THE FIRST BLAST TO AWAKE WOMEN DEGENERATE
- Thread starter Ethan1942
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. Judges 4:4 NIV
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. Judges 4:4. KJV
Some translations say lead. Some translations say rule in Judges 4:4.
The Hebrew word that gets translated into lead or rule is SHAPHAT Strong's Concordance 8199. It means to judge, govern and rule.
Source:
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/judges/4-4.htm
Source:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8199.htm
The Brown Drivers Briggs Hebrew Lexicon is consistent with Strong's Bible Concordance. They both list "to judge, govern and rule" as definitions for the Hebrew word Shaphat (8199) that gets translated into lead or rule in Judges 4:4.
Source:
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/lexicon.show/ID/h8199/page/5
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. Judges 4:4. KJV
Some translations say lead. Some translations say rule in Judges 4:4.
The Hebrew word that gets translated into lead or rule is SHAPHAT Strong's Concordance 8199. It means to judge, govern and rule.
Source:
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/judges/4-4.htm
Source:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8199.htm
The Brown Drivers Briggs Hebrew Lexicon is consistent with Strong's Bible Concordance. They both list "to judge, govern and rule" as definitions for the Hebrew word Shaphat (8199) that gets translated into lead or rule in Judges 4:4.
Source:
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/lexicon.show/ID/h8199/page/5
-
2
-
1
- Show all
What Bible verse states that Barak was THE leader of Israel?
What Bible verse states that Barak led the Israelites in parental, spiritual, civic and civil matters?
Deborah held court and settled disputes among the Israelites. Jud 4:5 NIV
The Bible does not state that Barak held court and settled disputes among the Israelites.
Deborah summoned, sent for and called Barak. Jud 4:6
The Bible does not state that Barak summoned, sent for and called Deborah.
Deborah gave Barak instructions from God. Jud 4:6
The Bible does not state that Barak gave Deborah instructions from God.
Barak insisted that Deborah go with him on the mission to Kedesh because he was reluctant to go without Deborah the prophet and judge. Jud 4:8-9. Deborah and Barak went together, which indicates shared responsibility.
As a result of Barak's reluctantance, Barak did not receive the honor and glory. God delivered Israel's enemy into the hands of a woman: Jael. Jud 4:9
Deborah gave Barak instruction from God again. Jud 4:14
The Bible does not state that Barak gave Deborah instruction from God.
Deborah arose as a mother (parental figure) in Israel. Jud 5:7
The Bible does not say that Barak arose as a father, prophet, judge, ruler or governor in Israel.
Barak was the reluctant Commander-in-Chief of the army. Barak led men in battle to Mt. Tabor and beyond, so that God would deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman: Jael. Jud 4:14
We have no verse telling us that Barak lead the men and women in Israel WHO WERE NOT in the army. We have no verse telling us that Barak governed the men and women in Israel concerning non-military matters.
Barak was the reluctant military leader: Commander-in-Chief.
Deborah was a parental, spiritual, civic and civil leader in Israel.
Deborah and Barak were both leaders in Israel. They each presided over different aspects of government.
What Bible verse states that Barak led the Israelites in parental, spiritual, civic and civil matters?
Deborah held court and settled disputes among the Israelites. Jud 4:5 NIV
The Bible does not state that Barak held court and settled disputes among the Israelites.
Deborah summoned, sent for and called Barak. Jud 4:6
The Bible does not state that Barak summoned, sent for and called Deborah.
Deborah gave Barak instructions from God. Jud 4:6
The Bible does not state that Barak gave Deborah instructions from God.
Barak insisted that Deborah go with him on the mission to Kedesh because he was reluctant to go without Deborah the prophet and judge. Jud 4:8-9. Deborah and Barak went together, which indicates shared responsibility.
As a result of Barak's reluctantance, Barak did not receive the honor and glory. God delivered Israel's enemy into the hands of a woman: Jael. Jud 4:9
Deborah gave Barak instruction from God again. Jud 4:14
The Bible does not state that Barak gave Deborah instruction from God.
Deborah arose as a mother (parental figure) in Israel. Jud 5:7
The Bible does not say that Barak arose as a father, prophet, judge, ruler or governor in Israel.
Barak was the reluctant Commander-in-Chief of the army. Barak led men in battle to Mt. Tabor and beyond, so that God would deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman: Jael. Jud 4:14
We have no verse telling us that Barak lead the men and women in Israel WHO WERE NOT in the army. We have no verse telling us that Barak governed the men and women in Israel concerning non-military matters.
Barak was the reluctant military leader: Commander-in-Chief.
Deborah was a parental, spiritual, civic and civil leader in Israel.
Deborah and Barak were both leaders in Israel. They each presided over different aspects of government.
-
3
- Show all
IN RESPONSE TO THE FEMINISTS AND THE FEMINIZED MALES - PART ONE
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Gen 2:18-23 RV)
The word "help" or "helper" translates the Hebrew ’ezer in the translations from the LXX, the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale, up through the Geneva, Bishops Bible, Douay-Rheims, KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV and even the very feminist friendly NRSVUE. The same is true for the literal translations YLT, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Jay P Green and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. The Hebrew-English Interlinear OTs also agree rendering by help(er).
Point One - When the witness of the OT and NT church translates ’ezer as help(er) for 2000 years and then when feminist culture arrives, the modernist translations change, that is highly suspect in itself. On www.biblegateway.com there are 6 modern translations that translate by companion or partner rather than help(er) and this perversion of the text began with the CEV in 1995 as found on that site.
Point Two - The 2010 Roman Catholic Bible the NAB uses "helper" but with the margin note: "'Helper' need not imply subordination, for God is called a helper (Dt 33:7; Ps 46:2)." That evasion of Gen. 2:18 violates a basic rule of hermeneutics, the immediate context determines the usage of a word, not a distant usage in a totally different context and situation. To deny the usage of ’ezer in the sense of subordination between two humans in Gen. 2:18 by comparing the use in reference to God to man elsewhere is nonsense! See following points three and four.
