Woman who preaches in Church

[Truth7t7]

You completely missed my point.

No I didn't, God gave direct instruction for married men to be Bishops and Deacons, people can deny this biblical fact all they want, God's words below stand true

Jesus Is The Lord

1 Timothy 3:1-13KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

If you think he did, because of their disobedience, the fact that female preachers/clergy are not regularly dropping dead in the pulpit suggests that either God does not regard them as disobedient or that he does not kill those who sin.

Neither are false teachers dropping like dead. Nor do those who allow homosexual 'marriages' drop like dead. But God remembers, and He will punish all the sins justly. Ananias and Sapphira are an example of not sinning against God, because it won't end well. And God my bring His judgement immediately, in a month, a year...but eventually He will.

Many churches fail to teach this today, but God's judgment starts with His own house. It will start with the church.

Their sin was not hypocrisy.

Yes it was.
Their sin was lying that takes the form of hypocrisy. It is a lie that is intended to make them look spiritual. They sought to gain prestige, high praise for their low sin. They thought that they would be applauded for their sacrifice. And at the same time, they could free up a little cash and stash it away. The lie was simply the vehicle or the method by which they attempted to carry out their covetous scheme for status, for self-elevation. Really then, it becomes hypocrisy, doesn’t it? That dirty sin, creating a deceptive impression of one’s spiritual character; that’s hypocrisy, creating a deceptive perception of one’s spiritual character.

This sin, God hates above others. God hates, first of all, liars. First in the list in the Old Testament. Hypocrisy is not just a lie; it is a lying life. It is living a lie. Yes, one should give sacrificially. It’s wrong not to give sacrificially. But that’s not the point here. The point is: they lied. But it runs deeper than that. They not only lied, they lied to create a false perception of their spiritual condition. I will tell you, from God’s standpoint, no one is so ugly in God’s eyes as those who paint spiritual beauty on faces where there is none.

They are the ones who want to be elevated in the church, and they’ve been around a long time. Long time. They want people to think highly of them. They put on a façade. They put on a front. They’re hypocrites. Is the church full of hypocrites? Absolutely. None of us, truthfully, none of us lives as we ought to live. None of us lives perfectly. None of us lives the Christ-like life. But neither should we pretend that we do. Nor should we be in some kind of hurry to act as if the realities of our sin don’t even exist.

That’s exactly what was going on here. Yes, churches have hypocrites. Yes, people pretend to be spiritual when they’re not. That needs to be exposed. What sin would you have picked to be the first sin that the Lord disciplined in the church? Maybe you would’ve picked immorality. Maybe you would’ve picked stealing. Maybe you would’ve picked some form of blasphemy. Maybe you would’ve picked some breached relationship characterized by anger, hostility, lack of forgiveness. Those are all part of life in the church. But the sin that the Holy Spirit places here to inaugurate our understanding of sin in the church is the sin of hypocrisy, pretending to be something you’re not.

The fact that he DOES call us to preach shows that he has not forbidden it in his word.

Even false teachers says God calls them to preach.

Is not an argument when people say 'I feel like I have a gift to preach'. No one gets to do everything they feel like they're gifted at no one does

What if a man who has several wives feels like he's gifted to be a pastor? The Bible says he must be the husband of one wife. So just because you feel like you're gifted to do something, that doesn't give you the right to overthrow biblical qualifications. The office of the elder - Paul says he must be the husband of one wife. He's talking about man, that office is exclusively for men. That's the office of the pastor teacher. So if the office is exclusively for men and the Bible is very clear that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men there's absolutely no room for women to be in that office or to exercise that authority in the church

Paul says that HE does not permit A woman - not that God commands all women.

It's not just one specific woman, but any woman is not allowed to preach. You are even given the reason why women are not allowed to preach in the following verses, which I already mentioned many times under this topic.

What does the Bible say about women preachers? “It is improper for a woman to speak in church.” That’s not ambiguous; that’s not at all unclear. “It is improper for a woman to speak in church.” That is an absolute prohibition.

