Female Deacons

[mikedsjr]

That's a red herring logical fallacy. This kind of fallacious reasoning leads to a breakdown in logical conversation. That's what you have done with this kind of response.

Im going to leave the topic with clear Scripture I have yet to use and, because we are not close to a consensus. You wish to use obscure text to support women preachers and the deaconess role within a church meeting. I only expect a progressive defense to dispute clear text. Text which RC, LCMS Lutherans & reformed Baptist use to defend their position.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 ESV
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

 

[com7fy8]

Since the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) the convention added to paragraph VI that "the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." I can only speculate as to why the convention needed to make this addition.

Well, 1 Timothy 3:1-10 is very clear how a man needs to be "blameless" and bringing up his children well. It seems a number of pastors have been produced by seminary but have not grown and matured in the seminary of their homes, so they learn how to love with their wives and learn how to bring up their children, before being considered to "take care of the church of God" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

So, there are churches which take "short-cuts" to fill their pulpits with men who have not first matured and been proven in their own marriages with their own families . . . so they can be "examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:3) of how to do well in marriage and bringing up children > 1 Thessalonians 2:10-11.

I understand that God gives a man a lady who can help him to get real with God and submit to how He rules us in His peace (Colossians 3:15); and she helps him learn how to love and relate in marriage and how to bring up their children together. So, then he is able to appreciate how essential she is for him to be a successful pastor. So, it is not only he who is pastoring, but they as a couple minister their example. So, isolating pastoring to either a man or a woman is not going to go well, as possibly we can look and see for ourselves, no matter how cleverly ones can argue.

If you do what Jesus has you doing with "rest for your souls", you will discover what He really has called you to do I personally have seen how both men and women have tried to "prove" they are called, but they are wasted in dominating ego and stress and ill tempered reacting and other things not in the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

I feel that now is the time to add the office of deacons is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. I base this on 1Timothy 3:10-12.

But, like with Biblical pastors . . . a man needs his lady to help him become qualified as a deacon. And then they share intimately in love while he does what he does, with the help of his companion

So pastoring is meant to be a couple's cup of love running over into ministry. And so it is with being a deacon. Notice how it talks about how the "wives" of the deacons are expected to live. Part of the qualification is the man's wife and how she lives!! So, you don't have one separate from the other.

Also . . . by being married, they can feel for and understand how marriage is, so they can help others . . . like how Jesus went through things of this life, in order to be able to feel for us now and minister to us the grace which made Jesus so successful > Hebrews 4:15, also considering 2 Corinthians 1:3-4.

The reason I bring this up is because one of our local SBC church has female deacons and I feel this is wrong. I am curious how other Baptist men and women feel about this and would be interested in any Scripture canceling out what we know from the above verses.

Well . . . are these deacons responsible for doing what Peter ordained the first seven deacons to do? Acts 7.

If they are called "deacons", but are not doing the Biblically defined labor of a deacon, then having an official designation of authority can help a lady to do what she is trusted to do. The quals of "deacons" are not merely for having the label, but for what the Bible says the "deacons" actually do, I consider. And I have seen how females titled deacons do not do what the men did as "deacons" (Acts 7) but they do very important things to help us.

Also, if a male deacon needs help of more ladies than his wife, I can see it could be acceptable to call those ladies "deacons" so ones can know they are with authority of the man and his wife whom they are helping. It can be like he is sharing his "label" and office and authority with those who help him.

So, I would not be "legalistic" about what you can call a woman who is helping, but in each case see if the person is submissive to whoever is the church leadership, and a good example >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

I have been in and talked with people of a variety of baptist situations, and I have seen how a man can be lording it over; this is not qualified, also. And ones have lied in order to get pastoring jobs. Ones need to make sure with God about whom they receive and trust. God will not guide us to ordain and trust someone He does not approve; so if we find we have gotten a wrong person, it was our responsibility to make sure with God, since He knows each person's heart . . . so we don't go only by how things look.