Point Three - The man being first makes him the head, pre-eminent, the leader, the authority by biblical principle -
"Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength; The pre-eminence of dignity, and the pre-eminence of power." (Gen 49:3 ASV)
- or as in the NRSVUE "excelling in rank and excelling in power."
Man as the first-born has the pre-eminence of power and dignity, and in the NRSVUE he excells in rank and power. In 1 Chron. 5:1 Reuben is called again 'first-born' and he had the birthright, which means the inheritance, and that wealth makes the first -born the dominant one, the ruler, the chief.
In Col. 1:15 Christ is called the "first-born of creation" and this gives him preeminence(RSV), or He is to have "first place in everything"(NRSV), or "to become in all things supreme"(REB).
In context, man being first shows woman as "help(er)" is subordinate! The Apostle Paul clearly states this, "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve;" (1Tim 2:12-13 ASV)
Point Four - The authority and power to name, shows superiority and as I underlined in the text earlier, the man named the animals and had authority and dominion over them. In like manner he named the woman so he has authority over her. Matthew Henry writes: "It is an act of authority to impose names (Daniel 1:7), and of subjection to receive them. The inferior creatures did now, as it were, do homage to their prince at his inauguration, and swear fealty and allegiance to him." Even a modern study Bible admits this:
The Harper Collins Study Bible Fully Revised and Updated ©2006 annotation reads:
2:18-23...."The animals are like man as living creatures, but they are also unlike him. The man gave names to them (v.20), indicating his superiority in language and authority. The man also names the Woman (v.23), which may suggest his authority over her, but this aspect of their relationship is muted until the woman's punishment punishment."
The Lange's Commentary on this reads:
"Adam makes himself known to his wife, in that he gives her a name in the very act of declaring her origin. With their name the beasts become the property of Adam; with her name does the wife become his own (Isaiah 43:1; Psalms 147:4)."
But now thus saith Jehovah that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed thee; I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine. (Isa 43:1 ASV)
He counteth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names. (Ps 147:4 ASV)
Point Five - You cannot have two equal heads in leadership! You have a President and then Vice-President(s), but the buck stops at the desk of the head man, the President. John Calvin states it clearly:
John Calvin on 1 Tim. 2:13 makes a clear observation on Gen. 2:18 -
"God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the Apostle justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed."
Concluding Part One - The biblical teaching of the chain of command or ranking in authority of men over women has nothing to do with the red herring that it contradicts the equality of man and woman as to being human, both created in the image of God and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, all are alike in this as shown in Galatians 3:28, which has nothing to do with gender-role, headship or the top rank in chain of command.
In addition, for those who believe the Holy Scriptures as truly God's inerrant word, for those who are truly Christian; we know man did not write on his own by his cultural patriarchy!
"...knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." (2Pet 1:20-21 ASV)
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Gen 2:18-23 RV)
The word "help" or "helper" translates the Hebrew ’ezer in the translations from the LXX, the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale, up through the Geneva, Bishops Bible, Douay-Rheims, KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV and even the very feminist friendly NRSVUE. The same is true for the literal translations YLT, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Jay P Green and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. The Hebrew-English Interlinear OTs also agree rendering by help(er).
Point One - When the witness of the OT and NT church translates ’ezer as help(er) for 2000 years and then when feminist culture arrives, the modernist translations change, that is highly suspect in itself. On www.biblegateway.com there are 6 modern translations that translate by companion or partner rather than help(er) and this perversion of the text began with the CEV in 1995 as found on that site.
Point Two - The 2010 Roman Catholic Bible the NAB uses "helper" but with the margin note: "'Helper' need not imply subordination, for God is called a helper (Dt 33:7; Ps 46:2)." That evasion of Gen. 2:18 violates a basic rule of hermeneutics, the immediate context determines the usage of a word, not a distant usage in a totally different context and situation. To deny the usage of ’ezer in the sense of subordination between two humans in Gen. 2:18 by comparing the use in reference to God to man elsewhere is nonsense! See following points three and four.
Point Three - The man being first makes him the head, pre-eminent, the leader, the authority by biblical principle -
"Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength; The pre-eminence of dignity, and the pre-eminence of power." (Gen 49:3 ASV)
- or as in the NRSVUE "excelling in rank and excelling in power."
Man as the first-born has the pre-eminence of power and dignity, and in the NRSVUE he excells in rank and power. In 1 Chron. 5:1 Reuben is called again 'first-born' and he had the birthright, which means the inheritance, and that wealth makes the first -born the dominant one, the ruler, the chief.
In Col. 1:15 Christ is called the "first-born of creation" and this gives him preeminence(RSV), or He is to have "first place in everything"(NRSV), or "to become in all things supreme"(REB).
In context, man being first shows woman as "help(er)" is subordinate! The Apostle Paul clearly states this, "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve;" (1Tim 2:12-13 ASV)
Point Four - The authority and power to name, shows superiority and as I underlined in the text earlier, the man named the animals and had authority and dominion over them. In like manner he named the woman so he has authority over her. Matthew Henry writes: "It is an act of authority to impose names (Daniel 1:7), and of subjection to receive them. The inferior creatures did now, as it were, do homage to their prince at his inauguration, and swear fealty and allegiance to him." Even a modern study Bible admits this:
The Harper Collins Study Bible Fully Revised and Updated ©2006 annotation reads:
2:18-23...."The animals are like man as living creatures, but they are also unlike him. The man gave names to them (v.20), indicating his superiority in language and authority. The man also names the Woman (v.23), which may suggest his authority over her, but this aspect of their relationship is muted until the woman's punishment punishment."
The Lange's Commentary on this reads:
"Adam makes himself known to his wife, in that he gives her a name in the very act of declaring her origin. With their name the beasts become the property of Adam; with her name does the wife become his own (Isaiah 43:1; Psalms 147:4)."
