Women rabbis

[someguy14]

"Interruptation"??? LOL! I love it! There are some interesting implications in that typo, my friend.

O' wow I butchered that spelling of "interpretation".
And I was focusing on whether one "r" or two was the correct way to spell it. Ha.

 

[Jerushabelle]

It isn't my intention to injure nor offend anyone. I don't mean to come off as uncaring or unloving. And if I appear to come across with brash arrogance i sincerely apologize. I think it all simply comes down to Biblical interpretation. No Paul is not G-d BUT he was His Apostle. Paul reminds us several times in the Scriptures that he was called to be an Apostle by Y'shua Himself(1st Corinthians 9). Paul reminds us that what he wrote was the Lords commandment unless he specifically states what his opinion is. Paul's Epistles have long been established as part of the Canon of Scripture.
As for the topic of women rabbis, pastors, preachers ect..it is hard to understand how some people can get around passages like 1st Timothy 2:11-15 which say that women are not to teach or have authority over men. Or the many numerous passages of Scripture that say that bishops, elders and deacons are to be the husband of one wife, & righteous men when listing their qualifications. Since bishops, elders & deacon are described as 'righteous men' this precludes women from serving in offices of authority over men. G-d has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). Most of the Apostles were uneducated. It is simply the way G-d designed the Church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership--in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The ONLY activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors, rabbis or preachers to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with G-d's plan and His gifting of them. There are several different ministries within the MJ synagogue & church where women can teach and evangelize that men are simply not equipped or have no understanding of how to do. We men owe those women a huge debt of gratitude.

I was not injured nor did I take offense to anything you said Brother. I'm in full agreement with what you have put forth on this topic.

 

[Jerushabelle]

Ain't that de truth!! More often than not, we have to "think" for them as they seem to be stuck in their "nothing" box far too much of the time.
Tale of Two Brains - YouTube

Sorry to those of you I've already shared this with before - but it never fails to give several belly laughs as I watch it over and over!

Great video! Saw it the first time on my homeschooling website. Hehehe!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

More often than not, we have to "think" for them as they seem to be stuck in their "nothing" box far too much of the time.
Tale of Two Brains - YouTube

Sorry to those of you I've already shared this with before - but it never fails to give several belly laughs as I watch it over and over!

Saw alot of the man's series on sex/relationships and it's truly good stuff:

PMC - How Man and Women keep score

Tale of Two Brains partea 1 .mp4 subtitrare romana
MARK GUNGOR - HOW TO STAY MARRIED AND NOT KILL ANYONE​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Wonderful piece of study, thank you dearly! I somewhat never paid attention to that verse in Exodus. You surely prompted me to study more Scripture and meditate- I am sincerely grateful ,Easy

(I will consult already married women here re: practicality and benefits of having a few husbands vs. one. I am guessing if one husband is useful to have, more should be even better, but wil need more expert opinion. We will get back to you with the poll results )

The verse in Exodus 21 is very interesting, in light of how Exodus 21:10 states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife, while Deuteronomy 21:15-17 states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more....and of course, within all that, there's the scripture of Deuteronomy 17:17 stating that the king shall not have too many wives.

And for anyone saying this is/was an OT dynamic only, part of me is reminded of how even within the NT it was present.

This, IMHO, all ties in with how much focus there is on those who are Male ministers in opposition to female ones. For it's odd how many people advocating for male leadership alone as Biblical seem to often say that it's wrong for those who are male leaders to have multiple wives.

Some have argued that the reason that a bishop/ deacon was to have only one wife was for financial purposes. As one man noted:

....women and men lived in separate tents period. When they moved to houses, unless they were very poor, husbands and wives had separate houses. To this day, the Tet people in the mountains of western Russia live in "the old way" of each having a separate residence. In the days of polygamy, a man could not take a second wife unless he could show he could support HER household (house, staff, children) as well has the house, staff and children of the first wife.

Marriage was for reasons of politics (forming alliances between tribes) and providing a legitimate heir. Love and companionship was not expected or even required. It was very common to have a legal wife, and a girlfriend on the side for fun. Wives did the same.

Today, the cost of maintaining two separate households is cost prohibitive. The more orthodox Jews instead have separate bedrooms for the husbands and wives. If not even that is affordable, then the couple will have separate beds in the same room. The husband gets the big bed that they can share during those intimate marriage moments, and the wife gets a twin to sleep in during her time of being unclean...though I have heard of some couples that only share the bed for intimacy and then the wife is expected to return to her own bed.

