Bible Study Women in the church

[3rddayuprising]

Babylon...the "confusion and mixture" of denominational manmade dogma, will surely continue to "babble on", while Paul's authoritative foundational boundaries for God's TRUE church remains eternally secure, and the basis upon which His true servants contribute to God's kingdom.

There always has been the true and the false...and this is where they part paths, obeying the authoritative Scriptures as established by God-ordained prophets and apostles.

No where in the New Testament Scriptures does it give the requirements for women in church leadership. That is a denominational perversion of the female role and function. The denominational "harlots" (churches) have forsaken God for independance and the Jezebel spirit of witchcraft. And truly, they are independant and separate from God!

And the serpent seed nature continues to manifest...consulting familiar spirits and adulterous behaviour to satisfy ones self-willed ambition...even to "worship God " as Cain attempted and was REJECTED.

 

[destiny]

And the serpent seed nature continues to manifest...consulting familiar spirits and adulterous behaviour to satisfy ones self-willed ambition...even to "worship God " as Cain attempted and was REJECTED. [/b][/i][/color]

You are going against scripture with this "serpent seed" heresy. This is why you have a problem with woman.
Out of respect for Jeff, I will withdraw from this discussion because I don't want to cause him any problems . But I pray what is evident is made manifest for all to see; I wanted to point out how the serpent seed doctrine which 3rddayuprising adheres to, perverts a persons view of woman and makes them out to be the end all problem of the churches. That in itself goes against plain scripture teachings of the problems the church will face in the end times.

 

[Blazin Bones]

This thread will be locked until the section Mod can review this thread.

 

[stovebolts]

You are going against scripture with this "serpent seed" heresy. This is why you have a problem with woman.

I agree, and since this is the Bible Study Forum and not the Theology Forum, it is best to discuss the scriptures that form ones theology, rather than espouse such theology.

3rd Day, I have moved your latest topic on women in the church to the Apologetics forum. Please differ future discussions on that matter to that forum.

The topic "Women in the church" is a viable biblical discussion and should be looked at from a biblical perspective by probing and questioning tangible biblical examples of real women and men that are recorded within the Biblical narrative.

 

[handy]

Thank you Jeff.

I had asked before who were the pastors of the nt church. Are any named? Are all named?

Also, what of these texts:

1 Corinthians 1:11 "For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you."

Colossians 4:15: "Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house."

Could it be that these women served as pastors to churches? Also, does anyone have any insight as to why the pronouns in verse 15 were changed from feminine to masuline in some of the Bibles?

 

[handy]

Here is a very good study on this same issue, that covers many of the questions I've been bringing up. I think his conclusions are well-grounded:

http://www.shepherdserve.org/dmm/dmm_12.htm

 

[Alabaster]

Here is a very good study on this same issue, that covers many of the questions I've been bringing up. I think his conclusions are well-grounded:

http://www.shepherdserve.org/dmm/dmm_12.htm

Thanks for that great link! :-D

 

[Alabaster]

It has mostly been men who have messed up the church as a whole. There is a male false teacher- prophet- apostle- pastor.. on just about every corner these days, destroying innocent lambs. The antichrist himself will be MALE.
If you want submission, then become a lowly servant and love as Jesus loved His church; the greatest must serve the least. It's a 2 way street.

PS.. Potluck, no offense intended to you, but John Macarther is a hard core calvinist who doesn't even believe gifts or miracles are for today. He just isn't qualified to be teaching his pet doctrine of womans roles, IMO. He has a list of cans and cannots for woman that is completely void of the Holy Spirit, and he's got God on a list of cans and cannot's also, so I guess we are in good company.

Spirit and truth (working together) is crucial in order to avoid legalism or liberalism.

 

[Paidion]

Also, what of these texts:

1 Corinthians 1:11 "For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you."

"Chloe's people" could refer to her relatives.

Colossians 4:15: "Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house."

The first century church did not have church buildings. They lived in homes (had community of goods). Chloe could been a widow with a large house, her children no longer living at home. It may have been an ideal place for some of God's people to live. Various groups of disciples at Colosse lived in several houses , as was the case in other cities.

Could it be that these women served as pastors to churches?

The "pastors" or shepherds of the early church were the overseers. Neither the New Testament nor the churches of the 100s ever referred to any overseer who was a woman.

Also, does anyone have any insight as to why the pronouns in verse 15 were changed from feminine to masuline in some of the Bibles?

