# 2 Chronicles 34 & women preachers



## biblelighthouse (Jul 11, 2005)

I am against women preaching, and I am against women leading Bible studies with men present. The apostle Paul is very clear in the New Testament that God doesn't intend women to teach His Word with authority.

But I ran across 2 Chronicles 34 this afternoon, and I wonder how it fits in with Pauline theology.

*2 Chronicles 34:*
[22] So Hilki'ah and those whom the king had sent went to *Huldah the prophetess*, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter) and spoke to her to that effect. 
[23] And *she said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel:* `Tell the man who sent you to me, 
[24] *Thus says the LORD*, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book which was read before the king of Judah. 
[25] Because they have forsaken me and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands, therefore my wrath will be poured out upon this place and will not be quenched. 
[26] But to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, thus shall you say to him, *Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel:* Regarding the words which you have heard, 
[27] because your heart was penitent and you humbled yourself before God when you heard his words against this place and its inhabitants, and you have humbled yourself before me, and have rent your clothes and wept before me, I also have heard you, *says the LORD*. 
[28] Behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place and its inhabitants.'" And they brought back word to the king. 


I realize Huldah was not the pastor of a church. But she does seem to be speaking of God with authority.


So, when some feminist challenges my views by pointing out 2 Chronicles 34, how should I respond to her? How can I demonstrate that this passage has no bearing upon the question of women teaching/preaching in the church?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 11, 2005)

I believe that Philip's daughters prophesied as well.

The difference has to do with the nature of the two offices.
To be a prophet is to be a mouthpiece for God. 
To be a pastor/teacher is to be an interpreter and applier of the word of God.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2005)

I don't think its as easy as pointing to a distinction in the offices. Because no doubt--today's preachers are the direct decendants of the prophets, and prophets most certainly were preachers.

The cases of Huldah and of Deborah are most clearly cases of extremity. The situation in the church was greatly disordered. What is the church to do when there is no man who will lead? When spiritual embers have burned so low that there is not one man-of-God to be found, either because they have all been killed, or thrown in prison, or hounded and harried out of the country entire. The state of the church when Josiah came to power was abysmal. It took ten years, until he was 18 years old, to even get the Temple in working order. When finally the book of the law was discovered. Where were they to go to receive a Word from the Lord regarding their negligence? A great hunt had to be made to find one person, a humble woman, who could tell them a word from the Lord.

This, I believe, is also Calvin's and the Reformers position generally (I could be wrong about that....)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2005)

What about "the daughters"? As the NT age was dawning, there was continuity and change happening all at once. Joel 2:28 specifically says that daughters as well as sons would prophesy as witness of the time of fullfilment. In addition the church was in need of revelation in abundance. The NT was not yet written and distributed. In this extraordinary time even women were used to bring the equivalent of the NT into the church for its edification. However, they were still required to prophesy with their heads covered, in demonstration of their station. And they were not allowed to teach.

It is worth comparing the difference here with Numbers 11:29. There, in response to the report that the elders--all male (even two who were separated from the rest) were prophesying, Moses wistfully remarks, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets!" The dawning of the NT age was demonstration that major changes were underway. The new covenant sign of baptism was fit to be given to both men and women. This obviously didn't mean universal propriety was out the window, but it did indicate that many barriers were falling. The way to God had been cleared of so many. Rites, rituals, separate courts, the heavy veil, a priesthood. All were being removed like so much outdated furniture. It is no wonder that in that special time there should also be daughters that prophesied.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 11, 2005)

Bruce, check out "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" edited by Piper and Grudem.... They have a number of fine responses and they wax eloquently, but what I say above is the gist of their statement. Surely you must see both a functional and formal distinction between a prophet and a pastor/teacher.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2005)

I think you answered your own question, Josh, in two ways. One, if there were *no* men to shepherd the flock, but there were women constituting a flock, the older women are to teach the younger (Titus 2:4). They wouldn't formally be pastors but they would be functionally pastors. They might even go by such a designation, fully cognizant of the irregularity of the matter.

