D
Women Teachers and Pastors? Is this Biblical?
- Thread starter Deleted member 10797
- Start date
-
- Tags
- church holy bible women
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
Questions about women teaching men can be answered neatly with one question:
In the context of Philip’s four daughters, who is Agabus?
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
A certain prophet from Judaea?
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
Yes. One who traveled dozens of kilometers to deliver a message to Paul, who was under the same roof as four women with the gift of prophecy.
I'm still baffled by the proposed and cryptic Q&A... connect the dots for me. Under the proposed rubric, does God send Agabus to Paul with his message, because none of the four prophetesses (which we assume are at hand) are suitable messengers? If so, I'm not clear how that follows from the facts.
Lest there's any doubt: I think it's sin to put women in ecclesiastical office.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
I believe so, Sir, yes.
Respectfully, I disagree. God might have many other reasons for calling Agabus to bring Paul his message, rather than the unsuitability (granted for the argument's sake) of Philip's daughters. In purely narrative terms, we've already been introduced to Agabus as a prophet of note, Act.11:28. God might have summoned him because he is known already to Paul, or because he comes from Jerusalem/Judea and speaks with some extra authority on that account.
Perhaps Agabus came and spoke in context of gathered Christian worship. It's speculative; that detail is not given. Yet, it would be a reason (again, we aren't privy to the mind of God as to his design) why the message came publicly and with extra validation; and on account of which context those women would not have been called on for their service (yes, I know 1Cor.11:2-16 and the kinds of arguments that are raised from there).
My point is: a biblical prophet is scarcely chosen anywhere in Scripture for convenience. God had in the past spoken directly to Paul, sent angels, and given him private visions; it would have been most convenient to speak thus to him. God called Amos out of Judah away from another profession to prophesy to Samaria (Amos.1:1), when Hosea presumably was closer to the scene (Hos.1:1) or maybe Jonah (2Ki.14:23-25).
I confess, it seems like a rationalization of the data to arrive at the conclusion that of those four handy women was not one of them selected, chiefly on account of her sex. It is not the pattern for God to choose the closest, if not disqualified mouthpiece. If time is of the essence, he may translate a man instantly from one place to another (Act.8:39-40), or use a donkey (Num.22:28).
God is not averse to speaking to men using women: note the cases of Deborah (Jdg.4:6), Huldah (2Ki.22:14-20), and Anna (Lk.2:36-38), a list I only restrict on account of these being named as prophetess in the Bible. I cannot conceive of Paul being doubtful of the propriety of receiving such a word from Philip's daughter, if God so chose. I don't think Act.21:9-10 juxtaposes the prophetesses and the prophet in order to silence them as unsuited to address Paul.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
First, if you didn't glean from some of our previous interactions that I sincerely have a great deal of respect for your content on these threads: I do! I'm consistently coming away edified by what you write. So please don't read this in an argumentative tone. On the contrary, I just wanted to interact a bit with what you've written.
Perhaps! I'm certainly more sympathetic to this explanation.
He did indeed. But these were men, and my argument is that when it comes to sending someone to say 'thus saith the Lord', God historically chooses men to bring those messages forward to other men or to mixed multitudes. Particularly in the New Testament Church (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12), which is the scope of the OP, I think.
With respect to the Old Testament and the intertestamental period, when women such as Deborah are chosen, I've viewed it as a judgment against the men in some sense. Take Judges 4, for example, through to the beginning of Judges 6. The general won't go unless Deborah goes, and Deborah goes, prophesying that in Judges 4:9 "that the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour." Why? Well, it tells us. "For the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." In this case, Jael. Women did what the men should've, is how it reads to me. You can see a similar sentiment expressed more broadly elsewhere, such as in Isaiah 3:12, etc.
Similarly, with Anna, I would argue that such a prophetess recognized what the religious elite she was surrounded by ought to have foreseen themselves. Either way, these three exceptions don't disprove the general rule that God historically sends men to do this sort of work. I believe my understanding of Agabus being sent instead of the four daughters of Philip speaks to that rule, but I could be wrong on that point. Perhaps there's another plausible explanation (you've offered a few). But I see no reason to assume it speaks to an exception rather than a rule.
