp. Lib. i. Ad Sab. - Vid. Poth. Pand. Justin., vol. i. p. 13.

“In our laws the condition of women is, in many respects, worse than that of men. Women are precluded from all public offices; therefore they cannot be judges, nor execute the function of magistrates; they cannot sue, plead, nor act in any case, as proxies.” They were under many other disabilities, which may be seen in different places of the Pandects.

[b]But to be in silence[/b] - It was lawful for men in public assemblies to ask questions, or even interrupt the speaker when there was any matter in his speech which they did not understand; but this liberty was not granted to women. See the note on 1Co_14:34, 1Co_14:35 (note).

Adam Clarke

~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Ti 2:12 -
But I suffer not a woman to teach[/b] - see the notes on 1Co_14:34.

[b]Nor to usurp authority over the man[/b] - notes, 1Co_11:3.

Albert Barnes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Ti 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach[/b], They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit_2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pro_1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

[b]nor to usurp authority over the man[/b]; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

[b]but to be in silence[/b]; to sit and hear quietly and silently, and learn, and not teach, as in 1Ti_2:11.

John Gill

~~~~~~~~~

[b]1Ti 2:9-15[/b] -
I. Here is a charge, that women who profess the Christian religion should be modest, sober, silent, and submissive, as becomes their place. 1. They must be very modest in their apparel, not affecting gaudiness, gaiety, or costliness (you may read the vanity of a person's mind in the gaiety and gaudiness of his habit), because they have better ornaments with which they should [i]adorn themselves, with good works.[/i] Note, Good works are the best ornament; these are, in the sight of God, of great price. Those that profess godliness should, in their dress, as well as other things, act as becomes their profession; instead of laying out their money on fine clothes, they must lay it out in works of piety and charity, which are properly called good works. 2. Women must learn the principles of their religion, learn Christ, learn the scriptures; they must not think that their sex excuses them from that learning which is necessary to salvation. 3. They must be silent, submissive, and subject, and not usurp authority. The reason given is because [i]Adam was first formed, then Eve[/i] out of him, to denote her subordination to him and dependence upon him; and that she was made for him, to be a help-meet for him. And as she was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression, and that is another reason. Adam [i]was not deceived[/i], that is, not first; the serpent did not immediately set upon him, but the woman was first in the transgression (2Co_11:3), and it was part of the sentence, [i]Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,[/i] Gen_3:16. But it is a word of comfort (1Ti_2:15) that those who continue in sobriety shall be [i]saved in child-bearing,[/i] or [i]with[/i] child-bearing - the Messiah, who was born of a woman, should break the serpent's head (Gen_3:15); or the sentence which they are under for sin shall be no bar to their acceptance with Christ, [i]if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety.[/i]

II. Here observe, 1. The extensiveness of the rules of Christianity; they reach not only to men, but to women, not only to their persons, but also to their dress, which must be modest, like their sex; and to their outward deportment and behaviour, it must be in silence, with all subjection. 2. Women are to profess godliness as well as men; for they are baptized, and thereby stand engaged to exercise themselves to godliness; and, to their honour be it spoken, many of them were eminent professors of Christianity in the days of the apostles, as the book of Acts will inform us. 3. Women being more in danger of exceeding in their apparel, it was more necessary to caution them in this respect. 4. The best ornaments for professors of godliness are good works. 5. According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority, and the woman must not usurp authority over the man, but is to be in silence. But, notwithstanding this prohibition, good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of religion. Timothy from a child had known the holy scriptures; and who should teach him but his mother and grandmother? 2Ti_3:15. Aquila and his wife Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly; but then they did it privately, for [i]they took him unto them[/i], Act_18:26. 6. Here are two very good reasons given for the man's authority over the woman, and her subjection to the man, 1Ti_2:13, 1Ti_2:14. Adam was first formed, then Eve; she was created for the man, and not the man for the woman (1Co_11:9); then she was deceived, and brought the man into the transgression. 7. Though the difficulties and dangers of childbearing are many and great, as they are part of the punishment inflicted on the sex for Eve's transgression, yet here is much for her support and encouragement: [i]Notwithstanding she shall be saved,[/i] etc. Though in sorrow, yet she shall bring forth, and be a living mother of living children; with this proviso, that they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety: and women, under the circumstance of child-bearing should by faith lay hold of this promise for their support in the needful time.

Matthew Henry

([i]Italics[/i], his own)

1 Corinthians 12:1-18 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

Who is the Gifted One, the One that is in every born again body member? Is it not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Who administers these Gifts of God? Is it not he Holy Spirit teacher as He wills. We are not all gifted apostles or teachers etc. at the same time, but we can all be an apostle, teacher, etc. as the Holy Spirit distributes the gifts and God wills. It is the Giver not the gift or the receiver that is the builder of the Body of Christ for both man and woman.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man (and woman) severally as he will.

All are one in Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

"So also is Christ", that is the perfection of our salvation Christ is One and we are One in Him and the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Man and woman are baptized into one Spirit which is Christ and becomes the Body of Christ in one Body, and there is no difference in the Spirit of God in us. 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:18-20 But now hath God set the members (man and woman) every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:23-25 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

This is beyond, "woman keep silent in the church".

Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

The great High Priest of the Christian profession is the only perfect priest, Heb 7:11,19. The Jewish priests were all imperfect and sinful men. The sacrifices which they offered were imperfect, and could not give peace to the conscience. There was need of some better system, and they all looked forward to it. But in the Lord Jesus, and in his work, there is absolute perfection. What he did was complete, and his office needs no change.

As all that are His, we are also a kingdom of priests.

Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

As man and woman we are consecrated for evermore in Christ Jesus.

In Christ: Phillip

I think you all might find the assemblies of God's official stance on this issue insightful. I see alot of the bias they refer to here against women in a number of your views. Please read slowly and carefully. Thank you.

You are here: Home > Beliefs > Position_Papers > Ministry: The Role of Women in Ministry (Official A/G Position Paper)
Email this page to a friend.
The Role of Women in Ministry
[Download PDF]

Position Papers are official documents of the Church that have been approved by its General Presbytery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supernatural manifestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit have played a distinctive role in the origin, development, and growth of the Assemblies of God. From the earliest days of our organization, spiritual gifting has been evident in the ministries of many outstanding women. Divine enablement has also been seen in the spiritual leadership of women in other Pentecostal groups. The Pentecostal movement believes that the 20th-century outpouring of the Spirit is a true fulfillment of the scriptural prediction, "Your daughters shall prophecy... and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit" (Joel 2:28, 29).

The Bible as Final Authority
The history and current practice of the Assemblies of God give demonstration that God can and does bless the public ministry of women. Yet there is currently much debate concerning the proper role of women in spiritual leadership. So it is appropriate to ask if Scripture describes any limits to this public ministry. We all agree that Scripture must be our final authority in settling questions of faith and practice. But when born-again, Spirit-filled Christians, following proper hermeneutical principles, come to reasonable but differing interpretations, we do well not to become dogmatic in support of one position. We affirm the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. We desire to know for certain what God expects of us. When we come to a sure understanding of His divine Word, we are committed to declaring and obeying those clear instructions. But we also exercise caution in giving authoritative importance to interpretations that do not have indisputable support from the whole of Scripture. Although the Holy Spirit may be active in the work of translation and interpretation, we cannot claim inerrancy for interpretations (even of extant Hebrew or Greek texts).

Historical and Global Precedent
In the early days of most revivals, when spiritual fervor is high and the Lord's return is expected at any time, there is often a place for, and acceptance of, the anointed ministry of women. Over time, however, concerns about organization and lines of authority begin to emerge, and the group moves toward a more structured ministry. As institutional concerns come to the forefront, the spiritual leadership of women is accepted less readily, and church leadership becomes predominately male. The experience of the Assemblies of God has been no exception to this progression.

Twentieth-century practice among Pentecostals around the world reveals evidence of a genuine struggle to apply biblical truth in various cultural contexts. In some settings, female spiritual leadership is readily accepted; in others, though women may have limited ministry, leadership posts are withheld from them. At times there is inconsistency between the leadership a female missionary has at home and that which she has on the field, or between her opportunities and those of a national female. Indeed, culture has influenced the extent of leadership a woman has been allowed to share. The Church must always be sensitive to cultural concerns, but it must look to Scripture for the truth that applies to all times and cultures.

Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry
Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership. Miriam was a prophet, one of the triumvirate of leaders God sent to Israel during the Exodus period (Exodus 15:20). Deborah, as prophet and judge, led the army of the Lord into successful combat (Judges 4 to 5). Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark the great religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 34).

The New Testament also records ministering women in the Church Age. Tabitha (Dorcas) is called a disciple and had a ministry of helps (Acts 9:36). Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Act s 21:8,9). Euodia and Syntyche were Paul's coworkers who shared in his struggle to spread the gospel (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul's exemplary "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Romans 16:3,4, NIV). In Romans 16, Paul greets a multitude of ministering persons, a large number of them women.

Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, biases of modern English translators have sometimes obscured Phoebe's position of leadership, calling her a "servant" or "helper", etc. Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul often used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated "deacon" or "minister." Though some translators have chose n the word deaconess (because Phoebe was a woman), such a distinction is not in the original Greek. It seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church.

Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). But many translators and scholars, unwilling to admit there could have been a female apostle, have since the 13th century masculinized her name to Junias. The biblical record shows that Paul was a strong advocate of women's ministry.

The instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited 34-4191 of women with scripturally commended leadership roles should affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.

A Biblical Survey of the Role of Women in Ministry
Of primary importance in defining the scriptural role of women in ministry is the biblical meaning of "ministry". Of Christ our great model, it was said, "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). New Testament leadership, as modeled by Jesus, portrays the spiritual leader as a servant. The question of human authority is not of primary significance, though it naturally arises as organization and structure develop.

Genesis 2:18-25
Some expositors have taught that all women should be subordinate to adult men because Eve was created after Adam to be his helper ("help meet", KJV). Yet the word ezer ("helper") is never used in the Hebrew Bible with a subordinate meaning. Seventeen out of the twenty times it is used, it refers to God as the helper. Instead of being created as a subordinate, Eve was created to be a "suitable" (kenegdo) helper, or one "corresponding to" Adam.

Some argue that God created men and women with different characteristics and desires, and that these differences explain why leadership roles should be withheld from women. Others attribute these perceived differences to culture and social expectations imposed on children from birth to adulthood. Physical differences and distinctive biological functions are obvious; but it is only by implication that gender distinctives can be made to suggest leadership limitations.

Paul's Emphasis on Charismatic Ministry
Ministry in the New Testament is charismatic in nature. It is made possible and energized as the Holy Spirit sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts (charismata) to each member of the body of Christ (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:7-11,27,28; Ephesians 4:7-12; 1 Peter 4:10,11). While some gifts are a spontaneous work of the Spirit and others are recognized ministry gifts to the Body, all are given for service without regard to gender differentiation. For example, the gift of prophecy is explicitly for both men and women: "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17). That women received and exercised this gift of the Spirit is well attested in the New Testament (Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5).

If Peter found certain statements by Paul hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16), then it is no surprise that we, who are removed by 1900 additional years of history, would share his struggle in interpreting some Pauline passages. And we, like Peter (2 Peter 3:15), must respect and love our brothers and sisters who hold alternative interpretations on issues that are not critical to our salvation or standing before God. We only request that those interpretations be expressed and practiced in love and consideration for all of God's children, both men and women.

First Corinthians 11:3-12
The statement that "the man is the head of the woman" has for centuries been used to justify the practice of male superiority and to exclude women from spiritual leadership. Two alternative translations for kephale ("head"), debated widely by contemporary evangelical scholars, are (1) "authority over" and (2) "source" or "origin." Both meanings can be found in literature of Paul's time.

Taking the passage as a whole, the second meaning fits as well as or better than the first meaning, leading to the summary statement of verse 12: "As the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things [are] of God." Even the relationship between the eternal Son and the Father--"the head of Christ is God" (11:3)--fits better as "source" than "authority over" (cf. John 8 :42). Without attempting to resolve this debate, we do not find sufficient evidence in kephale to deny leadership roles to

women (in light of biblical examples of women in positions of spiritual authority, and in light of the whole counsel of Scripture).

First Corinthians 14:34-36
There are only two passages in the entire New Testament which might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12). Since these must be placed along side Paul's other statements and practices, they can hardly be absolute, unequivocal prohibitions of the ministry of women. Instead, they seem to be teachings dealing with specific, local problems that needed correction.

There are various interpretations of what Paul was limiting when he said, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" (14:34). Options include (1) chatter in public services, (2) ecstatic disruptions, (3) certain authoritative ministries (such as judging prophecies), and (4) asking questions during the service. Yet, Paul does allow women to pray and prophesy in the corporate service (1 Corinthians 11:5).

Although we may not solve all the difficulties of this chapter, we do conclude that this passage does not prohibit female leadership, but like the rest of the chapter, it admonishes that "all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40).

First Timothy 2:11-15
The meaning and application of Paul's statement, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" (1 Timothy 2:12), have puzzled interpreters and resulted in a variety of positions on the role of women in ministry and spiritual leadership. Is the prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority a universal truth, or was Paul reporting his application of divine truth for the society and Christian community to which he and Timothy ministered?

