women as priests

[ralliann]

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.

I am talking about scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

I am talking about scripture.

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.

 

[BibleLinguist]

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").

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.

The text most attempt to leverage to their cause with respect to female apostleship is this:

"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).

There are several problems here: 1) the "Junia/Junias" cannot be proven to have been a woman, as is supposed; 2) if Junia were a woman, the text still does not indicate that Junia is included in the "apostles" category; and 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 most natural and proper way of understanding Paul's words in Romans 16:7 is to accept that he was listing multiple entities:
- Andronicus and Junia
- his kinsmen
- his fellow-prisoners, who were of note among the apostles

Remember that Paul was imprisoned with Silas (Acts 16:25), Barnabas was called an apostle (Acts 14:14), and there were "certain other prisoners" (Acts 27:1).
.

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.

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.

 

[Paidiske]

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.

I suggest you be careful not to tip over into flaming as a group those who disagree with you on these matters.

1) the "Junia/Junias" cannot be proven to have been a woman, as is supposed;

And yet she is remembered as such in unbroken tradition in Orthodoxy.

2) if Junia were a woman, the text still does not indicate that Junia is included in the "apostles" category;

And yet, again, she is so remembered, in particular as one of the 70 Jesus sent out before his death.

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."

Simply the fact of also being a prisoner would make her a fellow prisoner, regardless of where she was housed.

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.

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."

 

[ralliann]

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.

Reading scripture, I see Priesthood I think the Temple ministry. The son's of Aaron, the sons of Levi.
We do see women in position of Judge, but the judges were distinct position from priest. Priests ministered unto God.
We see women prophets too. I just do not see women priests. I think, (you may know more of this than I) Women in judaism (and scripture) were not what we think of women being subject to our husbands etc.

It was Jacob's mother who was given knowledge concerning her two sons. It was her which instructed Jacob what to do. It was Sarah who challenged Abraham concerning Hagar. The Lord judge between you and me.

The woman was no wilting violet in front of her husband.

Ge 16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.

Deborah, no door mat no shrinking violet....prophetess and judge in all Israel
Jud 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
Jud 4:5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

If she went with him, it would not be for his honor. Sisera seen her as no shrinking violet......at all

7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.
8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.


Jud 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

None priests?

 

[Paidiske]

Reading scripture, I see Priesthood I think the Temple ministry.

That is not what we mean when we speak of Christian priests today, though. We are more equivalent to New Testament elders.

 

[ralliann]

That is not what we mean when we speak of Christian priests today, though. We are more equivalent to New Testament elders.

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.

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.....The church financially supported the ministers. A man could only marry as many women as he could financially provide for. The Church was not to be burdened with that. One wife would suffice him. Nothing about women Still not convinced at your views is all.

 

[Malleeboy]

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 should 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?

 

[ralliann]

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?

`Some interesting things to consider in this post. Thanks for that.

 

[ralliann]

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."

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?

 

[BibleLinguist]

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?

Good questions. We could add a few more, like:

Why do you think God instructed men and women not to wear each others' clothing? (See Deuteronomy 22:5.)
Why does the Bible say it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but a glory to a woman? (See 1 Corinthians 11:14-15.)
Why did God never place a woman in a position of civil leadership?
Why did God call both Adam and Eve "man", made in His image? (See Genesis 5:1-2.)
Why did God subjugate a woman's promises to the will of her man? (See Numbers 30.)
Why did God require a lesser redemption price for a woman as compared to a man? (See Leviticus 27.)
Why was God's "curse" of women that they should have pain in childbirth, and men were "cursed" with thorns, thistles, and hard, sweaty labor? (See Genesis 3:16-19.)

Ultimately, one's own perspective paints the attitude one will take toward God and shape one's view of His character in matters like this. This is why our Enemy wants so much to cause our natural passions to mold our thinking--so that we will be more easily inclined to see God as unfair. We must watch and be sober to avoid such traps. It is so easy to become envious of others and their God-given roles, duties, and gifts, when God has entrusted to us a different set of responsibilities which are every bit as important.

Observing God's creation, one can see ample evidence that He enjoys variety. I tend to think when He created Adam and Eve He intentionally made them different, and desires their differences to be preserved. Nor do I believe that women are any less than men in God's sight--just that God gave them each differing gifts and responsibilities. Even before sin, God instructed them to "cleave" together (Genesis 2:24). They were stronger together: they complemented each other, and needed each other.

 

[Paidiske]

But my point was your examples of what women did, does not make them having an authortative position of priest.

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.

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.....

Yes, I agree that the point of "husband of one wife" was to highlight faithful monogamy.

The church financially supported the ministers. A man could only marry as many women as he could financially provide for.

Actually, Roman law did not allow for more than one wife at a time (although it did allow for divorce and remarriage).

Do you believe there are differences in the gender roles more generally?

No, not really.

Do you believe there is differences in gender role in marriage and in families?

Beyond what is necessitated by the biology of reproduction, no.

In your opinion are there any expression of gender differences in the roles of people in the church?

No. Roles in the church are based on gifts and vocation, not on gender.