I suspected that this was another one of the many changes that the writers of the manuscripts of Textus Receptus (the Received Text) made to the original Greek. Sure enough! I'm glad you mentioned this, as I had not previously noticed it . The error occurs in all the translations which are based on Textus Receptus. These translations include AV,IGNT, KJ21, NKJV, YLT, WTNT. Two translations, ASV and WEY probably based on Tiscendorf's Greek edition, read "their house".

The same group based on Textus Receptus, namely AV,IGNT, KJ21, NKJV, YLT, WTNT, also have "book of life" instead of "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19. That change has an interesting history.

All known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as Textus Receptus has it. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a unique Greek reading into his text. Since the first and only "source" for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any Greek New Testament that agrees with Erasmus must have been simply copied from his text. The fact that all Textus Receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life."

 

[Rick W]

It has mostly been men who have messed up the church as a whole. There is a male false teacher- prophet- apostle- pastor.. on just about every corner these days, destroying innocent lambs. The antichrist himself will be MALE.
If you want submission, then become a lowly servant and love as Jesus loved His church; the greatest must serve the least. It's a 2 way street.

PS.. Potluck, no offense intended to you, but John Macarther is a hard core calvinist who doesn't even believe gifts or miracles are for today. He just isn't qualified to be teaching his pet doctrine of womans roles, IMO. He has a list of cans and cannots for woman that is completely void of the Holy Spirit, and he's got God on a list of cans and cannot's also, so I guess we are in good company.

Spirit and truth (working together) is crucial in order to avoid legalism or liberalism.

 

[duval]

Seems to me 3rdday wrote a long thread on the serpent's seed. If so I can't find it, guess my memory is failing. I thought he said it began with Can. If 3rd day reads this please fill me in.

 

[handy]

"Serpent seed" is considered heresy by almost all churches. It speaks a lot that of the 'churches' that do embrace it, the neo-Nazi 'church' is one. It's a handy theory to support racisim among other things. It is not biblical, which is why it was pulled. Our terms of service, which everyone agrees to when they become members of this site, strictly forbids the promotion of non-Biblical religions or theories. This forum does not exist to promote known heresies.

Besides, it had nothing to do with the study at hand.

The study at hand is a Biblical, (meaning we must find support within the Scriptures for our pov's) study on whether or not women can and should take on more active, even authoritative roles in the church.

I believe that this study has taken on a contentious tone. Let's all remember that we all are allowed to ask questions and to feel free to chime in with thoughts and opinions that we may have. However, in doing so, let's keep in mind Jeff's instructions:

... this is the Bible Study Forum and not the Theology Forum, it is best to discuss the scriptures that form ones theology, rather than espouse such theology.

The topic "Women in the church" is a viable biblical discussion and should be looked at from a biblical perspective by probing and questioning tangible biblical examples of real women and men that are recorded within the Biblical narrative.

So, Excelsior! (my new word for the week! :wink: )
Paidion, you brought up this:

Also, does anyone have any insight as to why the pronouns in verse 15 were changed from feminine to masuline in some of the Bibles?

I suspected that this was another one of the many changes that the writers of the manuscripts of Textus Receptus (the Received Text) made to the original Greek. Sure enough! I'm glad you mentioned this, as I had not previously noticed it . The error occurs in all the translations which are based on Textus Receptus. These translations include AV,IGNT, KJ21, NKJV, YLT, WTNT. Two translations, ASV and WEY probably based on Tiscendorf's Greek edition, read "their house".

(Text in question is: Colossians 4:15: "Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.")


Help me understand then, is the correct translation "her", "him" or "their"? Isn't Nympha feminine? Wouldn't that presuppose a woman, rather than a man?

Alabaster, thank Destiny for the link, she was the one who sent it to me. My apologies to Destiny for not properly attributing the link to her! It was a good study on this issue.

The study on the link that Destiny shared concluded that women have a large role to play in church functions, but that we need to stop short of out and out authoritative roles. He ties this into the model of the family, that the father/husband is the authority of the household, therefore the men should be the authority in church. Otherwise we have a direct conflict with the roles of husbands and wives, if the wife is to be subject at home, yet in authority in church. And forgive me, but I'm positive someone made that very same point on this thread, and I cannot remember who did so.

