(Continued).
Let's look at Isaiah chapter 3,
Ok.
Isaiah 3 16 “Moreover, the Lord said, ‘Because the daughters of Zion are proud and walk with heads held high” – “outstretched necks,” literally – “and seductive eyes.” So you have women who are stepping out of the God-ordained boundaries of their own husband’s control,
Does the text say "wives"? Does the text condemn them for "stepping out of the God-ordained boundaries of their husband's control"?
If not, you are reading into it.
You said you wanted to look at Isaiah chapter 3, yet you have ignored the first few verses and started over halfway through it. Is that because you actually just wanted to make a point about women?
I think the worst thing for a woman is to be bald. That’s why those dear women who suffer through cancer and chemo and radiation and all that wear wigs,
Not all of them do. Some are ok with showing that they have no hair - embracing who they are.
This has nothing to do with a woman being a Pastor/Minister.
“In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, headbands, crescent ornaments, dangling earrings, bracelets, veils, headdresses, ankle chains, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, finger rings, nose rings, festal robes, outer tunics, cloaks, money purses, hand mirrors,” – this sounds like a list for the next shopping spree – “undergarments, turbans, veils.” What you have here is these women have just gone crazy trying to call attention to themselves instead of humbling themselves in modesty and discretion under the headship of their husband and giving honor to him.
What we have here is someone reading into the text.
Where does the text mention husbands, headship, obedience or giving honour to a man?
Unfortunately, verse 24, “It’ll come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction; instead of a belt, a rope; instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp; instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty.” And then here’s the fallout: “Your men will fall by the sword.” Guess what? When women take over a culture, men become weak.
I thought you wanted to look at Isaiah chapter 3? You have completely ignored the first few verses:
"See now, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, is about to
take from Jerusalem and Judah both supply and support" Isaiah 3:1.
The Lord was going to remove his provision and support from Jerusalem and Judah - supplies of food, and the structure within the nation. Young men, and mere children, would rule over them, Isaiah 3:4. People would become so desperate for leadership that a man would turn to his own brother and say "you have a cloak, you can be our leader", Isaiah 3:6. But the man would reply "I have nothing; I cannot be a leader", verse 7.
Jerusalem and Judah had sinned against the Lord. The righteous would prosper (verse 10) but the wicked would be punished.
This forbids women from being priests - how?
“Your men will fall by the sword because they become weak.”
Not addressed to women.
You’ve literally lived out the curse of Genesis 3. You’ve desired to dominate them, and you’ve done it.
More reading into the text.
“And your mighty ones are going to fall in battle. And her gates will lament and mourn,” – meaning the city – “and deserted she will sit on the ground.”
Exactly; this is addressed to the cities of Jerusalem and Judah - "the gates of
Zion".
Guess what? When all the men have been slaughtered, you can sit there with all your jewelry and junk; you’ve been conquered because you’ve overpowered your protectors.
The LORD was removing HIS support from Jerusalem and Judah, Isaiah 3:1. The text says nothing at all about women overpowering the men who are there to support them; that's something you've read into it.
Don’t misunderstand this. This is what we are living in today. The curse has been legitimized, even in the evangelical church now, the last frontier to fall. Empowering women makes weak men. Weak men make everybody, everybody vulnerable to danger.
Whether or not that is true is the subject of another thread. It is not what Isaiah is saying here.
The Lord has withdrawn HIS support from the city. They will lack leadership and appoint children, or unqualified young men, to rule over them.
Chapter 3-12: “O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.” Now that’s not intended to be anti-woman any more than it’s anti-children.
It's not literal either - a king was on the throne, not a woman.
It has been suggested that this verse is referring to the king's harem; that he had many wives and concubines. Some of those may have been foreigners; daughters of kings from other countries and were trying to influence this king to do what was best for their country, instead of Israel. If that was the case, it could have been said that they were ruling the country.
And if you look carefully at our nation you would have to agree that it’s childish, young, inexperienced, ignorant women who are ascending into power.
I don't see that at all. And it has nothing to do, either with Isaiah 3 or with the question of women being Pastors or priests.
When you overthrow the divine order, the results are always disastrous.
In Isaiah 3 - which you wanted to study - God was removing his provision and support from the nation.
Without God's support and leadership it is disastrous, yes. But how many Christian PMs have we ever had in our country?
There is an all-parties prayer meeting in Parliament, but when was the last time a PM ever said to their cabinet, "let's ask for God's wisdom and leadership in this matter"?
Young people, it seems to me, and women are taking over churches.
No.
There are probably more female church members than male - but there are still more male clergy than women.
So there’s plenty of Old Testament revelation to uphold the New Testament standard for women to keep silent in the churches.
Nonsense.
You claimed you wanted to look at Isaiah chapter 3, but have actually only considered a few verses and are using those to jump to the massive conclusion that women cannot preach in church.
If you truly want me to understand that "women must not be pastors" you're going to have to do a lot more than quoting a few verses, out of context, from an OT passage. You haven't even begun to consider Deborah, Huldah, Ruth (who proposed to Boaz), Esther (who saved the nation from destruction) or Abraham, (who was told to listen to his wife, Genesis 21:12). In addition, Zipporah saved her husband, Moses, from being killed, Exodus 4:25 and Abigail went behind her husband's back and averted a war, 1 Samuel 25:1-38. (Her husband was struck down and later died.)
By the way, in the New Testament there was no woman apostle.
If you mean that women were not among the 12; correct - neither were Gentiles.
Junia is described as being outstanding among the Apostles. Mary Magdalene, and other women, followed Jesus.
There was no woman prophet.
Philip's 4 daughters prophesied, and Paul taught the women could prophesy, 1 Corinthians 11:5.
There was no woman pastor, elder.
But there was a female deacon who took Paul's letter to the church in Rome, Romans 16:1. She would have read it to them and answered any questions. Paul chose Phoebe to do this.
No New Testament book is written by a woman.
Hebrews may have been; no one knows.
But it proves nothing.
No sermon is ever recorded from a woman.
The first person to proclaim the Good News - that Christ was alive - was a woman.
What's more, she proclaimed it to men who were all hiding in fear.
And every time God appoints people, whether it’s the apostles or Acts 13, it’s all men.
And Jews.
Yes, women can share the gospel to men, they play important roles in the Church and missionaries, they do many wonderful stuff in God's name. But that is not preaching. I don't know why is it so hard to see the difference.
You haven't even shown from your quoted passage - Isaiah 3 - that women cannot be preachers. You certainly haven't addressed any NT passages, or instances where women proclaimed God's word.
Incidentally, there is a difference between preachers and pastors/ministers. A person does not have to be ordained to preach the Gospel.
.jpg)