And second, no, she couldn't take the "mantle" of pastor to herself (I presume you mean formal ordination). No _man_ does that even today. He is ordained by the church, by other men. Now what kind of situation would you have if you had MEN ordaining WOMEN, supposedly because there weren't any MEN to be pastor? 

A SINFUL SITUATION!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2005)

Ben,
I certainly see both functional and formal distinctions between the offices of prophet and pastor. But that does not take away from the fact that the preachers of Israel were the prophets. They not only spoke the unique Word-from-the-Lord, but they selfconsciously spoke applicationally according to the "Law and the Testimony" (Is. 8:20). That was the test of their message. They spoke occasionally of things to come, but the sheer bulk of their record in the OT (not excluding their redemptive-history record) is their preaching and applying the original Word-of-the-Lord to the preeminent prophet of the OT, Moses.

Spurgeon said, "If the Spirit of the prophets rest not upon us, the mantle that we wear is nothing but a 'rough garment to deceive.'" The Ruling Elders bear the kingly mantle. The Deacons bear the Levitical. The preacher bears the prophetical. Wm Perkins revered manual for puritan preachers was "The Arte of Prophesying." They no more thought to announce new revelation than you or I, but they understood that they were the successors to the prophets of old, and the apostles.

I would argue that it is the distinct evidence of the NT that proves that the special revelatory gift of prophesy went very specifically in one direction in the NT age (from the Old) and the preaching/teaching gift went in another. The apostles clearly possessed both, but the gift of prophecy was evidently something that narrowed down in one sense, and broadened in another (to where we have mention of several women prophets in the NT, as well as Paul instructions to them, 1 Cor. 11). The gift of revelation was destined to die out rapidly (as 1 Cor. 13 tells us), along with the rest of the extraordinary gifts. But to proclaim the gospel was a perpetual office.

All of this is beside the matter that the OT speaks hardly at all of women prophets. And while I shall not deny that God could use anyone at any time to speak his Word, and could commandeer a woman's voice as a kind of "instrument" just as easily as a man's, I do not believe that such was ordinary in the OT, nor do I believe that such was the conduct of the ordinary prophetic office any more than I think Balaam's ass was an ordinary manifestation. I am fairly sure that the Reformers took the same interpretation regarding these OT women. Piety seems to always have run deeper in the soul of womenkind than mankind. These marvels of God's grace appeared usually when the spiritual men of Israel had all but ceased, as a kind of rebuke from the Lord and a vindication of the character of a godly woman.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 4, 2006)

Contra_Mundum,

I realize this is an OLD thread, but I was looking for something and came across this--so I wanted to add my  as to what I see the differences are.

In the OT, Isreal was not the CHURCH, it was a Nation of People, so these women were NOT speaking to a Church body.

There is a clear difference in that understanding alone, which could be used to debunk when liberals try to use these passages. 

Just so you know, I used to carry the belief I could use those examples, but as I have grown in my own faith and understanding, the Holy Spirit has shown me the difference.



> The cases of Huldah and of Deborah are most clearly cases of extremity. The situation in the church was greatly disordered. What is the church to do when there is no man who will lead? When spiritual embers have burned so low that there is not one man-of-God to be found, either because they have all been killed, or thrown in prison, or hounded and harried out of the country entire. The state of the church when Josiah came to power was abysmal. It took ten years, until he was 18 years old, to even get the Temple in working order. When finally the book of the law was discovered. Where were they to go to receive a Word from the Lord regarding their negligence? A great hunt had to be made to find one person, a humble woman, who could tell them a word from the Lord.





[Edited on 10-4-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## BJClark (Oct 4, 2006)

biblelighthouse,

Even in this situation the woman didn't go to teach them, they were sent to her. Completely different situation than a woman stepping up and preaching/teaching.