Do you suppose it is more or less likely for God to have summoned Agabus in accordance with the testimony of more clear passages in the Holy Scriptures? While God can and does do whatever He pleases, God is pleased to use people to fulfill his purposes. Unsurprisingly, I think my explanation accords better with what we know about the role of women in God's Word than your explanation offered here.
Perhaps! I'm certainly more sympathetic to this explanation.
He did indeed. But these were men, and my argument is that when it comes to sending someone to say 'thus saith the Lord', God historically chooses men to bring those messages forward to other men or to mixed multitudes. Particularly in the New Testament Church (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12), which is the scope of the OP, I think.
With respect to the Old Testament and the intertestamental period, when women such as Deborah are chosen, I've viewed it as a judgment against the men in some sense. Take Judges 4, for example, through to the beginning of Judges 6. The general won't go unless Deborah goes, and Deborah goes, prophesying that in Judges 4:9 "that the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour." Why? Well, it tells us. "For the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." In this case, Jael. Women did what the men should've, is how it reads to me. You can see a similar sentiment expressed more broadly elsewhere, such as in Isaiah 3:12, etc.
Similarly, with Anna, I would argue that such a prophetess recognized what the religious elite she was surrounded by ought to have foreseen themselves. Either way, these three exceptions don't disprove the general rule that God historically sends men to do this sort of work. I believe my understanding of Agabus being sent instead of the four daughters of Philip speaks to that rule, but I could be wrong on that point. Perhaps there's another plausible explanation (you've offered a few). But I see no reason to assume it speaks to an exception rather than a rule.
Last edited by a moderator:
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
I was thinking about this the other day. How we have the exceptions to the clearly defined prohibition of women authority figures in the church. but, is it wise to create doctrine out of exceptions? For example, if in front of the courthouse there were a patch of grass with a sign that said "do not walk on grass," but, one day a person on one side of the patch of grass falls of a heart-attack. And when the EMT's arrive, instead of going around the grass patch, they cut across to help the man in injury. Does this negate the common rule? Does this mean that the sign not to walk on the patch of grass should be ignored by everyone now simply because at a time of exception it was momentarily disregarded? No. The rule is still in effect. And, until a time arises in which such an exception is again justified; that is the inaccessibility of qualified men or male teachers; then women should remain silent when teaching or potentially having ecclesiastical authority over men and mixed crowds. In the absence of any spiritually knowledgeable men, then it would be appropriate for a woman to teach rather than a body have no edification or leadership at all. The error arises when women are seen as a viable option in the midst of qualified men; which deems it a rule instead of an exception.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
There is also the issue that the husband submits to the 'woman pastor' in church but rules over her at home. God is a God of order.
I appreciate interacting on the PB. I appreciate people who don't take critique of concept like it's a personal attack. I appreciate "iron sharpens iron." I'm not offended by you.
I have yet to see a contextual, linguistic appeal that would make me think Luke (or the H.S.) intends the reader to draw a conclusion from Act.21:9-10 about contrasting authorities, prophet vs. prophetess. Consider the following analogy: your LBC1689 doctrinal stance stands in the way--quite reasonably--of accepting an argument I might offer that a household baptism in the NT means infants if present were baptized, based on the analogy of Scripture. The best that could be said is that my interpretive proposal regarding NT household baptism is consistent with my baptismal doctrine that includes infants.
I think your explanation of this text, focused narrowly on a story detail, is at best consistent with what you may think about women's roles defined in God's word. As the record of household baptism doesn't prove infant baptism, neither does bypassing the prophetesses prove their unsuitability to inform Paul.
