Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
Do you think that Prophetesses in the NT prophesied at Church gatherings? Or did they exercise this gift outside of the gathering?
Prophetess in Church
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
- Status
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
in my opinion....both. Depending on what needed to be said. Some prophecy is for the entire body and some is not.
Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
Adam,
In light of such passages as 1 Timothy 2.12 and 1 Cor 14.34-35 what are we to think about women prophesying in chruch and/or the nature of prophesy?
In light of such passages as 1 Timothy 2.12 and 1 Cor 14.34-35 what are we to think about women prophesying in chruch and/or the nature of prophesy?
[quote:b4909ca978]
In light of such passages as 1 Timothy 2.12 and 1 Cor 14.34-35 what are we to think about women prophesying in chruch and/or the nature of prophesy?
[/quote:b4909ca978]
In light of the passages mentioned, I think that women prophesying in church is abominable. Women are to keep silence in the churches, just like Paul said.
As for the nature of prophesy, there is a two-fold dimension. The gift of prophesy or the prophetic office is that of speaking to men for God and in ancient times included revealing and foretelling of events. Today it consists of revealing God's will from the scriptures and does not ordinarily consist of foretelling events.
The deuteronomic prescription for identifying prophets is still in force (albeit the prescription for dealing with false prophets is no longer tenable).
In light of such passages as 1 Timothy 2.12 and 1 Cor 14.34-35 what are we to think about women prophesying in chruch and/or the nature of prophesy?
[/quote:b4909ca978]
In light of the passages mentioned, I think that women prophesying in church is abominable. Women are to keep silence in the churches, just like Paul said.
As for the nature of prophesy, there is a two-fold dimension. The gift of prophesy or the prophetic office is that of speaking to men for God and in ancient times included revealing and foretelling of events. Today it consists of revealing God's will from the scriptures and does not ordinarily consist of foretelling events.
The deuteronomic prescription for identifying prophets is still in force (albeit the prescription for dealing with false prophets is no longer tenable).
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree with Paul. There is no room for women teaching, or prophesying in a church assembly.
[Edited on 5-12-2004 by Ianterrell]
[Edited on 5-12-2004 by Ianterrell]
ChristianasJourney
Puritan Board Sophomore
Is prophesying usurping authority over a man?
Scripture says, "let not a woman teach nor usurp authority over a man." It also says in 1 Cor. 11 that "a woman who prays or prophesies" should have her head covered. If a woman is not to prophesy why should her head be covered? This insert appears to be in the middle of a dissertation regarding communion, which was practiced as a gathering of believers.
In Acts 1 and 2 when the early Christians were anointed with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues they were gathered as a group of believers, and they all appeared to be speaking in tongues and prophesying.... "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..."
I recognize that a woman should keep "silent". But how silent is "silent"? Does she say nothing? Period. Whiat about singing? Is she not allowed to sing in praise and thanksgiving? Is she able to pray? What about congregational prayers? If she's able to pray, is she able to read God's word? If she was allowed to read God's word, it would seem like she'd also be allowed to prophesy, since prophets spoke the word of the Lord. A prophesy was often a warning or an announcement from God to the people--If a woman received a warning from God should she share it? What if she had no spouse or father to share it for her?
These are just random thoughts. I'm really a strong proponent of women not speaking in church. But these are scriptural based questions, and as such, regardless of your view, they're worth thinking about.
Scripture says, "let not a woman teach nor usurp authority over a man." It also says in 1 Cor. 11 that "a woman who prays or prophesies" should have her head covered. If a woman is not to prophesy why should her head be covered? This insert appears to be in the middle of a dissertation regarding communion, which was practiced as a gathering of believers.
In Acts 1 and 2 when the early Christians were anointed with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues they were gathered as a group of believers, and they all appeared to be speaking in tongues and prophesying.... "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..."
I recognize that a woman should keep "silent". But how silent is "silent"? Does she say nothing? Period. Whiat about singing? Is she not allowed to sing in praise and thanksgiving? Is she able to pray? What about congregational prayers? If she's able to pray, is she able to read God's word? If she was allowed to read God's word, it would seem like she'd also be allowed to prophesy, since prophets spoke the word of the Lord. A prophesy was often a warning or an announcement from God to the people--If a woman received a warning from God should she share it? What if she had no spouse or father to share it for her?
These are just random thoughts. I'm really a strong proponent of women not speaking in church. But these are scriptural based questions, and as such, regardless of your view, they're worth thinking about.
Janice, I was not ignoring you but have not been able to spend much time on the computer because I have been moving and my pastoral duties have expanded temporarily, etc., etc.
