# Jesus ordained women and we should too...



## Jash Comstock (Jun 25, 2014)

I was just recommended this (weak) argument for women's ordination by a liberal friend.. Thought I would share it here, I'd love to hear yall's thoughts.

Jesus Ordained Women And We Should Too

His attempt to equate the specific command to the women at the tomb to relate a very distinct set of facts to men who were already believers with the call of ordained ministers to Word and Sacrament ministry is very weak I think. Also, I think this article reflects on the liberal view that "the words in red that Jesus said" are somehow more inspired than the rest of scripture. Somehow the words of the gospel are more encompassing than the words of Paul's epistles, even though the command to the women at the tomb was far more specific than Paul's teachings about the role of women in the church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 25, 2014)

Jesus had his whole ministry in which to ordain another Twelve: women this time; or six-and-six originals. He didn't do so, and it's foolishness to say that what he did (in continuity with the past) has no normative significance for the future. Simply put, the absence of women in his inner circle of minister trainees--even to the Last Supper (not a woman in sight)--is prima facie evidence that he had no thoughts of changing such a pattern. Further, any attempt to pit Paul against Jesus is also a tractionless argument to anyone committed to scriptural inspiration, authority, and preservation; and belief in the willingness of Holy Spirit to speak consistently.

Jesus was clearly not afraid to break with traditions, nor even the previous divine precepts (suitable for the time prior to his fulfillment, but not afterward). So, for anyone to say that Jesus was just too timid to make a hard break with male-only leadership, it is pretty clear they have a low view (temporary, conditional) of Jesus' intentions, or his own notions of endless temporal authority which he should wield world-without-end. It isn't Jesus resurrection that inaugurates his kingdom, but John's baptism. No one can understand his program who essentially ignores his three-and-a-half years of instruction.

Jesus' and his church's teaching elevated women considerably from their general social inferiority; while maintaining distinctions and the place of gender roles. In general, human sinfulness (regardless of the society) has tended to take prominence or priority or prowess, and turn it into superiority. Sin minimizes compatibility, mutually supporting structures, etc., in its contradictory aims of eliminating diversity (many "diversity" programs of today are in reality efforts at homogenization); and choosing winners and losers.

Our Lord would have the excellence of women _as such_ celebrated, not so much by other women but by men. And vice versa. That can't happen when people are constantly trying to re-imagine Jesus as the chief proponent of the latest androgynous fad conjured up in their own minds.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 25, 2014)

One of the chief strategies of liberalism is to keep throwing the same lies against the wall until they begin to stick. This is another lie they have been telling for years. Don't believe it.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 25, 2014)

You're right. That article's argument is pretty weak. Merely dealing with the article as presented, I might respond as follows...

First, there are inaccuracies in the article. The author claims all the gospels agree that Jesus himself instructed the women to go and tell about his resurrection. That's wrong. John has Jesus instructing Mary to tell of his coming ascension (which assumes telling of his resurrection, too, I suppose). But Matthew has Jesus only instructing the women to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. And Mark and Luke don't record Jesus himself giving any instructions to the women. The command to tell of the resurrection comes from angels, not Jesus. Now, that's just as authoritative as any other word from God, but the article's author makes a big deal about how Jesus himself commissioned those women to "go and tell" (as if that made it more special) when the text never says such a thing! Such loose, fabricated handling of the text discredits the author. He really needs to clean that up and start being more honest in how he references Scripture.

As for the substance of the argument, it's important to affirm what we can properly infer regarding women from the resurrection accounts:
*We can infer that Jesus rose for women every bit as much as for men (since the accounts are about the resurrection).
*We can infer that women as well as men are reliable witnesses (since the accounts are about telling what one has seen and heard).
*We can infer that women may tell others what they know about Jesus (since the accounts are about telling what one knows about Jesus).
*We can infer that Jesus gives women important, kingdom-advancing work to do (since the accounts are about that, too).
Each of these is also supported by other Scripture, so they're safe conclusions.

But to conclude _from these passages of Scripture_ that Jesus ordains women to rule, teach and preach authoritatively in the church is a stretch—because the resurrection accounts are not directly about who should be in charge in the church. There are other Bible passages that _do_ address this matter much more directly, giving them far more weight. The fact that the article's author does not appeal to those passages but rather appeals to passages that aren't about that topic makes for a weak argument. If he presented evidence from passages about church rule and preaching that seem to argue for women in those roles, then the angels' command to the women might make a nice supporting point. But as it is, it's an argument based on a single incident that has questionable connections to the issue at hand.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 26, 2014)

Terrible exegesis, excellent eisegesis!


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 26, 2014)

The methodology of higher criticism employed by the majority of seminaries is the bitter fruit of the exaltation of human autonomy enshrined in Rationalism. Lacking confessional boundaries and desiring to be popular with the academy and the culture, it is no surprise that the church would "discover" ideas a decade or two after the secular world does.

When at a leading "evangelical" seminary in the '70s, we were taught the egalitarian view that had already been adopted by mainline Christianity a couple of decades earlier. Now, it is more difficult to find a group that rejects egalitarianism than one that embraces it. 

My denomination refuses to ordain women on biblical grounds. But, even though a relatively small group (2.2 million), we are probably one of the larger ones to refuse to capitulate to culture (other than the ginormous SBC). The arguments in favor of gay unions (and ordination) are based on the same hermeneutic as the ordination of women so it should only be a couple of decades until that prohibition falls as well.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2014)

The unabashed hypocrisy of liberalism is its anti-ecclesiastical agenda which it carries on within an ecclesiastical context.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 27, 2014)

Good insight, Rev. Winzer. If they disdain authority, why so much wrangling over who is in charge?


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jun 27, 2014)

Priesthood of believers applies to women... so I do believe in women priests in that sense

There was a category of women who prayed for the church in Timothy... not deacons and not elders... not sure what 'Jesus ordained woman' means... At one point Paul referred to a woman as a deacon without explanation... maybe virtually a deacon... or served in the spirit of a deacon with a deacon's heart ? but it's not clear and the earliest Baptist confessions allowed women deacons but male elders and male pastors. Some denominations will have male ordained deacons and unordained women deacons or male deacons and female deacon assistants.


----------

