Bible Study Women in the church

[sheshisown]

Hi Jesus' darling Dora~ :-D

Yes I agree, the Old and New Testaments are fully in harmony with one another... after all both were written by the same author's inspiration, the Holy Spirit, and there many scriptures that state so;

When Jesus was teaching the kingdom parables He revealed hidden truth about the things of God using all the scripture; In one parable He said; "The kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet": Matthew 13: 47-50

Jesus shows that the world will remain divided right up until the end, and the Church will not reform the world, ushering in the kingdom. Instead, there will be both the wicked and the just until the end of the age.

Then He ask His disciples do you understand all this? ...Jesus said to them, "Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord." (verse 51)
I kinda wonder if they did, but they answer yes, and Jesus does not question their reply, but He goes on to state this;

Then He said to them, "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure [things] new and old." NKJV Matthew 13:52

"Every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom":
Jesus says that every one who really knows God’s word (having been given knowledge thru the Holy Spirit, in studying the whole Bible for understanding) both will know the old [OT(the old ways in which the Lord worked with His creation and people)] and learn the new of the kingdom, [NT(the new ways in which Christ is working in creation and the lives of His people)] .

There are few Pastors today that can relate the Old Testament of God, with the New Testament of God. The Old gives us pictures and foreshadows of the New, and the New explains much of the Old. :-D It is truly a treasure to have a teacher who can teach the old and new in harmony!

The light that shines into relationships and doctrine and priciples of scripture is amazing when this is acquired!
In areas about women's roles in the church especially...

Look at this from the book of Joshua chapter 17 verses 3+4

"But Zelophehad the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but only daughters. And these [are] the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. And they came near before Eleazar the priest, before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the rulers, saying, "The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers." Therefore, according to the commandment of the LORD, he gave them an inheritance among their father's brothers."

These daughters who had no brother to grant their family portions in the promised land, were rightfully given the man's portion and responsibility, and notice, without a quarrel or any struggle among the male leadership! So those men who married them and produced offspring understood that they got the wife and her land, but it would ever be endowed to the woman's father's name sakes!

Therefore we understand that Hebrew women, and historically Jewish women, always had been given positions and authority where it was right to do so, among the men. Interesting isn't it? As a matter of fact, wherever the gospel of Jesus Christ has spread, women's roles have been elevated!

Now, these women sought husbands to hold reign over the lands and among the men of all the country, for no women sat in the gates to help decide in judicial things. So of course, God draws lines where limitations are set for all things must be done orderly.

Praise God for His the marvelous revelation of His entire Word! bonnie

 

[Paidion]

Thanks for the claification Paidion. I raised the issue up because these texts are yet more texts that some use to indicate that the church did have some women pastors.

Actually, I don't think there is a single text in the NT which indicates that any woman was a "pastor", that is, an overseer in an assembly.

As for the Old Testament harmonizing with the New, tell me how the following passage, which tell the Israelites what to do if a "spirit of jealousy" comes upon a man (even if it is unjustified), can be hamonized with Jesus' not condemning the woman taken in adultery.

And the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and acts unfaithfully against him, if a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act; and if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a cereal offering of jealousy, a cereal offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. "And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD; and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and unbind the hair of the woman’s head, and place in her hands the cereal offering of remembrance, which is the cereal offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness, while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell; may this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your body swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’

"Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and wash them off into the water of bitterness; and he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. And the priest shall take the cereal offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the cereal offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar; and the priest shall take a handful of the cereal offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.

"This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity."
Numbers 5:11-31
I wonder how many modern women, especially those with church leadership positions, would submit to undergoing such a test if their husband had a fit of jealousy? Would they willingly drink "the bitter water that brings the curse" (Was it poisoned or polluted by the dust from the floor?). Would they agree with the double standard, "The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity."

 

[Cornelius]

Its not that woman are never seen in authority in the Bible , but rather that God sees it as wrong when it happens. When we read Isa 3 we see that God will allow woman to rule over His people, when they walk away from Him. He will also allow "children" (ministers who are on milk) to rule over the backslidden church. Both are a "symptom" of a backslidden church.

Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.

In the same chapter it speaks again of the "children" (babes)

Isa 3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
"Babes are not weaned, they still need the milk of the Word (they are not DOING, they are only teaching what they hear )
Meat is DOING the Word.

Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work.

So when the church backslides (like they have done ) God gives them woman to rule over them. He also takes away the staff of authority and removes the Word in its true meaning (God also does not throw His pearls before those who will trample it )
Isa 3:1 For, behold, the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water;
Isa 3:2 the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder;
Isa 3:3 the captain of fifty, and the honorable man, and the counsellor, and the expert artificer, and the skilful enchanter.
Isa 3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.

 

[Jules C]

This has sure been a contentious issue. Not surprising tho.

 

[Cornelius]

This has sure been a contentious issue. Not surprising tho.

When we just agree with God , we have no contention. Its only when we want to force our own opinion that we start with contention.

The Bible is really clear on the subject: No woman in authority.

As much as I love woman, I will agree with God and rather take the aggression of man than to twist Scripture to suit "modern PC views"

C

 

[destiny]

The Bible is really clear on the subject: No woman in authority.

Actually there were times when God clearly made exceptions, and missing this fact is where legalism comes in. It is when we think, "God would never" ... after He has shown us that he did, is when we are at risk for completely missing God in a given situation.

 

[Cornelius]

The Bible is really clear on the subject: No woman in authority.

Actually there were times when God clearly made exceptions, and missing this fact is where legalism comes in. It is when we think, "God would never" ... after He has shown us that he did, is when we are at risk for completely missing God in a given situation.

I do not see any such example in the New Testament.

God tells us in the Old Testament, that woman rule over His people (but that it is not according to His will) Its when God's people move OUT of His will, that God allow woman to rule.

Being obedient to God's ways is not legalism.

If I say: Jesus is the only way,.......I am not being legalistic, I am in agreement with God.


C

 

[sheshisown]

Cornelius and Destiny Hi~ :-D

I think we can begin to agree together on this: That it is not the Lord’s perfect will to place any woman in authority where a man is available and willing to lead. Yet it is also true that the Lord has used women in authority positions, Both Deborah and Ester, are examples of this I believe in the word. I think Cornelius can recognize that the Lord did use these women, just as we all recognize that the Lord used a donkey to talk to Balaam, and a burning bush to speak from- to Abraham and so forth.

Cornelius, your verses really do foreshadow the evil days we live in, thanks for sharing them. (These verses should be very useful for prayer-petition to the Lord just now for our country.)
I hope you won’t mind me getting a little further into exploration of your offered verses?

As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them:

The LORD declares and mourns His judgment on Judah. The Lord is mourning their condition; that they have been given incompetent and ungodly leadership. Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths. :

Women rule over them:

This was seen as a curse on Judah for their disobediant condition, not a blessing. Certainly, God may raise up particular women at certain times to be leaders in different spheres. Deborah (Judges 4-5) and Esther are examples of this.

However, this is entirely different from a society where, in general, women rule over them. This was the condition of the society of Judah here, I believe, and later in Rome, which fell from its station as ruler of the nations internally. Any such society is cursed, not blessed.

Though I disagree with your assumption following;

Cornelius said; “Its not that woman are never seen in authority in the Bible, but rather that God sees it as wrong when it happens.â€Â

This presupposes that those in leadership just happen to attain their position; however Romans 13:1 clearly states,

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.â€Â

Therefore, just as the Lord has ordained the elections in our country and those who will rule, so He has done in every example in scripture. We may not agree that these are the “best†choices, I personally think these are poopy choices~ (but who am I to say?) For God in His omniscience knows best, He sees the end from the beginning and always works these things for good toward us, His children.
bonnie

 

[Cornelius]

HI Bonnie

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.â€Â

We cannot use that scripture like that , because the Lord tells us that if we are to be in truth, we must put the whole Word together.Psa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth So yes, if you take that scripture out of the context of the rest of the Scripture, then sure, submit to all. But when you combine it with:1Co 14:34 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..

