Woman position ( 1 Corinthians 14:34-37)

[KennethC]

Peter's words are exclusively referring to Paul and his writings. Peter says absolutely nothing about the supposed apostleship of such men as Mark, Luke, Barnabas, and Silvanius. Let me give you an example. I Galatians 1:18-19 Paul says, "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." We do know that Barnabas was apostlized - sent out by the Church in Jerusalem. If Barnabas was an apostle of the same type as Peter, James, and Paul then why does Paul say that he say NONE of the apostle EXCEPT Peter and James when Barnabas was with him at the time of his meeting with these two apostles? Paul excludes Barnabas in this listing of apostles.

Once again though unless you take and do a study on the background of what was exactly taught you will continue to misuse Paul's words, as the Apostle Peter clearly said. I know you are trying to now make it not about the others, but they all that I mentioned taught the same gospel and instructions from the Holy Spirit. Therefore the 1st century church lead by them could not teach differently and thus an early church study examination will help to unlock the keys of what is really being said.

 

[KennethC]

Once again though unless you take and do a study on the background of what was exactly taught you will continue to misuse Paul's words, as the Apostle Peter clearly said. I know you are trying to now make it not about the others, but they all that I mentioned taught the same gospel and instructions from the Holy Spirit. Therefore the 1st century church lead by them could not teach differently and thus an early church study examination will help to unlock the keys of what is really being said.

As for Barnabas he and Paul went there own separate ways to give the gospel, and this is mentioned back in Acts 15 !!!

 

[BarlyGurl]

The women in the assembly are commanded to remain silent and not to exorcise authority over the men. Which men? Those of the assembly. This is the context.

Thank you... I wanted you to be concise for those who read but may not participate. As without the clarification... I perceived it could otherwise cause stumbling.

 

[oldhermit]

Once again though unless you take and do a study on the background of what was exactly taught you will continue to misuse Paul's words, as the Apostle Peter clearly said. I know you are trying to now make it not about the others, but they all that I mentioned taught the same gospel and instructions from the Holy Spirit. Therefore the 1st century church lead by them could not teach differently and thus an early church study examination will help to unlock the keys of what is really being said.

I have my degrees in Bible and this included a careful examination of early Church history. History is NOT the standard. History is NOT inspired and truth does NOT lie within the examination of history. Truth lies exclusively within the grammatical structure of the biblical test. It has long been a matter of accepted practice to try to define scripture based on our limited understanding of human history. This is certainly a mistake given the fact that scripture is a product of revealed knowledge rather than a human compilation of historical events. Higher criticism attempts to render the text subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its agential position and its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over human history. Scripture must be allowed to explain history, never be rendered subordinate to our understanding of history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture.

The Church has had an unfortunate legacy of using the historical critical method in her practice of scripture reading. We have routinely chosen to start with human intelligence to create some type of synthesis between the human historical experience and the text of scripture. We then formulate theories that seem to best fit the facts at hand and then we rationalize scenarios that satisfy what we will accept as a rational view of how scripture fits into our human experience. We have an insatiable desire to maintain control over the text both logically and psychologically. We want to hold on to a comfortable reading of the text that fits our view of reality and we have felt confident that such a method of scripture reading can foster a valid interpretation of what we largely see as a historical document. The problem with this method is that human intelligence does not have the capacity to start with itself to synthesize our reading of the biblical text with our limited understand of human history.

This approach to scripture assumes that he have a correct understand of Church history. It also assumes the credibility of those of antiquity who recorded that history. Whether one may or may not understand Church history correctly ir quite irrelevant because as I said at the beginning, History is NOT the standard. History is NOT inspired and truth does NOT lie within the examination of history. Truth lies exclusively within the grammatical structure of the biblical test.

 

[KennethC]

I have my degrees in Bible and this included a careful examination of early Church history. History is NOT the standard. History is NOT inspired and truth does NOT lie within the examination of history. Truth lies exclusively within the grammatical structure of the biblical test. It has long been a matter of accepted practice to try to define scripture based on our limited understanding of human history. This is certainly a mistake given the fact that scripture is a product of revealed knowledge rather than a human compilation of historical events. Higher criticism attempts to render the text subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its agential position and its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over human history. Scripture must be allowed to explain history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture.

The Church has had an unfortunate legacy of using the historical critical method in her practice of scripture reading. We have routinely chosen to start with human intelligence to create some type of synthesis between the human historical experience and the text of scripture. We then formulate theories that seem to best fit the facts at hand and then we rationalize scenarios that satisfy what we will accept as a rational view of how scripture fits into our human experience. We have an insatiable desire to maintain control over the text both logically and psychologically. We want to hold on to a comfortable reading of the text that fits our view of reality and we have felt confident that such a method of scripture reading can foster a valid interpretation of what we largely see as a historical document. The problem with this method is that human intelligence does not have the capacity to start with itself to synthesize our the biblical text wit our limited understand of human history.

