Women in the Congregation (Old thread)

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Eden, Feb 28, 2013.

  1. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century

    (… continued)

    From this study, I concluded that the only duties that Christian women weren’t allowed to perform were to teach or sheppherd or govern or preside in the Christian congregation, because they couldn’t exercise authority over a theocratically appointed man in the congregation (nor in their household, if married); This clearly precluded women to take on the office of overseer, or “Elderâ€￾. Although the Greek Scriptures mention “older womenâ€￾, they are never mentioned in context as an “officeâ€￾ dependant from appointment within the congregation. Since a relevant portion of the duties of an Overseer would be “to exhort by the teaching that is healthfulâ€￾ with “art of teachingâ€￾ and “to shepherd the congregation of Godâ€￾ (Titus 1:5-9; Acts 20:28), clearly women shouldn’t aspire to become Overseers. Also, Overseers would exercise authority over other appointed men, the ministerial servants. This would also rule out women because in that case they would be “exercising authorityâ€￾ over theocratically appointed men within the congregation. Also Paul clearly limited this office to men: “If If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine workâ€￾ (…) “not a newly converted man (…)â€￾; “make appointments of older men (…)â€￾ (1 Timothy 3:1-9; Titus 1:5-9) Note that the qualification of being “a husband of one wifeâ€￾ is a consequence of being a male, not a proof in itself that only males can take on this office. If that were the case, then we would also have to conclude that only married men could take on this office. And if that was the case, even Paul himself couldn’t be an Overseer, for he wasn’t married. Nevertheless, the point there was the monogamous nature of the marriage, not the gender of the officer.

    Therefore, women were definetively excluded from taking an office as Overseers within the congregation of the first century.

    But what about the office of “diakonosâ€￾, or “ministerial servantâ€￾?

    The qualifications for “diakonoiâ€￾ – ministerial servants – are only described in 1 Timothy 3:8-12, after the qualifications for Overseers. There we read:

    8 Ministerial servants should likewise be serious not double-tongued, not giving themselves to a lot of wine, not greedy of dishonest gain, 9 holding the sacred secret of the faith with a clean conscience.10 Also, let these be tested as to fitness first, then let them serve as ministers, as they are free from accusation.11 Women should likewise be serious, not slanderous, moderate in habits, faithful in all things 12 Let ministerial servants be husbands of one wife, presiding in a fine manner over children and their own households. 13 For the men who minister in a fine manner are acquiring for themselves a fine standing and great freeness of speech in the faith in connection with Christ Jesus.â€￾

    I find something objectionable when the WTS considers this passage in the Scriptures. And that is, that the GB exclude verse 11 as if it had no connection with the office of “diakonosâ€￾. Why? Because of the expression “Women should likewise (…)â€￾. The reasoning seems to be: Since we have already established that women cannot teach nor exercise authority over a man, therefore it is impossible that this text authorizes women to be included in the office of “diakonoiâ€￾. Therefore we will pretend that it doesn’t exist.

    But, isn’t ‘all Scripture inspired of God and beneficial for setting things straight ‘? (1 Timothy 3:16) Certainly verse 11 is part of “all Scriptureâ€￾! Is it legitimate to withraw verse 11 from its original context – actually, to pretend it’s not even there - just because it doesn’t fit our current interpretation? In this case, then, the GB is contradicting itself.

    On the Watchtower 08/06, pp. 12-15, in an article titled: “Let us compare Scripture with Scriptureâ€￾, after citing Paul’s example of “reasoning from the Scripturesâ€￾ by “proving with referencesâ€￾ (Acts 17:2, 3), the GB wrote: “Yes, sincere Bible students in the 19th and early 20th centuries were simply restoring this Christian pattern. The tradition of comparing scriptures with other scriptures continues in theWatchtower magazine. Jehovah’s Witnesses use this principle when they analyze a scripture.â€￾ Then the next subheading is called:“Let the context speakâ€￾. We continue reading: “When we are reading the Bible, how can we imitate the fine examples of Jesus and his faithful followers? First, we can consider the immediate context of the scripture in question.â€￾

    Well, what better “immediate contextâ€￾ is there than to consider verse 11 as part of the whole instruction set for “ministerial servantsâ€￾ that runs from verses 8 to 12?

    Also, let us examine the Greek text. Some argue that verse 11 is talking about the wives of the ministerial servants. But this has no grounds. The Greek word used here is gynaikas. This term occurs 11 times in the Greek Scriptures, in Matthews 19:8, Acts 8:3, Acts 9:2; 13:50; 22:4, 1 Corinthians 7:29, Ephesians 5:25, 5:28, Colossians 3:19, 1 Timothy 2:9, 3:11.

    As you can verify, it is sometimes translated in the NWT as “your wivesâ€￾, or “womenâ€￾. What makes the difference? The difference is the use of the possesive terms hymon (of you), echontes (having), Andres (Husbands), heauton (of themselves), in conjunction with the termgynaikas. This literally makes the text say “his womanâ€￾, or “their womenâ€￾, meaning “his wifeâ€￾ or “their wivesâ€￾. However, here in 1 Timothy 3:11 there isn’t ANY possessive term used in conjunction with the term “gynaikasâ€￾. Therefore, the NWT translates correctly the term as “womenâ€￾, and not “wivesâ€￾. Also, it is relevant that the sentence “Let the ministerial servants be husbands of one wifeâ€￾ occurs after the mention of “womenâ€￾ and not before, wich would make a much stronger case. Just as with Overseers, the relevant point of this is not thegender of the ministerial servant, but the monogamous nature of his marriage. Furthermore, if it were the case of the wives of the ministerial servants having to comply with certain qualifications, wouldn’t much more Paul address that in regards with the wives of the Overseers?

    Also note the term “likewiseâ€￾ in verse 11. Compare the qualifications mentioned on verse 8 with those of verse 11: “seriousâ€￾ (v8) / “seriousâ€￾ (v11); “not double-tonguedâ€￾ (v.8) / “not slanderousâ€￾ (v.11); “not giving themselves to a lot of wineâ€￾ (v8) / “moderate in habitsâ€￾ (v.11); “not greedy of dishonest gainâ€￾ (v.8) / “faithful in all thingsâ€￾ (v.11). Yes, those are THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS – for both men and women that could qualify to take on the office of “ministerial servantsâ€￾.

    Is this so hard to understand? BOTH MEN AND WOMEN WERE ALLOWED TO SERVE AS DIAKONOI – Ministerial Servants.

