Part of the difficulty is that "clergy" as a category was not a concept which had developed in the NT church. We see women as a deacon, an apostle, leaders of house churches, and so on, (and certainly a woman deacon puts women within the category that today we would consider "clergy"). The contemporary church role of priest is what the NT would call elders (the English word "priest" is a contraction of the Greek word presbyteros, or elder); and we certainly see NT discussion of women who are elders.I am talking about scripture.
You may feel that you see these things, but please do not speak for others who do not see them. While few would disagree with women in the New Testament being what we might today call a deaconess (Greek diakonos/διάκονος, meaning a servant), the "apostle" designation is found, not in scripture, but in the mind of modern Eves who wish to be independent of their men, and in the mind of men who wish to unburden themselves of their God-given responsibilities, placing these upon women who have naively accepted them.Part of the difficulty is that "clergy" as a category was not a concept which had developed in the NT church. We see women as a deacon, an apostle, leaders of house churches, and so on, (and certainly a woman deacon puts women within the category that today we would consider "clergy").
Elders are not now, nor ever, the equivalent of priests. The priestly system was replaced at the cross with Jesus as our only mediator. While Jesus may be both our High Priest and our Elder Brother, it does not follow that the men designated as elders are also priests. We no longer offer sacrifices, and no longer have an earthly priest to make atonement for our sins before God, mediating between us and God. This Levitical priesthood has ended.The contemporary church role of priest is what the NT would call elders (the English word "priest" is a contraction of the Greek word presbyteros, or elder); and we certainly see NT discussion of women who are elders.
I suggest you be careful not to tip over into flaming as a group those who disagree with you on these matters.but in the mind of modern Eves who wish to be independent of their men, and in the mind of men who wish to unburden themselves of their God-given responsibilities, placing these upon women who have naively accepted them.
And yet she is remembered as such in unbroken tradition in Orthodoxy.1) the "Junia/Junias" cannot be proven to have been a woman, as is supposed;
And yet, again, she is so remembered, in particular as one of the 70 Jesus sent out before his death.2) if Junia were a woman, the text still does not indicate that Junia is included in the "apostles" category;
Simply the fact of also being a prisoner would make her a fellow prisoner, regardless of where she was housed.3) assuming that both #1 and #2 had actually applied the word "apostle" to a woman, one would be forced to accept that Paul also named this "woman" as a "fellow-prisoner" in contradiction to the fact that men and women were not placed together in prison cells, and had no opportunity to be "fellow prisoners."
The problem is that in English we use "priest" to cover two quite unrelated concepts. One is, as you say, the sacrificial priests, whom in Greek were designated hiereus. This has no place in the Christian church. The other is the elders (the contemporary word "priest" is, in fact, a contraction of the Greek word for elder), and those who are priests in the churches today - including those of us who are women - are, in fact, priests in this sense of "elders."Elders are not now, nor ever, the equivalent of priests. The priestly system was replaced at the cross with Jesus as our only mediator. While Jesus may be both our High Priest and our Elder Brother, it does not follow that the men designated as elders are also priests.
Reading scripture, I see Priesthood I think the Temple ministry. The son's of Aaron, the sons of Levi.Part of the difficulty is that "clergy" as a category was not a concept which had developed in the NT church. We see women as a deacon, an apostle, leaders of house churches, and so on, (and certainly a woman deacon puts women within the category that today we would consider "clergy"). The contemporary church role of priest is what the NT would call elders (the English word "priest" is a contraction of the Greek word presbyteros, or elder); and we certainly see NT discussion of women who are elders.
That is not what we mean when we speak of Christian priests today, though. We are more equivalent to New Testament elders.Reading scripture, I see Priesthood I think the Temple ministry.
It was a pattern and shadow. True I understand that the fleshy commands have been disanulled. But my point was your examples of what women did, does not make them having an authortative position of priest. As for the fleshy commands while we are neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female with regards to the circumcision, we are here in an earthly wordly body we marry etc.And spoken of in that capacity.That is not what we mean when we speak of Christian priests today, though. We are more equivalent to New Testament elders.
`Some interesting things to consider in this post. Thanks for that.Paidiske,
Do you believe there are differences in the gender roles more generally?
Do you believe there is differences in gender role in marriage and in families?
In your opinion are there any expression of gender differences in the roles of people in the church?
Do you accept that people may in good conscience have a differing belief on gender roles? (ie is this something Christian should come to unity on, or can we differ on this without breaking communion)
How believe the church should make allowance for this?
Does the more hierarchal nature of episcopal churches make this more difficult? (ie in a congregational model. two congregations can differ on this issue but each maintain their own position, however in episcopal, bishop's and archbishop's add considerable complexity from my perspective)
Can you see that some people may perceive egalitarianism, as part of a broader package of diminishing what they believe as God ordained creation of humanity as gendered people? If men and women are interchangeable in the church, then why not allow them to be interchangeable in marriage and the family? Why not allow any combination of people in these institutions? If marriage is a type of our relationship with Christ, if the genders are interchangeable, then does it not leave it open for the roles of Christ and the church to be interchanged?