But now thus saith Jehovah that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed thee; I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine. (Isa 43:1 ASV)
He counteth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names. (Ps 147:4 ASV)
Point Five - You cannot have two equal heads in leadership! You have a President and then Vice-President(s), but the buck stops at the desk of the head man, the President. John Calvin states it clearly:
John Calvin on 1 Tim. 2:13 makes a clear observation on Gen. 2:18 -
"God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the Apostle justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed."
Concluding Part One - The biblical teaching of the chain of command or ranking in authority of men over women has nothing to do with the red herring that it contradicts the equality of man and woman as to being human, both created in the image of God and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, all are alike in this as shown in Galatians 3:28, which has nothing to do with gender-role, headship or the top rank in chain of command.
In addition, for those who believe the Holy Scriptures as truly God's inerrant word, for those who are truly Christian; we know man did not write on his own by his cultural patriarchy!
"...knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." (2Pet 1:20-21 ASV)
IN RESPONSE TO THE FEMINISTS AND THE FEMINIZED MALES - PART TWO
"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." (Gen 3:16 RV)
the underlined phrase compared to the following verse
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Gen 4:7 RV)
The common phrasing and the identical Hebrew words translated "desire" and "rule" show the parellel in the two verses. In Gen. 3:16 it is the woman desiring to control the man and in Gen. 4:7 it is sin personified desiring to control the man. This meaning of the woman's desire has been understood for centuries and some recent translations translate it more fully such as in -
"Then he said to the woman, 'I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.'” (Gen. 3:16 NLT)
For one who is truly a regenerate child of God, the meaning as translated in the NLT is certain, but there are denials made of the obvious, and part of the annotation in The New Interpreter's Study Bible reads on Gen. 3:16, "An additional hardship for the woman is her subordination to the man in Israel's patriarchal society."
So according to this feminist aligned study bible, the LORD God did not say what Gen. 3:16 records, it was what a patriarchal society said. That sounds like the words of Satan himself, that old serpent, "Did God say..." Gen. 3:1. This sort of satanic lie is not uncommon in The New Interpreter's Study Bible. In the Bible itself we find it written - "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (2Pet 1:1 RSV) The annotation in The New Interpreter's Study Bible reads on this in the Introduction: "The letter claims authorship by the apostle Peter (1:1), but, even more emphatically than in the case of 1 Peter, most interpreters doubt that the apostle was the actual author." p2189
Paul wrote - "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." (2Cor 11:14 RSV) and this liberal study Bible, which follows feminist's wresting of Scriptures, surely contains lies of Satan in the annotations, introductions and articles. On page 2249 in the article Authority of the Bible, it states:
"Nonetheless, the Bible as a whole makes no claim to being either 'the word of God' or inspired by God (see Bird). In its entirety it does not avow divine authorship, either directly or derivatively." That article is written by one Phyllis Trible, Union Theological Seminary and Wake Forest University.
The New Interpreter's Study Bible, being very feminist, is an illustration of what extreme of denial feminists and feminized men will go to reject and defy the commands of God!
The statements in Genesis, before the existence of Israel or the Old Covenant, are then continued in the chain of command under the Mosaic Law. In Numbers chapter 30, the father had veto power over a daughter's vow and when she married, that veto power continues in the husband's veto power over the wife.
God in his providence orders things in ways He has not instructed man to do. God has no obligation to explain his purposes in doing things which he denies to man the power to do. It is clearly stated thus:
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut 29:29 RSV)
To bring up women like Deborah in the book of Judges as support for women leaders is nonsense. If God wishes to put a woman into leadership, that is his "secret" will unknown to us. NOWHERE in Scripture are we commanded or told to choose or select a woman for leadership, rule or teacher. If we go by example, since David and others in the OT had multiple wives and concubines without a direct condemnation of it, that means we can do likewise in this day?? Remember, "But Dad, everyone else is getting a tattoo, why can't I?" Dad replies "Because I said so, you may not have a tattoo!" Dad's law rules, not the example of others.
"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." (Gen 3:16 RV)
the underlined phrase compared to the following verse
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Gen 4:7 RV)
The common phrasing and the identical Hebrew words translated "desire" and "rule" show the parellel in the two verses. In Gen. 3:16 it is the woman desiring to control the man and in Gen. 4:7 it is sin personified desiring to control the man. This meaning of the woman's desire has been understood for centuries and some recent translations translate it more fully such as in -
"Then he said to the woman, 'I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.'” (Gen. 3:16 NLT)
For one who is truly a regenerate child of God, the meaning as translated in the NLT is certain, but there are denials made of the obvious, and part of the annotation in The New Interpreter's Study Bible reads on Gen. 3:16, "An additional hardship for the woman is her subordination to the man in Israel's patriarchal society."
So according to this feminist aligned study bible, the LORD God did not say what Gen. 3:16 records, it was what a patriarchal society said. That sounds like the words of Satan himself, that old serpent, "Did God say..." Gen. 3:1. This sort of satanic lie is not uncommon in The New Interpreter's Study Bible. In the Bible itself we find it written - "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (2Pet 1:1 RSV) The annotation in The New Interpreter's Study Bible reads on this in the Introduction: "The letter claims authorship by the apostle Peter (1:1), but, even more emphatically than in the case of 1 Peter, most interpreters doubt that the apostle was the actual author." p2189
Paul wrote - "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." (2Cor 11:14 RSV) and this liberal study Bible, which follows feminist's wresting of Scriptures, surely contains lies of Satan in the annotations, introductions and articles. On page 2249 in the article Authority of the Bible, it states:
"Nonetheless, the Bible as a whole makes no claim to being either 'the word of God' or inspired by God (see Bird). In its entirety it does not avow divine authorship, either directly or derivatively." That article is written by one Phyllis Trible, Union Theological Seminary and Wake Forest University.
The New Interpreter's Study Bible, being very feminist, is an illustration of what extreme of denial feminists and feminized men will go to reject and defy the commands of God!
