All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others

Women leaders in church in a different light

I have searched and found discussions on women leaders in the church and it seems people take whatever position they do and will stick to it. Each side refusing to see how the other can think opposite and each using scripture to prove their belief.

My question is...

If women are not to lead in church who will? Look around the congregation. How many wives sit alone with unsaved husbands at home?

My pastor pointed this out once. Said marriage and society both suffer because of weak men who don't teach Godliness in their homes.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 4, 2014 at 11:25am

because I'm just an average woman a little older than I care to admit.

I'm a LOT older than I care to admit.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on September 2, 2014 at 3:59pm

(New thread started)

Seek,

Because Genesis is speaking of a man and woman (husband and wife)/household. While Paul's teaching is about women in the church.

Genesis goes beyond what you speak of and gives light to the order of things relating to man and woman. When things are right and people are in alignment with God there is a proper protocol. Where man fails God is not bound to the point where He cannot raise up a person to be used by Him (i.e. Deborah). But, this is the exception and not the rule. Is it your view that women have been held back for 5950 years (projecting the age of the earth at 6000) because of cultural issues. And only now in the past 50 years have they been liberated?

I guess I differ in that I don't see whether Paul was at times stating personal preference or not to affect the Word of God. Even Paul does not state these were commandments, whether his or God's. This is something he did not permit as I read the text.

Do you then believe that what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter wrote is mere opinion? If so, in your view then what teaching of the Bible is binding on man? Is it only the words of Jesus found in the gospels?

What Scripture frees up his direct teaching to say that it is not applicable for today.

For me, it would be the same scripture that says women should cover their head and men shouldn't cover theirs and women shouldn't teach and women should keep quiet in the church is no longer applicable. ;-)

As I stated in another response is this no longer truly applicable and has this been changed by God or man? Is the church today in error and out of alignment with God or is there clear and compelling teaching that says this is no longer applicable? If it is not applicable one must point to a clear and compelling reason as to why that is the case. If the culture card is played one must prove it was cultural. If it was only to a specific group of people one must prove it is only directed at them without effect on others. Thus, do you believe that what Paul wrote to the church in Corinth did not apply to the churches in Ephesus and to Philippi?

The view of women in our society has changed and now that societal shift has been applied to the church and is challenging the teaching of Scripture

When I read of the other women Paul refers to who were judges and deconesses, teachers, etc., I do not see how there is a societal shift in that.

I ask this sincerely, please list all of the women from Scripture who had leadership roles over men in the church or nation of Israel (i.e. judges, deaconesses, teachers, etc …). List all of them and we will look at the story of each one.

That he was also writing to a specific church in which there were dissension and quarrels, there is a basis in that. Women were to submit to their husbands by God's law. And God also said to obey the laws of the land. The law's then did not permit a woman to do certain things. It doesn't change that she is not to submit to her husband, but I do not see the scripture you are using to say that women are not permitted to preach.

So if you find a church that has dissension and quarrels does that mean this kicks in today? Again we have to return to 1 Timothy and Titus because we were talking specifically about leaders. Two leaders (Timothy and Titus) used in various churches who were instructed on what are the qualifications for an elder and for deacons. The language is clear. To change the meaning or to apply the culture card we have to find something that gives us that freedom. You believe that because it appears today that women are allowed to speak in church then that negates the specified qualifications for a leader. If we apply that logic we can dismantle most of the teachings in Scripture and in fact that is what some are actually attempting to do.

In the NT we also see that slavery in the Roman empire was the norm.

