The post, which is a copy and paste from this site
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-ge...teach-apollos/ without proper acknowledgment, is yet one more object lesson as to why women should not teach or preach.
The great lengths that they go to in an attempt to justify what scripture clearly says should not happen and as we will see did not happen here, in spite of the copy and pasting of someone else's thought.
It has been stated multiple times that women can and should witness. This is what is clearly happening here. Also, it should be pointed out that she was not alone for there was in fact a he there as well. Even if we assume, and that is what this is an assumption, that Priscilla took the lead role it is a role of witnessing not feeding the flock of God. Some just can't seem to understand the difference.
Apollos was a disciple of John (
Acts 18:25). We know factually that he was "mighty" in the scriptures (
Acts 18:24). So what was he lacking knowledge in? It was not the scripture! The only thing he was lacking in was who fulfilled the cry of John:
(
Joh 1:26 KJV) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
(
Joh 1:27 KJV) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
Who fulfilled this? That is what Apollos needed to know. This is what Aquila and Priscilla explained. Notice as well that this was
after synagogue not
during synagogue (
Acts 18:26). They took him aside. It would have been out of order for either of them to disrupt the service and especially Priscilla since women were not allowed to speak at synagogue. What they helped Apollos understand was not a long drawn out discipleship Bible study rather it was simply explaining how Jesus Christ is the one who came after John who was mightier than John. They witnessed to him about the fulfillment of what he already believed. Most importantly this was done outside the synagogue, likely in their own house.
All of the above verbose commentary does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of women preachers. Instead all it does is illustrate that women should not feed the flock of God. Here, a well known woman seeks to advance her cause by arguing about a moment of witnessing indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge concerning the difference between witnessing and feeding God's flock, preaching and teaching.
This fundamental lack of knowledge has been seen consistently over and over in spite of the many times it has been said that women should witness and seek to be used in the gifts of the Spirit yet still there remains a stubborn willful ignorance to the facts. We even saw earlier where she made up her own facts that are patently false - the idea that Paul would never quote from the Talmud or the writer of Corinthians was quoting the Talmud (something to that effect) is patently false because the Talmud, specifically the Mishna was not began until the end of the 2nd century or the early third century.
Threaded Mode
