Women rabbis

[someguy14]

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.

None are considered "rabbi's", neither male or female, only God. That encourages all of us to give full credit to God alone. Focus and full attention, God alone is worthy of all glory.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What do you guys think about women being rabbis or a husband and wife both being rabbis at a congregation?

Ultimately, scripture is the standard...and IMHO it speaks repeatedly on women ordained. The woman over the church in II John 2 is always interesting to consider, amongst many others:

G
2 John 1:1-3/2 John 1


1 The elder,

To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth— 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: 3 Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love.

It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us. 5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

__________________


In the New Testament, the Apostle John’s second letter is addressed “to the chosen lady and to her children” (eklektē kuria kai tois teknois autēs). In this short letter, John warns the lady and her children about false teachers “who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (verse 7), instrucint them not to offer hospitality to the false teachers (10-11) and seeking to encourage them in their faith. Εklektē means “chosen” or “elect”. This woman was obviously a Christian, chosen by God, as all Christians are. While it is more likely that the word “elect” is simply used to describe the lady, Clement of Alexandra believed that Eklektē was actually this woman’s name; a name we would translate as “Electa”. If so, eklektē kuria in 2 John 1 could be translated as “to Lady Electa”. The sister mentioned in the last verse of 2 John is also given the description as being “elect”; as is a woman in Babylon, cryptically mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13. Clement of Alexandria actually believed that the woman in Babylon (in 1 Peter 5:13) was the same person as the chosen lady in 2 John 1. In his notes about 2 John, Clement wrote: “The second Epistle of John, which is written to Virgins, is very simple. It was written to a Babylonian lady, by name Electa . . .”

It would be excellent if there could be discussion on that one aspect....for so much focus gets upon Paul in his stance that all other writers of Epistles are not even remembered..

Outside of that, Paul tells of women who were the leaders of such house churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in I Corinthians 16:19). This practice is confirmed by other texts that also mention women who headed churches in their homes, such as Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). Women held offices and played significant roles in group worship. Paul, for example, greets a deacon named Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and assumes that women are praying and prophesying during worship (I Corinthians 11). As prophets, women's roles would have included not only ecstatic public speech, but preaching, teaching, leading prayer, and perhaps even performing the eucharist meal. A later first century work, called the Didache, assumes that this duty fell regularly to Christian prophets. Additionally, The African church father Tertullian, for example, describes an unnamed woman prophet in his congregation who not only had ecstatic visions during church services, but who also served as a counselor and healer (On the Soul 9.4). ).

Montanist Christians ordained women as presbyters and bishops, and women held the title of prophet. The third century African bishop Cyprian also tells of an ecstatic woman prophet from Asia Minor who celebrated the eucharist and performed baptisms (Epistle 74.10). In the early second century, the Roman governor Pliny tells of two slave women he tortured who were deacons (Letter to Trajan 10.96). Other women were ordained as priests in fifth century Italy and Sicily (Gelasius, Epistle 14.26).


There are two others that are very significant....and who many have debated about since they could be considered apostles, as in Romans 16:16-17 Paul praises a woman named Junia as "outstanding among the apostles."

Romans 16:6-8
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

The language issue/translation is mainly why there's debate, but there are many academics who've been of the mindset that having a female translation was the correct one ....and with that one, it always seems to be something that gets ALOT of people upset--for many cannot handle the idea that women were actually ministers of the Gospel just as the male apostles were. For more info, some good resources to consider on the matter would be the following:

• The Apostle Junia - God's Word To Women
• Junia . . . Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7)
• Women in Ministry: Is There a Biblical View? >> The Naked Bible
• Women in Ministry: Why the Issue Matters - Ancient Hebrew Poetry
• Junia or Junias, what does the evidence tell us ... - Michael S. Heiser

Of course, for myself---after reading the Word in-depth/being in a myriad of camps, I really do not have a problem with women being in leadership positions...especially as it relates to the Gospel.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

None are considered "rabbi's", neither male or female, only God. That encourages all of us to give full credit to God alone. Focus and full attention, God alone is worthy of all glory.

