• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Women ruling, a bad thing?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by addo, Apr 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Meepy

    Meepy Senior Member

    +52
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    Paul's words are God breathed. And since women flooded the workforce since they wanted to be their "own authority" they created an applicant surplus of workers. Companies could then offer less wages due to the great surplus.

    This is one reason why there should be a living wage, instead of a minimum wage. A living wage calculates the persons basic monthly and family expenses each month and comes to an agreement based on those basic needs, such as shelter, care and food.

    There are simply too many young women who should rather be in a marriage rather than flooding the workforce
     
  2. Tamara224

    Tamara224 Well-Known Member

    +2,240
    Charismatic
    Married


    Bad translation. Authentein (the word translated above as "have authority over" doesn't actually mean that.

    It's only used once in Scripture. The meaning of that word during the time that letter was written was "originator, as of murder."

    That passage in the letter to Timothy was addressing a specific gnostic female-goddess heresy that was cropping up in the church in Ephesus.
    That's not what the Bible says. That's people adding an unwarranted interpretation because they don't want to believe that a woman could be a leader. All the Bible tells us is that Deborah was a judge of Israel and a prophet to whom the word of the Lord came and through whom God delivered Israel.

    The only reason people try to add stuff to Scripture with regard to Deborah is because they begin with their conclusion (women can't lead) and force the text to fit their conclusion.

    Also... if it's a universal rule that women shouldn't rule over men.... Why is that not included in the many commandments God gave to Moses? And... furthermore, since when does God need men to be willing? Jonah, anyone? Paul? Don't tell me God couldn't have smacked Barak over the head and forced him to lead Israel if it was important for a penis-bearing human to do that job.

    I tell you what.... you give me an explicit Scripture reference for the theory that "God only uses women when men aren't available". Until you do, though, please know that you're reading into Scripture.
     
  3. Tamara224

    Tamara224 Well-Known Member

    +2,240
    Charismatic
    Married
    That doesn't mean you understand them correctly.

    Is that why you work? Because you want to be your "own authority"?

    And exactly how does that work out? I mean, at work, I'm under the authority of my boss. If I were to stay at home all day, I'd only answer to myself. I'd be poor. But I'd be my "own authority."

    Isn't it more that you work because you need to eat and you can't eat unless you make some money to buy food?

    Guess what? That's the same reason women work.


    Okay. Women should be barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen making you a sandwich.

    Got it. :sigh:
     
  4. Kaitlin08

    Kaitlin08 Senior Member

    995
    +31
    Anglican
    US-Democrat
    I think Ben Witherington is right to point out that the verse (verse 12, not verse 13 as you quoted) is better rendered "I am not permitting [currently]."
    Literal Renderings of Texts

    If that's the correct rendering of the verse, then this was a rule for a particular situation where one woman was not teaching properly. It wasn't a ban on women being teachers or having other sorts of positions of authority.
     
  5. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git! Supporter

    +28,501
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    That is how the ISA interlinear renders it :wave:

    Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

    (tr) NT) 1 Timothy 2:12 gunaiki <1135> {TO WOMAN} de <1161> {YET} didaskein <1321> (5721) {TO BE TEACHING} ouk <3756> {NOT} epitrepw <2010> (5719) {I AM PERMITTING,} oude <3761> {NOR TO} auqentein <831> (5721) {BE DOMINEERING} androV <435> {OF MAN,} all <235> {BUT} einai <1511> (5750) {TO BE} en <1722> {IN} hsucia <2271> {QUIETNESS;}
     
  6. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +6,071
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    God does not contradict himself - there are other places in Scripture where women led, or instructed, men. You need to read that verse in context, and alongside other Scriptures, to find God's views on the subject.

    It would not have been impossible for God to raise up a male judge for Israel had he so wished. If it really was against his will for a woman to lead, why would he go against it by appointing one?
    Unless you're saying that God felt he had to settle for second best and appoint a woman? (Though there's no evidence for that.) If so, his "second best" led Israel for a number of years, and secured peace for the nation - as well as settling personal grievances. Not bad going!

    Huldah was a prophetess. When King Josiah wanted to know God's word, he sent men to find a prophet. These men went to her, (2 Kings 22:14) - yet Jeremiah was a prophet at this time too. (Jer 1:2; 2 Kings 22:3).
     
  7. Tamara224

    Tamara224 Well-Known Member

    +2,240
    Charismatic
    Married


    :thumbsup: So here's the million dollar question.....

    If authentien means "to domineer".... Then shouldn't we presume that this instruction is applicable to both sexes equally?