I fear your sympathy is driven by how nicely my suggestion fits with your preconceived notion. Our notional agreement may also be limited in scope, meaning that we have strong consent on women-in-church-office and what is lawful in worship; but then, how we think of biblically defined roles for men and women could begin to diverge. What is the extent and limit of what those "clearer passages" actually teach? The possibility I set forth--a worship gathering--as a setting for Agabus' prophecy is one where I'm sure our notions are unified; but I must repeat myself adding: the text itself gives no sure indication this was the setting. My proposal creates a scenario in which the women were inadequate, however I must refrain from assuming the truth of it.
My point, however, contradicts the idea that convenience (in the persons of the prophetesses) is overruled by the necessity of bringing Agabus. The passage gives no reason why Agabus was sent; and it is false to infer that it was due to the inadequacy of Philip's daughters, even if it was the case they were inadequate. The problem is the inference itself, the failure of even qualified logic to obtain the conclusion.
What is comprised by Paul's injunction restraining women from ecclesiastical teaching and authority roles, 1Tim.2:12? Does this word to Paul via Agabus fall within those constraints? Grant the proposition that God's ordinary choice of messenger is male; yet he acts extraordinarily as well using women. Do we know enough about this situation to assert that speaking through one of the women would have been an extraordinary necessity? Or was the call upon Agabus extraordinary in these circumstances; i.e. is that why he came, assuming the specialty of the worship setting? Due to the fact no reason is presented in the text, I cannot claim for the event itself a justification that accords with my prejudice.
Even if it was accepted on all sides that the call to be prophetess indicated the wrath of God (how does one account for Miriam, Ex.15:20, in that case?), it strikes me as a serious deflection from the simple duty to receive and act on the word of the Lord--regardless of the source--when excess emphasis is placed on what the existence of this prophetess doesn't mean. Rather than reading between the lines in the case of Deborah, we should admit that the text presents her in a wholly admirable and favorable light, a true "mother in Israel," Jdg.5:7. For no other judge of that age (all of them male) does God inspire a chapter-length song to be incorporated into the church's contemplation of the victory associated with her. We had such commemorative praise associated previously with Moses alone, and the pattern is not repeated until David.
It's a little odd (or misogynistic) to take one of the highlights of the book of Judges--a series of lights in dark times--being sure to emphasize how aberrant it is for its brief focus on a woman's (two, actually) contibution. My approach is quite the opposite: whereas most of the Bible assumes a male-dominating standard, the occasional but regular reminders of the ineradicable presence of the other half of the human race invites a careful, contextual, and wherever possible commendable regard for those female subjects. Are glimpses of women in the Bible (and prophetesses in particular) properly embarrassments or adornments, "apples of gold In settings of silver?" Thinking the latter does not imply that prophetesses were common in OT ages, or that women should be ordained in the NT age.
What about Jdg.4:9? Is it a rebuke of Barak? The text does not indicate it, and neither does the inspired song following, nor the inspired commendation of Barak by name in Heb.11:32, who is instead set forth as a man of titanic faith among the greats. Echoing Moses command of Joshua, Ex.17:9, Deborah gave Barak the Lord's command, v6. By the mouth of his agent, God himself, v7, announces he would summon Sisera (sovereignly ordaining his attendance) and so putting the enemy in position to be turned over to Barak. Israel's task (as before when they first entered the land under Joshua) was to count not on their prowess as warriors (which they were not) against the actual warriors of Canaan; but in faith trust God to do what he promised to do.
Barak's request, v8, echoes other language from the past, from Moses himself, who in Ex.33:15, begged the LORD to go with Israel up into Canaan. Jdg.4:9, Deborah's answer to Barak's request is simply a stated fact of the promised outcome, not a consequence of Barak's supposed weakness of character. If anything, the promise of what will take place, and Barak's unflinching courage that puts no stock in human glory, is both to his credit, and a rebuke to what we may take to be a quite typical Gentile or Canaanite attitude, a humanistic feeding of pride and vanity. It is the heathenish attitude exhibited later, Jdg.9:54, by Abimelech who fearing death in disgrace says, to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword and kill me, lest men say of me, ‘A woman killed him.’ ” So his young man thrust him through, and he died.”
