Women Teaching Men

[Michael Wrenn]

There is an extremely fine line between the two. To teach is to impart information. When you tell you husband the toilet is clogged you are imparting information. Now whether that is teaching as well each will have to decide for themself.



We must balance everything Paul writes with the teachings of Christ. If there is a seeming conflict we must temper Paul's more strident comments such that their do not conflict with the teachings of Christ. IMHO when Paul is taken literally without considering the teachings and life of Christ serious errors may and probably will be made.

I have found it interesting over the few years that I have posted on the BB how often Paul is quoted and how seldom Christ is quoted.

I have noted this in Christian discussion rooms also.

What a great post! And so true. Western theologians -- Roman and Protestant -- seem to focus more on Paul than on the Gospels.

 

[annsni]

So when did Jesus bring on women as His apostles? How about when He sent out the 72 - how many were women? How many women went to the Garden with Him?

 

[Crabtownboy]

So when did Jesus bring on women as His apostles? How about when He sent out the 72 - how many were women? How many women went to the Garden with Him?

Ann, that proves nothing ... and after all the books approved by the Catholic council were all written by men ... and those voting were all men. Kind of a built in bias there IMHO. There were books written by women I am told, but they were suppressed by men.

Also, in their culture women were not allowed much if any freedom, so we cannot expect much sympathy for women by NT men ... or OT men for either.

Anyway, the women were home taking care of the kids. Someone had to do so.

Junia, who definitely was a woman, has been called an apostle by some. Of course, again, the Catholic priests would never accept anything she wrote as scripture.

Junia was a woman's name. It was only centuries later that there was a male name in the Roman world that comes even close to that spelling ... and it was different.

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

— Romans 16:7

Authorized Version
(other versions: Romans 16:7)

Junia's gender

That she was a woman is seldom contested today among Christian theologians.[11] Considering the cultural climate of a time[when?] when women were treated as minor children with no legal or property rights, U.S. journalist Rena Pederson[who?] thinks it understandable that Junia's role was ignored or even hidden for centuries since medieval scholars changed her name to Junias to make it masculine.[citation needed] She opines that the growing acknowledgment of Junia's female apostleship will establish an important precedent for women preaching and teaching. "And since Paul often has been viewed as someone who wanted to keep women quiet, his praise for Junia seems to show that he was much more broadminded in practice,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

\\

 

[annsni]

Ann, that proves nothing ... and after all the books approved by the Catholic council were all written by men ... and those voting were all men. Kind of a built in bias there IMHO. There were books written by women I am told, but they were suppressed by men.

Also, in their culture women were not allowed much if any freedom, so we cannot expect much sympathy for women by NT men ... or OT men for either.

Anyway, the women were home taking care of the kids. Someone had to do so.

Junia, who definitely was a woman, has been called an apostle by some. Of course, again, the Catholic priests would never accept anything she wrote as scripture.

Junia was a woman's name. It was only centuries later that there was a male name in the Roman world that comes even close to that spelling ... and it was different.



\\

The fact that Jesus never chose women to lead means nothing? We can't trust the Scriptures because it was a Catholic council of men? If something was written by a woman - and it was truly God's Word, it was not included in the canon just because they were women? I'm sorry but I completely disagree.

Junia was of note amongst the apostles doesn't say that she WAS an apostle.

 

[matt wade]

and after all the books approved by the Catholic council were all written by men ... and those voting were all men. Kind of a built in bias there IMHO. There were books written by women I am told, but they were suppressed by men.

This is what it all boils down to folks. A contempt for the Bible. He says it right here that the Bible has "bias". So much for the authority of Scripture.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is what it all boils down to folks. A contempt for the Bible. He says it right here that the Bible has "bias". So much for the authority of Scripture.

Wrong. He does not say that the Bible has bias; he said that the Catholic council which approved the books had bias.

 

[matt wade]

Wrong. He does not say that the Bible has bias; he said that the Catholic council which approved the books had bias.

If they had bias then the resulting books were chosen according to their bias. If those books were chosen according to their bias, then they must be biased in their favor. It boils down to the Bible being biased.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is also of note that the ancient Celtic church, isolated as it was from continental Catholicism, gave women pastoral and leadership roles and considered them spiritual equals to men. Makes you wonder about the true apostolic tradition. I think the Celts had it right, following the spirit of Christ's teachings, and continental Romanism had it wrong.

What's also amazing to me is how some women go right along and consent to men "putting them in their place" and making them second class Christians.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If they had bias then the resulting books were chosen according to their bias. If those books were chosen according to their bias, then they must be biased in their favor. It boils down to the Bible being biased.

No it doesn't. Just because a book was written by a man does not make it biased, but someone choosing the book because it was written by a man makes the one choosing it biased.

 

[Christos doulos]

Just because a book was written by a man does not make it biased

My friend. If a book is built on a presupposition, then its biased.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The fact that Jesus never chose women to lead means nothing? We can't trust the Scriptures because it was a Catholic council of men? If something was written by a woman - and it was truly God's Word, it was not included in the canon just because they were women? I'm sorry but I completely disagree.

