@sage,

I've discussed those texts already; could it be possible that you might have something to counter the issues raised thereto?  What did the inspired apostle mean by the term PRESBUTEROS (πρεσβύτερος)?

[b]To whom and where(Mind citing specific scriptures?)[/b]


Good. And the NT clearly indicates that women were also called along with the men to shepherd the Church. Women were called exactly the same term as the male "elders" --PRESBUTEROS (πρεσβύτερος].

No Sister Women WERE NOT called to become shephards along with men. ( Mind Giving scriptural citations of where women were appointed as overseers and shephards?)


That is because you refuse to examine the texts that clearly outline the fact that women are also called to shepherd the Church.

No Sister. i based all my what i posted on the bible. Where do you get yours from and where were women appointed to serve as Overseers[?/b]


Go through the texts again, broaden your scope and take a good look at those other texts you guys have been avoiding all along. It might be very helpful to do so.

[b][b]Open your bible Sister. The role of Overseers in the congregation is clear and the bible makes it clear that women are not allowed to perform that role. Am i missing a text of the bible where women were allowed to be appointed as overseers? [/b]

@sage,

I never expected you'd be such a self-congratulatory loser! Rather than backslap anyone in hope of scoring some sympathy, be a gentleman and go through the texts you either missed, or have deliberately refused to consider. I'm waiting for your answers to the few questions offered you just to see where you're copping out your own 'FOUNDATION'.

hmnnnnnnnnnnnnn Sister, ive gone through the bible and every thing i stated were from bible passages. I never stated a personal opinion in this. Where were women appointed as overseers in the bible and where have women led men in pure worship before?


Please stop making noise. Men who are worth any substance in their manhood don't holla so loud; rather, they calm down and look into the Word and settle their nightmares on what is taught there. You can't just come on board and rascally dismiss the ministries of those women - you didn't appoint them; God did!

[b]Hey Sister, i clearly posted the scriptures for you. Do you want me to post it again? I don't make noise. I highlight and cap posts to place emphasis on main points.

The scriptures is clear on this issue and the bible does not contradict itself. In this my current posts to you i wanted to quote the many scriptures that i cited like i did the last time but the computer that im using does not copy and im too lazy to type all those passages


Take it cool sister no beef .[/b]

@sage,

sage:

Most people on this forum have been misquoting 1 Peter 2:5,9. The issue beign discussed in that chapter (and indeed for most of 1st Peter {PLS READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER}) was NOT the appointment of overseers in the congregation, but the need for all christians to change their way of life to conform to that of those who had been ushered into a new convenant
It was discussing the obligation that now rested on all Christians who have become a part of what Peter described as this spiritual priesthood, chosen race, special possesion or holy nation (to emphasize that through their calling, they are apart from the rest of the world in their primary pursuits and way of life.)
Heb 13:5 CLEARLY SHOWS WHAT KIND OF SACRIFICES CHRISTIANS UNDER THE NEW CONVENANT OFFER ie THE SACRIFICES OF PRAISE TO GOD WHICH BOTH CHRISTIAN MEN AND WOMEN HAVE TO RENDER

This is where you're getting it wrong. You made reference to the Old Testament to point out that ONLY MEN were priests and could offer sacrifices. My point was to remind you that in the New Testament, both men and women are priests and therefore offer spiritual sacrifices together (I Pet. 2:5 & 9). WOMEN are also called priests in the NT, and your reference to the OT priesthood as involving only men should not be used to deny the fact of 1 Peter 2:5 & 9 for women who are also called priests.

Your quoting Heb. 13:5 only further confirms my point; and there is no text in the NT where men alone are called priests in exclusion of the women. We all (men and women) are priests in the NT; and you cannot use 1 Pet. 2:5 & 9 to dribble in the idea of "overseers" - that appears in chapter 5 of that epistle, and not in chapter 2 - and these are two very distinct issues that should not be confused the one for the other.

Just because men were "priests" in the OT doesn't automatically make those men "overseers" in the NT.

sage:

HOW DOES 1ST PETER CONTRADICT THE DIVINELY ORDAINED INSTRUCTIONS BY PAUL

Lol, sage, where did I state that 1st Peter contradicts the divinely ordained instructions by Paul?

sage:

You keep missing the point sister. The three of them were sent by God, Miriam was a Prophetess YES but what role could they play is the question.

Moses and Aaron LED AND HAD OVERSIGHT OVER THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF ISRAEL in matters pertaining to Worship.
Miriam of the other hand could lead ONLY FELLOW WOMEN in worship

You just haven't shown me where I was missing the point. Like I said, many people miss the issue of what Micah 6:4 points to; and I'd like you to please go back and study the texts alluding to Miriam's role as a prophetess and perhaps see the point.