    After all... Christ told his male disciples:
    25 Jesus called them together and said, &#8220;You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave&#8212; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.&#8221;

    So... Jesus said that the disciples weren't even supposed to "exercise authority" over one another.

    And yet people read 1 Timothy 2:12 as doing 2 things: 1) forbidding women from teaching and 2) impliedly authorizing men to "exercise authority".

    Both of which contradict other Scripture.
     
  8. Harry3142

    Harry3142 Regular Member

    +199
    Anglican
    Married
    US-Republican
    Isaiah could be warning the people of Judah not to get into the mess that Israel had gotten into about 200 years earlier when Ahab took Jezebel as a wife and she promptly took over the kingdom. She brought in the priests of Ba'al, and rpomoted idol worship. Even Elijah had to flee her wrath and power.

    We cannot give a 'blanket assertion' that all women are unfit to rule. It's as foolish as for us to say that all men are capable of ruling. We can only say that we are to use good judgement as to whomever we permit to have roles of leadership.
     
  9. Tamara224

    Tamara224 Well-Known Member

    +2,240
    Charismatic
    Married
    :thumbsup:
     
  10. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +8,793
    Presbyterian
    Single
    But none of this is relevant to the passage. Isaiah is not saying that Israel has made a mistake by giving women authority in the Church. He's using this as a sign of the dire situation of Israel, after having been invaded and lots of people killed. First, there's no reason to think that the issue is women church leaders. It's more likely wives taking over for dead husbands. Second, this is not a decision that the people made after considering the implications of allowing women to lead. It's families where a wife or child is left the head of family in an emergency.

    Not everything is about our modern disagreements.
     
  11. Meepy

    Meepy Senior Member

    +52
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Try Isaiah 3:12


    Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path. - Isaiah 3:12

    God clearly here stated that women have rule or authority is the sign of a falling, disobedient, and sinful community

    And please, Timothy wasn't talking about a "gnostic female Goddess", as gnosticism didn't full come into account till after 150 A.D. from Valentanius. And the rest of the verse gives reasons as to why a woman cannot have authority over a man. For Adam was first created, and it was Eve who was the first one to be deceived, not Adam. There is nothing about "female goddesses", so I think you should take your own advice as far as "adding" or "reading" into the bible. The reason why woman cannot have authority over man is due to the fall, since Eve was second culpable after Satan, and thus Adam was put in authority over her (Genesis 3:16).

    I think the translators know better than you do. So I'll take the scholars side if you wanna play semantics.

    Barak abdicated his headship as a man and would not go to battle without Deborah (Judges 4:8). As Deborah accompanied Barak to Mount Tabor, she was not competing with him to take authority as a biblical woman over the armies of Israel, but she encouraged him as a mother and gave him a second chance to take back his biblical manhood and lead. Barak took this second challenge and led ten thousand Israelites against Sisera (Judges 4:14). Having taken a first step of faith back into his biblical manhood
    [FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]
    [/FONT]Biblical manhood was lost because of a failure of the men to take spiritual responsibility (Heber) and leadership responsibility (Barak). The men were in conflict with the Lord in obedience (Barak), in serving the Lord (Heber), in conflict with themselves (both), and in the case of Heber, in conflict with his wife Jael over serving the Lord.

    Deborah did not pursue a feminist/equality expansion of her biblical womanhood as post modern feminist would think and who try to use and abuse her as a feminist model, but rather arose as a judge by default being found in this position, and used of the Lord due to the vacuum caused by a lack of leadership on the part of the men. In this position Deborah took upon herself to serve not as a feminist in competition, but as "a mother" seeking to lead immature sons (the men of Israel) to the maturity of their headships and proper roles under biblical manhood.


    Genesis 3:16

    Ephesians 5:22

    There is a reason why women cannot be priests. The role of Deborah was not as a tool of God's judgment, but as an indictment against the men who had lost sight of the position and responsibilities of biblical manhood.

    The record given to us in Judges is an accurate account of God using persons and personages who were available and usable at different points when most of the nation was suffering from the effects of rebellion towards God and disobedience to His Laws and standards. Deborah arises in the midst of such a situation. She did not live during ordinary times nor under ordinary circumstances, yet God would use her as a women because the men had abdicated their spiritual and leadership responsibilities
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011
  12. Sphinx777

    Sphinx777 Well-Known Member

    +772
    Christian
    Private
  13. Tamara224

    Tamara224 Well-Known Member

    +2,240
    Charismatic
    Married
    Are you talking Old Testament priests? The ones who served by offering animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem?

    Because if those are our qualifications for priesthood... only Jews, only descendants of Levi are "qualified". Also, the disabled need not apply.

