Women Preachers: "Yes" or "No" and WHY?... book chapter and verse please!

[Yuri Solomon]

I know this is a hot topic, but I will take my chances on it. Preachers, I want to know what is your view on this subject and why or why not do you conclude as you do according to the word of God. Now let's be nice and considerate. Everyone has a right to believe what they think is right before God and to be treated with respect. However, the scripture is the final court of arbitration.

[Damian Epps]

Man Yuri why you have to go and start trouble lol. what you trying to do split the church. lol

[Yuri Solomon]

Hey I think we can have a sibling fight with dignity... lol Don't mean to put you on the spot, but do you have an opinion on this? Someone needs to get us going dude... LOL!

P.S. Where's Dan & Bishop Johnson? Get them up here! ROTFL!

[Rev.L.J.Malbro]

Hey, Solomon. I agree w/ Epps why you went there? I just plead the 5th Lol..............................

[James Pierce]

This is truly a hot topic, and it is interesting to check it out. It is my view that its ok for a woman to preach the Gospel. There are scriptures that may seem like women "cant" preach, such as 1 Tim 2, and 1 Corin 11. One must understand the historical background behind why Paul said such things.

In 1 Tim 2, Paul said that he did not permit women to teach over men, having spiritual authority over them. The historical background of this text is that there was an all-female cult in the city where Timothy was located. This cult dominated the religion in that city, and men were subjected to these women priests, and adminds. Obviously, Paul did not want Timothy, and his church looking like another paganistic cult, and so he ordered Timothy to not have women teach over men.

Paul never, in a universal way, ordered all women of all time to not preach. It was the situation in the city of Timothy that Paul said his statements.

In 1 Corin 11, where women were told to keep silent, Paul was not saying that to all women or all time. The situation was that women were causing lots of confusion about many different things, and Paul ordered that they shut up, and ask their husbands things at home.

If God calls women to his ministry, which he has, and is still doing, then no one has the right to say they cannot preach, especially if they do not understand the historical context of scripture

Be blessed,
James

[Eemah Martha aka Hephzybah]

A great understanding of Word, Brother James- Todah!

[Yuri Solomon]

If I can play devil's advocate here... Pardon the pun...lol ... Where are you getting this "historical background" may I ask? I have never read that from any classical/historical material. Plus I think the so-called "cultural background" rationale militates against the rationale that Paul himself gives, basing his reason on the "created order" and not a reaction to culture.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Secondly, Paul says Let your women keep silence in the "churches" (1Co 14:34). And he said elsewhere about Timothy...

1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

It seems that Paul's instructions seem to be universal to me.

Anyway, these are my inductive observations.

?????????????
Solomon

[James Pierce]

Hey whats up Yuri,

You said you have never read this from any of your own historical study. trust me, brother, its out there, because I have found it. You asked me where did I get my studies. I have several books, and several sources that I use. One source that is I use is from a foremost, leading New Testament Scholar, N.T Wright.

I looked at 1 Cor 4, and I saw that the context is referring to the ministry of the Apostles. Women and preaching is not in site here. So, its imperative that we keep scripture within its historical context.

Cultural context studies is VERY important when you are studying an ancient book. The bible is 3000 yrs removed from our own 21 century culture, and so in order to get proper understanding of the bible, we must understand their culture, and lifestyles.

I understand what paul was saying, but you must see it from historical context.

[Yuri Solomon]

Yo James.. thanks for your response so quickly,

I actually said “I have never read that from any classical/historical material.” The emphasis is on the term “classical material”. That means trustworthy sources like Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, Spurgeon A.W.Pink, etc.

Unfortunately, contemporary higher critical scholars have used so-called “cultural/historical context” to twist the scripture away from its clear meaning. You can find a so-called scholar that says whatever you want him to say today.

Cultural/historical context is useful for understanding idiomatic terms (shall I give the children’s meat to dogs) and culturally exclusive practices (greet your brother with a holy kiss) but never as a basis for the author’s principle instruction. The “word of God” is never determined by cultural practices.

There are two things that should be considered in determining what is true: the scripture and the church historically,

The Scripture

The scripture is the final court of arbitration. First, the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. Secondly, the scripture interprets itself and one need compare scripture with scripture: line upon line and precept upon precept. Thirdly, the things that are clear should never be contradicted by things that are unclear. Fourthly, one should consider particularly the agreement of the Old Testament, the teaching of Christ (The Gospels) and the teaching of the Apostles. They do not contradict each other, and one may find very safe interpretation when these three aspects of scripture agree… (i.e. they confirm each other by teaching the same thing.)


The Church Historically

The church is connected from century to century; we cannot make conclusions of scripture that deny essential soteriological positions of the universal church. That is an absolute no no! However, on secondary matters of sanctification (ecclesiology,) we do well to consider the position of the universal church as well.

