I have sat on the sidelines and read many of the posts on this thread, some while laughing and others with disdain. While I do not claim to have all knowledge concerning the Word of God by any means, this is just one area that I have done much study in and realize that most of what is debated on this topic is more rhetoric and male ego than biblical precedence.
We must not just be able to copy and paste scripture; we must rightly divide the Word. We often claim exclusive rights to base a doctrine or a teaching on just one scripture (or in this case two which are closely related yet different) yet we discredit anyone who builds a doctrine on one scripture that we don't agree with, it is this kind of rhetoric that causes us to look like a cult to the rest of the world. We must make sure that what we are applying has a solid biblical (Apostolic) precedence. The safety net then is to compare these one or two scriptures to the rest of scripture to determine what Paul is really speaking about. Then and only then will we be able to determine what a scholar of the Law (Paul) was trying to say, or if indeed he was trying to establish a new standard for the New Testament Church.
When you study out the topic in the Old Testament we find that men were used by God as Prophets. Strongs 5030 nabiy' naw-bee' from 'naba'' (5012); a prophet or (generally) inspired man:--prophecy, that prophesy, prophet.
Women were used by God as Prophetesses Strongs 5031 feminine of 'nabiy'' (5030); a prophetess or (generally) inspired woman; by association a prophet's wife:--prophetess.
To put it plainly they were simply a female prophet. And nearly every woman who is classified as a female prophet prophesied to men and women. There are only a few examples and many men use the scarcity of their mention to state that it is not Gods perfect plan, and that these woman only were appointed because there was no man who would step up. For the sake of space we can address that later. However, let me state that I do not believe every woman who preaches is called, anointed, sent, etc (neither is every man)
God extended this same precedent into the New Testament church through the Prophecy of Joel. Joel 2:28.......and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...... Strongs 5012 naba' naw-baw' a primitive root; to prophesy, i.e. speak (or sing) by inspiration (in prediction or simple discourse):--prophesy(-ing), make self a prophet. Notice that God did not limit prophecy to men in fact he specifically made mention of "daughters/women."
First we can argue the point all day long that if Paul wrote something and it made it into the Bible it is God who spoke it. Not entirely so; because even the great Apostle admitted that some things he said were not by inspiration but rather by permission. (Just as I believe today that a pastor has the God given right to set precedence in his local church, but as the Apostle he must identify what is his precedence versus what is scriptural mandate.)
Having said that, let me split hairs with you a moment and remind you that Paul never said that the prohibition of a woman teaching or usurping authority over a man was a God given mandate. In fact he said "I" suffer not.... One could easily argue that this was not a church rule but rather a personal preference of Pauls and just as we teach our preferences to our ministry trainees Paul was addressing Timothy.
Brethren/sisters I think many of us may have overlooked a Biblical Principal while trying to feed the male ego JMHO.
Have any of you ever thought about the fact that a woman who preaches, teaches, prophesies, etc under the authority of her pastor has not execised any authority other than what has been granted to her by the "authority" that we are all to be subject to.......the Pastor. In 1 Ti 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach, on her own authority over a man" On her own authority would be where we get the idea of "forced" authority. In other words she is not submitted to anyone and no one has extended her the "right" to speak. However, when she is submitted to authority and that authority gives her the ok she is not speaking of her own accord but by the same spirit as her leader.
Remember it is like the hair issue (as he ducks to avoid the sledge hammers) and many others that we build a doctrine on from one scripture yet we warn others not to build a doctrine on one isolated scripture. (I know on women and silence some of you think there are at least 2) However, when you compare all of scripture with Paul's statements you must conclude that either he was trying to establish something new for the Church age, or we may not have a proper understanding of what he was addressing in the Corinthian church.
If you study church history you will find that in Corinth as in many Synagogues they had gender separated seating with (depending on which historical account you rely on) the men on the ground floor and the women in an upper balcony. According to many historians what apparently happened was that while the preacher/teacher was speaking the women would interrupt and ask questions of clarification and sometimes nearly open debate concerning the preaching. Thus Paul's instruction in 1Cor. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (This is not speculation this is historical fact according to church historians)
You cannot have it both ways either a woman can prophecy=preach or she must be silent never uttering a sound while in the assembly of the righteous. JMHO
Excellent post bishoph. Finally some "sound doctrine"!
Raven
We must not just be able to copy and paste scripture; we must rightly divide the Word.
Yes! Absolutely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bishoph
We often claim exclusive rights to base a doctrine or a teaching on just one scripture (or in this case two which are closely related yet different) yet we discredit anyone who builds a doctrine on one scripture that we don't agree with, it is this kind of rhetoric that causes us to look like a cult to the rest of the world. We must make sure that what we are applying has a solid biblical (Apostolic) precedence.
The safety net then is to compare these one or two scriptures to the rest of scripture to determine what Paul is really speaking about. Then and only then will we be able to determine what a scholar of the Law (Paul) was trying to say, or if indeed he was trying to establish a new standard for the New Testament Church.
Absolutely, yes, definitely.
__________________ Smiles & Blessings.... ~Felicity Welsh~ (surname courtesy of Jim Yohe)
Where does it say that this sister was an elder in the Church? To say anything more than it these passages say would be little more than taking text out of context.
Did you not say that woman were not to teach men, single or otherwise???
Stick to the topic and not add to the mix. I'M NOT THE ONE TALKING ABOUT ELDERS, YOU ARE!
Let's just stick to the topic so confusion is decreased.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
In relation to Priscilla and Aquila, it is of great magnitude that the Apostle Paul on at least two occasions mentions Priscilla first. Again for those who claim to be scholars, I implore you to study the significance of her being named first in a salutation. Culturally, this was taboo as the man was always to be recognized first, except in cases where the woman held an office or position of authority or esteem. Thus, by his salutation it is obvious that he is recognizing her "calling" or authority.
Secondly, let us remember that many times we look at the scriptures written to a Middle Eastern culture (applicable to all the Body of Christ) and try to apply western definitions. Paul was not speaking to a Jewish church in Corinth but rather a gentile congregation who were accustomed to the rule of the Roman political realm, in which women had much say.
Linear Mode