The statements in Genesis, before the existence of Israel or the Old Covenant, are then continued in the chain of command under the Mosaic Law. In Numbers chapter 30, the father had veto power over a daughter's vow and when she married, that veto power continues in the husband's veto power over the wife.
God in his providence orders things in ways He has not instructed man to do. God has no obligation to explain his purposes in doing things which he denies to man the power to do. It is clearly stated thus:
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut 29:29 RSV)
To bring up women like Deborah in the book of Judges as support for women leaders is nonsense. If God wishes to put a woman into leadership, that is his "secret" will unknown to us. NOWHERE in Scripture are we commanded or told to choose or select a woman for leadership, rule or teacher. If we go by example, since David and others in the OT had multiple wives and concubines without a direct condemnation of it, that means we can do likewise in this day?? Remember, "But Dad, everyone else is getting a tattoo, why can't I?" Dad replies "Because I said so, you may not have a tattoo!" Dad's law rules, not the example of others.
IN RESPONSE TO THE FEMINISTS AND THE FEMINIZED MALES - PART THREE
"...let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?" (1Cor 14:34-36 ASV)
Again, The New Interpreter's Study Bible annotation reads: "These three verses are considered a later, non-Pauline interpolation by some scholars". This is typical feminist denial of Scripture.
I am not swayed by those who reject the statements of God's word. The only variance I can find is that some authorities place vs 34-35 after v40. I'll stay with what Paul wrote rather than listen to the godless deniers of the Holy Spirit inspired words of God.
On 1 Tim 2:11-13, deniers of the inspiration of Scripture say this cannot be literal because women are spoken of as praying and prophesying in 1 Cor. 11:5. Paul is not addressing the point of women speaking in church, his point is about head coverings and the rank between male and female. Then it may not even be the assembly here spoken of for that seems to come later in the chapter -
"If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse." (1Cor 11:16-17 RSV)
Then there is Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-21. These actions are to take place "before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day." Joel's words are exactly the same as in - "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come." (Mal 4:5 ASV)
It was John the Baptist who came in the spirit of Elijah! This prophecy has to do with events prior to 70 AD.
"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of Jehovah cometh. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call." (Joel 2:28-32 ASV)
Those signs happened at the crucifixion and in the lead up to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
It is nonsense to believe that what happened before 70 AD in the apostolic age must continue in this day, because there are direct commands contradicting such, as Paul makes clear. Christian doctrine is not based on what happened in the 1st century by example, but upon the commands of Jesus Christ given through the apostles -
"But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Matt 28:16-20 ASV)
NOWHERE IN ALL OF GOD'S WORD ARE HIS PEOPLE INSTRUCTED OR COMMANDED TO ELECT, CHOOSE OR OBEY WOMEN OVER MEN! NOWHERE ARE WOMEN GIVEN THE VOTE OR ARE MEN COMMANDED TO CHOOSE A WOMAN AS LEADER, ELDER, TEACHER, ETC.
Israel fell into idolatry over and over, and God would bring them godly leaders and a revival and then ended physical Israel as his kingdom at the cross and at 70 AD. The church sank into corruption and idolatry and then God blessed his people with the Protestant Reformation. Does the congregation of Jesus Christ have a revival coming and a more glorious future? It will not be by the decisions and power of man, but by the sovereign LORD in his purposes.
"...let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?" (1Cor 14:34-36 ASV)
Again, The New Interpreter's Study Bible annotation reads: "These three verses are considered a later, non-Pauline interpolation by some scholars". This is typical feminist denial of Scripture.
I am not swayed by those who reject the statements of God's word. The only variance I can find is that some authorities place vs 34-35 after v40. I'll stay with what Paul wrote rather than listen to the godless deniers of the Holy Spirit inspired words of God.
On 1 Tim 2:11-13, deniers of the inspiration of Scripture say this cannot be literal because women are spoken of as praying and prophesying in 1 Cor. 11:5. Paul is not addressing the point of women speaking in church, his point is about head coverings and the rank between male and female. Then it may not even be the assembly here spoken of for that seems to come later in the chapter -
"If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse." (1Cor 11:16-17 RSV)
Then there is Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-21. These actions are to take place "before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day." Joel's words are exactly the same as in - "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come." (Mal 4:5 ASV)
It was John the Baptist who came in the spirit of Elijah! This prophecy has to do with events prior to 70 AD.
"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of Jehovah cometh. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call." (Joel 2:28-32 ASV)
Those signs happened at the crucifixion and in the lead up to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
It is nonsense to believe that what happened before 70 AD in the apostolic age must continue in this day, because there are direct commands contradicting such, as Paul makes clear. Christian doctrine is not based on what happened in the 1st century by example, but upon the commands of Jesus Christ given through the apostles -
"But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Matt 28:16-20 ASV)
NOWHERE IN ALL OF GOD'S WORD ARE HIS PEOPLE INSTRUCTED OR COMMANDED TO ELECT, CHOOSE OR OBEY WOMEN OVER MEN! NOWHERE ARE WOMEN GIVEN THE VOTE OR ARE MEN COMMANDED TO CHOOSE A WOMAN AS LEADER, ELDER, TEACHER, ETC.
Israel fell into idolatry over and over, and God would bring them godly leaders and a revival and then ended physical Israel as his kingdom at the cross and at 70 AD. The church sank into corruption and idolatry and then God blessed his people with the Protestant Reformation. Does the congregation of Jesus Christ have a revival coming and a more glorious future? It will not be by the decisions and power of man, but by the sovereign LORD in his purposes.
Your attitude is bleeding through your title. This isn't discussion at all; it's preaching.
The newer translations are developed by people who consider current usage of terms and try to find the best English words to represent the concepts found in the original languages. "Partner" is a better choice, appropriately implying equality of relationship, where "help(er)" implies a non-equal relationship between the two.
That particular single translation is not the subject of the thread. That said, there is no evasion and no violation. You are assuming subordination when the context does not imply it.
You just violated your own point #2.