And the word “improper” is chosen very, very carefully by the Holy Spirit to leave no lack of clarity as to the force of the statement. The word that is translated “improper” is aischros in the Greek. It really is a word that means “disgraceful” or “shameful.” It’s something more than just improper; it’s disgraceful.

In fact, that is the way it is translated in 1 Cor 11:6 by the word “disgraceful.” That is the way it is translated in Ephesians 5, verse 12, as “disgraceful” or “shameful.” That same word is used in Titus 1:11, and there it is translated “sordid,” “sordid” - a word that basically means “base” or “shameful.” It has the common sense of something that is known to be a disgrace.

It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. It is shameful. That is a recognized judgment on all such behaviour, the same as teaching for “sordid gain” in Titus 1:11 “disgraceful, shameful gain.” It’s sort of like false prophets doing what they do for money. And this unmistakable, divine law and command is so absolute, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak.” And then verse 35, “It is improper for women to speak in church,” as in all the churches of the saints, always and everywhere.

This whole section starts with that statement at the end of verse 33, “As in all the churches of the saints.” Paul is giving us a universal principle here. This is not some local thing; this is everywhere and at all times. When Paul says that, he is talking about something that is universal.

1 Cor 14:38 “If anyone does not recognize what I have written as the Lord’s command, he is not recognized.” What Paul wrote is the Lord’s command. Violate that command and you’re not a preacher and you’re not spiritual; you’re a fraud. The Word of God is clear.

“A man doesn’t originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed, man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” In other words, keep these distinctions clear: authority, submission.

 

[Truth7t7]

So just because you feel like you're gifted to do something that doesn't give you the right to overthrow biblical qualifications the office of the elder. Paul says he must be the husband of one wife he's talking about man okay that office is exclusively for men that's the office of the pastor teacher so if the office is exclusively for men and the Bible is very clear that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men there's absolutely no room for women to be in that office or to exercise that authority in the church


It's not just one specific woman, but any woman is not allowed to preach. You are even given the reason why women are not allowed to preach in the following verses, which I already mentioned many times under this topic.

What does the Bible say about women preachers? “It is improper for a woman to speak in church.” That’s not ambiguous; that’s not at all unclear. “It is improper for a woman to speak in church.” That is an absolute prohibition.

And the word “improper” is chosen very, very carefully by the Holy Spirit to leave no lack of clarity as to the force of the statement. The word that is translated “improper” is aischros in the Greek. It really is a word that means “disgraceful” or “shameful.” It’s something more than just improper; it’s disgraceful.

In fact, that is the way it is translated in 1 Cor 11:6 by the word “disgraceful.” That is the way it is translated in Ephesians 5, verse 12, as “disgraceful” or “shameful.” That same word is used in Titus 1:11, and there it is translated “sordid,” “sordid” - a word that basically means “base” or “shameful.” It has the common sense of something that is known to be a disgrace.

It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. It is shameful. That is a recognized judgment on all such behaviour, the same as teaching for “sordid gain” in Titus 1:11 “disgraceful, shameful gain.” It’s sort of like false prophets doing what they do for money. And this unmistakable, divine law and command is so absolute, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak.” And then verse 35, “It is improper for women to speak in church,” as in all the churches of the saints, always and everywhere.

This whole section starts with that statement at the end of verse 33, “As in all the churches of the saints.” Paul is giving us a universal principle here. This is not some local thing; this is everywhere and at all times. When Paul says that, he is talking about something that is universal.

1 Cor 14:38 “If anyone does not recognize what I have written as the Lord’s command, he is not recognized.” What Paul wrote is the Lord’s command. Violate that command and you’re not a preacher and you’re not spiritual; you’re a fraud. The Word of God is clear.

“A man doesn’t originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed, man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” In other words, keep these distinctions clear: authority, submission.

I Agree 100% Amen!

 

[Paidiske]

No I didn't,

Well, you completely failed to engage with it.

God's words below stand true

Let's look at some of them in detail, then.

1 Timothy 3:1-13KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Except there is no "a man," in the Greek. It's εἴ τις. "If anyone."

The same words for "if anyone" that we see, for example, in 1 Corinthians 3:12, or 2 Corinthians 2:5, or Galatians 1:9.

