The Word Chronicles

Women in Ministry Paper II

2010-01-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Dennis Swift

LET THE WOMEN BE SILENT?
1 Timothy 2:5-15

A cartoon appeared in a Christian magazine depicting Saint Paul arriving by boat on some distant shore, met by a group of women carrying placards that read, “Unfair to women,” “Paul is a Male Chauvinist Pig,” and the like. Paul looked sheepishly at this protest and said, “Heh, heh, I see you got my letter.”

In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul says, “...women must be silent!” 1 Corinthians 14:34, “...women are to remain silent in the churches, they are not allowed to speak, as the Law says.”
If these texts are taken literally in a straight forward manner, then women cannot have any role in the church: singing, preaching, teaching, teaching children, reading the announcements. Paul has issued an ultimatum-no talking anywhere on the premises: sanctuary, nursery, etc. The apparent demand is for absolute silence. No you cannot sing in the choir, no you cannot read the scriptures, no, you cannot pray publicly, no you cannot play a part in a drama. Therefore, I am accusing patriarchal pastors of not believing the Bible because they are not practicing what Paul clearly wrote. I am a pastor of a church and have been ministering for almost forty years. I am now pastoring my third church. I have a B.A. M.A., M.Div, Ph.D., all with an emphasis in theology and religion. If Paul really was saying that women are to remain silent in the church, we would have to hand out duct tape, muzzles, and keep them corralled in a corner of the church. What becomes obvious when you study the culture, Greek grammar, and corresponding scriptural passages is that Paul was not forbidding women from ministry, but he was addressing at Corinth disruption in the services, women speaking out of order, and at Ephesus, false teaching.

Let’s take a moment to consider 1 Timothy 2:5-15. There was a fertility cult in Ephesus, and as part of the initiation, men went up to the Temple of Artemis and engaged in sexual relations with women priestesses who were supposed to be the mediators between the gods and man. Women served as the prime movers and mediators who were the conduit for contact with the gods. The cult personnel of the great Temple of Artemis of Ephesus numbered in the thousands, and the women were believed to stand in the intermediary position between the deity and her worshippers. At Ephesus, the cultic religion was a female monopoly that was believed to be the mediators between the gods and mortals.[1]

In 1 Timothy verse 5, Paul corrects this false teaching (“for there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ”). As part of the Gnostic Religion, female mediators were supposed to initiate men into their special knowledge, gnosis, during sexual rites. At Ephesus, there was a prevalent teaching that Eve was created before Adam and received “special knowledge” when she ate the forbidden fruit. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was a massive structure that dominated the area, and as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept men in their places. The women priests were considered to be the teachers of men.

Paul corrects this false teaching by saying the Adam was formed first and then Eve; that Adam was the source of woman. Paul had earlier warned Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3-5) that people were teaching false doctrines, devoting themselves to myths and endless genealogies. There was a widespread belief among the Ephesians that warrior-women, Amazons,[2] who were superior to men, had founded the city of Ephesus. People were caught up in these myths and pursued genealogies trying to trace their ancestry back to these superior women. Women, who were uneducated and full of these fables, were going house to house teaching these tales and superstitions.

An early Amazon queen, Lysippe, decreed that women should go forth to battle and govern while the men were to stay at home and do the household work. “Lysippe said to the men they were assigned the spinning of wool and the household tasks of women.” She introduced laws by which she led forth the women to battle, but she hung humiliation and servitude upon the men.

Artemis was the female goddess that the Ephesians worshipped, and her name, Artemis, means “safe”. She was the one who protected women. Sacrifices and prayers were offered to her throughout the woman’s life. It was Artemis who would safely guide the women through childhood. On a woman’s wedding night, her garment was loosed and given to Artemis as an offering. Women prayed to her for a safe childbirth, to be saved and not harmed throughout the delivery of the child. Beautiful garments, woven by the woman, were given to Artemis as an offering for safe childbirth.[3]

In verse 15, Paul says, “But, the woman will be saved during childbirth . . .”. In the Greek, Paul seems to be making a play on words, “But she, the woman, will be safe throughout the childbearing.” Implied, God is the protector, not Artemis (safe). The Phillips Bible comes closest with, “The woman will come safely through childbirth.” Paul is saying that the women should not fear harm during childbirth because Artemis has no power to keep one safe or to harm them. It is rather, God, who can keep you safe throughout the whole process of childbirth. In this case, Paul is not saying that childbearing is a curse upon a woman, but rather, that God gives grace.

In verse 14, Paul says that it was the woman, Eve, who was deceived. Now in verse 15, he says, “Yes, there was a woman who was deceived. But remember, God chose a woman to save the world through childbirth, Mary.” It is obvious that a woman is not saved through childbirth. Only Jesus Christ can save her. This may be an allusion to Mary. It is interesting to note, that it was Ephesus that was the first place to worship Mary and develop a cult of Maryology. William Ramsey insists that it is “no coincidence that the Virgin Mary was first given the official title, Theotokos, ‘bearer of God’ at Ephesus where Artemis herself had earlier borne the same title.”[4]

These women who were the dispensers of mystic knowledge twisted and perverted Paul’s teaching about women.

Paul, in his letter to Timothy, the young pastor who was facing false doctrines and fierce female foes, addresses every evil practice, woman dominance, false doctrine, and sexual impropriety.

Paul also deals with the problems of men in public prayer. In verse 8, he says, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing.” Men, you are to lift up your hands in public prayer and pray not just outwardly but inwardly, without harboring hostility over some dispute or hidden anger. This is a problem men still need to handle.

Now in verse 9, he begins with the Greek word, hosautos, “in like manner or similar”, women are to dress modestly while praying outwardly in public. They, too, lift up holy hands and outstretched arms, which was the practice while blessing God’s people in prayer. There is no getting around the Greek word, hosautos. Just as the men are to pray without inner anger, the women are to lead in public prayer, dressing modestly without drawing public attention to themselves. Thus, the Greek word, “for in like manner” repeats the whole previous sentence in verse 9, except that the warning is different. Men have trouble in overly internalizing anger and disputes while trying to pray effectively in public, whereas women have trouble sometimes not realizing that God meant them to be beautiful and attractive to men but not while praying publicly in the service. According to these two verses, Paul wants women and men to participate together in the public service of the church, in the offering of prayers. There can be no debate over this point unless someone knows how we can get rid of hosautos.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:5, “Every woman who prays or prophesies (in public)”, and in 1 Timothy 2:10 (public prayer). A.J. Gordon wrote, “It is quite incredible on the contrary, that the Apostle should give himself the trouble to prune a custom, which he desired to uproot, or then he should spend his breath condemning a forbidden method of doing a forbidden thing.”[5] Paul was encouraging men and women to participate in the service openly with prayers and prophecies. But the women were to be modest in their dress so that they would not draw attention to themselves. May I remind the reader that prophecy contained teaching as well as direct revelation. Wow!

Some patriarchal pastors interpret these passages as though Paul was saying that women are second class citizens at every level. They are not to be educated, they are not to dress attractively, they are daughters of Eve, the original troublemaker, a deceiver. Women are easily deceived. The best thing for them to do is to get married, have children, behave themselves, keep quiet, and let the men be the spiritual authorities. The Apostle Paul is not in agreement with this myopic viewpoint.

In verse 11, Paul instructs that women are to be educated. They are to learn in quietness and voluntary willingness to be responsive. The Greek is transparent here. It does not mean that women are to keep their mouths shut and submit to someone of higher rank. Hupotassomai means “a voluntary responsiveness to learn to take a subject in, in an attitude of openness”. It means to be receptive and responsive. Paul told all the members of the church to be subject to (hupotassomai) to one another: wives to husbands, husbands to wives (same Greek word, hupotassomai). Hupotassomai never means a ranking of a person as ruler and ruled. The directives in the New Testament are for Christians to live together linked by love, serving one another, and not lording it over one another. Men and pastors are not to be like some tin-pot oriental monarch lording it over his subjects, but rather as servants.

Paul was just like Jesus. He wanted the women to be properly educated and instructed so that they could be teachers. In Luke 10:38-41, the story of Mary and Martha, Martha is in the kitchen distracted by all the preparations while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus. What would be immediately understood in Jesus’ day and in the Middle East today is that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet within the male part of the house rather than being in the back room where she belonged with the other women. I am sure Martha was bothered by having to do all the work, but the real problem was that Mary had just committed an absolute social “no, no”. A woman was never allowed to go into the men’s part of the house where a male was teaching. It would be as if you were to invite me to your house to spend the night, and when it became bedtime, I would put up a tent in your bedroom. We have our social appropriateness. Mary had just violated the social mores. In fact, she flaunted them, and Jesus declares that she has a right to do so. She is sitting at his feet. A phrase which doesn’t mean what it would mean today, the adoring student gazing up in admiration at the wonderful teacher. It is clear from classical Greek literature, the customs of the day and the usage of the phrase elsewhere in the New Testament (Paul -Gamaliel), to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, you are his disciple, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning, and in a practical world, you would not be doing it for the sake of cramming your mind with information, but you were in training to be a teacher, a Rabbi, yourself. Jesus commends Mary and says, “You have chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from you.”

Americans miss the point, and clergy who have an insufficient theological education and interpret the Bible through the lens of Western Culture just don’t get it, but I assure you, no one in Jesus’ day would have missed the scandal at Bethany. Indeed, today in the Middle East and in Central Asia, when this story is told, the men protest, “What, what? Jesus would allow a woman to sit at His feet? Women are not to be teachers.” What they mean by “teachers” would be a Rabbi, Priest or Mullah. Here, Paul is at one with Jesus.

In 1 Timothy 2:11, “Let the women learn in openness and voluntary responsiveness;” uneducated women were causing problems, so he wanted the women properly educated and prepared to defend and teach the faith. The women are to be well taught in the Word. The rabbinical rabbis taught, “It is better to burn the Torah than let it fall into the hands of a woman.” Paul decrees, “O contraire,” women should learn just as the rabbis. This was a pedestal-smashing blow to the patriarchal legalists. Indeed, the rabbinic scholar himself was required to learn in silence. The people of Israel were told to keep silence before the Lord (Isaiah 41:1, Zech. 2:13), and they were instructed “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). Silence was a wall around wisdom. Silence was the duty of the learner. The phrase, “Silence and submission” is a Near Eastern formula implying a willingness to heed and obey instructions from the Word of God.

In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I suffer not a woman to teach.” Here, Paul is not voicing a timeless command but a temporary directive application to a specific situation. In the Greek, it is not a command-not in the imperative. Paul uses the Greek form that indicates present action not a command form. “Presently, I am not allowing!” Paul is not setting down a permanent prohibition. The temporary character of the prohibition in Paul’s use of the but ( de) to join the two verses.,[6] “Let the women learn . . .but not at this time am I allowing them to teach.” In other words, we have to correct this false teaching, but once it is corrected, the women can teach sound doctrine.

What are we to make of Paul’s declaration in verse 12? “I do not permit the women to have authority over the men.” The Greek word (authentein) does not mean “authority” in the sense of the English understanding of the word. It meant, in the First Century, to gain domination by claiming special knowledge (gnosis), a knowledge that could be passed on to the men through sexual rites. It was a common problem at Ephesus that women were using deceit, trickery, and underhanded means to trap men into believing that the sexual rites initiated them into the mystical realms of communion with the gods.

Charles Thrombly argues convincingly, authentein had a sexual meaning.[7] He links the word to temple prostitutes that believed fornication brought believers into contact deity. Authentein, in the First Century Greek world, meant to engage in sexual immorality as in a pagan religious setting. John Chrysostom, an Early Church Father, used authentein to express sexual license. Clement of Alexandria used the same word, authentein, for a group of Christian women who turned Christian love feasts into sexual orgies.

If we believe the scriptures are truly inspired, and if Paul had meant “authority”, he would have used the normal Greek word that he uses repeatedly in his writings, exousia. Instead, he uses this word authentein, a word loaded with sexual connotations and images of someone dominating as a despot over men. Authentein is a haphax legomenon. It is only used once in the entire New Testament and is a fitting word of a society ripe with women supposedly superior to men: bearers of mystic knowledge and sexual liaisons, serving as mediators between the gods and men. Undoubtedly, Paul applied a specific word for a specific setting.

Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the old ways of organizing male and female roles from top to bottom were invalid; with one feature, that women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, thus, you might want to avoid giving the wrong impression. People would wonder, is Christianity just another cult like the cult of Artemis where women do the leading and keep the men in line? No, Paul says, in verse 12. Women are not to try to dictate to the men with the overtones of being bossy or seizing control or using female charms to seduce them into a false religion. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space to learn, to study in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis cult, but that both men and women alike are to develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching, and leadership God is giving to them.

Pride grows on the human heart like lard on a pig. Men have used 1 Timothy 2:12 to clobber women. After all, some men say, Eve was deceived, and God said in Genesis 3:16 that man is to rule over the woman. If that is your belief, then it is the men who are deceived. For Genesis 3:16 is not a command for man to rule over the woman, but is a curse . . .”man (unfortunately) who walks after his fallen nature, will rule over woman”.

Genesis 3:16 is not a demand or a command for man to take charge over woman, “to rule over them.” This is not a normative and prescriptive text found in the Mosaic Law and revealed by God, it is a curse passage predicting what will happen when women “turn” towards their husbands instead of turning towards God. This is what can happen if you marry a dictatorial, immature, or childish man. Paul said, “When I became a man I put away childish ways behind me, “ (1 Corinthians 13:11). I repeat, Genesis 3:16 is not a command but a curse. In effect, if God were explaining this today in plain English, God might have phrased it like this, “The truth is, that as a result of the fall, do not be surprised, my good lady, if that guy just plain lords it over you.” The statement in Genesis 3:16 does not have the slightest hint of a command or a mandate for men to assume that they are in charge, nor is it a prescriptive command from God by any means. The Hebrew grammar may not be rendered as, “the man must (shall) rule over you.” Such a misguided notion demands that you would have to translate verse 18 the same way, “the ground must produce thorns and thistles for you.” Farmers (should this be the accurate way to render the text) would need to stop using weed killer or pulling out thorns and thistles for God demands they must be left in place on the farm, for this was meant to be God’s normative order of things. But of course, this is utter nonsense, and so is the same logic in verse 16. Genesis 3:16 is not normative for the scripture lifts up Genesis 1:27 and 2:23-24 as the norm for male/female relationships. Those relationships are not to be lived out in light of the fall but in light of God’s design to create two sexually distinct beings in partnership. In fact, God in Jesus Christ was introducing a new order of relationships. This is clear from Jesus’ corrective that from the beginning God had made them male and female (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). Jesus evokes the mandate that the marriage relationship is a functional (oneness) not a hierarchical “two-ness”. In God’s sight, “They are no longer two but one” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:8). The Pharisees were incensed that Jesus would make women equal to men. In the Pharisees patriarchal prison women were mere chattel. Daily, the Pharisees proudly prayed, “I thank God I was not created a Gentle, a slave, or a woman.” As F.F. Bruce notes, “The pious expressed such gratitude because the other persons “were disqualified from several religious privileges which were open only to Jewish males.”[8]

The Bible is not a book of oppression but liberation. Jesus said He came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18-19), and that includes women. Those who attempt to set up a patriarchy are saying in effect, we are to live out male/female relationships under the curse and not from the cross. Patriarchy is fundamentally flawed from the first because it forms an institution of Pharisaism and not of our liberator, Jesus Christ, the High Priest. Paul did not reintroduce Pharisaical beliefs but presented a radical new order of creation. In Galatians 3:28, the Greek reads, “Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no, ‘male and female’.” We flatten out the verse, but the rich meaning of it is contained in the Greek. He says, “no male or female” rather than “neither male nor female”, and he is actually quoting Genesis 1. We should see the phrase, “male and female” set off in quotes. Paul was battling the Pharisees and Judaiziers who wanted to enforce Jewish regulations, Jewish ceremonies, and Jewish ethnicity on Christian converts. Remember the synagogue prayer that the Jew prayed thanking God that he was not made a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. When that prayer was prayed, the women in the synagogue were to mentally agree thanking God “that you made me according to your will.” Paul, in Galatians 3:18, is deliberately marking out the family of Abraham as a new order of creation under Jesus Christ as a people who cannot pray that prayer since, in this new family, these distinctions are irrelevant. There is much more embedded in this text, because the raging controversy in Galatians is circumcision. Circumcision was a painful experience for the male, but it was also a matter of pride and privilege. It not only marked out Jews from Gentiles, it marked them out in a way that automatically put them in a privileged class above Gentiles, slaves, and women. By contrast, think of the equality brought about by baptism, the identical rite for Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, male and female. They are in effect equal in the new creation in God’s forever family. Paul is aware that in some ways, the story of Abraham did, of course, privilege the male line of descent (Isaac, Jacob, etc). What is incredible, is that we find Paul, in both Galatians 4 and Romans 9, carefully paying attention to the women in the story, rather like the genealogies of Matthew 1, though from a different angle. He is highlighting the role of the women in the Abrahamic Family. In effect, Paul is saying that those in Christ are the true family of Abraham, which is the whole point of the story, that the manner of this identity, unity, which takes a quantum leap beyond the way in which First Century Judaism construed them, brings male and female together as equals, just as Jews and Gentiles are equals. Paul is kicking the props out from under those Pharisees who are attempting to back up a continuing line of male privilege in the structuring and demarcating of Abraham’s family in Genesis 1, as though someone were saying, “But of course, the male line is what matters, of course male circumcision is what counts, because God made male and female.” No, says Paul, none of that counts when it comes to being in the renewed family of Abraham (no male, no female). Paul is taking a wrecking ball and demolishing those who would enshrine a continuing line of male privilege and patriarchy in the new family of Jesus Christ. The point Paul is making in this passage is that God has one family, not two, and His family consists of all of those who believe in Jesus, that this is the family that God promised to Abraham, and that nothing in the Torah can stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

For those who are trying to build a hierarchy, a patriarchy, to distinguish the roles of male and female, place themselves under the curse. You would also have to abide by the Old Testament and would not be able to be a minister because you are a Gentile.

Paul gave a thundering pronouncement that reverberated throughout Christianity. The dividing wall has been torn down, the barrier obliterated. The wall between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, woman and man, has been destroyed. There was an inscription on the wall outside the temple stating that Gentiles and women could not enter under penalty of death (Ephesians 2:14-16). Patriarchal teachers attempt to hand pick five scriptures and build a scaffolding that excludes women. It is like trying to build a scaffolding that will reach the moon. They found that in the one hundred sixty-three pounds of rocks brought back from the moon by Apollo 11, insects. What kind of insects? Luna ticks (just joking)! It is the height of lunacy, or shall I say, if you want to be a lunatic, to believe the dividing wall torn down allows a Gentile man to minister but keeps the women outside the courts beyond the temple of God’s grace-they are still under the curse. No, if you return to the Pharisaical system, you once again place yourself under the curse and the invariable result is you will try to control or rule over women by human means.

A comprehensive study by L. K. Maxwell, past President of Prairie Bible Institute, found that there were more than one hundred passages in the Bible that affirmed the roles of women in leadership and fewer than half a dozen can be interpreted in opposition. Furthermore, men who site 1 Timothy 2:12 do so out of its cultural and exegetical context. If this solo verse is used to construct a major doctrine against women, it is absurd, for no other major doctrine in the Bible comes from one single verse. I have demonstrated that there is a strong male cultural bias that attempts to subjugate women to the category of second class citizens in God’s kingdom.

Genesis 2;18 is not a text indicting the subordination of women as if she was to be man’s helper. Several translations interpret the Hebrew word ‘ezer as “helper”. “I shall make a helper fit for him (RSV).” “I will make a fitting helper for him (NJPS).” “I will make a helper compatible to him (NKJV).” The patriarchists proudly point to Genesis 2:18 as proof of gender hierarchy. They translate ‘ezer as “helper” and argue that implicit in the term is the notion of subordination. To be a helper is to offer (submissive assistance) as one who gives help.[9] The fatal flaw of such flimsy, shallow, shoddy, shortsighted, slipshod hermeneutics is the fact that all other occurrences of ‘ezer in the Old Testament have to do with the assistance that one of strength offers to one in need. The ‘ezer is a king, an ally, or an army coming to the aid of one in trouble or need. There is no exception.[10] Moreover, fifteen of the nineteen other references speak of the help that God alone can provide (Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; Psalms 20:2, 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11, 121:1-2, 124:8, 146:5; Hosea 13:9). Deuteronomy 33:29, “God, He is your shield and helper (‘ezer—strength).” Psalm 121:1-2, “I will lift up my eyes unto the hills, where does my help (‘ezer—strength) come from. My help (‘ezer) comes from the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth.”

It is quite evident; help is given to one in need. It fits Genesis 2:18-20 very well. Adam’s situation was that of being alone, and God’s evaluation is, “It is not good for man to be alone.” The woman was created to relieve man’s aloneness through “strong partnership.” R. David Freedman, has argued quite convincingly that our Hebrew word ‘ezer is a combination of two older Hebrew/Canaanite roots, ‘-z-r, meaning “to rescue or to save”, and g-z-r, “to be strong”.[11] The difference between the two is the first letter in Hebrew that is today somewhat silent in pronunciation and coming where the letter “o” comes in the English alphabet. The word had a guttural sound pronounced in the back of the throat. The initial ghayyin fell together and somewhat represented by the one sign ‘ayyin’. However, we know that both letters were originally pronounced separately for the sounds are preserved in the “g” sound, still pronounced in English today in such place names as Gaza or Gomorrah, both of which are now spelled in Hebrew with the letter ‘ayyin’. It is a tremendously tedious task to untangle the threads of the original meaning, but Freedman successfully traces the root to around 1500 B.C., where the two signs began to be represented by one in Phoenician. Consequently, the two, “phonemes” merged into one “grapheme”. Irrefutable evidence appears in the Old Testament of the two roots merging as one because ‘ezer in the twenty-one times it is used in the Old Testament, often is in parallelism with words denoting “strength” or “power”. The only salient conclusion is that Genesis 2:18 is best translated as “I will make a power or strength suitable to him.” ‘ezer kenegdo together in 2:18 is suggestive that God was saying “I will make for man a strong power equal to him.” Instead of the woman being an assistant, helper, or subordinate, the text teaches that the woman has been given authority, strength, or power that is equal to man’s.

This line of reasoning is borne out in Genesis 2:23 where Adam says to Eve, “This is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh, she will be called woman for she is taken out of man.,” hardly something someone would say about a subordinate. The idiomatic expression of Adam points to family propinquity, one’s close relative, in short, “my equal”.

In a case of nutty buddy scripture twisting, some patriarchists insist that Adam was calling her a subordinate because it is the language of paradox. Furthermore, they resort to saying that God, in offering help (‘ezer) becomes the human subordinate or servant.[12] Divine accommodation, maybe. But, divine subordination, impossible.[13] Of course, if you want to dominate women, you ignore the scriptures that confront your fallen fleshly desire to be the master of women, “to rule them”. We have several scriptures where Judah and Israel were helped by their allies. Are you going to say that the help (‘ezer) came to them in a subordinate capacity? This is not tenable.

There is no equivocation that ‘ezer kenegdo in Genesis 2:18 does not mean “helpmate”. The Hebrew expression conveys the full meaning of woman as “one who is the same as the other: protects, aids, helps, supports, as a powerful, strong equal partner”. The Hebrew leaves no room to intimate that the woman is an inferior or in a secondary position in a hierarchical male pyramid.

There are those who cart out the canard that women were not deacons. They are not mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:1-11. The opening statement of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 says, “This is a true saying, if anyone (ei tis) desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good thing.” First, the original Greek does not say “man” at all but instructs, “If anyone desires the office of a bishop,” (he/she) desires a good work.” If Paul was limiting overseers to males, he would have used the male word (aner) in the text. Paul did not slip up and accidentally use a word that includes both sexes. Yet, translation committees, teaching the traditions of men, in some cases, ignore the Greek and translate it as a man. The question is would Paul have given such instructions to the women at Ephesus serving in leadership roles? A thorough knowledge of the Greek City of Ephesus sheds important light for Greek married women were not prone to multiple marriages or illicit dalliances, while Greek men were.[14] In fact, extramarital affairs were par for Greek males but not tolerated for women (because of the concern for legitimate sons). The divorce rate among Greek men was exceedingly high. So, the fact that Paul includes this qualification, that male deacons “are to be a one woman man, or the man of one woman” and omits them for the female deacons is exactly what one would expect. Anything else would be surprising.