Further, you are importing your own concept of male authority and imposing it on the text instead of allowing the text to tell you what it means. There is no inherent authority imparted to the man just because he was formed before the woman; firstborn in a family is not the same thing. By the way, Paul was correcting Gnostic errors regarding Eve, not affirming subordination of women.
That's a logical fallacy. The text does not state what you assert; rather, it's an a priori assumption.
Correct. God is the head; man and woman are co-equal servants of God.
Fallacy. You have not provided any evidence to support your conclusion; rather, your conclusion comes out of left field.
Fallacy: appeal to authority.
I'll get to the rest of your errors later.
The newer translations are developed by people who consider current usage of terms and try to find the best English words to represent the concepts found in the original languages. "Partner" is a better choice, appropriately implying equality of relationship, where "help(er)" implies a non-equal relationship between the two.
That particular single translation is not the subject of the thread. That said, there is no evasion and no violation. You are assuming subordination when the context does not imply it.
You just violated your own point #2.
Further, you are importing your own concept of male authority and imposing it on the text instead of allowing the text to tell you what it means. There is no inherent authority imparted to the man just because he was formed before the woman; firstborn in a family is not the same thing. By the way, Paul was correcting Gnostic errors regarding Eve, not affirming subordination of women.
That's a logical fallacy. The text does not state what you assert; rather, it's an a priori assumption.
Correct. God is the head; man and woman are co-equal servants of God.
Fallacy. You have not provided any evidence to support your conclusion; rather, your conclusion comes out of left field.
Fallacy: appeal to authority.
I'll get to the rest of your errors later.
This thread centers on 1Corinthians 14:34-35.
I used to meet with a church that practiced having every member speak as described in this chapter. After every message there would be 30 minutes for anyone to stand up and speak. Not only so but the Lord's table was a meeting where everyone spoke and no one preached. People would share experiences preaching the gospel, or a song they had enjoyed, or a hymn or some word from the Bible. This is everyone, no distinction of male or female in the Body of Christ. On the one hand it was wonderful, on the other the elders had to exercise strict control. You would get the occasional person who wanted to take over the meeting, or who was speaking something that was completely off. In that case the elders would shut them down immediately. They also would give a time limit. The longest you ever got was 5 minutes but often the time limit would be less, 2 minutes, 1 minute, even 30 seconds.
Based on that experience reading chapter 14 there are three words that stand out to me that I have never heard anyone else pick up on.
Verse 16 -- some translations translate the word as "unlearned" some as "inquirer"
verse 23 -- The same word is used in verse 23, it includes the idea of "ignorant", "common man", and "rude".
verse 24 -- that same word is in verse 24.
Personally, I think the translation "inquirer" is the best. If you share something like the first post then it puts the rest of us in the position of an inquirer. Perhaps we are unlearned, perhaps we are ignorant of what you are sharing and I hope we aren't rude. But ultimately we are "inquirers". Whenever you stood up to speak you would have hundreds, maybe even a thousand saints looking at you, judging your words, sitting there in the seat of an inquirer.
How do you keep order in those meetings? The elders would tell people to sit down and to be silent. No one else could.
I heard a testimony that greatly offended me and the elders did not rebuke it. I did not jump up and rebuke it, that would have been out of order. My first thought is that they will talk to this brother privately because he had been in the church for 20 years and it would be better if he apologized. But meeting after meeting took place, no apology and no correcting word from the elders. Soon I realized that they were not offended by what was said. So I picked up the burden to rebuke it, but you have to have your head covered. It took me four years. But through prayer and seeking the Lord I was able to rebuke that word in good order and it had a very big impact on the churches in Texas.
On the other hand I was speaking in a training being run by Witness Lee (coworker of Watchman Nee), there were more than a thousand people there and Witness Lee told me to sit down. I was sharing on the verse about multiplied grace in Peter. However, over the next few meetings one person after another stood up and shared how that testimony helped them to understand the verse, and even the elders in the church began to meet privately with Witness Lee over this. Ultimately he apologized to the training, this is how you do things in good order.
We all understood there was a proper head covering in the church meeting and that was the elders. However, elders can make mistakes, this will get corrected, but it will be done in good order.
This is the context of these two verses. It is talking about a woman who wants to "inquire" about something. KJV translates this as learn something. But the point is they want to question what was just spoken. If you do that during a meeting with 300 people the whole thing becomes chaotic. It is even worse when you consider they had men and women sit in different sections, so it becomes very disorderly. Paul said there is no male or female, he said that women who are praying or prophesying need to do that with their head covered and in this chapter he has said repeatedly that when you come together each one has. He acknowledged Phoebe as a leader of a ministry and in the church. It is absurd to make an entire doctrine out of this one verse if it contradicts four or five other verses, many of which are in the same letter and even in the same chapter.
I used to meet with a church that practiced having every member speak as described in this chapter. After every message there would be 30 minutes for anyone to stand up and speak. Not only so but the Lord's table was a meeting where everyone spoke and no one preached. People would share experiences preaching the gospel, or a song they had enjoyed, or a hymn or some word from the Bible. This is everyone, no distinction of male or female in the Body of Christ. On the one hand it was wonderful, on the other the elders had to exercise strict control. You would get the occasional person who wanted to take over the meeting, or who was speaking something that was completely off. In that case the elders would shut them down immediately. They also would give a time limit. The longest you ever got was 5 minutes but often the time limit would be less, 2 minutes, 1 minute, even 30 seconds.
Based on that experience reading chapter 14 there are three words that stand out to me that I have never heard anyone else pick up on.
Verse 16 -- some translations translate the word as "unlearned" some as "inquirer"
verse 23 -- The same word is used in verse 23, it includes the idea of "ignorant", "common man", and "rude".
verse 24 -- that same word is in verse 24.
Personally, I think the translation "inquirer" is the best. If you share something like the first post then it puts the rest of us in the position of an inquirer. Perhaps we are unlearned, perhaps we are ignorant of what you are sharing and I hope we aren't rude. But ultimately we are "inquirers". Whenever you stood up to speak you would have hundreds, maybe even a thousand saints looking at you, judging your words, sitting there in the seat of an inquirer.
