‘Variance’ for North American, Trans-European Division Fails

[olger]

You are missing a simple point here Tom.

This is not about God granting women permission to rule over men.

This is about secular reasoning granting permission because it has infiltrated the church and many have adopted secular ideology on this matter.

This group are claiming that they have the right to express that permission despite the fact that God has never withdrawn that edict from Eden.

This secularisation agenda being promoted is not supported by scripture or God.

You might want to rethink your position on this one, because if I am correct, and you are indeed opposing Gods order of things, then you have taken a position that will bear strong consequences and may even affect your salvation if you continue to promote this agenda.

This is well-stated in a good spirit.

rejoice always,

g

[John317]

The silliness of this constant refrain is that apparently you don't see that it undermines the whole idea that God would not permit a women to be a minister.

Is this what you would tell the SDA world church in General Conference in order to persuade the church to change its policy with regard to women's work in the church?

How does Ellen White's being called to be a prophet of God undermine the order that God inspired in 1 Cor. 11 and 14 and 1 Tim. 2?

Do you mean that God could not call a woman to be a prophet without also calling women to be the pastors of the local congregations? Why?

If you argument is sound, then why didn't God's calling women to be a judge and prophet in the Old Testament also mean that women could be priests?

God called some women in the NT to be prophets, yet Paul still was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write in 1 Cor. 14 that women were to be silent in the churches.

Evidently, then, Paul was unaware of, and did not agree with, your argument.

[Tom Wetmore]

I don't think I was the one missing the point.

[Tom Wetmore]

You are missing a simple point here Tom.

This is not about God granting women permission to rule over men.

This is about secular reasoning granting permission because it has infiltrated the church and many have adopted secular ideology on this matter.

This group are claiming that they have the right to express that permission despite the fact that God has never withdrawn that edict from Eden.

This secularisation agenda being promoted is not supported by scripture or God.

You might want to rethink your position on this one, because if I am correct, and you are indeed opposing Gods order of things, then you have taken a position that will bare strong consequences and may even affect your salvation if you continue to promote this agenda.

It is only secular reasoning in your head. It is not secular reasoning or so-called feminism to those of us on the other side of the issue.

And as I said, I don't think I am the one missing the point.

And your last paragraph resembles a judgment that is not yours to make. If this is, as you seem to think, "God's order of things" I will take my chances with him rather than your human judgment.

The wisdom of Gamaliel seems more rational here - Acts 5:34-42.

If women in ministry are not of God, it will prove itself fruitless. If it is of God, no human effort can prevent it.

[Guest arnie]

Twilight,Twilight, Twilight, Are you in the "Twilight Zone"? Did you not read my post? I never said or indicated that Ellen was PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. I never said she "ran the church". AGAIN. . .She had a certificate of Ministerialship whether she used the priviliges of it is nonconsiquential. . . HELLO! Who's confused? The point you referred too may have been covered, but In fact, you have not added one new thing in the last five pages of this forum. You keep insisting that women have no place in leadership. We get it,okay? And, by the way, why does it bother you so much?

In case anyone is interested, Samuel filled more than one position, He was not only a prophet but a judge of Israel. He ruled Israel. Deborah was a prophetess and judge, ruled over Israel and went to war because that Ninny, Barak, didn't trust God and was afraid to go it alone. So, See, you can be whatever God asks you to be, man or woman and He uses both in whatever manner He choses if WE are willing. When Jesus was here, the Pharisees and Saducees did not accept Him as the Son of God. In their eyes, He was a revolutionary that just didn't "go by the rules". He just didn't fit the plan. All the formalism that had been acceptable for so many years which, I'm sure, they thought was in God's plan, was being challenged. In their opinion, He couldn't possibly qualify as the Saviour God, I'm guessing He probably didn't follow the ordinational proceedures. And, by the way, as far as Eve is concerned, she did not ururp her authority over her man. "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye and also desirable for gaining wisdom she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." Gen 3:5 & 6. She just bought "take out" from the wrong guy, who deceived her and then she proceeded to share it with Adam. Authority was not the issue. How did "whomever" come up with that one?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

That last quote can also read, "your wives keep silent in the churches"....Why is that translated your way when this way is just as valid?

The Greek word translated "women" in 1 Cor. 14: 34 is gyne (Strongs #1135). It is most commonly translated "woman."

[Neil D]

God called some women in the NT to be prophets, yet Paul still was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write in 1 Cor. 14 that women were to be silent in the churches.

Evidently, then, Paul was unaware of, and did not agree with, your argument.

