Women supplying commentaries and bible translations.

[~Zao~]

Women supplying commentaries and bible translations.

*Note this is the egalitarian forum* Equality is a given.

Complementarians & Bible Commentaries Written by Women | Marg Mowczko

The balance ...

I have some hypothetical questions about women whose words have been recorded in the Bible, words which have the authority of Scripture.

If Deborah was in a church meeting would she be allowed to expound on the words of her and Barak’s song recorded in Judges 5:1ff? Would Hannah be allowed to preach on her prayer recorded in 1 Samuel 2:1-10? Would Huldah be allowed to elaborate on the advice she gave to Josiah recorded in 2 Chronicles 34:23-28? Would King Lemuel’s mother be allowed to teach on the advice she gave her son recorded in Proverbs 31:1-9? Would Mary be allowed to teach on Luke 1:46-55 or teach about her son? And what about Sarah, Miriam, Rahab, Ruth, Esther, etc? Would Anna be allowed to tell us what she said to the people in the Temple (Luke 2:38)? Would Priscilla be allowed to explain what she told to Apollos (Acts 18:26)?


Women did and said important things in Bible times. And God is still using women to do and say important things on his behalf.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't see anything wrong with that. Some miss the Scripture where it says that there is neither male nor female in the body of Christ and that there is no distinction in the mind of God, so a Bible commentary produced by a woman would be just as good and beneficial as any produced by a man.

 

[WolfGate]

Interesting, I had not heard somebody distinguish between non-hierarchical and hierarchical complementarianism before. I have long thought that many who call themselves complementarian do so because they are really patriarchal but understand that is in many circles politically incorrect.

More to the article, I have known a couple of churches that believe it is fine for women to teach but not hold position of elder or pastor. The reasoning is that they believe Paul's comments on not allowing women to teach and to be silent to have been instruction applicable to specific congregations that were struggling with heresy or ignorance rooted primarily in the women of the congregation. The requirements for elder/pastor they understand to be universal and sex specific. In practice those churches do allow women to teach classes, lead worship, do bible readings, be part of group discussion during sermons, speak during the sermon time on special topics. They could be directors of ministry areas, and not limited to the usual exceptions of children/women, etc.

It is a conundrum I've mentioned before. If you believe the bible to be inerrant, then you have to deal with the bible seeming to point in different directions - which it cannot if it is inerrant. Seeing contradictions is failure to understand, and adopting a position which acknowledges some scripture and dismisses others is certain to lead to error. That error gets compounded when there is no grace to others who are also trying to work through the same apparent contradictions. It is more compounded when text proofing is used to assert power and control. (Of course, if one does not believe the bible in inerrant, then a whole different scenario arises).

Speaking for me, any of those women would be allowed to speak to the church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Interesting, I had not heard somebody distinguish between non-hierarchical and hierarchical complementarianism before.

Sounds great! I might say it in church on Sunday and see if someone interprets it!

 

[~Zao~]

Seeing contradictions is failure to understand, and adopting a position which acknowledges some scripture and dismisses others is certain to lead to error. That error gets compounded when there is no grace to others who are also trying to work through the same apparent contradictions.

Errors compounded stemming from grace not applied is when failure to understand the spiritual application of one Lord, one Spirit, one body. Dismissing scripture isn’t an option when all the denominations are involved with their own dogmas and doctrines on the subject. (which incidentally do just that in ignoring some scripture over another)
However when the bible is read in the context of Christ (the bridegroom) (to which Paul was attempting to present the church as a chaste virgin) is recognized and all are silent before God, then will the rest of scripture come into focus. In seeing they will see and in hearing they will hear as the Spirit gives light.

 

[WolfGate]

However when the bible is read in the context of Christ (the bridegroom) (to which Paul was attempting to present the church as a chaste virgin) is recognized and all are silent before God, then will the rest of scripture come into focus. In seeing they will see and in hearing they will hear as the Spirit gives light.

Honestly, I think for a rare few, if any at all, will all the scriptures come into focus (I assume you mean correct understanding when you say that) while we are on this earth. I think that for two reasons. One I've seen greater understanding and clarity among myself and other believers as we become more sanctified. Two I've seen people who I fully believe are seeking sincerely seeking God and His will who still come to different interpretations and conclusions. If only it were immediate.

 

[~Zao~]

Honestly, I think for a rare few, if any at all, will all the scriptures come into focus (I assume you mean correct understanding when you say that) while we are on this earth. I think that for two reasons. One I've seen greater understanding and clarity among myself and other believers as we become more sanctified. Two I've seen people who I fully believe are seeking sincerely seeking God and His will who still come to different interpretations and conclusions. If only it were immediate.

No I think I meant more of a paradigm shift.

 

[Dave-W]

It is a conundrum I've mentioned before. If you believe the bible to be inerrant, then you have to deal with the bible seeming to point in different directions - which it cannot if it is inerrant.

You are conflating inerrancy with universal application.

The bible has specific instruction to people in specific situations. That those situations are not universal does not make the bible in error.

That was actually one of the errors of the Pharisees. They took the holiness standards of the priesthood and the temple to apply to all Jews and every home dining table.

 

[WolfGate]

You are conflating inerrancy with universal application.

The bible has specific instruction to people in specific situations. That those situations are not universal does not make the bible in error.

That was actually one of the errors of the Pharisees. They took the holiness standards of the priesthood and the temple to apply to all Jews and every home dining table.

Not conflating them at all. I understand and agree with what you are saying. Grasping that can allow a resolution on what is an apparent contradiction.

 

[Dave-W]

Grasping that can allow a resolution on what is an apparent contradiction.

Then those who see contradiction are conflating the 2.

 

[~Zao~]

Then those who see contradiction are conflating the 2.

The varying views need to be firm to commit to a stand. Jesus wants His teachings separate from tradition. By entangling the systems into one that they think is cohesive is actually another system to keep the old wine being enjoyed by those that shun His new wine.