Hint: as a prophetess, was she prophesying to only the women of Israel?

sage:

(b) Judges 4 & 5 -- Deborah the prophetess

    (c) 2 Kings 22 & 2 Chron. 34 --  Huldah the prophetess

To address this issue first we have to take a look at the background of the time of the Judges. (Judges Chap 2) It was a time of disunity in which Israelites for the most part were worshiping false gods. They also disregarded God's instructions and were fighting and killing each other. Things were not at their best

This is simply making assumptions. Even during the time of the KINGS, things were still not at their best. Likewise, during the time of the JUDGES, men were also called to rule over God's people - and Deborah the prophetess functioned in exactly the same capacity as did any male judge God set over His people Israel. The point has already been made (and even TV01 had to agree after initially denying that was the case - ask him incase you missed it).

sage:

Deborah, like Miriam, was also a prophetess who knew the will of God. But What role could she play in comparison to the male Judges?

This is sounding like you have refused to study the text and deliberately trying to evade what is stated thereto.

sage:

Male Judges like Samuel, Gidieon presided over the motions of worship. They led and gave final Instructions and the people were subject to their authority. They gave the final go aheads for wars and had authority to PRESIDE OVER ISSUES and even execute people(Judges 7:15-22, 1st Sam Chap 13-15).
Deborah on the other hand having learnt the will of God, called a Male judge and advised him on what to do. The Male Judge was the one who took the lead and presided over the people of Israel in that campaign

This is where I'm now more than convinced that you have refused to look closely at the texts and are only arguing from assumptions. Let me remind you of a few things:

(a) Who was the "male judge" that Deborah "advised"? If you're referring to Barak the son of Abinoam, how or where does the Bible call him a "judge" (let alone a "male judge"?

(b) Deborah the prophetess JUDGED Israel in exactly the same way as we read of male judges. She presided over the national concerns of the entire nation of Israel at a critical moment of their collective history! It was not "advise" she was giving - the Bible concretely stated that "she judged Israel at that time" (vs. 4), and please don't make that sound like "advised" (because that would be the same things as all the male judges did - "advised" Israel).

(c) Did you not notice that the Bible clearly enunciated that Deborah the prophetess gave the final go ahead for war (as you put it)? Read the account again:

     "And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath
     delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee?
     So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him."

So, did Deborah give the final go ahead for that war or she did not? If you believe otherwise, I'd be grateful if you could point out who did.

(d) Talking about the authority to preside over issues, I simply want to ask this: did Deborah have authority in her capacity as a judge over Israel, or did she NOT?

(e) The resounding success that God gave unto Israel (vs. 23-24) shows how He had honoured His prophetic word in the mouth of His chosen prophetess and judge, Deborah. God had no problem using her; and let me offer you this to see how very important Deborah's ministry served the entire nation:

Today, many commentaries like to speak so well of Esdraelon; but what they often fail to mention is the undeniable fact that Deborah’s prophetic leadership gave the Israelites their first access to the fertile and prosperous plain of Esdraelon and part of the plain of Sharon! Please carefully study this fact before you make the mistake of denying it.

(f) Please also read study Judges 5 to see the import and effect of Deborah's leadership. There's so much to glean from the ministry of Deborah to see how credible a leader she was as appointed by God.

I could list for you a further 10 strategic points in Deborah's leadership that we can't simply dismiss just because she happens to be a woman. God who appointed her as a judge also strengthened and ave her authority to fulfill her leadership ministry among God's people.

@sage,

sage:

Please, im begging you to show me (From any part of the bible) where women had authority over, presided and led Men in matters of worship.

I don't mix up leadership and worship - and I've asked a question in this regard: "Where is it written that any believer leads the 'pure worship' of NT Christian believers?"

Also, just above, the case has been made for Deborah's leadership over God's people. If you're not clear, please clearly enunciate for us what you understand by the meaning of this verse: "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time" (Judg. 4:4).

sage:

Yes Sister. Hebrews chapter 13:7 and 17 clearly admonishes christians to submit to the authority of the overseers in the congregation who take the lead among them and to imitate their faith

Lol, sage. . . don't make me laugh. Heb. 13:7 & 17 do not teach that the overseers in the congregation LEAD the WORSHIP of NT believers! I have also outlined what those verses point to, as well adding verse 24. Those who have been appointed to "rule" over God's people do so as a matter of caring for them, and not as a matter of "ruling over their worship"!!

sage:

No Sister. John 21:15-17, Acts16:4,5; 2:14; All of Chapter 15,  Chap 2:14, 8:14-17, 10:24-48 clearly shows that when the christian congrgation was formed, it was the Apostles who served as overseers that took the lead in matters pertaining to worship. Later the apostles helped to appoint ,under the directions of the holy spirit, spiritually qualified and mature men as overseers in the various congregation to have oversight of the congregations

The fact that you're missing the point is going to be made clear when you discuss the question of the apostles in Ephesians 4. Second, don't confuse "apostles" and "overseers", sage - there are clearly not the same; not even when you try to force it into the idea of "lead in matters pertaining to worship". You often try to confuse leadership for worship, and that's not a healthy thing to do especially as the Bible does not teach it so.

sage:

Sister, i never said all disciples of Christ are men. I stated that the apostles who later had oversight over the church and also appointed other qualified men as overseers were all men. {Jesus had women disciples(so it would be outrageous for anybody to say all Jesus disciples are men ) and so did the first century congregation)

Peter was both an "apostle" and an "elder" (I Pet. 1:1 and 5:1); but try not mixing them up so the matter could become clear to you.

sage:

(c) How many apostles do you see in the New Testament?