Lest I drag on any longer, let me get to the subject matter…

1) SCRIPTURE:

a) There are no clear indications of “women preachers” in the scripture. Whatever, God would have us to do, always has clear biblical precedence.
b) Jesus chose no women in the twelve although He had many women around Him to choose from if this were His will.
c) There is clear didactic teaching to the contrary that should restrict our ambiguous interpretations of narrative passages to contradict the teaching passages.
d) Paul also gives a ration for his teaching about women that finds its basis not in the changing culture but in the immutable pattern of creation.
e) Paul also says very clearly that he teaches the same thing in all the churches everywhere; this dismisses any such idea that Paul gives special instructions in view of a localized practice.

2) THE CHURCH:

a) The mainstream church previous to the 20th century has never accepted the idea of “women preachers”.
b) If it is God’s will that women preach, how is it that their presence in this capacity is so obscured on the plain of time, both biblically and historically?
c) There is no sign of female leadership amid the early fathers.

That’s enough for now… But God’s word speaks to history and "history/culture" never determines God’s word.

[James Pierce]

I actually said “I have never read that from any classical/historical material.” The emphasis is on the term “classical material”. That means trustworthy sources like Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, Spurgeon A.W.Pink, etc.

Unfortunately, contemporary higher critical scholars have used so-called “cultural/historical context” to twist the scripture away from its clear meaning. You can find a so-called scholar that says whatever you want him to say today.

The problem with the classical material are the guys you just read. What I mean by problem is that you start your historical studies from them.. at least that is how it looks. You can correct me If I am wrong on that. From experience, scipture does not always have clear meanings. The bible is full of figures of speech, and literary devices that must be studied to get an understanding of the text. Understanding the cultural context behind the scriptural text are crucial. There are tons of evidence to support that.

Cultural/historical context is useful for understanding idiomatic terms (shall I give the children’s meat to dogs) and culturally exclusive practices (greet your brother with a holy kiss) but never as a basis for the author’s principle instruction. The “word of God” is never determined by cultural practices.

A biblical student will not only use cultural/historical context for understanding of the author's intended meaning, but the language they use will be used. Being a Greek student myself, I know full well that you need to understand the language of the times to get proper understanding of some given scriptures. You stated that the word of God is never determined by cultural practices. I say that you need the cultural/historical context to gain greater understanding of their times. If cultural/historical context is not needed, then all the answers to those are written in the bible. But, we know that is not true, is it?

The Scripture

The scripture is the final court of arbitration. First, the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. Secondly, the scripture interprets itself and one need compare scripture with scripture: line upon line and precept upon precept. Thirdly, the things that are clear should never be contradicted by things that are unclear. Fourthly, one should consider particularly the agreement of the Old Testament, the teaching of Christ (The Gospels) and the teaching of the Apostles. They do not contradict each other, and one may find very safe interpretation when these three aspects of scripture agree… (i.e. they confirm each other by teaching the same thing.)

In many places of scripture, it interprets itself, and one does not need historical understanding to understand. It can seen as universal. But there are many places of scripture where cultural/historical context is truly needed. When you use proper exegesis, then you can safely say that I have safely interpreted scripture. The problem is that too many Christians just read the surface of the bible, and NEVER go to understand the meaning of it.

An example is the doctrine of hell. Most Christians will read the text about hell, and hellfire, and take it for what they read on the surface, but they do not know that there are 2 Greek words used for the word Hell---Hades, and Geenna. These 2 words are used both figuratively, and literally, in scripture. Hellfire is always used figuratively. Jesus himself said to the crowds, he speak so that they see and hear, but never perceive and understand. If you do not have cultural/historical understanding of the Valley of Hinnom, then you will not understand the language Jesus used concerning hellfire.

The Church Historically

The church is connected from century to century; we cannot make conclusions of scripture that deny essential soteriological positions of the universal church. That is an absolute no no! However, on secondary matters of sanctification, we do well to consider the position of the universal church as well.

Most Christians only go back as far as the 3rd century ad to judge the practices and beliefs of the early Apostolic Church. As far as I know, the early church began in the 1st century, and that is where I desire to get my practices and beliefs to. Believers in the 1st century kept the Torah, rejected once saved always saved, and many other heretical positions we have today. The Church began to stray away from the truth in the 2nd century, and especially when the great schism took place. God is calling us back to his true practices and beliefs.

1) SCRIPTURE:

a) There are no clear indications of “women preachers” in the scripture. Whatever, God would have us to do, always has clear biblical precedence.
b) Jesus chose no women in the twelve although He had many women around Him to choose from if this were His will.
c) There is clear didactic teaching to the contrary that should restrict our ambiguous interpretations of narrative passages to contradict the teaching passages.
d) Paul also gives a ration for his teaching about women that finds its basis not in the changing culture but in the immutable pattern of creation.
e) Paul also says very clearly that he teaches the same thing in all the churches everywhere; this dismisses any such idea that Paul gives special instructions in view of a localized practice.

A) That is correct, there are no clear implications of women preachers in scripture. On the other hand, there isnt any scripture that "condemns" women preaching either. By logical default, A woman is able to proclaim the Gospel of Christ if she desired to without sinning before God.

B) Jesus chose no women, correct. But he did have women follow him, and even this do not condemn women from preaching Jesus.