From the above survey of passages on exemplary women in ministry, it is clear that Paul recognized the ministry of women. Yet there were some obvious problems concerning women in Ephesus. They were evidently given to immodest apparel and adornment (1 Timothy 2:9). The younger widows "learn to be idle,... and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not" (1 Timothy 5:13). In his second letter to Timothy, Paul warned against depraved persons (possibly including women) who manipulated "weak-willed", or "gullible", women (2 Timothy 3:6, NIV).

A reading of the entire passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 strongly suggests that Paul was giving Timothy advice about dealing with some heretical teachings and practices involving women in the church at Ephesus. The heresy may have been so serious that he had to say about the Ephesian women, "I am not allowing women to teach or have authority over a man." But we know from other passages that such an exclusion was not normative in Paul's ministry.

First Timothy 3:1-13
This entire passage has been held by some to confirm that all leaders and authorities in the Early Church were intended to be, and indeed were, males. It is true that the passage deals primarily with male leadership, most likely because of majority practice and expectations. When there were women leaders, like Phoebe, they would be expected to meet the same standards of character and behavior.

Translations of verse 11 present evidence of the translator's choice based on personal expectations. The word gunaikas can be translated as either "wives" or "women," depending on the translator's assumptions concerning the context. One rendering leaves the impression that these are qualifications for deacons' wives; the other suggests this exhortation is addressed to female spiritual leaders.

Although the first-century cultural milieu produced a primarily male church leadership, this passage along with other biblical evidence of female spiritual leadership (e.g., Acts 21:9; Romans 16:1-15 ; Philippians 4:2,3) demonstrates that female leadership was not prohibited, either for Paul's day or for today. Passages which imply that most leaders were male should not be made to say that women cannot be leaders.

Galatians 3:28
Those who oppose allowing women to hold positions of spiritual leadership must place contextual limitations on Galatians 3:28. "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."

Some interpreters restrict the meaning of this triad to salvation by faith or oneness in Christ. That truth is certainly articulated throughout Scripture. Yet the verse carries a ring of universal application for all our relationships, not just an assurance that anyone can come to Christ. "Neither Jew nor Greek.... neither bond nor free... neither male nor female"--these are basic relationship principles to which faithful followers of Christ must give highest priority.

The God of the Bible has "no respect of persons" (Romans 2:11; cf. also 2 Samuel 14:14; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Acts 10:34; Ephesians 6:9). He calls whom He will and gives gifts and ministries as He chooses; man must not put limitations on divine prerogatives. In Christ we are truly set free from sin and its curse, which separate from God and elevate or demean according to race, social standing, or gender.

Therefore We Conclude
After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.

We are aware that the ministry and leadership of women are not accepted by some individuals, both within and outside the Christian community. We condemn all prejudice and self-promotion, by men or women. The existence in the secular world of bigotry against women cannot be denied. But there is no place for such an attitude in the body of Christ. We acknowledge that attitudes of secular society, based on long-standing practice and tradition, have influenced the application of biblical principles to local circumstances. We desire wisely to respect yet help redeem cultures which are at variance with Kingdom principles. Like Paul, we affirm the Great Commission takes priority over every other consideration. We must reach men and women for Christ, no matter what their cultural or ethnic customs may be. The message of redemption has been carried to remote parts of the world through the ministry of dedicated, Spirit-filled men and women. A believer's gifts and anointing should still today make a way for his or her ministry. The Pentecostal ministry is not a profession to which men or women merely aspire; it must always be a divine calling, confirmed by the Spirit with a special gifting.

The Assemblies of God has been blessed and must continue to be blessed by the ministry of God's gifted and commissioned daughters. To the degree that we are convinced of our Pentecostal distinctives--that it is God who divinely calls and supernaturally anoints for ministry--we must continue to be open to the full use of women's gifts in ministry and spiritual leadership.

As we look on the fields ripe for harvest, may we not be guilty of sending away any of the reapers God calls. Let us entrust to these women of God the sacred sickle, and with our sincerest blessings thrust them out into the whitened fields.

COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
Gordon Anderson
Zenas, J. Bicket, chairman
Robert L. Brandt
Richard Dresselhaus
Harry Faught
William A. Griffin
Stanley M. Horton
Edgar R. Lee
Paul Lowenberg
Jesse Miranda
Robert D. Ross
Wesley W. Smith
Hardy W. Steinberg

Copyright 2007 The General Council of the Assemblies of God

1445 North Boonville Ave., Springfield, MO 65802 • Telephone: 417-862-2781

Assemblies of God Web Site Policies

Annie, I'm an Assemblies of God evangelist, and I totally agree with your post, your take on what the old time Pentecostal missionaries would think about our denomination today. It's very true. Thank God, though, that there are still AG churches that haven't gone utterly contemporary and seeker-accomodating. I suppose they make up a part of the true remnant that God maintains throughout the centuries. The Word is still being preached with unction and conviction in these little churches...and their faithful Pastors haven't bowed the knee. But such churches have become far and few...

By the way, I'm credentialed through the North Texas District, Austin section; what district and section was your husband with?

Brother Paul

Apparently I am compelled to carry on after all. How to shorten so many things into concise, small thoughts ... Maybe just easier to let it go out in the more normative rambling fashion that takes in so much that it comes out much the same way.

Am inclined to some clarifying... Observance. That is a word that carries through all these discussions at all times. Bit's and pieces challenging, comparisons to other discussions. repeating themes. Spiritual principles. What we do here as a whole, or rather what we ought to be made more aware of in regards to each other.

To breakdown just one of the many misunderstandings ... this is not a contest, it often appears to be but I would much more liken it all to a processing pod. A place where we can hash things out. That will always bring forth it's own inherent difficulties and wrong assumptions. Speaking in broad sweeping generalities here but it seems noteworthy to mention again because inevitably we are bound to begin getting offended too personally or begin to offend personally, attack at the character level, have a wrong spirit and a wrong goal in mind.

Having tarried here quite some time one of the greatest observances is in how much ... substance there is in our [i]reactions[/i], especially to challenges. A great deal of this is very well exemplified in
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=17227&forum=36&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=1]All Israel Will Be Saved?[/url]. The point being how we can get all out of sorts with each other and not take notice of the very reactions themselves. What do [i]they[/i] say to us? And say [i]about[/i] us?

As part of that the other overlooked aspect is the sort of 'camp' mentality that would separate us when we agree and disagree. It is a perception and\\or a reality depending on whether we have Gods will and desire in mind or own own. It is usually one of the great attempts here to break these 'camps' up whenever they begin to form, intentionally and by that I mean 'unaware' and aware, unintentionally. A play on words there. By and large most of us are inclined to getting to the bottom of matters and are not self-seeking and self-asserting but ... Always a but, do we not overlook a great deal in these things? Our reactions are [i]telling[/i] of our fiber and makeup and often just how far we have yet to go in spiritual fortitude and denying of the fleshly matter.

I do believe this matter at hand needs even more elucidation, not less and may need to be broadened before it can be again narrowed. Another posting on spiritual authority needs a true hearing and examination. What it is by definition. [i]Whose[/i] authority it truly is and where we as instruments are used in the order of things in the Lords economy. It seems far more prudent to start at some level ground of definition and principle.

One of the great beauties in my mind about this fellowship here is the very challenges themselves. I am constantly challenged by all this discourse to re-think and re-access things and often write not selfishly in that sense but as speaking my own challenges forth in questions that are milling about the cranium. Though I have written often in a more thesis style, statement type manner, it is always under girded by this notice of dictating on to a mirror that reflects back in ... "is this true of yourself?" I can thank Art Katz in great part for forcing that issue, this matter of truly being honest at core levels. Furthermore it also brings back o the fore the very pertinent observation that is expressed by David;

[i]For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. O Jehovah, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; Thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou searchest out my path and my lying down, And art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, But, lo, O Jehovah, thou knowest it altogether. [/i] Psa 139:1-4

All of that Psalm is very expressive but I think we do tend to forget just Who it is we are [i]before[/i] at [i]all[/i] times. We can be somewhat dislodged in our practice against our own hearts, forgetting that there is an observance going on at [u]all[/u] times ...'[i]every word[/i]' being accountable.

With that bit of preface ... this matter of [u]usurping[/u] is quite tremendous and found place in the aforementioned thread, quite well expressed I believe by our brother Robert there if anyone is inclined to see some correlations. It is one piece in opposition or antagonism that shows the polar opposite of so much in regards to spiritual authority. Again a fuller development I believe necessary. Short here time wise with so much seemingly wanting expression, may begin it with some short antidotes and questions to get it started but it seems very much on my heart and why I had to push back the natural tendency that wanted to beg off all this and go forth with what I believe the Lord is challenging me to carry on with. I do not have all the confidence in the world that this is the Lords doing, it could be my own disposition yet still, but after giving it all too much prayer, have the sense like Paul that it [i]seemed[/i] best to him and the Holy Spirit to carry on.

Briefly to the matter at hand. Thanks to Annie and Paul in your responses and to phoebe1 for bringing forth yet another challenge with your reply. My particular take overall is that it is still muddled while bringing out a great deal of truth and factual things. It seems to me still that this is a great deal of the problem by trying to take in too many different specifics and make them into one big pedantic stew. It still rather misses a greater foundational floor and seems to build the structure from the roof down ... A bit too all inclusive and seemingly contradictory, some glaring omissions for instance here;

First Corinthians 14:34-36
There are only two passages in the entire New Testament which might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12). Since these must be placed along side Paul's other statements and practices, they can hardly be absolute, unequivocal prohibitions of the ministry of women. Instead, they seem to be teachings dealing with specific, local problems that needed correction.

There are various interpretations of what Paul was limiting when he said, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" (14:34). Options include (1) chatter in public services, (2) ecstatic disruptions, (3) certain authoritative ministries (such as judging prophecies), and (4) asking questions during the service. Yet, Paul does allow women to pray and prophesy in the corporate service (1 Corinthians 11:5).

Although we may not solve all the difficulties of this chapter, we do conclude that this passage does not prohibit female leadership, but like the rest of the chapter, it admonishes that "all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40).

First Timothy 2:11-15
The meaning and application of Paul's statement, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" (1 Timothy 2:12), have puzzled interpreters and resulted in a variety of positions on the role of women in ministry and spiritual leadership. Is the prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority a universal truth, or was Paul reporting his application of divine truth for the society and Christian community to which he and Timothy ministered?

From the above survey of passages on exemplary women in ministry, it is clear that Paul recognized the ministry of women. Yet there were some obvious problems concerning women in Ephesus. They were evidently given to immodest apparel and adornment (1 Timothy 2:9). The younger widows "learn to be idle,... and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not" (1 Timothy 5:13). In his second letter to Timothy, Paul warned against depraved persons (possibly including women) who manipulated "weak-willed", or "gullible", women (2 Timothy 3:6, NIV).

A reading of the entire passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 strongly suggests that Paul was giving Timothy advice about dealing with some heretical teachings and practices involving women in the church at Ephesus. The heresy may have been so serious that he had to say about the Ephesian women, "I am not allowing women to teach or have authority over a man." But we know from other passages that such an exclusion was not normative in Paul's ministry.

First Timothy 3:1-13
This entire passage has been held by some to confirm that all leaders and authorities in the Early Church were intended to be, and indeed were, males. It is true that the passage deals primarily with male leadership, most likely because of majority practice and expectations. When there were women leaders, like Phoebe, they would be expected to meet the same standards of character and behavior.

Translations of verse 11 present evidence of the translator's choice based on personal expectations. The word gunaikas can be translated as either "wives" or "women," depending on the translator's assumptions concerning the context. One rendering leaves the impression that these are qualifications for deacons' wives; the other suggests this exhortation is addressed to female spiritual leaders.

Although the first-century cultural milieu produced a primarily male church leadership, this passage along with other biblical evidence of female spiritual leadership (e.g., Acts 21:9; Romans 16:1-15 ; Philippians 4:2,3) demonstrates that female leadership was not prohibited, either for Paul's day or for today. Passages which imply that most leaders were male should not be made to say that women cannot be leaders.

Think this still is confusing the matter by making 'leaders' or 'leadership' the issue and muddling this with what was being stated. "Strongly suggests" or 'may be' is an assumption and I must wonder why a very important point is being left out here in exegesis of at least 1 Tim;

[i]Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise [u]authority over[/u] a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

[b][u]For[/u] Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.[/b]
[/i] 1Ti 2:11-14

Why make mention of it if it is not so important? That word "for" is rich in recognition and explanation. I believe we are still in the realm of usurp and spiritual authority.

Isn't that a saying, that 'as the Pastor goes - so goes the Church

Very true saying, I think. If the Pastor is a holy, praying man, the church will show it. I've found such churches to be generally small in attendance with a regular flow of "hoppers" that come in to test the waters and soon find it's over their head. That is, they refuse to [i]stand up[/i] - so they pack up their lawn chairs and sun block and head over to the plastic kiddie pool toting along a myriad of floatation devices in their baggage.

But God calls us to the ocean...

Brother Paul

p.s. I'll be in prayer for your husband, dear sister.

crsschk wrote:
Forrest,

I don't intend for them to be trick questions or to necessarily use them in the arguments I may make. I want to know what I need not talk about in a fully reasoned study of authority in the church.

I feel as if what I am saying is not being heard. You may feel the same way. But I think it is valuable to continue the discussion.