In conclusion, I think the way in which you are reading such passages as this in the OT, all the way to Lk.2 and Act.21 in the NT, is a bit of both a conscious choice and an unconscious bias. I don't think there's a need to invest passages like Act.21 or Jdg.4 with precautionary doctrinal vaccine, to prevent egalitarian infection. Let each passage deal with its subject matter, and make the most of each passage. There's not going to be contradiction, unless it is the enemy looking to sow doubts by false inferences. Let's not make our own false inference to answer the other, and thus end up with a curious validation of a perverse method.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'd think 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 would answer the OP.
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
Hmm… while being sympathetic to what might be described as an “it’s immaterial” view (no textually discernible reason why Agabus prophecies and the daughters don’t), a few considerations pushing toward the “its’s inferential” position (that it’s premised on no woman’s authoritative speech”:
1. Is there any woman’s prophetic speech recorded in the NT?
2. Even if so, is there any prophecy of Philip’s daughters recorded in the NT? (Pretty sure not.)
3. Thus, it seems awfully convenient that this recorded prophetic moment fits the NT teaching (no authoritative speech from women) so expressly.
4. In a text (the whole Bible) where such occurrences are rare (mere coincidence, not intentional import), it would be odd for this one to be merely coincidence.
Not probable, … but not impossible.
1. Is there any woman’s prophetic speech recorded in the NT?
2. Even if so, is there any prophecy of Philip’s daughters recorded in the NT? (Pretty sure not.)
3. Thus, it seems awfully convenient that this recorded prophetic moment fits the NT teaching (no authoritative speech from women) so expressly.
4. In a text (the whole Bible) where such occurrences are rare (mere coincidence, not intentional import), it would be odd for this one to be merely coincidence.
Not probable, … but not impossible.
As a couple of us have already gone out of the way to affirm we aren't picking up a lance to joust, so I say again: I am not on the prowl, I seek not a fight but truth only. In that spirit, I offer some responses to the queries.
2. No other mention is made of the daughters, and no words of theirs are recorded. The question I'm faced with when looking at the passage is: what does the detail contribute to the passage? They are mentioned after naming Philip, of whom we are reminded came on the scene in Act.6, and whose work is highlighted in Act.8, where it is noted by the conclusion he came to Caesarea, the current location, Act.21. That he had four unmarried daughters who were known to prophesy seems (to this interpreter) intended to reflect back favorably on their father. This is no slight to those women, and their marriageable status (being virgins) almost seems like an sidelong advertisement of their available hands. Be that as it may, the reminder of who pastor Philip is, a fresh conclusion that he has spent the better part of two decades establishing the church in Caesarea, that he has four (probably youthful) godly daughters who have no time for idleness but are known as prophetesses--in a few words, this describes the church-situation in the arrival port city of Judea--as much of it as Luke (the narrator) was likely to observe first-hand for a few days, a week or so?, that the party stayed with Philip.
3. For all of that, the operational center of the Christian church headed by the apostles continues to be upcountry Judea, and Jerusalem. There was time in the "many days" Paul and party stayed in Caesarea for word to go back to the leadership that Paul was in-country, he was bringing a gift for the wearied Jewish saints from the Gentile congregations, and what his travel plans were. A previous emissary from Jerusalem HQ (Act.11:27-30) who was known to Paul, Agabus, whose earlier prophecy had stimulated the church in Antioch to supply relief to the church in Judea years before, comes down to Paul with a new warning prophecy. More than that, his presence is as an escort of sorts, for he is quite likely to continue to stand by Paul to strengthen him as he goes up (v15) to Jerusalem not just as a triumphant missionary for the apostolic council and a bearer of gifts, but also knowing that chains and perhaps death awaits him.
