Divine rationale for non-ordination of women?

[Peairtach]

What is the reason(s) behind the injunction against women being pastors, elders and deacons?

Is it that the church is the household of God - I Tim 3:4, 15; Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19; I Peter 4:17?

Is it a reminder of the fact that woman sinned first (I Tim 2:12-15), or is it that women are still more likely to stray into false doctrine than men, because they find it difficult to handle/teach meaty doctrine because of their nature?

Is it that it is appropriate that men should be God's spokesmen rather than women because of how man, woman and child reflects the Holy Trinity and the relationship between Christ and the Father (I Cor 11:15)?

Is it a combination of these or others, or is it not revealed in Scripture?

I'm just discussing it with someone from another denomination who believes in women's ordination.

 

[timmopussycat]

All of the above.

 

[Scott1]

What is the reason(s) behind the injunction against women being pastors, elders and deacons?

Is it that the church is the household of God - I Tim 3:4, 15; Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19; I Peter 4:17?

Explicitly because I Timothy 3 and Titus I say so. Implicitly, in other passages.

Is it a reminder of the fact that woman sinned first (I Tim 2:12-15), or is it that women are still more likely to stray into false doctrine than men, because they find it difficult to handle/teach meaty doctrine because of their nature?

I'm not convinced the predication is that woman sinned first, therefore they are more likely to do so again.

Rather, it stems from the pattern of Creation, whereby the man was designed by God to protect and provide for the woman.

Is it that it is appropriate that men should be God's spokesmen rather than women because of how man, woman and child reflects the Holy Trinity and the relationship between Christ and the Father (I Cor 11:15)?

Yes.

Is it a combination of these or others, or is it not revealed in Scripture?

We would not want to speculate about what is not revealed in Scripture or drawn by good and necessary consequence from Holy Scripture.

I'm just discussing it with someone from another denomination who believes in women's ordination.

Ask them what is their biblical basis for that.

.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

All of the above.

I agree with this but I would also add that there is probably some unrevealed aspect to this that we have to accept as an article of faith.

All of the answers revealed to us that you point to have sufficient wiggle room for people to give examples where, comparing the abilities of certain men to certain women, they could say: "But that's certainly not true in this case."

I think the divine ordering of things cannot, ultimately, be grounded solely on rational grounds - that is that we won't be able to fully and satisfactorily justify God before men and women for the manner in which He constituted things if they are going to put God in the dock.

I think this issue is like so many other matters of the faith where we might sinfully conceive of some better way of doing things in the world or we trust God that He is the Creator and the creature must put his hand over his mouth.

It's interesting that this comes up because, just today, I was thinking of a woman I know who is relatively knowledgeable about theology and considers her husband to be a knucklehead. He's quiet but a really devoted worker, provider, and volunteer in may capacities. She holds him in disdain because, according to her measure, it makes no sense that she would submit to him.

For that matter, how many men are going to really look at their spouse and, on the sole basis of reason, come to the conclusion that they ought to love their wives as Christ loved the Church?

So much that we apprehend and believe is through the eyes of faith. My wife is submissive to me because she's a believer and she trusts what God says even though all the pieces don't always fit together.

 

[a mere housewife]

I think it is also one of the ways in which we each come to personally, experimentally know Him? It is easy to see limitations as oppressive. But it isn't about one role being more significant than another. We are able to serve one another and the Lord in unique ways as we embrace each particular aspect of His will for us, and role is part of that. We are able to know Him more particularly, and that is life itself.

(edit: Perhaps I ought to say that even if one role is more significant in some sense -- no one valuing rightly would trade knowing and being known of God, who created us to know Him individually, and knows best how to teach each creature of Himself, for mere 'significance' in their own eyes and those of others.)

 

[Free Christian]

To me its simple. Its what God says, its in His Word and the order He ordained it to be. Anyone who says otherwise has not got a proper grasp on scripture nor true respect for what God says is to be. They don't respect the place God has given them. Bit like the little toe wanting to be an eye. People wanting to be something other than they should be sort of reminds me of 1 Corinthians 12.

 

[Mushroom]

For the same reason that only Levites could serve in the priesthood - because God has commanded it.

 

[One Little Nail]

Richard in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul gives an authoritative command against women teaching or usurping a Ruling Function in the Church; But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, he even give reasons for this in Timothy as you've noted, yes the woman was deceived but the man was not, but Paul even mentions that from the created order, that since man was formed first, that the woman was not allowed to teach or usurp authority over a man, then he follows immediately into the qualifications for the Eldership or Bishopric, which is our Chapter 3

in the Epistle to the Corinthians there is also this prohibition in 1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. which is in the
context of the chapter where he is giving orders on how the teaching is to take place, not only does he forbid them to speak & keep silent, he also says they are to be under obedience, for the teachers & prophets in the Corinthian Church were Ministers of the Gospel, Officers in the Church & Elders/Bishops as such Rulers with Authority,
in the 12th Chapter he mentions the Church being a Body & the various Ministers, Offices & giftings of which it is composed, then in the 13th Chapter speaks of the necessity of the these Ministers, Offices, gifts & others to be exercised in Love for the edification of the Church, then lays down the Order they were to follow in the 14th Chapter, this is were he gives the prohibition,


Richard you can also tell the person you are discussing this topic with that God has established that the Churches are to be governed or ruled by Elders, which are Bishops and that according to the qualifications set down in Scripture in The
Epistles to Timothy & Titus, the qualification are for men only, this can be seen in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
& in Titus 1:5-7 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless,
as you can see these are qualifications exclude the entrance or acceptance of women into these positions. Remember that only Pastors & Teachers, who are Elders or Bishops also, are allowed to preach & teach in Church, & here he has laid down the qualifications for these 2 Offices, Men Only.

so we have here 2 Scriptural prohibitions for women teaching or speaking in a Church, 2 Scriptural prohibitions on women exercising authority & 2 Scriptures showing that only men could fit the qualifications for becoming Elders or Bishops,
let everything be established by the testimony of 2 witnesses as the Law requires.