.
​

Others have been of the mindset that the congregation financially supported a bishop's family...for a man had to be wealthy to support more wives and that was an unnecessary burden on the congregation. One wife was sufficient, in their view.

However, I'm not 100% certain that all of those who were deacons in the early church were necessarily of a disposition where they had to be supported, in light of how many leaders were in the early church who were quite wealthy/had resources to aid others....and some of that gets interesting when considering how it was not necessarily the case that polygamy was always condemned by all in the early church or even amongst the Jewish leaders....and that those with multiple wives were probably even believers in the congregations even though they may not have necessarily been deacons.

As said best at the ministry of "Christian-ThinkTank.com", if looking up the article entitled "Polygamy in the NT Period << The Christian ThinkTank..." ( )

​

Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism (by the government/aristocratic leaders):


"In the Second Temple period, Jewish society was, at least theoretically, polygamous, like other oriental societies of the time but in contrast to the neighboring Greek and Roman societies...."[HI:JWGRP:85]

"There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]
​

J. P. Holding of "Tektonics.org" gave another perspective on the issue I thought was intriguing...in which he explains why God would have permitted polygamy in the OT. As said there:

"Polygamy is widely condemned as repugnant, if not immoral." So says one Skeptic, who goes in to cite instances of polygamy in the Bible, ranging from the mild (Jacob, two) to the outrageous (Solomon, who knows?).

The common response to this is to note that God nowhere endorses polygamy; Skeptics may respond that neither is it condemned. The only "condemnation" is implicit and by example. God created but one Eve for Adam. Multiple wives led, for most men who were polygamists, to multiple troubles.

Then shouldn't God have said something more direct? Not necessarily. Polygamy counts as one of those acts in the hierarchy of morals that has been reckoned at times to be a "necessary evil" -- not meaning, as some say, that God changes his mind about what is moral, but that what is moral may be superseded by what is moral on other grounds. To use the classic example, lying is wrong unless you have Jews in your cellar. Then lying becomes a moral imperative.

​

We therefore need only show that there are circumstances in which polygamy might be a moral imperative, and we can produce these, from a contextually neutral source. Karen Armstrong, certainly no friend of fundamentalism, notes in her biography of Muhammed [190-2] that early Islam allowed polygamy; it is still allowed in some Islamic circles today. Many critics view polygamy in terms of "pure male chauvinism" and a desire to have many bed partners. In some cases there was no doubt abuse in that direction; Solomon seems to have been a prime example, who paid the price of indiscretion via being drawn into idolatry.

However, Armstrong notes social factors in Muhammed's time that mitigated the "evil" of polygamy, and these factors apply just as readily in more ancient Biblical settings:

Polygamy was Muhammed's solution to the problem of orphans and widows.

• Men who died for whatever reason left behind sisters, daughters, and other relatives who needed protection. New guardians might not be scrupulous about administering the property of orphans and might even try to keep women unmarried so they could keep the of the deceased husband property.

• Polygamy allowed an already-married guardian with better interests for the survivors to step in, in an era before there were social, legal and governmental organizations to take up the case. Obviously these conditions applied in the earlier world of the ANE as well.

• Armstrong notes that there was probably a shortage of men in Arabia in Muhammed's era, "which left a surplus of unmarried women who were often badly exploited." Such women in the ANE found themselves compelled to take up a life of prostitution, and less scrupulous persons may resort to female infanticide.

Critics should therefore take some caution before condemning polygamy as "repugnant." The matter is not that simple; the practice would almost certainly be repugnant in our modern nation, because none of the social conditions exist which exert a moral influence making polygamy a "necessary evil." But there is a vast difference between our modern world and the ancient Near East.


​

On the issue of Polygamy, something that came to mind was the reality of what often happened within the OT continually...and on the issue, as God said to David:

II Samuel 12:7-9

7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

​

Of course, in light of the fact that God said explicitly that he gave the wives of David's enemies to marry them, there's the reality of why polygamy was allowed with leaders within the OT...and that just because it occurred did not mean it was ever God's Best, as God intended in Genesis 1-2 (and as Jesus said in Matthew 19) that God intended for man to be made for one woman.


