Women In The Ministry Summary

1

Women In The Ministry Summary
The scriptures generally used against women in the ministry:

1 Tim 2:11-15 ~ . 11-Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12-But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence. 13-For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14-And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15-Notwithstanding she
shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness
with sobriety.

1 Cor. 14:34 ~ 34-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. 35-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.
See the article at the Dunamis Word entitled “Women in Ministry, Is There Sexism In The
Christian Church?” for the basic elements of this argument.

The first stop to understanding this topic is to discover the sitz-em-laban of scripture. This is the
actual historical setting in which the scripture was recorded. This leads the bible student to
discover not only the “what” of scripture, as in what was actually said, but also the “why” of
scripture, as in what purpose did the scripture or instruction serve.

We must make note, of the actual setting to say that the church was a growing first century
church experiencing an influx of people both in Corinth and in Asia that had little point of
reference for Jewish Tradition, ethic or concept of synagogue. They were certainly unfamiliar in
many cases with morally relative customs of the Jews. Many of these customs however existed
and continued within the first century chuuch especially prior to the second temple destruction in
70AD.

7 Lines Of Argumentation That Make A Powerful Case In Favor

1-Jesus Commissions Women

This may be the single most important piece of evidence that Jesus not only calls women
to service, but that he gives them instructions for men and to direct men and mankind in
general even telling forth his word without regard to gender. (Matt. 28:10, Mark, 16: 7,
Luke 24:7-12, John 20:1-2)

Provided Courtesy Of
Supt. Harvey Burnett ~ The Dunamis Word/ New Bethel COGIC
P.O. Box 6167 Peoria, IL. 61602 www.bethelburnett.blogspot.com Dunamis1@netzero.com

2

All three synoptic gospels record this plus the gospel of John, thus making this one
of the most thoroughly verified events of the NT.

This was against the culture and prevailing thoughts of the day. Jesus commissions
women in all gospel accounts. Like the baptism of John, which was to validate the works
of John and pronounce a new kingdom, Jesus giving the women charge was a SOLID,
sound and irrefutable assertion that Women could be and were commissioned by Jesus to
do works of tell forth or forth-telling the word of God.

Dr. John P Mier in his book, "A Marginal Jew" points out on more than one occasion that Paul's epistles
often have a strong Jewish and Pharisaic overtone. In fact at this juncture, and also 1 Cor. 11, Paul's
Pharisaic Judaism seeps out more strongly than at other times. This is the key to understanding what
Paul was referencing when he spoke about women learning in subjection and in silence and not usurping
authority over men. As it pertains to women learning in silence and subjection, Clarke's Bible
Commentary states the following regarding Paul's admonition to women in the verses:

"This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to
ask questions. The rabbins taught that "a woman should know nothing but the use of her
distaff." And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are
both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: ‫ לנשים ימסרו ואל תורה דברי ישרפו‬yisrephu
dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, "Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that
they should be delivered to women." This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when,
according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well
as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach."

As a “cultural” practice, women did not debate or dispute men in public. This was culture,
not command of God. This was why we also see the men struggling with accepting the words of
these women after Jesus commissioned them. That denial was an ANE or OT paradigm. This had
nothing to do with the LIBERATION that was brought and delivered by Jesus.

2- We Are Redeemed From The Curse Of The Law

It is clear that Women being “behind” a man was based on customs and practice and was
of the OT motif. It was part of the curse of the law. Gen 3:16 outlines the curse,

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow
thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee”.

In fact Paul, when dealing with these issues that were of “specific instance” as we will
outline later, invokes 2 common OT motifs to establish the subjection of women.