So, if we are evaluating mainly or even only by if a person is a man or not, we can be missing what really needs our attention

 

[John Robie]

That's a red herring logical fallacy. This kind of fallacious reasoning leads to a breakdown in logical conversation. That's what you have done with this kind of response.

I read his post. And I followed your link to what a red herring is. I don't think it's a red herring, but perhaps you can explain why you think it is.

Thanks.

 

[OzSpen]

Im going to leave the topic with clear Scripture I have yet to use and, because we are not close to a consensus. You wish to use obscure text to support women preachers and the deaconess role within a church meeting. I only expect a progressive defense to dispute clear text. Text which RC, LCMS Lutherans & reformed Baptist use to defend their position.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 ESV
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Do you see what you did? My response was to you at #136 in which I stated you used a red herring logical fallacy. When you use the fallacious reasoning of a logical fallacy, you hijack discussion. That's what you have done in your discussion with me. But you don't want to admit what you did.

What are you doing now? You did not address the content of what I stated at #136, so you've given me another red herring by switching topics.

Leaving the topic by quoting a chunk of Scripture, 1 Tim 3:1-13 proves nothing as we have been debating this Scripture throughout this thread. You don't want to admit that you used a red herring logical fallacy at #136. Don't you understand the impact on debate and discussion of a fallacy in reasoning? Then you dump on me a lump of Scripture that proves nothing without exegesis and exposition. Your assertion with this quote does nothing to assist discussion in this difficult topic.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I read his post. And I followed your link to what a red herring is. I don't think it's a red herring, but perhaps you can explain why you think it is.

Thanks.

John,

A red herring in my discussion is when a person does not answer the specifics of my post by changing the topic to what he/she wants to talk about. It hijacks discussion because of its fallacious (deceptive) reasoning.

Why do you think it's not a red herring?

Oz

 

[John Robie]

John,

A red herring in my discussion is when a person does not answer the specifics of my post by changing the topic to what he/she wants to talk about. It hijacks discussion because of its fallacious (deceptive) reasoning.

Why do you think it's not a red herring?

Oz

I don't think it is because he acknowledged your post and he has dealt with it as he stated. Then he made a counter argument, which it looks like you just dismissed by calling it a red herring.

I think his post makes some valid points and it would be worth your time to respond.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't think it is because he acknowledged your post and he has dealt with it as he stated. Then he made a counter argument, which it looks like you just dismissed by calling it a red herring.

I think his post makes some valid points and it would be worth your time to respond.

John,

If you go back to #136, this was the content:

I did deal with Deborah. By dealing with all Judges spoken of. They were sent to fight. They have nothing about them to translate to preacher. Maybe we should take from them to put fleeces in our yard to determine what God wants us to do. Gideon did it. As far as we know, no blacks were Judges. Should we then conclude only whites can be preachers?

The leaps progressives make to fight for women ordination into the priesthood is absurd. Were priests in the temple women? No. Does NT clearly and prescriptively say in 1 Tim 3 the. I overseer is to be a husband of one wife?

His introduction of fleeces, Gideon, no blacks were Judges, only whites as preachers, progressives ordination to priesthood being absurd, priests in the temple - introduces new topics that I have nowhere discussed in this thread. That's why he's taking this discussion into regions where he wants to go with his own topics and content.

That's what makes these changes of topic into a red herring fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning and he has hijacked his discussion with me.

It's time that Christians took note of how they use logical fallacies and what that does to destroy reasonable discussion.

Oz

 

[John Robie]

John,

If you go back to #136, this was the content:


His introduction of fleeces, Gideon, no blacks were Judges, only whites as preachers, progressives ordination to priesthood being absurd, priests in the temple - introduces new topics that I have nowhere discussed in this thread. That's why he's taking this discussion into regions where he wants to go with his own topics and content.

That's what makes these changes of topic into a red herring fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning and he has hijacked his discussion with me.

It's time that Christians took note of how they use logical fallacies and what that does to destroy reasonable discussion.

