Historic theologian on women in the church

Another straw man marching in then?

This issue does not affect the canon in the slightest degree. Certainly I have never even insinuated that 1 Cor.14:34-35 should be removed, even if no one can be certain where it actually should sit in the text. It is irrevocably now part of 1 Corinthians and it would be marciaonistic to delete it from the text. There should at least be a foot note or marginal comment, to the effect that it might be in the wrong place though.

If anything these two verses 34-35 are still the inspired canonical text of the bible and may even be more 'inspired' in an effective way than some other parts of the bible much less searching of the heart, such as 1 Chronicles 1:1-54, 1 Chronicles 2:1-55. No wonder we never hear these read from the lectern. But I'm not suggesting any of them be removed from the canon and I think that any implication that I hanker after doing so would be a disingenuous slur.

1 Cor.14:34-35 certainly sorts sheep from goats, very effectively and divines the intents of the heart quite revealingly, though God alone knows which are the sheep and which are the goats. but God is doing the sorting right now. John 3:19-21. The quote starting the previous sentence from the ICB translation for children, even includes a lie, (Moses never mentioned such a law), and his name nowhere appears in the original 1 Corinthian manuscripts in verses 34 or 35. His name only appears at 1 Cor.9:9 and at 1 Cor.10:2. Nowhere else in 1 Corinthians. Which only goes to show how enthusiastically some translators elevate these two little verses and don't worry at all about how accurately they translate the word of God.
.

 

@Tiffy , your complaint with 1 Corinthians does not obviate or address the similar teachings in 1 Timothy, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter. Not to mention the Old Testament verses I provided earlier in the thread - most particularly from the book of Genesis. The Bible teaching is consistent on this issue; it does not depend on a few verses in a single book.

EDIT:

Every version of the Bible I have on my shelf (including the Greek Testaments) places these verses in the same place. I'd say that we are quite sure where these verses belong (consensus matters, as I said before).

 

You seem to be assuming I am saying "they don't belong there". I'm not. I'm simply saying we don't know exactly where they fit in the text. That is the only honest and truthful way to view the problem, unless we could go back in time and look over the shoulder of the scribe who originally wrote it for Paul and see where he put it, if he put it, and if he did, whether it was his own 'inspiration' or Paul's that put it there.
.

 

This is false. Whatever "uncertainty" remains about the provenance of these verses is academic (and on the fringe of academia, at that), and highly contested. Every Christian Bible has these verses in the same place. I am not aware of any Bible (even corrupted ones!) that places these verses elsewhere. So I am not sure where your confusion is coming from. We know, as surely as we can know, that these verses go exactly where every Bible places them.

 

Since this discussion is sure to drag on, let me quote the textual note from the NET Bible (probably written by Dan Wallace himself) after a long discussion of the textual criticism of verses 34-35: "We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above."

I would quote the entire textual note here, but it is very long. The note basically says that verses 34-35 were most likely added by Paul himself as a revision to a draft of his letter (in the margin) before it went out. The textual note explains in great detail why the translators believe this to be true, and absent strong evidence to the contrary, I find the argument so compelling as to close off other possibilities.

There's also a long discussion of this issue in Gordon D. Fee's NICNT commentary on 1 Corinthians (pp 542-550 in my hardcover Eerdman's edition).

 

Some copyists were not 'sure' enough to put it there. They might have been onto something. We don't 'know'.

That is my point. You can't 'know'. You and I can only believe. That is just the way it is until we see God face to face and 'know as we are known'. In the mean time we just don't know. Don't confuse faith with 'certainty'. While it remains 'uncertain' I remain sceptical that it was Paul who said this and am fairly confident that Jesus Christ and Paul will eventually back me up in my currently labelled 'heretical' belief. They might not back me up, I don't know, but Jesus will deal with that when I get there face to face.

Meanwhile I shall go on listening to and allowing women to communicate to me and the congregation, their word of knowledge and possibly prophetic words of wisdom, in church, and place no restriction upon them other than the conventions of deference and politeness applicable to any of either sex male or female, married or single, regardless of this scriptural edict and impositon of a supposed law on women at Cor.14:34-35, which does not apply equally to men, who it seems are allowed to say anything they like whenever the mood takes them, as long as they do it one at a time.
.

 

Wallace is a baptist and also a classical sessationist, and probably an inerrantist, fundamentalist, evangelical too, so one might expect a very conservative view from him on the subject.
.

 

You should be able to view the extended textual note in the NET bible at this link.

 

We can know, @Tiffy . The Bible teaches Truth. I am certain of the truth and inerrancy of God's Word. Histrionics do not overturn holy scripture. We are reading the words of divinely-inspired messengers working in the Apostolic tradition (many of them Apostles who knew Jesus personally). God would not allow a teaching so fundamental to Christian life to become corrupted or changed from his original intent.