This approach to scripture assumes that he have a correct understand of Church history. It also assumes the credibility of those of antiquity who recorded that history. Whether one may or may not understand Church history correctly ir quite irrelevant because as I said at the beginning, History is NOT the standard. History is NOT inspired and truth does NOT lie within the examination of history. Truth lies exclusively within the grammatical structure of the biblical test.

Well if you are that well studied as you say in the scriptures and early church history, then I just can not understand how you don't know that women in the early church did serve as Apostles, preachers, deacons, ministers, and such. Also how it wasn't tell the late 2nd century that the cover-up started to remove women from those roles.

You have me puzzled if you have not seen this ?????????

 

[oldhermit]

Well if you are that well studied as you say in the scriptures and early church history, then I just can not understand how you don't know that women in the early church did serve as Apostles, preachers, deacons, ministers, and such. Also how it wasn't tell the late 2nd century that the cover-up started to remove women from those roles.

You have me puzzled if you have not seen this ?????????

I do not care what "Church history" says about this. I know what the Bible has to say about this. Such practice within the early centuries of Church history is a departure from the biblical standard and stands in violation of scripture. The biblical text is correct. Church history is a proven departure from the truth of the text.

 

[KennethC]

I do not care what "Church history" says about this. I know what the Bible has to say about this. Such practice within the early centuries of Church history is a departure from the biblical standard and stands in violation of scripture. The biblical text is correct. Church history is a proven departure from the truth of the text.

And around and around we go because if women were not allowed to be ministers in the 1st century of the early church then Paul, Peter, James, John, Barnabas, and all the others would have squashed this from happening. Instead they commended them for their servitude in the faith as their co-workers in Christ !!!

 

[BarlyGurl]

And around and around we go because if women were not allowed to be ministers in the 1st century of the early church then Paul, Peter, James, John, Barnabas, and all the others would have squashed this from happening. Instead they commended them for their servitude in the faith as their co-workers in Christ !!!

So I have been following along and I am agreement with Hermit's teaching. What I am having trouble understanding is why you are unable to or refuse to consider that co-laboring women were being honored for their faithful service in their submissive roles not for EQUAL position?

 

[oldhermit]

And around and around we go because if women were not allowed to be ministers in the 1st century of the early church then Paul, Peter, James, John, Barnabas, and all the others would have squashed this from happening. Instead they commended them for their servitude in the faith as their co-workers in Christ !!!

Paul did address this in two separate texts. You just do not like what he had to say about it. Yes, he commended them for their servitude, not their leadership.

 

[oldhermit]

Good night all. Got to get up early. Sundays are always a long day for me.

 

[KennethC]

So I have been following along and I am agreement with Hermit's teaching. What I am having trouble understanding is why you are unable to or refuse to consider that co-laboring women were being honored for their faithful service in their submissive roles not for EQUAL position?

Because in the bible as well as early church history documents you can find women who were called apostles, ministers, deacons, and leaders of the church. They also were commended by the original Apostles, mainly Paul, for their position in the church that they held in co-laboring in the faith. The issue is bending what Paul said to a couple of badly ran churches to make it apply to all standards of churches, but we can not do that when Paul one minute is saying to women to keep silent then the next minute commending one in a leadership role in the church.

 

[KennethC]

Paul did address this in two separate texts. You just do not like what he had to say about it. Yes, he commended them for their servitude, not their leadership.

It is not that I don't like what he said, I just don't take it out of context of what was really being said.
As it had nothing to do with women holding leadership roles within the church such as ministers, deacons, and even apostleship. For he commended a few women in the bible who held those positions !!!

 

[KennethC]

• Acts 9:36 The author of Luke referred to a female disciple of Jesus by her Aramaic name Tabitha, who was also known by her Greek name Dorcas. She became sick had died; St. Peter brought her back to life.
• Acts 21:8: Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophets.
• Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his co-workers who were active evangelicals, spreading the gospel.
• Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea. The Greek word which describes her function is "diakonos" which means literally "official servant." She is the only deacon in the Bible to be identified by name. Some translations say "deaconess;" others try to obscure her position by mistranslating the Greek as a simple "servant" or "helper". Paul later refers to Phoebe as a woman, calling her "our sister." This prevented later church leaders from hiding her gender as they did with Junia by changing her name and implying that she was a man.
• Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." [SUB]1[/SUB] It is worth noting that Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as "Priscilla and Aquila" in this passage and as "Aquila and Priscilla" in 1 Corinthians 16:19. It would appear that the order is not important to Paul. As in Galatians 3:28, he apparently believed that there is no distinction between male and female among those who have been baptized into Christ.
• Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. [SUB]2,3[/SUB] After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to various deceptions in order to suppress her gender. For example:
  • The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles" The Revised Standard Versionshows it as "they are men of note among the apostles". The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle.
  • Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air, and converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a male form of "Junia"). Again, it was probably inconceivable to the translators that Paul would recognize a woman as an apostle. Incidentally, there are no Junias' mentioned in ancient literature and inscriptions; it was apparently an unkown and unused name.