As was the women keeping silent and covering their heads, etc. the norm? ;-)

You picked one segment out of four that made a whole to pick on, but let’s go with that. First of all slavery is never mandated in Scripture (at least as far as I can remember). This is not what God intended, but because man did bring about slavery God gave rules for the actions of both slave owner and slave alike. In cases where slavery is in existence today by law is the NT teaching regarding how a slave should act any less applicable? If it is not, then we need to point to where and why God’s instruction on the subject has changed. Now the teaching on women is quite different. Here is a direct teaching regarding leaders that is laid out word perfect. If this does not apply you have to prove why and how this changed. The problem at this point, and one we are about to go round and round over, is that I view all of God’s Word as God’s Word and when Paul speaks it is the Holy Spirit speaking through him. Only when he clearly tells us that this is of him and not of the Lord do we accept it is opinion, but even then God allowed it in Scripture coming from His chosen spokesman and thus we must accept that God is OK with what Paul had said. What do we do with 2 Timothy 3:16 … opinion or fact? Another problem to overcome is the attempt to use 1 Corinthians 14 as an illustration that Paul is wrong or that it was only cultural does not fly. You first have to prove that 1 Corinthians truly is a cultural issue as well and not a teaching that remains in effect. Just because society/church has changed that does not mean the change is correct. You cannot use a suspect (is the church in alignment with God’s Word on this today?) verse(s) to answer the issues of another suspect verse(s).

Making human arguments using Scripture is not the same as studying Scripture using good hermeneutics to understand what God intends. I will refer to what I commented to Colby about Word of God vs word about God … Exegesis vs Eisegesis … Allegoric vs Literal (including face value) … submission to Scripture vs ruling over Scripture.

Wouldn't one need to know what these words mean in order to decipher this? LOL

Will leave this for another time.

Lord Bless,

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 2, 2014 at 6:16pm

Genesis goes beyond what you speak of and gives light to the order of things relating to man and woman.

Where's that? If we're to read literally then I need to see where it's saying this. But if you read my response to Mary maybe you can get a glimpse of what is bugging me. Who is the determining factor of how we read scripture? If Paul said he didn't permit a woman to preach and another pastor says this woman has good insight and I think we need to hear her preach, is he automatically wrong by default and who proves the default since everyone can make points adequately enough to suit the group they influence.

Do you then believe that what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter wrote is mere opinion?

I believe they wrote first hand eyewitness accounts as they were there listening to God's spoken Words.

As I stated in another response is this no longer truly applicable and has this been changed by God or man? Is the church today in error and out of alignment with God....

I can only ask...does your church practice it?

Thus, do you believe that what Paul wrote to the church in Corinth did not apply to the churches in Ephesus and to Philippi?

I would certainly wonder why he only brought that up to Corinth and not the others. Was there rreasoning for it?

I ask this sincerely, please list all of the women from Scripture who had leadership roles over men in the church or nation of Israel (i.e. judges, deaconesses, teachers, etc …). List all of them and we will look at the story of each one.

Comon. I don't think I need to list them cause you know them. I'm doing this from a cell phone trying to have dinner. None of this is here to do a tit for tat on each belief. But why is it everyone feels they're right and all other religions or beliefs are wrong? The Gospel is the message of Christ and we can all agree on that. Division comes when people start pointing fingers as to who is teaching the wrong dress code or hymn style. You can get what I mean. The "non-issues" do the most harm as evidenced by this discussion alone.

So if you find a church that has dissension and quarrels does that mean this kicks in today?

I think it would be up to the leaders of that church to maintain order even if it meant ousting some from preaching.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on September 2, 2014 at 7:20pm

Seek,

Genesis goes beyond what you speak of and gives light to the order of things relating to man and woman.

Where's that? If we're to read literally then I need to see where it's saying this.

Gen 2:20 KJV And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Man was created first. Woman was created to help man.

Who is the determining factor of how we read scripture?

Actually, God does. If we accept that this is what He says it is … His Word, then we will read it for what it is … His Word as stated. The church is in trouble because they have played with that simple fact. The Catholic Church turned the Word into an allegoric word that shifted the authority from God to man. For it depended on man to read the story behind the story. Yet, before even the Reformation and Martin Luther there was a vibrant church called the Anabaptist who sought to remain true to the written Word. BTW they were persecuted by the Catholic Church of the day.

If Paul said he didn't permit a woman to preach and another pastor says this woman has good insight and I think we need to hear her preach, is he automatically wrong by default and who proves the default since everyone can make points adequately enough to suit the group they influence.