Oz

It looks like you just don't want to deal with his arguments. This is a Christian sure, not a university. These discussions can be pretty fluid, and if you get so uptight that you cannot deal with it, you come across as pompous and conceited. Plus, like I said, it looks like you cannot deal with his argument and that you are trying to deflect from that.

In the time it took you to respond to my two posts (and presumably this one), you could have responded to his.

Just trying to help you see how you come across. Being gentle and respectful are two ways we should come across. You appear disrespectful to those on the outside looking in.

 

[OzSpen]

How can we explain this to you? Words come in masculine and feminine. Sometimes they also refer to the gender of the person, as with "governor" and "governess", but that doesn't make the roles equal and interchangable.

In the early church, there were deacons who read the Gospel, advised Bishops, distributed Communion, took the sacraments to the sick...and were considered clergy. They were ordained. There were, however, women who were not ordained. Called Deaconesses these days, they served in another capacity, as laywomen, not clergy. Their duties were to instruct women and children, prepare women for baptism (which involved taking off their street clothes), and, sometimes, head up functions involving women and children.

A Deaconess is not a Deacon, regardless of the similarity in terminology, and they never were the same.

I read and teach NT Greek, so there is no need to remind me that words come in masculine and feminine. I know the declensions of masculine and feminine Greek nouns and adjectives. It so happens that the masculine diakonos refers to a sister in the faith, Phoebe (Rom 16:1).

You have ignored the historical information I gave you from the early centuries of the Christian church that demonstrate that female deacons were presbyters (elders), deacons and bishops. They were ordained to these positions. How about that? That's what archaeology is telling us. Your understanding of deaconesses (there is no NT Greek word for deaconess) is not consistent with the archaeological evidence that I presented.

Seems as though the information I present to you is being ignored. We can't have a reasonable conversation when you do this.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It looks like you just don't want to deal with his arguments. This is a Christian sure, not a university. These discussions can be pretty fluid, and if you get so uptight that you cannot deal with it, you come across as pompous and conceited. Plus, like I said, it looks like you cannot deal with his argument and that you are trying to deflect from that.

In the time it took you to respond to my two posts (and presumably this one), you could have responded to his.

Just trying to help you see how you come across. Being gentle and respectful are two ways we should come across. You appear disrespectful to those on the outside looking in.

We can't deal with arguments when logical fallacies are committed. They hijack discussion. I'm not uptight, pompous or conceited. I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that when a person doesn't want to deal with the content of a post and uses a red herring fallacy, we are not able to have a reasonable conversation because the discussion has been hijacked.

How am I being disrespectful?

 

[John Robie]

We can't deal with arguments when logical fallacies are committed. They hijack discussion. I'm not uptight, pompous or conceited. I'm simply drawing attention tot he fact that when a person doesn't want to deal with the content of a post and uses a red herring fallacy, we are not able to have a reasonable conversation because the discussion has been hijacked.

How am I being disrespectful?

Hopefully your questions are intended to learn, and not a defensive position. I am trying to help.

I'm sure you are a fine fellow. You have a lovely wife and children, I'm guessing, who love and admire you. Friends galore. So I'm not saying that you are pompous. I'm saying that's how you come across in a forum. Or at least in your response to Mike.

But to address your first question, I've been posting on forums for some time. I understand red herrings. His post went to the discussion. It addressed your post and gave an argument that was on topic. Perhaps it was a bit of a red herring in your estimation (I see no evidence that it was intended as such), but I think you could have shown grace by saying something like "I don't think you've addressed my point, but I will address yours". Keep in mind that you may very well be the smartest and most educated person here. Don't you think it's best to come down to our level as opposed to expecting us to come up to yours?

Please don't be defensive. I'm just trying to show you how you come across. I've had others do that for me, and it's quite beneficial.

 

[OzSpen]

I did deal with Deborah. By dealing with all Judges spoken of. They were sent to fight. They have nothing about them to translate to preacher. Maybe we should take from them to put fleeces in our yard to determine what God wants us to do. Gideon did it. As far as we know, no blacks were Judges. Should we then conclude only whites can be preachers?

