The Deaconess Phoebe

[Strong in Him]

Paul was never a "church leader" in the manner of a bishop/pastor.

He founded the churches, and obviously had the authority to tell them what to do.
Churches that had problems wrote to him for advice.

Was David the leader of a Christian church ?

No, but I was referring to the statement which said a man has to be married and be able to control his children to lead God's people. David was married several times over - he could not control his children, yet he was king over all God's people.

No, and was not under NT commandments.

But if God never changes and has made it so that those who cannot control their children are not fit to be leaders, then the principle would still have applied.
Thankfully for David, there is no such rule.

Then why do you doubt his commands for church leadership ?

I doubt his commands for church leadership in the 21st century - he didn't give any.
Paul, like other Apostles, believed Jesus would return in his lifetime. He never imagined the church would still be going 2000 years later. None of his letters say, "this is a command from God and is how it must be in every church in every age and culture." Jesus never taught such things either. He did not say, "I will build my church and it must always be led by married men who have children and who are able to control them."

If you can doubt one part, you can doubt it all.

But I don't.
I don't doubt that what Paul wrote - to that church in that situation - was from God. I'm just saying that it is not a command for everyone for today.
Why would it be? Why would Paul write about the "qualities" of being male, being married with children (bad luck if you're infertile), not liking drink, not being greedy or quarrelsome - and yet not even mention faith, prayer, reading the Scriptures, trusting in God, not giving in under persecution etc etc? Why is marital status more important than listening to God, receiving a vision for the future and acting on it?

And if you think that not accepting this verse means that I doubt the entire Gospel of salvation and chapters like 1 Cor 13, Romans 8 and so on, you don't know me at all.

Because God does not change.

His nature doesn't change, the way he works most certainly does.

In the OT people believed, and were told, that if they looked at God they would die. In the NT everyone looked at God, in Jesus.
In the OT God's people had to offer animal sacrifices for their sins. In the NT we have Jesus, who died once and for all.
In the OT Moses was told to build a tabernacle so they could carry God around with them wherever they went. In the NT Jesus taught that God is always with us.
In the OT, God told Solomon to build the temple, which replaced the tabernacle that had, previously, been his house. It was believed he lived in the Holy of Holies. In the NT Paul wrote that WE are temples of the Holy Spirit. God lives in US - not in a building.

His commandments in the year 1, are the same today.

So how many animal sacrifices have you made recently?

If it pertains to us...yes. (Men aren't required to obey things written to women, and vice versa)
Why wouldn't I ?

If you're not Jewish and your ancestors were not rescued from Egypt by God, led through the wilderness and given his law - why would you?

(To be continued.)

 

[RDKirk]

Except Timothy himself was discipled by his own mother and grandmother:
And I discipled my own son because his father took off on us and later committed suicide when my son was 15. My son has said to both myself and several other people; that what he came to understand about the mercy of God was because of me; how I act and what I taught him.

2 Timothy 1:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;

4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;

5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

So though I agree, there are times people should not be discipled by those of the opposite sex; (particularly adult new believers) but that injunction is not across the board in every circumstance. As most kids raised in believing households are taught by at least one parent. (Usually mom).

Timothy was taught the basics at his mother's knee, yes, but he was discipled under Paul.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Timothy was taught the basics at his mother's knee, yes, but he was discipled under Paul.

Is there a specific passage where Paul actually says he formally discipled Timothy? I’m aware of where Paul refers to him as his son, but not that he formally schooled Timothy?

 

[RileyG]

It's my understanding, many women would help women with baptism and other rites in the early Church because they were naked when they were baptized. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Strong in Him]

(continued)

I obey it, of course.
Long hair didn't stop protecting women of God, and neither did it stop being a glory to her.
Nature still teaches us that long hair is a shame for a man.

It is not disgraceful nowadays for a woman to have short hair, as it was in Paul's day.
No one today sees a woman with short hair and says "oh, you're a prostitute are you?"

How does nature teach us that it is shameful for men to have long hair?

Let the Holy Ghost be your guide.

Read John 14, John 16 and Romans 8.
Where does it say that the role of God's Holy Spirit is to tell us how long our hair should be?

Of course the Holy Ghost will never contradict scripture.

Scripture doesn't teach how long a person's hair should be.
According to you this is a command from the God who never changes - yet God doesn't tell us this important detail.

Not as long as a woman's.