    But wait – we must consider also the “internal harmonyâ€￾. To concede that a woman could take on the office of “diakonosâ€￾ wouldn’t that be in contradiction with the rest of the Scriptures? Wouldn’t that be in contradiction with Paul’s own writings?

    Consider the case of Phoebe. When concluding his letter to the Christians in Rome, Paul wrote: “I recommend to YOU Phoebe our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in Cenchreae, that YOU may welcome her in [the] Lord in a way worthy of the holy ones, and that YOU may assist her in any matter where she may need YOU, for she herself also proved to be a defender of many, yes, of me myself.â€￾ (Romans 16:1)

    Let’s take a look at a few of the terms that Paul used in connection with his sister Phoebe: First, on v.1, “I recommendâ€￾. What exactly does this mean? The Greek term used here is uncommon, for Paul only uses it in this exact form only once in his writings: synistemi. Literally, it means “I set togetherâ€￾. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, synistemi denotes “I introduce (favorably)â€￾; or “(figuratively) constituteâ€￾. Therefore, the term synistemi allows for both an informal positive introduction but also a more formal appointment. Interestingly, the word “recommendâ€￾, used by the NWT, is the same in use within the WTS when the body of Elders recommends a brother to the Circuit Overseer to serve in the capacity of Ministerial Servant or Elder. I’m inclined to think, that “I recommendâ€￾ in Romans 16:1 is more related with an “appointmentâ€￾ than with a simple “positive introductionâ€￾.

    Also on v.1, Paul qualifies Phoebe as “a minister of the congregation of Cenchraeâ€￾. She’s not THE minister of that congregation, as some egalitarians claim, as if Phoebe was in the leadership of that congregation, but she was “one amongstâ€￾ the ministers of that congregation. Again, the word in use here for “ministerâ€￾ is diakonos.

    Some argue that Phoebe was a “diakonosâ€￾ in the broad sense that every Christian is a “servantâ€￾ or a “ministerâ€￾ of Jehovah. They’re not wrong, of course. But wouldn’t it be, then, a redundancy that Paul would refer to Phoebe as our “sisterâ€￾ and then again “ministerâ€￾? Being a Christian sister would already qualify her as a minister in a broad sense. Why the redundancy? Unless Paul meant the term “diakonosâ€￾ here to be used, not in the broad sense, but in a more technical sense. Here’s the difficulty with this term as it is used in Romans 16:1: The Greek nouns usually vary with gender but that wasn’t the case with “diakonosâ€￾, that was used regardless of male or female. Normally, the use of the article “ho diakonosâ€￾ (masculine) or “h diakonosâ€￾ (feminine) would help to determine the gender. But no article is used here before the noun. In any case, why would Paul use the word “diakonosâ€￾ in conjuction with a specific congregation if he didn’t mean it in a technical sense? And a less technical, and more common sense question: Why would Paul recommend Phoebe to be welcomed “in a way worthy of the holy onesâ€￾with an order that the Christians in the congregation of Rome would “assist her in any matterâ€￾? We only see Paul offering this recommendations and orders about the likes of Timothy, Epaphroditus, Tychicus, Mark and few others, and even then in not such strong terms.

    Also, Paul refers to Phoebe as a “defender (Greek: Prostatis) of manyâ€￾. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, “Prostatisâ€￾ is the feminine form of proistemi, and indicates a “patroness, protector, female guardianâ€￾. However, “proistemiâ€￾ literally means: “To Stand Beforeâ€￾ with the sense of rank, that is: “I preside, rule over, give attention to, direct, maintain, practise diligentlyâ€￾.

    Based on this word, some defend that Phoebe was in the leadership of the congregation of Cenchreae; However, if that should be the correct interpretation, the context would force us to also state that Paul was at some point under her leadership too, and that certainly wasn’t the case.

    It seems that Phoebe was a wealthy woman, possibly a rich widow or a widowed businesswoman, and she used her wealth to protect and offer assistance to many in her congregation, including Paul himself. Therefore, prostatis seems to be used here in connection to her deedsrather than in conjunction with her office. Nevertheless, she was a remarkable woman, and Paul trusted her a great deal. It was quite possible that Paul entrusted her with carrying and delivering his letter to the Roman congregation during one of her business trips to Rome.

    The roman historian Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, documents that during the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE), “in Bithynia under Trajan there were female deacons.â€￾ In Epistuale 10.96.8, Pliny has two “maidservantsâ€￾ or “slavesâ€￾ (ancillae) tortured “who were being called ministersâ€￾ (quae ministrae dicebantur). The word minister (ministra) is synonymous with the Latin word diāconus, for a diāconus can be defined as a “minister of the church, a deacon.â€￾ Another piece of epigraphical evidence comes from Jerusalem (Mount of Olives); it dates from the latter half of the fourth century. What is fascinating about this writing, found on a stele, are the following words:

    “Sophia, hē diakonos, hē deutera Phoibēâ€￾


    In this inscription, clearly a woman, Sophia, (evident by the feminine definite article) is being coined with the masculine term diakonos. (…) However, what is especially notable about Sophia is the description of being the “second Phoebe.â€￾ [ or: after, according to; Phoebe] - G. H. R. Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979

    Therefore, it seems obvious that in the early stages of Christianity, there were indeed men AND women serving in the office of “diakonosâ€￾, or “ministerial servantsâ€￾.

    However, the use of women in an office within the congregation phased out and finally was discontinued over the next few centuries. How come?

    A series of church synods issued pronouncements against the appointment of women deacons. The Synod of Nimes (396) pointed out that the problem with deaconesses was that women had “assumed for themselves the ministry of the Levites,â€￾ which was “against apostolic discipline and has been unheard of until this time.â€￾ Further, “any such ordination that has taken place is against all reason and is to be destroyed.â€￾ By 420, British monk Pelagius, on commenting Romans 16:1, wrote that the female diaconate was an institution fallen into disuse in the West, though remaining in the East. The First Council of Orange (441) ordered: “In no way whatsoever should deaconesses ever be ordained. If there already are deaconesses, they should bow their heads beneath the blessing which is given to all the people.â€￾ The Burgundian Council of Epaon (517) ruled: “We abrogate totally within the entire kingdom the consecration of widows who are named deaconesses.â€￾ The Second Synod of Orleans (533) followed up on this prohibition. Its Canon 18 states: “To no woman must henceforth the benedictio diaconalis be given, because of the weakness of the sex.â€￾

    (To be continued…)

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-06-2012 at 06:07 PM.​
     
  2. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century

    (Continued...)