We do not take the ways of the world as a guide for interpreting scripture. Whatever the culture says, we hold to the eternal truths of God's holy word.

The Biblical teaching on this matter is consistent, and spans multiple books in both Testaments.

I mean no disrespect, but you have absolutely no ground to stand on in this matter. You have no proof, no rationale, no alternate hypothesis, no supporting evidence whatsoever to support the claim you are making. This is not "legalism" or "conservatism" . This is purely and simply a matter of Biblical truth and authority. If any Christian finds himself at odds with scripture, the problem lies with him and not with scripture.

I reach out as a Christian brother on this, @Tiffy . I say none of this in the spirit of malice or judgement. I speak with you as a fellow sinner who strives to know the mind and will of God through his Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

I wonder which commandment it was that said women must remain silent in church? Do you suppose then that women who followed Jesus were not allowed to speak to him? Being actually in his presence, allowed to ask him questions; that surely must have been more sacred a setting than just being in church at Corinth. Luke 10:38-42.

Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Luke 2:36-48.

This woman was actually not just 'in church' but loudly proclaiming in the temple , "speaking of him to all those who looked for redemption".

Are you saying she was doing something against God's Holy word and will? Surely not?

I am certain of the truth and inerrancy of God's Word too. ALL of it.
.

 

Tiffy, you're attributing the actions and ministry of Anna to the woman, Anna, when in reality the giftings come from God. God is able to use a woman as a prophetess, and He is willing to do so. What you suggest is that this somehow is evidence for the proposition that God is able and willing to use a woman in the role of priest. We all know that God is able, but we have no convicting evidence that He is willing to have women serve in that capacity. Our sovereign God is free to work through one sex in different ways than through the other sex, and we should respect His plans and purposes. If our Lord wanted women to serve as ordained priests, He could have revealed this in a clearer fashion to the early church. But all the information that we have points to this gifting and position of service as one reserved for males. Several of us have introduced reasons from scripture and from God's revealed relationship between Himself and mankind that help explain why He may have done this. These reasons are good enough for the rest of us, and we have no inclination to change our view absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary (and such evidence does not exist, for the only evidence you have offered is circumstantial or inferential and fails to form anywhere near a preponderance, let alone a 'clear and convincing' standard).

We know that this is somewhat of a pet peeve for you, and we understand some of the 'why' behind that. We respect your right to believe as you wish. Please respect the fact that we are of a different mind on this subject and are in no wise inclined to change our view which is based upon millenia-long understanding of scripture and centuries of precedential church practice.

 

As Ananias said, "We know, as surely as we can know..." and that is sure enough. It is not the same as 'absolute knowing,' but it is knowing well enough that we can be sure 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

 

@Tiffy , I gave you a like on this because I'm very glad you brought up the story of Anna. It's a lovely story, and a strong reminder that God does indeed endow women with spiritual gifts. It may not prove the point you're trying to make, but it is a worthy and powerful passage of scripture.

Having said that...

She was in a Jewish temple, not in a Christian church. Nothing of what is written in the passage, beautiful though it is, undercuts Biblical teaching in any way regarding the role of women in a Christian church. And even in this story, we see that Simeon was leading, holding the infant Jesus and blessing him; Anna "came up to them at that very hour (or moment)" and, overcome by the Holy Spirit, began to evangelize. She was in a sense assisting Simeon in his blessing of the Lord Jesus. She is not teaching or usurping power over men.

It does not reduce her worth to say so; she was (and is) clearly venerated by Christians to this day for her testimony. Even in her great age, at nearly the end of what was no doubt a difficult life, she was the recipient of God's wonderful grace and was gifted to announce the arrival of our Lord and Savior.

I will let this be my last word on the issue.

 

ὥρα
STRONG’S NUMBER: g5610
Dictionary Definition g5610. ὥρα hōra; apparently a primary word; an “hour” (literally or figuratively): — day, hour, instant, season, x short, (even-)tide, (high) time.
AV (108) - hour 89, time 11, season 3, misc 5;
a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter
the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a daya twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)any definite time, point of time...

There is no reason whatever to necessarily place the timing of this woman's prophesy and audibly conspicuous praise announcing salvation for the people, immediately after Simeon's. They both spoke publicly in that holy place at the hour (ὥρα hour, day, season, [perhaps immediately after Simeon], of the circumcision of The Christ. Your unsupported preference to make her speak immediatey after Simeon as a kind of ajunct to his 'leadership' while she just assisted him, is merely wishful thinking rather than correct biblical exegesis.

The Jewish temple at that time was The Church and Christ Jesus was the head of it. The church today, under The New Covenant is no less blessed and has no less freedom of action, (for man or woman), than under the Old Covenant. In fact the New Covenant is better in all respects, with far greater freedom for both men and women who are under it.