Which doesn't tell us anything.
Some women have hair that is long enough to sit on. I saw a woman like that last week. It looked as though she was Afro-Caribbean so her hair was also braided - another no-no according to Paul.
Some women would not say that shoulder length hair was long. After lockdown, my hair was only just over my ears, yet, for me, it was too long.

If God had commanded people to have hair of a certain length, he'd make it perfectly clear.
You weren't around when Jesus was on earth anyway, so you have no idea how long his hair was.

Commands by God should be obeyed.

Yes - but these aren't commands from God.

So to should the words He has left us from the time of the NT writers be obeyed

Not if they weren't written to us, don't apply to us and/or God is calling us to do something different.

With your avatar name, I can't figure out why you would need to ask.

What has my avatar name got to do with my question to you about wedding rings?
What are most of them made of? Have you read the verse which says that women should not wear gold?

If one just obeys what is written, and preserved by the power of God,

Define, "written and preserved by the power of God".
Written in Hebrew, Greek or Latin? "Preserved" how - preserved during translation?
You realise there are verses/passages in the OT which have a footnote which says "the Hebrew for this verse is unclear"? You realise there are Greek, and Hebrew, words for which there is no English equivalent? You realise that the NT was written in Koine Greek - colloquial Greek; almost slang. And that this is different from the Greek that is spoken today?
You realise that people have translated the whole Bible and, years later, new manuscripts, like the Dead Sea scrolls have come to light which have made new translations necessary?

they would not need to ask so many questions already answered in the bible.

There are many, many things that the Bible doesn't tell us.
It doesn't tell us what careers are "ok" for Christians, it doesn't tell us whether to have a career, to marry and have children or to work overseas. It doesn't tell us where we should live or what church we should go to.
It doesn't tell us whether a church should follow liturgy, have a robed choir, use a certain translation of the Bible, have Christian films, PowerPoint, guitars in church or what gender the clergy should be. It doesn't tell us whether we should use paper Bibles or if we can read the Bible on our mobile phones.
It doesn't tell us whether or not we can make friends with non-Christians, or how we should react if friends/family get divorced, embrace another faith, say they are gay, identify as a different gender or have body altering surgery.
It doesn't tell us Jesus' views on these things, or contain teaching on them - that is not its role.

God doesn't change, and that is the context wherein we are to understand Him and the writings brought forward by the Holy Spirit..

God's nature doesn't change. His actions do indeed change, and may be different for different people.
The Gospel doesn't change. There have been many translations of God's word over the years, and even now, it is translated into other languages so that people can read and understand it.
The context of God's words is still important.

 

[RDKirk]

It's my understanding, many women would help women with baptism and other rites in the early Church because they were naked when they were baptized. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

They weren't naked any more than people are naked today while being baptized, but it was highly improper for a man to physically handle a woman who was not his wife or daughter.

Edit: Let me add that it was the same in the Old Testament when women performed their ablutions to ceremonially cleanse themselves in the public mikva after such situations as menstruation. They were not naked. That appears to have been the situation with Bathsheba. She was not on her own roof taking a bath in the nude, she was at the public mikvah (along with other women) fully robed as she descended into the mikva pool following her period (scripture states she had just finished her period...there is no other reason for scripture to have pointed that out in connection with her bathing).

 

[RileyG]

They weren't naked any more than people are naked today while being baptized, but it was highly improper for a man to physically handle a woman who was not his wife or daughter.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[RDKirk]

Is there a specific passage where Paul actually says he formally discipled Timothy? I’m aware of where Paul refers to him as his son, but not that he formally schooled Timothy?

We know what discipleship was in those days...there are extrabiblical records about what being a "disciple" and being a "master" meant, and this corroborates with scripture. Being a disciple under the authority of a master did not include the learning a boy received on his mother's knee.

Also, the master in the Judaic community created religious doctrine. The religious doctrine of Gamaliel, for instance, different from the religions doctrine of Hillel, and their disciples followed the doctrines of their masters. Women did not create religious doctrines.

 

[Hoping2]

Except "deacon" and "servant" are the same Greek word.

So why change the word the interpreters used hundreds of years ago ?
I'll stick with "servant".
Women can serve, but they cannot be deacons.

 

[Hoping2]

Translated servant, Minister or Deacon.
If you don't believe me, get an interlinear Greek NT and Greek dictionary and check for yourself.

Woman can serve, but the title of "deacon" disallows women serving in that capacity.