    We don’t know exactly how the Christian gatherings were organized in the first century. We don’t know exactly what tasks women serving as “ministerial servants†could perform during these meetings. It’s hard to imagine a Christian meeting in the first century to meet the “script†by which modern day meetings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are held. The apostle Peter contrasted “speaking†with “ministeringâ€: “If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified (...)" (1 Peter 4:11) Clearly, during the meetings, some “spoke†(taught) and some “ministered†(performed tasks of assistance).

    What seems clear is that the writings of Paul at least allow the ordinance of women deacons – ministerial servants; Just as they exclude women from the position of Overseer, and its duties of teaching, shepherding, presiding and governing the congregation. Although some modern-day churches that ordain women into their leadership claim that they are doing so in agreement with the Scriptures, fact is that we cannot accept that women take an office of Overseer within the congregation without seriously bending both the letter and the spirit of the Scriptures. However, in the same seriousness I came to the conclusion that it’s not possible to exclude women from the office of Ministerial Servant without bending the letter and the spirit of the Scriptures.

    There has been a long standing tradition in the christian churches that women should be kept away from the pulpit. It even became one of the political reasons that separated the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinopla. Maybe – again – because the traditional role of women in the first century was (and continued to be for a long time) one of minority and less consideration in society, this has led true Christianity to make some concessions in order not to offend the dominant culture. Later on, as true Christianity was overwhelmed by false Christianity, these concessions became the norm.

    Do we have an example of the practice of such concessions in the Scriptures? Yes we do.

    Paul himself wrote: “For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. And so to the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. (…)†(1 Corinthians 9:19-21)

    One of the issues that Paul addressed most strongly in his letters was the question of circumcision. Circumcision was a practice instituted by Jehovah , that made it mandatory for Abraham and his descendants from 1919 BCE. (I was surprised to learn that the Egyptians, the Amonites, the Moabites and the Edomites also practised the circumcision, btw). This practice was also made mandatory for all males under the Mosaic Law. After Jesus’ sacrificial death, the Mosaic Law became obsolete, and after Pentecost 33 CE and the acceptance of gentiles in the congregation, circumcision was no longer a requirement for Christians (Acts 15:6-29).

    Nevertheless, some Christians with a Jewish background were insisting in teaching that, unless the men in the congregation were circumcised, they couldn’t be saved. This was, of course, a false teaching. Paul wrote in very strong terms: “See! I, Paul, am telling YOU that if YOUbecome circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to YOU (…) Moreover, I bear witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is under obligation to perform the whole Law. (…) YOU are parted from Christ, whoever YOU are that try to be declared righteous by means of law; YOU have fallen away from his undeserved kindness (…) For as regards Christ Jesus neither circumcision is of any value nor is uncircumcision, but faith operating through loveâ€; “All those who want to make a pleasing appearance in the flesh are the ones that try to compel YOU to get circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ, Jesus".(Galatians 5:2-6; 6:12) ; Also: "Circumcision is, in fact, of benefit only if you practice law;" (Romans 2:25) Salvation was to come, not in result of a mark on the flesh, but from undeserved kindness from Jehovah and from faith.

    Ok, now comes the unthinkable. When Paul is to start a missionary trip, he takes Timothy with him. Timothy was the son of a Jewess with a Greek man. Although he was raised in the knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, he was never circumcised according to the Mosaic Law. “Paul expressed the desire for this man to go out with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for one and all knew that his father was a Greek.†(Acts 16:3) Whaaaaat?? Didn’t Paul rebuke severely Peter because he at one point began to avoid association with non-Jewish Christians, for fear of the Christian Jews? Didn’t Paul write that “if you get circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you?â€. But there’s more: When Paul visits Jerusalem, he hears this from the brothers of the then Governing Body: “they said to him: “You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law. But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them neither to circumcise their children nor to walk in the [solemn] customs. What, then, is to be done about it? In any case they are going to hear you have arrived. Therefore do this which we tell you: We have four men with a vow upon themselves. Take these men along and cleanse yourself ceremonially with them and take care of their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved. And so everybody will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly, you yourself also keeping the Law. As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.†Then Paul took the men along the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially with them and went into the temple, to give notice of the days to be fulfilled for the ceremonial cleansing, until the offering should be presented for each one of themâ€. (Acts 21:20-26)

    Wait – didn’t Paul write about “the ones that try to compel YOU to get circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ, Jesus� Why was Paul and the GB concerned about causing a good impression, even an impression that Paul was“walking orderly [that is, observing Jewish tradition], you yourself also keeping the law�

    Note, Paul was a Jew, and although the Mosaic Law had been abolished, it was still a law given by Jehovah and it wasn’t necessarily wrong to go to the temple and follow the rites of the Law. What was wrong was to teach that those things were indispensable for salvation. But nevertheless it seems a serious lack of consistence on Paul’s part. Why would he be willing to circumcise Timothy and himself visit the temple and subject himself to the rites of the Mosaic Law??

    The explanation given by the GB is this: “Paul did not want to cause unnecessary offense or stumbling. He was concerned that Christians keep “recommending [themselves] to every human conscience in the sight of God.†This kind of thinking was typical of Paul and Timothy. [we can] see how deeply concerned Paul was with the spiritual welfare of others, especially those who might stumble over something that, strictly speaking, was not wrong.†– W 03, 12/01, pp 20-23 “Do You Always need a Bible Command?â€

    So, in order to not offend the predominant culture and thus cause a “stumbling block†that would hinder the spread of the “good newsâ€, Paul (and for that matter, the GB in Jerusalem also) were willing to make some concessions. How does this relate with the role of women in the congregation?

    (To be continued…)

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-07-2012 at 10:52 AM.​
     
  3. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 4 – What Paul wrote – The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century

    (Continued …)

    Consider this: Despite the events with Cornelius, that marked the acceptance of gentiles into the Christian congregation (Acts 10:1-48), and the fact that Paul was chosen as an apostle to the gentiles, most of the early congregations within the roman empire had a predominance of Jews among them.

    As we’ve seen in my early installments, traditionally, the role of women in Judaism was somewhat better than that among the gentiles, but nevertheless, it was one of strict subordination and secundarization towards men. And this was particularly true in the religious life, where women had, at best, a strictly passive role in worship in the synagogue. Is it surprising that the Jews now converted to Christianity would find very awkward that women could aspire to a more active role within the congregation? Wouldn’t they find uncomfortable, even abhorrent to see a woman teaching, leading, praying or having any noticeable role in the most noble of Christian collective sacred service, the gathering for worship? But of course they would! Even for gentiles, the notion of having women with prominent roles within the Christian congregation would certainly be considered something exotic and out of place – mostly because the typical role for a woman in a temple was that of a prostitute (with the possible exception of the Vestal Virgins in Rome). The possible negative impact of seeing a woman having a prominent role in the congregation for a newcomer Jew is not to be dismissed in this context of determining what would be in the "best interests" of those approaching the Christian congregation.