If what is written by Paul is viewed as nothing more than Paul’s opinion on the matter one could argue that two pastors are disputing. If we take that approach we have undermined the value of Scripture and cannot call it the infallible Word of God, but only a man’s view point about God and His teachings. Thus the debate is not between two men, but whether or not we accept the whole Word of God as God’s Word. If it is, which I proclaim it is, then we are to be subjected to its truth regardless of preference or preconceived ideas. That is where Exegesis comes in. We are to seek to draw out of God’s Word exactly what God means. This is why there is only one true interpretation as mentioned before, but there can be several applications. Hermeneutics is the method by which we seek to break it down. What is the context, the culture, the audience, who is speaking, literary style, prose, etc.

None of us have it all right, but we must be on the same quest to find the central truth of God’s Word.

Do you then believe that what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter wrote is mere opinion?

I believe they wrote first hand eyewitness accounts as they were there listening to God's spoken Words.

This falls short of accepting it as God’s Word. Your view leans liberal (not picking, just pointing out fact). It cannot be God’s Word if it is man’s word. Either it verbally inspired Word or man’s account of things. Yes, most of them were eyewitnesses, but the accumulation of Scripture is attributed to God and what we find there is exactly what He intended. Yet, you are viewing much of it as though it is simply a man’s opinion. That undermines the authority of Scripture. I repeat this, because it is a critical issue. IMO over the past 130 +/- years nothing has caused more damage to the church than liberal Theology that came out of Germany.

As I stated in another response is this no longer truly applicable and has this been changed by God or man? Is the church today in error and out of alignment with God....

I can only ask...does your church practice it?

The answer I will give you is that what we do is not the determining factor as to whether the Bible teaches this as cultural or whether it still applies today. We must seek to understand this and then apply it so that we are in alignment with God’s Word.

Thus, do you believe that what Paul wrote to the church in Corinth did not apply to the churches in Ephesus and to Philippi?

I would certainly wonder why he only brought that up to Corinth and not the others. Was there reasoning for it?

None stated, but we can ask a plausible question. Was this an issue in Ephesus or Philippi? Did the women in Ephesus or Philippi speak out in church or teach? The Scripture does not tell us. Again, the thrust of our conversation is not about 1 Corinthians 14, but only to the extent that you wish to use it as a proof text of cultural to apply the cultural card to woman in leadership.

I was not attempting to point fingers. I tried to make this a serious question and stated I am asking it sincerely. The main point is not what I know or don’t, but rather how few examples you are going to be able to pull up of first of Paul mentioning women in leadership rolls and secondly in Scripture as a whole. In each case there is a reasonable explanation that does not contradict Scripture or open the door to the culture card in this topic

So if you find a church that has dissension and quarrels does that mean this kicks in today?

I think it would be up to the leaders of that church to maintain order even if it meant ousting some from preaching.

By what authority do these leaders have to maintain order if what is recorded by Paul and others is primarily their opinion? What method would they have for determining what is proper order if God’s Word is devalued to merely a word about God?

I am satisfied to move on, but will continue if you wish. My goal is not to win an argument, but to help you see (or at least to get you to ponder) some of the things mentioned here. Specifically the difference between Word of God and word about God, as well as the common use today of the cultural card to swipe away any teaching that particular groups do not like. Lastly to get you to look at how church history has viewed such things and put into perspective when the change took place as well as recognizing the major shift in society that coincides with the shift within the church.

If you at least ponder these things my time was not in vain :-)

Lord Bless,

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 2, 2014 at 8:00pm

I will but later. I'm sinking fast. Need all the beauty sleep I can get cause I'm apparently not getting enough by the looks of me. I'll hang onto the email notice til I can get to it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on September 3, 2014 at 9:18am

LT, you've lost me. Within this forum? Do you mean "All About Bible Questions and Verses - Topical"? And at the end? I've looked and don't see what you're referring to. Can you send me the link?

This is the thread we are currently discussing. I just opened a new line withint this forum because we ran out of “Reply” buttons.