I minister and preach in a church building that was dedicated nearly 1000 years ago after the Norman conquest, as a Priory Chapel, (we have our own habitted and sandled ghost). It is very traditionally Anglican. Bells, smells and vestments every Sunday. Yet women participate and serve in most offices in the church, (without the roof crashing in). They regularly compile and read intercessions, they regularly read the lessons, they perform duties of Sacristan, Churchwarden and Sides Persons, they sing in the choir, one plays our little organ, one LLM regularly preached until her very recent retirement, they serve at the altar and clean up afterwards, consuming the undistributed elements. We recently had a well liked evangelical female deacon in training for the priesthood, though we as a congregation are distinctly Anglo-Catholic by tradition.

Our faith community are very happy with these arrangements and I'm perfectly certain that so is God and The Church of England.
.

 

I understand the reference to the pre-advent "church" is meant by you and many others to refer to the ecclesia or 'called-out ones,' an assembly. However, I feel obliged to point out that the Jewish temple could not have been Christ's church, and Jesus Christ was not the head of it. The authority is Jesus Himself who said to Peter, "...upon this rock I will build my church..." indicating that the building of His church had not yet commenced but was at that point in time (the time when men first acknowledged Him as the Son of God) begun.

It rather amazes me to hear that a Christian church apparently regards a 'familiar spirit' with the fondness one might hold for a pet dog. This spirit must be either a deceased individual or (more likely) a deceiving evil spirit in disguise. We are counseled in scripture to have nothing to do with the dead or with demons, either one. Its presence in a house of God is less desirable than a swarm of cockroaches or termites, and wouldn't one call an exterminator for those? Were I rector in charge of such a building I would conduct an exorcism immediately, and if I found myself in a congregation where such a spirit were welcomed (or even merely tolerated) I would quickly make myself a former part of that congregation.

 

Anna is a very different discussion than women’s ordination, which is why she is never invoked by the high-level scholars of the pro-WO side. The reason is she was a prophet, and not a part of the ordinary ministry of the Church.

She was neither a deacon, presbyter, or bishop of the New Testament, and nor was she a levite, priest, or high priest of the Old Testament.

She was a separate situation entirely, and literally plays no role in the WO conversation.

 

I have only been at St Andrews two years and confess I have seen nothing myself, neither do I know if any steps have been taken to 'lay' the ghost. I very much doubt that this apparition is in any way in any need of 'extermination'. Our now deceased Reader reliably told me that he has seen, and heard the foot falls, as on flag stones, of a sandal wearing monk in a grey habit with a rope round his waist. (Our nave is now carpeted incidentally). He appeared during Evensong and walked from a now bricked up door that used to give access to the dormitories and refectory right down the nave, through the congregation and disappeared under the tower and out. Either Our Reader and others were hallucinating, or it is a 'place memory' of the building.

If you were the rector you would not have the authority in the Church of England to conduct an exorcism on your own initiative, and quite right too. How much experience do you have in that ministry anyhow? As to whether you would stay or go from our congregation, it's not for me to say what you should or should not do, that would be entirely your affair.

My own view is that since we believe in the Communion of Saints and state as much every week in the creed, I can assume that the ghost of a monk will never be any threat to my or anyone else's person or salvation. If I ever meet him I shall ask him why he seems not to be with all his other companions, alive in heaven, and ask him if I can help him in any way to finally get there, same as I would any other 'seeker'.

The disciples thought Jesus was a ghost at first. Luke 24:36-43. Should they have straightway tried to exorcise him on an erronious assumption that all spirits are 'dead, demonic and deceivingly evil' or should they have listened to the appearance and watched what he did?

Just as well for you, me, and the rest of mankind that they didn't just immediately 'leave' and quickly become former-upper room-disciples because they were so scared.
.

 

Very conveniently.

No but she is a saint and presumably is in heaven with all the rest of the faithful.
.

 

But of course she is. And there’s nothing that says women can’t be prophets or strong and powerful and impactful. Esther. Queen Elizabeth. Etc. We love women; a case can be made that only within Christianity do women achieve their highest dignity. So none of this discussion on holy orders impinges on that.

But IF women can only achieve highest dignity within Christianity, and if Christianity is not possible without holy orders, then destroying holy orders goes against women. And therefore adding women into holy orders is an anti-woman policy. Women being in holy orders contributes to secularization of Britain, erosion of Christian culture, and the return of the inevitable post-Christian exploitation of women. To really help womanhood, women priests should lay down the collar and clamor for an all-male ministry.

And as for prophets such as Anna, she was blessed by God, and could do anything he inspired her to do. The rules of relationship between the sexes refer to the ordinary ministry in the church (both of the OT and the NT).

 

Keep your comments on womens ministry in the priesthood of a general nature