 

[Hoping2]

He founded the churches, and obviously had the authority to tell them what to do.
Churches that had problems wrote to him for advice.

Still, he was never a bishop.

No, but I was referring to the statement which said a man has to be married and be able to control his children to lead God's people. David was married several times over - he could not control his children, yet he was king over all God's people.

David could not walk in the Spirit instead of in the "flesh".
Parameters for the leadership of God's people have changed, since the end of the OT.
I would never conflate OT Israel with God's people of today.

But if God never changes and has made it so that those who cannot control their children are not fit to be leaders, then the principle would still have applied.
Thankfully for David, there is no such rule.

God doesn't change, but Testaments do.
Even the OT Israel had no female kings or religious leaders.

I doubt his commands for church leadership in the 21st century - he didn't give any.

All his commands were for a church without age.

After reading the rest of your post, I feel it is pointless to try and convince you that Paul's words are as valid today, as they were 2000 years ago.

Paul, like other Apostles, believed Jesus would return in his lifetime. He never imagined the church would still be going 2000 years later. None of his letters say, "this is a command from God and is how it must be in every church in every age and culture." Jesus never taught such things either. He did not say, "I will build my church and it must always be led by married men who have children and who are able to control them."

But I don't.
I don't doubt that what Paul wrote - to that church in that situation - was from God. I'm just saying that it is not a command for everyone for today.
Why would it be? Why would Paul write about the "qualities" of being male, being married with children (bad luck if you're infertile), not liking drink, not being greedy or quarrelsome - and yet not even mention faith, prayer, reading the Scriptures, trusting in God, not giving in under persecution etc etc? Why is marital status more important than listening to God, receiving a vision for the future and acting on it?

And if you think that not accepting this verse means that I doubt the entire Gospel of salvation and chapters like 1 Cor 13, Romans 8 and so on, you don't know me at all.

His nature doesn't change, the way he works most certainly does.

In the OT people believed, and were told, that if they looked at God they would die. In the NT everyone looked at God, in Jesus.
In the OT God's people had to offer animal sacrifices for their sins. In the NT we have Jesus, who died once and for all.
In the OT Moses was told to build a tabernacle so they could carry God around with them wherever they went. In the NT Jesus taught that God is always with us.
In the OT, God told Solomon to build the temple, which replaced the tabernacle that had, previously, been his house. It was believed he lived in the Holy of Holies. In the NT Paul wrote that WE are temples of the Holy Spirit. God lives in US - not in a building.

So how many animal sacrifices have you made recently?

If you're not Jewish and your ancestors were not rescued from Egypt by God, led through the wilderness and given his law - why would you?

(To be continued.)

 

[Hoping2]

(continued)

It is not disgraceful nowadays for a woman to have short hair, as it was in Paul's day.

That seems to be the credo of those who have given up on God's leadership, and have gone about to lead a church by themselves.

No one today sees a woman with short hair and says "oh, you're a prostitute are you?"

How does nature teach us that it is shameful for men to have long hair?

Read John 14, John 16 and Romans 8.
Where does it say that the role of God's Holy Spirit is to tell us how long our hair should be?

Scripture doesn't teach how long a person's hair should be.
According to you this is a command from the God who never changes - yet God doesn't tell us this important detail.

Which doesn't tell us anything.
Some women have hair that is long enough to sit on. I saw a woman like that last week. It looked as though she was Afro-Caribbean so her hair was also braided - another no-no according to Paul.
Some women would not say that shoulder length hair was long. After lockdown, my hair was only just over my ears, yet, for me, it was too long.

If God had commanded people to have hair of a certain length, he'd make it perfectly clear.
You weren't around when Jesus was on earth anyway, so you have no idea how long his hair was.

Yes - but these aren't commands from God.

Not if they weren't written to us, don't apply to us and/or God is calling us to do something different.

What has my avatar name got to do with my question to you about wedding rings?
What are most of them made of? Have you read the verse which says that women should not wear gold?

Define, "written and preserved by the power of God".
Written in Hebrew, Greek or Latin? "Preserved" how - preserved during translation?
You realise there are verses/passages in the OT which have a footnote which says "the Hebrew for this verse is unclear"? You realise there are Greek, and Hebrew, words for which there is no English equivalent? You realise that the NT was written in Koine Greek - colloquial Greek; almost slang. And that this is different from the Greek that is spoken today?
You realise that people have translated the whole Bible and, years later, new manuscripts, like the Dead Sea scrolls have come to light which have made new translations necessary?

There are many, many things that the Bible doesn't tell us.
It doesn't tell us what careers are "ok" for Christians, it doesn't tell us whether to have a career, to marry and have children or to work overseas. It doesn't tell us where we should live or what church we should go to.
It doesn't tell us whether a church should follow liturgy, have a robed choir, use a certain translation of the Bible, have Christian films, PowerPoint, guitars in church or what gender the clergy should be. It doesn't tell us whether we should use paper Bibles or if we can read the Bible on our mobile phones.
It doesn't tell us whether or not we can make friends with non-Christians, or how we should react if friends/family get divorced, embrace another faith, say they are gay, identify as a different gender or have body altering surgery.
It doesn't tell us Jesus' views on these things, or contain teaching on them - that is not its role.

God's nature doesn't change. His actions do indeed change, and may be different for different people.
The Gospel doesn't change. There have been many translations of God's word over the years, and even now, it is translated into other languages so that people can read and understand it.
The context of God's words is still important.

 

[Strong in Him]

So why change the word the interpreters used hundreds of years ago ?

No one's changed it. It can be translated as "deacon", "minister" or "servant".
It's the word Paul uses when he describes himself as a minister of the Gospel, Romans 15:16, and of Epaphras in Colossians 1:7. The same word is used in Mark 10:45 when he said "the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve." The word is also used in 1 Timothy 3:8 and Romans 16:1 where it is translated as Deacon. The latter verse refers to Phoebe.

I'll stick with "servant".

You can stick with what you like - but the word also means "minister" or "deacon".

Women can serve, but they cannot be deacons.

Except they can and are.

 

[Strong in Him]

That seems to be the credo of those who have given up on God's leadership, and have gone about to lead a church by themselves.

No, it's a fact.
In Paul's day, women who were prostitutes had short hair.
But those of us today who have short hair, are not prostitutes - fact.

 

[Strong in Him]

Still, he was never a bishop.

Bishop = overseer.
Paul had responsibility for his churches, answered their problems and questions, prayed for them regularly and got strict and rebuked them if he had to.
In what sense is that not overseeing?

David could not walk in the Spirit instead of in the "flesh".
Parameters for the leadership of God's people have changed, since the end of the OT.
I would never conflate OT Israel with God's people of today.

Well there you are then.
One minute you're saying "God never changes. His commands were valid from day 1; we need to believe all God's word", and telling us that if a man is not married and cannot control his children he cannot lead. And then, when given an example of a leader who could not control his children, you're saying, "ah yes, but David walked 'in the flesh' and he's OT anyway."

In the OT, God's people were those he rescued from slavery in Egypt, led through the wilderness, made a covenant with, gave them manna from heaven etc. It doesn't matter whether you would call them God's people or not - they were.

God doesn't change, but Testaments do.
Even the OT Israel had no female kings or religious leaders.

A woman can't be a king.
But Esther was a queen- who saved the Jews from destruction. Miriam, Huldah, Deborah and Isaiah's wife were prophetesses. And Deborah was judge over the whole nation - just like Gideon and Samuel were.

After reading the rest of your post, I feel it is pointless to try and convince you that Paul's words are as valid today, as they were 2000 years ago.

After reading your posts I feel it is pointless to talk to you about reading the Bible in context and the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words - the Bible wasn't written in English.

If you want to believe the Bible was dictated, handed down in a perfect English translation and that everyone was commanded to believe everything in it and apply it forever, go ahead. You'd be wrong, and FWIW you'd also be missing out. I've been reading some great books by Messianic Jews who explain Hebrew traditions, feasts and the meaning behind various words. They are inspirational and give great, and deep, insights into Scripture.

But if you'd rather take the English translation at face value, there's probably no one - apart from God - who can stop you.

 

[Strong in Him]

Woman can serve, but the title of "deacon" disallows women serving in that capacity.

In your opinion.
Not in the opinion of many church leaders.

 

[Strong in Him]

No one's changed it. It can be translated as "deacon", "minister" or "servant".
It's the word Paul uses when he describes himself as a minister of the Gospel, Romans 15:16, and of Epaphras in Colossians 1:7. The same word is used in Mark 10:45 when he said "the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve." The word is also used in 1 Timothy 3:8 and Romans 16:1 where it is translated as Deacon. The latter verse refers to Phoebe.

You can stick with what you like - but the word also means "minister" or "deacon".