We're talking of Paul and you're saying he was speaking by the Holy Spirit, so God was speaking through him. How many today say God is speaking through them? And I don't doubt that He is in many cases, but those same ones can preach something else that doesn't line up with scripture...because they're not always walking in the Spirit. So if we're to say Paul was speaking for God, then let's examine everything.

Titus 1:13 is also Paul speaking in which he says of false teachers/prophets: This testimony is true. So, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.

Context: Tit 1:10-11 NIV84 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. (11) They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach--and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

In Acts 18: :25, regarding Apollos speaking incorrectly, it says: After Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him home and explained the way of God to him more accurately.

Several points.

1) They took him home. This is a private meeting in their home and not a gathering of the church.

2) They took him home … and expounded the way of God to him. The Greek word translated as into English as expounded is different from the common word in Greek that is translated into English as teach.

Acts 18:26 – Expound: G1620 ἐκτίθημι ektithēmi ek-tith'-ay-mee From G1537 and G5087; to expose; figuratively to declare: - cast out, expound.

1 Timothy 2:12 – Teach: G1321 διδάσκω didaskō did-as'-ko A prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb δάω daō (to learn); to teach (in the same broad application): - teach.

Thus, are we even talking apples for apples?

3) What part exactly did Priscilla play? Can you clearly point to how much she actually shared? Was she in subjection to her husband during this?

4) Also will deal with teaching under the authority of another later in this post.

This doesn't say that Aquila explained, but both of them did so.

Even if we agreed on that I repeat two things. Is this considered teaching based on the Greek language and what was the setting. If we stick exclusively with the Word we see a difference in expounding and teaching and we find her at home where if we go with this line you are following where she is allowed to speak. Some of what I am doing here is attempting to get you to see the other side of it. It is not a clear as you assume it is.

She with his blessing apparently. So she in fact was teaching a man alongside her husband.

We have not proved that she taught him in the privacy of her home alongside her husband and surely have not established that she had any form of authority over him.

Yet Paul does not say that the women should not teach men except when their husbands are with them, he says specifically women shouldn't teach men...period.

Unless you can prove that it is a teaching session based on the criteria of Scripture for it to be considered teaching this comment become moot. Yet, I will address this concept of teaching men later in this post.

Go on to Paul saying to ask your husbands. When a woman has no husband, and some no father, brother...are they not permitted to ask?

In 1 Corinthians 14:35 where is the restriction applied? If it is applied to the church gathering then the opportunity to inquire of others if she has no husband is still there, but would be restricted in the church gathering.

And if we're to rebuke false teachings, and a woman knows this to be false and no one speaks out, is she to break that teaching and not rebuke them because they're a man?

1Ti 5:19 NIV84 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

(Gil’s Commentary)

1 Timothy 5:19

Against an elder receive not an accusation,.... A charge of any crime:

but before two or three witnesses; good sufficient ones, who are capable of well attesting the fact: a charge against a pastor of a church is not to be easily received; it should not be listened to privately, unless it clearly appears by such a number of witnesses; nor should it be brought publicly before the church, until it is privately and previously proved, by a sufficient number of credible witnesses, that it is really fact. The sense is, not that judgment shall not pass against him but by such a number of witnesses, or that the evidence upon his trial shall consist of such a number; for this is no other than what ought to be in the case of a private member, and of every man, according to Deu_19:15. But the sense is, that the affair of an elder shall not be put upon a trial, much less sentence pass, until it has been privately proved against him, by proper testimonies, beyond all exception; only in such a case, should a church admit a charge against its elder. The reason of this rule is, because of his high office and the honour of the church, which is concerned in his, as well as of religion; for it carries in it some degree of scandal for such a person to be charged, even though he may be cleared; as also because of his many enemies, who through envy, malice, and the instigation of Satan, would be continually pestering the church with charges, could they be easily admitted.(End Quote)

So, is speaking out in church against a false teacher permitted by anyone until there has been an examination by the leadership?

Thinking on these this morning brought up a huge lists of such questions. Matthew 5 says a man can put away his wife for fornication (when I always though fornication was sleeping with someone prior to marriage but neither here nor there). And Abraham put away Hagar. So if she remarried, would she be an adultress?

