Can women teach God's word.

[Tenchi]

Your wrong! Women can teach God's word.

I never said, "Women can't teach God's word." Read my post more carefully, please. And the circumstances of OT Israel don't perfectly translate to the post-Calvary Church - especially in light of Paul's clear prohibitions against women teaching and assuming spiritual authority over men. The occasion with Huldah you cited does not negate Paul's commands concerning women in his role as an apostle of the Early Church.

 

[jaybo]

I never said, "Women can't teach God's word." Read my post more carefully, please. And the circumstances of OT Israel don't perfectly translate to the post-Calvary Church - especially in light of Paul's clear prohibitions against women teaching and assuming spiritual authority over men. The occasion with Huldah you cited does not negate Paul's commands concerning women in his role as an apostle of the Early Church.

I am not under law; I am under grace. Paul did not write a new version of the law. He clearly says multiple times that the law kills but the Spirit gives life.

2 Corinthians 3:5-6, "Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as if it were coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[for_his_glory]

I know you know. It was more for the benefit of others who may not.


I wasn't clear in making my point. I agree that it is a church service. My only point was that it does not mean that the person or persons in whose house the meeting was held were the pastors or teachers or held any sort of church office. It could just mean they were wealthy enough (Priscilla and Aquila were also tentmakers) to have a large enough house to hold the gathering.


Yes, it could, but we have to be careful in not going beyond what Scripture states, especially if other related passages are more clear.


There is ambiguity in the language as to whether it means they were apostles or simply known by the apostles. As the verse appears in the ESV:

Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.


Well, Paul doesn't mention anything about false prophecy by these women or teaching heresies as a reason why they should keep silent. It seems the whole church was doing things chaotically. While in this particular passage, Paul seems to be referring to women who are somehow being disruptive by asking their husbands questions, in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul explicitly says he doesn’t allow women to teach or have authority over men in the assembled church, that is, during a church service.

This topic is very heavily debated through the years and I truly believe if God wants a women to preach/teach it is He alone that will call them, anoint them and equip them for His ministry. I know when God called me to preach/teach the word within the church services in prison, which is still His church, He anointed me and equipped me to do so.

I still believe Paul told these women of the Corinthian Church to keep silent because they were out of control and trying to take authority over the men of that church with their foolishness. I wish I could find that study I did a few years ago about the women in the Corinth church.

 

[Free]

a) My post was not directed to you. It was directed to "for his glory".

Obviously, but your rhetoric was clearly directed at those you disagree with.

b) Writing stuff like "We cannot bring in worldly, cultural ideas of what roles men and women should be doing" is patently false rhetoric and fallacious question begging. It's also a way for you to get in cheap shots on those you disagree with.

Not a cheap shot at all. You have given little but emotional appeals to equality, which I have repeatedly stated is not the issue. You are bringing in cultural ideas of what roles men and women should be doing, ignoring those that the Bible seems to be commanding believers to follow.

c) Personal insults and hostility show exactly what kind of behavior you prefer.

Unlike you, I am not insulting anyone nor being hostile.

d) I am not under law; I am under grace. That is what being a Christian means. It's sad that you don't understand that fundamental truth.

And, here I will refer you back to your previous point. Being a Christian means a number of things, including being a follower of Christ and believing and following all that is commanded of us in Scripture. I will also point out what I have previously stated, that you seem to be very confused just as to what the difference is between law and commands for believers. Commands for believers are not law, and any argument to equate them is usually so that a believer can ignore such commands. Again, I gave you a fairly large list of commands for believers in the other discussion which you ignored.

e) You should review the ToS.

No need.

Is it your intention to "fly off the handle" and attack everyone? That is exactly what you are doing, and it indicates that you have lost the debate.

Here I will refer you back to your first point. I don't think you understand what the phrase, "fly off the handle" means, because that wasn't it. I was merely pointing out the logical conclusion of his argument, which is pretty obvious. Claiming an opponent has lost the debate is easy when one ignores most of what that opponent has stated, not that I care at all about winning debates. My concern is for the truth of Scripture. Period.

 

[jaybo]

Obviously, but your rhetoric was clearly directed at those you disagree with.


Not a cheap shot at all. You have given little but emotional appeals to equality, which I have repeatedly stated is not the issue. You are bringing in cultural ideas of what roles men and women should be doing, ignoring those that the Bible seems to be commanding believers to follow.