It is not a gendered term. And there is no "he" in the Greek text here; that is added in English to make the sentence structure work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

A "one-woman man," literally. This is a common idiom for marital faithfulness. It is, again, not particularly about gender, but about character.

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

There are no possessive pronouns in the Greek, of any gender.

It is true that the participles are in a masculine form, but Greek is a language which defaults to the masculine when speaking generally. Again, the point here is character, not gender.

5 (For if a man

It's εἴ τις, again. "If anyone."

know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

And again, the pronouns here are added in English, and not there in the Greek.

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Again, no pronoun in the Greek.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Literally "women" (with no "their"). It is disputed whether this refers to the wives of deacons, or women who are deacons.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife,

A "one-woman man," literally, again. See above comment about faithfulness and character.

Your translation puts an emphasis on gender which is absent from the Greek.

 

[Truth7t7]

A "one-woman man," literally. This is a common idiom for marital faithfulness. It is, again, not particularly about gender, but about character.

100% False!

1 Timothy 3:2KJV
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

ἀνήρ​

Transliteration anēr (Key)
Pronunciation (an'-ayr)
Part of Speech (masculine noun)

Strong’s Definitions (Husband)
ἀνήρ anḗr, an'-ayr; a primary word ; a man (properly as an individual male):—fellow, husband, man, sir.

 

[Rose_bud]

I did not mention Ananias and Sapphira to point to male pastors only, but to remind Christians that sin still has horrible consequences.

Why do I say it? Because this teaching you barely find in churches today. Let's be honest, there is a lack of fear of God in the church today, at least in the western world.

The church is weak today. Christians fear men more than God. Sin and world entered many churches. We have teachings of cheap grace where Christians respond to sin by 'I am under grace, not under law, I can do what I want' and yes I heard Christians say that, There is barely any teachings of sin, hell, God's coming wrath and judgement. All about love love and love but do not mention God's wrath, or hell. Cheap grace.

The church (not every church ofc) become what the unfaithful Israel was in OT. Israel sinned in OT so much that God said to them that He will no longer hear their prayers, and He will not have mercy. This of course does not get preached today. God describes sin as filthy as human excrement (Zechariah 3), as filthy as woman's menstruation blood (Isaiah) and calls His unfaithful people a w***e. When was the last time, if ever, you heard a sermon on that? Because OT is full of it, but that does not get preached today only that God loves you, God has a plan for you. But nothing about God's judgement.

John, apostle of love, he himself wrote a lot about God's judgement. But that does not fly in church today. But God's 'judgement begins at the house of God' (1 Peter 4:17). We were purchased no by gold or silver but by the precious blood of Christ. 1 Cor 3:12-15 Every man's work will be made manifest: for the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will try every man's work, of what sort ...But some today, they store treasures made of paper and wood, which when put through fire, will burn.

Hi Ivan :wave;

I agree that there are instances where the full counsel of God is not presented. And the message of the wrath of God and His love is not held in tension. My pastor has a Nazarene background, so we preach holiness unto the Lord, by default.

But if you're implying that the decline in moral teaching is due to women preachers or pastors, I strongly disagree. The only message with the power to transform sinful humanity is the gospel of Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. As Paul rightly stated..., I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

And by your post you advocate for restricting the presentation of this message to a gendef specific type of messenger and office and location, which limits its reach and perpetuates the churchs problems. The gospel will always transcend human vessels its ground breaking truth and transformative power are not dependent on the gender or human qualifications of the one proclaiming it or the place of its proclamation.

 

[Paidiske]

100% False!

I do so appreciate the way someone relying on a flawed English translation is trying to explain away the actual language - including its idiomatic expression - in which the text was written. Can you actually read the Greek?

Do you really think repeating the same flawed arguments over and over is going to make them any more persuasive?

 

[Truth7t7]

A "one-woman man," literally. This is a common idiom for marital faithfulness. It is, again, not particularly about gender, but about character.

100% False!

1 Timothy 3:2KJV
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

ἀνήρ​

Transliteration anēr (Key)
Pronunciation (an'-ayr)
Part of Speech (masculine noun)

Strong’s Definitions (Husband)
ἀνήρ anḗr, an'-ayr; a primary word ; a man (properly as an individual male):—fellow, husband, man, sir.