Please tell me:

Well I do feel the same way to some extent and recognize the sort of unintentional or who knows perhaps intentional cherry picking that we can do in these discussions. [i]Not an accusation[/i]. It happens. I do it just as easily. I think I have failed largely to get across the main point that I am finding contrary to scripture and will leave off with the commentaries in a subsequent and last post instead, not to prove, not to buttress, not even knowing what they might have to say. If all this effort was or is causes some more thinking and searching the scriptures for their true intent and meaning at the source, than I am happy to dislodge from it. To be honest could hope for more but ... perhaps would further the thought to address what you have asked me here in these series of questions.

I did attempt them honestly but found a problem right from the get go because you are asking me what "I think" in large part and "I think" it is irrelevant what I think on those questions. It was difficult not to take them as somewhat baiting regardless of your intentions and I have no reason to believe ill will or the like.

Some of them were downright ... provocative to say the least, not offended but bemused at such foolish things being asked when you already well know the answer to them.

I will not partake in this because I do not wish you to be forming your responses off this questionnaire that may be proving something of my point anyway ...

To the commentaries.

No problem, dear Mike.

I placed the questions in the "do you think" because I was asking for instruction from you on these points to reveal your thoughts.

If you think your thoughts are not to the point of the discussion, you do yourself a disservice.

In any case, we both follow the letter of the law.

I'll just stay away from churches.

Blessings,

Forrest

Christinyou wrote:
1 Corinthians 12:1-18 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant...Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit....Who is the Gifted One, the One that is in every born again body member? Is it not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Who administers these Gifts of God? Is it not he Holy Spirit teacher as He wills. We are not all gifted apostles or teachers etc. at the same time, but we can all be an apostle, teacher, etc. as the Holy Spirit distributes the gifts and God wills. It is the Giver not the gift or the receiver that is the builder of the Body of Christ for both man and woman.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man (and woman) severally as he will.

All are one in Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

"So also is Christ", that is the perfection of our salvation Christ is One and we are One in Him and the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Man and woman are baptized into one Spirit which is Christ and becomes the Body of Christ in one Body, and there is no difference in the Spirit of God in us. 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:18-20 But now hath God set the members (man and woman) every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:23-25 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

This is beyond, "woman keep silent in the church".

Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

The great High Priest of the Christian profession is the only perfect priest, Heb 7:11,19. The Jewish priests were all imperfect and sinful men. The sacrifices which they offered were imperfect, and could not give peace to the conscience. There was need of some better system, and they all looked forward to it. But in the Lord Jesus, and in his work, there is absolute perfection. What he did was complete, and his office needs no change.

As all that are His, we are also a kingdom of priests.

Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

As man and woman we are consecrated for evermore in Christ Jesus.

In Christ: Phillip

I agree, although the scriptures you've quoted could do with some commentary to link them, but that is my teaching nature.

Since neither you nor I attend, or value, organized religious behavior, in the manner of denominations, or formalized worhip, it is to be understood that we would automatically stand against taking God's Word out of context merely to support the authority of men in the churches.

I am a Son of God, Heir to the Promises, a Priest and King.

That I am female is getting more irrelevant as the years pass, except for the seemingly unlimited experience, I as a woman, have experienced, and the base it gives me to help others understand each other.

And I will, I pray, receive a crown unto glory, or righteousness, or victory on that day when we stand before our King of Kings, not that I may be gloriefied, but that I may know that I pleased the Lord my God.

And in that day, we will probably no longer be limited by masculine or feminine differences, but will have full access to all parts of our mind.

And with Christ as our High Priest, I will take my orders gladly, knowing that He will explain anything I don't understand, and guide me in all things, as High Priest, and as Husband to me and to us all as part of His Bride, the Church.

I merely find myself grateful that my Brothers on SI are not taking their authority outside the church buiding, or outside their marriages.

As an additional word of encouragement to you, I love it when you comment in depth between the scriptures you find, for it does flesh them out so well, and place important linkages that many may miss.

Thank you for standing up for the feminine side of your Bretheren in Christ.

Blessings,

Forrest

phoebe1 wrote:
I think you all might find the assemblies of God's official stance on this issue insightful. I see alot of the bias they refer to here against women in a number of your views. Please read slowly and carefully. Thank you.

You are here: Home > Beliefs > Position_Papers > Ministry: The Role of Women in Ministry (Official A/G Position Paper)
Email this page to a friend.
The Role of Women in Ministry
[Download PDF]

Position Papers are official documents of the Church that have been approved by its General Presbytery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supernatural manifestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit have played a distinctive role in the origin, development, and growth of the Assemblies of God. From the earliest days of our organization, spiritual gifting has been evident in the ministries of many outstanding women.

Divine enablement has also been seen in the spiritual leadership of women in other Pentecostal groups. The Pentecostal movement believes that the 20th-century outpouring of the Spirit is a true fulfillment of the scriptural prediction, "Your daughters shall prophecy... and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit" (Joel 2:28, 29).

The Bible as Final Authority
The history and current practice of the Assemblies of God give demonstration that God can and does bless the public ministry of women. Yet there is currently much debate concerning the proper role of women in spiritual leadership. So it is appropriate to ask if Scripture describes any limits to this public ministry. We all agree that Scripture must be our final authority in settling questions of faith and practice. But when born-again, Spirit-filled Christians, following proper hermeneutical principles, come to reasonable but differing interpretations, we do well not to become dogmatic in support of one position.

We affirm the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. We desire to know for certain what God expects of us. When we come to a sure understanding of His divine Word, we are committed to declaring and obeying those clear instructions. But we also exercise caution in giving authoritative importance to interpretations that do not have indisputable support from the whole of Scripture. Although the Holy Spirit may be active in the work of translation and interpretation, we cannot claim inerrancy for interpretations (even of extant Hebrew or Greek texts).

Historical and Global Precedent
In the early days of most revivals, when spiritual fervor is high and the Lord's return is expected at any time, there is often a place for, and acceptance of, the anointed ministry of women.

Over time, however, concerns about organization and lines of authority begin to emerge, and the group moves toward a more structured ministry. As institutional concerns come to the forefront, the spiritual leadership of women is accepted less readily, and church leadership becomes predominately male.

The experience of the Assemblies of God has been no exception to this progression.

Twentieth-century practice among Pentecostals around the world reveals evidence of a genuine struggle to apply biblical truth in various cultural contexts. In some settings, female spiritual leadership is readily accepted; in others, though women may have limited ministry, leadership posts are withheld from them. At times there is inconsistency between the leadership a female missionary has at home and that which she has on the field, or between her opportunities and those of a national female.

Indeed, culture has influenced the extent of leadership a woman has been allowed to share. The Church must always be sensitive to cultural concerns, but it must look to Scripture for the truth that applies to all times and cultures.

Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry
Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership. Miriam was a prophet, one of the triumvirate of leaders God sent to Israel during the Exodus period (Exodus 15:20). Deborah, as prophet and judge, led the army of the Lord into successful combat (Judges 4 to 5). Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark the great religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 34).

The New Testament also records ministering women in the Church Age. Tabitha (Dorcas) is called a disciple and had a ministry of helps (Acts 9:36). Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Act s 21:8,9). Euodia and Syntyche were Paul's coworkers who shared in his struggle to spread the gospel (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul's exemplary "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Romans 16:3,4, NIV). In Romans 16, Paul greets a multitude of ministering persons, a large number of them women.

Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, biases of modern English translators have sometimes obscured Phoebe's position of leadership, calling her a "servant" or "helper", etc. Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul often used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated "deacon" or "minister." Though some translators have chosen the word deaconess (because Phoebe was a woman), such a distinction is not in the original Greek. It seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church.

Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). But many translators and scholars, unwilling to admit there could have been a female apostle, have since the 13th century masculinized her name to Junias. The biblical record shows that Paul was a strong advocate of women's ministry.

The instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited 34-4191 of women with scripturally commended leadership roles should affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.

A Biblical Survey of the Role of Women in Ministry
Of primary importance in defining the scriptural role of women in ministry is the biblical meaning of "ministry". Of Christ our great model, it was said, "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).

New Testament leadership, as modeled by Jesus, portrays the spiritual leader as a servant. The question of human authority is not of primary significance, though it naturally arises as organization and structure develop.

Genesis 2:18-25
Some expositors have taught that all women should be subordinate to adult men because Eve was created after Adam to be his helper ("help meet", KJV). Yet the word ezer ("helper") is never used in the Hebrew Bible with a subordinate meaning. Seventeen out of the twenty times it is used, it refers to God as the helper. Instead of being created as a subordinate, Eve was created to be a "suitable" (kenegdo) helper, or one "corresponding to" Adam.

Some argue that God created men and women with different characteristics and desires, and that these differences explain why leadership roles should be withheld from women. Others attribute these perceived differences to culture and social expectations imposed on children from birth to adulthood. Physical differences and distinctive biological functions are obvious; but it is only by implication that gender distinctives can be made to suggest leadership limitations.

Paul's Emphasis on Charismatic Ministry
Ministry in the New Testament is charismatic in nature. It is made possible and energized as the Holy Spirit sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts (charismata) to each member of the body of Christ (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:7-11,27,28; Ephesians 4:7-12; 1 Peter 4:10,11). While some gifts are a spontaneous work of the Spirit and others are recognized ministry gifts to the Body, all are given for service without regard to gender differentiation. For example, the gift of prophecy is explicitly for both men and women: "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17). That women received and exercised this gift of the Spirit is well attested in the New Testament (Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5).

If Peter found certain statements by Paul hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16), then it is no surprise that we, who are removed by 1900 additional years of history, would share his struggle in interpreting some Pauline passages. And we, like Peter (2 Peter 3:15), must respect and love our brothers and sisters who hold alternative interpretations on issues that are not critical to our salvation or standing before God. We only request that those interpretations be expressed and practiced in love and consideration for all of God's children, both men and women.

First Corinthians 11:3-12
The statement that "the man is the head of the woman" has for centuries been used to justify the practice of male superiority and to exclude women from spiritual leadership. Two alternative translations for kephale ("head"), debated widely by contemporary evangelical scholars, are (1) "authority over" and (2) "source" or "origin." Both meanings can be found in literature of Paul's time.

Taking the passage as a whole, the second meaning fits as well as or better than the first meaning, leading to the summary statement of verse 12: "As the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things [are] of God." Even the relationship between the eternal Son and the Father--"the head of Christ is God" (11:3)--fits better as "source" than "authority over" (cf. John 8 :42). Without attempting to resolve this debate, we do not find sufficient evidence in kephale to deny leadership roles to women (in light of biblical examples of women in positions of spiritual authority, and in light of the whole counsel of Scripture).

First Corinthians 14:34-36
There are only two passages in the entire New Testament which might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12). Since these must be placed along side Paul's other statements and practices, they can hardly be absolute, unequivocal prohibitions of the ministry of women. Instead, they seem to be teachings dealing with specific, local problems that needed correction.

There are various interpretations of what Paul was limiting when he said, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" (14:34). Options include (1) chatter in public services, (2) ecstatic disruptions, (3) certain authoritative ministries (such as judging prophecies), and (4) asking questions during the service. Yet, Paul does allow women to pray and prophesy in the corporate service (1 Corinthians 11:5).

Although we may not solve all the difficulties of this chapter, we do conclude that this passage does not prohibit female leadership, but like the rest of the chapter, it admonishes that "all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40).

First Timothy 2:11-15
The meaning and application of Paul's statement, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" (1 Timothy 2:12), have puzzled interpreters and resulted in a variety of positions on the role of women in ministry and spiritual leadership. Is the prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority a universal truth, or was Paul reporting his application of divine truth for the society and Christian community to which he and Timothy ministered?

From the above survey of passages on exemplary women in ministry, it is clear that Paul recognized the ministry of women. Yet there were some obvious problems concerning women in Ephesus. They were evidently given to immodest apparel and adornment (1 Timothy 2:9). The younger widows "learn to be idle,... and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not" (1 Timothy 5:13). In his second letter to Timothy, Paul warned against depraved persons (possibly including women) who manipulated "weak-willed", or "gullible", women (2 Timothy 3:6, NIV).

A reading of the entire passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 strongly suggests that Paul was giving Timothy advice about dealing with some heretical teachings and practices involving women in the church at Ephesus. The heresy may have been so serious that he had to say about the Ephesian women, "I am not allowing women to teach or have authority over a man." But we know from other passages that such an exclusion was not normative in Paul's ministry.

First Timothy 3:1-13
This entire passage has been held by some to confirm that all leaders and authorities in the Early Church were intended to be, and indeed were, males. It is true that the passage deals primarily with male leadership, most likely because of majority practice and expectations. When there were women leaders, like Phoebe, they would be expected to meet the same standards of character and behavior.

Translations of verse 11 present evidence of the translator's choice based on personal expectations. The word gunaikas can be translated as either "wives" or "women," depending on the translator's assumptions concerning the context. One rendering leaves the impression that these are qualifications for deacons' wives; the other suggests this exhortation is addressed to female spiritual leaders.

Although the first-century cultural milieu produced a primarily male church leadership, this passage along with other biblical evidence of female spiritual leadership (e.g., Acts 21:9; Romans 16:1-15 ; Philippians 4:2,3) demonstrates that female leadership was not prohibited, either for Paul's day or for today. Passages which imply that most leaders were male should not be made to say that women cannot be leaders.