It's understood that divorce was rampant in the OT, with women often harmed because of it...with the Lord having to make rules in order to ensure that it was not easy to divorce. For was given as a protection of the women divorced---as it'd serve to make it as difficult/expensive as possible to divorce since many women were left DESTITUTE after divorce.......and as it relates to polygamy, God put in place monogamous marriage---only to end up having man quickly wanting more than one woman (Gen 4: 19)--and thus, the Lord later sought to regulate the polygamous practice (Ex. 21: 10), even though He was never pleased with it necessarily ( Mal. 3: 16).


With the difficulty of polygamy issues, In real life, I've seen this in Human Services when it comes to working with others who from other countries.......for there was one time I was working with a woman whose parents were from West Africa---and there the men practice marrying many wives.

She grew up in the household seeing multiple mothers of children in the same household...and it often perplexed me to consider what would happen if they came to churches in the U.S. I'm reminded of what another said when pondering what to do with a man who already has more than one wife before coming to Christ.

There was a specific situation in Nigeria the man brought up where another had three wives, was later converted to Christ ...but perplexed on what he should do. He was wondering where should he send all of his wives away but one....and which ones should he put away. And the spiritual men who were in his life advised that he continue in his situation, in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 7 which mentions the wisdom of remaining in the situation one finds oneself when coming to Christ.


Of course, the man would not be an appropriate elder in the church according to NT Standards---though that would not exclude the man from giving advice as all believers are called to do when it comes to SUBMITTING to one another/encouraging one another in Christ...and as it relates to speaking to one another with Psalms/Hymns and Spiritual Songs, the man alongside his wives would still be called to do such (Ephesians 5:15-21, Colossians 3:16)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Wonderful piece of study, thank you dearly!

Glad to know it blessed you, sis

I somewhat never paid attention to that verse in Exodus. You surely prompted me to study more Scripture and meditate- I am sincerely grateful ,Easy

(I will consult already married women here re: practicality and benefits of having a few husbands vs. one. I am guessing if one husband is useful to have, more should be even better, but wil need more expert opinion. We will get back to you with the poll results

One is definately more than enough, just as ONE wife is more than enough. Heaven help people like Solomon, although having that many wives can be a benefit:

 

[Lulav]

He did... in this instance. There is not a sinless human being on the planet. Yeshua is the only one we are told kept every applicable commandment all the time.

No he did not. I never said he was sinless, he came out of a pagan society, so that is obvious, but HaShem called him out and he obeyed. When he was given commandments, instructions he kept them, if you continue to argue against this you are saying that the following is not the Truth found in Torah.

Genesis 26:4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky, I will give all these lands to your descendants, and by your descendants all the nations of the earth will bless themselves. 5 All this is because Avraham heeded what I said and did what I told him to do he followed my mitzvot, my regulations and my teachings."----

This shows that He was not as explicit as you are saying, that he did not specify that the promised child was to be from his first wife only, so therefore he did not sin, nor ignore the L-RD.

The reason that Israel went into the promised land, the reason there was an Israel to start with is because Abraham obeyed. And he is very explicit that it was the mizvot, the regulations and the Torah, teachings. To me that leaves no room for argument.

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Is this version more explicit?

Agreed. Abraham was a Torah keeper. You're right. But in this one instance, at least, he failed to follow an instruction. It's a pretty major deal, too, considering what it has led to in modern times.

Again, you are disregarding what the L-RD said to Isaac. Did the L-RD say that he obeyed and kept his commands, except for that one time? Not in any bible I've ever read. I think that you are seeing what has happened because of this and judging it and bringing the blame back to someone that the L-RD didn't. The L-RD is the one that choose to bless Ishmael, for whatever reason, we shouldn't argue with that.

You don't like my assessment of what happened between Abraham and Sarah? Would you prefer I draw the conclusion that no man should ever follow a female's advice, as was suggested? I really don't understand the point of your concern.

It's not about an 'assessment', it's about writing something as fact when the document clearly does not agree. You are accusing Avenu Avraham of sinning when it clearly says he did not, that is my concern.

What I meant by, "End of story", was that there is no further clarification regarding whether this interaction could possibly be used to justify male domination forever thereafter.

He took her advice. The result was disastrous. I really don't know how anybody's feelings have anything to do with the analysis of the situation. Especially in light of the fact that the passage was referenced only because it is sometimes used to justify subjugating females. That was the question I was addressing. Not Sarah's personal angst while going through the situation.

The way you put is is that Sarah lead him astray and he followed her and sinned, which is not what happened.