To make an argumentation that none are considered "rabbis" would require one to show in scripture where none in the NT were either called RABBI's or teachers...something that wasn't the case since there were numerous referneces in scripture to leaders/teachers repeatedly. And having rabbis/teachers doesn't mean one thinks God alone is not worthy of glory or that attention is focused on Him. To say such would not be any more accurate than one saying that angels take away God's glory because of the different levels the Lord has set up and how he has made some to be rulers/princes while some are apart of his bodyguard (Cherubs) and others are worship leaders (Seraphims). Even Yeshua referred to others as teachers and appointed others as such...and although many may run to Matthew 23 to make an ultimate case against any teachers, the text has a context in connection with the entirety of what Yeshua said.

Many say that Yeshua told his disciples “not” to be called “leader”But actually that is not quite correct. For starters, it goes counter to what Christ told others such as Peter in Matthew 16 when he already noted the man to be a leader He'd raise up. ..and the scriptures again note where leadership in the form of teachers/rabbis is present ( James 3:1-3, Acts 13:1-3 , 2 Timothy 1:10-12, Hebrews 5:11-13 , etc ). But beyond that, what he actually said in Matthew 23:8-10 was that his disciples are not to be called “Rabbi”, or “Father”, or “Teacher/Master”. The last of these words is difficult: kathēgētēs, a word used in the New Testament only in 23:10 – not the usual Greek word for “teacher”, didaskalos, as in Ephesians 4:11, but also not the word for “master” or “lord”, kurios, in Ephesians 6:5. The word is related to English “hegemony” but also to “exegete”, and I guess that illustrates its ambiguity in Greek. D.A. Carson, writing on this verse in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, says:

it seems wiser to take kathēgētēs as a synonym for didaskalos.
​

In other words, one of the world’s top exegetes agrees that this word means not “master” but “teacher”, as rendered in NIV and TNIV, cf. NRSV “instructor”. I don’t think we have any real evidence that “Jesus told His disciples not to be called master/leader”. But even if we do accept the KJV and RSV rendering “master” this does not imply that Jesus was rejecting all leadership. After all, this passage in Matthew seems to me to be about accepting titles, not about executing functions. I’m sure he didn’t intend to forbid teaching in the church or the secular world, still less to forbid fatherhood. So, even if he did forbid the use of titles like “master” or even “leader”, his point was not to forbid people from exercising leadership functions.

This is made clear from Jesus’ teaching elsewhere. For example, in Luke 22:26 (TNIV) he teaches

the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

​

“The one who rules” in Greek is ho hēgoumenos, rendered “he that is chief” in KJV and “the leader” in RSV and NRSV. In Matthew’s parallel, 20:27, and in Mark’s, 10:44, Jesus’ words (perhaps spoken on a different occasion) are presented as “whoever wants to be first”. The Greek words ho hēgoumenos are again related to the English “hegemony”. But it is significant that this is not the noun hēgemōn “ruler”, used for example of secular governors in Luke 21:12. Rather, it is the participle of the verb hēgeomai “rule”, and so is correctly rendered “the one who rules”, suggesting a role which might be temporary rather than a permanent position of authority. But since the word “rule” is used in current English mainly of secular authority, perhaps “the one who leads” would be better in context.

The same participle form is used in Hebrews 13:7,17,24, rendered “your leaders” in TNIV. A good suggestion would be to change to “those who lead you”. Acts 14:12 (TNIV “chief”) and 15:22 (TNIV “leaders”) appear to be the only other uses in the New Testament of the hēgeomai word group relating to Christian leadership. THus, it doesn't seem that Christ was speaking against leadership. For a good review on the issue, one can go here to Reimagining church without worldly hierarchy - Gentle Wisdom

 

[someguy14]

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...