 

[Strong in Him]

Neither are false teachers dropping like dead. Nor do those who allow homosexual 'marriages' drop like dead. But God remembers, and He will punish all the sins justly.

God doesn't punish believers for their sins; that's why he sent Jesus, Isaiah 53:5.
Jesus died for our sins and has reconciled us to God, 2 Corinthians 5:18.
We have the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin, so that we can confess and be forgiven, 1 John 1:9. The Spirit assures us that we are God's children, Romans 8:16-17, and he is changing us into Jesus' likeness, 2 Corinthians 3:18.

So IF female clergy and preachers were sinning, God would be perfectly capable of correcting, rebuking or removing them. He's not going to allow his name to be dishonoured week by week, and finally punish everyone for it years later.
If you had a small child and it did something wrong, you wouldn't punish it a week later and say "that's for what you did last week". A small child will not remember what they did last week nor connect the wrong action with the punishment. It's likely you would immediately say "no", and pull the child away, take its toys away, give a short smack on the hand, or whatever.

Yes it was.
Their sin was lying that takes the form of hypocrisy. It is a lie that is intended to make them look spiritual. They sought to gain prestige, high praise for their low sin. They thought that they would be applauded for their sacrifice. And at the same time, they could free up a little cash and stash it away.

The money they received was theirs - even Peter said they could do what they wanted with it.
All they had to do was to say, "this is 3/4 of the money that we received", or "no, this isn't all of it but it's most of it." They lied and said, "yes, this is all the money we received."

This sin, God hates above others. God hates, first of all, liars. First in the list in the Old Testament. Hypocrisy is not just a lie; it is a lying life. It is living a lie.

They didn't get the chance to live a lie, nor to repent.
Other people did - even the Pharisees accused of hypocrisy.

They are the ones who want to be elevated in the church, and they’ve been around a long time. Long time. They want people to think highly of them. They put on a façade. They put on a front. They’re hypocrites. Is the church full of hypocrites? Absolutely. None of us, truthfully, none of us lives as we ought to live. None of us lives perfectly. None of us lives the Christ-like life. But neither should we pretend that we do. Nor should we be in some kind of hurry to act as if the realities of our sin don’t even exist.

I don't know, and have never known, of any Christian who says "follow my example; this is how you should live your life." Or, "I ought to be ordained because I lead such a good life". No one boasts of their spirituality.
In my experience, people - myself included - are too hard on themselves and always feel they could do better.

Even false teachers says God calls them to preach.

Dishonest/deceived people may say that God has told them to do anything.
But in the case of many of God's children who follow and serve him, it's probably true.

It's not just one specific woman, but any woman is not allowed to preach.

That's why Paul uses the singular and not the plural, I suppose?
And he doesn't say "preach".

What does the Bible say about women preachers? “It is improper for a woman to speak in church.” That’s not ambiguous; that’s not at all unclear.

Not if you take it out of context, no. We can make the Bible say anything we want when we take it out of context.
Assuming you are talking about 1 Cor 14:34, look at the whole chapter, which is about speaking in tongues, prophesying and the need to do these things one at a time to maintain order in worship. Where does Paul say, "women may not speak in tongues or prophesy?" He has already said in chapter 11 that women should prophesy with their heads covered, so he is clearly not against it.
Read verse 35 "if they want to enquire about something they should ask their own husbands at home". Why would Paul tell women how, or the right way, to enquire about something unless they were doing it the wrong way? I.E calling out their questions in the service and disrupting the preacher, or finding the nearest man and asking him their questions? It's very likely that that was happening, which was wrong. So Paul said, "if women want to learn let them ask their own husbands at home."
Context.

And the word “improper” is chosen very, very carefully by the Holy Spirit to leave no lack of clarity as to the force of the statement. The word that is translated “improper” is aischros in the Greek. It really is a word that means “disgraceful” or “shameful.” It’s something more than just improper; it’s disgraceful.

If women were grabbing hold of the nearest man in a service of worship and asking him questions, when they should have waited til the got home - yes, that was disgraceful.