The ones mentioned in the scriptures only  

Funny!    I didn't expect you'd give an answer with substance. Brotherly, until you oblige me an answer to that question, e go hard for you to see the point the NT makes about leadership in the Church!

sage:

(d) What does Ephesians 4:11 mean to you?

Paul discussed the fact that all true Christians had one hope, faith and baptism in that chapter and the gifts in men that God had provided to to nourish the Congregation and help the members maintain their faith and that included the apostles, shephards and teachers within the congregation. Christians are as of one body under Christ and within that body there are guidelines set out by the holy spirit on who could perform shepharding and teaching duties. (N/b. In God's eyes a man and his wife are one and is seen as one body. But within that one body, God's word also outlined how authority and headship take place

I want to applaud the fact that you, at least, obliged an answer (I'm sick of men ducking questions!).

However, the reason for my asking that question on Ephesians 4:11 was to help you understand that there were more than Twelve apostles in the Body of Christ given by the risen and ascended Lord Jesus. As many people often fail to see the point, they often confuse the various leadership roles in the Church, and then confuse one thing for another!

Yet, this does not mean that your answer has dealt with the gist of what that question points to.

sage:

I don't see how this or Paul contradicts himself or all the other bible passages nor how it supports women having authority over men

I think it would be quite helpful to read what people are saying rather than assuming what they are not. I never hinted that Paul "contradicts" himself, nor that he that other passages support women having authority over men.

Just to remind you that I never at any time made that inference you often bring up, please see this link: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1280145  "First, there is no contradiction between 1 Tim. 2:11 & 12 and 1 Cor. 14:34."). I wonder why you guys often try to misread people and make inferences into others' posts where such do not exist! What's gwan? 

sage:

This passage also was not discussing the qualifications or requirments of overseers[/b]

I didn't say it was - all I offered was that Ephesians 4:11 shows clearly that there were more apostles than the number you often try to limit them to in your persuasions.

sage:

What do you understand by the term PRESBUTEROS (πρεσβύτερος)? Is that a term that was used for only male elders?

Paul admonished older men, older women, younger men and younger women on how to behave. In what context are you talking about and who was he adressing. Was it the overseers of the congregation or who?

Please see these links:

   1. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1278020)
   2. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1281350)
   3. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1281435)

From link #2 above, I offered that those who are scholars in the original languages of the Bible clearly enunciated that the term (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) as used for both men and women as a single word. You cannot ignore this fact and make it applicable to only men.

This is a summary of how Thayer's Greek Dictionaries defines the term --

    G4245
      πρεσβύτερος
      presbuteros

     2) a term of rank or office:
         2b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches)
         The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably.

@sage,

sage:

I've discussed those texts already; could it be possible that you might have something to counter the issues raised thereto?  What did the inspired apostle mean by the term PRESBUTEROS (πρεσβύτερος)?

To whom and where(Mind citing specific scriptures?)


Good. And the NT clearly indicates that women were also called along with the men to shepherd the Church. Women were called exactly the same term as the male "elders" --PRESBUTEROS (πρεσβύτερος].

No Sister Women WERE NOT called to become shephards along with men. ( Mind Giving scriptural citations of where women were appointed as overseers and shephards?)

I've done that already - and I've yet had to repeat myself. Now, I'd have to yet again repeat the same thing by offering these links:

   1. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1278020)
   2. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1281350)
   3. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1281435)

If you guys could just help our discussion and make it less tedious for others to repeat themselves, we might have the fortune of progressing this discussion.

sage:

That is because you refuse to examine the texts that clearly outline the fact that women are also called to shepherd the Church.

No Sister. i based all my what i posted on the bible. Where do you get yours from and where were women appointed to serve as Overseers?

I hope you could at least see that I have not quoted other references than Biblical sources? The one thing I ask is that you guys don't try to assume that you're so Biblically smart and getting your ideas from "the Bible" and yet refusing to note that others have done the same! Not even to mention that in most of your assertions, what we read are mere denials of Scripture (e.g., the case of Deborah which you dismissed as mere "advise".

sage:

Go through the texts again, broaden your scope and take a good look at those other texts you guys have been avoiding all along. It might be very helpful to do so.

Open your bible Sister. The role of Overseers in the congregation is clear and the bible makes it clear that women are not allowed to perform that role. Am i missing a text of the bible where women were allowed to be appointed as overseers?

This only convinces me that you deliberately refused to read what has been stated before making sweeping denials. Please go back and read them - it won't cost you that much! Here is just one example I gave: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1278591). If you come back denying it, then I humbly ask you to enunciate what roles you think women are called (if at all) to fulfill in the Body of Christ - then I'll repost when I have said already in that link!

sage:

hmnnnnnnnnnnnnn Sister, ive gone through the bible and every thing i stated were from bible passages. I never stated a personal opinion in this. Where were women appointed as overseers in the bible and where have women led men in pure worship before?