    If you're talking about NT priests then you're going to have to provide some Scriptural reference for your claim that women can't be priests. We're all royal priests now.

    Repetition doesn't make something true, magically.

    People keep claiming this but no one can point to any hint, even in the actual text of Scripture that says this.

    No where is it ever recorded that God said "women are only leaders when I can't find a man to do the job."

    If Deborah was a judgment against the men... then why did God use her to deliver the men (and women, and children) of Israel from judgment?

    That makes no sense.

    And are you really and truly saying that God is not capable of raising up godly men to do His work? Did you forget Jonah? Or Paul? Or Moses?

    Yeah, poor ineffective God, He just couldn't convince the male-folk to follow Him so He had to break His own rules and let a woman do the job. /sarcasm
     
  14. Kaitlin08

    Kaitlin08 Senior Member

    995
    +31
    Anglican
    US-Democrat
    Thank you. :) I looked up several translations of this verse on Bible Gateway, and they all use the present active, rather than the present progressive tense. I think that's unfortunate.
     
  15. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +6,071
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    No he isn't.

    This is the verse of the op, who asked if it is a bad thing to have women leaders.
    And as I said before, it depends how you understand that verse. The statements, "youths oppose my people, women rule over them", are not literal. The nation of Israel was not being oppressed by children, although verse 4 says that God would put children in authority over them. Maybe because the men were doing such a bad job of it. There was no queen on the throne at the time. Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, (Is 1:1)all men. Women were not ruling over the nation of Israel. So what does the verse mean? I don't know - but one commentator has suggested that this refers to the king's harem, who were influencing him. Maybe they were foreign princesses who wanted to make sure that he honoured their gods. So in effect, THEY were ruling the country - not the king. Whatever it means, it does not say that any community led by a woman has sinned and is bound to fail - how could it, since Deborah had been judge over all Israel.

    This verse is sometimes trotted out by those who believe that women shouldn't be ordained as "proof". It doesn't prove, or say, anything of the sort. I'm afraid that those who say that it does are reading into it.
     
  16. Meepy

    Meepy Senior Member

    +52
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    "I permit not a woman TO TEACH"

    "that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and SHE TEACHES and leads"



    Yea it also says in Exodus that we are a royal priesthood. Doesn't negate the issues of the hierarchical priesthood. Jesus chose 12 apostles, who were all men, not a woman among them. The early christian church never had women priests either and the ECF condemned them also. Only the heretical groups did like the gnostics and pagans.

    Never once were there women priests for nearly all of christian and Jewish history. Up only until around later 20th century when the Anglican Church allowed it and a few other fangled sects. Never was a part of the Abrahamic tradition or the apostolic Church. Never will be. Scripture and tradition testify to it. The 12 apostles testify. If Jesus wanted women bishops or priests, He would have instituted a female apostle, yet he didn't, and he had many chances to. This doesn't mean women cannot be a part of ministry however and cannot teach. However when they teach it must always be under the authority of the bishop and she must never preach from the pulpit. The pulpit was ordained only for men. However women can teach in other areas of ministry outside of the pulpit, and as long as the bishop ok's it. A woman who takes it unto herself to teach the pulpit is nothing more than a common Jezebel in revelation.



    Yes it is recorded. I just showed you in Isaiah 3:12. Which shows that women ruling is a sign of a falling empire where the men refused to do the job.

    We are not puppets that God dangles around. We have free will, which means humans can make mistakes and fall into sin. Look at the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles. There were many things that the Hebrews failed to do. Hence this is where Deborah comes into the equation, since she was put in an awkward position of a falling empire disobedient to God. Deborah wanted to be home and be a mother, but she was forced in a position due to the disobedience of the men at the time. Just like when men run out on their families and the mother is forced to do duties that are not acquainted with her nature.

    It is totally different than say today, where rebellious emboldened women try to take the teaching pulpit unto themselves for the sake of making a statement(Jezebel types). This is totally the opposite of Deborah's situation. As by nature women were never created as a type to lead just the same as children will never be boss of or lead/teach their parents. (Genesis 3:16)
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011
  17. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +6,071
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Why do you think it shows this?
    Where does it say that that's what it means?
     
  18. Tamara224

    Tamara224 Well-Known Member

    +2,240
    Charismatic
    Married
    Wow. You can do better than that, Meepy. Not even posting the whole sentence?

    Come now. Let's be adults. Honest adults.

    You know as well as I do that there are male false teachers mentioned in Scripture, too.

    If one male false-teacher doesn't invalidate all male teaching, then by what process of logic can you possibly reach the conclusion that one female false-teacher invalidates all female teaching?