3

A- Judaic Assumption: WOMEN CAN BE READILY DECEIVED (1 Tim.
2:14):
This was a throwback to Paul’s Pharisaic heritage. That women should be subject
because Eve aka: “women” was deceived in the Garden and because Eve was
deceived and Adam was not, therefore the transgression was upon her. (1 Tim. 2:15)
(also see Paul’s parallel to spiritual deception or reversion from tenets of faith basing
it on the physical nature of being a woman pointing out Eve…

2 Cor. 11:3 ~ But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,
so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[Caveat and Retort: It is Paul’s Pharisaic training (Acts 22:3) that leads him to his conclusions
that the women’s position and resultant actions were somehow the issue. I don’t believe that
Paul’s teaching was a universal command and was CASE SPECIFIC for three reasons 2 of which
I will outline here:

1- There is ample evidence to be found in the fact that Paul declares that it wasn’t the sin of Eve
that brought about the curse of sin, but that it was the sin of Adam:

Rom. 5:12 ~ Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This is important because it could shed light on why Paul approached the subject dealing with the
Church at Corinth the way he did providing a specific polemic to deal with specific issues.
Language also indicates that as we will see later.

Gamaliel
Died probably AD 50 was said to be one of the greatest teachers of Judaism.

2 - The historical accounts of Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel indicate that he was a proponent of
women’s rights under Judaism and interpreted the law in favor of women This gives insight into
why Paul’s position on marriage was unique, especially when combined with commands and
instructions that he received “from the Lord”.

In addition, Gamaliel was not violent in his view of various religions and there is no evidence that
he persecuted Christians as we see in his student Saul.

For these reasons I propose that Saul vacated his teacher’s motif in some places, in favor of
placating the larger Pharisaic community as he himself indicates that he was zealous of the law
above his fellows. (Phil. 3:6, Acts 21:20 , 22:3) He wanted notoriety and catered to the mass
teaching of religious and nationalistic purity. Thus it was God’s “service” for him to have certain
put to death in the “name of God”


4

Subsequently, after salvation, Saul, now Paul, was not a killer, but his background would bring to
light why he would have simply reduced the polemic to the subjugation of women in the
particular settings that he was addressing.

Simply put, telling the women to quiet down during the corporate gatherings and learn from their
husbands at home, was the most easy argument to make, Further Paul makes that argument
without the necessarily saying that God was specifically saying to do so as we shall discover.

B- THIS “LORDSHIP” OF THE MAN WAS ACCORDING TO THE LAW OR OT
PARADIGM (1 Cor. 14:34):
An unavoidable consequence of accepting the literalness of Paul’s argument, assuming a
universal command, without regard to context is the inescapable fact that the root of
Paul’s teaching in this area was according to Law or an OT paradigm rather than a NT
move or revelation of God in the subject. (which will be dealt with in a minute)

It is clear from all available, extant resources that Paul invoked the prevailing Jewish thought on
the subject. This is a key issue. We can trace through historical study exactly what Pre-NT
Jewish religious teachers taught regarding the issue of woman. From my article ON THE
Dunamis Word entitled, “Sexism In The Christian Church”

[Caveat and Retort: We have been redeemed from The Curse Of The Law
In Christ we have been redeemed from the “curse” of the law as outlined by the same
Paul in Galatians:

Gal. 3:13 ~ Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a
curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Now, this is interesting. In other areas we claim our liberation from the curse of the law
claiming that we do not have to abide by its ceremonial aspects and that the Law is
insufficient for salvation. However, in the church dealing with this issue, we assume that
because it is an OT practice that it is sufficient for practice. This is a logical
inconsistency. We can’t have it both ways.

If this practice was born as a result of the law and we are not under the law, then how is it
that we yet abide by the literalistic order established under the law?

The subjugation of women in this manner to declare that they cannot teach or lead
men as a universal command is a JEWISH idiom and practice smuggled into the
Christian church with the claim that it is truly a Christian practice. That argument
doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.


5

3-“One In Christ Jesus”Argument
The same Paul who is said to have provided the restriction for women is the same one
who has also provided has delivered:

Galations 3:28-29 ~ 28-There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29-And if
ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Unlike it’s Judaic parent Christianity did not create or foster gender classism, at least to
the extent that teachers of the law had interpreted such through and by way of the
scriptures.