Hahaha! I no fit laugh!  Brotherly sage, you're trying to force your opinion and make it sound like that is what the Bible teaches. I'm waiting for your answers to the issues raised about DEBORAH and HULDAH (whether it was "advise" you see in those texts, please quote them for us)!

The one thing you keep missing here is that you have pedantically been confusing LEADERSHIP for WORSHIP! They are not the same things, sage. Maybe you should carefully consider their distinctions and not assume they are the same. Please, I beg you to do so, in order that we don't keep discussing this issue on just one spot.

sage:

Hey Sister, i clearly posted the scriptures for you. Do you want me to post it again? I don't make noise. I highlight and cap posts to place emphasis on main points.

I do the same; but posting Scriptures is not the same thing as offering a clear distinct understanding of the posted scriptures. Remember the principle - "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?" (Luke 10:26). Just posting the "WHAT" of Scripture does not really tell us "HOW" they are to be understood!

sage:

The scriptures is clear on this issue and the bible does not contradict itself. In this my current posts to you i wanted to quote the many scriptures that i cited like i did the last time but the computer that im using does not copy and im too lazy to type all those passages

Aha! So na you send virus to attack my PC!  Ok, just kidding. I've difficulty posting during the day, until almost close of work. No worries, the ones you've posted have been discussed; and I trust that you would see the points I made in them.

sage:

Take it cool sister no beef .

Okay, I apologise deeply. I just don't like people beefing others and coming back with a small white flag! 

Hmmmmm. Lengthy posts trying to force OT paradigms, even though we are agreed that they are not binding on NT practice. And especially in light of the fact that the NT contains clear instruction  .

Not to mention that the one case, at the one peculiar time even in the OT did not represent the prescribed pattern for that dispensation. Deborah is not pivotal to the conclusion of our discussion here, and my ceding that point was in some way strategic, so that we could focus on points that were  .

Whilst the case of Deborah is used to force through equivalence, the similar case for priesthood is used to trumpet change. From a male only priesthood, to a universal one. Leadership is now split from priesthood and instituted as a seperate function  .

Trying to re-engineer the word presbuteros to mean church/religious elder in all instances is not bourne out by sound scholarship or the context in the scriptural narrative, and is a clumsy fudge for the purpose of this particular discussion. Particularly disdainful is the attempt to gender stream eldership and the congregation by inferring male elders for men and female for women. Wrong religion  .  

Peter was an apostle and an elder. True. But not necessarily both at the same time. In foundational endevour he was an apostle, but as evidenced by the scriptural narrative, as the church in Jerusalem matured - and it probably happened real quick given the number of the 12 apostles around - church became a day-to-day exercise and he functioned as an elder  .

Hence Peters exhortation in his epistle. Note he did not give an outline for the qualifications for elders, done elsewhere in a foundational sense by Paul. He wrote more in terms of motivation and to exhort, using himself as an example. Isn't scripture just divine !

The by now dusty question about how apostles and prophets harmonise and articulate within mature congregational dynamics has yet to be answered by proponents of female Church elders. I'd appreciate explication - particularly of the oft cited Ephesians 4 - for those of us "confusing" variious leadership roles in the body.  .

I wouldn't read worship as synonymous leadership. Worship (as in loving/adoring/ God) is first and foremost an individual thing, and even as a collective endevour, not something that can be subject in truth. Worship as the whole opffering (everything one does as a believer and member of the congregation) is indeed subject in parts. But that part has nothing to do the priesthood being universal, and everything to do with the blueprint for congregational activity and function.

The trite and spiteful remarks about manhood and asides about real men are telling.

God bless
TV

@Sister pilgrim.

Hmmmmmmnn lets not drag this on and on. It would be pointless

You are still missing the point

1 Overseers are those who teach, instruct, shephard and preside over the congregation and the whole congregation . That was a role the bible made VERY CLEAR WOMEN CANNOT occupy in the congregation. (unless you are talking about roles apart from this)

2 You keep saying Miriam was a prophetess (there were other prophetesses in the bible). Agreed. But who does the bible say she was leading in worship-- Fellow women.

3 You and Stimulus keep saying that Deborah judged in the same capacity as Men.
I listed some of the things that a male Judge did in Israel non of which Deborah did and i noted that Deborah advised a man and it was the Man who was in charge and presided over the campaign, not Deborah.

Who told you Deborah judged in the same capacity as men and why did she not perform the roles that male Judges did but had to call a man to do that? List the things Deborah did and compare them to that of a male judge like Samuel.

4 Men and Women are part of a new holy nation and a royal priesthood offering up sacrifices of praise to God, stop misquoting I Pet chapter 2 . It had nothing to do with qualifications for the position of Overseer.

5 Paul admonished all Christians on how to behave. Both older men and older women. That had nothing to do with qualification for the positions of Overseers in the congregation.

6 Women in the body of Christ are not allowed to exercise authority over men  Short and Simple and since Overseers exercise authority over the whole congregation, women are not aloowed to perform that role.

(b) If you are making out all the disciples to be ONLY MEN, may I ask you what you think of Rom. 16:7 - "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me"?