And then verse 35, “It is improper for women to speak in church,” as in all the churches of the saints, always and everywhere.

Again, you're being selective in the words that you quote.

This whole section starts with that statement at the end of verse 33,

It doesn't matter about the section - chapters, section and verse numbers don't appear in the Greek; they are man-made.
Read the whole chapter; where does Paul teach that women can't speak in tongues or prophesy?

Violate that command and you’re not a preacher and you’re not spiritual; you’re a fraud. The Word of God is clear.

Clearly manipulated to make it say what you want it to say, yes.

 

[Strong in Him]

100% False!

Have you read the Greek? Do you know that for certain?

 

[stevevw]

But we could only ever speculate about that.

Yes that is what I am doing is asking why were males predominately used. I deduced that this could not be because of descrimination, oppression or a Patriarchy as God and Christ in His missionary on earth would allow such things. So I then wondered what other reason.

But I disagree that its only spectulation. Already we can determine that it was not about descrimination of women. So we can perhaps determine other truths from our speculation that may help us understand. Like I said perhaps it was a time of great threat and instability and male suthority may have been needed against the Roman Empire.

I mean, why men? We might as well ask, why Peter and not Bartholomew? Why John and not Thomas?

This is a false equivelance. We are talking about gender and sex and not a individual differences which could be as different as there are individuals.

If I had to guess - and it's only a guess - it's that taking women along as part of the very intimate inner circle, who were not married to the men in that group, and who were (perhaps) married to other men, would have been socially challenging. Especially since Jesus himself was unmarried. I mean, yes, we know there were women who travelled with Jesus and supported him, but given the mores of the day, I imagine there were some proprieties being observed. It's notable that Mary sitting at Jesus' feet was in her own home, not on the road travelling, for example. (Of all the accusations made of Jesus, I don't recall any accusations of impropriety with women. And they would have made those accusations if he'd given them the slightest excuse!).

I don't think Jesus cared for what others thought. He defended the adulterous women against the Pharisees which I would imagine there was a bit of a crowd. Jesus just siding with such a women would have brought outrage and calls of hyocrite. Mary Magdalene was close to Jesus and it would have been known she was with Jesus.

But its not just the inner circle but many occassions like the Last Supper and other times where Jesus was only with the diciples or otherse like Mathew who spent a lot of time with Jesus over recording His teachings. Or like Mathew 10:1 Jesus gathered his twelve disciples and imparted to them authority to cast out demons and to heal every sickness and every disease. Why the 12 disciples and why weren't any women given authority to cast out demons and heal people intially.

Or Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

My long observation of a good many men and women in ministry has led me to this conclusion. We all have different gifts and strengths, and in general, there are not clear trends that make men in ministry better at one sort of task, and women at another, or anything like that. All of us have to be generalists with a range of competencies, anyway; there are very few clergy working in highly specialised ministries.

Generally I agree. But I disagree that men and women are exactly the same when it comes to certain roles and its not so easy on average and especially at the extremes when the differences are most profound. For example you will find at the extreme end of physical strength in matters of combat or conflict males are more suitable.

I noticed that the bible mentions to the diciples that in going out to preach you will be under threat, rejected, and live a pretty hard life. I think this was one of the reason males were used as they had a better chance of handling things. Back then I would say in a pagan world you needed to hold your ground and face down the physical dominance of pagans who hated Christains.

What I do observe, though, is that there are, pastorally at least, times when for the person needing care, the sex of the pastor matters. With men it's often around physical disability; they are already struggling with what it means to "be a man;" it's not a time they want to talk to a woman. With women it's often around a history of abuse; they are already struggling with feeling safe; it's not a time they want to talk to a man. (Yes, I am generalising, but those are clear trends I've seen). So it is helpful to have both men and women available so that people can approach the person they feel better able to relate to at that time.

Yes and this is really a basic principle in therapy where males feel more comfortable with males and females with females. Especially as you say there is a history of some physicological barrier towards the opposite sex. But generally blokes understand blokes and women relate to women issues.