How do you keep order in those meetings? The elders would tell people to sit down and to be silent. No one else could.
I heard a testimony that greatly offended me and the elders did not rebuke it. I did not jump up and rebuke it, that would have been out of order. My first thought is that they will talk to this brother privately because he had been in the church for 20 years and it would be better if he apologized. But meeting after meeting took place, no apology and no correcting word from the elders. Soon I realized that they were not offended by what was said. So I picked up the burden to rebuke it, but you have to have your head covered. It took me four years. But through prayer and seeking the Lord I was able to rebuke that word in good order and it had a very big impact on the churches in Texas.
On the other hand I was speaking in a training being run by Witness Lee (coworker of Watchman Nee), there were more than a thousand people there and Witness Lee told me to sit down. I was sharing on the verse about multiplied grace in Peter. However, over the next few meetings one person after another stood up and shared how that testimony helped them to understand the verse, and even the elders in the church began to meet privately with Witness Lee over this. Ultimately he apologized to the training, this is how you do things in good order.
We all understood there was a proper head covering in the church meeting and that was the elders. However, elders can make mistakes, this will get corrected, but it will be done in good order.
This is the context of these two verses. It is talking about a woman who wants to "inquire" about something. KJV translates this as learn something. But the point is they want to question what was just spoken. If you do that during a meeting with 300 people the whole thing becomes chaotic. It is even worse when you consider they had men and women sit in different sections, so it becomes very disorderly. Paul said there is no male or female, he said that women who are praying or prophesying need to do that with their head covered and in this chapter he has said repeatedly that when you come together each one has. He acknowledged Phoebe as a leader of a ministry and in the church. It is absurd to make an entire doctrine out of this one verse if it contradicts four or five other verses, many of which are in the same letter and even in the same chapter.
-
1
- Show all
This thread was on more than just 1 Cor. 14:34-36, it was about John Knox's entire argument against the rule by women discussing Scripture through the entire Bible. Since you mentioned these 3 verses I'll comment on them. At least you are actually discussing Scripture instead of trying to explain it away or deny it.
Some modernist,liberal scholars believe these 3 verses were added later and were not written by the apostle Paul. In line with this, the NRSV put the verses in parentheses -
"...for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)" (1Cor 14:33-36, NRSV)
The new 2021 Updated Edition of the NRSV which is much more feminist friendly, actually moved the parentheses as follows -
"32 (and the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace), as in all the churches of the saints.
34 Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+14&version=NRSVUE
The Baker's New Testament Commentary remarks on this question -
"Some scholars call this segment—a directive about the conduct of women in the church service—a gloss, yet they are unable to find any evidence in Greek manuscripts to support their claim that these verses were added to the text. Thus some versions (e.g., NRSV) place verses 1Co_14:33-36 in parentheses."
Pause and consider, if it was forbidden for women to even inquire about or ask a question in the assembly, how much more out of line it would be for them to speak, teach or preach!
You state that Paul "acknowledged Phoebe as a leader of a ministry and in the church", apparently referring to the following -
"I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae: that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a succourer of many, and of mine own self." (Rom 16:1-2, RV)
The translator's note in the NET Bible on v1 is of interest here -
"Or 'deaconess.' It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative."
I repeat from prior posts, God in his sovereign purpose secret to himself alone, may place a woman into a place of leadership, such as Deborah the judge, but that does not overturn the direct commands of God as to what we are to do. Nowhere are men directed to choose a woman as ruler, leader, teacher, speaker/preacher! It is restricted always to choosing a man and the body of Christ had recogized this clearly for 1900 years. God's word did not change, only apostate church leaders made the changes.
"The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law." (Deut 29:29) Matthew 28:20 puts the New Covenant believer under the commands of Jesus christ, not Moses.
Some modernist,liberal scholars believe these 3 verses were added later and were not written by the apostle Paul. In line with this, the NRSV put the verses in parentheses -
"...for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)" (1Cor 14:33-36, NRSV)
The new 2021 Updated Edition of the NRSV which is much more feminist friendly, actually moved the parentheses as follows -
"32 (and the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace), as in all the churches of the saints.
34 Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+14&version=NRSVUE
The Baker's New Testament Commentary remarks on this question -
"Some scholars call this segment—a directive about the conduct of women in the church service—a gloss, yet they are unable to find any evidence in Greek manuscripts to support their claim that these verses were added to the text. Thus some versions (e.g., NRSV) place verses 1Co_14:33-36 in parentheses."
Pause and consider, if it was forbidden for women to even inquire about or ask a question in the assembly, how much more out of line it would be for them to speak, teach or preach!
You state that Paul "acknowledged Phoebe as a leader of a ministry and in the church", apparently referring to the following -
"I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae: that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a succourer of many, and of mine own self." (Rom 16:1-2, RV)
The translator's note in the NET Bible on v1 is of interest here -
"Or 'deaconess.' It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative."
I repeat from prior posts, God in his sovereign purpose secret to himself alone, may place a woman into a place of leadership, such as Deborah the judge, but that does not overturn the direct commands of God as to what we are to do. Nowhere are men directed to choose a woman as ruler, leader, teacher, speaker/preacher! It is restricted always to choosing a man and the body of Christ had recogized this clearly for 1900 years. God's word did not change, only apostate church leaders made the changes.
"The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law." (Deut 29:29) Matthew 28:20 puts the New Covenant believer under the commands of Jesus christ, not Moses.
I completely disagree.
1Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
He must be the husband of one wife. Doesn't say he can be a widower. Therefore when you pick a Bishop you are also picking his wife.
Every church I have ever attended was about 2/3 women. These women are the ones more often than not that seek out counseling. Just this last Lord's day the pastor of our church pointed out that when women come to him for one on one counseling he refers them to his wife.