Unlike you, I am not insulting anyone nor being hostile.


And, here I will refer you back to your previous point. Being a Christian means a number of things, including being a follower of Christ and believing and following all that is commanded of us in Scripture. I will also point out what I have previously stated, that you seem to be very confused just as to what the difference is between law and commands for believers. Commands for believers are not law, and any argument to equate them is usually so that a believer can ignore such commands. Again, I gave you a fairly large list of commands for believers in the other discussion which you ignored.


No need.


Here I will refer you back to your first point. I don't think you understand what the phrase, "fly off the handle" means, because that wasn't it. I was merely pointing out the logical conclusion of his argument, which is pretty obvious. Claiming an opponent has lost the debate is easy when one ignores most of what that opponent has stated, not that I care at all about winning debates. My concern is for the truth of Scripture. Period.

Claiming an opponent has lost the debate is easy when one ignores most of what that opponent has stated. You clearly care a great deal about winning debates, even to the point of personally attacking those who disagree with you. My concern is for the truth of Scripture. Period.

You equate being in Christ with being under the law. That is a very, very serious error.

 

[electedbyHim]

Claiming an opponent has lost the debate is easy when one ignores most of what that opponent has stated. You clearly care a great deal about winning debates, even to the point of personally attacking those who disagree with you. My concern is for the truth of Scripture. Period.

You equate being in Christ with being under the law. That is a very, very serious error.

You have shown no Biblical proof woman can be a Pastor or even be a leader in the church. We have posted countless verses and you just dance around them.

 

[for_his_glory]

jaybo and Free it would be better to take this to a private PM and try to reconcile this with each other than exposing your grievances here.

 

[Free]

Claiming an opponent has lost the debate is easy when one ignores most of what that opponent has stated. You clearly care a great deal about winning debates, even to the point of personally attacking those who disagree with you. My concern is for the truth of Scripture. Period.

Please, have some integrity. It is you who has been attacking, not I. Pointing out the errors or unreasonableness in an opponent's argument is not a personal attack.

You equate being in Christ with being under the law. That is a very, very serious error.

You are purposely misrepresenting my position, which is at least your second violation of the ToS against me in this short thread.

Anyway, we are once again done talking.

 

[jaybo]

The title of this thread is "Can women teach God's word". The answer is obvious: of course women can teach God's word. The only reason that they can't is if men prevent them from doing so. Their ability to teach God's word is obvious. It is only politics, i.e., creating a new version of the law from the New Testament, that prevents them from doing so.

There really shouldn't be any debate about this. Should a woman who has earned her doctorate in theology and is called to teach be prevented from doing so? Isn't the answer beyond obvious?

Please read my "signature" below if you have any doubt.

 

[jaybo]

Let's have a look at two stories from Scripture regarding whether women can teach God's word.

The first is when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. To Jews, a Samaritan woman was the lowest of the low, yet the Lord revealed to her that He was the Messiah! (Thereby breaking every social convention possible!) When she understood who He was, did Jesus instruct her not to teach others? Of course not! Here is part of the story (John 4:22-30): [Jesus said to her] "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming and is now here when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.”

Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?” Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” They left the city and were on their way to him."

Did Jesus reveal that He was the Messiah and then say to her, "Because you are only a Samaritan woman, go bring a man so that I can authorize him to tell others"? Of course not! Jesus recognized that this woman should be the bearer of the news that the Messiah had come!!!

Here is the second story> Matthew 28:1-10, "After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Who was chosen to deliver the message that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Two women! Both an angel of the Lord and Jesus Himself told the women to deliver the news!

Do people really think that if a) Jesus told a Samaritan woman that He was the long-awaited Messiah (knowing she would tell others the news) and b) that an angel of the Lord and Jesus Himself told two women to announce His resurrection to the apostles and disciples, that women shouldn't teach God's word because of something Paul supposedly wrote to Timothy (the author of the letter is questionable)? Seriously???

 

[Cooper]

They follow the teachings of all of Scripture. What you have effectively done is undermined the inspiration and authority of everything but the gospels. That is quite something, and only to avoid what Paul says.

Wrong.
.

 

[Cooper]

Okay. Not sure what your point is...

Jezebel was the wife of Ahab, the king of the southern kingdom of Israel (which did not include the kingdom of Judah). Does Scripture ever refer to her as the Queen of Israel? Nope. Did Jezebel rule over Israel as any king of Israel did? No. Had she not been married to Ahab, she would have had no power whatever; and if Ahab had died, she would not have succeeded him as ruler of Israel. All of Jezebel's "royal" power was borrowed from her husband, the king.