Absolutely. These titles given by men are only that, titles. All glory belongs to God. Gods way is perfect and guides each heart of His own, to do His will. Some that consider themselves "teachers", are all teachers exactly alike or does God give and take as He wills? Yet isn't He, God alone, The only worthy of the title, Teacher? For then by understanding that all goodness IS of God, God recieves all The glory alone, and we in Him. Revelation 22:9. All of Gods own strengthen one another, it is God alone that strengthens Gods own.

 

[someguy14]

To make an argumentation that none are considered "rabbis" would require one to show in scripture where none in the NT were either called RABBI's or teachers...something that wasn't the case since there were numerous referneces in scripture to leaders/teachers repeatedly. And having rabbis/teachers doesn't mean one thinks God alone is not worthy of glory or that attention is focused on Him. To say such would not be any more accurate than one saying that angels take away God's glory because of the different levels the Lord has set up and how he has made some to be rulers/princes while some are apart of his bodyguard (Cherubs) and others are worship leaders (Seraphims). Even Yeshua referred to others as teachers and appointed others as such...and although many may run to Matthew 23 to make an ultimate case against any teachers, the text has a context in connection with the entirety of what Yeshua said.

I have no argument with you friend.
May God bless.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In reality, the authority structure, the relationship between a man and his wife, was setup as a result of the fall. The man ruling over the wife is part of the punishment of the fall.

From partnership to bullying...and now in the quest, via Christ, to go back to having Oneness in the Lord

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Absolutely. These titles given by men are only that, titles. All glory belongs to God. Gods way is perfect and guides each heart of His own, to do His will. Some that consider themselves "teachers", are all teachers exactly alike or does God give and take as He wills? Yet isn't He, God alone, The only worthy of the title, Teacher? For then by understanding that all goodness IS of God, God recieves all The glory alone, and we in Him. Revelation 22:9. All of Gods own strengthen one another, it is God alone that strengthens Gods own.

I think many times we get caught up focusing upon the vessels/titles that we forget the source of where it all comes, as you noted....and thus, we can needlessly take offense instead of remembering that the Lord can work with anything/anyone and has often gone against what others "expect" to make Himself glorified ( 1 Corinthians 1:19-21 /1 Corinthians 1 )

 

[SAM Wis]

I think many times we get caught up focusing upon the vessels/titles that we forget the source of where it all comes, as you noted....and thus, we can needlessly take offense instead of remembering that the Lord can work with anything/anyone and has often gone against what others "expect" to make Himself glorified ( 1 Corinthians 1:19-21 /1 Corinthians 1 )

Several thoughtful and excellent posts, I think 202 and 203, with very specific and well organized points. I have saved them in a doc for when I have time to check out the various links suggested. I think it may help in some writing I need to do, too! Many thanks!

It is a joy to see in these posts the ability to parse out concepts thoroughly and in a balanced way! All praise to Yeshua as He works through both His sons and daughters as He sees fit.

 

[visionary]

None are considered "rabbi's", neither male or female, only God. That encourages all of us to give full credit to God alone. Focus and full attention, God alone is worthy of all glory.

You are a part of the "royal priesthood"

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

 

[mishkan]

OK, so it looks like you take the posture that, "kept my commandments" means Abraham could not sin.

You also appear to be saying that, because Abraham received specific guidance on one or two issues, that every move he made had supernatural approval.

I disagree with both those assumptions.

The church has caricatured Torah observance to make it mean that one has kept every commandment perfectly. This is what I call, "mechanical perfectionism". It is a parody of Torah-keeping that demands we all turn into robots, and perform the commandments with mechanical precision.

To receive a commendation for following Hashem, one need not be a perfect little robot. David was commended by Hashem as "a man after my own heart", even while he committed adultery and murder.

As for whether Hashem approved of Abraham's actions... we cannot assume that there was any more communication than is revealed in the text. Maybe there was more, maybe not.

And you still have not addressed the original question, and how the passage with Abraham and Sarah relates to the topic of female subjugation. You clearly don't like my approach, so I'd like to see how you would address it differently.

 

[yedida]

It goes back to the difference in how one reads the Hebrew scriptures - as best we can with an ever-broadening understanding of the times and culture or our own understanding of what we would deem good and right today in our own eyes.