(You are going to pull out all of the hardest subjects at one time that have caused much confusion and division in the church, but I will attempt to address them as best I can. But in so doing you will be posed questions as much or more so than given a direct answer.)

1) What are the Scriptural grounds for divorce?

2) Remarriage is a separate issue. What are the Scriptural teachings that allow a person to remarry?

3) If people do not meet the Biblical criteria for divorce and they do not meet the Biblical criteria for remarriage, then what does Scripture say they are guilty of?

Do we allow our preference or hearts dictate to Scripture or do we submit to Scripture whether we agree with it or not?

Is she no longer permitted to ask questions because she has no husband to ask and the only one she has is a young son?

The restriction given in 1 Corinthians 14:35 is pretty direct as it restricts in the church. Thus, it does not say that the women without a husband cannot seek counsel. In fact we have the following verses: Tit 2:3-5 NIV84 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. (4) Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, (5) to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

What of today's culture when a man and woman divorce and then one is saved? Are they not permitted to marry or must they return to their former husband, and what if he remarried?

What does the Word say about those who come to salvation? They are born again, regenerated. They are new creatures, the old has gone and the new has come. Are they bound to the old life or has it been crucified with Christ and they are now new creatures having been changed from a son of this world into a child of God? Though living in this world there are consequences in this world that will carry over into our new life we have to ask is getting married after divorce restricted in the new life or has the person been set free of the past and now capable of living out this new life?

And since I was bringing up men not being Godly leaders today, it goes into those men who beat their wives. Many women think they should remain in this because they're told to submit to their husbands and they are confused by this.

Does Scripture teach us to live in a life of sin? Are we instructed to do what we are told by those in authority over us when we know it is sin? This is a touchy subject and I do not want to come off as calloused, but the error that is often made by women in these situations is not over whether to leave their husband, but them not notifying the authorities for it is against the law for them to be beat and God does not concur with that kind of authority over them.

Scripture also says men ought to love their wives. But if they don't? In 1 Corinthians 7, people use this to show that a woman should remain no matter how horribly she is treated. Men have often used this to claim a woman can be beaten because she's to submit to her husband. My first husband did that. He kinda went over a religious deep end, talking out two sides of his mouth, proclaiming God in one breath and cursing in the next. And his view was women were to do what the man said. Even to the point of threatening my life.

The Bible clearly teaches that the husbands authority is constituted authority and there are specific guidelines as to how far that authority goes. Ephesians 5 is a place where we find such guidelines:

Eph 5:22-33 NIV84 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (24) Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (25) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (26) to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, (27) and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (28) In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. (29) After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- (30) for we are members of his body. (31) "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (32) This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. (33) However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Another area that came to me this morning as I listened to Matthew. One should pray in secret. Yet Daniel went and prayed three times a day with his windows open even knowing the law that was passed.

Actually he was in the privacy of his own home. Those who sought to trap him invaded that privacy. But, the principle here is that we are not to pray as in putting on a show.

Mat 6:5-7 NIV84 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. (6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (7) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

David danced and praised openly in the street.

David was not making a show, but rather danced before the Lord. Some accused him of acting like a fool. I will refer you to the next comment for further thought on this.

Today the church often thinks we need to shout out an amen and loudly worship and this is an area that gave me trouble because I prayed quietly to myself. I'm not a shouter, never have been. They will bring up how we can shout at ballgames and not in church. Well no...I never shouted at games either. Just not my way.

If we study Scripture we find that there are multiple ways to pray and multiple ways to worship. It is not right for one to tell another that there way is incorrect, unless it does not align with Scripture.

So, my point...are all these scriptures contradictory? I say they are not. But people will take a point of scripture and use it to the fullest measure religion allows. And here is why I say that....

They take it to the fullest measure that religion allows, but what about what God allows? I again say that much of the confusion lies in the fact that many reject the Bible as the Word of God, they seek to read into the text (Eisegesis) what they want it to say and will pull random verses out placing them together in an attempt to proof text their point … and we have many who approach the whole of text as allegoric (story telling) or as the liberal thought (word about God) as general thoughts and not directives from God. If God spoke to you verbally would you not diligently seek to find out exactly what He meant by His comment? Since I view the Bible as His very Word, just written, I take that same approach.