4. I just don't see how any of the above analysis pertaining to Agabus is connected to the prophetesses, at all.
Again, Reed, what you wrote above is that you are sympathetic toward the "immaterial" view, and merely offer up extra considerations for the "inferential" view. On balance, I don't see how even those are weighty. I cannot sense a contrasting juxtaposition between personalities fits the authorial intent of the text. I don't subscribe to meaningless "coincidence" in Scripture, but I also think its possible to go "parallelomania" with the text. Pax.
1. Does Anna (Lk.2:36) count, or should we think of her more in "OT terms." How about Mary, Lk.1:46-55? How about the women entrusted with the word of God re the resurrection, Mt.28:7, cf. Lk.24:9-11? We know what they said. Peter declares the fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff took place on Pentecost when the Spirit fell also on "maidservants," and included the prophesying of "daughters" (I'm not sure how women might be excluded from the assembly, as they are mentioned, Mary named, and these presumably numbered among the disciples, Act.1:14-15). Neither Act.2 or 1Cor.11 make explicit record of the words uttered by various prophetesses, but that there was such speech seems undeniable.
2. No other mention is made of the daughters, and no words of theirs are recorded. The question I'm faced with when looking at the passage is: what does the detail contribute to the passage? They are mentioned after naming Philip, of whom we are reminded came on the scene in Act.6, and whose work is highlighted in Act.8, where it is noted by the conclusion he came to Caesarea, the current location, Act.21. That he had four unmarried daughters who were known to prophesy seems (to this interpreter) intended to reflect back favorably on their father. This is no slight to those women, and their marriageable status (being virgins) almost seems like an sidelong advertisement of their available hands. Be that as it may, the reminder of who pastor Philip is, a fresh conclusion that he has spent the better part of two decades establishing the church in Caesarea, that he has four (probably youthful) godly daughters who have no time for idleness but are known as prophetesses--in a few words, this describes the church-situation in the arrival port city of Judea--as much of it as Luke (the narrator) was likely to observe first-hand for a few days, a week or so?, that the party stayed with Philip.
3. For all of that, the operational center of the Christian church headed by the apostles continues to be upcountry Judea, and Jerusalem. There was time in the "many days" Paul and party stayed in Caesarea for word to go back to the leadership that Paul was in-country, he was bringing a gift for the wearied Jewish saints from the Gentile congregations, and what his travel plans were. A previous emissary from Jerusalem HQ (Act.11:27-30) who was known to Paul, Agabus, whose earlier prophecy had stimulated the church in Antioch to supply relief to the church in Judea years before, comes down to Paul with a new warning prophecy. More than that, his presence is as an escort of sorts, for he is quite likely to continue to stand by Paul to strengthen him as he goes up (v15) to Jerusalem not just as a triumphant missionary for the apostolic council and a bearer of gifts, but also knowing that chains and perhaps death awaits him.
4. I just don't see how any of the above analysis pertaining to Agabus is connected to the prophetesses, at all.
Again, Reed, what you wrote above is that you are sympathetic toward the "immaterial" view, and merely offer up extra considerations for the "inferential" view. On balance, I don't see how even those are weighty. I cannot sense a contrasting juxtaposition between personalities fits the authorial intent of the text. I don't subscribe to meaningless "coincidence" in Scripture, but I also think its possible to go "parallelomania" with the text. Pax.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
It has long been noted that in both of his writings Luke goes to considerable, even extraordinary lengths for his day and culture, to illuminate the activity and relevant stature of women within the early Christian congregation. Nothing said about Philip's four daughters, or other NT prophetesses, gives any indication that their role/gift, appropriately carried out, was qualitatively inferior to that same role/gift among men. Of course Scripture as a whole clearly forbids women from formal ecclesiastical office or functioning in that capacity, and it must have been so with them. But I see nothing in the text that even remotely suggests Luke's mention of them in proximity with Agabus is designed to indicate some kind of inferiority, or even deference. It was simply, for unstated and therefore unknowable reasons, Agabus' mission to deliver that particular message to Paul. To make more of it than that, even if doing so may fit certain known principles in certain contexts, is to essentially engage in prooftexting.
Last edited: