- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And you are, of course, entitled to your intrepretation of Scripture.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well the topic were discussing is feminism and those very important scriptures tell us that feminism is not only wrong but also unbiblical and contrary to the word of God. Believe me, I know these scriptures and their "context" through and through. But I also know that the Bible means exactly what it says (call me a fundamentalist).
When I was a kid my father did not allow me or my sisters to speak in Church, now when I was a little girl I didn't understand why my brothers could and we couldn't but now I do get it. My dad was very strict with us to make sure we were living our lives in accordance with these scriptures.
IMO women need to stop trying to lead and be supportive of men trying to become leaders. Leaders are to be men and supporters are to be women. When we take all this stuff out of order, things start to go wrong in society. Which is why we are in so much trouble and need to return to the legal principles laid out in the Bible.
And you are, of course, entitled to your intrepretation of Scripture.
Thankyou but I'm actually not interpreting them. I believe they mean exactly what they say, I'm not reading into them I am obeying them.
No, since Scripture is not entirely clear on this matter you are interpreting Scripture.
For example, Scripture tells us "let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Yet Scripture also tells us that "there is no longer...male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
That allows room for interpretation.
Likewise Scripture tells us "let deacons be husbands of only one wife." Yet there is at least one female deacon mentioned in Scripture, and obviously she could not have been a husband of one wife. That also allows for interpretation.
We also have to look at the role of women in ancient times. It was a patriarchal society; women counted for little. In my view we have to read Scripture in that context.
Again, you are free to your own interpretation.
It actually doesn't say deacons of one wife, it says bishops of one wife, so you're misinterpreting what the Bible says. Also, by your reasoning, we can also change the meaning of Ephesians 5:25 so that husbands can take less responsibility?
Actually it says it for BOTH bishops and deacons:
I Tim. 3:
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
...
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Yes, husband of one wife, not wife of one husband. And if a bishop is to be the husband of one wife, then why are there women bishops today? Sorry I forgot, Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible apply for today
It seems somewhat pertinent to ask also why there are SINGLE bishops today?
It actually doesn't say deacons of one wife, it says bishops of one wife, so you're misinterpreting what the Bible says.
Also, by your reasoning, we can also change the meaning of Ephesians 5:25 so that husbands can take less responsibility?
Because the majority of professing believers don't even follow the Bible.
No, I'm quoting the Bible directly. The Bible says "let deacons be husbands of only one wife." You are the one who is incorrect.
My point in quoting this was that the Bible also tells us that Phoebe, a woman, was a deacon. Yet obviously she could not have been the "husband of only one wife."
All Ephesians 5:25 says is "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." I think that husbands should love their wives--why would I want to change that?
First of all, the word "deacon" διάκονος (diakonos) and its cognates occur 31 times in the NT and is used in many different ways. Paul calls himself a minister (diakonos) of the gospel in Col. 1:23, 25. Paul went to Jerusalem to serve (diakonos) the saints, (Rom. 15:25). Mary spoke to the servants (diakonos) at the wedding in Cana (John 2:5). It is used of serving tables (Luke 17:8 and Acts 6:2). Jesus came not to be served, but to serve (diakonos), (Mark 10:45). The government is called a minister (diakonos) of God (Rom. 13:4). Tychicus is a minister (diakonos) of the Lord (Col. 4:7) as is Timotheus (1 Thess. 3:2).
Rom. 16:1 says, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea." Many argue that since Pheobe is called a deacon, then it means women are eligible to hold the formal office of deacon. But this is not conclusive at all. Phoebe is simply called a servant (diakonon) which can be rendered differently in different Bibles: "minister" (Darby, YLT), "servant" (ASV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV), "helper" (NCV), "deacon" (NLT, NRSV), and "deaconess" (RSV).
The term "diakonos" is used of an office with special requirements that women cannot meet. "Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain," (1 Tim. 3:8). And, "Let deacons be husbands of only one wife [lit. one woman man'] and good managers of their children and their own households," (1 Tim. 3:12). See also Phil. 1:1.
So, we can conclude that there is a broad sense of how the term is used regarding being a servant, a minister, a helper, etc. We can also conclude that there is a special requirement for the office of deacon that limits eligibility to men. This requirement is that deacons be the husband of one wife and good managers of their children and households. Also, we must note that we see the same criteria here as we do for elders and bishops. It is quite apparent that there is a special office of Deacon that is intended for men only.
Interesting that you are now saying that Scripture says that "deacons be the husband of one wife" when just a few posts ago you informed me that I was "misinterpreting what the Bible says" when I said the same thing. I guess you don't appologize for such statements.
You now say that we can reach certain conclusions. You are correct in that many who read that will reach the same conclusion that you reached. However many others read those same passages and reach conclusions that differ with your conclusion. That is why I said earlier that you are cetainly entitled to your interpretation of Scripture. However, I am likewise entitled to my interpretation.
There was, however, the prophetess Huldah, whose advice was sought by kings and high officials.
Prophetess = non priest and non pastor.
Prophetess = non priest and non pastor.
Old Testament priesthood was a hereditary office. You could not achieve it, only be born into it.
Prophet(ess) on the other hand is a direct calling from God.
Prophetess = no pastor and no priest.
Again, the New Testament provides for two leadership offices in the church, elders and deacons, but not pastors or priests.
We know that there was at least one female deacon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?