> But I ran across 2 Chronicles 34 this afternoon, and I wonder how it fits in with Pauline theology.
> 
> *2 Chronicles 34:*
> [22] So Hilki'ah and those whom the king had sent went to *Huldah the prophetess*, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter) and spoke to her to that effect.
> ...


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 4, 2006)

I haven't studied on this at all, but could it be that some of these women were just testifying about God...as every godly woman should do whereever they are (Great commission kind of stuff)?


----------



## satz (Oct 4, 2006)

Wouldn't the answer simply be that there is an exception made from the general prohibition of women teaching men when that woman is speaking by the direct inspiration of God (as a prophetess would be)?

I believe there are certain sections of the bible that were initially spoken by women, yet are recorded down in scripture and are hence authoritative over all christians, men and women.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Oct 9, 2006)

I certainly hope that there isn't a problem with female ministers, as I'm thinking of becoming one!

Here are my own two cents on the situation: in the days when Paul wrote against female ministers, Christianity was already very controversial. Some of its detractors were even claiming that it was nothing more than an effeminate religion, out to defang the old pagan gods of their gusto. Were Christianity to allow _female_ ministers into its orders, that would only appear to emphasize this notion and perhaps detract from the amount of converts that Paul hoped to attract. During those early years, it _would_ have been a wrong thing for Christianity to have female ministers, as it might have led many to have the wrong impression.

However, during our era, things have changed quite a bit and female ministers could actually _attract_ new (more progressive) converts; hence the reason why if Paul lived now, he most likely would *not* object to female ministers. 

Finally, on another note, if Christ had said the same thing about women, I would be a little less hasty to judge like this. But as Paul's epistles are specific letters written to specific churches during a specific time in the church's history, one must take all of these elements into account rather than apply them universally to all situations and all eras.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by christabella_warren_
> Here are my own two cents on the situation: in the days when Paul wrote against female ministers, Christianity was already very controversial. Some of its detractors were even claiming that it was nothing more than an effeminate religion, out to defang the old pagan gods of their gusto. Were Christianity to allow _female_ ministers into its orders, that would only appear to emphasize this notion and perhaps detract from the amount of converts that Paul hoped to attract. During those early years, it _would_ have been a wrong thing for Christianity to have female ministers, as it might have led many to have the wrong impression.
> 
> However, during our era, things have changed quite a bit and female ministers could actually _attract_ new (more progressive) converts; hence the reason why if Paul lived now, he most likely would *not* object to female ministers.



c,

I fully agree (as I'm sure all here would) that a knowledge and analysis of the cultural context and congregation-specific issues surrounding the times of the New Testament epistles are indispensable when determining their intent and meaning. Indeed, a suspicion or denial of their textual relevance is what has led to many fundamentalist oddities and excesses in interpretation.

But even with respect to those types of issues, the interpretation you offer above simply cannot hold ground. Why? Because it would mean that Paul would have been changing or compromising the way in which God intended His Gospel to be proclaimed and His Church to be led simply to appeal to the felt customs and preferences of the society; and that is not at all how he preached the Gospel or instructed the Church. In fact, as we well know, he (and Christ) continually _challenged_ the religious presuppositions and customs of the day that had simply been built up and added by false tradition, and he was persecuted for doing so. Furthermore, his knowledge of the saving power of the Gospel in light of the sovereign, monergistic nature of the Spirit's regeneration would not have been compatible with the type of "hoped to attract" (for the Gospel) strategy you seem to imply above.