If your interpretation of history is correct, then you have no problem...but you have major problems...You have twisted some interpretations according to your views. And yet, you don't let history help with the interpretation....Consider-

Corinth was a large seacoast city on the Gulf of Corinth, and its eastern port was called Cenchrea. This port area of Corinth was the home of Phoebe, mentioned in Romans 16:1 as a "diakonon" which is translated "servant" in this passage. This same exact word is translated "minister" in "is Christ then the minister of sin?" Galatians 2:17.

Just across the bay from Corinth was a major attraction of the ancient world, the Oracle of Delphi. On the southern slope of Mt. Parnassus, female priestesses presided over a stone temple and delivered answers for those seeking guidance from the "god" Apollo on everything from romance to whether to wage war. A prophetess about fifty-five years old would receive a question written on a lead tablet and would descend to the basement of the temple where she breathed fumes of ethelyne, a sweet-smelling gas that produces feelings of euphoria. The gas drifted up from a fault line under the temple. Modern researchers have verified the presence of this gas and it can still be detected today. The priestess would utter "prophecies" while she was in a trance-like state, and these would pour out in a garbled state. Male priests "interpreted" these sounds. Interpretations were usually vague and ambiguous-- increasing their chances of being perceived as accurate.

The Oracle of Delphi existed for twelve centuries and was very famous in the ancient world. The congregation in Corinth was well aware of it and many probably witnessed the "oracle" in person. The unconverted mates of church members might still have been involved in similar pagan worship, as Delphi was only about forty miles north of Corinth across what is known today as the Gulf of Corinth.

Paul writes, "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;" 1 Cor 14:31. Notice he doesn't say that all MEN may prophesy, but that ALL can prophesy if it is done "one by one". In verse 32 he adds that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to prophets"; meaning that true prophets are not out of control or in some gas-induced trance, as were the priestesses of Delphi. Prophets of God have control over their spirits and their speaking.

Verse 33 clearly illustrates that this entire issue was about confusion and disruption in the church, not Paul seeking to take away the rights of Christian women to participate.

1 Cor. 14:33 for God is not {a God} of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints

1 Cor 14:34

34 Let the {or *those} women (the same word as "wives") keep silent in the churches {church}; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

*The Greeks have many forms of the word "the" but this exact word is "hai" 3588. .In all the following New King James scriptures the same word in the male form --"hoi" is translated "those": John 6:14, "those men" ; John 8:29 KJV, "those things"; Romans 8:5 "For those who"; Romans 8:8, "those who are in the flesh" NKJ; 1 Cor 10:18, "those who eat"; 1 Cor. 15:18, "those who have fallen asleep"; and 1 Cor. 15:23, "those who are Christ's"; Gal. 3:9, "those who are of faith"; Gal. 5:24, "those who are Christ's"; Gal. 6:13, "those who are"; 1Thes. 5:7, "Those who sleep"; 1 Tim 3:13 "For those who have served well; 2Tim. 1:15, "all those in Asia"; 2 Tim 3:6, "those who creep".

By using the feminine form of this word, "hai", Paul is saying, "Let those wives keep silent..." Not ALL women, just those causing confusion!

Paul is urging the churches to start a policy of limiting the participation of "those" wives, unconverted wives, who must subject themselves to their converted husbands, not causing any further disruption. Paul's reference to "the Law" may be a reference to Genesis 3:16 which relates to being subject to a husband in marriage.

1 Cor 14:35

35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; ..."

The phrase "if they desire to learn anything" expresses doubt whether these wives were wanting to learn. He implies they were just there to cause problems! Clearly Paul is dealing with specific wives because these being reprimanded have converted husbands they may ask at home. Wives with unconverted husbands could NOT "ask their own husbands at home, nor could unmarried women or widows.

He continues, "for it is improper for a woman (wife) to speak in church (the last two Greek words are-- en ekkleesia, which can also be translated among the true believers.)

The Greek en is translated "among" in Matt. 27:56, "among which was Mary Magdalene" and Romans 8:29, "among many brethren" and countless other scriptures. Paul says that this unconverted wife may not speak among the "ekkleesia" among the converted male and female members participating in services!

The word "ekkleesia" translated "church" does not refer to a church building but to the entire congregation of Christian believers-- both men and women! Ekkleesia is defined by Thayer's Greek/Engllish Definitions as "an assembly of Christians gathered for worship." It also means "called out" ones. This disruptive wife who babbles blasphemous "prophecies" is not a part of the baptized believers (the ekkleesia), and she is not to speak among the converted Christian men and women as do the women with the true spiritual gift of prophecy. The passage should be translated as follows:

1 Cor 14:34-35

34 Let those wives keep silent among the called out ones; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a wife to speak among the called out ones.