Junia ~ Gender debatable at best. Note the word "kinsmen"

@TV01,

TV01:

Hmmmmm. Lengthy posts trying to force OT paradigms, even though we are agreed that they are not binding on NT practice. And especially in light of the fact that the NT contains clear instruction  .

Talk to your brother sage - he's the one who tried to force the idea that leadership among God's people in the OT was the exclusive preserve of men; whereas that's not what the Bible teaches at all.

TV01:

Not to mention that the one case, at the one peculiar time even in the OT did not represent the prescribed pattern for that dispensation. Deborah is not pivotal to the conclusion of our discussion here, and my ceding that point was in some way strategic, so that we could focus on points that were  .

You guys are simply making a a weak case. If Deborah's case was not pivotal in terms of leadership among God's people, she would not even be recorded in Scripture at all!! Why is her case so much of a trouble for you guys - just because she happens to have been a woman? Would you have treated Deborah's case on the same weak premise if she happened to have been a man?

That Deborah's case was indeed pivotal at a critical time in history of the entire nation of Israel has been offered already - so try not dismiss her case on mere human pressumptions.

Besides, I have noted that she was not the only one as a woman that God used in the leadership of His people - please go back and see.

TV01:

Whilst the case of Deborah is used to force through equivalence, the similar case for priesthood is used to trumpet change. From a male only priesthood, to a universal one. Leadership is now split from priesthood and instituted as a seperate function  .

You haven't said anything here. When you do, I'll comment.

TV01:

Trying to re-engineer the word presbuteros to mean church/religious elder in all instances is not bourne out by sound scholarship or the context in the scriptural narrative, and is a clumsy fudge for the purpose of this particular discussion. Particularly disdainful is the attempt to gender stream eldership and the congregation by inferring male elders for men and female for women. Wrong religion  .

Cry all you want. The issues are clearly before you; and how you can falsify that presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is a term of leadership applied to both men and women is still yet to be done. Until you show me where that term is specifically applied to only men, you have no weight to your assertive denials.

TV01:

Peter was an apostle and an elder. True. But not necessarily both at the same time.

No - he has to wear one and derobe himself while wearing the other, abi? Truly, you guys are sweating for nothing!  

TV01:

In foundational endevour he was an apostle, but as evidenced by the scriptural narrative, as the church in Jerusalem matured - and it probably happened real quick given the number of the 12 apostles around - church became a day-to-day exercise and he functioned as an elder  .

Oh dear, something must be amiss in this kind of reasoning. TV01, for brotherly love's sake, let me point out a simple issue you're missing. The 1st epistle of Peter was written by someone who was both an apostle (ch. 1:1) and at the same time an elder (ch. 5:1). He did not drop one for the other to accommodate the reasoning you're putting forward here. Both terms do not mean the same thing; but it does not necessarily mean that Peter was seen in only one while writing the epistle, whereas he clearly stated both in the same epistle.  

TV01:

Hence Peters exhortation in his epistle. Note he did not give an outline for the qualifications for elders, done elsewhere in a foundational sense by Paul. He wrote more in terms of motivation and to exhort, using himself as an example. Isn't scripture just divine !

Oh yes, Scripture is divine - but you have clearly bunked it many times!  

This excuse that Peter did not outline the "qualifications" for eldership in his epistle does not negate the fact that he clearly used the same term for "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) - the very same term Paul used for both males and females in his epistle to speak of elders as leaders. Please go check out the Greek term for "elders" in 1 Pet. 5:1, and ask yourself how that differs from the same term applied to both men and women in 1 Tim. 5:1 & 2. (Oh boy! This is so easy!)  

TV01:

The by now dusty question about how apostles and prophets harmonise and articulate within mature congregational dynamics has yet to be answered by proponents of female Church elders. I'd appreciate explication - particularly of the oft cited Ephesians 4 - for those of us "confusing" variious leadership roles in the body.  .

Very good, bros. .  very good. Why has it taken you forever to asnswer the one simple question of stating how many apostles you read in the NT? Just why is it taken you forever?

TV01:

I wouldn't read worship as synonymous leadership.

Oya sage, where are you? I don't see how you've been forcing the idea of men leading the "pue worship" of Christian believers.

TV01:

Worship (as in loving/adoring/ God) is first and foremost an individual thing, and even as a collective endevour, not something that can be subject in truth. Worship as the whole opffering (everything one does as a believer and member of the congregation) is indeed subject in parts. But that part has nothing to do the priesthood being universal, and everything to do with the blueprint for congregational activity and function.

In reference to your last lines, I would like you to please clearly enunciate where in the NT only men lead the "pure worship" of Christians. I'll wait until you do so, before I show you what you're missing.

TV01:

The trite and spiteful remarks about manhood and asides about real men are telling.

Maybe - and you're only taking notice because you didn't realize that you've used even far worse uncouth and discourteous statements on others.

Can we look forward to a discussion henceforth, or we continue to play it the way you make out?