Galatians 3:28
Those who oppose allowing women to hold positions of spiritual leadership must place contextual limitations on Galatians 3:28. "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."

Some interpreters restrict the meaning of this triad to salvation by faith or oneness in Christ. That truth is certainly articulated throughout Scripture. Yet the verse carries a ring of universal application for all our relationships, not just an assurance that anyone can come to Christ. "Neither Jew nor Greek.... neither bond nor free... neither male nor female"--these are basic relationship principles to which faithful followers of Christ must give highest priority.

The God of the Bible has "no respect of persons" (Romans 2:11; cf. also 2 Samuel 14:14; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Acts 10:34; Ephesians 6:9). He calls whom He will and gives gifts and ministries as He chooses; man must not put limitations on divine prerogatives. In Christ we are truly set free from sin and its curse, which separate from God and elevate or demean according to race, social standing, or gender.

Therefore We Conclude
After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.

We are aware that the ministry and leadership of women are not accepted by some individuals, both within and outside the Christian community. We condemn all prejudice and self-promotion, by men or women. The existence in the secular world of bigotry against women cannot be denied. But there is no place for such an attitude in the body of Christ. We acknowledge that attitudes of secular society, based on long-standing practice and tradition, have influenced the application of biblical principles to local circumstances. We desire wisely to respect yet help redeem cultures which are at variance with Kingdom principles. Like Paul, we affirm the Great Commission takes priority over every other consideration. We must reach men and women for Christ, no matter what their cultural or ethnic customs may be. The message of redemption has been carried to remote parts of the world through the ministry of dedicated, Spirit-filled men and women. A believer's gifts and anointing should still today make a way for his or her ministry. The Pentecostal ministry is not a profession to which men or women merely aspire; it must always be a divine calling, confirmed by the Spirit with a special gifting.

The Assemblies of God has been blessed and must continue to be blessed by the ministry of God's gifted and commissioned daughters. To the degree that we are convinced of our Pentecostal distinctives--that it is God who divinely calls and supernaturally anoints for ministry--we must continue to be open to the full use of women's gifts in ministry and spiritual leadership.

As we look on the fields ripe for harvest, may we not be guilty of sending away any of the reapers God calls. Let us entrust to these women of God the sacred sickle, and with our sincerest blessings thrust them out into the whitened fields.

COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
Gordon Anderson
Zenas, J. Bicket, chairman
Robert L. Brandt
Richard Dresselhaus
Harry Faught
William A. Griffin
Stanley M. Horton
Edgar R. Lee
Paul Lowenberg
Jesse Miranda
Robert D. Ross
Wesley W. Smith
Hardy W. Steinberg

Copyright 2007 The General Council of the Assemblies of God

1445 North Boonville Ave., Springfield, MO 65802 • Telephone: 417-862-2781

Assemblies of God Web Site Policies

Phoebe,

You are a dear to post all of this, and it is well worth reading, for I think it presents a balanced view of women and men in the church, under Christ.

I've always been fond of the Assemblies of God, since my philosophical mentor, Dr. Gene Scott, worked so much in setting up your educational programs that led to the incredible growth of the the Assemblies of God.

Of coure, that was over 25 years ago, but since my Sister-in-Law is Assemblies of God, I have heard nothing but good of them.

And to have the policy so plainly stated, it might actually lure me to seek out such a church, if I can find one nearby.

Not that I want to Pastor a Church...I want to do what God ordered me to do...."WRITE".

Strange that a woman being ordained a minister troubles people so - it's merely a public pronouncement of the willingness to serve, and the call of God being acted upon.

Many Blessings to you, Sister!

Forrest

LittleGift wrote:

The personal key the Lod gave me, as said earlier, is to be sure that there is no area of rebellion against Him in my own heart.

Whatever the present day application and interpretation of "I suffer not a woman to teach...", if [i][u]that[/u][/i] issue is dealt with we will be in right relationship to Him and to every other brother or sister who is in the same place with Him.

In Him

Jeannette

Hi, there!

I agree that how we bring about appropriate authority in the church is much more difficult than it seems, in a world where equality of men and women seem fairly normal to Western Society.

I would say that my main dispute with the 'Authority' in the church is when a learned woman with a great deal of experience in the mission fields or in local outreach, or in just reading her Bible is politely told to 'shut up', when what they have to say may be the very Word of God.

And frankly, I think those that take the position of Paul's scant word in two places forming the whole of Christian thought on women in the Church is limited.

But lacking any direct call from God to a position I don't want, I am more than happy to let men take the responsibility along with the authority. I have no problems with it in all the churches I don't attend. It's when they do not take the responsibility of their office that I have difficulties!

As to rebellion against God, quite the contrary! I'm going to do whatever God tells me to do, regardless of what people may say.

It's a good thing that my ministry is to those family members and friends of people who won't set foot in a church, for whatever reason. I guess God must have known how I felt about the situation, and arranged things accordingly! He also may have wanted to keep me safely away from the churches, so that I might not inadvertantly do some harm there.

Blessings, my dear one!

Forrest

Forrest,

And frankly, I think those that take the postiion of Paul's scant word in two places forming the whole of Christian thought on women in the Church is limited.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:33-35

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
1 Timothy 2:11-15

There may be only two references but they are extremely clear.

I would say that my main dispute with the 'Authority' in the church is when a learned woman with a great deal of experience in the mission fields or in local outreach, or in just reading her bible is politely told to 'shut up', when what they have to say may be the very word of God.

If there were meant to be clauses in the two scriptures I posted above I think the Holy Spirit would have included them.

ex. "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent; unless you have extensive mission field experience, local outreach experience or you just read your bible a whole lot."

I believe your main dispute is with the authority of scripture.

Murray

Amen Annie!

one big pedantic stew (Mike B)

I believe that Romans 14 was written specifically to make allowances for the differing convictions of others: ie Refrain from doing in front of others what violates THEIR consciences. And in the meantime, we realize that each person is God’s workmanship, accountable to him, and he can handle them. (Can men accept that about women?) Paul even acknowledged that even if the gospel was being preached by those with FALSE motives, AT LEAST IT WAS BEING PREACHED! (Now, there’s some elastic!)

So, here I am, preparing for 9+ preaching appointments. I humbly realize that the very thought of that will be repulsive to some here. Yup! I could indeed have some false motives. But for me, beyond doubt, God has been preparing and leading. To resist is to invite divine rebuke (of which I’ve experienced) To question and keep on putting out the fleece would betray my Lord. I must move beyond the quagmire (pedantic stew, and strong opposition) and get down to business. In fact lingering there has a tendency to oppress my mind. (so I cannot read some posts) I need to keep my mind and spirit free to seek God, hear the Spirit, and focus on the Word. (Right now I am in awe as I prepare an expository sermon on the Lord’s Prayer. It has tremendous implications – a powerful salvation message tool - not just a vain repetition.)

"all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40)

In some settings, female spiritual leadership is readily accepted;

It has occurred to me that nowhere does the Bible call Christians to change existing cultural practises – even slavery. That didn’t make it right. It’s just that God seems to call us to accept our lot, and practise love within it. We are called to live a life of peace – as far as it depends on us (Rom. 12) To me, that principle would imply that where the voice of a woman is not accepted today, I stay silent. (What I say would not be accepted there anyway.)

BUT where God opens the door for me and calls me, I will preach the Word of God with all my heart, soul, and strength! It is the great commission!

"Pray ... for me that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I may fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,.... " Eph. 6:19

So, are you going to pray that God shuts my mouth:-x or opens it:eek: ?

Diane

Diane, I wish I were there to hear you. I pray that God will use you to His Glory and it might be dynamic and full of acceptance and save His chosen children and bring them into the sheep pen where Christ is waiting.

Quote, Diane:
""Pray ... for me that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I may fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,.... " Eph.""

Col 1:26 [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory

That gospel is Paul's, given him by Christ that is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory"

In Christ: Phillip

Hi Diane, glad for the chuckle ... made me chuckle as well, not sure where it came from and rather off the cuff. But to look at it all again, isn't this seemingly so? That we are confusing matters and settings, authority that is God given and God driven and ordered as well?

Have been really still trying to keep my particular focus strictly to one sense and that of usurping and boundaries contained in the main verse and the similar in 1 Tim. It seems like all the other settings and situations have to come crowding in a bit to fast before this matter is settled and that is why I think it has become so confused, muddled and seemingly impossible to come to terms with. Anything from male domination to the other examples of evangelists and prophetess of the other gender courting for opinion on just what was meant in these two main instances.

Now I may be doing much the same by way of contrast or rather feel that I may have to somewhat to stress the point. What I am driving at is that I am not convinced by most of these arguments at all. To go back to the very striking aspect mentioned a bit back now am puzzled there was no response to it as it certainly seems very foundational and am just as puzzled as it seems to be something displaced as unimportant.

[b]Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

[u]For[/u] Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.[/b]
1Ti 2:11-14

There is a bit of a question that comes up straight away where you said;

I believe that Romans 14 was written specifically to make allowances for the differing convictions of others: ie Refrain from doing in front of others what violates THEIR consciences.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

In the one instance (1 Tim) Paul is stating "I" followed up quite closely with the very pertinent "[i]For[/i]". In the other there is the telling aspect of ...

[i]but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law[/i]

Commanded? And which law is he appealing to? To bring in John Gill again;

[i]But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.[/i]

Both of these appear to be appealing to foundational order and aspects laid out in the book of Genesis. This, if anything is what I have been driving at and that which has my attention.

From a very personal standpoint it seems practically absurd to even make mention once again how I [i]feel[/i] towards you and so many of our sisters here, am much more inclined to the spiritual principle also made mentioned of in;

Gal 3:28 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.

Still, these things cannot be contradictory or pieced together haphazardly (one big pedantic stew). Something is still amiss. We are and are made 'one' with certainty but likewise the joining of the flesh by matrimony, the orders remain and the functions and duties are not dissolved by this union.

There is still much the measure of pragmatism that is too uncomfortable for me to swallow in a lot of this. To challenge this by way of experience, how many things in our tenure along the Pilgrims Progress have had to be reaccessed and re-thought? Things that we had such a certainty were 'of the Lord' that turned out to be anything from our ignorance, presumption, heart felt, wishful thinking, even decidedly deeply 'understood' things that ended up not being what we thought they were? An over active imagination, bad pizza, trying circumstances and emotional responses, a whole gamut of things. Far be it from me to cast doubt in any single souls mind, I am only speaking of honesty when the little schemes we have set up in our heads (Philologos) don't pan out accordingly and we have to get once again honest with ourselves, shake off the illusions and say ... "I am off here. Got that one wrong."

Hardly is it a cause for dire mourning most times just the opposite that we can be again humbled by how little we do truly grasp and how much we fallen heads still tote around our dead mans luggage. Thank God that He won't leave us alone with paltry decisions and half baked answers ...

Yours is a peculiar situation in that on the one hand have never ... 'felt' the sense of usurping in the ultimate spiritual order by way of that which you have ever shared here, quite the contrary and in this setting it is generally much more sharing and comparing, a fellowshipping and learning from each other.

There are times when those lines are blurred here however and they vary over the course of the history being made here. It is that very blurring itself and the more pressing questions laid out in these scriptures in 'first instance' style speaking that has me still yet questioning much of this.

So, are you going to pray that God shuts my mouth or opens it ?

Neither sister. Only that you be obedient to His word and to His still small voice that speaks through it.

Much love, of course.

murdog wrote:
Forrest,

And frankly, I think those that take the postiion of Paul's scant word in two places forming the whole of Christian thought on women in the Church is limited.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

1 Timothy 2:11-15

There may be only two references but they are extremely clear.

I would say that my main dispute with the 'Authority' in the church is when a learned woman with a great deal of experience in the mission fields or in local outreach, or in just reading her bible is politely told to 'shut up', when what they have to say may be the very word of God.

If there were meant to be clauses in the two scriptures I posted above I think the Holy Spirit would have included them.

ex. "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent; unless you have extensive mission field experience, local outreach experience or you just read your bible a whole lot."

I believe your main dispute is with the authority of scripture.

Murray

I dispute neither the texts, nor the Spiritual Authority of God behind them, nor do I disobey them. I have no calling from God to make me desire to disobey what is the general thought in regards to spiritual authority in the church.

I dispute the righteousness of men taking only those two quotes, and using them against women speaking or teaching in church, or with authority over a man, while no attention is paid to how Paul actually dealt with women throughout his ministry.

And I wonder at the Church Corporate that is full of particularly well taught women, with gifts of prophecy or teaching NOT being made use of when the Church Corporate is running right off the tracks with the marvellously authoritative male Bishops, Pastors and Teachers that are in power.

To state my position on the matter is an easy task. I relate the spiritual authority and responsibility of the Church directly to the admonitions given to each brother of the church.

[color=993300]Ephesians 5:1. Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2. And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour....
14. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
15. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
16. Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
18. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
19. Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20. Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Colossians 3:11. Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
12. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
13. Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.
14. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.
15. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
17. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.....
.... 23. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
24. Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
25. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

Hebrews 13:15. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
16. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Galatians 3:5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12. And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.
13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. 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.
29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.[/color]

For if I am not your brother in the Church Corporate, then I don't exist in the New Testament, because I am female, except as an appendage to some man.