Although this may not be the case 100% of the time, in my experience the wife of a pastor is a very significant position in any church. She will often be the one to supervise the women's ministries and the children's church.
My understanding of the word here is that you are to pick a "unit" a husband and wife, to be an overseer of the church.
I have also seen that when you have a woman pastor very quickly the congregation will become 90% women with just a few children and a few old men left. If Paul didn't require that the Bishop was a man then men would be pushed out of the church altogether. All church ministries are dominated by women.
1Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
He must be the husband of one wife. Doesn't say he can be a widower. Therefore when you pick a Bishop you are also picking his wife.
Every church I have ever attended was about 2/3 women. These women are the ones more often than not that seek out counseling. Just this last Lord's day the pastor of our church pointed out that when women come to him for one on one counseling he refers them to his wife.
Although this may not be the case 100% of the time, in my experience the wife of a pastor is a very significant position in any church. She will often be the one to supervise the women's ministries and the children's church.
My understanding of the word here is that you are to pick a "unit" a husband and wife, to be an overseer of the church.
I have also seen that when you have a woman pastor very quickly the congregation will become 90% women with just a few children and a few old men left. If Paul didn't require that the Bishop was a man then men would be pushed out of the church altogether. All church ministries are dominated by women.
What "modernist, liberal scholars" think is not the issue. What Scripture says is. You have no business slandering people just because they happen to disagree with you... or with Knox. Further, there are other ways to interpret this passage.
Yet they are encouraged to pray in chapter 11. If they were praying silently, how would anyone else know, so why would they have to cover their heads? And if they were permitted to pray aloud, how can they be silenced three verses later? Paul clearly stated that gender is not a valid cause for division in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Are we to ignore a clear statement in order to support a confusing interpretation? No.
I understand the textual issues, but it's circular reasoning to consider Phoebe a mere servant rather than an "actual" deacon. If she were not in a prominent role, Paul would have no reason to commend her to the Roman church. Everyone else who is called a diakonos was a leader among the believers, regardless of the English word used.
It should cause you to consider that your interpretation of the "direct commands of God" is faulty. You are proposing mysterious inconsistency in God as the solution to the contradiction. That might sound humble, but in fact it's an excuse to avoid dealing with the issue squarely.
Nowhere in Scripture are men directed to debate over the internet, yet here you are. Do you see the fallacy in your argument? Where in Scripture are men directed to choose a man as a pastor, preacher, ruler, or teacher? It isn't in 1 Timothy!
Yet they are encouraged to pray in chapter 11. If they were praying silently, how would anyone else know, so why would they have to cover their heads? And if they were permitted to pray aloud, how can they be silenced three verses later? Paul clearly stated that gender is not a valid cause for division in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Are we to ignore a clear statement in order to support a confusing interpretation? No.
I understand the textual issues, but it's circular reasoning to consider Phoebe a mere servant rather than an "actual" deacon. If she were not in a prominent role, Paul would have no reason to commend her to the Roman church. Everyone else who is called a diakonos was a leader among the believers, regardless of the English word used.
It should cause you to consider that your interpretation of the "direct commands of God" is faulty. You are proposing mysterious inconsistency in God as the solution to the contradiction. That might sound humble, but in fact it's an excuse to avoid dealing with the issue squarely.
Nowhere in Scripture are men directed to debate over the internet, yet here you are. Do you see the fallacy in your argument? Where in Scripture are men directed to choose a man as a pastor, preacher, ruler, or teacher? It isn't in 1 Timothy!
I considered that possibility several years ago and realized that if we held this qualification and actually applied it, many churches would have no leaders at all. It's rare when both are gifted for leadership. Certainly, the spouse must be a believer in good standing, but that's about it. I know of cases where such an expectation (usually unwritten) becomes the ground for abuse of the spouse.
I have had a completely different experience. I think that is partly because we completely misunderstand the qualifications for Bishop and what "being gifted" really means.
Being able to teach the word is a bonus, not the primary requirement. Being charismatic or popular or funny is not a criteria at all.
In my experience if you "raise your children well" then you know that the mother did at least 50% of that if not more. Make that the primary requirement and we wouldn't have the cliche about a Pastor's kid.
If you look at what Paul taught concerning the church meeting and the elders and Pastors and deacons, it is clear that speaking to an auditorium filled with people was not in the job description.
Raising up healthy families and being a counterweight to the world's sins which destroy the family, that was the focus. Being a positive example for all other families should be our primary criteria.
Being able to teach the word is a bonus, not the primary requirement. Being charismatic or popular or funny is not a criteria at all.
In my experience if you "raise your children well" then you know that the mother did at least 50% of that if not more. Make that the primary requirement and we wouldn't have the cliche about a Pastor's kid.
If you look at what Paul taught concerning the church meeting and the elders and Pastors and deacons, it is clear that speaking to an auditorium filled with people was not in the job description.
Raising up healthy families and being a counterweight to the world's sins which destroy the family, that was the focus. Being a positive example for all other families should be our primary criteria.
-
1
- Show all
What is the historic view of the church about the role of women in the assembly of God? The early and respected St. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) in Homily 9 on First Timothy 2:11-15 wrote:
"Great modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance: he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what says he? Let the woman learn in silence; that is, let her not speak at all in the church; which rule he has also given in his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, It is a shame for women to speak in the church 1 Corinthians 14:35; and the reason is, that the law has made them subject to men. And again elsewhere, And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. 1 Corinthians 14:35 Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming.
But I suffer not a woman to teach. I do not suffer, he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. For Adam, says he, was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. Your desire shall be to your husband? Genesis 3:16 This had not been said to her before."
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230609.htm
This has been the view of the body of Christ down through the centuries until the perversion of feminism began to infect the church.
"Great modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance: he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what says he? Let the woman learn in silence; that is, let her not speak at all in the church; which rule he has also given in his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, It is a shame for women to speak in the church 1 Corinthians 14:35; and the reason is, that the law has made them subject to men. And again elsewhere, And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. 1 Corinthians 14:35 Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming.
