# Ordination of Women - Deborah



## Tom Hart (Mar 11, 2016)

What should we say to someone who wants to use the example of Deborah as evidence for ordination of women?


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 11, 2016)

Deborah was a woman of God but she wasn't a ruler and consulted men in private largely. Both are in stark contrast of a female minister.


----------



## Andres (Mar 11, 2016)

The Scriptures are both descriptive as well as prescriptive. Not everything we read in God's Word is an example of something we should do also.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 11, 2016)

Tom Hart said:


> What should we say to someone who wants to use the example of Deborah as evidence for ordination of women?



She was appointed by God then and also points forward to the new covenant where all are one in Christ and are Prophet, Priest and King. However, we don't have "priests", "prophets" nor "kings" like OT Israel anymore. We have the Church in their fulfillment by Christ with Elders and Deacons who's qualifications are spelled out in the NT and are quite clearly, men.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 12, 2016)

All helpful replies. Thank you. What I understand is that it is descriptive, and that the Book of Judges is not really a place to find prescriptions for the church. (Samson, for instance, was a bit of a jerk.)

Thanks again. This has come up with someone I know who apparently isn't satisfied with the clear directions given by Paul to Timothy.

I have also pointed out that history indicates a feminist influence on the church. That's obvious enough, but many people will apparently say that all previous generations of Christians were not inclusive enough.

Ah! I'm going on too long. It's just that this whole 'debate' infuriates me. To me, where Scripture is so clear, it should not even be an issue.


----------



## SeanAnderson (Mar 12, 2016)

John Knox has some wise words in _The First Blast of the Trumpet_:



> And what greater force, I pray you, has the former argument: Deborah did rule Israel, and Huldah spoke prophecy in Judah; ergo, it is lawful for women to reign above realms and nations, or to teach in the presence of men. The consequent is vain, and of none effect. For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law; but we are always bound to the written law, and to the commandment expressed in the same. And the law written and pronounced by God forbids no less that any woman reign over man, than it forbids man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder, or to lie. If any of these has been transgressed, and yet God has not imputed the same, it makes not the like fact or deed lawful unto us. For God (being free) may, for such causes as are approved by his inscrutable wisdom, dispense with the rigour of his law, and may use his creatures at his pleasure. But the same power is not permitted to man, whom he has made subject to his law, and not to the examples of fathers. And this I think sufficient to the reasonable and moderate spirits...
> 
> God by his singular privilege, favour, and grace, exempted Deborah from the common malediction given to women in that behalf; and against nature he made her prudent in counsel, strong in courage, happy in regiment, and a blessed mother and deliverer to his people. The which he did, partly to advance and notify the power of his majesty, as well to his enemies as to his own people, in that he declared himself able to give salvation and deliverance by means of the most weak vessels; and partly he did it to confound and shame all men of that age, because they had for the most part declined from his true obedience. And therefore was the spirit of courage, regiment, and boldness taken from them for a time, to their confusion and further humiliation.






While true, this teaching is indeed not popular in large parts of today's "evangelical" church, which has so readily embraced feminism. This in itself is a judgment upon us for disobedience.


----------



## Zork (Mar 12, 2016)

In our discussion of male leadership in the church, we walked phrase by phrase through the text of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. We will do the same as we discuss God’s design for women. The biblical model is highly controversial in today’s culture. But if Christians are to reflect God’s nature, they must live by His wisdom rather than the world’s.

In 1 Timothy 2, Paul addresses women in the Ephesian assembly who wanted to take over teaching roles. He wrote, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11–12). Paul here defines women as learners during the worship service. They are not to be teachers in that context, but neither are they to be shut out of the learning process.

While it may seem obvious to us that women should be taught God’s Word, that was not true for those (like some at Ephesus, cf. 1 Timothy 1:7) who came from a Jewish background. First-century Judaism did not esteem women. Although they were not barred from attending synagogue, neither were they encouraged to learn. Most ancient religions—and even some religions today—perceive women as unworthy of participating in religious life. Unfortunately, that historical treatment of women continues to incite modern feminism.

The traditional treatment of women in Ephesus partially explains why some of them in the church overreacted to their suppression by seeking a dominant position. Paul rebukes them for that. Before he does, however, he affirms their right to learn.

In 1 Timothy 2:11 Paul qualifies the way in which women are to be learners: They are to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” “Submissiveness” translates hupotagē, the noun form of hupotassō, which means “to line up under.” In the context of the worship service, then, women are to be quiet and be subject to the church leadership.