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:

Junia ~ Gender debatable at best. Note the word "kinsmen"

So "kinsmen" makes them males? Abeg you, the afternoon is still too fresh for a laugh. The term simple means a relative (and it could apply to either male or female).

@sage,

sage:

1 Overseers are those who teach, instruct, shephard and preside over the congregation and the whole congregation . That was a role the bible made VERY CLEAR WOMEN CANNOT occupy in the congregation. (unless you are talking about roles apart from this)

Please show from my submission arguing the contrary how I'm still missing the point. The Bible does not teach that shepherding the Church is the exclusive preserve of men - and that is the one basic question I have taken the time to clearly demontrate.

sage:

2 You keep saying Miriam was a prophetess (there were other prophetesses in the bible). Agreed. But who does the bible say she was leading in worship-- Fellow women.

I've made the point clear as to the difference between WORSHIP and LEADERSHIP. Please don't confuse them - and I'm happy to read that TV01 has stated that he does not confuse them either.

If you keep forcing them to apply as the same, then you're inviting a serious debunking of your idea to show that even in the OT, it was not the role of KINGS to lead Israel's worship.

sage:

3 You and Stimulus keep saying that Deborah judged in the same capacity as Men.
I listed some of the things that a male Judge did in Israel non of which Deborah did and i noted that Deborah advised a man and it was the Man who was in charge and presided over the campaign, not Deborah.

Let me state 4 things here again:

(a) The Bible does not teach that Deborah "advised" a man (Barak). She called him and gave him the prophetic word of the LORD (Judg. 4:14) which you're still misconstruing for "advise". My one question is this: where can you defend the idea that Barak went to war and came back victorious on a mere advise?

(b) As far as Deborah "judged" Israel, there was nothing short of what she did in the same capacity as a "judge" that the other male judges did!

(c) You still haven't grasp the fact of Deborah's leadership; and please notice infact that Barak recognized the tremendous effect of Deborah's going with him (vs. 8 & 9). Why would he need the presence of the prophetess if it was merely "advice" he was getting from her?

(d) The fact that God did not want us to miss the fact of His sovereign grace in election is found in verse 9 - "notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. "

And I also made the point that Deborah's leadership was pivotal because her "prophetic leadership gave the Israelites their first access to the fertile and prosperous plain of Esdraelon and part of the plain of Sharon!" When you read chapter 5, you will see clearly that her leadership cannot be dismissed as peripheral!

sage:

Who told you Deborah judged in the same capacity as men and why did she not perform the roles that male Judges did but had to call a man to do that? List the things Deborah did and compare them to that of a male judge like Samuel.

God's word told me Deborah "judged" Israel - and I've made the case before, and will repeat it yet again: "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time."

I also found this argument very helpful as well: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.192.html#msg1263118)

If you don't find it helpful, then I could repost and add more from what I see in Scripture. In so far as I see in the Word, it does not teach that Deborah was merely advising Israel - she judged Israel at that time!

sage:

4 Men and Women are part of a new holy nation and a royal priesthood offering up sacrifices of praise to God, stop misquoting I Pet chapter 2 . It had nothing to do with qualifications for the position of Overseer.

I'm not misquoting 1 Peter 2. That Scripture tells us that men and women are priests in the NT; and you cannot use the idea of a male-only OT priesthood to argue for NT overseers!

sage:

5 Paul admonished all Christians on how to behave. Both older men and older women. That had nothing to do with qualification for the positions of Overseers in the congregation.

You haven't yet said anything, because again and again you have refused to look at the texts that use the same term for both men and women in reference to presbuteros! WHY oh WHY is it such a difficult thing for you guys to take a look at the points I raised, discuss them instead of coming back with excuses that merely deny them?  

sage:

6 Women in the body of Christ are not allowed to exercise authority over men  Short and Simple and since Overseers exercise authority over the whole congregation, women are not aloowed to perform that role.

Please don't be so limited in your outlook. I've put your worries to rest in the following links:

      (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1280145)
      (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1280160)

Please say something more to the point. I'm rather losing interest in these roundabout assertive denials in your posts that are not helping us any further in this thread.

Regards.  

No Sister  ( All Christians are part of the holy nation, the royal priesthood and the chosen race that offer sacrifices of lips of praise to God. All members of this spiritual nation or priesthood are not Overseers.

The bible lays out clear cut guidelines on qualification for this position of oversight. No if, buts or may be's

[b]God's Word does not contradict itself[/b]

The Final authority on this subject is this


1 Cor 14: 33-35

33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
     As in all the congregations of the saints[/b], 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


1 Tim 2:11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 [b]I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

1Tim 3:1-14   (Note that the role of the man and the woman ARE NOT INTERCHANGABLE)


1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an [b]Overseer,[[/b]a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A [b]deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

@sage,

You seem to be returning weaker arguments each time. What's wrong, bros?   Infact, I could just leave this one liner as my reply, seeing that you haven't even attempted to discuss the submissions I made earlier. But I'll try to leave you a few things to think through.

sage:

No Sister  ( All Christians are part of the holy nation, the royal priesthood and the chosen race that offer sacrifices of lips of praise to God. All members of this spiritual nation or priesthood are not Overseers.