Just as Mary stated about her teaching, I know that God has told me that I will teach new converts. By adhering strictly to women not teaching men, then that's the same as saying I was not led by the Spirit, nor Mary. Who determines who is led?

Who determines who is led? The Word of God does. If it does not align with Him then it cannot be of the Holy Spirit.

Many claim they're led and often both have very valid points even though they can sometimes seem to be in opposition. And by opposition....

Is God confused? Of course not. It is amazing how you can have 5 people discuss a passage and get 5 different answers and all 5 tell you that the Holy Spirit led them to their conclusion. If they appear to have valid points and yet are in stark contradiction then we have not understood their points in light of Scripture. How to differentiate. 1) Are they describing an application or the interpretation. 2) How does their comment align with the context of that passage and then to the whole of Scripture.

Deborah was known as a woman of great wisdom and spiritual depth whose decisions were guided by her ability as a prophetess and was a judge. 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that every woman who prophesies should do so with her head covered. Yet Paul also said women are not to speak.

1Co 11:3-16 NIV84 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. (5) And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. (6) If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. (7) A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (8) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; (9) neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (11) In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. (12) For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, (15) but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (16) If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

This gives a clear picture to the line and scope of authority. The woman’s head being covered here acknowledges her submission to authority and the order of that authority. If the woman is submissive to the authority, based on this text, we find that she is allowed to share. This same principle can be applied to why a woman who is submissive to authority over her is allowed to teach. She is not doing it only on her own, but in submission to the order God established.

How do you not speak and prophesy? How do you not teach and prophesy? How was Deborah considered a prophetess and guided by wisdom and spiritual depth if she was to not be permitted to lead men?

2 Kings 22

¹³Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.

¹⁴So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.

¹⁵And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me,

¹⁶Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:

Men went to seek advice/teaching from Hulda a prophetess.

Notice the verses before to get the picture of the situation in the land:

2Ki 22:8-13 NIV84 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. (9) Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: "Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple." (10) Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king. (11) When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. (12) He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: (13) "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us."

Notice again in verse 13 how far the leadership of Israel had fallen. They weren’t aware of what was written in Scripture, but once read he responded. Were there no faithful men in the land? Did God go outside of the norm? I have stated before that we cannot put God in a box. So does this verse establish the norm for God’s order? Of course not. It is an extraordinary situation as is Deborah’s where there was a king who was afraid to lead.

Luke 2:

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Anna was a widow...no husband with her, and yet "all of them" (men and women) came to her to hear her teachings of the Lord.

Again, who was the leadership at the time? It was the Pharisees and we know what Jesus thought of them as a group. What do we know about Anna’s ministry? Day and night she fasted and prayed. Did she teach? Not picking, but let’s not say she had a ministry of teaching if the Bible does not say that she did. Here she speaks out publically about the child, beyond this instance we know nothing of her ministry. The no husband issue was addressed earlier.

We can use religion to single out a verse and state this is it, in a nutshell, finished, end of discussion, or...

Or we can take the whole of Scripture to hone in on its teachings regarding a particular subject.

We can take entire scripture and apply it to various circumstances.

We do not seek to apply it to circumstances, but find its teaching on subjects so that we are in alignment with Him on various subjects.

1. Can a woman divorce? Can she remarry after divorced?

What does the Scripture say are Biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. We should not care what society thinks and we cannot be driven by emotions. We must seek to understand the Bible’s teachings on subjects and submit to the truth of His Word.

2. Can a woman teach? With or without a husband? How does she obey the other rules of rebuking and prophesying without it? And we're also told in the last day God will pour out his Spirit and men and women will prophesy.

New problem … define from Scripture exactly what is the “last days” in which this will happen. Already addresses can a woman ever teach (when under proper authority and is teaching and preaching different? Is leadership different from teaching?). Already addressed with or without a husband (In church vs out of church … covered or not covered (representing submitted to authority)).