But I think the church has to recognise the masculline and femine traits we naturally have and not dismiss them. This doesn't mean generalising everyone along those basic differences. But recognising them to maintain a balanced approach that acknowledged reality of who we are.

Individual differences should be celebrated as there is no barrier or should not be. The individual talents will overide gender and sex.

 

[Paidiske]

Or like Mathew 10:1 Jesus gathered his twelve disciples and imparted to them authority to cast out demons and to heal every sickness and every disease. Why the 12 disciples and why weren't any women given authority to cast out demons and heal people intially.

Don't forget that later he sent out the 70; and church history tells us that there were women among the 70.

But I disagree that men and women are exactly the same

I didn't say that. I said we are all different in terms of our gifts for ministry; and not in a way which is particularly gendered.

I think this was one of the reason males were used as they had a better chance of handling things. Back then I would say in a pagan world you needed to hold your ground and face down the physical dominance of pagans who hated Christains.

Have you heard of Perpetua and Felicity? Or Agnes, or Faith? Or any of the other women martyrs under Roman persecution?

Individual differences should be celebrated as there is no barrier or should not be. The individual talents will overide gender and sex.

Then there's no need to make an issue about a person's ministry on the basis of their sex.

 

[RamiC]

The church is weak today. Christians fear men more than God. Sin and world entered many churches. We have teachings of cheap grace where Christians respond to sin by 'I am under grace, not under law, I can do what I want' and yes I heard Christians say that, There is barely any teachings of sin, hell, God's coming wrath and judgement. All about love love and love but do not mention God's wrath, or hell.

Now I agree with you on this, except I am convinced that the threats that are taught should be about oblivion to God's love in this life as "hell", rather than as an afterlife based burning fire. This is entirely because I believe the simplest way for the unchurched people and the weak ones within the church to get some faith back would be to experience the difference real faith the size of a mustard seed could make to the struggles they have here in the now. I do believe there is an after judgement hell, hence my desire to see others persuaded. The issue is what will work, and quoting Ananias and Sapphira will only work if people do start literally dropping dead for lying.

I also still see an example in Acts 5 1-11 of both parties in a marriage getting the same result for the same thing. There was no difference identified because Ananias lied to the church as a man, or a husband, and nothing to indicate that Sapphira was only obeying her husband as a good wife, but dropped dead anyway. We do not know how they came to decide to try to keep some of the money, but God does not differentiate for gender there, we can see that.

The church (not every church ofc) become what the unfaithful Israel was in OT. Israel sinned in OT so much that God said to them that He will no longer hear their prayers, and He will not have mercy.

On this, I believe we as the church can only exist based on the New Testament, we have no justification as Gentiles otherwise, however some emphasis on why the Old Testament is in our Bibles, that the New Testament is invalid without it, and why it should not simply be ignored, I think that might be in order.

My opinion on these things could be quite worthless.

 

[RamiC]

100% False!

1 Timothy 3:2KJV
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

ἀνήρ​

Transliteration anēr (Key)
Pronunciation (an'-ayr)
Part of Speech (masculine noun)

Strong’s Definitions (Husband)
ἀνήρ anḗr, an'-ayr; a primary word ; a man (properly as an individual male):—fellow, husband, man, sir.

What is false here is the way you have tried to present Paidiske 's breakdown of the Greek, she did not attempt to say that the word "husband" was not gendered at all, as anyone can see by just looking at her post, then yours. You were told this "A "one-woman man," literally. This is a common idiom for marital faithfulness. It is, again, not particularly about gender, but about character." She has already translated ἀνήρ exactly as you have, she said it means "man".

 

[stevevw]

Don't forget that later he sent out the 70; and church history tells us that there were women among the 70.

Yes theres debate as to whether it was 70 or 72. I am not sure whether there would have been many women as these diciples had to more or less do the same as the 12. They had to live off the land and face threats as well so this would have been more suitable for males.

Scholars have spectulated that certain people would have been included in the 70 who were contempories of the apostles. Most were Bishops who setup the earch church in various places. But theres some interesting names. Some obvious ones like Jesus's brother James, Matthias who replaced Judas, Stephen the first marty, Mark and Luke the evangelists.