Many claim that this “one on Christ Jesus” (ness) was restricted to matters pertaining to
salvation and that there was no denial of salvation based on access to and through Christ
to the Father. That is another logical fallacy called special pleading.

Why?

Because there was NEVER such a distinction or restriction in salvation under Judaism.
The blood of goats and heifers was effectual and fervent for all men and even strangers of
the nations who would receive it.

To argue that this is a restriction is not only a bad interpretation of scripture, it is an
unwarranted assertion and imposition of scripture.

Paul’s word’s here and in this case become powerful evidence that not only was there no
restriction in salvation, but there was no class distinction in Christ based on gender. This
was truly a unique “Christian” moral value that was out of time during its time and would
have been interpreted as such by all either in favor or against.

4-Linguistic Argument & Scriptural Evidence
To understand this, we acknowledge that ALL scripture is given under the inspiration of
God and is profitable for all teaching and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16) however we must make
note of at least 2 things:

1- Paul doesn’t speak as commandment of God on all issues and in this issue there is
evidence that he did not do so.

2- Men that interpret Paul’s words often use Selective Literalism to make their case.


6

Observation 1: Commandment of God vs. The instructions of Paul:
In 1 Cor. 7 Paul lays down instructions dealing with marriage as follows:

1 Cor. 7:7-12 ~ 7-For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man
hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8-I say
therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as
I. 9-But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to
burn.10-And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the
wife depart from her husband: 11-But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried,
or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.12-But
to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,
and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away."

4 times in this discourse Paul delivers HIS instructions on the issue as opposed to a
command of God.

Paul does the same thing in 1 Tim. 2:11:15.

12-But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence.
Paul makes note and takes time to say that HE SUFFERS this to not occur. There is no
command of God to this. In another passage in 1 Cor. 1:16 Paul giving instructions on
hair and glory says this:

16-But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such
custom, neither the churches of God
Paul gave admonitions and followed up by saying that if some didn’t agree that his
teaching was a matter of cultural commensurability rather than restrictive literalism.

Observation 2: Selective Literalism
One of the greatest problems with placing restrictions on women, their duties and activities
that they can engage in because they are women is the selective literalism that those that
restrict implore.

If we take a literalistic approach, because there is no reason to simply take ONE verse
and make it a rule, we must also apply all of scripture on the subject. The restrictions are
as follows:

1- learn in silence"(1 Tim. 2:11),
2- "be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:11) (1 Cor. 14:34)
3- "be under obedience"(1 Cor. 14:34) [no mention of to whom if she is not married]

7

4- don't even SPEAK in church (1Cor. 14:34)
5- learn from their "husbands at home" (1 Cor. 14:34)

The question is, why have those that oppose women “teaching and usurping authority over a
man” content to allow a woman to speak in church (yet alone sing) even against the
command of scripture? This is a most damaging argument against those who simply want to
restrict what women can do in the church.

The evidence of scripture from how the language of scripture is applied doesn’t hold
well for the argument that Paul has received a binding universal command from God
that restricts women in ministry. Selective literalism and picking certain emphasis while
overlooking others is disingenuous to the scriptures and a solid biblical reading all
together. Upon examination commands and restrictions in context simply don’t exist.

5-The OT prophecy was that “daughters” would prophesy. This is
forth telling and there is no restriction that would be to women only.
Often those in the Charismatic and Pentecostal camps of understanding are critically
scrutinized for the claim that “to prophesy” may mean to tell the future as God has
inspired or sent instructions. May revert to say that NT “prophesy” simply means to forth
tell which would also include teaching and instructing.

Without going into a great deal of detail in this writing, allow us to assume that
“prophecy” in the NT is restricted to “forth-telling” (which in this case is a minimal facts
argument). As stated, that would also have to include, by definition, teaching and
instructing.