How is it you use Orthodoxy to know the sex of this person, but ignore she is not a priest in orthodox tradition? Nor are women priests in Orthodox tradition?And yet she is remembered as such in unbroken tradition in Orthodoxy.
And yet, again, she is so remembered, in particular as one of the 70 Jesus sent out before his death.
Simply the fact of also being a prisoner would make her a fellow prisoner, regardless of where she was housed.
The problem is that in English we use "priest" to cover two quite unrelated concepts. One is, as you say, the sacrificial priests, whom in Greek were designated hiereus. This has no place in the Christian church. The other is the elders (the contemporary word "priest" is, in fact, a contraction of the Greek word for elder), and those who are priests in the churches today - including those of us who are women - are, in fact, priests in this sense of "elders."
Good questions. We could add a few more, like:Do you believe there are differences in the gender roles more generally?
Do you believe there is differences in gender role in marriage and in families?
In your opinion are there any expression of gender differences in the roles of people in the church?
We do not see any New Testament church elder mentioned by name except Peter (in 1 Peter 5:1) and John (in the greetings in his epistles). It is not clear that women were excluded from this role, given the other leadership roles that they held.But my point was your examples of what women did, does not make them having an authortative position of priest.
Yes, I agree that the point of "husband of one wife" was to highlight faithful monogamy.1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Does this speak to polygamy? I believe so.....
Actually, Roman law did not allow for more than one wife at a time (although it did allow for divorce and remarriage).The church financially supported the ministers. A man could only marry as many women as he could financially provide for.
No, not really.Do you believe there are differences in the gender roles more generally?
Beyond what is necessitated by the biology of reproduction, no.Do you believe there is differences in gender role in marriage and in families?
No. Roles in the church are based on gifts and vocation, not on gender.In your opinion are there any expression of gender differences in the roles of people in the church?
Yes, I only wish those who disagreed with me also thought so, rather than resorting to personal attack or assuming bad character or motives.Do you accept that people may in good conscience have a differing belief on gender roles? (ie is this something Christian should come to unity on, or can we differ on this without breaking communion)
That's a trickier question, and in part it depends on how far the people who don't accept women in leadership extend their objection. For example, it's relatively easy to refer people who prefer a man, to a man; if they object to any man who has ordained women, or any man ordained by a man who has ordained women, and that sort of thing, it becomes very difficult to maintain structural unity while allowing for personal disagreement. (And I really do know some who take their objection to that sort of extreme).How believe the church should make allowance for this?
I would say that churches which have a polity which is larger than congregational (whether that be a local presbytery, synod, bishop, or whatever other structure) have to deal with the fact that the church will have within it those with whom they disagree. And people may have to live with those bodies making decisions (such as, but not limited to, the ordination of women) which may not be warmly received by a particular congregation. How you cope with that really depends on your ecclesiology, and on your tolerance of diversity.Does the more hierarchal nature of episcopal churches make this more difficult? (ie in a congregational model. two congregations can differ on this issue but each maintain their own position, however in episcopal, bishop's and archbishop's add considerable complexity from my perspective)
Sure.Can you see that some people may perceive egalitarianism, as part of a broader package of diminishing what they believe as God ordained creation of humanity as gendered people?
I think these are two quite separate questions, in that we might allow for considerable flexibility of gender roles while still having reservations about same-sex or polygamous marriage or the like.If men and women are interchangeable in the church, then why not allow them to be interchangeable in marriage and the family? Why not allow any combination of people in these institutions?
I think we need to recognise the limitations of the metaphor. Marriage is a useful metaphor, but we cannot say that everything that is true of Christ and the church is true of marriage, or vice versa.If marriage is a type of our relationship with Christ, if the genders are interchangeable, then does it not leave it open for the roles of Christ and the church to be interchanged?
All I am pointing out here, is that there is good evidence that the Junia mentioned in Romans was a) a woman, and b) an apostle. I then use this as one aspect of an argument that the NT does clearly show evidence of women in leadership, teaching, and authoritative roles in the church.How is it you use Orthodoxy to know the sex of this person, but ignore she is not a priest in orthodox tradition? Nor are women priests in Orthodox tradition?
I am not so sure about this. Didn't Rome legalize religions, and allow them to carry out their own law/religious practices? ( Levirite marriage etc.) I know Jew's were not able to give the death penalty without permission. But according to what I have read of Judaism, they only quit polygamy because of Christian society frowned on it. So maybe just Romans were not polygamous?Yes, I agree that the point of "husband of one wife" was to highlight faithful monogamy.
Actually, Roman law did not allow for more than one wife at a time (although it did allow for divorce and remarriage).
To some extent. But to the best of my knowledge of the history of marriage, under Roman law it was only legal to marry one person at a time. There were also other restrictions, for example, on slaves marrying.I am not so sure about this. Didn't Rome legalize religions, and allow them to carry out their own law/religious practices?