So let me ask: why did you even try to use the OT priests to argue that ONLY MEN presided over the worship of God's people, knowing fully well that ALL (men and women) are priests in the NT?

sage:

The bible lays out clear cut guidelines on qualification for this position of oversight. No if, buts or may be's

I don't play the probability games - that's the reason why people will continue to deny the lucid examples of Deborah, Miriam and Hudldah!

sage:

God's Word does not contradict itself

That is why I have been forever waiting for you guys to help discuss or falsify the facts of what I offered earlier - and I'm still waiting.

sage:

The Final authority on this subject is this

1 Cor 14: 33-35

33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
     As in all the congregations of the saints[/b], 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I feel like saying that you're rather being a bit mischievous, lol. Please tell me, what does [b]LEADERSHIP mean to you, sage? Is every leader in the Church a teacher? Is that the ONLY thing in the NT that defines LEADERSHIP?

Why is it ssooooo difficult for you guys to take a hard look at the scriptures that clearly use the same Greek term for "elders" and applies them to both men and women?

sage:

1 Tim 2:11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 [b]I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;[/b] she must be silent.

I offered earlier what that texts point to in connection with I Cor. 14:34 - (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1280145)

sage:

1Tim 3:1-14   (Note that the role of the man and the woman ARE NOT INTERCHANGABLE)

I hope also that you recognize that men CANNOT take the roles of women?

sage:

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an [b]Overseer,[[/b]a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

Can I ask you a question? Just because these outlines were made for men, does that mean that women are supposed to have married more than one husbands in order to have been called the very same term that male elders were called (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος)??

Please, you guys are making it way too easy for me to deflate your arguments.   You know why? Simply this: you have refused to look into the Bible and refute the fact that both men and women are addressed as PRESBUTEROS - πρεσβύτερος, the very same term you cannot deny applies to LEADERS in the Church.

Regards, and I appreciate you, sage.  

@Sister Pilgrim

I just dont want to run around the same thing over and over again when the bible is very clear on that issue. Il be brief and clear as possible

Given that the Bible does not contradict itself

1 Overseers are mandated and are the ones that teach, instruct and have authority over the whole congregation. The whole congregation also is subject to their authority

2 Women are not allowed to have authority over, preside or teach men within the congregation, therefore cannot serve as overseers

3 I brought up the issue of the Priests and Levites and Kings because Tayo D and Stimulus were claiming that somehow (Against biblical standards) it would amount to discrimination and sexism for women not to be allowed to serve as Overseers despite their seeing what the bible clearly stated
I cited that as an example in True worship were for thousands of years, God excluded women from certain positions and that did not mean it was discrimination. It was simply His will and all the women had to comply to that standard.

4 The word used as elders depends on the context in which it was used. Elders can refer to older people. Paul was admonishing Older Men, Older women, Younger Men and Younger women on how to behave.  That had nothing to do with Bishops/Overseers in the congregation

5 There were prophetesses back in Israelite times. The prophetesses you mentioned like Miriam could only lead and preside over fellow women in worship. Deborah was stated as acting as a Judge and Stimulus jumped on this to say that she served in the same capacity as male Judges. The bible does not say that. I showed that Male Judges like Samuel, Gidieon etc had the final word and authority, even leading in matters of worship when it came to divine commisions but the bible showed Deborah as relating God's will to a Man and it was the Man, not Deborah, that presided and had authority over that particular commision.

6 The bible is crystal clear on this issue so no need to try to make the Bible look like it contradicts itself, hence resulting in an endless debate.


You are still my Sister though

@TV01

This is a little off topic but i was watching a CNN show 2 days ago and i the host spoke about a study which now showed that Men who let their wives take charge over the household are happier than men who reflect the long standing tradition of Men beign the head of the household . (Probably suggesting that women beign the head of the household with the man present is a better way to run the family than men beign the head of the household ) ( Clearly against biblical principles too )


I thought about it for a moment and i said wow very soon people would probably say that the bible is a good book that is out of date and needs to be revised because its heavily reflects Jewish Patriachal culture. Who knows at this rate, science might even soon 'prove' that beign homosexual is a function of nature and in a persons genes just like hetrosexuality and that Paul did not have enough medical advances to understand sexuality so he classified it as wrong

@sage,

sage:

I just don't want to run around the same thing over and over again when the bible is very clear on that issue. Il be brief and clear as possible

Okay. It is the same Bible I've been asking you guys to carefully look into so that the points raised in my submissions may be clear to you on the issues you have again ignored.

sage:

Given that the Bible does not contradict itself

It does not; but then my one appeal is that you look at issues in all its perspectives instead of narrowing them to just a few verses here and there.

sage:

1 Overseers are mandated and are the ones that teach, instruct and have authority over the whole congregation. The whole congregation also is subject to their authority

I already dealt with that when making reference to Hebrews 13:7, 17 & 24. What you still are not able to grasp is the fact that not all who were overseers did exactly the same things! They each had their various roles in the collective leadership they exercised in caring for the Church.

sage:

2 Women are not allowed to have authority over, preside or teach men within the congregation, therefore cannot serve as overseers

If that argument holds any substance, then you've just disqualified the men as well. How? Because you're making it sound as if the Church is composed of only men; therefore since women are not to "have" authority over them, they cannot serve as overseers. This is where you're misreading contexts.