In 1 Timothy 3:11, Paul does not use the term, diakonos, deacon in reference to women, but gynaikas, and this seems to be a reference to women office holders and probably not to the wives of deacons. The usage of the feminine noun is supportive of a case of the ministerial office for the women. Ample evidence is marshaled for the suggestion that in the midst of Paul’s discussion of the qualifications for deacons, the Apostle suddenly singles out women serving in that capacity.[15] Some patriarchal pastors have screamed, Paul, yes! Women deacons, no! Dennis, who? I’m sticking with the King Jimmy. I’m standing with Paul. Men, don’t give me your sentiments, give me your sound scholarship. Did not Paul say, “Study to show yourself approved, a workman who need not be ashamed.”

In Romans 16:2, Paul is not the least ambiguous. For in his lengthy greetings which closes the Epistle to the Romans, Paul commends to them “Phoebe, diakonos, of the Church at Cenchreae”. The King James Version in Romans 16:7 reads, “Salute, Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” There is no mistaking it, Junia was a female apostle. One female apostle destroys every argument against women being in the ministry. I am standing by the words of Paul in Romans 16:7. Someone moved, and it wasn’t Paul. It looks to me like Paul stands with those who stand by Romans 16:7.

In the Upper Room, in Acts 1:13-14, we are told that women were among those with the disciples, Mary, and other men. “They all joined together constantly in prayer along with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” What! It says in Acts 1:13-14 that women were praying openly in a meeting with men and the disciples! What! Why didn’t the disciples say, “Keep them women silent!” They were waiting for the promise of Joel, Acts 2:17-18, “That both sons and daughters will prophesy. On my handmaidens I will pour out in those days my Spirit and they shall prophesy.” Many traditions agree that on Pentecost, the Spirit poured out and the women went forth prophesying. It’s a good thing that pastors of the patriarchal mindset, fundamentalists, Southern Baptists, and Church of Christ, weren’t there. They would be shouting, “Keep them women silent!. This is of the devil! They’re out of order! Women are not to prophesy!” On several occasions, I have seen church buildings with the inscription carved on the cornerstone, “The Lord’s Church, Established 33 A.D. Jerusalem”. I asked the preachers, “Do you let women pray, teach, evangelize, or prophesy publicly or to men?” Absolutely not! They give the invective of 1 Timothy 2:12. Then I say, “How can you be the Lord’s Church established in 33 A.D.?” Other patriarchal and traditionalists say that Joel’s prophesy was for the future, a latter day outpouring of the Spirit. When those days come, will we disregard a message from God because it comes from a woman? Are those prophesying handmaidens of the Lord going to be told, it is a “sin” for them to publicly tell the entire congregation the message God has given them? In John 4:1-42, we read that it was a Samaritan woman who leads a large part of the population of her community to Jesus. She was a triple outcast: Samaritan, despised by the Jews; woman, second class citizen; and, she had had five husbands and was currently living with a man. She was an outcast, but Jesus didn’t cast her out. She was a triple threat to the kingdom of Satan. God uses king pins (queen pins). The disciples were shocked that he was talking with a woman, but she went forth evangelizing her town, speaking, teaching, and preaching to men, women, and children. How else can you evangelize your town? Jesus trusted her. And it says that many came to him. It’s a good thing that the Lord’s Church wasn’t there, because they would have said, “Keep that woman silent. She’s not supposed to be evangelizing or teaching. That is a man’s job.” Excuse me, the Lord’s Church wasn’t there with the Lord. They were established in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem. The patriarchs and the Lord’s Church claim they are doing the Lord’s work the Lord’s way by silencing more than half of the Lord’s workforce. “The field’s are white unto harvest,” Jesus said, “But the workers are few.” Do you know why Tigger hops around all day on his tail in the forest? He’s afraid he will step on Pooh. Any teaching that dramatically shrinks the Lord’s workforce is a bunch of patriarchal “pooh”.

Last point: In 1 Corinthians 12:7-30, Paul lists gifts of the Spirit. Repeatedly, he uses the Greek words-to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given (verse 7), to one is given the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge, to each one . . .to another . . .(verses 7-11). It’s an airtight case; there is no getting around the Greek. It is to each one male and female. The Spirit sovereignly gives the gifts of teaching, exhortation, words of knowledge, wisdom, not just to men but to the women. God is no respecter of persons. Why would God give gifts to women and not allow them to exercise them? The ministry is not according to gender but according to the gifts given to male and female that Paul says are irrevocable and without repentance.

I pastor a church that recently bought a building built in 1888, Immanuel Baptist Church, and it was sold in 1912 to a Jewish Orthodox Synagogue. It remained the only Jewish Orthodox Synagogue in the State of Oregon from 1912 to 2007. The women were partitioned off and separated, not a word could be spoken in the synagogue. The men built a separate area in the back of the building that looked like a cattle pen and that’s where the women sat, gazing out at the men as they performed their rituals. I took a sledge hammer and with the help of others, tore the barrier down. In our church, not only are the physical dividing walls down but the cultural dividing wall that denies women their rightful place in God’s church. As the pastor, I am striving for orthopraxy, right practice, as well as orthodoxy, right doctrine, for right doctrine protects the family of God from spiritual food poisoning and congregational gangrene. We’re not big on titles, although my full title is The Most Right Righteous Reverend Doctor D.L. Swift, Swami Swift, The Grand Potentate, Super Pastor. The only thing missing is the cape. Just call me The Bishop or The Newly Elected Pentecostal Pope (just kidding). The devil is not afraid of titles.

As part of our orthopraxy, we have had women evangelists, pastors, and teachers who have all ministered in our church. They carry with them a weight of glory, the credentials of heaven, are approved by God, and it is too real for me to deny that the holiness of God, glory of God, and presence of God accompanies them. I can say this about all of them, but I cannot say it about all of the men who have ministered in our church. Some of them had more grammar than Father. While at our church we do not throw around titles like “deacon”, “elder”, “bishop”, or “reverend”. There are those women in our congregation who are recognized as godly and gifted, and exercise a ministerial function in the church. They are respected, and they are not a threat to the men. When they say something publicly, we all sit up and listen. Equally, there are godly and gifted men who are recognized, respected, and exercise ministerial responsibilities in the fellowship.

Male domination is a personal moral failure not a Biblical doctrine. We are to properly distinguish between male headship and male domination (lordship). Male headship to quote Ortlund is defined as,” In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings,male and woman,the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” This is not a contradiction but a divine paradox; a God created creative tension for male and female as equal but there is leadership (headship). They are made in the image of God and are spiritually equal. Their sexual identities are not a biological triviality or a mere accident but a divine
design and I say,” Viva La Difference.” The man assumes a loving, leading, and servant leadership. That is, God calls the man, with the help and counsel of the woman, to see that the male-female partnership, serves the purposes of God, not the sinful urges of either member of the partners. The man is to lead, you can’t follow a parked car, but he is not to assume the role of a dictator.

The Patriarchal Model always fails because it institutes a form of lordship and not of headship. Robin Morgan has aptly said, “Every organized patriarchal religion works overtime to contribute to its own misogyny.” Patriarchal systems have an abysmal history of being models of smothering male domination. There are patriarchal husbands, pastors and elders who are little more than glorified Archie Bunkers. Their wives and members are to play the part of Edith whose shrill voice, “Yeees, Archie” echoes compliance to the all knowing superior one. Having an Archie Bunker as a pastor is like sailing the high seas of life with Captain Bligh at the helm. The pastor is not to lord it over the people but to be a servant; to use coke images, it’s not Royal Crown but Bubble Up.

When truth is abused in the opposite direction, a rival position takes hold that is a compelling and powerful form of feminism that is both radical and diabolical. The female morphs into a femi-Nazi. The answer is not the Women’s Lip (lib) Movement. The denigration of subordination crushes God’s creatures. Women are not to be treated as sex objects and neither are men to be treated as success objects. We are to be fully male, fully female, fully equal and fully made in Gods image.

For the Bible to describe a male dominated society is not to prescribe it. The Old Testament scripture portrays women as chattel, as victims of polygamy, of religious sex rituals, of physical abuse, and as depersonalized subjects. Women were portrayed as second class citizens. James Borland points out, “The cultural mores and the historical setting into which God spoke His revelation must be distinguished from the revelation itself.” The Biblical description is not a Biblical prescription. Dwight Pratt says, “Every decline in her (woman’s) status in the Hebrew commonwealth was due to the incursion of foreign influences”. The influences of Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Egypt, and other pagan societies eroded God’s purposes for the male/female relationship. God’s Old Testament revelation explicitly forbids a patriarchal form of society, because patriarchy in the Bible was partly a heathen patriarchy that God didn’t condone but condemned. Modern patriarchy is prescribing what the Bible was describing as forbidden and God condemning.

Bibliography

[1] Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Kroeger. I Suffer Not A Woman. (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), pp. 105-113.
[2] Rick Strehan. Paul, Artemis, and the Jews at Ephesus. (Walter de Gruyhen: Heidelberg, Germany, 1996).
[3] Laura K. McLure, ed. Sexuality and Gender in the Classical World. (Wiley and Blackwell: London, 2002), pp. 30-33.
[4] William M. Ramsey. “The Worship of the Virgin Mary at Ephesus”. Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christian History. (Hodden and Stoughton: London, 1906), pp. 125-159.
[5] A.J. Gordon. “The Ministry of Women”. Missionary Review of the World. (#7: December, 1984).
[6]Aida Besancan Spencer. “Beyond the Curse”.Women Called to the Ministry. (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass., 1985), pp. 74-77. Douglas Moo. “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men: 1 Timothy 2:11-15”. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. (Crossway: Wheaton, Ill., 1991), p. 183.
[7]Charles Thrombly. Who Says Women Can’t Teach. Pp. 174-177.
[8]F.F. Bruce. Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI, 1982), p. 62.
[9] Bruce Ware. “Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complimentarian Positions of the Role of Women in the Home and Church. Ministry. (2004).
[10] Raymond Ortlund, Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship”. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (Baker Books: 1994).
[11] R. David Freedman. “Woman, A Power Equal to Man”. Biblical Archaeological Review.(#9: January, 1983), pp. 56-58.
[12] Ortlund. Op. cit., pp. 99-100.
[13] Ortlund. Ibid, p. 114.
[14] J. Neuffer. “First Century Cultural Backgrounds in the Greco-Roman Empire”.Symposium on the Role of Women in the Church. (Plainfield, New Jersey, 1984), pp. 69ff.
[15] Kenneth T. Wilson. “Should Women Wear Head Coverings?” Bibliotheca Sacra. (48, #592: October/December, 1991), p. 453.

Women in Ministry

2010-01-06T20:20:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Dennis Swift

There have been four views of the role of women in the church: traditional, male leadership, plural ministry, and egalitarian.

The traditional view has used scriptures such as I Corinthian 14:34-37 and I Timothy 2:8-12 to say that women are to have no ministerial role. “Let your women keep silence.” The male leadership view uses Genesis 1-3, Proverbs 1:8, 31:10-31, Luke 7:36-40, Mark 12:41, Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 11 and assumes that women can preach, teach, prophesy, but not usurp the male leadership. The plural ministry view uses 2 Kings 22:14-20, Romans 16:13, I Corinthians 14:29 and believes that man and woman have equal roles in ministry. The egalitarian view says that women are not to be restricted in anyway in ministry that there is 1 neither male nor female in Christ. (Galatians 3:31). And that Jesus and Paul let women minister.

The biblical battle is the way people interpret I Timothy 2:9-15, I Corinthians 14:34-37, and I Corinthians 11:3-15.

God entered into a covenant with women as well as men (Deuteronomy 29:1-11). Women were required to hear God’s word read aloud (Deuteronomy 31:12) and women ministered at the tabernacle door (Exodus 38:8). They offered their own sacrifices (Leviticus 1:13) and prayed directly to God (Genesis 16:7-13). Women could become Nazarites (Numbers 6), prophetesses (Miriam-Exodus 15:20-21, Huldah-2 Kings 22:14), wise women (2 Samuel 14:1-8) and judges (Deborah, and she was also a prophetess Judges 4:4).