I am posting an article I wrote to counter a problem in a previous church that pretty much explains my position in these matters.
While B. B. Warfield thought that women should not speak in any public meetings of the church including business meetings, I have no problem with women reading the scriptures aloud, singing, in a worship service.
I also have no problem with women praying aloud in meetings with men as long as they do not use prayer as a forum for teaching and preaching. Others may disagree. (When everyone thinks alike, someone isn't thinking).
Prophesying, for a woman, should be done apart from the context of church meetings. I believe it is perfectly legitimate for a woman to teach a man privately (as Priscilla seems to have done) and, of course, to teach women and young children. I think it is inappropriate and undesireable for women to teach teenage men.
So here's the article:
Women's role in ministry has expanded both to their benefit and to the benefit of the church. The church has come to realize that women are joint heirs, along with men, of Jesus Christ, they are fellow-servants and gifted with the same gifts as are given to men. The church is beginning to come to terms with Paul's statement in Galatians 3:28, "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."
Some, perhaps under the influence of the Women's Liberation Movement, have come to the conclusion that because in Christ there is neither male nor female that women are free to minister equally with men. Is that what Paul allows? Is that what he means? Are the traditional proscriptions of women preaching, teaching, and leading worship in mixed assemblies cultural taboos or truly mandated by God?
Two passages, written by Paul, seem to indicate that women are not to be leaders in assemblies in which men are present. They are 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14.
First Corinthians 14:34,35 says, "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 says 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."
The wording is clear and unambiguous. "Let your women keep silence in the churches." Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language can exegete that sentence. Nor is it a question of inaccurate translation. Of ten English translations checked, all ten agreed with each other and with the translation cited. The problem is not with understanding; it is with obedience to an unequivocal command. Paul says, just so there is no confusion, "it is not permitted unto them to speak." The New International Versions says, "They are not allowed to speak." This statement reinforces the first.
Could this be a cultural proscription that no longer applies? I hardly think so. It may be to answer any such objection that the Holy Spirit had the apostle append the reason to the command. But before doing that Paul amplifies this prohibition by saying the women "are commanded to be under obedience." Ever since Eve persuaded Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit there has been a tension between the roles of men and women. This is even as the Lord God said to Eve: "I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16). The latter part of that verse implies that the woman's desire would be to rule over her husband. However, God says, the opposite would be true: the man will rule over the woman. This is that obedience or submission that Paul reminds the women of in 1 Corinthians 14:34.
Is this construction far-fetched? I don't think so. In fact, a similar construction is found in the next chapter. In this case God is addressing Cain's annoyance over his rejected offering. God advises him, "If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? and if you do not well, sin couches at the door: and unto you shall be its desire, but you are to rule over it." Genesis 4:7.
Women's silence in the church is a sign of an obedient spirit. Women who speak out in the assemblies of the church reveal an unsanctified and rebellious spirit. Paul even says that it is improper for women to ask questions in a public forum about the teaching in a church. This they are to do through their husbands and that at home. And then he adds, "it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Some varient translations of shameful are "inappropriate, improper, and disgraceful."
The apostle Paul also addresses this issue with his protégé Timothy: "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled has fallen into transgression:" 1 Timothy 1:11-14.
Here, the argument follows that of the 1 Corinthians passage. Paul refers back to the Creation order and to the woman being easily deceived. The injunction is the same: "I permit not a woman to teach ... but to be in quietness." The submission issue is also raised: "nor to have dominion over a man." The reasons given are not cultural, but trans-cultural. They are founded in the early days of human history. Women, simply stated, are to be quiet in the public assemblies of the church.
These two passages prohibit women from teaching and preaching in mixed assemblies, from leading worship, from giving "testimonies," from giving "a word from the Lord," and any number of other things which incorporate any aspect of teaching (however well disguised) and dominion (i.e., leadership) over men. They do not prohibit these same functions to women-only groups, or private activities.
With these views the more trusted commentators and biblical scholars of the church throughout the ages agree. It is only since the Age of Aquarius that the broader spectrum of the Church has capitulated to the world and has given insubordinate women a public platform.
[Edited on 6-9-2004 by sundoulos]
[Edited on 6-9-2004 by sundoulos]
I am posting an article I wrote to counter a problem in a previous church that pretty much explains my position in these matters.
While B. B. Warfield thought that women should not speak in any public meetings of the church including business meetings, I have no problem with women reading the scriptures aloud, singing, in a worship service.
I also have no problem with women praying aloud in meetings with men as long as they do not use prayer as a forum for teaching and preaching. Others may disagree. (When everyone thinks alike, someone isn't thinking).
