Women teaching women

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
It is dangerous to say that the Bible is clear on the role of women.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Word of God is VERY clear on the role of women.

Unless you mean to tell us that, since "there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus," women are now men and men are now women, as some of my Pentecostal friends would have you believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[/QB]It is clear that Paul had some particualr rules for specific settings about the role of women[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and he wrote those under the inspiration of the Spirit of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>.. but these passages must be held in tension with the teachings of Jesus, Paul's own comments in Galatians, and the stories of various biblical figures including Deborah, Priscilla, and Phoebe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would that contradict Paul's teaching? It wouldn't.
Regarding Deborah: Barak was a coward, and wouldn't lead. He submitted to a woman for leadership. God told him, "Fine. You'll win, but you won't get the honor; a woman will." God didn't send Deborah to lead Israel out of bondage, He sent Barak.

Regarding Priscilla: she taught with her husband, and the man she taught was not in a local church at the time (as far as we know).

Regarding Phebe: what's the big deal? She was a servant, not a deacon, not a preacher, not a teacher. If you want to get your greek out on me and try to make Phebe a deaconess, I advise you to think twice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[/QB]I would highly recommend doing some additional reading and research in this area.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there's this new book out on it. It's called the Word of God.


TurboMike: Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you should forget what the scriptures and the Holy Spirit dealt with you about and follow the advice of men (and women).

--B C

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So when you were in middle school or High school and you probably had women teachers, how did you feel about that? How do you feel about their place in education now? Why do you think God said that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there is a difference between women teaching men in church, and in the secular world. I believe those verses are talking about church.

 

Brian
THink twice about what? The most conservative of Biblical scholars agree that Phoebe was a Deacon. Now they are splittin hairs on what is is. HMMMMMM.

Mike,
Please reread your posts and try thinking about this. God can and does use Women to further his Kingdom. Some are gifted to teach... yes teach men. You must read scripture in context, your spouting the same **** slaveowners were spouting (you know I read the scripture and blah blah blah....)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deitrich B:
The most conservative of Biblical scholars agree that Phoebe was a Deacon. Now they are splittin hairs on what is is. HMMMMMM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no. Phoebe was a deaconness perhaps, which is a female servant. She did not meet the qualifications of deaconhood. Diakonos is the word for servant. It is used only three times in terms of the office of deacon. It is used many times in the function of servant with implications of a church office.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God can and does use Women to further his Kingdom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one disputes this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some are gifted to teach... yes teach men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only partially true. The first part is; the second part is not. The second part directly contradicts revelation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You must read scripture in context, your spouting the same **** slaveowners were spouting (you know I read the scripture and blah blah blah....)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are certainly right on this first statement. But your second is completely unfounded it seems.

The reasons Paul gives in 1 Tim 2 regarding women exercising authority is not a first century reason. It is a creation ordinance which predates the first century by ... oh ... several million years according to many people who you would probably respect. I think that length of time probably removes the reasons from the immediate historical context.

 

Ok Larry whatever you say... LOL
DB
You aren't really serious are you? SIGH!!!!

 

I have been in a church which attempted to have a formal program. It turned into a 'class' situation. This is, I am positive, not what Paul was talking about. The two women who have been my 'big sisters' in the faith did it on their own, at different times. It was the Lord's doing and the friendships that were established are lifelong. They were wonderful guides for me, especially since I come from a non-Christian family.

Now, about women teaching men, Saggy Woman asked what a woman can teach a man about the Bible. Quite a bit if the man has not read much of it and the woman has! And that, sadly, is not infrequent.

Aside from that, I think the issue is about authority primarily. No woman should take authority over a man, either in home or church. However, with that understood, if a woman is teaching a mixed class under the authority of the man or men in charge, then I don't see the trouble. Using myself as an example, I have knowledge in science that most people do not have, and much of it is very supportive of the Bible, thus becoming an encouragement to my brothers and sisters in the faith. This is something the Lord has given me that I can share to help build up the body. As long as I am under the authority of a man, which, by the way, I consider myself to be on this forum, what is the problem?



Helen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deitrich B:
Ok Larry whatever you say... LOL
DB
You aren't really serious are you? SIGH!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quite serious. You are pretty new here I think. I haven't seen you around much. Welcome. But remember that we generally make arguments for our positions, not simply laugh when people disagree with us. If you think I am wrong, feel free to offer your arguments in rebuttal of me and in support of you.