Women in the Old Testament played a significant role in ministry although they could not become priests.

Jesus challenged the first century stereotype that a woman belonged in the kitchen and not in the classroom (Mary and Martha Luke 10:38-42). In Luke 13:10-17, Jesus addressed a woman as a daughter of Abraham, a title of great honor. Women were part of the group that traveled with Jesus from beginning to end (Luke 8:1-4, Matthew 27:50-56). Women were among the disciples in the upper room (Acts 1:14) and spoke in tongues at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). Both Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26) and Phillip’s daughters were prophetesses(Acts 21:8).

In Romans 16, Paul greets several women who have a role in ministry: Phoebe a deaconess, and Priscilla and Aquila as fellow workers (16:2-3).

Paul had been in Ephesus (I Timothy 1:3) and he had left Timothy in charge of the work there. Paul instructs Timothy in doctrine, discipling, and church training. He may be writing to help Timothy fight false Gnostic teaching.2 In I Timothy 2:9-15, Paul gives what seems to be a prohibition to women teaching in the church. Is Paul really saying women are not to teach or is he saying the women are not to misuse authority. Is Paul excluding all teaching or false teaching by self-appointed teachers?

What Does Authority Mean in I Timothy 2:12

The word “authententein” is “to have authority”. I Timothy 2:12 is not the usual Greek word for authority.3 The normal word in the New Testament is “exousia”. If Paul meant authority in the regular way, he would have used “exousia” but he chose “authententein” which is used only in this place in the Bible.

The word “authententein” was a rare word in Greek classical literature. “Authententein” means “to thrust oneself”. It originally meant to “murder or to declare oneself the sole authority”. When it is used here it means to “thrust oneself into authority by claiming to have special knowledge, authority or insight.”4

In Ephesus where they worshipped Artemis, women were said to have been gifted with special knowledge, and that Eve was the originator and enlightener of man (Adam). It could well be that Paul was speaking against a false Gnostic teaching and he is saying that in no way would he permit a woman to teach heresy or thrust herself into a position of authority or to claim secret revelation or knowledge.

The background of “authententein” comes from “aut-hentes, “a self-doer, an autocratic ruler”, and was used to describe a person who played the master by deceit or trickery.5 Paul may be saying that he refused to permit a wrong use of authority or misuse of spiritual gifts to deceive or gain spiritual power over others. It is clear that Paul allowed women to minister, prophesy, teach, and pray (Romans 16, Acts 18:26). Priscilla in the Book of Acts was called “a teacher of teachers” by the early church father, John of Chrysostom.

Those who say women should keep silent in the church allow women to be missionaries or to write books or use the hymns they have written: Frances Havergals, Fanny Crosby, etc.

I & II Corinthians

Paul was at Ephesus when he wrote the letter to the Corinthians. (16:8), “I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.” Paul writes about doctrine in the church: marriage, idolatry, Lord’s Supper, collections for the poor, spiritual gifts, the resurrection of the Lord, women in the church, sexual immorality, and other problems. No church caused Paul more anxiety than Corinth (II Cor. 11:28).6

I Corinthians 14:34

Paul instructs the women to “keep silence” (remain silent NIV) “is sigatosan”. It is a strong Greek word meaning to stop talking, to be silent, or to keep something secret.7
The same verb is used for disorder caused by speakers in tongues in verse 28 and prophets in verse 30. It seems that Paul is not saying women can never minister in church but instead he is saying that without proper order to things, they are to keep silent. The daughters of Phillip were prophetesses and surely they had times when they spoke in church. That this silence is not absolute should be evident from a comparison with I Corinthians 11:2-16 which regulates how women and men are to worship, prophesy and pray. This verse seems to be a command for specific conditions and not as an overall command for all services.

The context of this verse indicates the condition, “But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and God.” (I Cor. 14:28). Paul is saying that one who has the gift of tongues may participate in singing, praying, and so on, but when you speak in tongues you must have an interpreter or keep silent. The better interpretation of the Greek here means the absence of speech.

Verse 35 may also define the word “silence”. Speaking would mean asking questions. Dialog was a common form of education in the first century.8 The women were not to interrupt the service by asking questions out loud but keep silent until they got home and could ask their husbands. In the synagogue, it was the rabbi who asked the questions not the people.

Paul said that they should speak one at a time. Two people should not speak at the same time. When a group worships, everything must be in order. The rule was one person speaking at a time.

The issue of the text at Corinth may have to do with education. Paul was speaking in Greek. Educated people spoke Greek and understood him. That is why the words, “principal women, leading women,” and “Greek speaking women” are used to describe the women who followed Paul closely. They were educated and understood him. The language however, of most of the Eastern Roman Empire particularly the poor and the uneducated was Aramaic. Paul would have known Aramaic but his main language was Greek. It is possible that the disruption in the services was that non-Greek speaking uneducated women started talking to each other during the worship service. It was boring to them. They could only understand a few words. Paul was delivering the sermon in Greek and Aramaic speaking women were whispering to each other. Paul says, “Be silent in the service, only one person speaks at a time.” The husbands would have spoken Greek and Aramaic for males were educated in the Roman world. That is why Paul said to the women to wait and ask your husbands when you get home about the service. The verb “lalei” was a once used word by Paul from classical Greek. It meant “to chatter.”

This is a common problem today in Middle Eastern and African countries. One pastor was speaking in a Coptic Christian Church in Cairo and there was a mixture of the educated and uneducated. The speaker delivered the sermon in English which the educated people understood. The women only spoke Egyptian and soon started whispering and it got louder and louder. Every so often a man would say, “Women be silent.” This happened about fifteen times during the three hour service.

We have to make a difference between scripture and the interpretation of scripture. Many times there have been injustices to women because of culture, misinformation, and failure to understand the scripture. For instance, it is said there were no women apostles, but Paul lists Junia in Romans 16:7. Men for centuries added an s to Junia to make it a male name. Today there is a lot of cultural baggage and lack of looking at the historical, original Greek words, archaeology and culture of the first century which results in forming a misinterpretation.

I Corinthians 11:1-16

The participation of women in worship activity, praying the Lord’s Prayer, singing hymns and anthems, and reading responsive readings are sanctioned by I Corinthians 11:2-16 (women should pray and prophesy, including reading God’s inspired word). What does “head” in verse 3 mean? The Greek word kephale, “head” has twenty-five possible first century meanings. Among them are “top”, “brim”, “apex”, “origin”, “source”, “mouth” “starting point”, “crown,” “completion,”, “sum”, “total.” 9 The list does not include our English usage of “head” as “authority over”, “leader”, “direction”, “superior rank,” or anything similar. “Kephale” is used once in the Septuagint as “origin or source” to convey what the Hebrew word meant. The Hebrew word “ro’sh” (head) was used sometimes to describe a leader but never the Greek word “kephale”.

Philip Barton Payne did research on the ancient Greek literature’s use of “kephale”.10 The idea of “authority” was never a recognized meaning of “kephale” in classical Greek. Nor does “kephale” ever appear as a synonymn for “leader, chief, or authority.” The use of “head” in this verse as “authority” is only used in our western culture by people who misinterpret “kephale” from a male dominant viewpoint.

Paul was a Greek and Hebrew speaking Jew and he grew up in the Greek- speaking city of Tarsus. The meaning of “head” in verse 3 is normally used in churches that say women are not to minister (as a chain of command). Yet all lexical, historical, and cultural evidence indicates that “authority, leader, chief” were not Greek meanings of ”kephale”. The Greek meaning that best fits the context here is “source or origin”. Verses 8-12 are centered on origins: “man was not made from woman but woman from man, for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman and all things are from God.”

Another way to check the interpretation is to go to the early church fathers who were closest to the Greek culture. In all the early church fathers: Tertullian, Eusebius, etc, the idea of “source” or “origin” is used for “kephale”. For instance, Cyril of Alexandria wrote in the fifth century, “Thus we say that the head of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him and the head of woman is man because she was taken from his flesh, likewise, the head of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.”

Prophesying means teaching, and both men and women were teaching. The question in the text is not about women teaching but about women teaching with proper attire. In Corinth, prostitutes did not wear head coverings. Roman women wore fancy hairdos with broaches in them. Paul was simply reminding the women that as important as they were as teachers in the church, not to dress or wear their hair like cultic prostitutes and other pagans in Corinth lest they give the wrong impression. The cultural context is essential for understanding Paul’s words. Today we would think it odd for women to wear coverings. In orthodox Judaism to this day, a woman’s head is shaved. In public, they wear hats or wigs and part of the reason is so they will not appear too attractive to other men.

The phrase, “sign of authority” over the woman was translated “veil” in the Middle Ages and that is why in the Catholic tradition, woman were required to wear veils and head scarves.

Today in some places in Latin America where the Virgin Mary is worshipped and Catholic women wear head scarves and burn incense to the Virgin Mary, protestant women do not wear scarves in order to show that they are not associated with the idolatry of worshipping Mary. Indeed, if Paul was writing scripture today, he might give an injunction that Christ is the head of the Church and an uncovered head is a sign of allegiance to him alone.

The women in church, are they to be silenced or set free?

Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer
not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over the man,
but to be in silence. (I Timothy 2:11-12; I Corinthians 14:34)

In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this? We have many proofs from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.

Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave them. She filled an important position of leadership. Part of the role of a deaconess in the early church was to teach and that included teaching men. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking to the church. The Greek term diakons means ministry and that she had significant leadership. The literal meaning of the Greek word prostates is “one who presides “ or “a woman who is set over others.” Origin wrote that Phoebe was ordained as a minister.

Philip (the evangelist) daughters: He had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:8). Today, we distinguish between apostles and prophets, but in the early church, their roles were often similar. In the teachings of the twelve apostles, (The Didache), the earliest work on church order, says that prophets and prophetesses provided instruction to the church, performed the Eucharist, and led prayer.

Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. We know that they together were pastors of the church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos and pastored the church together. In fact, Priscilla is often listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. Regardless, we see here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring (Acts 18:2; Romans 16:2; I Corinthians 16:19). In the Greek world, the first person mentioned in a pair carried the greater distinction and honor. It appears that Priscilla was the more gifted teacher and speaker.

Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse, Paul sends greetings to “Andronicus and Junia, his fellow prisoners” who are apostles. Without exception, in all Greek manuscripts, Junia is a woman’s name. It was a unanimous consensus of the early church Fathers, commentaries, and translations up until the 13th century that Junia was a woman apostle.[11] John of Chrysostom writes high praise for Junia, the female apostle.

To be an apostle is something great, but to be outstanding
among the apostles-just think what a wonderful song of
praise. That is, they were outstanding on the basis of their
works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom
of this woman must have been that she was deemed worthy
of the title of apostle.[12]

Chrysostom goes on to mention that Junia was a teacher of teachers. Origin of Alexandria (c 185-253 A.D.), who is considered one of the greatest of all Christian scholars, wrote about and accepted Junia as a female apostle. Jerome (347-419 A.D.), translator of the Latin Vulgate, identifies Junia as a female apostle and worthy of honor. Hatto of Vercelli (924-961 A.D.) was the Bishop of Vercelli. He wrote Capitulae, a series of instructions for the clergy and was a Greek scholar. He is in agreement with the other church Fathers that Junia was a female apostle. Theophylact (1050-1108 A.D.) had the highest reputation as a scholar. His commentary on the Pauline epistles is esteemed for “appositeness, sobriety, accuracy, and judiciousness”. He cites Junia as a female apostle. Peter Abelard (1079-1142 A.D.) was renowned as a French philosopher and theologian. He is considered the founder of the University of Paris and wrote extensively on Paul’s words naming Junia as a female apostle. A few of the other patristic exegetes (experts in critical interpretation of the bible) who were adamant that the second person mentioned in Romans 16:7 to be a woman included: Ambroiaster (339-397 A.D.), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458 A.D.), Primasius (Sixth Century), John Damascene (675-749 A.D.), Hayamo (d. 1244 A.D.), Oecumenius (Sixth Century), Lanfranc of Bec (1005-1089 A.D.), Bruno the Carthusian (1032-1101 A.D.), and Peter Lombard (1100-1160 A.D.).