Do you accept the Catholic canon or the Protestant canon? Why do you follow one but not the other?

No, the monks, priests, etc. all men who voted on the canon probably would not have accepted a book written by a woman simply because she was a woman ... a lesser being in their view ... after all, in their view, women brought sin into the world and caused the fall of Adam.

J

unia was of note amongst the apostles doesn't say that she WAS an apostle.

That is one interpretation, but from my research the majority of scholars and experts in the language do not agree with you.

 

[Christos doulos]

That is one interpretation, but from my research the majority of scholars and experts in the language do not agree with you.

My friend. "apostolic succession" is not biblical

 

[annsni]

Do you accept the Catholic canon or the Protestant canon? Why do you follow one but not the other?

No, the monks, priests, etc. all men who voted on the canon probably would not have accepted a book written by a woman simply because she was a woman ... a lesser being in their view ... after all, in their view, women brought sin into the world and caused the fall of Adam.

J

That is one interpretation, but from my research the majority of scholars and experts in the language do not agree with you.

I follow the Bible that God has given us and I do not accept the "Apocrypha" as the Word of God.

 

[mandym]

Is it true or is it not that the Bible says, in all four gospels, that Jesus first appeared to a woman, or women, after His resurrection, and that he commissioned them to go and teach the apostles about it?

Giving a testimony and teaching are two different things.The women did not go and teach anyone anything. A bit if honesty is needed here.

 

[Alive in Christ]

For those who believe that the Bible prohibits women spiritually teaching men, what do you do with this statement: "Whereas others found woman not qualified or authorized to teach, the four Gospels have it that the risen Christ commissioned women to teach men, including Peter and the other apostles, the resurrection, foundation of Christianity."

There is actually better documentation than that regarding women speaking in church, and being in leadership...

WOMEN AS MINISTERS

How does all of this lead up to women ministers? Perhaps you are thinking that although we have laid a biblical foundation for "neither male nor female" in Christ, certain verses in the New Testament still seem to ban women from ministry positions in the church. Let's examine these verses for the true interpretation.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34).
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this? We have many such proofs, many from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.
Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!

Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos, and pastored the church together. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. At any rate, we see here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring. (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).

Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3): Here we see reference to two women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.

Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse we see Paul sending greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners" who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a woman's name. In some modern translations, an "s" has been added (Junias) because the translators were so sure a woman could not be an apostle, that they assumed a copyist has accidentally dropped the "s." However the proper male ending would have been "ius," not "ias." No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

Though there were other women throughout the Bible in positions of leadership, such as prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc., the above references should be enough to establish that women were indeed a vital and normal part of church leadership. Paul expected women to speak in the church, or else why would he have given the following directive? It would have been useless to give directions for women who were speaking in the church, if they were never allowed to do so.

http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141

 

[Jerome]

This is what it all boils down to folks. A contempt for the Bible.

Yes, take a look the disparate attitudes expressed with regard to the Scripture noted in the OP:




Spurgeon: it's like me bearing God's message to this congregation

Annsni: it's like me telling hubby the toilet's clogged



Spurgeon: Did ever man preach a better sermon than this woman preached? Had ever minister a more weighty text than this Magdalene had to handle

Mandy: she did not teach anyone anything, merely gave a testimony



Spurgeon: Mary, once a demoniac, becomes a preacher to preachers! I dub her Doctor of Divinity, indeed, for she has to instruct these mightiest of messengers in the faith!

Doulos: it was just testimony, not equivalent to teaching



Spurgeon: Mary Magdalene was made to do, alone, what a company of angels had been made to do before—to proclaim another step in the Savior’s pathway to redemption!

Matt: just a message relayer, Jesus was simply utilizing the woman's strength of gossip to his advantage!




Quite a contrast. :tear:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Yes. Quite A contrast indeed.

And its interesting that its men on this thread who are sharing the scriptures that can set the women free...yet the women want no part of it. Even to the point of ignoring Gods scriptures that make it so clear.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is actually better documentation than that regarding women speaking in church, and being in leadership...




http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141

Thank you for that wonderful exposition!

It's obvious who actually has contempt for the Bible here -- and it's not those of us who support women leaders in the church!

 

[Christos doulos]

Thank you for that wonderful exposition!

and it's not those of us who support women leaders in the church!

My friend. It's not about support. It's about scripture. If you are going to be wrong, at least be wrong in scripture and not your own feelings or reasoning.

 

[jaigner]

Thank you for that wonderful exposition!

It's obvious who actually has contempt for the Bible here -- and it's not those of us who support women leaders in the church!

I vehemently disagree with most on this subject here, and yet I would not venture to say any of them have "contempt" for the Bible. They may be misguided and may be misinterpreting it, but they are following what they believe the Bible says.

I think we need to be careful how we bring subjects like this up. We need to be theologically minded and have all of our views bathed in Scripture as best as it can be interpreted.

There are going to be those who oppose women in leadership or equality in marriage, just like there were once those who believed slavery was okay and intermarriage wrong. Their voice will get smaller and weaker until anyone who believes it wouldn't dare mention it, just like any who believe slavery is okay wouldn't dare voice it these days.