 

[Desert Rose]

Thanks to Etzion and Easy, for great study articles. Truly wonderful how we can be brothers,sisters,friends,all while disagreeing.
Yedida was right, quite an unprecedented case for online forums , sadly

*******************
From what i gather, i surely respect people that obey tradition of the church or ones borrowed from branches of judaism, but cant see it as definite God's command, sorry.

Too many holes in this theory. Regardless what name you give it, women in congregations do teach, and not only kids - if MJ cong acceps the bar mitzvah tradition, that means she in fact teaches adult males, if 13 y olds are in her class

Women do act as pastors - anyone familiar with missionary work and chruch plantings knows it. She is de facto a pastor until there is someone to take over the new congregation

Anyone older then 20 should know practical living on this earth enough to realise that in a family the GODLIER, more spiritually advanced is the true head. If a wife is better MJ,(or christian, or believer) then her husband she IS the spiritual lead, because she obeys God first, husband second. Its her responsibility to direct her husband from his less godly decisions( due to his lesser spiritual maturity) to godlier ones. She is the lead.

Sorry, sweet people that seem to believe otherwise, i just totally cant see your point at all. It doesnt make any practical sense. But love you just as much

 

[visionary]

Most stringent positions come from Paul's statement.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks to Etzion and Easy, for great study articles. Truly wonderful how we can be brothers,sisters,friends,all while disagreeing.

Yedida was right, quite an unprecedented case for online forums , sadly

Something interesting to consider, if women are not allowed to have ministry positions/leadership..

Anyone against women leading or teaching really has NO buisness being on an online forum seeking to speak/share their perspectives or teach amongst men, as they're in a position of authority when debating or saying that others are wrong for disagreeing at any point. When someone shared that with me once, I was a bit perplexed....for although I was comfortable with women in teaching positions, in the heat of online debate with others against it, I never considered that many condemining women in ministry and rebuking all of the men/women who felt otherwise were essentially exercising authority over others---yet they could not be touched because all were not in the same location. Whether that be with blogs or discussion forums..and amazingly, if/when you decided to call that out and note where it seemed to be innocent inconsistency at the least (and hypocrisy at the worse), it was defended.

But of course, from where I stand, this is what ALL of us are commanded to do (more shared here in #90) :

Colossians 3:16
Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.
Colossians 3:15-17

Ephesians 5:18-20
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.



​

 

[visionary]

In the last hours, God indicated that there were a lack of workers to help with the harvest. Ruth worked the fields, even if it is only the corners.

 

[yedida]

Sometimes one of us (male or female) come up with one of those precious gems in the field we hear so much about. This time Easy has brushed one off for us so we can see it shine its beauty.
I have often wondered the same thing that he brought up. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who has learned something new from a female poster! I doubt seriously that every male that read that particular post (whichever one it might have been, and there have been sooo many) already knew that gem that was found, shined and offered! No way!

 

[Lulav]

I didn't see any quotes, so at this point I am assuming you were speaking to me, even though there's lots of posts between mine and this one of yours?

OK, so it looks like you take the posture that, "kept my commandments" means Abraham could not sin.

No, I am not saying any such thing. All I am saying is that according to what the L-RD told Isaac, his father kept his commandments, and instructions, and to me that would mean that there was not an instruction to not listen to his wife, nor to not sleep with her maid.

You also appear to be saying that, because Abraham received specific guidance on one or two issues, that every move he made had supernatural approval.

Nope, not at all. You are the one who brought up the issue of the child promised and how it was Abram's fault because he listened to his wife. Sure, he was inpatient, sure his wife wanted to help, but by doing this I don't believe this was a sin as you propose.

I disagree with both those assumptions.

That's fine, because that is not what I'm saying here.

The church has caricatured Torah observance to make it mean that one has kept every commandment perfectly. This is what I call, "mechanical perfectionism". It is a parody of Torah-keeping that demands we all turn into robots, and perform the commandments with mechanical precision.