    Add to this that, because of discrimination against women, most women in the Greek-Roman world (except those coming from upper classes) couldn’t read or write. Even among the Jews in the first century, despite that reading and writing weren’t barred to women, the fact is that most of them were illiterate, with 90% of them not knowing more than signing their names. The level of literacy is estimated to be merely 3%. From Bar-Ilan, M. "Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries C.E." in "Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society", II, New York: Ktav, 1992, pp. 46-61.

    In view of the above, it’s not hard to conclude that, even if Paul’s writings allowed for women to be ordained diakonos – and we can rightfully conclude that Phoebe was one such case of a ministerial servant - we must also conclude that, due to cultural concessions in order not to cause disturbance among the Jew Christians, those cases were relatively scarce, and even so, more likely to happen in congregations with less influence from former members of Judaism, such as Cenchreae.

    No doubt, some women, in congregations such as Corinth and Ephesus, viewed the office of diakonos as an opportunity to gain their own theological space within the congregation, and no doubt that the false teachings of gnosticism gave them the perfect vehicle. This proved to be a disservice to themselves. Therefore, what Paul wrote has to be viewed in this light. The unauthorized rise of these women as teachers was causing violent disturbance among the congregation, causing divisions, and understandably, Paul, as a traveling Overseer, had to do something about it, to put these women back into their place. And so he did, under the guidance of the holy spirit. The instructions were clear: Women were not to teach, shepherd, preside or govern within the congregation. Therefore, women should not aspire to be Overseers, or "Elders".

    It all comes down to this.

    The reasons why women were in addition also phased out from the office of “diakonoi†have nothing to do with theocratic orders, but rather, with traditions, culture and habits that the leadership of the Christian congregation felt that for the time being it was best to respect. In truth, Jehovah himself also makes concessions - temporary concessions. As examples of this, take, for instance, the concessions on polygamy and divorce in the Mosaic Law, temporary concessions that Jehovah revoked later on (Matthew 19:8). However, as true Christianity was slowly replaced by an apostate form of Christianity, the dignified role of women within the gatherings of the congregation was lost, as well as many other valuable Christian teachings.

    In view of what has been exposed, what lessons do we learn for modern-day congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Since we take so seriously shaping our structure and manners to the Christian congregation of the first century, what are the implications of this for the contemporary congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

    I will discuss that in the last part of my study (Part 5): “Women in The Congregation – Todayâ€.

    (to be continued…)

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-07-2012 at 03:56 PM.​
     
  4. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 5 – Women in the congregation - Today

    A brief summary is in order.

    a) Both man and woman were created “in God’s image†and therefore are of equal value before Jehovah. However, Jehovah created Adam first, and only then Eve. The woman was created to fulfill a need of the man. Unlike the animals, male and female weren’t both created from the ground up. Only the male was; The female was created from the male. These are the theological grounds for the arrangement of headship within the family, where the man holds the headship over the woman. Still, both are in equal subjection towards their Creator. This is a matter of fundamental divine principle, that no law ever changed.

    b) After Adam and Eve have sinned, Jehovah told Eve that her husband would “dominate†her. This can be understood both as a judicial veredict or as a prophecy or a bit of both. In any case, Jehovah foresaw the adverse consequences that sin would have on women from then on. A notable consequence was the tyrany of men over women.

    c) In the ancient world women were left to have mere supporting roles as childbearers and household keepers; In most cases they were seen in the same level of dignity as slaves or barbarians. Although under the Mosaic Law the role of the woman was considerably more dignified than in most cultures of their time, that didn’t stop Jewish men from opressing their women and keep them from having a significant role in the organized religious system. Actually, the rabbinic Judaism considered that teaching the Torah to a woman was a waste of time and an apostasy.

    d) However, this is not the way Jehovah and Jesus view women. Jehovah’s laws always offered more dignity and protection to women than any other legal system in the ancient world. However, Jehovah took into consideration that ancient cultures weren’t prepared to deal with women in the same way that He himself does.

    e) Despite they were not allowed to be monarchs or priests, there were many notable women in ancient Israel: Sarah, Miriam, Abigail, Deborah, Huldah, Bathsheba, and the Shunammite Woman. Some were used as prophets, others as judges and leaders, some left us great lessons in wisdom, humbleness and godly service.

    f) Jesus, as a perfect reflexion of his heavenly Father, set the example on how to treat women with dignity, kindness, compassion and love. He enjoyed the company of women as well as men. He treated them as individuals with spiritual abilities, equally worthy of salvation as their male counterparts, and invited them to have a ministry with him and entrusted them with responsibilities.

    g) In the Christian congregation of the first century, women were equally blessed with men in receiving the Holy Spirit in Pentecost 33 CE. As a result, many were enabled to display miraculous “spiritual giftsâ€, that included prophesying, speaking in tongues, translating etc. They had a prominent role in the diffusion of Christianism, as they were very active in preaching, even working shoulder to shoulder in evangelizing with the leading apostles.

    h) No doubt, the dignified and liberating situation of women in Christianity attracted many to this teaching, but some women started to ego beyond their role, hoisting up to the role of teachers and leaders within the congregation, without having theocratic permission to do so. Therefore, Paul, the missionary and traveling Overseer, under divine inspiration, gave strict orders that women shouldn’t teach nor exercise authority over appointed men within the congregation. Just as a married woman was to be in subjection to her husband, women were to be in subjection to the duly appointed men within the congregation.

    i) However, Paul allowed in his writings that women could take on the office of diakonos – ministerial servants – within the congregation. Phoebe was one such case. However, in order not to unnecessarily offend the dominant streak of Jews within the early congregation, the numbers of women deakon was always small, and, as true Christianity was replaced by a false Christianity, the role of women in the capacity of “diakonos†was finally phased out.

    - - - - - - - - - -

    As we come to this point, it’s clear that imperfection made men uncapable of being perfect heads, and made women uncapable of showing perfect subjection. This is true in both the marriage and within the congregation. However, Jehovah expects both to strive to do the best they can.