How did Junia get lost? How did her story disappear? Who changed Junia’s name in scripture? As mystery writers say, “Who dunnit?” In an astonishing litany of sexism, misogyny, and blatant tampering with the texts, she was expunged from scripture in an act of male chauvinism.

In the thirteenth century, Giles the Archbishop who was known as Giles of Rome, changed the text to a male’s name in his Agegidas Romanus.[13] Giles was deeply prejudiced against women. Part of the influence was Pope Boniface VIII, a famously corrupt Pope. Pope Boniface so opposed female leadership in the church that he ordered all nuns be confined to their convents. Giles’ “Politically correct” mistranslation of Junia appeared to flow from the papal prejudice that women were to be kept in their place. Giles along with Pope Boniface, started a trend to restrict the role of women in church, and Giles was one of the most influential thinkers of his time.

The great universities of Europe sprung up during this era. The new universities became the learning centers of western civilization: Paris (1150), Bolgna (1088), Oxford (1107), Cambridge (1207), Sorbonne (1257), Seville (1254), Prague (1348), Florence (1349), Heidelberg (1385), and Cologne (1388).

Women were not allowed in the universities, and the university teaching system in the Middle Ages meant that men became the sole purveyors of higher learning. Men wrote the philosophy texts and enshrined the ideas of male philosophies and constructed a male world view. They wrote the theology and that meant that the history of women in the churches was often deliberately left out.

Theodora Episcopa was an early case of a woman bishop. Her name was changed to Theodor, leaving the “a” off, and in St. Zenos Chapel where her portrait is on a mosaic, the “a” on Theodora was defaced. Men could not stand the thought of a woman bishop. Many women were eliminated from church history, and the result was a textual invisibility for women. The “no girls club” was shaped by Giles’ view of faith, and it spread to the Western world, and in modern times has relegated women to a seat in the back of the gospel bus as second class citizens.

Giles cleverly added an “s” to Junia thinking that he had changed it to a male name, Junias. However, your sins will find you out because the proper male ending would have been “ius” not “ias”.[14]

According to Daniel B. Wallace, no instances of the name Junias have surfaced in Greek literature (absolutely not one). We have numerous examples in Greek literature and on ancient grave inscriptions of the name, Junia, and it is always in the feminine form.[15]

Brooten comments “What can a modern philogist say about Junias? Just this, it is unattested. To date, not a single reference has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has proved fruitless. This means we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed.[16] It never existed, we know, because Giles invented it with the stroke of a pen adding the “s” on the end of Junia.

In fact, philogists say that the name is not to be found in New Testament Greek manuscripts or in any ancient manuscripts or inscriptions: Greek or Latin, secular or sacred!

There are three strikes against this being a masculine name. One, the early church interpreted it as feminine. Two, it is a Latin name and would not have been changed into Junias in the Greek. Three, Junia is found only as a female name in antiquity.

The King James Version accurately translates Romans 16:7 as “ . . .Junia of note among the apostles.” The New American Standard Bible translates Romans 16:7 as “ . . .Junia . . .prominent among the apostles.” However, many modern translations and paraphrases fall prey to male bias and misogyny and render the text as a male name. The New International Version says “Greet Junias . . .outstanding among the apostles.” The Living Bible murders the text of Romans 16:7 with “ . . .Junia . . .respected by the apostles.” Other modern translations engage in mental gymnastics and add several of their own words. In the phrase, “They . . . (said to be) outstanding among the apostles”, they substitute the word “by” the apostles, changing the word “among” and adding the other four words, “said to be by” that are not in the Greek text. We are not to add words to scripture that are not there! For the meaning “by”, Paul would have used one of two totally different Greek words: para or pros, rather then using an en that implies selection from within the group.

I studied Koine and Classical Greek under Dr. Frank Carver and knew Dr. Ralph Earle, both of whom were on the translation committee for the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible. In the class on textual criticism, it was pointed out that translation committees were not evenly balanced or free of denominational bias. The fundamentalists and conservative Baptist Greek scholars would not concede in the face of overwhelming historical and textual evidence that the Junia was a female apostle, and their vote outnumbered other committee members. So they left Junias at Romans 16:7. Equally, a committee loaded with neo-orthodox theologians insisted that Isaiah 7:14 should not be rendered “ . . .the Lord himself will give a sign. The Virgin will be with child”, but that “ . . .a young woman will be with child” (New English Bible). I never could comprehend how the Lord’s sign of the Messiah would be a young woman with a child. Young women have children all the time.

Dr. Bruce Metzger was undoubtedly the greatest Greek textual authority of modern times. Dr. Metzger confessed that in the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (second edition, p. 421), that the UBS Committee made the ruling to make Romans 16:7 read Junias based on the gender assumption imposed on the text by members of the committee who were of Baptist and Calvinistic persuasion, who dumped their pejorative denominational baggage on the text.. Why, why, why-because to be faithful to the text would have meant the loss of your job or standing in the denomination. Shame, shame. Committees and individuals engage in subtle scripture twisting to accommodate their cultural biases or male chauvinism. That Junia was a woman apostle and a prominent one is just too much for their fragile male egos. That Junia was a woman apostle is not some kind of liberal feminist revision of scripture. It is only a proper hermeneutical principle to interpret Paul’s reference to her as an apostle, and that was the unanimous consensus until the 13th Century. All the Greek texts, manuscripts, and early documents of Christianity say she was a female apostle.

Who says women can’t teach? Not Jesus, not Paul. It has always been a strange doctrine that will allow women to go to foreign mission fields to teach heathen men but will not allow the heathen men at home to be taught by the same woman. It makes absolutely no sense to think that a female who is learned in the scriptures cannot teach a man who is unlearned. Additionally, churches that proclaim that women are not to teach say it is acceptable for women to teach Sunday School to children or teens and for mothers to teach their sons. Where do you draw the line and say to the women that they can no longer teach a male once they reach a certain age. Is it because men do not want to be bothered with teaching the Bible to children? Is it not a convenient theology that insists Paul said women are not to teach in the church and then add to that your own exception clause, except for children and teenagers.

Did not Paul address the men to teach their children (Ephesians 6:4), “Fathers do not exasperate your children but instead bring them up in the training and the instruction of the Lord.”

Some pastors proudly pronounce that women are to be silent in the church. What about the rest of Paul’s teaching that women are to cover their heads. I have never seen a single woman’s head covered in a Calvinistic, fundamentalistic, Baptist, or Church of Christ Church, etc. etc. Is that not a cafeteria style theology where you “buffet style” pick and choose what you want to believe? I choose not to add hypocrisy to my list of sins.

I challenge anyone to argue on historical, theological, textual, philological, or on the basis of Greek grammar that Junia was not a female apostle. Your argument will die inch by inch the death of a thousand qualifications. Scholars, pastors, and theologians respond with a deafening silence. They choose to teach the traditions of men and leave their women buried in the tombs of tradition.

This day the Lord says, “Woman, thou art loosed!”

Yes, my friend, there is no denying the role of women in the New Testament church. Indeed, there was a woman apostle by the name of Junia, and she was a prominent leading apostle. Apostles performed miracles, signs, wonders, preached, taught, cast out demons, planted churches, presided over the Eucharist, and instructed men and women. There is no wiggle room. Macho men have to die to self and allow what Jesus and Paul allowed, for women to minister. Let me send all the men t-shirts that say, “Get Over It!” The male bastion of bigotry towards women is crumbling. It is only a poisoned pot of pharisaical legalism that enslaves women and shackles them to male dominance. Weak men cannot handle strong women.

The preponderance of evidence declares that in the New Testament church, women served as apostles, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, and prophetesses. Men, don’t give me your opinion, give me your scholarship that says otherwise.

In Roman culture, the woman was in charge of the house. Is it no wonder that house churches in the New Testament were often led by women?[17] Colossians 4:15 says, “. . . .and to Nymphia and the church in her house.” Once again, we know from the early church Fathers that Nymphia was a woman leading a house church teaching and preaching to males and females. It is a sad sordid story that male exegetes deceitfully
changed her name to Nymphas. Thankfully, the feminine norm has been restored in many new translations.[18]

What about Prisca? She is mentioned six times in scripture and helped to start three house churches, presiding over them. Just imagine starting three churches at one time when you could be flogged, stoned, expelled, or imprisoned for doing so.

What about Mary Magdalene. She is called in early church writings “an apostle to the apostles.” Hippolytes, a conservative priest of the Third Century in Rome, also designated Mary as the first apostle in his commentary on “Song of Songs”. Mary Magdalene had a prominent role in the early church and spread the gospel through preaching and teaching.[19] Case closed.

What are men afraid of? The truth? On what basis do men say women should not preach or teach? When you boil it all down, it is their tradition, cultural erroneous teaching absorbed from Western Society or sometimes raw carnal male ego. Some men have tried to make their case by saying, in essence, that the early church Fathers and patristic writers were simply mistaken in their belief that Junia was a woman. They assert that Giles got it right and adding the “s” restored the real meaning to the text that Junias was a man. That ignores the evidence from Greek literature that Junia was a woman’s name, and that in Latin writing, Junia is a fairly common female name whereas Junias is nonexistent. Since Paul was writing to the church in Rome that spoke Latin, it is safe to assume that Junia was a woman. The evidence is lopsided in favor of a female apostle.

That doesn’t stop some theologians who surmise that Junias is a nickname, a shortening of a Latin name such as Junianus. However, Grenz rightly asserts that Latin nicknames are longer than their counterparts, not shorter.[20] Others have fumbled around searching for textual variants to build a case for a man, Junias. The important papyrus, P. 46, along with a few later minor manuscripts from the old Latin versions, 4th and 5th
Centuries A.D., all read “Ioulian”. “Ioulian” is a feminine name equivalent to our Julia. The textual variants all support the interpretation of Junia as a female apostle.

The scholars who stick to Junias refuse to admit the historical fact that Giles added the “s” in the 13th Century. In the face of the facts, they hold to a position that they are better suited than the early church Fathers to decide that Junia was a man. They are so bold to conclude that they see nothing in Romans 16:7 or church history that challenges the complementarian position for all-male leadership within the church.[21] Church history and Romans 16:7 does not challenge all-male leadership, it renders it obsolete. Women were pastors, prophetesses, apostles, teachers, and missionaries in the New Testament church, and it continued until the 13th Century. Period!

God told Moses to tell Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” God says today, “Let my women go! Let them go serve, let them go preach, let them go teach. Let them go prophesy, let them go to be who I created them to be!”

Addendum

The corruption of Romans 16:7 has some curious twists and turns. How did the King James translation get it right that Junia was a woman apostle?

In the late 4th Century, Pope Damascus I commissioned Jerome to produce an authorized text. By 400 C.E., Jerome had produced a standard text in Latin, the Latin Vulgate. Latin was the common or vulgar language of the people, hence, the title Latin Vulgate. Jerome, using a variety of Greek texts, correctly identified the apostle in Romans 16:7 as a female although he used the variant name “Julian” (Julia).[22]

Erasmus deserves a good share of the credit for bringing Junia’s name to light. Erasmus produced a landmark Greek version of the New Testament in 1516. Erasmus was at the forefront of a movement to study the original languages. Their slogan was, Ad fontes! (To the sources!).[23] He used the Textus Receptus to identify the apostle of Romans 16:7 as Junia, prominent female apostle. Erasmus used Greek sources rather than corrupt Latin texts. He notes that “Julian” in the Latin Vulgate should read “Junia”. He noted that Paul gave the woman “Julia” her own place later in Romans 16. Erasmus also adds a postscript to the 1527 translation that a very old codex provided by the Church of Constance that agreed with the Greek manuscripts that he had consulted in Romans 16:7. For the next 250 years, variations of the Textus Receptus were the standard Greek sources of the Bible.