The leaps progressives make to fight for women ordination into the priesthood is absurd. Were priests in the temple women? No. Does NT clearly and prescriptively say in 1 Tim 3 the. I overseer is to be a husband of one wife?

Sorry but on my phone and not going to fix grammar

Mike,

Another person is complaining about the fact that I haven't answered the content of your post. As I've indicated to you, that's because you have introduced foreign matter into our discussion to push another agenda, and thus have committed a red herring fallacy.

I'll address your points:

1. Deborah was a prophetess (Judges 4:4) who judged Israel. You say that judges in the OT were sent to fight, inferring that Deborah was one such fighter. However, that is not what Judges 4:5 states. She sat under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She questioned Barak, 'Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you...' Then in Judges 4:14, Deborah said to Barak, 'Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has given Sisera into your hand. Does not the Lord go out before you?'

Without a doubt, Deborah, the prophetess, had a speaking and leadership role in Israel. It is true that Deborah was not a preacher but she had a public speaking role as a prophetess. We cannot claim silence for Deborah. She was eminently a public person, and with a vocal dimension to her ministry.

2. Your statement, 'Maybe we should take from them to put fleeces in our yard to determine what God wants us to do. Gideon did it', is unrelated and irrelevant to our discussion. This is one example of a red herring fallacy. We are not discussing a public speaking role. If you want to use Gideon, perhaps you should go to Judges 6:22-24 for Gideon's public speaking example where the angel of the Lord ministered to him and Gideon said, '"Alas, O Lord God! For now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face." But the Lord said to him, "Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die. Then Gideon built an altar there to the Lord and called it, "The Lord is Peace"' (Judges 6:22-24). We are dealing with public speaking issues. Here Gideon is speaking to the Lord God.

We are not discussing what God wants us to do so the 'fleeces' (Judges 6:36-40) episode is a red herring.

3. You say 'no blacks were judges'. How do you know and what has that to do with eminent public speakers in the OT? Zilch! Hence a red herring.

4. Should only whites be preachers? That's a horribly racist suggestion and an irrelevant spin off from our discussion. It's another red herring.

5. Your claim is, 'The leaps progressives make to fight for women ordination into the priesthood is absurd'. Firstly, I'm not a 'progressive'; I'm an exegete of Scripture. I have no other thoughts in mind but to determine what the Scriptures state. I'm finding that the leaps traditionalists make to ignore the archaeological evidence from the early centuries (that I've documented above) that female deacons were presbyters, bishops and deacons, is amazing. To skip over this evidence causes me to ask, who are the ones being 'absurd'?

6. 'Were priests in the temple women?' No to my knowledge! But are there 'priests' in the Protestant church today? Just because there are examples of male-only ministries in the OT, does not exclude the eminent females in ministry in the OT such as Deborah and Huldah. Let's not overlook Anna the pre-crucifixion prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36), an eminent female in ministry.

7. You perceptively ask: 'Does NT clearly and prescriptively say in 1 Tim 3 the. I overseer is to be a husband of one wife?' Some translations use 'the husband of one wife' (1 Tim 3:2 ESV) but the ESV has a footnote at this point, 'Or a man of one woman; also verse 12'. Commentator, Gordon Fee, notes that there are at least 4 options in the meaning of this phrase, which you seem to want to interpret only one way. Fee states that the options are:

a. Require that overseers be married as the false teachers were forbidding marriage and that Paul urges marriage for wayward widows (1 Tim 5:15; cf 2:15).

b. It could prohibit polygamy with its emphasis on 'one wife', but polygamy was rare in pagan society.

c. It could be prohibiting second marriages. This is supported by much data including 'all kinds of inscriptional evidence' that praises women who were married.

d. It could refer to marital fidelity. The New English Bible translates the phrase, 'faithful to his one wife'. So it refers to living an exemplary married life in a culture where marital infidelity was common. It was assumed it would happen in that culture.