    In retrospective, Jehovah never intended that women were of lesser value than men. Therefore, that who treats women as being of inherently lesser value than a man is clashing against God’s will. This crystal clear for every aspect of life where theocratic subjection isn’t involved: The workplace, for instance. Can a woman exercise authority over a man in her workplace? By all means, yes! Nothing in the Bible precludes that. Christian employers should also ponder carefully when they decide about wages to pay to their employees: Are they discriminating against women? Are there objective productivity principles that justify paying an inferior salary for the same functions? Are there really justifiable obstacles that justify not giving to a woman the same opportunities in the workplace than those offered to a man?

    And when there are principles of theocratic subjection involved? Are women to be treated with less dignity than a man, just because they are under the headship of a man? Are women to feel in inferiority, just because they are under the arrangement of headship? Think for a moment in the example of the 144.000. Aren’t they under the headship of Jehovah and Jesus? Do we see Jehovah or Jesus treating those 144.000 with contempt, indignity, or low esteem? On the other hand, do we see the 144.000 feeling unhappy or in any way opressed with their condition? No! On the contrary, they rejoice! Of course, Jehovah and Jesus exercise perfect headship; And the 144.000 exercise perfect subjection. But you get the role model.

    As I said before, there is no place in the modern-day congregation for misogyny nor feminism. For reasons thoroughly detailed before in this study, modern-day Christian churches who ordain women as priests and leaders are going against the letter and the spirit of the Scriptures. Many of these despise what Paul wrote and simply dismiss it as having no application in the modern church. However, for reasons also detailed, Paul had the necessary theocratic authority for his writings, and not only that, they can’t be limited in application to his time or to a couple of congregations. Until Christianity is replaced by something else – the “new scrolls†(Revelation 20:20) – we have to consider that Paul’s writings about the role of women in the congregation are still in force, both in the letter and in the spirit.

    But I have already pointed out that there is enough Bible grounds to consider that women could perform a more active role within the modern-day congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. How?

    (To be continued…)
     
  5. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 5 – Women in the congregation - Today

    (continued...)

    Every Christian, man or woman, can render “sacred service†to Jehovah.The Hebrew word translated as “sacred service†is ‘a-vadh´, and the corresponding Greek verb is latreu´o and the noun is latrei’ a. The basic meaning of these words is “[to] serveâ€, “laborâ€, “cultivateâ€. In the Greek Scriptures, latrei´a and latrei´o are exclusively used in context of service in connection with worship. Whereas “diakonia†is used for common, ordinary, mundane service, therefore, non-sacred things, and is translated as “ministryâ€, “latrei´a†is always used specifically for service in worship, therefore being translated as “sacred serviceâ€.

    Examples of the use of “sacred serviceâ€: “Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service [ latrei´o ]†(Matthew 4:10); “Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service [ latrei´a ] withYOUR power of reasonâ€. (Romans 12:1); “That is why they [ the great crowd ] are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service [ latrei´o ] day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. (Revelation 7:15) The 84 year-old widow and prophetess Anna was described as “never missing from the temple, rendering sacred service[ la·treia ] night and day with fastings and supplications.†(Luke 2:36, 37)

    Therefore, “sacred service†is a more noble description of what we do for Jehovah. Whenever we do something specifically in favor of pure worship of Jehovah, we are rendering “sacred serviceâ€. As seen in Revelation 7:15, the “Great Crowd†– comprising men and women – renders acceptable “sacred serviceâ€. Why would it be objectable for a woman to serve Jehovah in the office of “Ministerial Servant†– diakonos– when she already renders “sacred service†– latrei´o – to Jehovah? Why would it be objectionable that a woman has an office in performing “common, ordinary, mundane†services within the congregation (diakonia), and not objectionable that she could render the far superior “sacred service†(latrei´a) to Jehovah? In any case, the duties of a diakonos within the congregation are by nature latrei´a, because they are rendered to Jehovah. Why, then, not appoint women as Ministerial Servants?

    However, some would argue: “But, don’t Ministerial Servants deliver public talks in the public meeting, instruction talks in the Theocrathic School, and sometimes lead the Bible Study? Isn’t that a teaching assignment? Don’t they sometimes accompany the Elders in visiting some brothers and sisters that need encouragement and counseling? Isn’t this a shepherding assignment ?†If a woman was to be appointed to the office of Ministerial Servant, wouldn’t that be against the Bible’s orders?†These are pertinent questions.

    But the simple answer is: “teaching†and “shepherding†aren’t requirements for Ministerial Servants. This doesn’t mean that they can’t do it. It means they’re not expected to do it, as it’s not part of their mandatory set of duties as listed in 1 Timothy 3:8-12. If a man isn’t “qualified to teachâ€, that doesn’t exclude him from being appointed a Ministerial Servant. If this man, in the meantime, doesn’t become “qualified to teachâ€, then he doesn’t qualify to be appointed an Overseer. But in the meantime, he can serve with diligence in his office as Ministerial Servant. Naturally, because men can aspire – actually they are constantly encouraged – to qualify to serve as Overseers, those men among the Ministerial Servants that are spiritually minded, good examples to the congregation, faithful AND qualified to teach, they can, at any given moment, be recommended to serve as Elders. That’s why when Ministerial Servants perform assignments that are normally entrusted to Elders, they are being trained, sort of speaking, for the next level of service.

    What about women, then? Well, it’s simple. Since they cannot aspire to be appointed as Overseers, then, when appointed as Ministerial Servants, they wouldn’t perform those assignments that are considered the natural territory of Elders, that involve teaching in the congregation- such as addressing the congregation from the platform in the public talk or conducting the Watchtower study, or the Instruction talk, or leading the Congregation’s Bible Study.

    However, in saying this, I am assuming that the shape and the “script†for the meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meetings would remain the same as it is today. However, I’m sure that some changes would be done in order to accommodate the admission of women into the office as Ministerial Servants.

    (To be continued…)

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-08-2012 at 09:06 AM.​
     
  6. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 5 – Women in the congregation - Today

    (Continued…)

    Just because the appointment of women as Ministerial Servants – diakonos – hasn’t been a practice among the Jehovah’s Witnesses since the starting of their modern history in late 1870’s, doesn’t mean that the subject is beyond a re-examination.