Originally Posted by Lulav

The L-RD certainly could have intervened and stopped him or he could have, knowing this would happen, tell him that it had to be Sarai, but he didn't not until later. When it came time to sent Hagar and Ishmael away, Abraham did not want this, but Adonai told him to listen to his wife. If he could tell him to listen to her, he certainly could have told him not to listen to her before.
​

What's the saying? "Would uv, could uv, should uv"? All I did was observe what the text actually says. I didn't speculate on anything, to the best of my knowledge. How is my observation flawed? And what lesson would you draw from the situation, regarding male leadership?

I was not speculating, I was showing that since the L-RD didn't stop Abraham, nor did he say after that he had sinned we need to respect that he wanted this to happen, we don't have to understand why. Now if when the L-RD told him to listen to Sarah when she said for him to sent Ishmael away, and he didn't because he really didn't want to do this, then you could have reason to say he sinned.

 

[Henaynei]

By now all here know what a quiet shrinking violet doormat I tend to be; how i struggle to find the nerve to express my opinion, how I so very rarely state or support that which conflicts with the majority voice.

NOT!!!! LOL

I am a woman, a strongly opinionated woman, a well studied, intelligent and independent woman.

I am not offended in the least that G-d has chosen to create me as woman or that He has chosen that men should have leadership in society, in the faith community, governance and in the home.

 

[Yahudim]

We all knew this would stay about women rabbis for long. Oh well.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am a woman, a strongly opinionated woman, a well studied, intelligent and independent woman.

I am not offended in the least that G-d has chosen to create me as woman or that He has chosen that men should have leadership in society, in the faith community, governance and in the home.

Thank goodness for women who truly do value men leading, as we live in times where it does seem that there's not enough focus upon male leadership, even though women have led in beautiful capacities throughout the ages. This is mentioned especially in light of the many who've had to live life as single mothers with children when men were nowhere to be found...and although it does have a detrimental effect impact on the community, it is nonetheless appreciated to see the many ways women have held strong. Being a person of color, this has been a very hot-button issue for myself growing up since I had a single mother growing up....a working mother at that seeking to support/do what the Lord did. In many ways, she was many of the things men should have been if they were available---and I'll always be thankful. There are many conversations that've occurred on the need for families to be established/men to rise up---as seen here, here , here, here and here /here at Fatherlessness As Child Abuse? - La Shawn Barber's Corner./

'From Fatherless to Fatherhood' [CNN: 6-17-2011] ​

When it comes to discussions on male leadership in favor of women rabbis, it does seem that there's no other place where it's more focused than with the home when it comes to women often being forced into leadership positions that men should have been taking.

There was a film that came out recently on the issue that really brought the issue home, entitled "Courageous" and it really brought the point home on how so many families are being broken because the women is forced into being the "rabbi" of the family rather than the man.​

Courageous - Opening Scene
Courageous Ending Scene
Courageous - The Father's Resolution (Scene) ​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If you are interested in a different perspective, J.K. McKee has a good article here: TNN Online: FAQ - W

EXCELLENT article..and many thanks for sharing

J.K. McKee has often shared his thoughts in a very reasonable manner and always has amazing insights..and his views on women were spot-on. Where I've always stood on the subject of women in leadership is that the scriptures do not condemn it--and the cultural dynamics make sense when considering how women with freedom in Pauls time were abusing it...thus leading to Paul speaking on certain things being allowed.

In the event that women sat on one side of the fellowship and men on the other, women asking questions would be the equivalent of them yelling across...and that would be distracting. Thus, what Paul noted in I Timothy 2-3 was not about women being "silent" simply because they had nothing good to say in the fellowship. Rather, it was about waiting to ask certain questions at home so as to not be distracting. What has happened, however, is that many have taken what Paul said and divorced it from the historical context of the situation...and have thus DEMANDED that women keep their mouths shut while the men do all the talking. That's reckless treatment of the scriptures in my opinion.

The same thing happens whenever texts such as I Corinthians 11 comes up...a text which I agree with when it comes to head coverings, although I do believe that one has a context others often forget when it comes to seeing what head coverings symbolized in that era and what Paul already noted of women positions that gave them prominence (more shared in here , here and #46 ).

There are ALOT of reasons as to why women in leadership is not condemned within the Word...and within the context of men leadership/submission, what I think others often forget is that what the Lord asked for with headship is for the man to ensure that He and his Wife are ONE. Not He in DOMINANCE over her, or in refusal to listen to her and counsel...but oneness before the Lord/submission to what He desires (more discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here ).