Except they can and are.

@Hoping2 - thank you for your prayers - doesn't change the facts.

 

[The Righterzpen]

We know what discipleship was in those days...there are extrabiblical records about what being a "disciple" and being a "master" meant, and this corroborates with scripture. Being a disciple under the authority of a master did not include the learning a boy received on his mother's knee.

Also, the master in the Judaic community created religious doctrine. The religious doctrine of Gamaliel, for instance, different from the religions doctrine of Hillel, and their disciples followed the doctrines of their masters. Women did not create religious doctrines.

In a certain sense; I agree with what you’re saying. (In regards to disciples and masters regarding religious instruction; despite yes, women certainly sat to be instructed by Christ: and even Paul for that matter.

Yet, People do derive doctrine from prophecy and since Scripture does say there were female prophetesses; there undoubtedly is doctrine derived from their prophecies; (in Scripture!) that we are not aware of the identity of the human messenger.

I know in rabbinical tradition this is also the case; as there are currently (in play regarding politics) eschatological schemas that are based off the “prophecies” of “prophetesses”.

This is where Darby got his dispensational eschatology from. Which mirrors in historical frameworks Jewish Zionism.

So yes, people in Judaism (and Christendom) have derived doctrines from what women / teenage girls have said.

Now, there’s a lot of teachings that don’t “shake out” Biblically; regardless of who came up with them! But it is fact that history does attest to, that people have done this.

And I believe this is true for all religions. I’ve yet to see a religion that has only and solely been influenced by humans with Y chromosomes.

So though the idea may “sound good” to certain individuals; it’s not bore out in history; nor even in Scripture.

 

[Dale]

It is written (KJV)..." I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:"
I see no mention of deaconess, or any other title but 'servant'.

Hoping, it seems that you don’t trust any translation except the KJV. I believe you have it backwards. It is the KJV that has been proven wrong on many points. Let me give you an example of how messed up you can get relying on the KJV.

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
Psalm 5:6 KJV

Fortunately I decided to check another translation before blowing up the nearest leasing office.

You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors.
Psalm 5:6 NIV

It seems that hundreds of years ago, “leasing” could mean deception, that is, lying. Yes, we need more modern translations.

 

[Hoping2]

Bishop = overseer.
Paul had responsibility for his churches, answered their problems and questions, prayed for them regularly and got strict and rebuked them if he had to.
In what sense is that not overseeing?

Bishop = pastor.
Paul was never the pastor of a church.

Well there you are then.
One minute you're saying "God never changes. His commands were valid from day 1; we need to believe all God's word", and telling us that if a man is not married and cannot control his children he cannot lead. And then, when given an example of a leader who could not control his children, you're saying, "ah yes, but David walked 'in the flesh' and he's OT anyway."

He cannot be the leader of a NT church.
Paul also tells us why, in 1 Tim 3:5..." (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"
God is the head of Jesus.
Jesus is the head of man.
Man is the head of woman. (1 Cor 11)

In the OT, God's people were those he rescued from slavery in Egypt, led through the wilderness, made a covenant with, gave them manna from heaven etc. It doesn't matter whether you would call them God's people or not - they were.

Perhaps they carry that title, but His children are obedient their Father.

A woman can't be a king.
But Esther was a queen- who saved the Jews from destruction. Miriam, Huldah, Deborah and Isaiah's wife were prophetesses. And Deborah was judge over the whole nation - just like Gideon and Samuel were.

A woman is not to usurp authority over a male. (1 Tim 2:12)

After reading your posts I feel it is pointless to talk to you about reading the Bible in context and the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words - the Bible wasn't written in English..

The context of the bible is love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
And to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
God's word says that men are to be the leaders of NT churches.
To allow a woman to have authority over man, or a church full of men, is disobedience to God.

If you want to believe the Bible was dictated, handed down in a perfect English translation and that everyone was commanded to believe everything in it and apply it forever, go ahead.

Thank you, and all praise be to God for allowing us to know His mind on even the most trivial of matters.

You'd be wrong, and FWIW you'd also be missing out. I've been reading some great books by Messianic Jews who explain Hebrew traditions, feasts and the meaning behind various words. They are inspirational and give great, and deep, insights into Scripture.
But if you'd rather take the English translation at face value, there's probably no one - apart from God - who can stop you.

As there is no eternal risk in treating the bible for what it is, the word of God; there is only peril awaiting those who treat it as anything less