 

[Proverbs_Four]

Women were never given the place of leadership and it began with Eve, pre-fall.

 

[KennethC]

Women were never given the place of leadership and it began with Eve, pre-fall.

Reference to women as leaders in the Bible

 

[Proverbs_Four]

Women were never given the place of leadership and it began with Eve, pre-fall.

Man was over the Garden (Pre-Fall) and she was taken from man to be a Help-Meet. Those positions have not changed today.

 

[KennethC]

Man was over the Garden (Pre-Fall) and she was taken from man to be a Help-Meet. Those positions have not changed today.

The bible gives many examples of women chosen by God for leadership roles, and the link in post #95 shows some of them.

Judges 4 & 5: Deborah, a prophet-judge, headed the army of ancient Israel.

 

[Proverbs_Four]

Man was over the Garden (Pre-Fall) and she was taken from man to be a Help-Meet. Those positions have not changed today.

God gave Adam the command not to eat of the tree. Adam did not have his house in order.

 

[jaybird88]

Get a life you male chauvinist!

i keep laughing at this post. to funny. the op does seem to always make post that stir up trouble.

 

[KJB]

There are so many verses in the OT that are interpreted different than in the NT all throughout the Bible. I think what it is is that some will view certain passages through a lense and use 1 Timothy 2: 11-15 and interpret the other lines of Scripture as so. If we go by logic, those words are not even able to be applied to the general population of the Bible because a lot of other women (Not Ephesians) were praised by God and congratulated for their teaching and exercising leadership for the Word. Now, the Bible when it was written was in a time of patriarchal culture, and today that culture still exists but it is not all throughout in every nation. Women, even in Scripture were oppressed regarded as a piece of property or spoils of war, etc etc etc (not like it has changed since today there is pornography and sex slavery and so much more too). Anyways back to the point of is, that if that period in time was a highly patriarchal culture then why are some women named as leaders and teachers in scripture?

Deborah was a woman who had religious, political, judicial, and military authority over the people of Israel in Judges 4. I can't change the words of that Bible book, but it says there clearly she was a prophet. What about Miriam? In Micah she is identified as one of the 3 leaders sent by God to help Israel come out of Egypt. She is named a prophet here because she had responsibilities to help the people of Israel know how to worship. Third, what about when a man chose a woman to lead? Josiah is Israel's good last king and he recognizes and admires the words of the Scripture, he goes ahead and selects Huldah because she was a great prophet. If you are reading or have read the Old Testament then you can thank Huldah because she interpreted and authorized the document. Then in the New Testment in acts when the Holy Spirit comes during Pentecost it is not only over men, but the women too for their understanding of the word of God and for being good followers. Even Paul himself praised women who were brave enough (like the other male disciples) to spread the word of God (Romans 16:1-6).

Men and women created equal and it is said so many times in the Bible. One verse looked through only one lense and using that lense to read the rest of the Bible is not so good. Opening your heart to the changes and words in the Bible is good "Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righterous person will receive a righteous person's reward" (Matthew 10: 41). Remember that "Your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your young men will see visions, Your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, And they will prophesy(Acts 2: 17-18).

Look the words are there accept them or not. Meanwhile, through Jesus Christ in our hearts we must look at how millions of women and young girls are traded in sex slavery, women die during childbirth and have complications, women are in abusive relationships, some women are serving our country or have served our country. Men and women both have roles in our modern communities, but throughout the Scriptures these same issues have happened. Why do we not focus on that, go and see if we can free mankind from the sin of sexual slavery, see if we can help the children who survive after losing their mothers during childbirth, and the women who are abused and cannot escape, congratulate women for being brave enough to sign their name on a paper knowingly that they may die in the line of duty. We cannot keep women back from speaking about God because then that would go against scripture. What I am saying is Should I stop teaching Sunday school to my toddlers and my kindergarten through sixth grade students because I am a female? See, that verse cannot be generalized to every single way of teaching about the word of God, it is a verse that is a part of the story of the Ephesian women. It was about them not being women, speaking all at once, you know most do this. It was about telling them to be quiet in a way that would tell them to listen at the same time.

But do not worry, there are bigger issues out there for me to fight and prophecy about. I need the word of God to help me get through children, to help them develop their hearts into ones that accept Jesus Christ so that when they grow up and lead the world they may lead it through Jesus Christ, girls and boys alike and continue to spread the word of God.

God bless you all brothers and (the few sisters on this thread).

-Kim