Fee concludes that the 'the third option, the concern that the church's leaders live exemplary married lives seems to fit the context best - given the apparently low view of marriage and family held by the false teachers (4:3; cf. 3:4-5)' (Fee 1988:81).

Therefore, the meaning of 'husband of one wife' is not as straight forward as it seems at first glance. There is the additional factor that 'until the reforms of Justinian [for Hebrew women], a Jewish man might legally have more than one wife at a time, a practice that may be in view in the stipulation that an elder should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:12). Polyandry [a woman having more than one husband], however, was not possible for a woman, and adultery was punished harshly'. As for Greek women, the extant Greek literature defines Greek women according to their sexual function: courtesans, concubines for the daily pleasure of the master, wives to bear legitimate children and keep house. Wives were neglected socially and sexually. Then there were prostitutes (Kroeger 2000:1278-1280).

Works consulted
Fee, G D 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary). W W Gasque (NT ed). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Kroeger, C C 2000. Women in Greco-Roman world and Judaism, in C A Evans & S E Porter (eds), Dictionary of New Testament Background, 1276-1280. Downers Grove, Illinois / Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.

I hope that brings some clarity to the matter.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[John Robie]

Well done, Oz.

 

[mikedsjr]

Oz, I do appreciate someone felt I made some form of sense. I appreciate how much you put into making your points. I'm not innocent by no means by my actions. I believe I better understand your position than you care to value mine, though.

My remarks of Deborah were certainly incomplete, since I already knew what you stated, except your twisting it a bit. She did speak to Obama about going to war and she went with Barak to war. The coward wouldn't be rewarded though, but another woman would kill Sisera.

I never said Deborah wasn't a vocal person. I reject the wording "ministry" you gave of her and the notion her speaking role in Scripture, as well as her role as Judge, proves women are to be preachers in the church service. I never said women can't be servants among the Christians. There is no support Scripturally for within church service. However, was Deborah a Leader? Clearly. She sat under a tree and cast official judgements on Israelite issues. I clearly have no issues with women in leadership outside of church service at all.

My statements on the fleece, black people, white preachers was all about the absurdity of logic your playing with. You pick and choose which angles of Scripture you want to take it. I've never claimed once I deny there might have been women bishops in early churches, but to classify this proves Scripture is using external material, not Scripture to prove Scripture. This can just as much prove their "progressive" theology back then too, while ignoring specifics of what Scripture says.

I feel like I'm schooling someone denying their feminist beliefs overrules Scripture. And I'm without a college degree.

Anyway. This does take a lot of my time, and that was my primary reason to duck out. When someone writes more than 25 lines (because I do this from an iPhone) I realize it's going to be difficult for me to respond in length, since I can only see 3 lines at a time of my own comments when typing.

 

[Bluelion]

Mike,

Another person is complaining about the fact that I haven't answered the content of your post. As I've indicated to you, that's because you have introduced foreign matter into our discussion to push another agenda, and thus have committed a red herring fallacy.

I'll address your points:

1. Deborah was a prophetess (Judges 4:4) who judged Israel. You say that judges in the OT were sent to fight, inferring that Deborah was one such fighter. However, that is not what Judges 4:5 states. She sat under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She questioned Barak, 'Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you...' Then in Judges 4:14, Deborah said to Barak, 'Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has given Sisera into your hand. Does not the Lord go out before you?'

Without a doubt, Deborah, the prophetess, had a speaking and leadership role in Israel. It is true that Deborah was not a preacher but she had a public speaking role as a prophetess. We cannot claim silence for Deborah. She was eminently a public person, and with a vocal dimension to her ministry.

2. Your statement, 'Maybe we should take from them to put fleeces in our yard to determine what God wants us to do. Gideon did it', is unrelated and irrelevant to our discussion. This is one example of a red herring fallacy. We are not discussing a public speaking role. If you want to use Gideon, perhaps you should go to Judges 6:22-24 for Gideon's public speaking example where the angel of the Lord ministered to him and Gideon said, '"Alas, O Lord God! For now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face." But the Lord said to him, "Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die. Then Gideon built an altar there to the Lord and called it, "The Lord is Peace"' (Judges 6:22-24). We are dealing with public speaking issues. Here Gideon is speaking to the Lord God.