And if I am your brother, and if I am better able to pastor a church than a male brother of the church is, why do you not let me?

And you say, "but Paul said...."

Well, Paul said many things, and the majority of them are not written down. And the ones that are written down forbidding women to talk or teach in a church are disavowed by Paul's behavior in regards to women in many other places.

I personally am unconcerned by not pastoring a church because God has not called me to be a pastor.

I simply wonder why wisdom is not used in this matter. With so many churches falling to the deceit of the enemy, and so few good pastors available of the male bretheren, I simply wonder why female bretheren are not looked at for suitability.

Spiritual authority is a matter of marriage in Genesis, and the relation of a wife to her husband, and the relation of a husband to his wife.

To carry that over to the church when there are many female bretheren with Pastoring skills sitting bored to death under the teaching of a less than able male brother seems to be a nice little trick of the devil: Divide and conquer.

As for Paul not saying anything about women in the Church Corporate, he did. He said it in his actions throughout the New Testament. And he said it here:

[color=993300]Galatians 3:6. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. 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.
29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.[/color]

Strange how you of the male bretheren consistantly shove that aside, as if it doesn't count somehow.

Still, I'll happily hand over to you male bretheren those that go to church, along with the penalties for doing a really rotten job. You can talk to Jesus about it at the Bema.

The people God has sent me to don't go to church.

But my referral sheet of godly Pastors in strong churches steadily grows shorter.

Blessings,

Forrest

Neither sister. Only that you be obedient to His word and to His still small voice that speaks through it.

Even silence (mute) can “shout” louder than words, and certainly has a vital place in the Body. (How many times did God himself use silence to speak - ex during judgment?)

Speaking about fusing culture and Biblical standards: Let’s admit, in our culture we have fused the preaching of the gospel with status and carreer. That is probably a real root of contention.

I must say that itinerant preaching is much like the “hired-hand” role. It is on the bottom of the rung status-wise, and financially. Considering the time put into it, you’d make a better income working at a fast-food joint. I see it as a foot-washing role.

I am not sure how to respond to your comments about Adam and Eve. I do believe that whatever curses arose from the two of them were cancelled at the cross. But as long as we live according to the flesh (which is the cultural church in general, as well as the world) we are also in bondage to all the laws of the flesh. And that will ALWAYS put barriers and walls of hostility between various parties: ex Jew/gentile, slave/master, male/female, parents/kids, etc.

The only real, permanent solution I see in the Bible is Eph. 2. In CHRIST he has broken down the wall by making new people birthed by the Spirit. In the mean time – we still have all our social classes, gender classes, etc etc and we can’t force ONENESS on what was not united in Christ - ex One-world church, equality rights, etc. I think there is a danger of trying to apply the Ephesians scriptures in a universal way. They do NOT apply. And they do not apply to those who THINK that they are saved but are really trusting in law - ie works. (That is probably our most common source of contentious divisiveness: It's a barrier that no law can eradicate.)

That would be my response to Forrest's post.

I do believe that God has called us to live in peace to the best of our ability – even if it means going the second mile, bowing out, etc.

We (genuine believers) live in two kingdoms: the Kingdom of God, and the kingdom of this world. I am concerned that we inadvertently try to merge them.

That’s where I am .... at this point………
Diane

I'm leaving tomorrow for youth camp and will be gone for a week, but I'm still wondering about women teaching at Bible Colleges. Should women be teaching there and if not, should young men go to a Bible School that has women teachers?

Jordan

yes and yes

And if I am your brother, and if I am better able to pastor a church than a male brother of the church is, why do you not let me?

And you say, "but Paul said...."

Well, Paul said many things, and the majority of them are not written down. And the ones that are written down forbidding women to talk or teach in a church are disavowed by Paul's behavior in regards to women in many other places.

Ah! Pragmatism! That is incredible, you would argue both from silence [i]and[/i] 'disavow'?

[b]DISAVOW, v.t.[/b] [dis and avow. See Vow.]

1. To deny; to disown; to deny to be true, as a fact or charge respecting ones self; as, he was charged with embezzlement, but he disavows the fact. A man may disavow his name or signature; he may disavow a knowledge of a fact, or his concern in a transaction. Opposed to own or acknowledge.

2. To deny; to disown; to reject.

3. To dissent from; not to admit as true or justifiable; not to vindicate.

The Envoy disavowed some parts of the Presidents proclamation.

I personally am unconcerned by not pastoring a church because God has not called me to be a pastor.

I simply wonder why wisdom is not used in this matter. With so many churches falling to the deceit of the enemy, and so few good pastors available of the male bretheren, I simply wonder why female bretheren are not looked at for suitability.

More pragmatism*? This is rather besides the point.

Spiritual authority is a matter of marriage in Genesis, and the relation of a wife to her husband, and the relation of a husband to his wife.

To carry that over to the church when there are many female bretheren with Pastoring skills sitting bored to death under the teaching of a less than able male brother seems to be a nice little trick of the devil: Divide and conquer.

But the 'carry over' is [i]Paul's[/i] by way of the mention he makes there in associating what he has just stated ... is this not what you are up against and seemingly not interested in dealing with?

As for Paul not saying anything about women in the Church Corporate, he did. He said it in his actions throughout the New Testament. And he said it here:

No. And it is not shoved aside, but this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, it is confusing terminology and application. Otherwise Paul is completely out of line and is completely contradicting himself, are you still ready to level that charge? There is enough insinuation in all this to make it seem so.

We have yet to deal with [i]why[/i] the appeal to Genesis here.

*On a side note it did occur to me that the matter of pragmatism might have some more explanation to it ... I was under the impression of 'The ends justify the means' by and large. Goodness! Give this a gander if your up for some brain sweat;

http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism

Forrest, believe it or not, I do not have a fully formed conclusion here, am challenged at the inception and meaning, what all is entailed ... do we decide by committee, by opinion ...

I am not sure how to respond to your comments about Adam and Eve. I do believe that whatever curses arose from the two of them were cancelled at the cross. But as long as we live according to the flesh (which is the cultural church in general, as well as the world) we are also in bondage to all the laws of the flesh. And that will ALWAYS put barriers and walls of hostility between various parties: ex Jew/gentile, slave/master, male/female, parents/kids, etc.

Hmmm, I don't know sister. Our physical deaths were not canceled at the cross ...

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Order? Sequence. Establishment. Authority.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Here is what I have been wondering to bring in from the outside as it were something that is noticed of Paul ... [i]Abuse[/i]. For instance;

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Paul was often bringing a corrective to the church was he not?

Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Dealing with ...

[i]For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but now I write unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.

For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within, whereas them that are without God judgeth? Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.[/i] 1Co 5:3-13

Later admonishing them to restore this same man.
Keep in mind this all part of the same letter here as well as it pertains to the great verse in controversy.

Where I am going with this is the possibility that with all the freedom Jesus brought to women which until that time had been decidedly derogatory towards them in that day, that culture and so forth that the sisters just like the brothers would take it too far and he is actually reeling them back to first principles of conduct, order, authority ... establishment.

crsschk wrote:
UniqueWebRev wrote:

And if I am your brother, and if I am better able to pastor a church than a male brother of the church is, why do you not let me?

Because you are a sister, sister and it is Paul your argument is with. Spiritually, [i]there is neither...[/i]that doesn't change your anatomy however, how far are you willing to go with the ramifications of this?

Mike,

I don't think sex is the issue at all when it comes to getting the Word of God out.

If you have only women to send as missionaries, should we send none, lest we break a tradition in the Bible?

Yes, a tradition. For all I hear is "Under Law"!

And I am under Grace.

I have no difficulty with a woman submitting to a husband even as he loves and takes care of her. I didn't in my marriages, and I don't now.

Sure, you guys can do the majority of the work for God, while your wife takes care of you so you can do it. She then has her portion in your work, because she is part of you. But you don't do it on your own.

Murdog said that the Holy Spirit was well aware of what Paul said, or the rule against a women speaking in church wouldn't be in the Bible.

I agree. I merely think that the Holy Spirit thought that men would have more sense than to carry the customs of one age into another.

In spiritual terms, and being a "widow', I am married to Jesus, and my desire is unto Him. And He has told me to "WRITE". He didn't say what to write, but I ask Him what He wants on my website before I write it. And He gives me the ideas and the words, or it doesn't get written.

If this is pragmatism, well, at least someone is reading the material at that little website that the Holy Spirit runs with my help. And if a seed is sown or one watered, I am content.

And if the only means to get the Word of God out is to use a woman, I say use her.

Is it pragmatism, or a means to an end, that has no sin in it, and only the pride of pleasing my Husband, because I am in obedience?

The Word gets out, and that is what I care about. I really do not care who does it.

I do care that the male part of the church is so hidebound by the cultural customs of another age, and tied up in tradition to the point of the Word not getting out effectively.

[color=993300]Matthew 15: 2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?[/color]

My Husband tells me to "WRITE", so I do. Jesus never cared very much about tradition anyway.

I do not think that every woman should write, teach, preach or Pastor. I don't think every man should either. But those that are called to do it will prosper, for the Lord is with them, for their obedience, and because of His enablement.

And if God is not with them, and their words are not of the Word, well, their ministry will not prosper.

If you recall, Gamaliel said the same thing about Jesus, but no one was listening. God meant for them not to.

But as my Husband, God is asking for me to write what He wants me to write, and evidently be listened to, in a small way.

And since He is both enabling me, and prospering the little website, I would say I am in obedience on this.

Blessings,

Forrest

Dear Forrest ....

Nope. nope. nope ... ;-)
Sometimes these silly smilies are helpful to give some manner of ... aim here.

I don't think sex is the issue at all when it comes to getting the Word of God out.

If you have only women to send as missionaries, should we send none, lest we break a tradition in the Bible?

Yes, a tradition. For all I hear is "Under Law"!

And I am under Grace.

Ah, ... no. Difficult it is to stick to just the question but I am not budging just yet. We would have to go back into the whole matter of what 'law' is being spoken of here and this use as you would have it is not what is being spoken of ... You can be under all the grace you wish but the [i]law[/i] of gravity will still make oatmeal out of your melon if you jump off a skyscraper ...

It is not the law of marriage that is being spoken of but the 'law' of order, sequence and ramifications if I am following Paul's logic there. Neither can it be merely 'tradition' that he is appealing to, it appears it is far more history as established fact, he is not making a case for something arbitrary, negotiable, take it or leave it ... it is a statement ... [b][i]For[/i][/b] ...

Murdog said that the Holy Spirit was well aware of what Paul said, or the rule against a women speaking in church wouldn't be in the Bible.

I agree. I merely think that the Holy Spirit thought that men would have more sense than to carry the customs of one age into another.

Do you not see the danger inherent in this style of thinking? This is not about 'customs' and what you are doing is what far too many do, that is to make scripture arbitrary and 'fitting' to the whims of mere men (yes, [i]and[/i] women since we must be so didactic now). In other words it is 'adjustable' depending on how [u]we[/u] wish to interpret it. We have had a great problem with this way of thinking elsewhere when discussing the ideas of so called 'evolution' with a certain individual and his penchant for cherry picking his way through the scriptures. It puts everything into a state of 'doubtful' because the creation and flood accounts are merely allegorical, Jesus is seen completely as bringing a social 'gospel' and as 'pacifist' ... on and on it goes. Whatever pragmatism might mean anymore this approach to scriptures as being adjustable to [i]our[/i] whims and fancies, our "I thinks" is ... baffling to say the least.

I have no difficulty with a woman submitting to a husband even as he loves and takes care of her. I didn't in my marriages, and I don't now.

In other words, [i]conditional[/i]? That is half pointed and half question.

It is still a form of pragmatism ... and rebellion. Pride as well. Goodness, you are more and more proving my point for me here about the nature of usurping and the antagonism of spiritual submission. I keep holding off all the other "[i]of course[/i]" aspects that are readily available, noted, documented by way of scripture ... those which quickly come in as an inrush to indeed ... [i]disavow[/i] to use your word and it seems to be more of [i]disallow[/i] this very demanding answer to what was stated and [i]why[/i] it was stated ... [b][i]in the church[/i][/b] as to [i]order[/i], as to [i]authority[/i], (primarily spiritual at that), as to [i]establishment[/i], that which [b]God[/b] established, your argument is again with Paul and more so with God Himself.

I may have likely got your ire up a bit by way of challenging a question towards you in the usage of the [u]title[/u] "minister". I am simple asking if you have biblical, scriptural warrant for it ... It is not an attack on your [i]person[/i] and do recall that the function of [i]ministering[/i] was not in dispute, nor what you "do" as you continue to make mention of, writing and so forth. None of that is again in dispute. That many 'male' preachers, 'ministers' what have you are failing does not warrant an usurping of roles ... Would we, using this logic then say that the admonishen towards men being effeminate is now arbitrary and 'OK' because the men failed, the women came in to 'take charge' so the male role can now be pragmatised and he can go ahead and take on these attributes? Is it not outlandish?

Are we not exactly in the midst of "two wrongs don't make a right"?

In spiritual terms, and being a "widow', I am married to Jesus, and my desire is unto Him. And He has told me to "WRITE". He didn't say what to write, but I ask Him what He wants on my website before I write it. And He gives me the ideas and the words, or it doesn't get written.