But I suffer not a woman to teach. I do not suffer, he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. For Adam, says he, was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. Your desire shall be to your husband? Genesis 3:16 This had not been said to her before."
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230609.htm
This has been the view of the body of Christ down through the centuries until the perversion of feminism began to infect the church.
-
1
- Show all
The wise man Solomon will make the feminists rage! LOL
"Here is what I discovered: A bad woman is worse than death. She is a trap, reaching out with body and soul to catch you. But if you obey God, you can escape. If you don't obey, you are done for. With all my wisdom I have tried to find out how everything fits together, but so far I have not been able to. I do know there is one good man in a thousand, but never have I found a good woman." (Ecc 7:26-28 CEV)
or
"I found something more bitter than death—the woman who is like a trap. The love she offers you will catch you like a net, and her arms around you will hold you like a chain. A man who pleases God can get away, but she will catch the sinner. Yes, said the Philosopher, I found this out little by little while I was looking for answers. I have looked for other answers but have found none. I found one man in a thousand that I could respect, but not one woman." (Ecc 7:26-28 GNB)
or
"I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is a net to catch and whose hands are fetters. He who is pleasing to God may escape her, but the sinner she will entrap. ‘See,’ says the Speaker, ‘this is what I have found, reasoning things out one by one, after searching long without success: I have found one man in a thousand worthy to be called upright, but I have not found one woman among them all." (Eccl 7:26-28 REB)
Also read from Zechariah -
"Then the angel who talked with me came forward and said to me, 'Look up and see what this is that is coming out.' I said, 'What is it?' He said, 'This is a basket coming out.' And he said, 'This is their iniquity in all the land.' Then a leaden cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting in the basket! And he said, 'This is Wickedness.' So he thrust her back into the basket, and pressed the leaden weight down on its mouth." (Zech 5:5-8, NRSV)
or
The angel appeared again and said, “Look! Something else is coming!” “What is it?” I asked. He replied, “It is a basket, and it stands for the sin of the whole land.” The basket had a lid made of lead. As I watched, the lid was raised, and there in the basket sat a woman! The angel said, “This represents wickedness.” Then he pushed her down into the basket and put the lid back down. (Zech 5:5-8, GNB)
From the Apocryphal Book of Sirach -
"Any wound, but not a wound of the heart! Any wickedness, but not the wickedness of a woman! Any suffering, but not suffering from those who hate! And any vengeance, but not the vengeance of enemies! There is no venom worse than a snake's venom, and no anger worse than a woman's wrath. I would rather live with a lion and a dragon than live with an evil woman. A woman's wickedness changes her appearance, and darkens her face like that of a bear. Her husband sits among the neighbors, and he cannot help sighing bitterly. Any iniquity is small compared to a woman's iniquity; may a sinner's lot befall her! A sandy ascent for the feet of the aged--such is a garrulous wife to a quiet husband. Do not be ensnared by a woman's beauty, and do not desire a woman for her possessions. There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace when a wife supports her husband. Dejected mind, gloomy face, and wounded heart come from an evil wife. Drooping hands and weak knees come from the wife who does not make her husband happy. From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die." (Sirach 25:13-24 NRSVA)
"Here is what I discovered: A bad woman is worse than death. She is a trap, reaching out with body and soul to catch you. But if you obey God, you can escape. If you don't obey, you are done for. With all my wisdom I have tried to find out how everything fits together, but so far I have not been able to. I do know there is one good man in a thousand, but never have I found a good woman." (Ecc 7:26-28 CEV)
or
"I found something more bitter than death—the woman who is like a trap. The love she offers you will catch you like a net, and her arms around you will hold you like a chain. A man who pleases God can get away, but she will catch the sinner. Yes, said the Philosopher, I found this out little by little while I was looking for answers. I have looked for other answers but have found none. I found one man in a thousand that I could respect, but not one woman." (Ecc 7:26-28 GNB)
or
"I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is a net to catch and whose hands are fetters. He who is pleasing to God may escape her, but the sinner she will entrap. ‘See,’ says the Speaker, ‘this is what I have found, reasoning things out one by one, after searching long without success: I have found one man in a thousand worthy to be called upright, but I have not found one woman among them all." (Eccl 7:26-28 REB)
Also read from Zechariah -
"Then the angel who talked with me came forward and said to me, 'Look up and see what this is that is coming out.' I said, 'What is it?' He said, 'This is a basket coming out.' And he said, 'This is their iniquity in all the land.' Then a leaden cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting in the basket! And he said, 'This is Wickedness.' So he thrust her back into the basket, and pressed the leaden weight down on its mouth." (Zech 5:5-8, NRSV)
or
The angel appeared again and said, “Look! Something else is coming!” “What is it?” I asked. He replied, “It is a basket, and it stands for the sin of the whole land.” The basket had a lid made of lead. As I watched, the lid was raised, and there in the basket sat a woman! The angel said, “This represents wickedness.” Then he pushed her down into the basket and put the lid back down. (Zech 5:5-8, GNB)
From the Apocryphal Book of Sirach -
"Any wound, but not a wound of the heart! Any wickedness, but not the wickedness of a woman! Any suffering, but not suffering from those who hate! And any vengeance, but not the vengeance of enemies! There is no venom worse than a snake's venom, and no anger worse than a woman's wrath. I would rather live with a lion and a dragon than live with an evil woman. A woman's wickedness changes her appearance, and darkens her face like that of a bear. Her husband sits among the neighbors, and he cannot help sighing bitterly. Any iniquity is small compared to a woman's iniquity; may a sinner's lot befall her! A sandy ascent for the feet of the aged--such is a garrulous wife to a quiet husband. Do not be ensnared by a woman's beauty, and do not desire a woman for her possessions. There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace when a wife supports her husband. Dejected mind, gloomy face, and wounded heart come from an evil wife. Drooping hands and weak knees come from the wife who does not make her husband happy. From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die." (Sirach 25:13-24 NRSVA)