Seventy disciples - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I didn't say that. I said we are all different in terms of our gifts for ministry; and not in a way which is particularly gendered.

Yes when it comes to ministry. Some people are good at speacking and communicating, others are good at music whileothers may be good at organising people or with church administration. This can be broken down again and again as every individual will have a gift in varying and different ways.

Have you heard of Perpetua and Felicity? Or Agnes, or Faith? Or any of the other women martyrs under Roman persecution?

Of course and I am not saying that there were no mighty women who died for Christ and its not just about a willingness to face death. I was thinking more practically in that the harsh and threatening conditions were more suitable for men to handle. Thats all. Just like today when we usually send majority males into war or in special groups that may require higher levels combat and survival skills.

Thats the only thing I can think of as to why males dominated disciples or prophets. Many of the prophets and great men of the bible like David and Moses for example faced off with enermies or the pharoah. It often involved fighting off nations or escaping and surviving in deserts and then conquering the promise land.

Thats not to say that there were no women who were able to do the same like the prophetess Deborah who was a great military leader.

Then there's no need to make an issue about a person's ministry on the basis of their sex.

Thats right. If the message or word or situation is honoring God and his word nothing else should come into it. When we hear Gods word and when Gods spirit is at work it does not even register as to who is speaking the words because you are beyond the fleshly or physical body and into the spiritual realm of God. Which is Christs church which can happen anywhere on earth regardless of race.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure whether there would have been many women as these diciples had to more or less do the same as the 12. They had to live off the land and face threats as well so this would have been more suitable for males.

Andronicus and Junia are generally considered to have been amongst the 70; perhaps it was easier for a married couple to support one another, too.

(They didn't "live off the land," good grief. They were provided hospitality in their travels).

Of course and I am not saying that there were no mighty women who died for Christ and its not just about a willingness to face death. I was thinking more practically in that the harsh and threatening conditions were more suitable for men to handle. Thats all. Just like today when we usually send majority males into war or in special groups that may require higher levels combat and survival skills.

But these people were not engaging in combat or extraordinary survival skills; and when it comes to what actually killed many of them - martyrdom - that was faced willingly by men and women both.

Your argument is strange.

Thats right. If the message or word or situation is honoring God and his word nothing else should come into it.

Then why post to even bring up your "elephant in the room" in the first place? What's the point, if you're not arguing against women in ministry?

 

[stevevw]

Andronicus and Junia are generally considered to have been amongst the 70; perhaps it was easier for a married couple to support one another, too.

(They didn't "live off the land," good grief. They were provided hospitality in their travels).

Jesus sent the diciples out with no money or food. It would have been a hard life though depending on strangers and I am sure they would have slept rough more times than not.

But I think it was mainly the threat to person that was also a consideration being out there among the pagan world. Afterall all the disiciples were killed for preaching the gospel and so were many of the 70. I think under these conditions a male would be more suitable. But I am sure there were some women as you said like if they worked husband and wife so women were protected.

But these people were not engaging in combat or extraordinary survival skills; and when it comes to what actually killed many of them - martyrdom - that was faced willingly by men and women both.

It think casting out demons is a spirital combat. This would have included hostile behaviour against those casting out demons. I would say if they were killed for what they were preaching in the end then there would have been many conflicts along the way. It really wasn't until the mid 4th century that Christains were given protections under law.

Your argument is strange.

Why its a common sense argument. If its a rough, physical and threatening situation we usually send mostly males into such situations. The disiciples were living on the road, facing demons and resistence in spreading a new church. In the end they were killed by the enermy. So why is is not like a battle and a threatening situation.

I mean I am not saying this is the case. I am just spectulation as to why Christ would use predominately men if there was no good reason to do so. What other reason. I disagree that it was because of womens reputations as Christ did not care. There must have been some other reason and the only one that seems to fit the bill is that males had certain abilities that were more suitable for this task.

If you look at the list of the 70 compiled by scholars you see the vast majority are the first Bishops of churches. So these were men who before being made Bishops were spreading the gospel and built the church they became bishop of. So why would there be such a predominance of male. By todays standards that would be descrimination that there was maybe only 1 or 2% if that and not 50% of women.