If this is pragmatism, well, at least someone is reading the material at that little website that the Holy Spirit runs with my help. And if a seed is sown or one watered, I am content.

You are on the defensive and [i]that[/i] in it's self is what I was attributing to earlier about how our reactions are telling of us. If we are strictly convinced that we are not in error then why the backlash? This never was or is intended to be merely a personal application or 'assault' if you will, the desire and drive only that which is "what sayeth the scriptures". Now I do feel a need to ask for forgiveness because I think I unwittingly did ... insinuate some of that earlier in somewhat of a sloppy manner, not my intention and yet not an excuse either. Forgive me.

Is it pragmatism, or a means to an end, that has no sin in it, and only the pride of pleasing my Husband, because I am in obedience?

The Word gets out, and that is what I care about. I really do not care who does it.

I do care that the male part of the church is so hidebound by the cultural customs of another age, and tied up in tradition to the point of the Word not getting out effectively.

Ah, Paris Reidhead to the rescue! This humanism is so subtle ... Weaved through all of this is the notion that ... [i]I[/i], [i]I[/i], [i]I[/i] am the determiner of how things 'work'. The Lord Himself is the one who [i]'gets the word out'[/i] [u]through[/u] the channels and instrumentality that [b]He chooses[/b] and that would almost support what you are saying except that the [i]order[/i] is inversed. "[b]I[/b]" determine that since ... a,b,c have not happened or due to accentuating circumstances [b]I[/b] shall take it upon myself to determine what it is to be done even to the point of over riding established [i]thought[/i], "law" both of which are Gods providence [i]alone[/i]. This is very much what Paul is appealing to, not [i][b]his[/b][/i] personal ideas. He is in fact appealing to the very scriptures themselves. That is the buttress that you are up against, not mine, not "Paul's".

Again, this is not "customs" at all, you are only trying to make them so calling them traditions and the like. I indeed do have a very large problem with this, that you would usurp the scriptures themselves at once saying you agree then turning it around with a series of [i]but's[/i]...

I think you are injecting far too much 'personal application' into this rather than wrestling with the text itself.

And since He is both enabling me, and prospering the little website, I would say I am in obedience on this.

Look here at your surroundings. By that standard SermonIndex ought to be turning back donors in [i]droves![/i]. Is there truly a greater collection of ... spiritual thought and spiritual depth all under one seemingly close compartment out there? It is not an entity unto itself because it pushes out to greater borders, other places where truth is told just as well, church history, revival history ... what the fellow-shippers might bring to it. That is a bit of hyperbole to be sure and a slight exaggeration to just to prove the point. But this is yet [i]still[/i] a grass roots, Holy Spirit dependent effort here ... goodness this forum itself with all the ... what's the word? Beauty, muddiness, misunderstandings, joy, pain, ... [i]challenge[/i] ... intensity, at times strife and ugly, wrong headed, wrong spirited ... Do you recognize how many forums or 'chat rooms' of this sort have had to close down due to 'in fighting'? Just as well, how many [i]ought[/i] to be closed down due to that?

But somehow this marvelous, peculiar, oft times perplexing ... thing ... keeps on enduring through it all, I do not know anything of it's true reach and effect but what I might guess at makes me tremble and on top of that it is being run by idiots! Fools! Goofballs and if anything I would boast of my chief status by mere association and the uncanniness that Greg would have such a dork doing some of this 'moderating' business...

Sigh, I am indeed poking at some of this with a bit of a historical bent to first inceptions as there was a bit of a running joke along these lines when Greg first asked me to partake of this role.(*Edit, felt it best to make some very clarifying remarks here. The point is that this is not so structed in such away as to be 'professionaly' orientated. And forgive the ... folly of attributing wrong notions with this play on words. Look to your webmaster here who stays back behind the scenes so much. His example of humble service and servanthood ought to be more pronounced by his sheer [i]silence[/i] and ability to be lead truly by the Spirit, by his desire that Gods word not be [i]chained[/i] and is to be given out [i]freely[/i] not that everyone can accept that, his is one of the faith of a George Mueller that God will take care of that which is [i]His[/i]. I am and was speaking of my own 'foolishness' and did not intend to make some sort of nefarious implication by use of such words.) But on the serious side, it is very much serious indeed. And I do not doubt for one second your own sincerity, nor what you are called to do, nor is there any disputing or perception of error or wrong in just what you do in fact do on your own site. There may be some for all I know ... It is all something [i]other[/i] to the matter at hand and the interjection of hypotheticals and the 'not caring' about the issue of 'being a pastor', 'not being [u]called[/u] to that' etc. is not getting us anywhere nearer to the point of what this all means. I am indeed convinced that the reason you are not [u]called[/u] to being a pastor is because you [i]cannot[/i] be [u]called[/u] to that function. That the reasons do very much lie in that which Paul reasoned with scripture as his foundation and that the women who are usurping [i]this[/i] function in [i]that[/i] setting are indeed in error. I am not however quite ready nor entirely convinced how it all works out in other functions, other settings and so forth. It just seems to me that some footing needs to be established at the deepest levels of what is and was meant essentially in the two grand verses of so much so called 'controversy' [i][b]before[/b][/i] we can go on to all the other extrapolations that are trying to be derived from the ... definition yet to be defined.

I am truly beginning to understand and sense that which must plague our own Philologos of some 40 plus years of studying Gods word when he attempts to just get a working definition established and has to contest with 'all the other things' simultaneously. Not necessarly a grand agitation or irritation just a ...

:-?

Thanks sister, had much the same mind to go back and do just this ...

We grapple with a subject through the eyes of our own experiences, culture, understandings, etc….. It’s like trying to figure out a puzzle with only three of the three thousand pieces.

I know a missionary woman who was called to a Muslim country where it was unthinkable for males and females to worship together. So when the male converts went to church they left their wives at home – even if they became a Christians too. So this missionary friend of mine planted churches for women and pastored them. She also discipled women, wrote books in their language, worship songs, etc. She even opened a book store and coffee shop for women, as women weren’t allowed to go places where men where (her supporting denomination ordained her)

Now if Paul had written a letter to the Christians of that country (which I will not disclose) who would he write to and what – keeping in mind that Christ did not command his followers to uproot the cultural status quo (which in this particular country would have invited immediate death)?

Would/should that same rules apply to us?

I bring up this question because I believe that if we arrive at a Biblical interpretation that cannot be applicable in all culture of all times, we have misunderstood Paul's intent.

What is the principle behind Paul's teachings that relate to gender issues? I'm not convinced that we have uncovered it. If our conclusions are divorced from the broader message of the gospel.... might we not.... possibly..... risk error?

Do our conclusions facilitate spiritual growth and maturity, or do they lead to walls, divisions, competition, demands, etc between parties - be it gender, or whatever, then ... something is missing... surely.

Having said that, I'd say that either view- complimentarian or egalitarian can fall over the edge. I've seen it!! I've also seen either way blessed and fruitful.

So much for an answer to our original poster. Maybe the answer lies elsewhere. Someone once said: You are asking the wrong question.

:-?

Diane

The person who is most mature and has a knowledge of the Word happens to be a woman.

Would she be allowed to teach them?

Jeanette, Since God hasn’t added an appendix to the Bible for all the “what-ifs” I’m not about to start one.

Bill Gothard and his ministry refused to offer their home-schooling programs to any family where the father wasn’t functioning as the spiritual head. His rational was mere common sense: Because IT WON’T WORK! And I believe that! – and have seen it. (not to discount all home schooling where moms do it all)

For the same reason I would hesitate to suggest to any organization so dysfunctional as to have NO capable male leaders to conscript in a female substitute. It likely won’t work. In fact, she may end up being used to prop up a system that should die, or fall on its face before the Lord.

I know a church where the men where neglecting their roles. The women had been filling in the gaps. Then they were convicted and prayed about it. God called them to surrender most of their roles. The men then were convicted and – to make a long story short – now that church has SEVERAL men capable of leading, preaching, and pasturing. It is the strongest church, spiritually. (and I hobnob in a lot of churches)

I add that point cautiously, though - NOT AS AN APPENDIX to God’s divine program. In fact, trying it may backfire. These women were led by God – and in the end, God blessed.

I can’t speak for another church or individual because God doesn’t tell me what THEY should do. They need to seek God for themselves - as their HEAD.
(God has blow my “advice” out of the water enough times for me to say that with assurance)

EDIT: Now we can blow all that away - because, after all, God has done amazing things through women who planted churches, taught the people.. etc.... God seems to be a master at making exeptions to the rules.

Diane

Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

1Cr 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

If this is positional then God is above Christ.
The Glory of God is Christ and the glory of the man is the woman. The man is the Glory of Christ. This does not make anyone greater than the other. It does give obedience to the Son when He says My Father is greater than I. All the while knowing that He is His Father's Glory.
The same would be true of the man, knowing the Christ is greater than He is but the he is the glory of Christ. Think about what would Christ be without God the Father, what would man be without the Son and what would woman be without the man. The woman would be nothing and the man without Christ is nothing. Today being Fathers day lets take the man what would he be without the woman? He would have no glory as a husband or father, thus the woman is His Glory. Without the woman man could not be the head. Without the woman Jesus could not be the Son or Savior.
So God has His glory in the Son and the Son has His glory in the man and the man has his glory in the woman. If women are causing problems in the Church and making confusion of all that is said then women would be told to keep silent in the church. If that was for all women then Paul would not have said for women to prophesy they must have their head covered.

Since God is on the side of the weaker vessels and the weaker things of this world and gives them more honor, who has the most honor in the course of Headship? It is something like this, what do you use a hammer and shovel for. Would you pound a nail with a shovel? I guess you could, but what a mess. Would you dig a ditch with a hammer? It sure would take a lot longer.
I am just saying God has a way of making His creation work and He has set things as He want them. I see no reason that woman can not teach a man as long as her head is covered, with the intention of not lording it over the man. The same for the man with long hair, if he teaches with long hair or his head covered as long as his mind is on Christ then his teaching has short hair. Remember the Spirit of the Law and not the letter?

Just some things to think and pray about.

1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.

1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Is it not the covering of the heart of the woman that is Honor? Not the Letter of the Law, in wearing hats in church. If a woman's heart does nothing without knowing who and what her husband is and wants, is this not the Spirit of the Law, wives honor and give submission unto him.

1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Is the man not to love and honor his wife like Christ did the church? It must be his heart that is uncovered unto the Glory that he is to Christ in obeying and submitting to God in Christ Jesus that gives the husband the ability to love like Christ did the Church.

1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Who's glory is who's? She being the glory of the man makes her what to the man?

1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

All together in Christ and Christ in God, and Christ in us and us in Christ and God.

1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Your heart ladies.

1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Your heart men. If your heart say cut it then cut it.

1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

The heart Ladies, if your heart says don't cut it don't. There is no rule in the Church.

1Cr 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1Cr 11:17 ¶ Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise [you] not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

1Cr 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Ladies teach or don't teach. If your heart says teach with it's covering teach, because your heart is your husbands and Christs

1Cr 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

We must have these thing in the church to see who is approved. Is it approved by the Law of works or the Law of Love for all.

Just saying what has come to me this day of a Father of 7 whom I am not a father without them, they should receive the greater honor for putting up with me. Without a woman and son's and daughters' I would not be a father.

That is why God love us so much and Gave His Only Begotten Son that we might become His son's and daughters. Amen

In Christ: Phillip

Well, I'm home rebelling today.

My! My! Annie! Why not till now? After all, your “beef” is nothing new.

How about trying this one on for size:

"So, Jeremiah [Annie], if you're worn out in this footrace with men,
what makes you think you can race against horses?
And if you can't keep your wits during times of calm,
what's going to happen when troubles break loose like the Jordan in flood? “
Jer. 12:5,6 The Message

still felt I was with The Lord today and even in His will.

Rebelling can be delightful, can’t it! :-P

Diane

LittleGift wrote:
Just a question:

Consider a small group of about 5 Christians, in a dangerous situation, such as war or persecution. Most of them are comparatively new believers with little Bible knowldge.

The person who is most mature and has a knowledge of the Word happens to be a woman.

Would she be allowed to teach them?

Blessings

Jeanette

Jeannette,

Being the practical person that I am, I think that in your group of five, with 4 babes in Christ, and 1 older Christian of any variety, the older and more mature person in Christ should talk all the Jesus they know, until they can find someone, again of any variety, with more knowledge, to help out.

I genuinely feel concern for the Body of Christ, whether male or female, that there is so little Word being spread, to the point that one wonders if any of the Church Corporate care enough about the Great Commission to overturn a few traditions to get back to the heart of the Bible.

When I read the Old Testament or the New Testament, I don't focus on who is doing what, only that it got done, and how it got done. And yes, some things are particularly masculine or feminine, while others are good reference material to work from regardless of the gender.

Not belonging to a denominational church, which meets in a building, the rules and regs that trouble some of our male Bretheren don't much come in my way. Perhaps that is why I am so surprised by them.

When people meet at my house, I do, out of the old fashioned politeness that I was taught, turn first to the oldest male present to discuss the Word. But when a man asks for my opinion or for information I have, I'll give him what I know.