We can clearly see that they are in contrast to one another. "subjection" is the opposite to "higher powers" God allows woman (who themselves are out of order) to rule those who are out of order.

That said, I will add, that you will not get this situation of woman in power in churches who are in line with the Word of God. A true Christian church has no need for God to place a woman over them, because they are not under the curse. (I love woman so I am not saying women are a curse, but the Bible says, that when woman are over men, its the curse )Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.

 

[Cornelius]

Its in fact very simple: Men are the symbol of Christ and women are the symbol of the Bride. God gave us that picture in marriage. Now its the same : if we say woman can rule spiritually over men, we are saying the Bride can rule spiritually over Christ (which we all know can never be )

C

 

[sonship37]

Its in fact very simple: Men are the symbol of Christ and women are the symbol of the Bride. God gave us that picture in marriage. Now its the same : if we say woman can rule spiritually over men, we are saying the Bride can rule spiritually over Christ (which we all know can never be )

C

Amen! But wow! This thread reminds me of the children of Israel. 40 years to do a 10 day trip.
If they would have just believed and accepted the Word on it to begin with, we'd be on to bigger and better things.

I wonder if there is anyone who was a part of this discussion who was actually changed in their belief structure concerning women in leadership positions in the Church.

That might be good to discuss. Kind of a testimony time.

 

[handy]

I can't say that I've changed fimly one way or another, still on the journey here. I used to be firm, quite firm in the camp of women not being in any kind of authority, yet be very active in all other aspects of ministry in the church. Then, two things happened: My parents started going to a church in which the women are not to speak at all, are to wear hats or scarves, and cannot hold any kind of position at all. At the same time, my husband and I started going to a church with a woman pastor. (I would normally never have gone to such a church and did so and am continuing to do so solely in submission to my husband.) Being in this position, and for the first time being around women who are pastors yet are also totally committed to God's word and His work, has driven me to study this issue much more deeply than I have before.

I don't agree at all with the narrowness of my mom's church. At the same time, the reasons why they say women aren't to be in any kind of position in the church are the same reasons why they say women cannot be pastors as well. Which causes me to question all these texts, not for the purpose of changing the Word of God, or using it as a convienience that can be ignored when inconvient, but of truly searching what role women should play in the church.

Cornelius, I am a very firm believer in looking at the sum total of what God's word has to say on a subject. I find that much error and destruction comes when we take a few passages and use them as the final say, without looking at those passages in the light was what the Bible has to say elsewhere on the subject. Which is exactly why we are looking at this subject in the light of both the Old and New Testament, as well as not only what are instructions to and about women, but also what women actually did within the early church and in the Old Testament period.

To me, there are only two Biblically sound ways for women to behave in church:
A: To be silent, to wear a head covering, and to not hold any kind of role.
B: To be free to hold any kind of role.

What I don't see as Biblically sound anymore is the idea that women can act as Sunday School teachers, worship leaders, prayer leaders, etc. and be uncovered, yet, stop short of holding a leadership position. I say this again because the reasons that are given for women to be silent in the church are the same reasons given for women to not hold any kind of authority. IE, she represents the bride, she is under authority of men, it's not right for any woman to hold authority over a man. Either we women are to be silent (and it's hard to be actively involved with one's lips shut) or we can be active and if we can be active, perhaps those instructions to Timothy and to the Corinthians have a different meaning than has been traditionally handed down to us.


Much has been said that there are no examples of women leaders in the early church. I have asked before, and received no answer, who, besides the Apostles and Timothy are specified as church leaders. There are many folks spoken of in the New Testament as workers in the church, both men and women. Yet, when these names come up, it's always kind of assumed that when we're speaking of men, they must have held some kind of important leadership position, such as Aquila, but when speaking of women, it's automatically assumed that she did not, such as Priscilla. Yet, when one studies Priscilla and Aquila, they are treated totally equally with both correcting Apollos. If women are to never teach or hold authority over a man, what was Priscilla doing talking with Apollos? Surely she should have quietly stood by and let Aquila correct the man. Was she in sin in doing so? If so, she was never corrected and Paul's later greeting to her and her husband was just as warm and affectionate as can be.