For others that often say women leading goes against what Paul says, I have to wonder how the logic plays out fully. Does the 1 Tim 2-3 passage intend to say that a woman cannot have a pastoral gifting?

I would answer, “No”.

Our problem is that we equate leadership within the Christian Church as being the CEO/Pastor who acts as a Boss and through whom all teaching, edification, instruction, encouragement, (and many of the other 28 spiritual gifts described throughout the NT) are flowing.

This is not a Biblical position. According to 1 Cor 12, God has designed His Church to act relationally. He has given everything the Body needs to function and grow to the Body, through His Holy Spirit, which lives within each member of this Body.

Read 1 Cor 12 and you will NOT see where God has provided one elect leader or member from whom all the gifts flow to everyone else so that they can grow, mature, receive mercy, etc.

What God DID do was to give all of the gifts to various people distributed throughout the Body. He even made sure that the encouragement you need is available from someone else in the Body. This means you need the rest of us. It means we need you. We need each other to grow, mature, etc.

As to the question of women as leaders/elders, this is a bit more tricky.

Yes, Paul appears to teach that women shouldn’t have any authority within the Body in 1 Tim 2-3. However, he also teaches that a woman should cover her head when she Prophesies. (see 1 Cor 11:4-5)

Prophecy is one of the greatest “leadership” gifts in the entire Body (see 1 Cor 14: 1-5), and in Paul’s vision of Church, women are allowed to Prophesy!

What is prophesy except to speak to the Body a message from God for their edification and strengthening in Christ?

Also, Paul often says things with a qualifier like, “I am saying this, and not the LORD…” or, as in 1 Tim 2-3, “I do not allow…” but he leaves room for us to disagree with him in these matters of cultural preference. We do not have that same privelege when Paul leaves off that qualifier.
__________________


There's a ministry by another who leads a Charismatic House Church Movement around the world---named David Shepherd of "Heaven's Family"--and he wrote on the issue in an article which I think would bless you greatly, as seen in Women in Ministry . It's not really an issue seeing that I grew up experieincing a good bit of the House Church Movement.. where it wasn't an issue since preaching/teaching took on a different context when in the home/based on an "particaptory, all priest are ministers" perspective...rather than from the pulpit or "clergy/laity" distinction of one individual having authority over all.

Apart from that, when reading the Word, I do believe there's more than enough room to say that women having freedom to teach other women like TItus 2 says (and it should be that way)...but I also believe that it doesn't end there either...

G

1 Corinthians 11
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man


1 Corinthians 14
29 Let two or three prophets speak , and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
​

The main text most go to when it comes to women teaching is the one found in I Timothy 2Paul allowed women to prophecy as long as they had their head covered. The way Paul uses prophecy in this letter tells me that it wasn’t to just be excepted but “weighed”. Then comes my problem found in 1 Corinthians 14 when Paul says:

“31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged,”
​

​

What seems clear is that this prophecy is the same prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11 was for two reasons

1. Learn
2. Encourage
​

If using a lexicon/concordance, the word encourage is the Greek word “&#960;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#945;&#955;&#8051;&#969;” or “parakale&#333;” This is the same word which is found in 2 Timothy 4:2 and Titus 2:15 and was commanded for every believer to do in Hebrews 10:25. I also realize that prophecy was a “higher” gift as found in the order of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12


That said, some questions to consider on the issue:

1. What is this prophecy found in 1 Corinthians 11

2. How is Paul would allow a woman to prophecy which is a higher gift than teaching, in 1 Corinthians 11 but then in turn tell them not to teach in 1 Timothy 2?

3. If Prophecy included instruction and exhortation for learning and women were able to do that in 1 Corinthi ans 11 ( plus here, Ephesians 5:18-20Ephesians 5/Colossians 3 ), how is that they are learn in silence (1 Timothy 2) and remain silent (1 Cor 14)--as clearly WOmen prophesied...
​

4. If Paul tells us to seek and even “covet” (zeloo or zealous) prophecy why do we not pray for this in our local gatherings....and when it does occur, do we restrain the women from appreciating it?
​

With teaching---which all women and men are called to do toward one another---I do wonder many times why many may have issue.....and it does seem to be a bit subjective at times. In a classroom people meet together on a regular basis. There has to be a person in charge to facilitate and give direction (all in the classroom are human beings but someone is neeeded to lead). That is the teacher’s duty. The teacher brings the lessons, and follows the curriculum that is set forth by the administrator who is in authority. Now imagine being a student in the class where everyone can come in and share along in the material they are all learning. Imagine hearin g what someone else has gained in knowledge etc, and found insight on? How valuable is that to have a student give insight in on something that you may have been struggling with.