Martin Luther, the Reformer, was a contemporary of Erasmus and said that women had wide hips. God created them that way because they belonged at home. Luther ignored Erasmus’s Greek translation and chose the male name, “den Juniam”. Later, Luther embellished this view in his letters to the Romans by claiming that Romans 16:7 said, “Greet Andronicus and Junias of the Junian Family, men of note among the apostles.[24]

The effect of Luther’s mistaken reading of Junia’s name multiplied over time. John Thorley, British scholar, says that subsequent translations of Romans leaned on the masculine interpretation of Junia’s name because of Luther’s influence, which is why the male name cropped up again in English translations in the 1800’s.[25]

Here is what apparently caused Junia’s disappearance during modern times. Publishers of standardized Greek texts that were used by ministers and scholars included the female name from 1898 to 1920. In 1927, the International Nestle Translation committee arbitrarily changed it to a man’s name, Junias, with no notes of explanation. The men suffered from textual deafness. They could not believe that a woman could have been an apostle.

The text of 1Timothy 2:12 is often used to bar women from public ministry because they are supposedly more easily deceived than men and susceptible to false teaching. Yet, in Romans 5, Paul says that it was Adam. He blames Adam for the fall in the Garden and says that sin entered the world through one man. He goes on to explain that Adam gets the blame even though Eve sinned first because Eve was deceived but Adam was not deceived. He had been forewarned and still chose to do wrong.

How could Paul be disbarring women from ministry in 1Timothy when he openly commends Lois and Eunice for teaching Timothy? Men of quality are not threatened by women of equality.

Flawed women are loved by a flawless God who puts them up front. Flawed men are loved by a flawless God and He puts them up front. Men have been guilty of prooftexting and using the scripture to “Bible Belt”, “Jesus Jam”, and as a “Paper Pope” to pound women into the pavement.

I have noticed that some men refuse to face the truth and become Harry Houdinis of the mind, mental escape artists and are constructing a sui generis interpretation of Romans 16:7 that fits their preconceived bias against women and violates all known rules of Greek grammar. It seems that Giles is still with us.

WOMEN IN MINISTRY

Dr. Dennis L. Swift
Th.D
Systematic Theology
UNISA

January, 2008

Bibliography

Barclay, William. The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. (Westminster Press: Philadelphia, PA, 1960).

Clune, Robert Ed. Women in Ministry: Four Views. (Intervarsity Press: Downes Grove, Ill., 1989).

Conzelmann, Hans. I Corinthians. (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, PA, 1975).

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians NICNT. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1987).

Fleming, James. Attitudes Toward Women in the Bible. (Biblical Resources Study Center: Jerusalem, 1998).

Jewett, Paul. Man As Male and Female. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1971).

Kroeger, Katherine Clark. I Timothy 2:12: A Classical View of Women’s Authority in the Bible.

Liddell and Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon I.

Payne, Phillip Barton. Women, Authority, and the Bible. (Intervarsity Press: Downes Grove, Ill., 1986).

Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol 4. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1931).15

[11] S. J. Green. Women In The Church: A Biblical Theology Of Women In Ministry. (Intervarsity Press: Downer’s Grove, PA, 1991). Leonard Swidler. Biblical Affirmation of Women. (Westminster Press, 1979).
[12] J. B. Migie. “John Chrysostom” in Patrologica Graeca. Vol. 60. (Paris, 1962), Cols. 669-670.
[13] Piers Paul Read. The Templars. (DeCapo Press: New York, 1999); Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Ed. (Columbia University Press: New York, 2005).
[14] On the subject of Junia: Rena Pederson. The Lost Apostle: Search For The Truth About Junia. (Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2006), pp. 127-128. See: Dr. Leonard Swidler. The Catholic Encyclopedia. “Biblical Affirmations of Women”. (Westminster Press: 1979). Anchor Bible Dictionary. “Junia”. Vol. 3 (1992), p. 1127.
[15] Daniel Wallace. Junia Among The Apostles: The Double Identification Problem. (www.bible.org).
[16] Bernadette Brooten. A Catholic Commentary On The Vatical Declaration. “Junia: Outstanding Among The Apostles”. (Paulist Press: New York, 1977), p. 14.
[17] D.L. Balch and G. Duby, Eds. A History Of Private Life From Pagan Rome To Byzantium. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007).
[18] Robert Banks. Paul’s Idea Of Christianity. Sydney: Anzea, 1979), p. 144, and Susan Heine. Women Of Early Christianity. (London: SCM Press, 1981), p. 88.
[19] John Rivera. “Scholars Set The Record Straight On Mary Magdalene”. Baltimore Sun. (April 19, 2003), and A.G. Brook. Mary Magdalene The First Apostle. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Theological Studies, 2003).
[20] See Grenz, pp. 94-95.
[21] Paige Patterson, President Southwestern Baptist Seminary. This is the position of the Church of Christ, Southern Baptist Convention, Catholic Church, and Orthodox Greek Churches among others.
[22] Keith Stump. “How We Got The Bible In English”. Worldwide Church Of God (1994).
23 Johan Hastings. Erasmus And The Age Of Reformation. (Harper Torch Books, 1957); Catholic Encyclopedia. “Desiderius Erasmus”; John Cereghn. In Defense of Erasmus; Eldon Epp. Junia, The First Woman Apostle. Op. Cit., p. 28.
[23]24 Epp., Junia. Op Cit., p. 38; Adam Nicholson. God’s Secretaries: The Making Of The King James Bible. (Harper: New York, 2003).
[24]
[25] John Thorley. Novum Testamentum. “Junia: A Woman’s Apostle”. 38:01, pp. 18-29.

March Toward The Mark Of The Beast

2009-12-22T10:26:00.000-08:00

I usually try to avoid the political arena, but with the recent health care legislation being passed over the cacophonous objections of the American people, I would like to point out the prophetic significance of what is going on.

Brothers and sisters, we are heading inexorably toward a one world government in which Christians will once again be persecuted and martyred.

Many Christians believe that the mark of the beast and the horrible events of the tribulation do not apply them because they will be raptured. I will address this fallacy in my next article.

Nationalized health care, global warming, world pandemic, the world financial melt down, the looming war with Iran, and global terrorism are all major issues that, any one of which, could be the catalyst to propel this country into the New World Order.

For now, Lets focus on nationalized health care and its prophetic implications. You may ask what is wrong with providing health care to all Americans? First, health care is not the main goal of the socialistic politicians clamoring for it. This is a bold attempt by the federal government, now totally controlled by democrats, to take over 1/6 of the US economy. This move will further expand the federal bureaucracy creating a new wave of men, women and children dependent on the government for their subsistence. In addition, this move will insure that those provided for keep their democratic benefactors ensconced in Washington DC.

It is the height of idolatry to replace God and His loving provisions for His children with the federal government. Yet, that is exactly what has been done over the past 80 years. FDR gave us the "New Deal" which was later expanded upon by the Johnson administration under the rubric of "war on poverty." Under this new "compassionate" mandate, the government provided its acolytes with food, housing, education and now, the entitlement of medical care.

These provisions are not free. They have to be paid for and as with any socialistic provision, onerous taxes have to be levied on those who have to provide for those who have not. Brothers and sisters, this kind of system is in total contravention to what the Bible teaches. No one should be forced to pay for someone else's food, housing, education, or medical care.

There is, however, something more sinister about this piece of legislation that should concern every believer. buried within its pages is language that could possibly be used to implant micro chips in all who receives government run health care. Ostensibly, the language refers to bar codes on hip implants, heart implants, etc., but like any legislation, it can be used for purposes other than those originally intended. The bill can be found here. A good example is the Patriot Act which was hastily passed in the aftermath of 911 to fight terrorism but is now being used against american citizens. Whether this "implantable device" is the mark of the beast spoken of in Revelation 13:16-17 remains to be seen, but there can be no doubt that we are fast approaching a global beast that breaks in pieces and devours the whole earth.

In light of all this what should we as Christians be doing. Frankly, what is written is going to come to pass, therefore we certainly shouldn't be praying against prophetic inevitability. Nor should we be hiding in the mountains somewhere cowering in fear. We are admonished to lift our heads up when we begin to see these things come to pass, Luke 21:28. 2 Peter 3:12 says we should look for a hasting (Gk-to await eagerly) of the coming of that day.

In Christ,
Aubrey

A Tale of Two Churches

2009-07-19T18:33:00.001-07:00

As I look back over the Christian movement during my lifetime, I can remember as a little boy watching televangelists such as Oral Roberts, Billy Graham and others on tv. Though I wasn't a Christian at that time, I was drawn to the spectacular healing ministries of Oral Roberts. Those early experiences, planted a hunger in me for the tangible power of God that has never waned.

When I finally surrendered my life to the Lord and became a Christian in 1974, I began to read about church history and those who blazed a pentecostal trail across this country and the world, the effects of which are still being felt today.

Their meetings were relegated to tents with sawdust floors, auditoriums, and churches that could accommodate the crowds. The pentecostal churches at that time were in store-fronts and dilapidated buildings--a far cry from the ornate structures of today's mega-churches.

A five-hundred-member church was considered a large church at the time. Now, the larger churches boast memberships of anywhere from 10 to sixty thousand.

The pentecostal experience was considered a novelty that most mainstream denominations frowned on. Glossolalia (speaking in tongues), and the animated style of worship characterized by pentecostal churches were considered undignified and "of the devil."

Prior to my conversion, I would never have been a part of any group so outside of the orthodoxy, but after being saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, I became identified with those very ones upon whom the opprobrium of the orthodox churches fell. It didn't matter, though. I was not concerned with what anyone thought. I had read the Bible and I knew that the gifts, animated praise, and the miraculous were real and that God had not changed. Little did I know then that movements change all the time and people do, too.

During the 35 years of my Christian walk, the church has undergone a major paradigm shift. What has changed?

first, the small congregations of 25 to 500 members have given way to huge congregations of up to sixty thousand people. With such exponential increase came also fundamental changes in the way churches conduct services. In the small church I was a part of, services were more interactive and therefore more Bible based. One could sing one's song, testify, prophesy or operate in the gifts. 1 Corinthians the 14th ch., specifically vs. 26, deals with how services should be conducted. Members of my church were strongly encouraged to participate in the edifying of the body of Christ. How well do I remember the prompt to "sing your song, testify, just let the Lord have His way." This was true not only of my small church but of most churches at the time. There were no worship teams, dance teams, jumbo trons or expensive P.A. equipment, but the Lord was present in our meetings.

The neo-pentecostal churches, on the other hand, possess all the accouterments of success--professional musicians, trained dancers, state of the art electronic equipment, multimillion dollar edifices. and even acceptance by the world. Jesus said we would be hated of all nations for His name sake! Sad to say, however, there is a dearth of God's presence or of any anointing on anything preached in these services. Instead of an interactive congregation where each had an opportunity to exercise his or her unique gifts that edified the Body, thousands sit passively listening to motivational speakers giving self improvement seminars. They then go home only to repeat the vicious cycle the following Sunday. There should be no doubt that we are in the Laodicean church, Revelation 3:17.

Second, the pentecostal movement morphed into the Word Of Faith-Charismatic movement bringing with it pathologies that subtly moved the church further away from its Biblical moorings. The prosperity doctrine fostered in its adherents a lust for mammon and a sense of entitlement that were never a part of the infant church. I hate to admit it but, I, at one time, embraced this movement. I gave away thousands of dollars seeking the elusive "100-fold return." Thank God it never came. If it had, I would probably still be ensnared. Thank God also that, in His mercy, He opened my eyes to the destructive nature of this doctrine. I find it interesting that the sophist who propagate this teaching never mention the following scriptures:

1 Timothy 6:8-9
8. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

The religious landscape is littered with Christians who have fallen prey to their own lust for money and the designs of greedy preachers.

Third, the preachers themselves have also changed. Gone are the days when preachers live on the same level as their parishioners. Preachers today live lifestyles so wanton that their lives resemble in no way the lives of Holy men and women of the Bible. Most major ministries have corporate jets, palatial estates, and stay only at 5-star hotels. Conversely, many who support the profligate lifestyles of these minister are on fixed incomes. Couple the modern preacher's quest for filthy lucre and the utter impotence of the watered-down Preaching coming from their pulpits, then it's easy to see why the church is apostate and the world has no salt or light to follow. There is no longer an emphasis on righteousness, holiness, or self sacrifice. One of the mantras of the church I was saved in was "It's holiness or hell." Is that statement no longer true? Where are the servants of God who thunder God's Word and speak uncompromisingly to the conscious of our communities, nation and world. I sense, dear friend, that God will visit this Laodicean church in Judgment unless there is corporate repentance which doesn't seem likely.