    As I said before, while analyzing 1 Timothy 3:11, we should let the immediate context speak. This has been the tradition among the Jehovah’s Witnesses since the early bible study group that brother C.T. Russell started in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But not only the context is relevant. The method by which the early Bible Students examined the Scriptures is supposed to still be valid today: “Russell organized a Bible study class and established a pattern for studying the Bible. A. H. Macmillan, a Bible student associated with Russell, described this method: “Someone would raise a question. They would discuss it. They would look up all related scriptures on the point and then, when they were satisfied on the harmony of these texts, they would finally state their conclusion and make a record of it.†Russell was convinced that the Bible, when taken as a whole, must reveal a message harmonious and consistent with itself and with the character of its Divine Author. Whenever any part of the Bible seemed difficult to understand, Russell felt that it should be clarified and interpreted by other parts of the Bible.†– W 06, 8/15, pp 12-15, “Let us compare Scripture to Scriptureâ€.

    Clearly, by excluding “tout court†the access of women to the office of Ministerial Servants, the Governing Body isn’t honoring the tradition of looking for the internal harmony of the Scriptures and is perpetuating an injustice done to women among since Christendom took the scene. Even the overall tone of the Bible, when we take into account not only the Greek Scriptures, but also the Hebrew Scriptures, is favorable to a more active role of women in the affairs of the congregation. Jehovah and Jesus entrusted relevant theocratic missions to women. Why wouldn’t we do the same today?

    Aren’t we using double standards when, while not conceding that women can take the office of “diakonos†in a congregation, with the erroneous argument that women cannot teach nor exercise authority over a man in the congregation - as it was demonstrated, that’s not what the role of diakonos is in essence about – there are currently women with high levels of responsibility working at the World Headquarters and Bethel Offices? What is unacceptable for a congregation is acceptable for Bethel, just because in Bethel our sisters don’t need an official appointment to an office? Does this make much sense?

    A “diakonos†is, by definition, a servant. It2 pp 406 says about this noun: “the verbal root was [di·eko], ‘to reach from one place to another,’ akin to the verb [di·oko], ‘to hasten after, to pursue.’ Then the root idea is one who reaches out with diligence and persistence to render a service on behalf of others.†In view of this, a woman “diakoness†would not be in a position to exercise authority over other appointed men but rather, to serve them and all her bretheren in the congregation. “Whoever wants to become great amongYOU must be YOUR minister, and whoever wants to be first among YOU must be YOUR slave†(Matthew 20:26, 27)

    Naturally, just like any other man who would desire to attain the office of Ministerial Servant, a woman “faithful in all things†should be reliable, honest, trustworthy, competent, and not driven by ambition, instead, driven by a true desire to serve her brethren in the congregation and bring honor to Jehovah, not to himself/herself. Often, in churches that ordain women as priests, women who insist that they have authority to teach men, are also implying that men are the only audience that matters (that is, the only worthy of taking their teaching), and usually treat other women like dirt. Of course, that wouldn’t be acceptable for a Christian woman who would desire the office of Ministerial Servant and would rather disqualify her. As it would disqualify that married woman who would fail to be a good example of subjection to her husband. Or to the Overseers.

    An interesting question is: Could a woman take the office as Ministerial Servant and still be in subjection to her believer husband who hasn’t been appointed to any office in the congregation? Wouldn’t this raise an issue with the headship arrangement? If we take Deborah as an example, the answer has to be “noâ€. As we’ve seen before, Deborah occupied the highest office in Israel, that of a ruling Judge, and yet she was married with Lepidoth. No doubt a mature woman can maintain a good balance between her ministerial duties within the congregation and her rightful subjection to her husband as head of the household.

    Evidently, while encouraging women to attain such office, no one should put inappropriate pressure on women to do so. “For if the readiness is there first, it is especially acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what a person does not have.†(2 Corinthians 8:12) While a sister can consider that fills the necessary requirements for the office and her personal situation allows her to take such responsibility, another sister who also fills the necessary requirements may consider that her personal situation makes it impossible or highly inadvisable to take that office.

    It should also be reminded that the evangelizing work has priority over the duties of a diakonos. Therefore, if someone is in the full-time ministry, man or woman, should ponder seriously if taking the office of Ministerial Servant would be an obstacle to fulfill his/her vows as a full-time evangelizing ministry. If women start to access this office in good numbers, the need for qualified people to take care of administrative duties in the congregation will be lesser, for there will be more people available for them. Therefore, the priority given to evangelizing must be kept high up, for here, “the harvest indeed is great but the workers are few†(Luke10:2)

    Also, it needs to be pointed out that the modern societies, with very few exceptions, have incorporated the notion of female emancipation. In the secular world, to see a woman taking a role that traditionally has been that of a man is no longer a scandal or even cause to turn heads. The time for that "special concession" (assuming that was the case, that is) to the traditionalist Jews of the first century is clearly over.

    How would the congregation benefit from having women as Ministerial Servants? How would women benefit from attaining this office? What duties could be assigned to female Ministerial Servants?

    (To be continued…)

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-08-2012 at 02:25 PM.​
     
  7. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 5 – Women in the congregation - Today

    (Continued…)

    When the Theocratic Ministry School was reformulated some years ago, one of the most relevant aspects of it was the new “Highlights from Bible Readingâ€, that now included the participation from the audience with brief comments that reflected what each one felt it was most beneficial from the weekly reading. And guess what? Some of the most enthusiastic participation is coming from our sisters. They were thrilled to be able to do research and share the result of that research with their brethren within the congregation. This was a lesson to me – do not underestimate the capacity and willingness of our sisters to engage in uplifting the congregation. Yes, they do a great deal of the evangelizing and preaching work, but also within the congregation they have a definite contribution to make.

    The tradition of keeping women from offices within the congregation among the Jehovah’s Witnesses while encouraging them to become zealous preachers, has produced brave, invested evangelizers, while at the same time has produced very passive meeting attendants. But the new Highlights from Bible Reading and the positive effect it had on our sisters brought to my mind a passage of Revelation 19:10: “(…) forthe bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying.†Of course that this has a primary meaning that Jesus is at the core of the prophetic written word in the Bible; But, since the fundamental scope of “prophesying†includes upbuilding, encouraging, and consoling other servants of Jehovah within the congregation, I could see how the valuable comments of our sisters could be seen as a modern-day version of that “prophesyingâ€. (1 Corinthians 14:3).

    Incidentally Paul also wrote: “For YOU can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all be encouraged.†(1 Corinthians 14:31). Interestingly, on the Rib8, the cross-reference leads to Hebrews 10:25: “not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another (…)â€.