We are not discussing what God wants us to do so the 'fleeces' (Judges 6:36-40) episode is a red herring.

3. You say 'no blacks were judges'. How do you know and what has that to do with eminent public speakers in the OT? Zilch! Hence a red herring.

4. Should only whites be preachers? That's a horribly racist suggestion and an irrelevant spin off from our discussion. It's another red herring.

5. Your claim is, 'The leaps progressives make to fight for women ordination into the priesthood is absurd'. Firstly, I'm not a 'progressive'; I'm an exegete of Scripture. I have no other thoughts in mind but to determine what the Scriptures state. I'm finding that the leaps traditionalists make to ignore the archaeological evidence from the early centuries (that I've documented above) that female deacons were presbyters, bishops and deacons, is amazing. To skip over this evidence causes me to ask, who are the ones being 'absurd'?

6. 'Were priests in the temple women?' No to my knowledge! But are there 'priests' in the Protestant church today? Just because there are examples of male-only ministries in the OT, does not exclude the eminent females in ministry in the OT such as Deborah and Huldah. Let's not overlook Anna the pre-crucifixion prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36), an eminent female in ministry.

7. You perceptively ask: 'Does NT clearly and prescriptively say in 1 Tim 3 the. I overseer is to be a husband of one wife?' Some translations use 'the husband of one wife' (1 Tim 3:2 ESV) but the ESV has a footnote at this point, 'Or a man of one woman; also verse 12'. Commentator, Gordon Fee, notes that there are at least 4 options in the meaning of this phrase, which you seem to want to interpret only one way. Fee states that the options are:

a. Require that overseers be married as the false teachers were forbidding marriage and that Paul urges marriage for wayward widows (1 Tim 5:15; cf 2:15).

b. It could prohibit polygamy with its emphasis on 'one wife', but polygamy was rare in pagan society.

c. It could be prohibiting second marriages. This is supported by much data including 'all kinds of inscriptional evidence' that praises women who were married.

d. It could refer to marital fidelity. The New English Bible translates the phrase, 'faithful to his one wife'. So it refers to living an exemplary married life in a culture where marital infidelity was common. It was assumed it would happen in that culture.

Fee concludes that the 'the third option, the concern that the church's leaders live exemplary married lives seems to fit the context best - given the apparently low view of marriage and family held by the false teachers (4:3; cf. 3:4-5)' (Fee 1988:81).

Therefore, the meaning of 'husband of one wife' is not as straight forward as it seems at first glance. There is the additional factor that 'until the reforms of Justinian [for Hebrew women], a Jewish man might legally have more than one wife at a time, a practice that may be in view in the stipulation that an elder should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:12). Polyandry [a woman having more than one husband], however, was not possible for a woman, and adultery was punished harshly'. As for Greek women, the extant Greek literature defines Greek women according to their sexual function: courtesans, concubines for the daily pleasure of the master, wives to bear legitimate children and keep house. Wives were neglected socially and sexually. Then there were prostitutes (Kroeger 2000:1278-1280).

Works consulted
Fee, G D 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary). W W Gasque (NT ed). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Kroeger, C C 2000. Women in Greco-Roman world and Judaism, in C A Evans & S E Porter (eds), Dictionary of New Testament Background, 1276-1280. Downers Grove, Illinois / Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.

I hope that brings some clarity to the matter.

In Christ,
Oz

Oz, you are 100% right red herring, now I will not go further in my own red herring by following theirs you follow lol

This always happens. You have made valid points to which no one has an argument to because they have not made one against anything you have stated. You see how we got on what was the church before you came in which was also a red herring, then we got on a Judge is with the nation not with the church. Which I suspect because we have Judges today they think a Judge in the Bible was the same as a Judge today, in fact they only have the name in common. A Judge from the Bible like Deborah is completely different then what we would call a judge today and very much is part of The Church Of God. The Fact her story is in the Bible as being one who was a mouth piece for God Shows she is part of the church.