 

[a mere housewife]

Richard, I've been waiting for someone else to cite this as I don't know a whole lot about it. But I do believe there are problems with speaking about the relationship of men and women in a headship-submission role as related to the Trinity. I think it is much clearer with regard to Christ in his estate of humiliation. But it would be more natural for the woman to be the spokesperson if one is going to relate this back to the Trinity, and it seems improper to conceive of headship and submission in the ontological Trinity itself? I think that particular argument might be potentially problematic.

(It seems to make an economic arrangement between the persons of the trinity ontological in nature. I also have trouble conceptually with the Holy Spirit's procession as analagous to the child in a family when the Son is already the Son . . . )

 

[Hemustincrease]

I'm just discussing it with someone from another denomination who believes in women's ordination.

Do they give a Scriptural foundation for their belief?

Ultimately it is a matter of ‘thus saith the Lord’. Those who believe in the ordination of women must have, somewhere along the line, stopped believing in the inerrancy, infallibility, sufficiency and authority of the Word of God.

 

[Peairtach]

Richard, I've been waiting for someone else to cite this as I don't know a whole lot about it. But I do believe there are problems with speaking about the relationship of men and women in a headship-submission role as related to the Trinity. I think it is much clearer with regard to Christ in his estate of humiliation. But it would be more natural for the woman to be the spokesperson if one is going to relate this back to the Trinity, and it seems improper to conceive of headship and submission in the ontological Trinity itself? I think that particular argument might be potentially problematic.

(It seems to make an economic arrangement between the persons of the trinity ontological in nature. I also have trouble conceptually with the Holy Spirit's procession as analagous to the child in a family when the Son is already the Son . . . )

Thanks for that Heidi. I wasn't going to use that, in any simplistic sense anyway. The analogy of ontological Trinity reminds us that human beings are inherently equal - before God - whereas the economic or covenantal Trinity reminds us that thete can be differences, different roles and subordinationism in human life, and in the family and church, while we are yet inherently equal.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peairtach]

I'm just discussing it with someone from another denomination who believes in women's ordination.

Do they give a Scriptural foundation for their belief?

Ultimately it is a matter of ‘thus saith the Lord’. Those who believe in the ordination of women must have, somewhere along the line, stopped believing in the inerrancy, infallibility, sufficiency and authority of the Word of God.

Thanks for all the replies. Very helpful.

The main arguments given from Scripture are the prophetesses of the OT and NT, which office of prophet/prophetess has of course ceased. Also Phoebe as deaconness and Junia as apostle, both of which admit of another reasonable/better interpretation, especially in the light of the substantive passages on this subject which Robert and others have cited.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Scott1]

Phoebe as deaconness

Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a Deacon officer.

 

[a mere housewife]

I feel much less confused by that, Richard . I think I got stuck on the family and relating the roles to the generation-procession, rather than economically.

 

[lynnie]

Men have masculinity. Eve was taken out of Adam and doesn't have it.

If you have never sensed raw pure masculinity in a guy rising up in inner strength I don't know how to explain it. And I don't mean physical at all. No woman without a Y chromosome has that thing inside that a guy has. And that masculinity thing is able to rise up and stand guard in a way that no woman I have ever seen can.

I've seen plenty of guys wimp out.....and plenty of women with more sense than a lot of men. But at the end of the day, women lack masculinity, and I don't think God meant them to guard the church from savage wolves, because of that lack.

 

[timmopussycat]

Phoebe as deaconness

Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a Deacon officer.

This is a premise that cannot be proven apart from circular reasoning and consequently should not be used. If it was true, as many believe, that the NT era deacons followed the principle of the seven in Acts, the scriptural office of a deacon is purely a servant role, without teaching or authoritative responsibilities and hence not inherently forbidden to women.

 

[Peairtach]

Being an ordained deacon is an authoritative role within the household of God, and therefore should not be given to women, in accordance with the Apostle's injunctions against women exercising authority in the Church.

But a lot of what being a deacon is, involves welfare towards the poor of the congregation and others - or at least it should, although the state carries out (too?) much of this function in many countries these days.

In the NT daily meals would have been provided for the poor and the ordained deacons would have been assisted by his "women", in cooking, etc. We also have the example of Dorcas in providing clothes for the poor.

So the reference to Phoebe being a "deacon", to be in line with the teaching that women are not to exercise authority in the Church, may mean that she was a faithful servant to the church generally, or that she was closely associated with the diaconate, being one of the "women" who assisted the deacon in "waiting on tables" and providing food and clothing for the poor.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Scott1]

Phoebe as deaconness

Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a Deacon officer.

This is a premise that cannot be proven apart from circular reasoning and consequently should not be used. If it was true, as many believe, that the NT era deacons followed the principle of the seven in Acts, the scriptural office of a deacon is purely a servant role, without teaching or authoritative responsibilities and hence not inherently forbidden to women.

No,
the office of Deacon is defined in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. It's not merely a substitute word for servant. It's an authoritative office with specific qualifications, one being a man, husband of one wife.

Acts 7 is the normative case for the first office of Deacon.

There were servants, men and women in the church, including one of a servant widow (I Timothy 5) but that is not the same thing as the office of Deacon. Philippians 1:1

The same qualifications for church office (bishop/elder/deacon) flow for the church offices from the pattern of the Creation.

 

[MW]

But at the end of the day, women lack masculinity, and I don't think God meant them to guard the church from savage wolves, because of that lack.

I think that is it in a nutshell. But for some reason it was left to a woman to say it.