    This leads to interesting conclusions. First, all Christians “one by one†can prophesy - obviously this includes our sisters. As stated in the WTS publications (it1 1052-1053; “Head Coveringâ€), women could pray or prophesy within the congregation. Secondly, to prophesy implicates that someone learns from it. Is this limited to a specific audience, such as children or women only? The text is clear: “Allâ€; Thus, everyone in the congregation learn from the prophesying. Nothing in the text or the context indicates some sort of subdivision within the congregation. If someone learns then obviously to prophesy implicates the “imparting of knowledgeâ€, therefore, at least some measure of teaching. And prophesying also lends to the encouragement of each other.

    It seems we are facing a conundrum: An Overseer teaches within the congregation and the congregation learns; By contrast, a woman can’t teach in the congregation. However, on the other hand, women can prophesy (or pray) in the congregation and the whole congregation learns from it. What gives?

    (To be continued…)

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-09-2012 at 10:50 PM.​
     
  8. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 5 – Women in the congregation - Today

    (Continued…)

    Clearly, we need to dig deeper in order to understand what differentiates “teachingâ€￾ from “prophesyâ€￾. Without thoroughly understanding what separates them, we cannot reach sound conclusions on what women can and can’t do in the congregation.

    The value of a godly message must not be diminished because of the carrier. The strenght of Paul’s exhortations could not be devalued just because arguably “his presence in person [was] weakâ€￾ and his speech [was] contemptibleâ€￾.(2 Corinthians 10:10) Has King Josiah treated Hulda’s prophesying with contempt just because that message had been conveyed by a woman? Did General Barak think less of Deborah’s instructions because she was a woman? No, because they took them for what they were – messages from Jehovah God. The gender of the carrier was of no relevance. They focused on the message and obeyed to it. Why did they obey? Because they acknowledged it had authority over them. This hints at what is the underlying quality that differentiates teaching from prophesy: It’s the quality of AUTHORITY.

    In the cases of Huldah and Deborah, it was acknowledged that Jehovah himself had invested these women with such authority, that what they said was taken as coming directly from Jehovah. Likewise, that was the case with the other prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures. These prophets spoke with undisputed authority from Jehovah and their words were the very words of God: “At that Jehovah thrust his hand out and caused it to touch my mouth. Then Jehovah said to me: “Here I have put my words in your mouth. See, I have commissioned you this day (…)â€￾(Jeremiah 1:9,10) “And you must speak my words to them, regardless of whether they hear or they refrain (…)â€￾(Ezekiel 2:7) Therefore, to underline that the messages that they proclaimed were the very words of God, the prophets often said: ‘[this] is the utterance of Jehovah’. (Zephaniah 1:2; Zechariah 1:3; Haggai 1:9; Isiah 1:24; 1 Samuel 2:30) To disbelieve or disobey the words of a prophet of Jehovah was to disbelieve or disobey Jehovah himself. (Deuteronomy 18:19) Therefore, Jehovah made sure that those words went on record and are part of the Holy Scriptures. With what purpose? “For all the things that were written aforetime were written for ourinstruction (…)â€￾ (Romans 15:4) Therefore, there was an unavoidable authority in the prophesying of the prophets until John the Baptist (Matthew 11:9,10).

    However, the “prophesyingâ€￾ prompted by the Holy Spirit after Pentecost 33 CE was not of the same nature as of the prophets of before Jesus. How come?

    Remember that, until Jesus, the office of “prophetâ€￾ was the highest level of spiritual authority over Israel. Do not confuse this with the hierarchy of “theocratic authorityâ€￾, for that belonged to the High Priest in the tabernacle or the temple. But even when the Aaronic priesthood in Israel became unfaithful, Jehovah continued to deliver his authoritative word through the prophets, even condemning that priesthood. (Malachi 2:8, 9) However, when Jesus chose those twelve men to be the founding structure of his future congregation, he didn’t call them “prophetsâ€￾; Instead they were called “apostlesâ€￾. The apostles are therefore the Christian counterpart of the prophets of the Old Testament, for they could speak with the very same authority: “For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word“; (…) because when YOU received God’s word, which YOU heard from us, YOU accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of Godâ€￾ (2 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:13) Paul established this direct comparison: “and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstoneâ€￾. (Ephesians 2:20)

    Of course, as seen before, every Christian in the congregation of the first century could prophesy. (1 Corinthians 14:31); However, Paul distinguished himself from everyone who claimed to be a prophet in the Christian congregation: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or gifted with the spirit, let him acknowledge the things I am writing to YOU, because they are the Lord’s commandmentâ€￾ (1 Corinthians 14:37, 38) This is a key passage to understand the different authority level involved in the teaching of an apostle and the words of someone prophesying in the congregation. What Paul wrote was “the Lord’s commandmentâ€￾. It had a superior authority than any prophesying made within the congregation. It was “teachingâ€￾. Any “prophesyâ€￾ that wouldn’t acknowledge the authority of the apostolic writings was therefore deemed “ignorantâ€￾, or not according to the truth.

    Why wouldn’t Jesus call his closest disciples as prophets, since obviously some were gifted even with the ability to issue foretelling of future events or to see things that were hidden from the common people? After all, the “prophesyâ€￾ of an apostle was the most authoritative form of teaching within the Christian congregation, immediately after the very words of Jehovah and Jesus: “In other generations this [secret] was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by spirit (…)â€￾ (Ephesians 3:5) Take also, as a prominent example of an apostle that was simultaneously a prophet, John, when he wrote the Revelation. So why use “apostleâ€￾ and not keep up with the traditional use of “prophetâ€￾? This is probably because the Greek term "prophetes" as used in the first century had a broad range of meanings, encompassing not specifically “One who speaks God’s own very wordsâ€￾, but more widely “One that speaks as a result of an external spiritual influenceâ€￾. (Titus 1:12; Luke 22:64). We notice that the terms “prophetâ€￾, “prophesyâ€￾ and “prophecyâ€￾ when applied to the apostles aren’t very common occurrences. And there is a reason for this: The term “prophetâ€￾ or “prophecyâ€￾ in the Greek Scriptures doesn’t in itself imply a divine authority for speech or writing. More commonly we see the term applied to ordinary Christians in several congregations who spoke not from direct divine authority, but simply as a testimony of something that was perceived as God having brought upon their hearts or upon their minds. Therefore, there are many indications that this kind of “prophesyâ€￾ had much less authority than the Bible, the words of Jesus or the writings of the apostles.