Another thing that is referred to quite often is the fact that in Timothy it is said that church leaders must be the husband of one wife. However, we also see the same exact qualification for deacons as well as overseers and we know for a fact that women were deacons. Phoebe was a deacon and the Romans were instructed by Paul to render her every assistance they could.

Here is the Timothy passage:

1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.

7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,

9but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

10These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.

11Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

So the specific instructions are:

If any man aspires to the office of overseer...An overseer must be the husband of one wife...he must be one who manages his household, not be a new convert lest he...he must of good repute.
Deacons likewise must be men of dignity...be husbands of one wife...

This is why, for years and years, I didn't even question the traditonal teaching. The passage seems to speak only to men, and it's right within the context of Paul's instruction that women are to quietly recieve instruction and are to not teach or hold authority.

However, when looking outside the traditional interpretation of this, I've found several things. One, that within this passage that seems to speak only to and about men we see this:

11Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

So, that passage affirms that women are indeed able to serve as deacons, as in fact Phoebe did with Paul's full approval. Now, the fact that women are included in the instructions to deacons, when the whole of the instructions uses masculine language throws into question whether or not this passage should be interpreted as speaking only to and about men.

Some folks have gotten around this by stating that the office of deacon is not a "authoritative" office, but the passage seems to speak otherwise. The office of deacon was one in which one had to actually be tested before one could hold it. It is also the one in which Paul states that those who serve well in it, obtain a high standing and great confidence in Christ. As for the authoritativeness of the office, Paul certainly seemed to impart authority to Phoebe as she carried his instructions to the churches in Rome.

As for being the husband of one wife, the explanation that Paul is referring to the common practise of polygamy amongst the Ephesians seems likely. He would have no need to instruct the women to be the wife of only one husband because polyandry was not practiced in that society.

This is getting long but I also want to address what's been said that anytime a women is placed in authority, it is somehow a curse of God's. That arguement holds water for the time of Huldah, although God used Huldah as a vessal of His grace, not judgement, but it doesn't hold water with the time of Deborah. Deborah served as Judge in Israel long before God gave Isaiah to speak of such a curse. And, although the Israelites were being smacked by God for doing evil, He choose to have Deborah judge the land to bring it out of the time of discipline, not to curse them into further judgement.

 

[turnorburn]

turnorburn

 

[stovebolts]

turnorburn,
Please accommodate the guidelines and recommendations of this forum.

thank you.

 

[sonship37]

Another thing that is referred to quite often is the fact that in Timothy it is said that church leaders must be the husband of one wife. However, we also see the same exact qualification for deacons as well as overseers and we know for a fact that women were deacons. Phoebe was a deacon and the Romans were instructed by Paul to render her every assistance they could.

Here is the Timothy passage:

1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.

7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,

9but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

10These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.

11Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

So the specific instructions are:

If any man aspires to the office of overseer...An overseer must be the husband of one wife...he must be one who manages his household, not be a new convert lest he...he must of good repute.
Deacons likewise must be men of dignity...be husbands of one wife...

This is why, for years and years, I didn't even question the traditonal teaching. The passage seems to speak only to men, and it's right within the context of Paul's instruction that women are to quietly recieve instruction and are to not teach or hold authority.

However, when looking outside the traditional interpretation of this, I've found several things. One, that within this passage that seems to speak only to and about men we see this:

11Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

So, that passage affirms that women are indeed able to serve as deacons, as in fact Phoebe did with Paul's full approval. Now, the fact that women are included in the instructions to deacons, when the whole of the instructions uses masculine language throws into question whether or not this passage should be interpreted as speaking only to and about men.

Some folks have gotten around this by stating that the office of deacon is not a "authoritative" office, but the passage seems to speak otherwise. The office of deacon was one in which one had to actually be tested before one could hold it. It is also the one in which Paul states that those who serve well in it, obtain a high standing and great confidence in Christ. As for the authoritativeness of the office, Paul certainly seemed to impart authority to Phoebe as she carried his instructions to the churches in Rome.

As for being the husband of one wife, the explanation that Paul is referring to the common practise of polygamy amongst the Ephesians seems likely. He would have no need to instruct the women to be the wife of only one husband because polyandry was not practiced in that society.

