Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
My bad, I thought some here were saying women can’t teach men.Yes the husband and wife did expound unto appollos . Still that is not at all the same as women trying to lead the church .
Very different indeed .
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
My bad, I thought some here were saying women can’t teach men.Yes the husband and wife did expound unto appollos . Still that is not at all the same as women trying to lead the church .
Very different indeed .
Paul prohibited women teaching men
precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10)
Let me post it again for you brother:
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
These prophesying daughters would have to obey this rule set forth by the Apostle Paul when they entered the church.
Period end of story!
To put it simply, if you follow Scripture, yes.
Wives are to submit to husbands.
Women are not to have authority over men in the church.
Women are to remain quiet in the church (yes that means women pastors is wholly against Scripture).
“How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” (1 Corinthians 14:26)
Because Paul already told you:
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
So the passage you bring attention to does not include women because:
“precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10)
צַו לָצָוI’ve never understood that passage which goes on to say
Isaiah 28:12: He who said to them, "Here is rest, give rest to the weary," And, "Here is repose," but they would not listen.
Isaiah 28:13: So (therefore)the word of the LORD to them will be, "Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there," That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
that they may stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive? It doesn’t sound too pleasant?
I disagree that it speaks to what God will and won't do, because he told us what he will not do in the NT.I think they handled all the top leadership roles, from military commander to supreme court, Deborah was also a prophetess. Whether that means she gave spiritual leadership, that would be speculation.
I agree, this does not define the woman's role in the church. But it does speak towards what God will and won't do.
Much love!
Agreed.Only if the man has Christ as the head
So no preaching at all? That doesn't make sense.Everybody should remain quiet in Church
They have nothing to do with this topic.What would you have us do with Ruth and Esther ?
You can't honestly get there from the text. Paul was not speaking to Jews. He was speaking to gentiles.Paul was a Jew, practicing Jewish culture.
Nothing other than Paul stipulates this.
We actually do not know definitively that she carried the letter. We assume that based on culture.Understood. And I don't think he'd have said "deacon of the church in Cenchrea" lightly. I think this was a serious mission taking Paul's letter to Rome.
Romans 16:2 KJV
2) That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Much love!
You strain at a gnat. I gave the whole counsel of Paul.Paul never lied and Paul made a complete statement. One you're ignoring.
Yes, "for the record" I quoted your accusation and your slander.I asked you and you said "for the record".....
You refer to the context of that pertained only to this world, which is not why the story is even included in the eternal word of God. But if you are going to stop and include only the matters of this world--do as you will. Your own will.This completely ignores the context. You are wrong sir.
Can you elaborate on this?The only time a saved woman can have authority over a man is when she's doing the Lord's work set forth in Matthew 28:19-20.
OK. I agree. Different circumstances.I disagree that it speaks to what God will and won't do, because he told us what he will not do in the NT.
Also true. I'd say she was "almost certainly" the one, however, this is not explicitly stated. However, that doesn't change that she is called a deacon to the church, specifically to a certain church.We actually do not know definitively that she carried the letter. We assume that based on culture.
Phoebe as a Possible Courier
Phoebe was most likely the courier for Paul’s letter to Rome. In Romans 16:1–2 Paul urges the Roman Christians to receive and assist her as she comes to them, presumably with the letter. Such commendations for couriers were frequent in the ancient world, because often the recipients did not know the courier (compare Acts 18:27; 2 Cor 3:1; 2 Maccabees 9:25). The term diakonos might suggest Phoebe carried the letter, since the term can describe an intermediary. For example, in some of the manuscripts of Romans the subscriptio at the end of the letter reads, “The letter was written to the Romans from Corinth through Phoebe.” Since it is clear that Tertius was Paul’s secretary (compare Rom 16:22), it is likely that Phoebe was the courier. This does not necessarily suggest she read the letter to the church on arrival—letter carriers did not function as lectors in the ancient world (compare Acts 15:30; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; Head, “Named Letter-Carriers,” 279–99; contra Miller, “What Can We Say,” 17–18).
Lexham Bible Dictionary
Yes, "for the record" I quoted your accusation and your slander.
Right and the usage doesn't allow for anything more than a servant. You are reading way too much into this.Also true. I'd say she was "almost certainly" the one, however, this is not explicitly stated. However, that doesn't change that she is called a deacon to the church, specifically to a certain church.
Much love!