The teacher has said it, but you didn’t really learn it until you were able to hear it from a student who’s learning just like you. Isn’t that which the student gave you higher than that what the teacher gave? It is the same thing, but your understanding really kicked in when the student said it. You learned and are encouraged. So let’s say that the administrator says only a man can be teacher in the classroom, although the classroom is filled with women and men. The teacher allows the women and men students to share.

Is learning and encouragement taken away from because the teacher must be a man? No. So why would God restrict women from sharing in love prophecy that would edify, exhort and encourage the brethren. That’s higher gift to receive from, even though the sound doctrine is coming from the pastor- teacher who is a man. Jesus Christ is our Teacher, yet His compassion, exhortation, instruction, and comfort is higher gifts to receive

And for another perspective, here's something to consider. If you get a word directly from the Administrator to edify, build up and even instruct (which all prophecy does) don’t you become higher than the teacher though? So for example if the administrator tells one of the students, “hey I know the professor has a word prepared but I have something I want to say which has higher “authority” than your professor and I need you to tell the class this urgent message”. How would that fit into the scheme of things. That person then becomes a teacher not in position but from a directive from the authority.

I may be wrong in stating such....but that seems to be worth pondering for the future. For something else to consider as well:

Romans 16:13
Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.

​

Though I understand the passages on women/teaching, this has always been something that has struck out to me. For when I consider the role of mothers with their sons, I cannot help but think about it is never a matter of serving—which in itself can be considered another form of teaching since it’s teaching a principle by demonstration even when words are absent (if the passage of teaching being forbidden for w omen is to be taken in the ABSOLUTE sense of the word)………but I also remember how mothers have had times where they speak into the lives of their sons and check them with authority, whether in admonishment or rebuke in saying things like “Boy, have you lost your mind? Stop that foolishness”. That said, I cannot help but wonder what the relationship was like between Paul.

When it comes to women teaching, I’m curious as to how in the WOrld it is the case that women in the OT had freedom to proclaim and instruct others in the Lord in a myriad of ways/there was NO historical record of it ever being an issue—from Huldah with King Josiah when she was a prophetess who told the king what to do and whose advice was sought by from men to people like Anna who was also a Prophetess in the temple in Luke 2….and even Esther, who saved an entire NATION due to her leadership—-and yet today, in the Church, it’s the case that they lost that right/perspective and it became a bad thing for them to have leadership roles.

If we’re to be progressing in the New Covenant, then to me this seems like we went BACKWARDS in churches today when it seems that the privelages/respect women had as well as influence was curtailed…..even though in Christ, more freedom was to occur. And on the issue, I wonder just how far one takes it.

 

[Henaynei]

Courageous - most excellent film!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Courageous - most excellent film!

Goodness...one of the few films that I got emotional on when seeing it fully and realizing the full impact of what happens when there's a gap in male leadership. Although many often discuss men in leadership from the perspective of what happens in the pulpit, I think what Paul was discussing alongside others in the scriptures was from a more holistic perspective...and seeing things from the perspective of not thinking men are better than women---but more specifically, that there are some things that get out of whack when strong male leadership is not in focus. Although I do believe the scripture does allow for women in positions of leadership, I think the focus of such positions should always lead to remembering the need for men to be leading the way in the home...and in the church in regards to standing up against the enemy.

Too many men do exactly what Adam did with Eve when the enemy/serpent came to tempt man...and Adam LET Eve do the combat/dialouge while he stood there the entire time (knowing fully what the Lord had commanded) and said nothing. Silence truly is something that kills others..and THE SILENCE OF ADAM is a big problem if allowed to continue.

 

[SAM Wis]

Please forgive my knee-jerk reaction. This forum, sadly is not one to have discussion for the sake of discussion, which I love, instead it is like trying to talk with a few like-minded people over one shoulder while brandishing a sword to fight off those who only come here to cause contention.


What a great description, however sad it is! Sort of a Nehemiah approach: keep on working with the trowel in one hand and the sword in the other and refuse to let the Sanballat's of life intrude! So this is what I should expect, if I continue participating here, as a matter of course?