It is also different than the issues of abstaining from certain things (e.g. blood, strangled meat) for the sake of the Jewish conscience; because those were simple issues of day-to-day life, concerning things that were not required or commanded, hence they could be surrendered. But the way God intends for His Gospel to be preached and His Church to be run are not non-essential acts of that nature. In other words, if God's ordained role for males and females specifically intended for them both to serve as His ministers in His Church, that would not have been an optional thing that could be surrendered for the sake of cultural conscience issues, just like the spiritual non-necessity of Gentile circumcision was not a truth that could be surrendered; that is why Paul did not say to the Gentiles, "Just become circumciszed so as not to offend the Jews." Rather, since it was an issue that directly related to the Gospel and God's Church, he cleared it up on both sides, with the risk of giving offense to the Jews for not requiring circumcision for everyone.

Thirdly, when speaking of the gender roles in the Church with respect to teaching, Paul does not justify it in terms of cultural issues of the time. Rather, where does he go in his defense and explanation? To Adam and Eve.

I would advise you to seek counsel from many sources on this issue before making your mind up on the biblical texts - even more so with regard to your decision to seek ordination. The church is ultimately the most important in that regard. Do you know what the position of your church's leaders is on the issue? What type of church is it?

Also, read the treatments on the texts and the subject from the Reformers or the Puritans, or any of many historic treatments of the issue from Reformed pastors and authors in the last couple centuries, including the present one. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has some excellent material.


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2006)

Andrew and Chris have provided weighty reasons to counter the cultural argument. May I also suggest that the ciultural argument centres wholly upon the negative aspect of NT teaching, i.e., women are not to have authority and teach, etc. You still have to deal with the fact that the NT provides positive teaching on the way women may live to the glory of God WITHIN the home setting. That is their domain where they may teach and exercise authority.

My take on modern women's ministry -- it is a judgment of God upon the church, and especially upon men, who have failed to play the man and endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, but have rather caved into the effeminate pressures of society to be over-nurturing and accepting of relativism.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 9, 2006)

I took mine out because Chris' was better and more explanatory.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Oct 9, 2006)

Well, I'm sorry that the rest of you don't agree with me on the scriptural validity of women becoming ministers. This is a calling that really speaks strongly to me, however, and I still am not prepared to believe that today it is wrong. I believe it would be wrong for women who intend to create families, because then it would take away from their role as a mother and homemaker. But for women who intend to remain single and have taken a mental vow of celibacy, it is perfectly all right.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 9, 2006)

c,

You said in your initial registration that you adhered to the Scriptural position of the Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Assembly agrees with Paul that women should not usurp any authority over men.

Have you changed your position or do you still adhere to the WCF?

Christianity does not adhere or is not founded upon cultural ebs and flows. It transcends both the time it was written and the cultural context it was written in. 

When the Holy Spirit inspired this:

1 Timothy 2:12-13, "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

- it was something that was certainly not bound to Paul's day. The example he uses is "Pre-fall". It is a creation ordinance that women are not to usurp authority over men in any context.

"I certainly hope that there isn't a problem with female ministers, as I'm thinking of becoming one!"

Yes, actually, there is quite a problem. Scripture forbids it! It has nothing to do with the creation of families or not. It is set in the manner in whcih God created men and women.

[Edited on 10-9-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Oct 9, 2006)

After reading what you all have said, I have decided that I will give my idea up, then. It disappoints me, but I will give it up.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 9, 2006)

c,

That's not a bad thing to do what God intends for you.

It is actually something to rejoice about.

Psalm 23:3 He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> c,
> 
> That's not a bad thing to do what God intends for you.
> ...



You are certainly right, of course. It'll just hurt for a while. However, there's always my horror writing that I can get back to in the meantime..


----------



## polemic_turtle (Oct 9, 2006)

I can't add to this conversation; I'm unworthy! Believe me, I've tried typing up several things. Ah, well, I'm glad we have some strong Bible men around to do the heavy lifting. I hope you understand their position, sister; they're not inclined to discourage anyone from the vigorous study of the Word, but cannot let you proceed unwarned. He who loves you the most will tell you the most truth. I believe they've stated the truth in love and appreciate their contributions.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> I can't add to this conversation; I'm unworthy! Believe me, I've tried typing up several things. Ah, well, I'm glad we have some strong Bible men around to do the heavy lifting. I hope you understand their position, sister; they're not inclined to discourage anyone from the vigorous study of the Word, but cannot let you proceed unwarned. He who loves you the most will tell you the most truth. I believe they've stated the truth in love and appreciate their contributions.