    And do you not even care that you've ripped portions of Scripture out of all context? Not only cultural context, but the direct context of the surrounding passage?

    Does that not even cause your conscience even the littlest twinge of guilt for intellectual dishonesty?

    Seriously, I'm curious.

    The 12 apostles who were also all JEWISH. I guess those distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, man and woman should remain intact. Since Jesus had 12 male apostles, that must mean he only saves men.

    Oh, and as to your "hierarchy"... That's directly contrary to what Jesus taught. He said not to call one another "father" and "teacher" and He said not to "lord it over" one another.

    We're all one in Christ Jesus. There is no hierarchy among the disciples of Christ.

    The early Christian church never had priests, period.

    There is ample historical evidence that women were bishops, deacons, pastors and such in the early (1st and 2nd century) Church. From the NT writings themselves (e.g. Romans 16, Junia the apostle and Pheobe the deacon) to engravings on tombs and meeting places of Christians, we can see that women enjoyed the same 'status' in the early Church as men.

    There's no such thing as a "pulpit" in Scripture. Much less any evidence that the pulpit was, or could be, "ordained" at all, much less that it was "ordained" only for men.


    This is flaming. There are women in this thread who have stood at a "pulpit" and preached and taught. To call us "a common Jezebel" is an insult.

    I think an apology is in order.

    Well, let's see.... Nope. Sorry, buddy, but I went and had another look and I still don't see anything in that verse that says what you're saying.

    Check your glasses. Methinks the bias-tinting is too strong. It's adding words that God never inspired.

    Again though, just repeating the story is not going to make it true. You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that your spin on Deborah's story isn't explicit in Scripture. In fact, the story itself makes different implications.

    What the what? Seriously? Do you expect me to take you seriously?

    I don't know which historical fiction romance novel you read, but maybe you should try reading the story in Judges.

    And try not to make stuff up and add to Scripture.

    Her "nature"? Have you read Proverbs 31?

    Huh? :scratch:

    Is that why men "take the teaching pulpit"?

    Because they want power?

    But it's okay for men to do, huh? Because men have penises. Penises and pulpits = good. I guess it's the alliteration involved?


    I'm my mom's boss. Actually and truly. I'm a lawyer and she's a paralegal.

    Children grow up. When they do, they can most certainly be their parent's boss.

    Now... please tell me you didn't just equate adult women with children.
     
  19. JoshMM

    JoshMM Newbie

    35
    +2
    Christian
    Married
    Personally, a large reason why I followed the path to being saved is from the influence of my mother-in-law who is a Methodist pastor.

    One of the reasons I have been able to follow my calling as a fire fighter (making less money than when I worked my first job out of high school in 1996!!) is because of my wife. Besides having an electrical engineering BS and a MBA, she is the "leader" of over 20 highly educated/paid engineers.

    Thankfully for me, most of the stability in my life until recently has come from women. I personally have no issue. My wife's work ethic, stability, and desire to put others first is an inspiration to me.

    Josh
     
  20. Meepy

    Meepy Senior Member

    +52
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    This comment is a clear example why women should not preach. Because they say ridiculous things like this.

    I seriously do not know how you can make such an uneducated statement. Of course the early Church has priests. The greek word was presbyters. Latin was priest. The Priest is an icon for Jesus Christ. Jesus was male. Therefore a Priest must also be male

    A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [pre-A.D. 202]).

    Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel (Stromateis 6:13:107:2 [post-A.D. 202]).

    Origen
    , in a Fragment of his commentary on 1 Cor 14:34 tells of the four daughters of Philip; who prophesied, yet they did not speak in the Churches. We do not find that in the Acts of the Apostles... . For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."
    That is not true. Women never were priests or bishops. And if they were, they were always part of heretical sects like the Montanists and say very similar arguments. All you have to do is see the early fathers view of it during the early church.

    in The Prescription of Heretics 41, says: "How wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize." In his work On veiling virgins 9. 1:"It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and least of all the office of priest." - Tertullian

    St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said "Feed my sheep" only to Peter. "Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church... let the entire female sex retire." And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: "Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it."
    St. Augustine, On heresies 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. "They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood."

    St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white."Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference' For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, '' [Gal. 3:"28]


    Women never were Bishops. Never. You are adding into history. Pheobe was a part of Paul's ministry, but she never taught from the pulpit. The only time she teaches is in her home with others.

    Take the advice of John Chrysostom. And don't thrust yourself into something that was not given to you by God. Lower down the pride. The female ordination movement has already collapsed many groups like the Anglican's, Methodists, and Lutherans. It clearly is something God did not ordain by nature. As St Ephanaius says "Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman's insanity?"
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...