I understand where you are coming from, and wish everyone here were the same but that isn't to be. Because of coming from so many backgrounds, words, culture, and thought processes are all different. It's like the Tower of Babble after HaShem went down!

It's a struggle, and very wearying. please accept my apologies and misunderstandings and 'jumping the gun'?

Oh, I am relieved to "hear" this, thank you for a quick response. apology most certainly accepted.

 

[SAM Wis]

Goodness...one of the few films that I got emotional on when seeing it fully and realizing the full impact of what happens when there's a gap in male leadership.



Yes, agree! Sherwood Films and the Kendrick brothers did a great job once again. My husband stood up and applauded in the theatre at the end.
Their earlier one, Facing the Giants, we think is a "Christian" version of the same story told in Ushpizin, another excellent movie. (You'll never look at an etrog the same way again after seeing this!)

Too many men do exactly what Adam did with Eve when the enemy/serpent came to tempt man...and Adam LET Eve do the combat/dialouge while he stood there the entire time (knowing fully what the Lord had commanded) and said nothing. Silence truly is something that kills others..and THE SILENCE OF ADAM is a big problem if allowed to continue.

I will need to follow up and read this article, thanks!

You know this is part of the struggle here: For long years, people have viewed Eve as "evil" and that all women are still paying the price for her error...and more recently, it seems more teaching is aware that Adam didn't provide the covering he should have...
but for me? I don't think either one carried out what they were called to do: Eve was not the ezer knegdo she should have been, and Adam was not the covering/protector he should have been.

Human beings are the only part of creation that isn't obligated to fulfill their function as every other aspect of creation must do. ...choosing to avoid an entire free will discussion here......but in the final analysis, all have sinned and fallen short...and how grateful and humble we must be for Messiah's work on all of our behalf.

Amazing how a question of whether women should be accorded the title of "rabbi" has wandered so far and wide.

For that matter, how appropriate is it for anyone to have that title?

”You must not be called teacher because you are all brothers of one another and have only one teacher.”

Matthew 23:8

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, agree! Sherwood Films and the Kendrick brothers did a great job once again. My husband stood up and applauded in the theatre at the end.
Their earlier one, Facing the Giants, we think is a "Christian" version of the same story told in Ushpizin, another excellent movie. (You'll never look at an etrog the same way again after seeing this!)

Didn't really like "Facing the Giants" that much, even though it had ALOT of great parts within it. "Courageous" was truly my favorite thus far...

In fact, it's hands down one of the greatest (if not the best) film I've seen on the many complexity of what happens when people "father"/grow everything else except what needs to be fathered.

From the father going to jail for not doing what he knew was true, to the young man caught up in the streets/gangs because he had the wrong kind of "fathers" deep movie...to the young brother not making his baby pay because of what he/her mom did. Film was truly nothing but REAL talk...and what folks need to be talking about.

For the first time I saw it in part, there were some scenes I had to turn away from because of how deep they hit---like the scene where one of the cops who signed on got caught/taken to jail. That one is truly one of the most powerful I've witnessed, as it brings home the point that not everyone is prison is waiting to have a family or criminals to be locked away with no concern. Really made me remember why places such as the folks at the following:


National Fatherhood Initiative with their program called "Inside Out Dad" ( )


There's also another known as "Prison Fellowship" ( ).

So thankful that Tragedies don't have to remain as such as long as there're people helping to connect people so they can transform into Triumphs...and with helping men become men/fathers, there are truly few things that are as beautiful:




So easy to see a film like that/think "So excited to be a father" (or a mentor figure)--and yet not even consider the MANY folks behind bars asking "Will you help me with my son so he doesn't end up here?"...and just as we ask parents not make children "pay" for mistakes that the parents made, I wonder if perhaps the community does the same thing from a wider perspective when it comes to only looking out for your own---and never considering where you could take someone in/mentor them rather than looking at them as if they are simply a "casualty" of the war on fatherhood.

Fatherless

A Great Review of Courageous" ( )

Xavier's Story: NFI's Connections Project

​

​

I will need to follow up and read this article, thanks!

You know this is part of the struggle here: For long years, people have viewed Eve as "evil" and that all women are still paying the price for her error...and more recently, it seems more teaching is aware that Adam didn't provide the covering he should have...

There's a reason why the curse seemed to come through Adam as it concerns the world falling because of Him..with Christ having to be the Second Adam (Romans 5, I Corinthians 15). And as Paul noted in I Timothy 2:12 , it was Eve who was decieved..

but for me? I don't think either one carried out what they were called to do: Eve was not the ezer knegdo she should have been, and Adam was not the covering/protector he should have been.