Last, The church has elevated its preachers to the status of gods. It's called the cult of personality. Worship that should go exclusively to our heavenly Father is shared with preachers. Preachers of today seem larger than life. They strut and preen across the platform like rock stars all to the cheers of gullible Christians.

My wife and I were attending a well known church in Dallas; the services were going as usual--empty songs, empty worship, basically a dead service. But suddenly the Spirit of God entered the place in such a powerful way that I was brought to tears as were many in the congregation. This went on for several minutes as we cried out and worshiped God with our whole heart. At that time, the rock star pastor came strutting to the pulpit and spoke. It was like a wet blanket was thrown over the whole place. Just as suddenly as the Spirit of God came in, it left in the same manner. I realized then that when the Pastor took to stage, the focus and adoration were toward him and not the Lord. This is a sad story that, unfortunately, is not an anomaly but is woven into the fabric of today's church.

When the church of today is juxtaposed with the early church, the contrast is striking. Where is the resemblance of what we call church to what the Bible defines as church? There is nothing in neo-christianity (generally speaking) that have any resemblance to the Lord Jesus or his immediate disciples who followed His footsteps. In fact, I dare say that the modern church with all of its many sects and denominations looks more like the world than Christ. Those born into it come from the seeds of motivation and self help spread by today's ministers. You be the judge of whether or not they are ministers of light or Darkness. Make no mistake. We know them by their fruit. If the fruit of the gospel is not brought forth, it is not from the seed of the Word of God.

Finally, in Revelation 13:11, John saw another beast rising out of the earth (the wicked hearts of men). This beast had two horns (Catholicism and Protestantism). It looked just like the lamb but it spoke like the dragon, and the whole world was deceived by this entity. Could this false lamb with the horns of Catholicism and Protestantism with its many daughters be the apostate church of today? Before you dismiss me, consider this : The false church of Revelation 13 is the only entity in the world today that can remotely pass for the real Lamb or the real church. It looks so much like the Lamb that the whole world is deceived by it. Also, it exercises all the authority of the first beast before it, Revelation 13:12. Did you know that Catholic church has the same authority as the other wicked governments of the world? So does the protestant churches. Most of the celebrity protestant preachers advise and counsel presidents. They are also inextricably involved in the political machinations of the world today.

I attended a church service in Temple Hills MD in 1993, if memory serves, and much to my surprise and dismay, the secret service took over the church one Sunday morning. Bill Clinton was there and was scheduled to speak during the morning service. I was absolute shocked! What could he possibly have to say that would edify the believers? There is no doubt to me, dear friends, that the false church is an appendage of the world beast system and is deceiving the masses, including many so called Christians, to worship the dragon instead of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is, however, a true church. True men and women of God who long for God's righteousness and holiness once again. They may be in but not of this beastly entity. In increasing numbers, though, their eyes are being opened and like me, they are coming out of her. If this clarion call resonates with you, then perhaps you, too, should consider coming out.

In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas

"Offenses--The Offended and the Offenders"

2007-11-24T17:54:00.000-08:00

If you are one who takes offense at racial epithets, mean-spirited remarks, lies that are told on you, the demeaning tone of a supervisor, or even the Word of God that doesn't conform with what you've been taught or believe, then what I am about to share is for you. It is my prayer that this entry will help shore up breaches in your spirit through which the devil is able to shoot his fiery darts of offense.

First of all, offense is a trap of the devil designed to wound, trip up, cause one to stumble and thus impede spiritual progress. The Greek noun translated offence is SKANDOLON. W.E. Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines this word as, "The name of the part of a trap to which the bait is attached, hence, the trap or snare itself,.......In the New Testament, SKANDOLON is always used metaphorically, and ordinarily of anything that arouses prejudice, or becomes a hindrance to others, or causes them to fall by the way. Sometimes the hindrance is in itself good, and those stumbled by it are the wicked."

When I read this definition, I immediately thought of a mouse trap. The bait is attached to a mechanism that's spring-loaded. When the unsuspecting mouse goes for the bait, the spring is released and the mouse gets caught in the trap. It is imperative to realize that the offense itself, no matter what it is, is a trap and the desire to give in to one's emotions to feel hurt and bruised is the bait. Once the bait is taken, you will be nursing your wounds and out of commission as far as your destiny is concerned until you're healed. Some people never get over the wounds of an offence and are useless to the kingdom of God. They carry their wounds to their graves.

Imagine, if you will, a world class distance runner who endures an arduous training regimen over a period of several months and sometimes years to prepare for one race. He is mentally focused on his goal of winning. At the sound of the gun, he's off. As the race progresses, he allows nothing to enter his mind that would distract his focus; then suddenly he feel a tingling sensation in his thigh. He tries to ignore it but as he continues to run, he pulls up lame with a torn hamstring. He will never finish the race and all his hopes and dreams of winning are dashed. In a similar manner, when we take offense, we become hurt, wounded, distracted, and unable to proceed spiritually. In most cases, the offended individual will lose hours of sleep wondering why someone said what they said about them; or worse, they try to defend themselves against an accusation or a preceived wrong, never realizing that valuble time and energy is being redirected from the race at hand to drama that has nothing to do with his or her destiny.

Now, let's look at our scripture text: Psalms 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them Nothing shall cause them to stumble). It is God's will that his people not be offended at anything, but in the event that they are offended/stumble, Jesus said in Matthew 18:6,7,8,9 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. It is a very dangerous thing to be one by whom offenses come. (7) Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (8) Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (9) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Does this mean cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye literally? I think not. If you have a problem with lust and an attractive woman who is seductively dressed comes into view, are you to pluck your eyes out? One sister said, "Just turn your head the other way." That might work, but there is no place on the planet where there aren't beautiful women dressed seductively. Further, not looking at a beautiful woman does not deal with a heart full of lust.

Here is my take on these scriptures: Again, in Psalms 119:165 we are told that when we love the Word of God, we have great peace and nothing offends us. The key to not being offended or stumbling is the love of the Word. If there is a propensity in any of you to stumble at the provocative images of the opposite gender that bombards us on a daily basis, then focus your spiritual eyes on the Word and by doing so, you will remove the cause for stumbling and, in effect, pluck out your natural eyes. Job 31:1 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? Why didn't he say "look upon a maid?" Our thoughts are inextricably connected to our eyes and our attention. Whatever thoughts you allow sanctuary in your mind, good or bad, your eyes will go where ever those thoughts lead you. Unfortunately, Many Christians stumble in this area.

Another kind of offence that causes stumbling comes in the form of a racial epithet, an insult, a lie, or abusive language. A perfect example is found in 2 Samuel 16:5 through 14: (5) And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera: he came forth and cursed still as he came. (6) And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David: and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. (7) And thus said Shimei when he cursed, come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial. (8) The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the LORD hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief because thou art a blood man. (9) Then said Abishi the son of Zeruiah unto the king, why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head. (10) And the king said, what have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah. So let him curse, because the LORD hath said unto him, curse David. Who shall then say, wherefore hast thou done so?

This is an amazing story. Most of us would have given Abishi the green light to take off this guy's head but instead, David refused to take offence. He chose rather to place himself in God's hand and, by faith, walk out the trial in which he now found himself. (vs 12) "It may be that the LORD will look on mine affliction, and that the LORD will requite me good for his cursing this day." When you refuse to be offended and put yourself in a position of humility, you bring God's presence into a situation to vindiate you. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. Isaiah 53:17.

Finally, I would remind you of the struggles that our African-American forefathers went through to secure for us the civil rights that you and I enjoy today. Under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they endured lynchings, cruel beatings, police dogs, high pressure water hoses, racial epithets, and a litany of other offences that would have derailed any other people of lesser caliber. But they refused to lose their focus. They never lost a collective step; they kept their eyes on the prize.

If they could refuse so great offences to obtain and achieve natural goals, how much more should we be willing to immerse ourselves in God's word to such an extent that offences no longer bother us. They become like water on a duck's back.

In Christ,
Aubrey

The Truth About Women Preachers

2007-11-01T20:51:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article from a website titled, "God Never Called a Female to Be Pastor." This statement presupposes that the writer knows everyone that God called both past and present, and none were women. If you agree with that kind of broad statement, I would like to ask you a question. There are 2 scriptures in the Bible in which elders were ordained (Elders were in the 5-fold ministry). Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in all the cities where they had preached and Paul commanded Titus to ordain elders. My question is--can you name one man that was ordained at this time? You can't because we don't know the names or the genders of all those that were ordained.

In Genesis 29:9, Rachel was a shepherdess. The Hebrew word used is RAAH (pronounced RAW-AH)-Strongs # 7462. The same word is used in the 23rd Psalms and throughout the old testament. In Jeremiah 23:2, the same Hebrew word RAAH is translated Pastors. Rachel was a Shepherdess/Shepherd/Pastor; take your pick. Let me remind you that the old testament is types and shadows of the new testament. What the old testament conceals, the New Testament reveals and fulfills.

Having said all that, I'd like to point out that there are no Old Testament scriptures that make a woman subservient to a man based on gender. In fact, before the fall, God gave dominion to both men and women together as a species and not to man by virtue of his gender. Genesis 1:26 Let us make man in our own image, according to our likeness; and let them (Man and Woman) have rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. Vs 27. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Man was created male and female and they ruled creation together.) It was only after the fall that husbands began to rule their wives. God states in Genesis 3:17......And thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee. Notice that the scripture does not say that men would rule over women based on gender or other men for that matter. He is specifically speaking about the relationship of husband and wife.

With that in mind, I will later share some New Testament scriptures that those who are opposed to women in ministry use to justify their position, but indulge me for a moment as I touch on some outstanding women leaders of the Old Testament.

Have you ever looked at Micah 6:4? For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Here is the NIV version of that same passage: "I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam." Either way you look at it, God sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to lead His people. She was sent by God to be a leader among His people.

Deborah was also a great leader among God's people. Judges 2:18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the Judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge..." God raised up Deborah and used her to deliver His people from their enemies.

Huldah the prophetess was another outstanding female leader of God's people. In 2 Kings the 22nd chapter, Josiah the King discovers a book of the Law of the Lord in the temple. Realizing the great wrath of God that was against Judah, he sends Hilkiah the priest Ahikam, Achbor, and Shaphan to Huldah the prophetess. 2 Kings 22:13 Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. King Josiah sent 4 men including a priest to a woman to inquire of the LORD. Was there a man that they could have gone to? I'm sure there was, but at that time, she was God's voice to the king, to the people, and to all Judah. These are some salient examples of women leadership in the Old Testament. One would have to be intellectually dishonest and or spiritually blind to deny that these women were great leaders of God's people.

These are anecdotes of women in leadership under a system that was extremely restrictive towards women. Are we to assume that the glorious liberty we all have through the New Covenant by the shed blood of Christ is more restrictive than the Old Covenant? I think not.

Now, let's take a look at what the New Testament really says about the role of women in the church. Here are a few favorite scriptures of opponents of women in ministry: 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11, and 1 Timothy 3:1.

Before I get into these passages, I would point out that there is no Greek word for wife and there is no Greek word for husband. Woman and wife are translated from the same Greek word, Gune (GOO-NAY). Likewise, man and husband are translated from the same Greek word, Aner. Therefore, one has to determine from the context of scripture whether the writer is referring to women in general or wives, men in general or husbands. As we take a look at the scriptures, keep in mind that in Genesis 3:17, the husband's rule was only over his wife.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Is Paul saying that man by virtue of his gender is the head of any and all women? Of course not! The only woman that I have authority over is Mrs. Thomas. I am not the head of Mrs. John Doe nor do I have any authority over her in any shape or form by virtue of my gender, and God does not expect Mrs John Doe to be subject to me because I'm a man. Ephesians 5:22-23 harmonizes perfectly with the previous verse. Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. vs. 23. For the Husband is the head of the wife as Christ also is the head of the church being himself the savior of the body. Obviously, this passage is dealing with the relationship of a husband and wife. Amen? I submit to you that the only man a wife has to be subject to is her husband. In the case of single Christian women, they are subject to their parents and church elders as also are men under their leadership. All of us married or single are to be subject to those who have the rule over us in the Lord.