As has already been pointed out "Priestess/es" is incorrect; it implies Paganism and is a slur.Banning them implies that women at one time preached from the pulpit as priestesses.
I doubt they had pulpits then.Which we know from the apostolic age they did not.
Apart from allowing women to learn, allowing women to be witnesses to the Gospel and resurrection, appointing deaconesses and a female deacon and generally affirming women as those who were created by God, alongside men.If you are going to accuse those of us who actually adhere to the deposit of the faith as being unloving then you must also accuse Jesus and the Apostles of being unloving as well. They were willing to break all kinds of social norms but the different roles of men and women they did not break.
Was he too cowardly to appoint a Gentile?Was our Lord too cowardly to appoint a woman? If that was his genuine intention?
In the Anglican church, for a start. God calls women to ministry, and the church recognises that vocation and ordains and gives us authority to minister in these roles.
They are all in Scripture.You may feel that you see these things, but please do not speak for others who do not see them.
"Apostle" means/comes from a word which means, "sent". I understand there is one passage in which this refers to all believers.While few would disagree with women in the New Testament being what we might today call a deaconess (Greek diakonos/διάκονος, meaning a servant), the "apostle" designation is found, not in scripture,
Nonsense.but in the mind of modern Eves who wish to be independent of their men, and in the mind of men who wish to unburden themselves of their God-given responsibilities, placing these upon women who have naively accepted them.
It's not a matter of "leverage to a cause."The text most attempt to leverage to their cause with respect to female apostleship is this:
No, it doesn't all hinge on that one verse."Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Romans 16:7).
Different traditions have different names for their clergy, or those in the role of leading God's people; priests, vicars, Ministers, Pastors and possibly elders. These days, they all tend to mean much the same thing - those who lead local congregations, teach the word, administer the sacraments, have pastoral oversight of their congregations, perform baptisms, weddings and so on.Elders are not now, nor ever, the equivalent of priests.
If you felt I disagreed with this, you were quite mistaken. We must all serve God in the capacity He intends. The question here is, in what capacity is that?All through Scripture, women served God.
If you felt I disagreed with this, you were quite mistaken. We must all serve God in the capacity He intends. The question here is, in what capacity is that?
You seem to be advocating that each one has equal capacity and can legitimately fill any role, regardless of whether a man or a woman, or any other distinction. But such a belief runs directly contrary to scripture.
In the time of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, to which you have often referred, there was also Korah, Dathan, and Abiram--remember them? Korah was a Levite. He was the cousin of Moses and Aaron. And he thought he should be a priest. Did God agree? I am sure you know the story.
The trouble was that when Korah was swallowed up by the earth, the people had been so persuaded of his "just cause," that they accused Moses of destroying the servants of the Lord. That is when the plague fell more widely, and thousands of them likewise perished.
God will not be trifled with.
In those days, even among the Levites, each one had an assigned position in the work of the tabernacle, and any one of them who thought to fill the office of someone else was subject to death. It did not matter if it was a man or a woman; even a man could not do another man's work in the sanctuary--even if the man was of the same tribe. The penalty for stepping out of one's God-given assignment, and trying to fulfill the responsibilities of someone else, was death.
From Malachi 3:6 we know that God does not change. If God was pleased to have people involved in different roles back then, we may understand that each one of us has a role to fill now, which, should we abandon seeking to fill another's post of duty, we will dishonor God and endanger our souls.
Whatever God wants, and calls us, to do.If you felt I disagreed with this, you were quite mistaken. We must all serve God in the capacity He intends. The question here is, in what capacity is that?
If that's what God asks of us, yes.You seem to be advocating that each one has equal capacity and can legitimately fill any role, regardless of whether a man or a woman, or any other distinction.
The Lord had said that the Levites were to assist Aaron and belong to him, and that only Aaron and his family were to serve as priests. Anyone else who approached the sanctuary was to be put to death, Numbers 3:9-10. The Kohathites were a branch of Levites, Numbers 4:1. The Levites were given to Aaron to serve as priests, Numbers 8:1-19.In the time of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, to which you have often referred, there was also Korah, Dathan, and Abiram--remember them? Korah was a Levite. He was the cousin of Moses and Aaron. And he thought he should be a priest. Did God agree? I am sure you know the story.
Indeed.God will not be trifled with.
In those days - precisely.In those days, even among the Levites, each one had an assigned position in the work of the tabernacle, and any one of them who thought to fill the office of someone else was subject to death. It did not matter if it was a man or a woman; even a man could not do another man's work in the sanctuary--even if the man was of the same tribe. The penalty for stepping out of one's God-given assignment, and trying to fulfill the responsibilities of someone else, was death.
His character does not; the way he works/acts clearly does.From Malachi 3:6 we know that God does not change.
No.If God was pleased to have people involved in different roles back then, we may understand that each one of us has a role to fill now, which, should we abandon seeking to fill another's post of duty, we will dishonor God and endanger our souls.