Prophesying, for a woman, should be done apart from the context of church meetings. I believe it is perfectly legitimate for a woman to teach a man privately (as Priscilla seems to have done) and, of course, to teach women and young children. I think it is inappropriate and undesireable for women to teach teenage men.
So here's the article:
Women's role in ministry has expanded both to their benefit and to the benefit of the church. The church has come to realize that women are joint heirs, along with men, of Jesus Christ, they are fellow-servants and gifted with the same gifts as are given to men. The church is beginning to come to terms with Paul's statement in Galatians 3:28, "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."
Some, perhaps under the influence of the Women's Liberation Movement, have come to the conclusion that because in Christ there is neither male nor female that women are free to minister equally with men. Is that what Paul allows? Is that what he means? Are the traditional proscriptions of women preaching, teaching, and leading worship in mixed assemblies cultural taboos or truly mandated by God?
Two passages, written by Paul, seem to indicate that women are not to be leaders in assemblies in which men are present. They are 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14.
First Corinthians 14:34,35 says, "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 says 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."
The wording is clear and unambiguous. "Let your women keep silence in the churches." Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language can exegete that sentence. Nor is it a question of inaccurate translation. Of ten English translations checked, all ten agreed with each other and with the translation cited. The problem is not with understanding; it is with obedience to an unequivocal command. Paul says, just so there is no confusion, "it is not permitted unto them to speak." The New International Versions says, "They are not allowed to speak." This statement reinforces the first.
Could this be a cultural proscription that no longer applies? I hardly think so. It may be to answer any such objection that the Holy Spirit had the apostle append the reason to the command. But before doing that Paul amplifies this prohibition by saying the women "are commanded to be under obedience." Ever since Eve persuaded Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit there has been a tension between the roles of men and women. This is even as the Lord God said to Eve: "I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16). The latter part of that verse implies that the woman's desire would be to rule over her husband. However, God says, the opposite would be true: the man will rule over the woman. This is that obedience or submission that Paul reminds the women of in 1 Corinthians 14:34.
Is this construction far-fetched? I don't think so. In fact, a similar construction is found in the next chapter. In this case God is addressing Cain's annoyance over his rejected offering. God advises him, "If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? and if you do not well, sin couches at the door: and unto you shall be its desire, but you are to rule over it." Genesis 4:7.
Women's silence in the church is a sign of an obedient spirit. Women who speak out in the assemblies of the church reveal an unsanctified and rebellious spirit. Paul even says that it is improper for women to ask questions in a public forum about the teaching in a church. This they are to do through their husbands and that at home. And then he adds, "it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Some varient translations of shameful are "inappropriate, improper, and disgraceful."
The apostle Paul also addresses this issue with his protégé Timothy: "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled has fallen into transgression:" 1 Timothy 1:11-14.
Here, the argument follows that of the 1 Corinthians passage. Paul refers back to the Creation order and to the woman being easily deceived. The injunction is the same: "I permit not a woman to teach ... but to be in quietness." The submission issue is also raised: "nor to have dominion over a man." The reasons given are not cultural, but trans-cultural. They are founded in the early days of human history. Women, simply stated, are to be quiet in the public assemblies of the church.
These two passages prohibit women from teaching and preaching in mixed assemblies, from leading worship, from giving "testimonies," from giving "a word from the Lord," and any number of other things which incorporate any aspect of teaching (however well disguised) and dominion (i.e., leadership) over men. They do not prohibit these same functions to women-only groups, or private activities.
With these views the more trusted commentators and biblical scholars of the church throughout the ages agree. It is only since the Age of Aquarius that the broader spectrum of the Church has capitulated to the world and has given insubordinate women a public platform.
[Edited on 6-9-2004 by sundoulos]
[Edited on 6-9-2004 by sundoulos]
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I agree with your article! Very well stated indeed. Women NEED women to teach them too in my opinion. They are to learn from their husbands, but there are so few truely Godly women out there that the need is HIGH for those who are to teach those who wish to become.
And about the head covering, I feel it is possible that this is in refrence to vanity. When women teach each other (or maybe a man in private) they should not beautify themselves, perhaps to keep men from lusting after them....just a thought.
[Edited on 6/10/2004 by houseparent]
And about the head covering, I feel it is possible that this is in refrence to vanity. When women teach each other (or maybe a man in private) they should not beautify themselves, perhaps to keep men from lusting after them....just a thought.
[Edited on 6/10/2004 by houseparent]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
ChristianasJourney
Puritan Board Sophomore
I thought it was a very good article. I don't disagree with you. If you think conservative, think of me. But I did want to raise the question, because, of course, it's mentioned in Scripture.
- Status