    Let’s see several examples of this:

    (To be continued…)

    Eden​
    Last edited by Eden; 08-10-2012 at 12:55 PM.​
     
  9. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    Part 5 – Women in the congregation - Today

    (Continued…)

    Three examples taken from Acts chapter 21:

    In Acts 21:4, Paul was visiting his brethren in Tyre. These disciples “through the spirit they repeatedly told Paul not to set foot in Jerusalem.†So, the Holy Spirit enabled these disciples to “prophesy†that a great danger awaited Paul if he went to Jerusalem. But did Paul obey those prophecies? No, he was determined to go to Jerusalem, and so he did. If Paul considered these “prophecies†to be God’s very own words to him, would he disobey them? And if these were false prophecies, or Satan-inspired prophecies, wouldn’t he rebuke the brothers?

    While Phillip’s four virgin daughters were known to “prophesyâ€, there’s no special mention to any relevant prophecy they had issued that was worth going on record in the Bible, nor having any special divine authority worth mentioning, nor of being treated with special deference because of their ability. (Acts 21:9)

    In Acts 21:10-11, the prophet Agabus prophesied that the Jews would “bind [Paul] in this manner in Jerusalem and deliver into the hands of people of the nations.’â€. The prophecy was not too far off (The end result was correct, with Paul being arrested), but some important details weren’t fulfilled with accuracy. For example, Paul was bind by the Romans, not by the Jews. Also Paul was not “delivered†to the gentiles, but rather, he had to be rescued by force in view of the attempted assassination by the Jews. (Acts 21:31-33). If this level of inaccuracy in details would happen with a prophet in the OT, his authority would be called to question, wouldn’t it?

    Also, the level of appreciation for “prophesying†varied from congregation to congregation. Perhaps the level of competence of those who prophesied varied much. In the congregation of the Thessalonians, Paul had to exhort the disciples: “Do not treat prophesyings with contempt. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine†(1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21) If “prophesying†was regarded as having the same authority as God’s own words, would those Christians needed to be advised to not treat it with contempt? Besides, in context Paul advised them to “make sure of all thingsâ€. Surely, there were some things in that prophesying that were fine; Other things, not so fine. Instead of discarding everything that was being prophesied within the congregation, they should weigh what was worthy holding on to, and, by implication, discard what wasn’t fine. However, would this be said about the prophecies of a prophet of Jehovah in the Old Testament or the written words of an apostle?

    Concurring with the above, in 1 Corinthians 14:29, Paul wrote: “Further, let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern(Greek: diakrinetosan) the meaning.†The word diakrino used by Paul has a broad meaning, but can be used in the sense of “to discern, to make distinctions, to carefully evaluate, sort, sift, separateâ€.(in JETS, 30.01, March ‘87,pp. 11-23, by W. Grudem) It can be used, for instance for sifting wheat, for distinguish good from evil, sorting true words from false, among others. Other translations say: “let the others weigh what is said†(ESV); “let the others pass judgment†(NAS); “let the others evaluate what is said.†(NLT). If these “prophesyings†were of God’s absolute authority, wouldn’t it be a sin to try to determine what was “good†and what was not in them? Interestingly, we never see any of the Christian “prophets†prefacing their prophecies with the statement “This is the utterance of Jehovah†or “Thus said our Lordâ€.

    These examples (there are others) strongly point out that that “prophesy†had lesser authority than the Bible, Jesus’ words or the apostolic letters.

    But this raises another question: If a prophecy of Christian times (except those by the apostles), albeit spontaneously prompted by the Holy Spirit, isn’t “teaching†and doesn’t contain the very words of Jehovah, what is it then? In what sense is it from God?

    (to be continued…)

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-10-2012 at 09:24 PM.​
     
  10. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    [​IMG] Originally Posted by Jahsdisciple [​IMG]
    Eden,I have to ask,are you copying this from somewhere ? ..Getting most of this from somewhere and adding your own to it ? Im getting the feeling you would like to have a more "active" role in the congregation. Do you think you and other women are diminished because of not having this more active role ? Just because someone is not "in front of others" teaching, like in a meeting, doesnt mean they have less worth.



    Jahsdisciple,

    If you look elsewhere in this forum, you will find more bio about me. I've served as an Elder and resigned out of my own initiative for impacting family reasons; I felt i wasn't performing as I should and it wasn't having a good impact on my congregation and was causing other fellow Elders to cover up for me too much. I've had great privileges, including parts in conventions and yet I chose to step down. I had my reasons, Jehovah knows them well. Nowadays I serve as a MS in my congregation. I'm happy with it. If I wanted to serve as an Elder again I knew exactly what steps I'd have to take. Been there, done it, and have the deepest respect for those in that capacity. No, I don't feel diminished at all.

    Nevertheless I'm an historian to the core of my bone and I love a good research, since university. Of course I have researched from a number of sources, too many to list here. Some i quote, some i don't. I always quote from the NWT unless otherwise noted, and I normally quote when I'm using publications from the WTS. I also consulted several papers published on some of the theology discussed here. Any historian does the same. I'm not reinventing the wheel. As for copy and pasting here, I would offer you a challenge, since the internet allows for it - go search yourself for the info, and compare. Copy the excerpts you find "suspicious" and Google them. Who knows what you may find.

    I took interest in this particular subject for I feel that there is room for a re-examination on this subject from the Governing Body. I think women among us are very active in the field ministry and very passive in the Kingdom Hall. We would all benefit from an increased engagement of our sisters in the meetings. However, offering my opinion is easy; What's challenging is to substantiate it on Scriptural grounds.

    Since I am certain that discreetly they look at these sites, I leave my contribution here. I know too well how the wheels turn inside the machine to not trust that any suggestion that I might offer through the "proper channels" wouldn't end up labelled as apostasy and I would get in trouble. So, here it is. I don't claim to have any particular enlightenment, I'm not one of the anointed, I'm not a "prophet", not even a Robert King style of prophet. But I was given a thinking head and I use it. Hopefully, to honor Jehovah. I don't care much about men - they suck. Believe me, i know. I'm one [​IMG]

    I post the result of my study as I go. That's why it comes in "installments". But I think I know a thing or two about how to build a case....

    Eden​

    Last edited by Eden; 08-11-2012 at 12:50 AM.​
     
  11. 2,942
    318
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Dear Eden,

    I've been saving dozens and dozens of posts from plenty of members of Robert's forum and I was waiting worryingly that you move in that particular thread before copying and pasting the fruitage of your thoughts into a MS Word file.

    I'm glad that you save it so I'll be able to resume my read of it online !
     
  12. 0
    0
    0
    Eden

    Eden Guest

    I plan to post an article on my website with this subject so it was worth saving ...

    Eden
     

Share This Page