I don't know what the church has to do with this, or why this concerns me or what I am saying.

To receive a commendation for following Hashem, one need not be a perfect little robot. David was commended by Hashem as "a man after my own heart", even while he committed adultery and murder.

This is something the Church brings up too, is that the line you are following here? Let's for get what the church says and concentrate on the story. If you notice, the L-RD did not say that David keep the Torah, did he? And at that time it was official, as it was given to the nation and written down. What HaShem is speaking of to Isaac is the specific commands and instructions he had given to Abraham to which, according to the L-RD, he obeyed. You want to believe that he did not obey and that makes the L-Rd a liar. I never said Abraham was perfect, he made some bad choices, but that doesn't make him a sinner for it. At that time the L-RD had not specified that the child of promise of inheritance of the land, would be from not only himself but from his wife Sarai who was from the same bloodline,.

As for whether Hashem approved of Abraham's actions... we cannot assume that there was any more communication than is revealed in the text. Maybe there was more, maybe not.

It doesn't matter. We have what we have and no where does it say that by Abram sleeping with Haggar it was a sin, nor that he shouldn't have listened to Sarai to do so.

And you still have not addressed the original question, and how the passage with Abraham and Sarah relates to the topic of female subjugation. You clearly don't like my approach, so I'd like to see how you would address it differently.

Please point me to that original question, leave a post # or link and I will try to do so, it may be later as I am preparing for Shabbat.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

All used by the Lord...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who has learned something new from a female poster!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Women do act as pastors - anyone familiar with missionary work and chruch plantings knows it. She is de facto a pastor until there is someone to take over the new congregation

Something I thought you'd find interesting, as it came to my mind and I was a bit surprised by it:

Women Rabbis in Messianic Judaism – An important step in our in our maturation as a Judaism ...

As said there (for a brief excerpt):

​

In 1 Corinthians 16:19 we read:

The congregations of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the congregation that is in their house.
​

In the Brit Chadasha we get the reference to a fellowship of believers meeting in the home of Priscilla and Aquila and it is interesting that Priscilla’s name is mentioned first in Rav Shaul’s other references to her and Aquila, possibly making reference to her prime role as spiritual leader in their fellowship. So then it appears that from this reference that Rav Shaul acknowledged a leadership role for a woman, in this case Priscilla.

So in this example we can see a woman in a leadership role of a Messianic community. I think that this is an important example for us as the next generation of leaders to see that we do do have this example in the Brit Chadasha of a woman leading a congregation.
In the larger Jewish world there have been women rabbis in Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism for the last 20 or 30 years or so. For a fascinating study of women rabbis read the book, “Women Who Would Be Rabbis: A History of Women’s Ordination, 1889-1985″ by Pamela Susan Nadell.

I appreciate the halakhic thinking of Conservative Judaism that makes innovative rulings in concert with the tradition and in the case of women rabbis they did this very thing. Being that one of the main issues blocking women from the rabbinate is that women according to Jewish law are not required to perform time bound mitzvot. So then the halakhic committee of Conservative Judaism ruled that if a woman wanted to be a rabbi she would have to take upon herself the time bound commandments (thrice daily prayers, tefillin, tzitzit, for example). This being done and taking on these mitzvot as an obligation then women could study for the rabbinate.

Even in Orthodoxy there is more room for women in leadership roles than in the larger Messianic Jewish movement including the overseeing of Jewish schools and serving as halakhic advisors on specific issues of Jewish law in relation to women (family purity and other family issues).

So then from the Brit Chadasha and from the larger Jewish world there is acceptance and openness to women in leadership roles.


​

For others:

• A History of Women's Ordination as Rabbis
• Rabbis in the United States | Jewish Women's Archive
• A Forgotten Voice | Yinon Blog (Rabbi Regina Jonas )
• First African-American woman rabbi should challenge us | Yinon Blog
• Messianic Judaism: A Rabbi's Journey Through Religious Change in America
• Beyond the Imot – Women Rabbis and the Future of Messianic Judaism ...