Paul's next words of biting sarcasm reflect his anger at this would be prophetess:

1 Cor. 14:36

36 Was it from you that the word of God {first} went forth? Or has it come to you only?

This proves that prophetic blasphemy has caused this uproar, the false prophecy of 1 Cor 12:3 delivered by a woman acting in a manner much like a prophetess of Delphi speaking for Apollo! She uttered a garbled "prophecy" and interpreted it as "Jesus is cursed." To be sure that this woman who considered herself a prophetess accepts his ruling in this situation Paul adds-

1 Cor. 14:37-40

37 If anyone thinks he (or she) is a prophet or spiritual, let him (or her) recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

38 But if anyone does not recognize {this} he (or she) is not recognized.

Yet Paul is NOT limiting the brethren of the church, the men and women given spiritual gifts, for he tells the "brethren," the converted men and women-- to desire to prophesy!

39 Therefore, my brethren (men and women of the ekkleesia), desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.

Paul's last words of chapter 14 show he is dealing with disorder-- and those causing it.

40 But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

Further proof that Paul did not limit women's participation in the church services of the churches is found in this same letter in 1 Cor 12:28-31.

28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, {various} kinds of tongues. (Paul lists prophets second in the order of responsibility before God.)

29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not {workers of} miracles, are they?

30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts....

Chapter 12 deals with spiritual gifts and Paul considers all the church offices listed above, apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. as spiritual gifts, given by God, not man! There is not a single scripture that lists some of these as "male" gifts and some of these as "female" gifts. Paul argues that each person receives a gift, and advises all to "desire the greater gifts"! Would he say that if any of the top five gifts were "off limits" to women?

1 Cor. 12:7

7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

Women are given spiritual gifts by God to use for the common good of the people of God. Paul did not take away the right of women to use these spiritual gifts in services-- a woman with a gift of encouragement must be allowed to encourage. A woman with a gift of faith must be allowed to offer a prayer of faith. A woman with a word of wisdom must be allowed to publicly share her wisdom with the congregation. A woman with a musical gift must be allowed to lead joyful songs of praise. A woman with a gift of teaching must be allowed to teach truth. (See "Paul and Woman Teachers" for an explanation of the very misunderstood 1 Tim 2:12.) God does NOT limit His women. God sees women as equal to serve Him with whatever gifts He has given them to use for the common good.

If women are unable to participate during church services, then many are unable to contribute the gift God has given to them. Each spiritual gift is given for the benefit of the church as a whole-- the inability to participate in church services is like God giving a woman a beautifully wrapped, expensive gift--a present that would help her entire church-- and then telling her that she cannot open it! Would God do such a thing? No, He does not. Neither must men. To quote the words of Craig S. Keener, "...it is a dangerous thing to turn people from their call, or to oppose their call if it is genuinely from God .

[Overaged]

Each spiritual gift is given for the benefit of the church as a whole-- the inability to participate in church services is like God giving a woman a beautifully wrapped, expensive gift--a present that would help her entire church-- and then telling her that she cannot open it!

Would God do such a thing? No, He does not. Neither must men.

[Guest arnie]

Hamilton, That was so interesting. I wasn't aware of any of that. Thanks!

[Guest arnie]

Overaged: There may be some guys out there that aren't called of God and want to ascert their own rights, but God knows the hearts of men and will be the judge. Not our call.

[Parade Orange]

i agree ARNIE

ty HB!

GBU for straightening this out

i knew it!

[Tom Wetmore]

HB, that was very helpful context and explanation. Context is very important and helps resolve the trumped up conflict this has with other indications that Paul affirmed women in ministry.

It also supports the translator bias toward old tradition interpretations of the early church fathers. The context does support that it should be focused on "those wives" rather than all women. That early church fathers' bias against women in any significant role has resulted in quite a few translator errors IMHO.

A common translator assumption is that closer in time to the original makes for more reliable sources. This is most often noted in older manuscripts being more likely closer to the original and less likely to contain scribal errors. But I think it is also reflected in reliance on early translators into Latin done centuries before any translation to a modern language. The assumption would seem to be that since they were more proximate in time to the original Greek, the meaning was better known and understood. But I am not so sure that sort of assumption always holds true. It might hold true for honest mistakes like a scribal error. But if there was an intentional effort to tamper or skew the meaning, the idea of earliest in time makes no difference. As seems apparent, a bias against any significant role for women likely biased those early translators to opt for meanings more consistent with their view of women.