Some have tried to evade the plain meaning of the text by arguing that “quietly” refers to a woman’s meek and quiet spirit. Women, they contend, can preach or teach as long as they do it with the proper attitude. Others go to the opposite extreme and use this text to prohibit women from ever talking in church under any circumstance—even to the person she is sitting next to! Neither of those options is valid, however. The context makes the meaning of “quietly” quite clear.

In verse 12, Paul defines what he meant: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” Women are to keep quiet in the sense of not teaching, and they are to demonstrate submission by not usurping authority.

The Greek word translated “allow,” epitrepō, is always used in the New Testament to speak of permitting people to do what they want. Paul’s choice of words implies that some women in Ephesus desired to teach and have authority. In today’s church, as in Ephesus, some women are dissatisfied with their God-given roles. They want prominent positions, including opportunities to exercise authority over men. There is only one biblical way to handle those situations for the good of everyone concerned, and that is to do what Paul did. He directly forbade women from taking the authoritative pastor-teacher roles in the church.

Paul also forbids women from exercising “authority over a man.” The Greek word translated “exercise authority over,” authentein, appears only here in the New Testament. Some have attempted to evade the force of Paul’s prohibition by arguing that authentein refers to abusive or destructive authority. Women, according to this view, can both teach and exercise authority over men so long as it is not abusive or destructive. [1] Others claim it carries the idea of “author” or “originator,” thus Paul is actually saying, “I do not allow a woman to teach or proclaim herself author of man.” [2]
In a study of the extrabiblical uses of authentein, however, Dr. George Knight concludes that the common meaning is “to have authority over.” [3] Paul, then, forbids women from exercising any type of authority over men in the church, including teaching.

These instructions to Timothy echo what Paul earlier commanded the Corinthians: “As in all the churches of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says . . . it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Corinthians 14:33–35, NIV). Many claim Paul was addressing a cultural issue in Corinth—nothing that ought to concern our contemporary culture. But they fail to let the text speak for itself: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:33–34, NIV). That isn’t a cultural issue; it is God’s standard for all churches.

The context implies that the silence Paul commands is not intended to preclude women from speaking at all but to prevent them from speaking in tongues and preaching in the church. As in Ephesus, certain women in Corinth were seeking prominent positions in the church, particularly by abusing the gifts of speaking in tongues and prophesying. Yet these women, who joined in the chaotic self-expression Paul had been condemning, should not have been speaking at all. In God’s order for the church, women should “subject themselves, just as the Law also says” (1 Corinthians 14:34).

Women may be highly gifted teachers and leaders, but those gifts are not to be exercised over men in the context of the church. That is true not because women are spiritually inferior to men but because God’s law commands it. He has ordained order in His creation—an order that reflects His own nature and therefore should be reflected in His church. Anyone ignoring or rejecting God’s order, then, weakens the church and dishonors Him.
By Dr John Macarthur. 

This helped me a lot.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 12, 2016)

One of the basic rules of biblical interpretation is that we should give far greater weight to passages that directly address an issue than we do to passages that merely hint at an answer indirectly. In the case of the role of women in church leadership, we have a handful of Bible passages that address the topic very directly. We also have passages that speak directly about the inherent value of men and women and God's design for each.

In contrast, the Deborah account does not directly address these topics. It has other main concerns, so that any insight we may glean from it about the wisdom (or the folly) of having a woman in leadership is at best a side note that ought to provide only secondary support. There are many ways Deborah's leadership was different from the leadership in a New Testament church. To anchor an argument by citing Deborah as an example, when you have passages written directly to New Testament church leaders about who should lead those churches, is not a good interpretive approach.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 12, 2016)

The answer is simple in my opinion. We don't live in OT times and we have this instruction:

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.


----------



## Andres (Mar 12, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> We don't live in OT times



Just be careful using this defense, as it's often the same one antinomians throw out when attempting to abrogate the law.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 13, 2016)

Andres said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > We don't live in OT times
> ...



I'm not sure how you got this idea from what I said. The topic is about women being ordained.....we're not talking about the Law that God gave Moses. In OT times, there was no written rule that women couldn't be leaders, however, in NT times there is. That's why I said we don't live in OT times.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > OPC'n said:
> ...



The hierarchical mandate was started in the garden. Eve was a 'helpmeet'. As well, when we consider the OT church, Priests had to be men of the tribe of Levi. Deborah's situation is not typical-it is a result of unfaithful men refusing to take the federal headship they are called to. In essence, God rubs their proverbial noses in their failure to lead-see it as a curse of sorts.


----------