In Acts, on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was poured out, Peter began to
preach a message based on what was prophesied in the book of Joel 2:28:

Acts 2:14-18 ~ 14-But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and
said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this
known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15-For these are not drunken, as ye
suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16-But this is that which was
spoken by the prophet Joel; 17-And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith
God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old
men shall dream dreams: 18-And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will
pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


8

Here Peter seeing men and women moving in the Spirit, does not seek to restrict it, he
seeks to emphasize that it is a move of God. Women “prophesying” to men, glorifying
God and telling forth the way of salvation.

For one to claim that they were only giving praise, is again unwarranted scriptural
literalism.

So we see with this argument that Women being able and called by God to FORTH-
TELL aka prophesy, is an act of the holy Ghost within the church and the life of the
believer. There is no restriction.

6-Paul Recognizes Women In Ministry
Paul references either women in the ministry or women associated with his ministry over
23 times in the NT. NONE of the references restrict women to simply ministering to
other women. Neither does Paul define their duties by saying that they only are to serve
women. Those assumptions are impositions upon scripture.

Paul also did not distance himself from women that served the Lord in leadership and ministry
capacities within the early church. His admonitions to to the church at Rome to
receive Pheobe who served as a Deconess at the church at Cenchrea, and to "help those women
which laboured" with both He and Clement in the gospel, (Phil. 4:3) cannot go without note. In
addition the ministry of Aquila along with his wife Priscilla, who had a church in their house( 1
Cor. 16:19) , was widely known and a definite benefit to both Paul and Apollos (Acts 18:26).

The question is how are we to believe that a woman labor in the gospel,
in silence and restricted only to women, as the critic and ultra-
fundamentalist requires? The notion is just plainly ridiculous if not
simply impossible one and further displays a misinterpretation of Paul's
intent.
7-The Sovereignty Of God
One of the cardinal doctrines and recognitions of the Reformation and the reformed
Christian faith belief is the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. That he can do what he wills as
his own divine act and action without question, charge or restriction.

For those who restrict women to simply be “under” a man or only serve at a “man’s
direction” This doctrine is not otherwise questioned with the exception of God using a
woman to teach, preach and lead a man.


9

Unfortunately many who literally hold to the restriction of a woman in the service of the
Lord, believe that God can use a “donkey” to speak to a man (Num. 22:28 ~ Balaam) and
instruct him, but cannot, does not and should not use a woman.

What of God and HIS will or plan? Is man’s thoughts regarding who God can use greater
than the God who uses all people to his glory?

Those who restrict women in ministry and even leadership also violate the cardinal belief
that God is sovereign. For them he is sovereign “as long as” he uses who they approve.
This is an affront to God.

Conclusion & Summary:

The aforementioned 7 lines of argumentation make an overwhelming case in favor of
women in the ministry in both roles of teaching, forth-telling both men and women and
further in church leadership.

Many women simply don’t want to be a leader and they do not have to. Many men do not
wish to lead also. They don’t have to either.

However, to make the assumptions that God has restricted persons from certain aspects of
HIS service simply because of their gender is much more than the scripture teaches to a
universal church.

In Paul’s writing we see the command to certain behavior and restrictions based on what
was occurring in those settings. The setting was primarily based on Jewish practice and
idioms. These “traditions” were not commands of God but served their purpose in
establishing order and bringing together all mean and women to the glory of God. It is
my hope that the church would stop delivering restrictions based on gender bias and seek
to find the sitz-em-laban of scripture and ask why God allows what was said and what
impact that it had on believers.

The fact is that man was in bad shape without a woman…God created the woman for
him. How can be satisfied to simply oppress what God has given him to help him, not
only privately, but also publicly?

Pastor H. Burnett
The Dunamis Word
New Bethel COGIG


Women In The Ministry Summary

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (16)

Similaire à Women In The Ministry Summary

Similaire à Women In The Ministry Summary (15)

Plus de Pastor Harvey Burnett

Plus de Pastor Harvey Burnett (20)

Women In The Ministry Summary