Oddly, despite my damaged memory, the Holy Spirit gives me the answers they need, even if I can't quote chapter and verse without my computer. The men I know are only in pursuit of knowledge, and a good discussion, and consequently have no trouble with the possibility that I might, despite my femininity, have information worthwhile to speak about.

And in your example of a small group, where there are some who need access to the Word, and have no Bible, the one who shows the most fruit in the Spirit as well as knowledge in the Word should do the talking, for obviously, they are walking what they talk, and if they are heart tied to Jesus, will be supported by Him in teaching and encouraging the others.

Blessings,

Forrest

Christinyou wrote:
Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

1Cr 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

If this is positional then God is above Christ.
The Glory of God is Christ and the glory of the man is the woman. The man is the Glory of Christ. This does not make anyone greater than the other. It does give obedience to the Son when He says My Father is greater than I. All the while knowing that He is His Father's Glory.
The same would be true of the man, knowing the Christ is greater than He is but the he is the glory of Christ. Think about what would Christ be without God the Father, what would man be without the Son and what would woman be without the man. The woman would be nothing and the man without Christ is nothing. Today being Fathers day lets take the man what would he be without the woman? He would have no glory as a husband or father, thus the woman is His Glory. Without the woman man could not be the head. Without the woman Jesus could not be the Son or Savior.
So God has His glory in the Son and the Son has His glory in the man and the man has his glory in the woman. If women are causing problems in the Church and making confusion of all that is said then women would be told to keep silent in the church. If that was for all women then Paul would not have said for women to prophesy they must have their head covered.

Since God is on the side of the weaker vessels and the weaker things of this world and gives them more honor, who has the most honor in the course of Headship? It is something like this, what do you use a hammer and shovel for. Would you pound a nail with a shovel? I guess you could, but what a mess. Would you dig a ditch with a hammer? It sure would take a lot longer.
I am just saying God has a way of making His creation work and He has set things as He want them. I see no reason that woman can not teach a man as long as her head is covered, with the intention of not lording it over the man. The same for the man with long hair, if he teaches with long hair or his head covered as long as his mind is on Christ then his teaching has short hair. Remember the Spirit of the Law and not the letter?

Just some things to think and pray about....Just saying what has come to me this day of a Father of 7 whom I am not a father without them, they should receive the greater honor for putting up with me. Without a woman and son's and daughters' I would not be a father.

That is why God love us so much and Gave His Only Begotten Son that we might become His son's and daughters. Amen

In Christ: Phillip

Nice exposition - I really appreaciate your commentary on the verses you provided.

Happy Dad's Day to all the male Bretheren on SI, and 7 times over for you, Phillip!

Blessings,

Forrest

Actually Diane, your verse was good and I went off the 'puter and took it to heart. Believing as I do, that 'nothing' is by accident.

As I muse back over my past 2+ years on SI, I’d say those “lesser” paths are actually THE most important aspects of our spiritual walk. God, like the policeman, waves us down, and onto the shoulder of the road - for one-anothering.

Frankly, this entire gender issue is quickly becoming a non-issue for me.

Recently, I have been listening to the sermons from Knox Presbyterian Church in Toronto –and some come close to Spurgeon's (THey are not for the faint-hearted!) - a huge contrast to what I have been hearing in many of our evangelical churches today. One guest speaker is out of the United Church. Another is a female professor at the Anglican Seminary! She gave a straight Bible lesson. I am being blown away -because I know that among these same denominations are also the glitter-eyed followers of Marcus Borg.

So, it boils down to a lesson I learned from “Experiencing God” by Blackaby: Look where God is moving, and move with him.

Do not fear the darkness. God may be there. If all you see and worry about is the bad stuff or the "unbiblical", you are sure to miss God’s hand at work in the midst of it!

Diane

[i]First of all, then, I exhort that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. [u]For[/u] this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[u]For[/u] God is one, and there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

To this I am ordained a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie), a teacher of the nations, in faith and truth.

I will [u]there[b]fore[/b][/u] that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [u]For[/u] Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.[/i] 1Ti 2:1-15

[i]For[/i]

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

[b]Gen 3:16[/b] -
We have here the sentence passed upon the woman for her sin. Two things she is condemned to: a state of sorrow, and a state of subjection, proper punishments of a sin in which she had gratified her pleasure and her pride.

I. She is here put into a state of sorrow, one particular of which only is specified, that in bringing forth children; but it includes all those impressions of grief and fear which the mind of that tender sex is most apt to receive, and all the common calamities which they are liable to. Note, Sin brought sorrow into the world; it was this that made the world a vale of tears, brought showers of trouble upon our heads, and opened springs of sorrows in our hearts, and so deluged the world: had we known no guilt, we should have known no grief.

The pains of child-bearing, which are great to a proverb, a scripture proverb, are the effect of sin; every pang and every groan of the travailing woman speak aloud the fatal consequences of sin: this comes of eating forbidden fruit. Observe, 1. The sorrows are here said to be multiplied, [i]greatly multiplied[/i] All the sorrows of this present time are so; many are the calamities which human life is liable to, of various kinds, and often repeated, the clouds returning after the rain, and no marvel that our sorrows are multiplied when our sins are: both are innumerable evils. The sorrows of child-bearing are multiplied; for they include, not only the travailing throes, but the indispositions before (it is sorrow from the conception), and the nursing toils and vexations after; and after all, if the children prove wicked and foolish, they are, more than ever, the heaviness of her that bore them. Thus are the sorrows multiplied; as one grief is over, another succeeds in this world. 2. It is God that multiplies our sorrows: [i]I will do it.[/i] God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied.

II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to [i]usurp authority[/i], 1Ti_2:11, 1Ti_2:12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not [i]sui juris[/i] - at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num_30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, [i]Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands[/i]; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence.

III. Observe here how mercy is mixed with wrath in this sentence. The woman shall have sorrow, but it shall be in bringing forth children, and the sorrow shall be [i]forgotten for joy that a child is born[/i], Joh_16:21. She shall be subject, but it shall be to her own husband that loves her, not to a stranger, or an enemy: the sentence was not a curse, to bring her to ruin, but a chastisement, to bring her to repentance. It was well that enmity was not put between the man and the woman, as there was between the serpent and the woman.

Matthew Henry

[i]If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence.[/i]

Rebellion ~ Submission ~ Obedience ~ words to dwell on.

The world, the flesh and the devil ...
God [i]Himself?[/i] ~ Act 5:39, Act 7:51, Eze 20:38, 2Ch 35:21, Rom 13:1, 2, Jas 4:6, Rev 14:7, ...

Ecc 12:13

[i]Continued ...[/i]

Continued ...

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, ...

Gen 3:17-19 -
We have here the sentence passed upon Adam, which is prefaced with a
recital of his crime: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy
wife, Gen_3:17. He excused the fault, by laying it on his wife:
She gave it me. But God does not admit the excuse. She could but
tempt him, she could not force him; though it was her fault to persuade
him to eat, it was his fault to hearken to her. Thus men's frivolous
pleas will, in the day of God's judgment, not only be overruled, but
turned against them, and made the grounds of their sentence. Out of thine
own mouth will I judge thee. Observe,

I. God put marks of his displeasure on Adam in three instances: -

1. His habitation is, by this sentence, cursed: Cursed is the ground
for thy sake; and the effect of that curse is, Thorns and
thistles shall it bring forth unto thee. It is here intimated that his
habitation should be changed; he should no longer dwell in a
distinguished, blessed, paradise, but should be removed to common ground, and that cursed. The ground, or earth, is here put for the whole visible
creation, which, by the sin of man, is made subject to vanity, the several
parts of it being not so serviceable to man's comfort and happiness as
they were designed to be when they were made, and would have been if he
had not sinned. God gave the earth to the children of men, designing it
to be a comfortable dwelling to them. But sin has altered the property
of it. It is now cursed for man's sin; that is, it is a dishonourable
habitation, it bespeaks man mean, that his foundation is in the dust; it
is a dry and barren habitation, its spontaneous productions are now
weeds and briers, something nauseous or noxious; what good fruits it
produces must be extorted from it by the ingenuity and industry of man.
Fruitfulness was its blessing, for man's service (Gen_1:11, Gen_1:29), and
now barrenness was its curse, for man's punishment. It is not what it
was in the day it was created. Sin turned a fruitful land into
barrenness; and man, having become as the wild ass's colt, has the wild ass's lot, the wilderness for his habitation, and the barren land
his dwelling, Job_39:6; Psa_68:6. Had not this curse been in part
removed, for aught I know, the earth would have been for ever barren, and
never produced any thing but thorns and thistles. The ground is
cursed, that is, doomed to destruction at the end of time, when the
earth, and all the works that are therein, shall be burnt up for
the sin of man, the measure of whose iniquity will then be full, 2Pe_3:7,
2Pe_3:10. But observe a mixture of mercy in this sentence. (1.) Adam
himself is not cursed, as the serpent was (Gen_3:14), but only the
ground for his sake. God had blessings in him, even the holy seed:
Destroy it not, for that blessing is in it, Isa_65:8. And he had
blessings in store for him; therefore he is not directly and immediately
cursed, but, as it were, at second hand. (2.) He is yet above ground. The
earth does not open and swallow him up; only it is not what it was: as he
continues alive, notwithstanding his degeneracy from his primitive
purity and rectitude, so the earth continues to be his habitation,
notwithstanding its degeneracy from its primitive beauty and fruitfulness. (3.)
This curse upon the earth, which cut off all expectations of a
happiness in things below, might direct and quicken him to look for bliss and
satisfaction only in things above.

2. His employments and enjoyments are all embittered to him.

(1.) His business shall henceforth become a toil to him, and he shall
go on with it in the sweat of his face, Gen_3:19. His business,
before he sinned, was a constant pleasure to him, the garden was then
dressed without any uneasy labour, and kept without any uneasy care; but
now his labour shall be a weariness and shall waste his body; his care
shall be a torment and shall afflict his mind. The curse upon the
ground which made it barren, and produced thorns and thistles, made his
employment about it much more difficult and toilsome. If Adam had not
sinned, he had not sweated. Observe here, [1.] That labour is our duty,
which we must faithfully perform; we are bound to work, not as creatures
only, but as criminals; it is part of our sentence, which idleness
daringly defies. [2.] That uneasiness and weariness with labour are our just
punishment, which we must patiently submit to, and not complain of,
since they are less than our iniquity deserves. Let not us, by inordinate
care and labour, make our punishment heavier than God has made it; but
rather study to lighten our burden, and wipe off our sweat, by eyeing
Providence in all and expecting rest shortly.

(2.) His food shall henceforth become (in comparison with what it had
been) unpleasant to him. [1.] The matter of his food is changed; he must
now eat the herb of the field, and must no longer be feasted with the
delicacies of the garden of Eden. Having by sin made himself like the
beasts that perish, he is justly turned to be a fellow-commoner with
them, and to eat grass as oxen, till he know that the heavens do
rule. [2.] There is a change in the manner of his eating it: In
sorrow (Gen_3:17) and in the sweat of his face (Gen_3:19) he must
eat of it. Adam could not but eat in sorrow all the days of his life,
remembering the forbidden fruit he had eaten, and the guilt and shame he
had contracted by it. Observe, First, That human life is
exposed to many miseries and calamities, which very much embitter the poor remains of its pleasures and delights. Some never eat with pleasure
(Job_21:25), through sickness or melancholy; all, even the best, have cause
to eat with sorrow for sin; and all, even the happiest in this world,
have some allays to their joy: troops of diseases, disasters, and
deaths, in various shapes, entered the world with sin, and still ravage it.
Secondly, That the righteousness of God is to be acknowledged in
all the sad consequences of sin. Wherefore then should a living man
complain? Yet, in this part of the sentence, there is also a
mixture of mercy. He shall sweat, but his toil shall make his rest the more
welcome when he returns to his earth, as to his bed; he shall grieve,
but he shall not starve; he shall have sorrow, but in that sorrow he
shall eat bread, which shall strengthen his heart under his sorrows. He is
not sentenced to eat dust as the serpent, only to eat the herb of the
field.

3. His life also is but short. Considering how full of trouble his days
are, it is in favour to him that they are few; yet death being
dreadful to nature (yea, even though life be unpleasant) that concludes
the sentence. “Thou shalt return to the ground out of which thou
wast taken; thy body, that part of thee which was taken out of the
ground, shall return to it again; for dust thou art.” This points
either to the first original of his body; it was made of the
dust, nay it was made dust, and was still so; so that there needed
no more than to recall the grant of immortality, and to withdraw the
power which was put forth to support it, and then he would, of course,
return to dust. Or to the present corruption and degeneracy of his
mind: Dust thou art, that is, “Thy precious soul is now lost
and buried in the dust of the body and the mire of the flesh; it was made
spiritual and heavenly, but it has become carnal and earthly.” His
doom is therefore read: “To dust thou shalt return. Thy body shall
be forsaken by thy soul, and become itself a lump of dust; and then it
shall be lodged in the grave, the proper place for it, and mingle
itself with the dust of the earth,” our dust, Psa_104:29. Earth to
earth, dust to dust. Observe here, (1.) That man is a mean frail
creature, little as dust, the small dust of the balance -
light as dust, altogether lighter than vanity - weak as dust,
and of no consistency. Our strength is not the strength of stones; he
that made us considers it, and remembers that we are dust,
Psa_103:14. Man is indeed the chief part of the dust of the world
(Pro_8:26), but still he is dust. (2.) That he is a mortal dying creature,
and hastening to the grave. Dust may be raised, for a time, into a little
cloud, and may seem considerable while it is held up by the wind that
raised it; but, when the force of that is spent, it falls again, and
returns to the earth out of which it was raised. Such a thing is man; a
great man is but a great mass of dust, and must return to his earth.