Then why post to even bring up your "elephant in the room" in the first place? What's the point, if you're not arguing against women in ministry?

I am not saying my elephant is not an elephant lol. I was talking about generally yes it doesn't matter when it comes to the different ministry of individual talents. Theres many ways to be a teacher or leader.

But like with the setting up of the early church it seems for this task males were needed. Maybe because they could be more authoritive against the threats and resistence of spreading early Christainity. Like I said they were all killed so it was a threat and males seem to handle that better. Or are equipped to handle that better.

But like I said this is one aspect of teaching and leadership. The teaching of the gospel can come in many forms.

 

[Paidiske]

Why its a common sense argument. If its a rough, physical and threatening situation we usually send mostly males into such situations.

It's a strange argument because it ignores that women faced martyrdom along with the men. It's not as if they were trying to protect the women and prevent them being killed. It's also a strange argument because it makes out that this was some sort of testosterone-fuelled action-adventure, rather than being hard work, yes, but not necessarily harder than the lives that many people faced in the ancient world.

What other reason. I disagree that it was because of womens reputations as Christ did not care.

I didn't even say it was because of women's reputations. I said that having a small group of women and men, not married to each other, sharing such an intimate, high-intensity experience as Jesus's inmost circle, would have been socially challenging. Would the husbands of those women have been happy to let them do that, for example?

Like I said they were all killed so it was a threat and males seem to handle that better. Or are equipped to handle that better.

Given that they were killed, what does handling it "better" even mean? It's not that they were more willing to face death.

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus sent the diciples out with no money or food. It would have been a hard life though depending on strangers and I am sure they would have slept rough more times than not.

According to Luke Jesus sent them out and told them to stay in the places which welcomed them - not to travel from house to house.

But I think it was mainly the threat to person that was also a consideration being out there among the pagan world. Afterall all the disiciples were killed for preaching the gospel and so were many of the 70. I think under these conditions a male would be more suitable.

I honestly don't think that believers in the New, or the Old, Testament worried about safety, what was suitable etc.
It was about calling and having faith in the God who called. If God called, or told them to go, they went, or they didn't.
So Deborah became a military leader. Esther was a Jewish girl, married to a pagan king. She was asked to approach the king, without his permission, and ask him to overturn his edict that would have wiped out the Jews. She said - in effect - "you pray, I'll go and if I perish I perish".
Ruth was sent into the fields to work among foreign men, very risky. She went.
Abigail intervened, ignored her husband's words and prevented a war with King David. (She later married him.)
And Jonah ran away.

It think casting out demons is a spirital combat. This would have included hostile behaviour against those casting out demons. I would say if they were killed for what they were preaching in the end then there would have been many conflicts along the way. It really wasn't until the mid 4th century that Christains were given protections under law.

What about their belief that God would protect them as they did his will?

Why its a common sense argument.

It's not really.
God can call, and send, whoever he wishes. Yes, sometimes it might be dangerous, rough or involve forgoing a few home comforts. But a) God can provide and protect, b) he knows who he wants to send, their qualities etc, c) I don't believe he would send someone somewhere if they were going to immediately be killed and d) discipleship and obedience is not about saying "that sounds a bit rough, I don't fancy it."

I mean I am not saying this is the case. I am just spectulation as to why Christ would use predominately men if there was no good reason to do so.

Could be for the same reason that he used predominantly Jews. Women, and Gentiles, were unclean and may not have been accepted.
It's more about culture than physical strength.

 

[RamiC]

So why would there be such a predominance of male. By todays standards that would be descrimination that there was maybe only 1 or 2% if that and not 50% of women.

The Bible cannot be understood as Christians do understand it by judging it through "todays standards", otherwise the entire call to follolw Jesus, while knowing it will involve getting stoned to death, having one's head cut off, getting crucified, starving on remote islands and ending up used as lion food would all be called out as major breaches of international human rights. This is the amazing thing about how Christianity came to be in the first place, every power that was at the start, was trying to destroy it, from Jesus' infancy on.

We do have this verse "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 NKJV

However, even that does not require some sort of 50% target, which as far as I can see, is not relevant.