Another example is the reference in 1 Timothy 5:2 to the female members of the body of elders that had ordained Timothy. The context, starting around 4:14, clearly indicates that Paul is speaking of the body of elders (presbyterion) and then counsels how Timothy, as a new young minster, should relate to them, saying to treat a male elder as a father and female elders as mothers. The bias minimizes presbyteros as merely old men and old women rather than male and female elders. That Paul did not mean simply the old people is revealed in the context and quite significantly that Paul knew and used a more specific term, presbytis, meaning only old age in Titus 2. The context in Titus more clearly indicates he is speaking generally about all the older believers and not just about the elders as in Timothy.

[Twilight II]

HB, that was very helpful context and explanation. Context is very important and helps resolve the trumped up conflict this has with other indications that Paul affirmed women in ministry.

It also supports the translator bias toward old tradition interpretations of the early church fathers. The context does support that it should be focused on "those wives" rather than all women. That early church fathers' bias against women in any significant role has resulted in quite a few translator errors IMHO.

The problem with these arguments is that once again it is a false "cultural" card that is being played.

When God issued His decree in the garden of Eden, there was no "cultural" issue.

Paul is simply restating that decree.

The only way these types of arguments can be used, is if the Garden of Eden is ignored or dismissed.

Which is an indication of very poor theology that picks and chooses its proof texting.

[John317]

If women in ministry are not of God, it will prove itself fruitless. If it is of God, no human effort can prevent it.

This isn't necessarily true at all. There are many things that have been successes which aren't of God. God doesn't stop people from doing things that they are determined to do against His expressed will. The history of the Christian church is full of things that God allowed even though they are definitely against His will.

[doug yowell]

Samuel filled more than one position, He was not only a prophet but a judge of Israel. He ruled Israel. Deborah was a prophetess and judge, ruled over Israel and went to war because that Ninny, Barak, didn't trust God and was afraid to go it alone. So, See, you can be whatever God asks you to be, man or woman and He uses both in whatever manner He choses if WE are willing.

One of the problems with your use of Deborah is that you equate her going out to war with God's calling her to go out to war. The fact that she specifically told Barak that God had called HIM (not her) to lead the people you've somehow overlooked. As a punishment for his unwillingness to believe God's word thru the prophetess God gave the glory to a woman instead!That was seen as a rebuke of his failure to man up and lead.All this happened at a time (unlike today??) when every man did what was right in their own eyes. One of the very low points of Jewish history, hardly a model for future success.Let's not forget either who did the fighting. Who had to put their lives on the line for the peoples freedom.God never asked the women to do this. It is also a misportrayal to speak of any of the judges or prophets, male or female,as "rulers" over Israel. Not until the people chose Saul as king did that type of relationship between the people and leadership develope.

[John317]

... The fact that she specifically told Barak that God had called HIM (not her) to lead the people you've somehow overlooked. As a punishment for his unwillingness to believe God's word thru the prophetess God gave the glory to a woman instead!That was seen as a rebuke of his failure to man up and lead.All this happened at a time (unlike today??) when every man did what was right in their own eyes. One of the very low points of Jewish history, hardly a model for future success.Let's not forget either who did the fighting. Who had to put their lives on the line for the peoples freedom.God never asked the women to do this.

Very important points. Deborah sat under a tree and let all the people come to her (v.5), and she didn't go out to lead the men in battle. Notice she told Barak to do that. Barak should have gone alone, without Debrorah. See Judges 4: 8, 9, 14.

[doug yowell]

. And, by the way, as far as Eve is concerned, she did not ururp her authority over her man. "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye and also desirable for gaining wisdom she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." Gen 3:5 & 6. She just bought "take out" from the wrong guy, who deceived her and then she proceeded to share it with Adam. Authority was not the issue. How did "whomever" come up with that one?

So if she was of equal "authority" when she was deceived then would you consider her subsequent actions a misuse of her equal "authority" because she used it (after having been deceived)to pressure her husband to also do wrong even though she genuinely thought she had done right? Do you then also (like Tom)disagree with EGW's interpretation of the reason for the "curse" that followed? Or Paul's non-cultural explanation of why a woman should not "have authority over a man" in I Tim.2:11-15? Or "...they are to be submissive, as also the (non-cultural)law says." (I Cor.14:34)?

[doug yowell]

Deborah sat under a tree and let all the people come to her (v.5), and she didn't go out to lead the men in battle. Notice she told Barak to do that. Barak should have gone alone, without Debrorah. See Judges 4: 8, 9, 14.

It also should not go without saying that, unlike the male prophets, the two true female prophets (one a judge)named in the story of Israel's occupation of the Promised Land, were both connected to their husband's names.