This is getting long but I also want to address what's been said that anytime a women is placed in authority, it is somehow a curse of God's. That arguement holds water for the time of Huldah, although God used Huldah as a vessal of His grace, not judgement, but it doesn't hold water with the time of Deborah. Deborah served as Judge in Israel long before God gave Isaiah to speak of such a curse. And, although the Israelites were being smacked by God for doing evil, He choose to have Deborah judge the land to bring it out of the time of discipline, not to curse them into further judgement.

When Paul gave requirements for leadership positions..."bishops must be husbands of one wife", this was in the context of "leadership positions in the Church". No prerequisits are ever stated for women.

No, women can NEVER be in positions of leadership where they would have to usurp authority over the man. This is disorder in God's Kingdom.

Women are to be keepers at home, teaching younger women to do the same. This is the "meek and quiet spirit" becoming to Christian sisters, and which is of great price to God.

You want to know and DO what pleases God...? this is it.

 

[handy]

No, women can NEVER be in positions of leadership where they would have to usurp authority over the man. This is disorder in God's Kingdom.

In the same context, women are also told not to teach (I am speaking of the context of 1 Timothy 2). Was it 'disorder in God's Kingdom' then for Priscilla to teach Apollos? Would have it been "disorder in God's Kingdom" for Phoebe to tell the Romans "Do this?" after Paul had told them to render her whatever she had need of?

Was it "disorder in God's Kingdom" for Deborah to have judged Israel?

Was it "disorder in God's Kingdom" for Huldah to have intructed the King of Israel as to what God expected him to do and what God's plan for the Kingdom was?

Was God pleased or displeased with any of these women who stood up and answered His call to service?

Please don't think I'm attacking your words here, sonship. I'm glad you posted them, because it can keep us clear as to what we are actually saying. You state that women can NEVER do this, and yet there are Biblical examples of Godly women doing so. How do we reconcile this?

 

[sonship37]

No, women can NEVER be in positions of leadership where they would have to usurp authority over the man. This is disorder in God's Kingdom.

In the same context, women are also told not to teach (I am speaking of the context of 1 Timothy 2). Was it 'disorder in God's Kingdom' then for Priscilla to teach Apollos? Would have it been "disorder in God's Kingdom" for Phoebe to tell the Romans "Do this?" after Paul had told them to render her whatever she had need of?

Was it "disorder in God's Kingdom" for Deborah to have judged Israel?

Was it "disorder in God's Kingdom" for Huldah to have intructed the King of Israel as to what God expected him to do and what God's plan for the Kingdom was?

Was God pleased or displeased with any of these women who stood up and answered His call to service?

Please don't think I'm attacking your words here, sonship. I'm glad you posted them, because it can keep us clear as to what we are actually saying. You state that women can NEVER do this, and yet there are Biblical examples of Godly women doing so. How do we reconcile this?

Women are to never hold positions of 5 fold ministry leadership in the new Testament Church. Instructed clearly of Paul to not usurp authority over the man. Babylonian mixture and confusion has infected the self will of those who are not properly restored to God. Denominational authority structure has yielded to the ambition of unruly women.

Even sisters used to assist God's male ministers are of an unassuming, meek and quiet spirit. You won't even find them making a fuss on forums such as this. They're too heart-struck with an honest fear of God.

 

[destiny]

3rddayuprising and sonship37 are the same person... same pet doctrine. Why did you reregister as someone else 3rdday? Wouldn't that be considered as an "unruly" man?
Can you believe a woman figured that out?

 

[Rick W]

:smt044

:-?

 

[handy]

Wow. Hard to believe that some folks who think they're God's mouthpiece also think they can get by with violating so many rules.

Anyway, let's get back to the study. I still rather liked 3day/sonship's post with all the "NEVER"s in it, because it does cut to the chase and truly clarify this issue:

We have the two texts in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Then we have a myriad of examples of women who seem to violate what seems to be a clear commandment. If God's intention of those texts in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy was that women were to NEVER hold these kinds of offices, then why who He call some to do so?