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)

Yes, I only wish those who disagreed with me also thought so, rather than resorting to personal attack or assuming bad character or motives.

How believe the church should make allowance for this?

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).

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)

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.

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?

Sure.

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 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 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?

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.

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?

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.

I see that the claim has been repeated that women desire ordination out of "envy," or the like; I can only suggest reading the stories of real women who have experienced vocation to ministry. They are as complex, and as diverse, and as spiritually significant, as the experiences of men with such vocations.

 

[ralliann]

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).

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?

 

[Paidiske]

I am not so sure about this. Didn't Rome legalize religions, and allow them to carry out their own law/religious practices?

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.

 

[Strong in Him]

Banning them implies that women at one time preached from the pulpit as priestesses.

As has already been pointed out "Priestess/es" is incorrect; it implies Paganism and is a slur.
The correct term is "Priests"

Which we know from the apostolic age they did not.

I doubt they had pulpits then.
In Scripture women proclaimed the Gospel, prophesied and taught about God.

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.

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.
The Apostles met, debated and argued against many false teachings/teachers; the place of women in church, their gifts and calling from God and their place in the Kingdom was never mentioned. Nor did Jesus teach "I will build my church ........ but women will play no part in this."

Was our Lord too cowardly to appoint a woman? If that was his genuine intention?

Was he too cowardly to appoint a Gentile?

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

And in the Methodist and URC too. The Salvation Army don't ordain their officers, but they allow them to be women.

 

[Strong in Him]

You may feel that you see these things, but please do not speak for others who do not see them.

They are all in Scripture.

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,

"Apostle" means/comes from a word which means, "sent". I understand there is one passage in which this refers to all believers.
It, mostly, refers to the 12 disciples but not always.

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.

Nonsense.

The text most attempt to leverage to their cause with respect to female apostleship is this:

It's not a matter of "leverage to a cause."
It's the fact that God calls women to be preachers/be ordained. He does this today and has been doing it for some years - indeed, he may have been doing it for many years, but men haven't always listened.

God cannot and will not contradict his word. So the fact that he has been, and is, calling women to this role means that there is nothing in Scripture which says otherwise. Otherwise God would, indeed, be contradicting his word.

"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).

No, it doesn't all hinge on that one verse.
God can call whoever he wishes to proclaim his Gospel, grow and lead local gatherings of his church and further his kingdom. He has always done this - Deborah, Huldah, Miriam and many others - and will always have that right and authority. He is God; it is his church and he created all of us in his image.
In the Bible God even appointed animals to do his will - e.g Balaam's donkey and the great fish, and the worm, in Jonah's story. He provided a burning bush to speak to Moses, and a wind, fire and earthquake to get Elijah's attention. Jesus told the Pharisees that if people were to refrain from worship, even the very stones would cry out - and it is certainly possible that God could have made that happen.

All through Scripture, women served God. Sometimes being raised to positions of authority, like Deborah; other times being accepted as godly people, like Huldah. The king instructed his male priest, and other men, to consult a prophet to ask for a word from the Lord. The priest didn't say, "hold on; I am a man of God, that's my job" - the men chose to go to Huldah, who gave them God's word.
In the Gospels, Jesus allowed women to proclaim his message, speak for him and learn from him - all against the expected norms of society.

Elders are not now, nor ever, the equivalent of priests.

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.
We don't have an exact equivalent of OT priests, no; we don't have animal sacrifices, nor circumcise our males.

 

[BibleLinguist]

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Did Ellen G. White ever preach in her churches? Or did she just write books?

 

[Strong in Him]

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?

Whatever God wants, and calls us, to do.

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.

If that's what God asks of us, yes.
That IS in Scripture. God called a woman to be a judge, anointed a shepherd boy as a king, called both men and women to prophesy. He appointed Solomon, who was wealthy, Moses and Amos, who were shepherds, Jonah, who ran away and Jeremiah who protested that he was too young. He appointed a Jewish girl to become queen - and she saved the Jews from being massacred. Later, he chose another young girl to bear the Messiah.

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 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.

Korah became insolent and rose up against Moses, Numbers 16:1-2. They criticised Moses for "setting himself above the assembly".
Miriam and Aaron had previously opposed Moses and been punished.
Moses prayed and asked God to intervene and show the people whether Korah was justified in his rebellion, Numbers 16:28-30.
God did - and the earth swallowed up Korah.

That is not remotely the same as women who are called by God to be ordained being recognised by his church.

God will not be trifled with.

Indeed.
Those who opposed his chosen one - Moses - were destroyed.

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.

In those days - precisely.

From Malachi 3:6 we know that God does not change.

His character does not; the way he works/acts clearly does.
He once "lived" in a tabernacle; he now lives in the hearts of those who love him. He once commanded animal sacrifices; he then sent Jesus, to die once for all.
He even said, through Isaiah; "see, I am doing a new thing, Isaiah 43:19.

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.

No.
Paul told us to eagerly desire spiritual gifts. There is no teaching that you will be destroyed and your soul endangered if you seek, or carry out, another role.