I do indeed intend to listen and I've decided not to become a minister.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Oct 9, 2006)

That sounds like a commendable decision, sister. May God bless you in that.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> That sounds like a commendable decision, sister. May God bless you in that.



Thank you.  I'm still praying about the matter and my spiritual advisors have told me that it is not as great a problem as I thought it was; however, because of what you all have said, I will still continue to pray and ask if it is in accordance with God's will. I still hold with my belief that Paul was speaking more in terms of a cultural problem than a spiritual one, but if my brethren differ, I respect them for their beliefs as well and certainly do not immediately dismiss them.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> But seriously, it is good to have short, pithy statements, which can orientate the mind in the right direction.



Indeed. Also, Andrew, I think the point you initially highlighted is ultimately the most direct and straightforward of the various factors I mentioned relating to Paul's words: In the end, he didn't even appeal to the times, but to the garden!



> _Originally posted by christabella_warren_
> After reading what you all have said, I have decided that I will give my idea up, then. It disappoints me, but I will give it up.



I can relate to being in situations where I strongly felt a conviction in my heart regarding the validity of things applicable to my life, even when people were showing me clear biblical teaching to the contrary. Two of those particular issues with me were accepting the doctrines of grace and the cessation of the revelatory gifts. For some time, I just "knew" in my heart that the God I loved _couldn't_ desire to save less than every person, and that it also wouldn't be fair even if He did so desire. It took some time even after I was Scripturally convinced of the Reformed understanding of salvation before it really sat right with what I felt. Similarly, but even more directly related to my own experience and practice, was the issue of prophecy and tongues today. I _wanted_ to believe that the firsthand experiences I had personally had with them were real and of God, even when I saw Scriptural evidence to the contrary.

The subjective experience, feelings and desires of our hearts are indispensable in our lives as children of God and partakers of His grace - but they are not the standards by which to evaluate the objective teachings of the Word; if they were, theological and moral relativism really _would_ be the case, since people's feelings on what they are to believe and practice differ greatly, and contradict each other. Yet since God's Word cannot contradict itself, _some_ of those feelings must be incorrect - and as such, it is only by an objective consideration of Scripture _apart_ from them that we can discern which of them are correct and which are not. Here is one thread in which the issue of felt conviction was discussed, and here is a related one on the issue of calling (in a vocational sense).

Again, the thoughts and advice of one's elders or pastor(s) is a necessity. (I see you attend an Episcopal church. Out of curiosity, does it tend to be more liberal with regard to theological and ethical issues, or is it more conservative than most? Is it a Reformed Episcopal congregation?) Since you clearly have a desire to serve and be used in God's Church (which is a _very_ good thing for all believers to desire, though so many sadly do not), you should certainly look into and ask for advice on the many ways one can serve the body other than ministry. One issue is the value of having Godly, pious women who also know their Bible soundly, to counsel and teach other women. Though this is a different role, it is a very pressing need in healthy covenant communities. One does not necessarily need a trained theological education to be fit to do so, though that can certainly help in some cases. There are programs you could enter into at good seminaries besides ones designed to prepare people for ministry, such as an M.A. in Theological Studies, or in Biblical Counseling, etc. If nothing else, continually try to be involved in giving service and help to your church any way you can right now. You also do not need to be limited to that one task, or even to only tasks specifically within the corporate work of the Church. Here is a thread that has some truly excellent advice and discussion on this issue of broad service as a whole, even though the initial situation brought up was of a different nature. Specifically with regard to means of service and counsel _outside_ the ministry (and even the Church), Fred Greco's comments are especially valuable.


----------