It's a good point. However, (me questioning things again), how did this play out in the lives of Huldah and Deborah, both of whom were in authoritative positions, and yet were married? If Deborah (especially Deborah who was judge of the land) and Huldah were called by God, even as married women, to give His authoritative word and direct His authoritative will, in Israel, then is that a contradiction to the idea that 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians are words meant for all women, for all time? If not, why not?

 

[destiny]

It's a good point. However, (me questioning things again), how did this play out in the lives of Huldah and Deborah, both of whom were in authoritative positions, and yet were married? If Deborah (especially Deborah who was judge of the land) and Huldah were called by God, even as married women, to give His authoritative word and direct His authoritative will, in Israel, then is that a contradiction to the idea that 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians are words meant for all women, for all time? If not, why not?

I might have provided the link, but I have the same questions as you do, still. :-D

 

[sheshisown]

Hello fellow Bible studiers~ :D

Well~ I am thinking we could take a look at those scriptures that speak of women in the role of authority over a man, or men, as the case may present itself in scripture. We can look at Deborah for instance, she is a woman defined by the word as a judge of the nation of Israel, which includes men. That is a place of authority.

However, before we consider this woman specifically, I would like to note that every great man of God in the Old Testament was born and raised by a woman. There would have been no Moses without a woman named Jochebed, Exodus 6:20. Jochebed was not only the mother of two men that God called, namely Moses and Aaron, but also of a woman called by God, their sister, a prophetess and worship leader named Miriam Exodus 15:20. In Micah 6:4, God labeled Miriam right with Moses and Aaron as being one of Israel’s leaders:

“Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt and ransomed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.†(All Bible references are NKJV)

Deborah lived during the times of Israel’s judges. So we find her listed in the book of Judges, chapter 4 and 5.

“And Deborah, a prophetess…†Going through Judges 4: 1-14

She was a prophetess, and was as much a judge over Israel as were Gideon, Jeptha and Samson during their lives. We are informed that “the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment†Judges 4:5. So she made decisions for men, not just women. There can be no mistaking this: A woman told men what to do, and God anointed her to do it.

Like most women whom God calls into leadership, Deborah obviously faced at least one man who had difficulty receiving God’s word through a female vessel. His name was Barak, and because he was skeptical about Deborah’s prophetic instructions for him to go to war against the Canaanite general Sisera, she informed him that the honor of killing Sisera would go to a woman. She foretold this eventual record according to her prophetic gift, and a woman named Jael is remembered in Scripture as the lady who drove a tent peg through sleeping Sisera’s head. The story ends with Barak singing a duet with Deborah. Some of the lyrics are full of praises for both Deborah and Jael in Judges chapter 5, so maybe Barak became a believer in “women’s ministry†after all.

Now David Servant who wrote the article on shepherd serve website said; "Certainly God could have called men to do exactly what those three women did. But He didn’t." (I agree) "And no one knows why." (Now here I beg to differ a bit.)

Is it unexpected or indiscernible that God would appoint a woman as prophetess? No, the New Testament makes it clear that God grants the gift of prophecy to women also, and they are told to practice it appropriately 1 Corinthians 11:15.

This particular scripture can be a bit “bumpy†and some of us can get a few “spiritual bruises†trying to discover it. My exegesis of these verses, in the context, is that the essential element to a woman's ministry as a prophetess in the early church was her obvious submission to the male leadership in the church (evidenced by her wearing of a veil). A woman was to use her gifts in the framework of the order established by the leaders of the church- just like anyone's gift would have to submit to leadership. For here we find Paul admonishing the men to be uncovered in their prophesying, and the women to be covered. Now, if this meant a physical covering alone then Paul would be establishing a ritual, and we do not follow a God of rituals (performances of man) but of grace granted.

“She judged Israel at that timeâ€Â

Deborah was called to be a judge- a shaphat, a heroic leader for Israel. She was a woman greatly used by God and she was also a woman who respected the people God put in authority over her- in her situation that was Barak.

The issue is not whether women can be used greatly by God. Of course they can. The issue is one of headship, final accountability, and authority; and God has granted these responsibilities to men in both the home and the church. Women can be used greatly by God, but it is to be under the headship of male authority in the church.

The reason for her covering also has nothing to do with any idea of female inferiority. :fadein: Jesus was under the headship and authority of His Father John 5:19, without being inferior in any way to Him; John 1:1; and 10:30.