D). The whole argument behind what Paul said in 1 Tim 2 is the cultural/historical context of where they were. If you ignore that, then you will continue to read what Paul said as if he actually meant no women preachers for all time. Background to this is key.

E) That scripture in 1 cor has nothing to do with women preaching. If he taught that everywhere, then it would be evident in all of his letters. But, Paul had that problem with Timothy. Let me give you the background to it again. There was an all-female cult in the city where Timothy was in. Men were subjected to the female priests, and these women practically dominated the city. Paul gave timothy instruction to not have women to preach over men, for it was Adam that was created first. This is why Paul said that, and its important to know this cultural/historical background. Paul did not want Timothy's church looking like just another paganistic Greek female cult. We are the called out ones(Ekklesia).

2) THE CHURCH:

a) The mainstream church previous to the 20th century has never accepted the idea of “women preachers”.
b) If it is God’s will that women preach, how is it that their presence in this capacity is so obscured on the plain of time, both biblically and historically?
c) There is no sign of female leadership amid the early fathers.

That’s enough for now… But God’s word speaks to history and "history/culture" never determines God’s word.

A) I agree that mainstream Christianity in the 20th century has neevr accepted the idea of women preachers. They never studied to find the otherwise. Most Christians study what the bible reads, and not what the bible says. The same is true that mainstream Christianity never accepted the Torah as still in effect, but that it is done away with... which is totally false.

B) The reason why it looks foreign to mainstream Christianity is that they take Pauls "written" words as it stands. They never take his "intended" word into consideration-- The cultural/context behind the scriptures.

C) I have yet to find female leadership in the early church fathers either, but that still does not give evidence that women universally were condemned to preach. One could say that it was not the women's place to preach, not because of Pauls "written" argument, but because in those days, women were more housewives than anything.

Being that we are in the 21st century, and the bible was written thousands of yrs removed from our culture, We must understand their way of life in order to understand their figures of speech, and their language, and culture.

Be blessed,
James

[Yuri Solomon]

James, I know I said alot and I thank you for addressing all of it. We can talk about some of the peripheral things later (and I really would like to), but I hope we can keep from becoming too obtuse here. I will focus on what particularly caught my attention.

>>> A biblical student will not only use cultural/historical context for understanding of the author's intended meaning, but the language they use will be used. Being a Greek student myself, I know full well that you need to understand the language of the times to get proper understanding of some given scriptures. /i>

I do not deny that cultural context and linguistic studies are useful. I am a formal student of the Greek language as well. However, the question of such tools is “what is their proper application?” I won't venture here into linguistic application, but as for our discussion, the application of “cultural context” ends at “terms” and “practices”. It is being perverted when one says culture is the basis for the Apostle's “principle instruction”.

>>> You stated that the word of God is never determined by cultural practices. I say that you need the cultural/historical context to gain greater understanding of their times. If cultural/historical context is not needed, then all the answers to those are written in the bible. But, we know that is not true, is it?/i>

I would not say “you need the cultural/historical context to gain greater understanding of their times”; rather, you need the cultural/historical context to gain greater understanding of certain biblical “terms” and “practices”. For instance, when I read “greet your brother with a holy kiss” in the bible, I need to understand that this was a practice in the Jewish culture that signified fellowship. However, WHY they do this will never change (to signify fellowship), but WHAT we do to signify fellowship may change. So “cultural/historical context” is always about WHAT and never about WHY. However, the error of the higher critical scholars is making it about WHY the instruction are given, and so twist scripture and say Paul did not really mean what he is actually saying. Or that was for them and not for us.

There is only one basis for any Christian practice; it pleases God. No other reason will do. Not only so, but God is immutable; therefore, what pleases Him will never change. So if “women preaching” pleases God, then for Paul to give any other instructions (women keep silent) based on culture is not pleasing to God and would not be right.

So if what Paul is saying is right for woman, it must be right at all times; because, righteousness never changes; because it pleases God. And what pleases God never changes; because, God never changes.

So then what Paul says must be based on something that never changes… and it is! namely, the created order. That order bears the "immutability" of God because God did it. It proves the unchangeable order that should be upon everything including the church of God; because, creation is God's will without any sinful pollution. Creation is God's clearest demonstration of His will for the order of man.

Paul knew that and based His instructions on that... I think you can see that too James.

Not only so, but the book of 1 Timothy is about "ORDER!"

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

[James Pierce]

Hey, whats up Brother Yuri,

Its all good. We are having a great conversation. I hope I did not sound "argumentive" on this subject. Please forgive me If I sounded as such. But, I highly respect your opinion on this subject. In my opinion, whether you believe a woman should preach the gospel or not, I do not think "this" would be considered "heresey". The Lord speaks through the mouths of all(Those that believe) flesh.

Be blessed,
James

[Yuri Solomon]

You are absolutely right. As Augustine said, “All truth is God's truth.”

However, James, I am concerned about some other matters. I did take note of your leanings toward messianic Judaism. What do you essentially believe, if you don't mind me asking?