The video you showed me Oz that guy pointed out, and i have used my self, that a woman Mary was charged with preaching the News that Jesus was alive again. A woman was give this charge above the men disciples. Another thing I use is Adam said finally bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, i will name her wo-man when he saw woman. Amdam is saying in all ways woman is his equal. but that will bring more issues.

keep it up brother, if it gets to you step away for a min don't let it up set you. i enjoy your post and have learned a few things from them. Its not in vain.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, I do appreciate someone felt I made some form of sense. I appreciate how much you put into making your points. I'm not innocent by no means by my actions. I believe I better understand your position than you care to value mine, though.

My remarks of Deborah were certainly incomplete, since I already knew what you stated, except your twisting it a bit. She did speak to Obama about going to war and she went with Barak to war. The coward wouldn't be rewarded though, but another woman would kill Sisera.

I never said Deborah wasn't a vocal person. I reject the wording "ministry" you gave of her and the notion her speaking role in Scripture, as well as her role as Judge, proves women are to be preachers in the church service. I never said women can't be servants among the Christians. There is no support Scripturally for within church service. However, was Deborah a Leader? Clearly. She sat under a tree and cast official judgements on Israelite issues. I clearly have no issues with women in leadership outside of church service at all.

My statements on the fleece, black people, white preachers was all about the absurdity of logic your playing with. You pick and choose which angles of Scripture you want to take it. I've never claimed once I deny there might have been women bishops in early churches, but to classify this proves Scripture is using external material, not Scripture to prove Scripture. This can just as much prove their "progressive" theology back then too, while ignoring specifics of what Scripture says.

I feel like I'm schooling someone denying their feminist beliefs overrules Scripture. And I'm without a college degree.

Anyway. This does take a lot of my time, and that was my primary reason to duck out. When someone writes more than 25 lines (because I do this from an iPhone) I realize it's going to be difficult for me to respond in length, since I can only see 3 lines at a time of my own comments when typing.

Mike,

I do believe I understand your position. I used to take that perspective once and I know how difficult it was for me to see the broader application of women in ministry in OT and NT. I was a stubborn anti-women in ministry person for a long time. Notice I said that I was the stubborn one and I'm not making that allegation against you.

I'm twisting nothing about Deborah. She had a public speaking role as a prophetess and it was a ministry to men. The issue I'm raising is not about going to war, but about her active role as a prophetess in advising men. You reject the word 'ministry' in association with her God-given role. I accept it as ministry as that is what it is, a role for which God had gifted her.

The association of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Anna with NT women who have a speaking ministry to a group of more than females, is to demonstrate that these OT women had a public speaking ministry, given by God, under the OT covenant.

I have shown in my posts above that women had the ministry of diakonos (deacon, servant) as Paul did. It has a broad meaning. This same word and ministry were applied to Paul as to Phoebe. In Acts 6:1-6, the same ministry of diakonos was used for being a deacon of the Word (Ac 6:4) and a deacon at tables (Ac 6:2).

I clearly disagree with your conclusion about women not having a speaking role in the church. I've tried to explain some of this exegesis in my article, Must women never teach men in the church?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I am not a progressive, feminist in my understanding. That's your straw man fallacy of my view. The many women in public ministry, demonstrated on frescos and tombstones in the early centuries of the church, provide evidence that the Christian church did not understand women in ministry with your traditional understanding.

I have used Scripture to demonstrate the ministry of women in the church. That is not the absurd logic of a 'progressive' but the exegesis of an evangelical Christian committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. If Scripture taught the traditional view, I'd be maintaining it. My exegesis of the biblical texts has brought me to a different conclusion to yours.

I object strongly to your wanting to put me into the category of 'schooling someone denying their feminist beliefs overrules Scripture'. I reject that kind of dumbing down of me as an evangelical who affirms the authority of Scripture.