“And the children of Israel came up to her for judgmentâ€Â

The Bible tells us of several other prophetesses: Miriam-Exodus 15:20, Huldah-2 Kings 22:14, Anna- Luke 2:36, and Philip's four daughters-Acts 21:8+9.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.†1 Corinthians 11:3,

Also because of God's order of creation- 1 Corinthians 11:8+9, because of the presence of watching angels- 1 Corinthians 11:10, and because of the nature of the fall- 1 Timothy 2:14.
“And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment…â€Â

I have often heard Pastors teach that Deborah was allowed leadership because men failed to take the position. Although it is true that later we will see that Barak doesn't seem to be all he should be, we have no indication that he failed to do something God told him to do in taking leadership. :-?

“And she sent and called for Barak…â€Â

Deborah does not immediately act as though God called her alone to deliver Israel. She realized that God would do much of the work through Barak.

“Has not the LORD God of Israel commanded?â€Â

Deborah’s words to Barak suggest that she is confirming something that the LORD had already spoken to Barak. God often brings confirmation when He speaks to us, especially if what we believe He wants us to do will affect other people.

“If you will go with me, then I will go.â€Â

The fact that Barak demands Deborah to come with him shows that he is trusting more in Deborah's relationship with God than with his own relationship with God.

“There will be no glory for you…â€Â

Because of this, Barak will not be the one to personally defeat Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army- but a woman will. We might expect that the woman to do this would be Deborah, but again the word of God surprises us with its honesty.

“He went up with ten thousand men under his command. So Sisera gathered together all his chariots, nine hundred chariots of ironâ€Â

Still, Barak and all who went with him showed real courage and trust in God to go out against Sisera and his army. They had essentially no weapons to fight with against a technologically advanced army (having 900 chariots of iron), and God led them to fight on a plain against this impressive military technology. The armies of Israel, under the direction of Barak and Deborah, were at a great disadvantage.

“Then Deborah said to Barak, "Up! For this is the day in which the LORD has delivered Sisera into your hand. Has not the LORD gone out before you?" So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with ten thousand men following him. And the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera alighted from his chariot and fled away on foot. But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth Hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.â€Â

We know from Judges 5:4+5 and 5:21 that God won the victory thru Israel by bringing something like a flash flood. The muddy conditions made the chariots of iron a hindrance instead of a help in the battle. Wow! Think of that~ God has such infinite resources available for our victory, even when we can't see what they will be ahead of time. God has used donkeys, rocks, bones, a flaming bush, a mighty stone before a tomb, and even men and women to win His marvelous victories.

I cannot say I have found another clearer example of a woman in the old or new testaments that is truly in an authoritative position over men. However, if you find other examples, or have a Biblical correction of my exegesis or insights I missed, please let’s get into the word!

The bible has hands that reach out to me and take me in, that caress me and make me His. :infinity: bonnie

 

[duval]

Which testament do we live under today? and what does it teach about the role of women in the church?

 

[handy]

It's a good question, Duval. I think various folks would have various answers. Myself, I don't necessarily split the Bible into 2 testaments as far as which we should live under. I think we're "under" all of it. However, in order to understand what each testament is to say to us, we need to examine each by the light of the other. Which is why I think there is value in studying all the examples of women in the Bible, especially Deborah and Huldah, when trying to determine just what the impact of Paul's words to Timothy and to the Corinthians is on us today.

Bonnie, great study! I'd like to ask you a question regarding this:

My exegesis of these verses, in the context, is that the essential element to a woman's ministry as a prophetess in the early church was her obvious submission to the male leadership in the church (evidenced by her wearing of a veil). A woman was to use her gifts in the framework of the order established by the leaders of the church- just like anyone's gift would have to submit to leadership. For here we find Paul admonishing the men to be uncovered in their prophesying, and the women to be covered. Now, if this meant a physical covering alone then Paul would be establishing a ritual, and we do not follow a God of rituals (performances of man) but of grace granted.

Would you say then that we women should also wear a veil or some kind of head covering in church today? Or would you find this to be ritualistic?

Heya Dora~

Any specific ordering of apparel in the body of Christ, (except in the case of choir garb for the sake of harmony or eye-appeal and the like) would be begging not merely for ritual. But also requiring an uniformity that our Lord hates.

Every blade of grass is unique, no rainbow invisioned by any person's eyes has ever been remade for another by the Lord's handiwork, and we find uniqueness thru-out His universe, especially in the nano things (ask any biologist).