(3.) That sin brought death into the world. If Adam had not sinned, he
would not have died, Rom_5:12. God entrusted Adam with a spark of
immortality, which he, by a patient continuance in well-doing, might have blown up into an everlasting flame; but he foolishly blew it out by wilful
sin: and now death is the wages of sin, and sin is the sting of
death.

II. We must not go off from this sentence upon our first parents, which
we are all so nearly concerned in, and feel from, to this day, till we
have considered two things: -

1. How fitly the sad consequences of sin upon the soul of Adam and his
sinful race were represented and figured out by this sentence, and
perhaps were more intended in it than we are aware of. Though that misery
only is mentioned which affected the body, yet that was a pattern of
spiritual miseries, the curse that entered into the soul. (1.) The pains
of a woman in travail represent the terrors and pangs of a guilty
conscience, awakened to a sense of sin; from the conception of lust, these
sorrows are greatly multiplied, and, sooner or later, will come upon the
sinner like pain upon a woman in travail, which cannot be avoided. (2.)
The state of subjection to which the woman was reduced represents that
loss of spiritual liberty and freedom of will which is the effect of
sin. The dominion of sin in the soul is compared to that of a husband
(Rom_7:1-5), the sinner's desire is towards it, for he is fond of his
slavery, and it rules over him. (3.) The curse of barrenness which was
brought upon the earth, and its produce of briars and thorns, are a fit
representation of the barrenness of a corrupt and sinful soul in that
which is good and its fruitfulness in evil. It is all overgrown with
thorns, and nettles cover the face of it; and therefore it is nigh unto
cursing, Heb_6:8. (4.) The toil and sweat bespeak the difficulty
which, through the infirmity of the flesh, man labours under, in the
service of God and the work of religion, so hard has it now become to
enter into the kingdom of heaven. Blessed be God, it is not
impossible. (5.) The embittering of his food to him bespeaks the soul's want of the comfort of God's favour, which is life, and the bread of life. (6.)
The soul, like the body, returns to the dust of this world; its
tendency is that way; it has an earthy taint, Joh_3:31.

2. How admirably the satisfaction our Lord Jesus made by his death and
sufferings answered to the sentence here passed upon our first parents.
(1.) Did travailing pains come in with sin? We read of the travail
of Christ's soul (Isa_53:11); and the pains o death he was held by
are called odinai (Act_2:24), the pains of a woman in
travail. (2.) Did subjection come in with sin? Christ was made under the
law, Gal_4:4. (3.) Did the curse come in with sin? Christ was made a
curse for us, died a cursed death, Gal_3:13. (4.) Did thorns come in with
sin? He was crowned with thorns for us. (5.) Did sweat come in with
sin? He for us did sweat as it were great drops of blood. (6.) Did sorrow
come in with sin? He was a man of sorrows, his soul was, in his agony,
exceedingly sorrowful. (7.) Did death come in with sin? He became
obedient unto death. Thus is the plaster as wide as the wound. Blessed be
God for Jesus Christ!

Matthew Henry

Love, rest and peace, obedience, words to dwell on. The "BETTER WAY".

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Is woman led by the Spirit or is she led by just man? This may sound cynical or argumentative or just plain stupid, but it must be answered.

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law

Sin and death are gone to those that are in Christ Jesus. That means the curse of the Law, that is the conviction of sin no longer applies. That Christ and the Spirit of the Law which is much deeper that Law as we know it.

The beatitudes are pure Law, except two. None of the beatitudes are able to be accomplished with a pure heart unless they are done in us by the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit or we are trying to attain their blessedness by our own works.

Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:4 Blessed [are] they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Mat 5:5 Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Mat 5:6 Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Mat 5:7 Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Mat 5:8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Mat 5:10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

These are the two that are not Law
Mat 11:6 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Mat 14:19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to [his] disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

Notice "He blessed" as the Word revealed to Peter which blessed Him. By Christ to the disciples to us, especially to Paul for the Gospel that is Christ in --you--, the bread of life to the multitudes. Born again by Spirit and water. As to the woman at the well, The Spirit of Christ and the Living Water of Life, Jesus Christ Himself in --you--.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This is our blessedness that leads to the blessedness of the beatitudes that are born again in us by the Spirit of Christ.

Notice there is only one curse and it is upon Satan, not Adam or Eve. These circumstances give to Adam and Eve are certainly looking forward to Christ. If the woman is under the man, she is in deep trouble. If the man is over the woman he in himself will be a dictator. The only way God could have meant this is in Christ the man will be in headship like Christ is in headship over both. Thus the husband can rule over the wife by the Christ that is in him and no other way. How does Christ rule? By 1 Corinthians 13. Just change charity to Christ and the perfectness of His rule over us and man rule over his wife become bright and shiny.

1 Corinthians 13:10-11 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

He is Come and He is in the Spirit that are His and He rules over his brethren, men and women and son's and daughters of His Father.

The Spirit of submission is Christ, The Spirit of teaching is Christ, The Spirit of His choice is His.

In Christ: Phillip

Must it always be either\\or ... Yes, but ...?
A quick gilding of a matter to get on to the next, the other, the ... 'what about' ... ?

There seems to be something of a dodge here and I can't help wonder at the aforementioned things above and all those that must force away from this question of authority and usurping are not in fact a state of rebellion in itself. If one has to go through endless clarifications of what is not the issue, 'yes I understand', 'no that is not what I mean-meant-am infering' ... not about legalism, not about lording it over, not about male dominance, not about what Paul said here and there [i]about[/i] gender as if it somehow all dislodges or 'disallows' or whatever it is ...

The sense more than a few here are giving is that this frankly doesn't mean a thing and I am under the impression that it means a great deal and is a great deal of the very problem we have in this hour. That we may well be guilty of trying to be too nice at the expense of elementary principles with pragmatic approaches and distractive mandates. There is so much [i]other[/i] being poured into this that it is little wonder that it has lost it's original intention and understanding, why these things were appealed to in the first place.

This [i]usurping[/i] is deeply spiritual and deathly lethal because it exposes us as frauds if we cannot see how permeating it is even beyond this matter. It is the extension of the same, not [i]another[/i] matter. It made the devil out of an angel and threw him out on his ear. It crucified the Lord in the heart of the Pharisee and the heart of man. It is the one thing all have in common, this right to self rule, which is no right at all, only an usurping.

Many here are practically speaking as if this whole thing has somehow been written off as erased at the cross while it lives on in full manifestation.

The clever twist in all this is not what some of you would have it, as hierarchy and as [i]law[/i] of another vein;

Notice there is only one curse and it is upon Satan, not Adam or Eve.

Oh? No more sweat of the brow or pain in child birth, no more [i]the soul that sins shall die[/i]?

From hearing some here it would seem this whole thing has just been completely abolished;

Sin and death are gone to those that are in Christ Jesus. That means the curse of the Law, that is the conviction of sin no longer applies. That Christ and the Spirit of the Law which is much deeper that Law as we know it.

What?! The conviction of sin no longer applies? This is really getting to be something here and the use of law is so distorted and applied so randomly as to make this all but one of confusion. None of these things apply to establishment, to fixed order, to genders even [i]before[/i] the fall.

When I titled the subheading earlier I was certainly looking on the mirror writing glass as it reflected back at me as much as anything, [i]Rebels![/i] and as the day progresses and these things redound back in my hearing and in my contemplations that bit wanting to wonder if I was mistaken in categorically including too many others at the same time. Perhaps no after all, [i]rebels[/i] indeed.

Don't read I am having a bad day, or what's got him all up in arms or whatever sideway's notion must be attributed and 'balanced' and ... there is a place for all that but I am not particularly angry as just ... baffled! Perhaps I am in error to just not leave well enough alone.

[i]If [u]man[/u] had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the [u]woman[/u] had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and [b]then the dominion would have been no grievance[/b]: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, [b]she would never have complained of her subjection[/b]; [u]therefore[/u] it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so.[/i]

Since there is such little complaining going on here and hardly any defending, I must surely be
in error ...

:-(

[i]Rebels![/i]

Sin and death are gone to those that are in Christ Jesus. That means the curse of the Law, that is the conviction of sin no longer applies. That Christ and the Spirit of the Law which is much deeper than Law as we know it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
What?! The conviction of sin no longer applies? This is really getting to be something here and the use of law is so distorted and applied so randomly as to make this all but one of confusion. None of these things apply to establishment, to fixed order, to genders even before the fall.

Then why?

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit

The skill to separate the Spirit from the flesh does not come from man but by God through Christ Jesus that is birthed in the believer.

Walk in the flesh and sin is present, "but after the Spirit, no condemnation".

Christ in you is the Hope of Glory, it is the you that Christ is in, that making you the Glory of Christ, and Christ the righteousness of God in you. We can seek the Law and use it as much as we want, but that is not the life that God intended for those that are in Christ and seek the Father knowing that they are His son's and daughters.

This is repetition but I think it brings the law where it belongs, being that which convicts of sin and makes us sinners. The only Law we live by is the Law of Love that Christ Gave us in nailing the rest to the Cross.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Jam 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

Do we walk in transgression and in the Spirit at the same time? Impossible.

Because it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me that we walk in the Spirit.

Galatians 2:16-18 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

In Christ, with the Spirit of Christ in us or we are none of His.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

What is the Glory that should follow, the life we now live and the Christ that is in us.

Galatians 2:20-21 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Colossians 1:27-29 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

And you if it be that Christ is in you. How does this happen? Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever

When does this happen? John 3:14-16 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Believe: 1 John 5:9-13 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

In Christ: Phillip

But isn't it interesting that you are really struggling with the issues which arise / have arisen for women - who are not married, or who are divorced, or who are married to those not fulfilling entirely the role (Christ not being their head) - who have been thrown towards Christ as the only Head to whom safely to submit in spiritual terms?

Have you wondered why you are willing to suggest we (those discussing here) are [i]usurping[/i] the place of men? What men? Christians? Males? Against what (prior?) mental template are you comparing us? Truly, is it [i]only[/i] scripture you're using as your guide?

Hi Linn,

Sigh ... earlier this afternoon read back through these and started a response that was entitled "Uncle!" As in 'I give up' ...

Figured I would attempt to clear up a couple of things upon later thought. I am not struggling here at all as it may seem, nor in the other mentions. I must say I do get a bit wary of hearing this sort of thing, it seems to be quite a bit of reading into things and borders on that sort of psychological ... babble that I am not fond of at all. Sorry if that sounds too personal or mischievous or ... Goodness! Perhaps that is my frustration if there must be one ... all this extra, all this other, what I think, my opinion, yes this, no not that, clarify and over clarify and quantify and, and, and ... Perhaps it is just in the lousy way of getting these things across that there is an expectation of just to narrow the view that is asking too much? 2 verse's and it seems hardly any interest whatsoever to delve into them though they seem so pertinent to even the original question asked here. They at best are given a very short shift, a quick nod and then on to endless extrapolations, theories, other things, inferences, confusion, pragmatism ... side things, insinuations ... egads!!

Rebellion as rebellion.
Usurping as usurping.
Authority as authority.

What are they as [i]substantive[/i]?
What is the very [b][i]point[/i][/b] of Paul bringing in a matter of origins and function and design and order into the mix of the large verse, is it really unimportant? Forget all this other stuff for just [i]a moment[/i] is all that I have been attempting for ... how many pages?

Jeanette again is much closer to the point in that it seems imminently important and the diversion from this is what broke forth the cry of [i]Rebels[/i]! The reactions again are interesting and I cannot say this was designed to get one, not the intention, never did it cross my mind until ... hearing all the reaction, it is still all something else, something other and ... seemed to warrant the tag that was an attempt to force the issue itself not necessarily a smiting of anyone. The plain truth of the matter is that we are indeed rebels yet still. And I think a lot this proves it, myself included. In a way I am shouting above the din, in earnest certainly and ... what? More analysis? More dissecting the nuance's of ... I am grinning and chuckling at this even as I write, it just seems so ... over the top!

It's not about meekness or not being meek, but a concentration upon the text, strictly to derive it's meaning and maybe it is that it is thought to be so simple (it is, it seems) that gives it such a glancing pass.

This may well find better footing elsewhere as I am seeing in it the roots of authority as God gives it and meant it. Have quite a bit written and have been dwelling on it for quite some time, years likely. The 2 messages from Stephen Kaung, redundant again.

To let out a bit here, a 'first things' perhaps and one great quote I heard from Chuck Swindoll last week that he quoted of someone else that is part of the thinking and applicable to the 'rebel' charge;

The premise,

[i]For there is no authority but of God;[/i] For there is no authority but of God; ([i]Edit: accidental redundancy there ... meant to reference Rom 13:1[/i])

The quote;

"[i]The critics need to lighten up and the criticized need to toughen up![/i]"

BTW, you did steal some of my thunder with the comments on the centurion, a bit of a twist there in emphasis but very much the crux of the matter.

Will see what can of trouble this will stir up.