I think one of the things that you and I will differ greatly on is the matter of authority. It appears that we have a very different authority already. But I am sure that such will become obvious in time.

When Scripture says something, and when we rightly interpret it, we do not have the liberty of simply jettisoning it because we don't like it.

 

I believe that it is Biblical authority to lead the church that is forbidden. (doctrine, philosophy of ministry, etc.) The definition of teaching can split hairs. If your teaching includes the above, then it is wrong (for a woman).

There are many women who teach men English and science and history, etc. in Bible colleges. This has no bearing on them leading the church or usurping authority over the men when it comes to leading a church.

Some women have a vast amount of knowledge about particulars subjects. I have no problem with allowing them or asking them to share that knowledge in a classroom setting. This can be done under the authority of the pastor- a man, without compromising the true leadership role in the church.

Ladies can also give testimonies and share great truths they have learned from the Bible without dictating the course and direction a church will take by teaching.

I still believe that it is the woman's primary role to be a help-meet for her husband and a mother to her children. (Titus 2:3)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
FYI - Romans 16:1 called our sister Phoebe a "deacon" (masculine term in greek).

If she were just a servant of the church and not in the office, the only word would have been deaconness (feminine form).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what would that feminine form be? And where is it used in the NT?

I have just searched BAGD, TDNT, NIDOTTE, and LSJ. None of these given any distinctive form for feminine. The BibleWorks Morphology identifies Rom 16:1 as a feminine form, the only one in the NT. BAGD also appears to make this the feminine form. I don't think there is a distinctive feminine form. If Paul wanted to talk about a woman who was a servant in the church, he would have done it in the manner in which he did in Rom 16:1.

It would seem, Bob, the problem with your position is that Paul would have been condoning something he elsewhere forbad.The issue seems to me to be the analogy of Scripture. Paul would not condone something forbidden. He would correct it as he did in many places in the NT.

I don't think hermeneutics is the issue here since a word does not have to have the same meaning in all of its uses. (It can only have one meaning per use though to be sure). However, the word in Rom 16:1 is used many times of those who are clearly not in the office of deacon. In fact, out of 29 uses, only 3 have to do with the office of the deacon (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 12). The majority of the uses of diakonos in the NT have nothing to do with the office of the deacon.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but where Paul refers to Pheobe as "servant" in Romans... Where there actual deacons at this time?
Wasn't the critera for the qualifications of deacons give some 9 years later in the letter to Timothy?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
"diakonos" is a noun that can be used in either msculine or feminine gender. For those who know Greek, it will have an article or an ending form that is "omicron" (masculine) or "eta" (feminine).

Romans 16:1 is masculine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I previously said, this does not appear to be the case. The lexical sources disagree with you.

BAGD, TDNT, NIDOTTE, and LSJ give no such form as you suggest. According to them, it does not even exist. Look up diakonos in BAGD and it says that the form in Rom 16:1 is a feminine form.

It does not appear, your objections notwithstanding, that the form you suggest (with an eta ending) exists, unless you can find it in Scripture or in Koine Greek (which I do know). No lexical source that I am aware of agrees with you on this one. Do you know of one?

The omicron/eta distinction is a common m/f distinction; however it is not universal. It does not appear with regard to this word ... at least according to the lexical works.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deitrich B:
Brian
THink twice about what? The most conservative of Biblical scholars agree that Phoebe was a Deacon. Now they are splittin hairs on what is is. HMMMMMM.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deitrich,

So? It's not my fault most conservative scholars are wrong.

--B C

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
But are you implying that there were NO deacons prior to that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm saying there was no official office of a deacon prior. Function? Perhaps. But I also note that they selected only MEN, even in ministering to widows.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Acts 6 it is generally believed (though the word "deacon" is not used) that the seven servants in the Jerusalem church were deacons. That pre-dates Romans by 20+ years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I mention in my tract on women preachers ("Can a woman be a man of God?"), these men may well have performed the duties of a deacon, and may have been called so by their local church, but we see no evidence of it.

--B C

 

Brian,
Your right its not your fault that most conservative scholars are wrong. I just think they got it right for once regarding Phoebe.
Russell

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: rhoneycutt ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhoneycutt:
Brian,
Your right its not your fault that most conservative scholars are wrong. I just think they got it right for once regarding Phoebe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you do.

But there is no support for Phebe being an authorized deaconess of the church, especially since, once Paul laid out guidelines for deacons, she would have been disqualified.

Or maybe God is the author of confusion...



--B C