So true. Neither was really seeking to support one another. And in many ways, leadership was their focus in a skewed sense since Adam wanted to be in charge without taking initiative/protecting and serving as his calling demanded, whereas Eve wanted to lead and help without listening to her covering (Adam), challenging him to step up and helping him by encouraging him to do His job rather than choosing to do it alone/let him passively watch.

Human beings are the only part of creation that isn't obligated to fulfill their function as every other aspect of creation must do. ...choosing to avoid an entire free will discussion here......but in the final analysis, all have sinned and fallen short...and how grateful and humble we must be for Messiah's work on all of our behalf.

Amazing how a question of whether women should be accorded the title of "rabbi" has wandered so far and wide.

Seeing how intricate the subject is and how it literally is the source for a host of other issues that generally come up, it's not surprising..

For that matter, how appropriate is it for anyone to have that title?

”You must not be called teacher because you are all brothers of one another and have only one teacher.”

Matthew 23:8

Personally, if I may suggest, I'd would be more specific. For there were multiple people throughout the scriptures in both OT and NT called teachers and leaders....and many often miss the wider context of what Christ said

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As it concerns Women Rabbis, there are times I considered my highschool teachers and college professors as such...for they were instructing/being looked to for knowledge, regardless of whether the classrooms were co-ed or not. If they're not to be considered teachers in any sense due to being women, I wonder where exactly to draw the line.


If my mother—who is an OB-Gyn Doctor—comes in to give a speech concerning what to do when having children and avoiding certain kinds of problems during pregnancies so that the entire body is edified—does that mean that she’s in sin because she gave instruction that was both important to men and women? Some would say “Well, she wasn’t teaching scripture…” and say that she was in the clear due to not “preaching”—but that’s a bad comparision, IMHO, as it starts from the premise that there’s somehow a disconnect between scripture and real life, which Scripture speaks to and calls us to glorify Christ in ALL THINGS since all things are spiritual. So again, how would what she’s doing in regards to giving both practical/biblical instruction on issues be a sin?
__________________

 

[someguy14]

Amazing how a question of whether women should be accorded the title of "rabbi" has wandered so far and wide.

For that matter, how appropriate is it for anyone to have that title?

”You must not be called teacher because you are all brothers of one another and have only one teacher.”

Matthew 23:8

Excellent.

Matthew 23:8-9

 

[someguy14]

As it concerns Women Rabbis, there are times I considered my highschool teachers and college professors as such...for they were instructing/being looked to for knowledge, regardless of whether the classrooms were co-ed or not. If they're not to be considered teachers in any sense due to being women, I wonder where exactly to draw the line.

Perhaps K-12 is considered a place to watch and take care of children while mother's are forced to work to help pay bills due to higher cost's, when women could be raising the children instead of some strangers? Perhaps greed is the problem? Inflation and men do not simply make enough to keep up with cost's from greedy society to pay the bills and pay for food on the table to supply his family?

And perhaps college classes consist of "elders", instead of "teachers"? Experienced? Giving all glory to God alone as The Teacher?

(so many queastion marks. it's a little tough to respond with so many rules)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Perhaps K-12 is considered a place to watch and take care of children while mother's are forced to work to help pay bills due to higher cost's, when women could be raising the children instead of some strangers? Perhaps greed is the problem? Inflation and men do not simply make enough to keep up with cost's from greedy society to pay the bills and pay for food on the table to supply his family?

)

Not fully seeing how that'd all tie in with whether or not it's wrong to have women as rabbis/teachers in certain settings.

And perhaps college classes consist of "elders", instead of "teachers"? Experienced? Giving all glory to God alone as The Teacher?

(so many queastion marks. it's a little tough to respond with so many rules

I'd say that not all elders have the gift of being a teacher, even though they teach...and yet all teachers are elders. With women, it'd be no different. And to be clear, with women in leadership, I also see it in terms of women in the workplace who govern righteously over men (i.e. Ceo of a Buisness, Doctor/Medical director, Administration, Stewartship, etc).

Some of this also goes into the issue of whether or not women can be worship leaders/glorify the Lord in leadership just as the Priests did in the temple when David had certain ministers set up to do music. We do see within scripture other women who led others in song...(Exodus 15 , Judges 5 , etc )