The problem we run into is not what is found in Scripture but how to interpret it when we live at such a distance from the first century and the original manuscripts. The additional problem is that all of us have been subjected to certain interpretations of the Scripture and it's very difficult to break free from that understanding. That applies as much to interpretations of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) and baptism as to women in ministry.

I will not respond any further to you on this topic as you have erected a straw man fallacy about my theology and we can't have a logical discussion when you do this.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, you are 100% right red herring, now I will not go further in my own red herring by following theirs you follow lol

This always happens. You have made valid points to which no one has an argument to because they have not made one against anything you have stated. You see how we got on what was the church before you came in which was also a red herring, then we got on a Judge is with the nation not with the church. Which I suspect because we have Judges today they think a Judge in the Bible was the same as a Judge today, in fact they only have the name in common. A Judge from the Bible like Deborah is completely different then what we would call a judge today and very much is part of The Church Of God. The Fact her story is in the Bible as being one who was a mouth piece for God Shows she is part of the church.

The video you showed me Oz that guy pointed out, and i have used my self, that a woman Mary was charged with preaching the News that Jesus was alive again. A woman was give this charge above the men disciples. Another thing I use is Adam said finally bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, i will name her wo-man when he saw woman. Amdam is saying in all ways woman is his equal. but that will bring more issues.

keep it up brother, if it gets to you step away for a min don't let it up set you. i enjoy your post and have learned a few things from them. Its not in vain.

Blue,

Thank you for your encouragement.

I don't allow it to get to me because I was once a traditionalist for a considerable period of time. I know how difficult it was for me to move from an anti-women view to a pro-women in ministry perspective. I am not a feminist or a progressive but one who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture. The problems arise with interpretations of the Scriptures we have.

It's amazing that the first people to announce Jesus' resurrection were not from the favoured 11 disciples of Jesus, but were that despised group of females. N T Wright in his historical and exegetical masterpiece, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2003) of 817pp wrote:

Even if we suppose that Mark made up most of his material, and did so some time in the late 60s at the earliest, it will not do to have him, or anyone else at that stage, making up a would-be apologetic legend about an empty tomb and having women be the ones who find it. The point has been repeated over and over in scholarship, but its full impact has not always been felt: women were simply not acceptable as legal witnesses.... The debate between Origen and Celsus shows that critics of Christianity could seize on the story of the women in order to scoff at the whole tale; were the legend-writers really so ignorant of the likely reaction? If they could have invented stories of fine, upstanding, reliable male witnesses being the first a the tomb, they would have done it. That they did not tells us either that everyone in the early church knew that the women, led by Mary Magdalene, were in fact the first on the scene, or that the early church was not so inventive as critics have routinely imagined, or both. Would the other evangelists have been so slavishly foolish as to copy the story unless they were convinced that, despite being an apologetic liability, it was historically trustworthy?... It is far, far easier to assume that the women were there at the beginning, just as, three days earlier, they had been there at the end (Wright 2003:607-608, emphasis in original)

Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews , stated: 'But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex' (4.8.15, emphasis added).

The editor of this edition of Josephus stated after the citation about women, 'I have never observed elsewhere, that in the Jewish government women were not admitted as legal witnesses in courts of justice. None of our copies of the Pentateuch say a word of it. It is very probable, however, that this was the exposition of the scribes and Pharisees, and the practice of the Jews in the days of Josephus' (4.8.15, n. 21).

What has that to do with women in ministry? It has to do with women who were not acceptable as legal witnesses in the first century but they were used by God to announce the most stupendous event in world history, 'Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead' (Matt 28:7).

Enjoy the journey. It has plenty of challenges.

Oz

 

[mikedsjr]

Oz, i admit, I was probably ruder than I ought. I don't care to be Called a traditionalist either. I'm quite sure I can offend them just as equally as well. My theology continues to move more in line with LCMS Lutheran, yet I will probably always be in a baptist church for family sake. I don't care much for application at any length without an absolute clear understanding. Til we meet in another thread......