[doug yowell]

It also supports the translator bias toward old tradition interpretations of the early church fathers. The context does support that it should be focused on "those wives" rather than all women. That early church fathers' bias against women in any significant role has resulted in quite a few translator errors IMHO.

Asserting bias against early translators doesn't necessarily translate into determining truthfully whether or not that bias was cast into the translation, or whether the bias was in fact an erroneous bias. In fact it may be the assertion itself that was biased.

[doug yowell]

Overaged: There may be some guys out there that aren't called of God and want to ascert their own rights, but God knows the hearts of men and will be the judge. Not our call.

According to the Insprired counsel of Paul it IS our call when selecting leaders in the church.why do you think the letters to Timothy and Titus were written? You've just suggested the opposite of what God has clearly instructed since the beginning of time.

[John317]

...It also supports the translator bias toward old tradition interpretations of the early church fathers.

I think it's more likely that you are bias than that hundreds of translators and scholars working together are biased.

Remember that most of the good translations are the result of the labor of dozens of the best translators in the world working together. One of the main reasons for translation by committee is in order to avoid bias. Between them, we're talking about hundreds of years of studying the biblical languages.

These translations are also submitted to many professional readers and scholars before they are published in order to weed out the bias you speak of.

[doug yowell]

[John317]

And the custom is that the more important person is the first person to be mentioned in a team.....

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

That's just down right ridiculus! Pricilla's name is always mentioned in conjunction with her husband Aquilla. The two names occur 6 times in the Bible. 3 times Aquilla's name is first mentioned, 3 times Pricilla's.Using your creative interpretation of first mentioned being most important we should all be Roman Catholic. Peter,James,and John. Your post seems to imply that Aquilla sat passively nearby making his tents while Pricilla "explained the way of God more accurately." And this even though Aquilla's name is mentioned first!(Acts 18:26)

Clearly there's no basis for the idea that either Aquilla or Pricilla were more important because their name is mentioned first.

The fact is that one of them had to be named first. LOL

Maybe Dr. Luke and Paul alternated the order because they were aware of how some people would be tempted to think if they didn't.

I wonder why anyone would cling to such straws if the biblical case for women's ordination as pastors is as strong as some claim.

[doug yowell]

That was a very interesting(and long)post,HB. Thanks for sharing it.I don't know where you got it from but it's assertions have no backup from Scripture.while the historical facts about the oricle may be true it does not necessarily follow that unconverted women in attendance at a gathering of believers that were openly displaying the many gifts of the Spirit were the only ones responsible for the chaos. This explanation opens the door for too many questions that the Scriptures can give no answer for.In fact it could easily serve to support the idea that women should be completely silent in church. Why were no unconverted men speaking up or were women the only ones with the gift of prophesy? Is this kind of confusion only privey to unconverted female spouses of converted men? Furthermore, Paul's employing the Law and the term subjection has no authority over a non-believer so why use that as a motivator to do what is right? It also seems highly unlikely that a group of unbelieving women could disrupt a meeting of that nature without simply being asked to leave anyway.That explanation might be plausible if Paul had mentioned the Oracle ect... but he didn't. One also has to wonder why God, knowing that this letter with it's directives would be read by billions who would extrapolate from it other principles that correlated with the original teaching of the Law,and completely missing the point, would do nothing for 2000 years to clear up such a misconstrued understanding?

[John317]

There are many instances of Paul praising women who teach the truth such as Priscilla, see Acts 18:2,18,26; 1 Cor. 16:19; and Romans 16:3;

Originally Posted By: John3:17

No one is saying that women can't teach the truth. Notice that Priscilla was not the pastor/minister or elder of a church. She and her husband worked together and taught people privately, not in public.

Originally Posted By: Hamilton-Beach

But according to YOUR interpetation of Pauls words

11 (V)A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 (W)But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 (

It was Priscilla who taught Apollo....and if your interpretation of Paul were to hold together, then Priscilla should be censored for violating the Holy Spirit's command. But it wasn't that way....

Notice that it was both Priscilla and her husband Aquilla who taught Apollo, and she did not teach Apollo in public but rather they "took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

By the way, my own grandmother was a credentialed Bible instructor in the SDA church in the days when Ellen White was alive. She never taught men when alone, but she taught them along with my grandfather, who was an SDA pastor. My grandmother did, however, teach women when alone.

Paul's whole point in his inspired instructions was that women are not to exercise authority over men.

As has been said many times on this discussion and on the other thread about women's work in the church, there are many ministries in the church that are available for women to do.