Did Jehu "murder" Jezebel? He had her killed, yes, but it would be hard, given Jezebel's conduct, to see how she did not receive her "just desserts" when she was thrown to her death from an upper-story window and her corpse eaten by dogs - an end that had actually been prophesied. She had murdered many people, including many prophets of God. In flagrant fashion, she had disobeyed the command of God concerning pagan worship, too. For this alone she deserved the death penalty under the OT Mosaic law. What's more, Jehu had been anointed by God's prophet, Elisha, the next king of over Israel. As such, Jehu had divine right - and the responsibility - to enact God's punishment upon wicked Jezebel. So, I don't think it's correct to say Jehu murdered Jezebel.

My point is... you said Israel never had a Queen. #46. Can we be correct in our teaching please. Jezebel was Queen of Israel.
.

 

[Hopeful]

The title of this thread is "Can women teach God's word". The answer is obvious: of course women can teach God's word. The only reason that they can't is if men prevent them from doing so. Their ability to teach God's word is obvious. It is only politics, i.e., creating a new version of the law from the New Testament, that prevents them from doing so.

There really shouldn't be any debate about this. Should a woman who has earned her doctorate in theology and is called to teach be prevented from doing so? Isn't the answer beyond obvious?

Please read my "signature" below if you have any doubt.

It is the "present world" that you are "conforming" to.
What does your footer say about that?

 

[Hopeful]

Let's have a look at two stories from Scripture regarding whether women can teach God's word.

The first is when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. To Jews, a Samaritan woman was the lowest of the low, yet the Lord revealed to her that He was the Messiah! (Thereby breaking every social convention possible!) When she understood who He was, did Jesus instruct her not to teach others? Of course not! Here is part of the story (John 4:22-30): [Jesus said to her] "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming and is now here when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.”

Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?” Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” They left the city and were on their way to him."

Did Jesus reveal that He was the Messiah and then say to her, "Because you are only a Samaritan woman, go bring a man so that I can authorize him to tell others"? Of course not! Jesus recognized that this woman should be the bearer of the news that the Messiah had come!!!

Here is the second story> Matthew 28:1-10, "After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Who was chosen to deliver the message that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Two women! Both an angel of the Lord and Jesus Himself told the women to deliver the news!

Do people really think that if a) Jesus told a Samaritan woman that He was the long-awaited Messiah (knowing she would tell others the news) and b) that an angel of the Lord and Jesus Himself told two women to announce His resurrection to the apostles and disciples, that women shouldn't teach God's word because of something Paul supposedly wrote to Timothy (the author of the letter is questionable)? Seriously???

"Said to the people" is a lot different than "teaching".
Besides, it was men that women were not to usurp authority over.
How does forwarding the news equate to authority over men?
It doesn't.

 

[JLB]

You have yet to answer my question.

What question are you referring to? What post number?

 

[JLB]

I've always understood "men" or "man" to refer to an adult male(s).

So do I.

A woman certainly teaches her adult male son who lives at home.

I believe 17 or 18 is referred to as an adult in our society.

I believe 13 in Hebrew culture.

I believe no matter how old a male is, he is to honor and obey his father and mother especially while he is under their roof.


JLB

 

[Tenchi]

My point is... you said Israel never had a Queen. #46. Can we be correct in our teaching please. Jezebel was Queen of Israel.

No, she wasn't.

 

[JLB]

This topic is very heavily debated through the years and I truly believe if God wants a women to preach/teach it is He alone that will call them, anoint them and equip them for His ministry.

Yes ma’am.

It would be foolish to think otherwise.

 

[JLB]

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Galatians 2:20



Why wouldn’t the Lord desire to speak through and minister through a woman who was filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom, and completely crucified and given over to Him; Whereby Christ Himself was speaking and operating through her?


Does Christ have authority in His Church?





JLB

 

[Tenchi]

So do I.

A woman certainly teaches her adult male son who lives at home.

Oh? Why's he still at home? And what, exactly, is she teaching him? Is she acting as his pastor, as her son's spiritual authority?

I believe 17 or 18 is referred to as an adult in our society.

21 in mine.

I believe no matter how old a male is, he is to honor and obey his father and mother especially while he is under their roof.

Yup.