3. Should we pray openly or quietly to ourselves?

What, where, and why.

We can't use the Bible in a black and white and ignore the various scriptures that allowed for Godly wisdom to be used through a woman, or to be used in areas of divorce considering many men do not love their wives as the Bible teaches, or to pray quietly or openly.

Thus, you have now taken the authority away from God’s Word and placed it in the hand of man. Welcome to the liberal church. Sorry, but that is exactly what is presented here. You cannot possibly read the Bible as black and white and ignore other Scripture, but you do read it at face value and seek harmony found in Scripture. There cannot be contradictions, but there are things that are hard to understand.

There are scriptures for time and proper place. So to say no woman can teach or preach is to ignore scripture where they did just that. It is to ignore teachings to rebuke false teachers or to prophesy. To ignore scripture about deferring to husbands for those women without husbands.

I believe I have addressed all those in this response, but feel free to expose where you think I have fallen short.

To the point...this is why there is so much division in my unedumacated (not even knowing what this term hermeneutics was until I looked it up this morning) opinion.

Or could it be that there are way too many people who want to lead and teach when the Scripture says the following:

Jas 3:1 NIV84 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

And this warning about the infiltration of teachers who will lead people astray:

2Pe 2:1-3 NIV84 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. (2) Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. (3) In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

And this warning about who people are going to want to listen to as the day draws close:

2Ti 4:3-4 NIV84 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (4) They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

This is why the Word of God must be viewed and embraced as verbally inspired and the only rule and authority regarding life in Christ. Our goal must be to grasp the truth of Scripture followed by a willingness to submit to it regardless of whether it agrees with our preferences or preconceived ideas. Most certainly we will find that the Word of God crosses culture and challenges culture and cannot be affected by our culture.

Lord Bless,

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on September 3, 2014 at 6:35pm

Oh my word. This is a 4-day read for me. I'm flying to NC Saturday so I'll read it on the plane. ROFL

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 3, 2014 at 8:06pm

LOL And to think I put him through all that. Just think if it takes 4 days to read how long it took him to type it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 3, 2014 at 8:42pm

ROFL

If I hadn't seen Tammys response I'd have missed this!

You are going to pull out all of the hardest subjects at one time that have caused much confusion and division in the church, but I will attempt to address them as best I can.

But of course. That was part of what I was getting into...church division and the harder to define concepts that often cause them. Subjects that if they can confuse well trained Bible scholars, would totally wreak havoc in the minds of others.

Just a couple quick follow ups and I'm headed to happy lala land.

1) What are the Scriptural grounds for divorce? 2) Remarriage is a separate issue. What are the Scriptural teachings that allow a person to remarry?

That's kinda the issue. I thought fornication was sex before marriage and yet that one passage we discussed used it in a manner I thought meant adultery. So I'd say words need defined as they were in that period, before the scripture can be truly studied.

I could give you just a sample to play with based on scripture, but I know Tammy only has so many hours on the plane and you're going to run out of coffee.

Does Scripture teach us to live in a life of sin? Are we instructed to do what we are told by those in authority over us when we know it is sin?

Unfortunately they sometimes see the scripture that God hates divorce and if he is unsaved to stay that you might bring him to repentance, and they don't want to go against God. They've usually been taught this and truly feel there sinning if they leave.

We do not seek to apply it to circumstances, but find its teaching on subjects so that we are in alignment with Him on various subjects.

What I meant by circumstances is like you said allowing for areas that it is needed even though Paul said women shouldn't teach. In other words, Paul didn't qualify his statement: women can't teach unless she does so in her husband's presence or in her home or if there are no men to lead. But all these other verses are the qualifiers.

Thus, you have now taken the authority away from God’s Word and placed it in the hand of man.

No I was placing it in the whole context of scripture and not by one single Biblical statement.

Or could it be that there are way too many people who want to lead and teach when the Scripture says the following: Jas 3:1 NIV84 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Yes and one particular verse I've thought of many times. I didn't want to teach and had no desire for it but when that desire sprang up its there and strong yet I don't want to be held to a higher standard. :-(