Our God loves our specialness, He just don't make no copies of nothin'! Only humankind, and Satan copy stuff. Such wanna-bees!

The head covering was worn in the church according to the culture, because harlots went uncovered. However, Christian women took the covering as a sign of their submission to male church leadership, this from my understanding of biblical historian's accounting.

But if you desire to wear a veil, it would be pretty, and why not? The freedoms we possess within the safe boundaries of Christ are so gracious! Yeah!

BTW- Im not really sure how my post ended up connected to yours THIS way, it was supposed to be new, at the bottom of the list. DUH! :-D Maybe you could give me some insight, Dora?

bonnie

 

[Paidion]

Help me understand then, is the correct translation "her", "him" or "their"? Isn't Nympha feminine? Wouldn't that presuppose a woman, rather than a man?

In my opinion, it certainly does indicate a woman. The older Greek manuscripts use "her". I believe this to be the correct translation. However Textus Receptus uses the Greek pronoun for "him". In my opinion, some copyists wanted to believe that Nympha was a man, and changed the pronoun accordingly.

 

[duval]

Of course ALL scripture is inspired and to be studied and is of value, 1 Cor.10:11 for example. Animal sacrifice was of the OT, but does that mean we are to do so today under the NT? Just as I must search the NT for the truth of animal sacrifice today, so with women in the church.

 

[handy]

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. However, it seems as though the only connection here is that the church was held in their home. That's a tenuous connection at best, but it is nonetheless, an arguement made in defense of women ministers.

Duval, I do think there is a difference between what were clearly issues of the old Law and the issue of women in general. We are not under the Law, but under grace. That applies to all of us, yet, it is argued by some that the reason why women cannot serve as pastors is because of the Law. It's a little confusing. Which is why it's helpful to see how women who were under the Law (ie Old Testament women) who were also clearly in authoritative positions fulfilled both their calling from God as well as their role as wives.

You see, I feel very strongly that we don't have the New Testament 'trumping' the Old Testament, as it were. (Please don't misunderstand me to think I think you do so, but I've known others who dismiss the Old Testament by saying "Well, we live under the New Testament.) I believe that both Testaments are in clear harmony with one another, and the things of the Old Testament that no longer apply to us, do not do so because of the way they were fulfilled by Christ. Animal sacrifice being one of them; we do not sacrifice bulls and lambs any more because they were a shadow of things to come, things that Christ fulfilled by His sacrifice.

Which brings me to this: Marriage is a shadow of things to come as well. Jesus said that in marriage we will not marry nor be given in marriage. Why not? The reason is that we are the Bride of Christ, and in heaven and eternity, the reason for marriage here on earth will be fulfilled when we stand before Christ as His spotless Bride, just as surely as the reason for animal sacrifices were fulfilled when He sacrificed Himself on our behalf.

One thing that is clear from this study is that marriage between a man and woman is a shadow of marriage between Christ and the Church. To me, this is a very strong argument that Paul was writing an edict for all women for all time, to play a submissive role within the church. Not a subservient one, but a role in which the men are recognized as authority. For now, we must play the role of the Bride, loving and submissive. When all is fulfilled, then perhaps things will change, but until then, this role we play is a testimony to Christ's headship of the church.

:wink: I know, probably people have thought all along that I'm some rabid women's libber out to overthrow the rule of men in the church. Not so, not at all. Frankly, I've always thought that women should be in submissive roles in the church, active, hard-working, but under the leadership of men. It's just that for the purpose of this study, I've worked to bring out all the questions and points that have been raised in the church within the past few decades in regards to this subject.

What I have changed in my attitude about this subject is that I now accept that women who believe that we can and should accept calls to more authoritative positions might have a biblically sound reason for doing so, rather than writing them off as feminists who hold their 'rights' higher than the Word of God. And, this is a very big change of heart for me, let me tell you.

And this isn't to say that all my questions were simply put out there and that I don't truly question them. I do question this, I question it a lot. Sure, marriage is a shadow of our role as Christ's Bride, but as I've pointed out before, there are many in the church who are not married? Are all women to be submissive under all men? I don't know, I really don't.

Anyway, I've put a lot of personal opinion into what is after all a Bible Study. Hopefully, as we continue to examine the word together we can come to some firm conclusions.

 

[duval]

Hi Handi: I have not read much of this tread and am sure it has been discussed but I do understand that Paul's command to the Corinthians and Timothy to be final. --- Duval