Here is the grand daddy of sacred cows used by those opposing women in ministry: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. vs. 35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. Is this a universal law on all women? If so, then churches with the most draconian rules against women are condemned because women are allowed to sing and testify in those churches. Is it possible that Paul was correcting a problem of wives disrupting services by asking their husbands questions. Obviously the latter because Paul instructs them to learn from their husbands at home. So, again, this passage is dealing with the dynamics of the husband-wife relationship. I think this exegesis is the only one that harmonizes with this and cognate passages in the New Testament. If you interpret this passage any other way, you have to forbid women from prophesying in an assembly, which puts you in opposition to Acts 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

Another scripture used to heap condemnation on woman who have the temerity to answer the call of God on their lives is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. vs. 12 but I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. Again, wives were to be in subjection to their own husbands, and they were not permitted to teach or have dominion over their husbands. Once again this harmonizes with Genesis 3:17 and the other scriptures I've cited.

Let's go deeper. In the aforementioned scriptures, Paul uses the gender specific words, Gune and Aner to describe wives/women and husbands/men respectively. The context in which these words are used speaks to the relationship of a husband and wife in an assembly, obviously.

Paul uses a different word, however, in 1 Timothy 3:1 Faithful is the saying, if a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Instead of using the gender specific word Aner, which would have ended the debate on whether a woman could be in ministry, he uses another word--Ei tis. Ei tis is a Greek word that refers to whosoever or whatever. The NIV correctly renders the (GK) Ei tis in this verse "anyone." The Numeric New Testament also correctly renders the (GK) Ei tis in this passage "one." This passage should read: Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone set his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task NIV. So, we can conclude from the scriptures that anyone can be a bishop, if of course, he or she meets the qualifications enumerated in verses 2 through 7. Are you still with me?

I won't go into all of the qualifications but "husband of one wife" and the fact that Paul used the personal pronoun "he" in verse 1 was cited by a preacher who outright rejected my exegesis. "A bishop has to be a man because he had to be the husband of one wife and the pronoun he is used," he asserted. To answer the "husband of one wife" question, take a look at 1 Timothy 3:11-12 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers sober, faithful in all things. vs 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. Both the KJ and the NIV use the phrase "must their wives" in verse 11. The words "must their" is not in the original manuscripts but was added by the translators. Therefore "women" has to be the correct translation. He's not talking about the wives of deacons but women who aspired to the office of deacon. The Numeric New Testament and The American Standard Bible are better translations of verse 11. Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. ASV

Further, men aspiring to be deacons, and bishops, were required to be the husband of one wife along with the other qualifications listed. Notice in verse 8 of 1Timothy 3, Paul uses the phrase "In like manner" or "Likewise" which connects the qualifications for both bishops and deacons.

Women who aspired to those offices had to be grave, not slanderers, temperate, and faithful in all things. Obviously, they could not be husbands because they were women. We know, however, that women could be deacons because Phoebe was a deacon. She was not the husband of one wife, so that particular qualification was for aspiring men who wanted to be bishops or deacons. Women who aspired to those offices only had to be grave, not slanderers, temperate, and faithful in all things. I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey.

In Romans 16:1 I commend unto you phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchrea vs. 2 That ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you; for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self. The Greek word Diakonos is translated servant in this passage, but in 1Timothy 3:12 the same word is correctly translated deacon. (By the way, the word deaconess is not in the Bible)

Here are some facts: Phoebe was a deacon; as such, she had to be proved; She had to meet all the other qualifications laid out for a woman aspiring to that position. The Church at Cenchrea was to assist her in whatever matter she had need of them. She was sent by the apostle Paul, and she had authority. Also, this is the only place in the Bible where the qualifier deacon "of the church" is used. Anyone can be a deacon simply by serving, but Phoebe's position was one that required testing, and meeting certain qualifications. Only those who met the criteria could be considered deacons of the church. Amen?

Before I share the next scripture, I would like to share some Bible uses of the Greek word, Ei tis. MT 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
The word man in this passage is translated from the Greek word Ei tis, which means whoever, whatever, whosoever. He is a personal pronoun referring to Ei tis. A similar scripture is found in 1 Cor. 14:2 "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto man but unto God...." Paul is obviously talking about men or women. The Bible is replete with scriptures like these. A few are: MK 4:23, MK 9:35, MK 11:25, Romans 8:9, James 1:23, and 1 Corinthians 8:3. It is clear that these scriptures are referring to both men and women.

Interestingly, when speaking about the 5-fold ministry, Paul uses a similar word that refers to mankind. He uses the GK, Anthropos which also means men or women: Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, when he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (ANTHROPOS/Men&Women) Ephesians 4:11 spells out the gifts that he gave to ANTHROPOS/men&women. "And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets: and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers...." I know this is difficult to receive and it cuts against the orthodoxy, but THIS IS THE TRUTH. According to this passage of scripture, Anthropos/men or women could be in the 5-fold ministry.

let me also share about the ministries of Priscilla and Aquila. Romans 16:3,4,5 says that Priscilla and Aquila's home was a church. "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. (4) They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Vs 5 Greet also the church that meets in their house." Also 1 Corinthians 16:19 the churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. Priscilla and Aquila pastored a church in their home. Amen? Priscilla and Aquila expounded to Apollos the way of God more perfectly, Act 18:26; both Priscilla and Aquila traveled with Paul in his missionary work; they were both fellow workers with him in Christ Jesus, Romans 16:3; Both Priscilla and Aquila risked their lives for Paul, Romans 16:4.

In fact, in all of the scriptures referencing the ministry of Priscilla and Aquila, with the exception of Acts 18:2 and 1Corinthians 16:19, Priscilla is always mentioned first.

Consider the following passages:

Acts 18:18 "And Paul, having tarried after this yet many days, took his leave of the bretheren, and sailed thence for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila..."

Acts 18:26 "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila..."
Romans 16:3 "Salute Priscilla and Aquila..."

2Timothy 4:19 "Salute Prisca and Aquila..."

This order is very important and telling. In Bible times, women were seldom mentioned, much less being mentioned ahead of their husband who were in the 5-fold ministry. Most will agree that Aquila was a pastor. Can you imagine a Pastor in today's culture receiving a letter from another minister or ministry and his wife, who is not even in the ministry is addressed first. It would read like this-- Dear Mrs. Priscilla and Pastor Aquila. It would be considered disrespectful and insulting to say the least. When writing to any couple, a letter is always addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Paul, however, accorded this woman the utmost honor by always mentioning her first in order. I have to conclude that Priscilla was very prominent in ministry, and was probably used more prominently than her husband. Truly, in Christ there is neither male or female.

I think it's interesting to note that the translators of the KJ Bible put their bias on full display when they translated Acts 18:26--And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard , they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. The KJ version has Aquila first in order, but the Numeric New Testament, the American Standard Bible, The New American Standard Bible, The New International Version, and the Amplified Bible correctly has Priscilla first in order. Here is the ASV: And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila had heard him , they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately. It is unconscionable that men, because of their bias against women, would twist the scriptures. Unfortunately, many men who read these sound teachings will choose to hold on to their biases and traditions rather than accept the Word of God

How do you explain Galatians 3:28? "....In Christ there is neither male or female...."

Finally, are the women that we see on TBN strutting and prancing on stage representative of real women called of God? Absolutely not! Neither are most of the men I might add. Notwithstanding, God did not box Himself in by stating categorically that He would never use a woman in leadership. He didn't under the old covenant and He certainly didn't under the new covenant.

In this coming move of the Holy Ghost, God is going to use His sons and daughters and handmaids to prophesy and do many marvelous works. The world, once again, will be turned upside down.

I encourage you to look at these scriptures and study them without any preconceived notions or ideas.

To my dear sister's in ministry, I pray that this treatise will arm you with the revelation knowledge that will repel any attack on the legitimacy of your calling.

In Christ
Aubrey Thomas

Hubris Of The Transgressors

2007-10-26T07:33:00.000-07:00

What is going on in the church today? Over the past several years, there have been several high-profile preachers who have been involved in serious misconduct ranging
from homosexuality to spousal abuse to heretical teachings.

The most recent scandals involve mega church pastors Randy and Paula White and Bishop Thomas Weeks and prophetess Juanita Bynum. The divorces of these couples are playing out before the church and the world like a soap opera. What I find even more disturbing and puzzling about these situations is that no one has called these preachers to account, and the people following them are not outraged by their misconduct. Their respective ministries have not lost a step. People continue to follow them in droves and support their lifestyles by giving them their hard-earned money. Jeremiah 5:31 speaks directly to the problem of an out of control religious hierarchy and God's people who facilitate their continued sin. "The Prophet prophesy falsely, And the priests rule on their own authority; And my people love to have it so! But what will you do at the end of it?"

Not only have our so called leaders lost their moral moorings, they have departed from the sound teachings of the holy scriptures as well. In his latest book, John Hagee, Pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas, asserts that "Jesus did not come to earth to be the messiah."

Outrageous! Is not this the spirit of antichrist? 1John 2:22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)? This is the antichrist even he that denieth the father and the son. 2Peter 2:1,2,3 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2) And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. (3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. Not only does God condemn these false prophets and teachers, he repudiates the sycophants who follow them as well.

How could any one calling himself a Christian sit in church and listen to John Hagee make such a blasphemous statement? The moment he made that statement, every one in the building should have filed out.

John Hagee is not the only famous preacher making heretical statements. Bishop T.D. Jakes made the following statement in New York at a conference on AIDS organized by the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS: The emphasis now must be on saving lives. "Tomorrow we can save souls." Yes! You read that correctly. "Tomorrow we can save souls."

Contrast what Bishop Jakes said with what the bible says: 2Corinthians 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is he accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

Beloved, as ministers of the new covenant, we are not called to petition the federal government to do something about AIDS. We are called to "...Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." (Mark 16:15) We are called to heal the sick, cast out devils, and raise the dead and to make disciples of all men.

This is particularly troubling to me because I know Bishop Jakes personally. Most of the people in the hills of West Virginia where I'm from know him. I have traveled with him, ministered at his church (at that time, you could throw a rock in his church and not hit anyone). He and his family have stayed at my home. I have watched him in the early years of his ministry work tirelessly on the altars praying for souls to receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I have watched his rise from a pastor of a church of 20 or 30 members to a mega church of 30 or 40 thousand members. To hear him now say that souls can wait grieves my heart tremendously.

So, what is behind this sudden rash of divorces, immorality, and heresies in the church? Jesus said in Luke 21:29,30 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; (30) When they now shoot forth, ye see that summer is now nigh at hand. What we're seeing is not only the fig tree which represents Israel, but we're seeing all trees begin to shoot forth and bud. The good trees and the bad trees can now clearly be discerned by the fruit that is beginning to bud. Matthew 7:16 "...Ye shall know them by their fruit."

In light of this, there can be no doubt that the events that will usher in the coming of the Lord is upon us.

But what will happen to these shepherds? Ezekiel 34:1-10 issues this indictment: And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, (2) Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? (3) Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. (4) The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. (5) And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. (6) My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. (7) Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; (8) As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; (9) Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; (10) Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

God is about to wrest control of the flock from these hireling shepherds and feed them himself. We are about to see the manifestation of the son of God who will feed the flock of God.

Beloved, my advice to you would be to come out of these churches/corporations with CEOs masquerading as pastors, and don't put another dime into their coffers. If we all don't wake up, we will all wind up under the judgement of God.

The kingdoms of these superstar preachers are about to fall, and if you are among those who have pleasure in this kind of behavior or see nothing wrong with it, then Jeremiah 5:31 should sound a clarion alarm--"But what will you do at the end of it??

Aubrey Thomas

Welcome

2007-10-25T15:04:00.001-07:00

Welcome to my new blogspot. I'm Aubrey Thomas. I was born and raised in West Virginia. In 1974, at the age of 22, I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. Thus began a journey that has led me to the heights of joy and to the depths of pain . Through it all, God has strengthened me and allowed me to carry on.

I am starting this blog to speak out against what I feel is a reprobate church system and reprobate ministries. Also, it is my endeavor to impart a word that will evoke godliness and righteousness in the lives of those who visit. Thank you for visiting.

Aubrey Thomas