The Bible never said that women are not to "have" authority - rather, it said that they should not "usurp" authority over the men! And I've demonstrated clearly that if the "elders" in 1 Pet. 5:1-3 were only men, then most certainly they are asked to not "lord it over" God's heritage!

To "lord it over" is clearly the same thing implied in the injunction to not "usurp" authority. Incase you missed the clear demonstration of what this entails, I'd urge that you scroll back and see that each one had their roles to fulfill and also corresponding caution.

The Bible nowhere states or teaches that women are not to "HAVE" authority; rather, it was a matter of not domineering it over the men.

sage:

3 I brought up the issue of the Priests and Levites and Kings because Tayo D and Stimulus were claiming that somehow (Against biblical standards) it would amount to discrimination and sexism for women not to be allowed to serve as Overseers despite their seeing what the bible clearly stated

I apologise if I missed that. Yet, I've clearly demonstrated (as they have as well) that you and TV01 didn't have a good grasp of the OT issues you argued. Glad to know that TV01 saw the point - and we would wish that you would see it as well.

sage:

I cited that as an example in True worship were for thousands of years, God excluded women from certain positions and that did not mean it was discrimination. It was simply His will and all the women had to comply to that standard.

That is the one reason why I've continued to argue (after stimulus) that it is important to distinguish between LEADERSHIP and worship - in precisely the way that the Bible distinguishes them.

sage:

4 The word used as elders depends on the context in which it was used. Elders can refer to older people. Paul was admonishing Older Men, Older women, Younger Men and Younger women on how to behave.  That had nothing to do with Bishops/Overseers in the congregation

You're wrong, my dear brother. The apostle Paul was rather admonishing Timothy on how to relate with those who are regarded as presbuteros as well as those who are younger. I know if I simply used the English translations and left it at that, many people who see a men-only leadership would have shouted me down! That is why I have rather offered a small challenge for you guys to consult your study tools and see the point I was making.

If indeed Paul was referring merely to "old men" and "old women" as a matter of age in their years (and maybe grey hairs), then what do you have to say about the apostle Peter who used exactly the same term (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) in speaking of those in leadership in 1 Pet. 5:1 & 2? If Paul was merely referring to "old men" and "old women" as a matter of age, then Peter no less was not speaking about leaders but merely about grey-headed folks in Church -- which would be a fallacy for sure!

sage:

5 There were prophetesses back in Israelite times. The prophetesses you mentioned like Miriam could only lead and preside over fellow women in worship.

You're stating a very flawed premise here, sage. Pardon me, but it seems you only want to hold that narrow view because (a) you don't know what Micah 6:4 says; and (b) because the only thing you want to see about Miriam is Exo. 15:20.

I ask you: as a prophetess, was Miriam prophesying to only the women of Israel?

sage:

Deborah was stated as acting as a Judge and Stimulus jumped on this to say that she served in the same capacity as male Judges. The bible does not say that. I showed that Male Judges like Samuel, Gidieon etc had the final word and authority, even leading in matters of worship when it came to divine commisions but the bible showed Deborah as relating God's will to a Man and it was the Man, not Deborah, that presided and had authority over that particular commision.

Another flawed premise. Do one thing, please: distinguish between LEADERSHIP and WORSHIP, and the problem would be solved. As long as you constantly hold on to that wrong premise that confuses them, it would be difficult to see who exactly Deborah was! If you still are going to repeat the same argument, you'll be inviting a very critical analysis with loads of questions from me. Please be prepared.

sage:

6 The bible is crystal clear on this issue so no need to try to make the Bible look like it contradicts itself, hence resulting in an endless debate.

Indeed - and that is the one challenge that I have left you guys on this thread.

sage:

You are still my Sister though

I deeply appreciate you, bro!  

sage:

This is a little off topic but i was watching a CNN show 2 days ago and i the host spoke about a study which now showed that Men who let their wives take charge over the household are happier than men who reflect the long standing tradition of Men beign the head of the household . (Probably suggesting that women beign the head of the household with the man present is a better way to run the family than men beign the head of the household ) ( Clearly against biblical principles too )

Lol, don't mind those losers. CNN didn't need a study to understand the lives of those lazy-abouts!

sage:

I thought about it for a moment and i said wow very soon people would probably say that the bible is a good book that is out of date and needs to be revised because its heavily reflects Jewish Patriachal culture.

Tall dream! Before they know it, women would start earning far more than such men - and then another study would be required to find out what went wrong!

sage:

Who knows at this rate, science might even soon 'prove' that beign homosexual is a function of nature and in a persons genes just like hetrosexuality and that Paul did not have enough medical advances to understand sexuality so he classified it as wrong

There - Paul didn't classify it as "wrong". That's why I'm glad this debate came up, so the losers would all crawl out and open their chests! Okay, sorry - just felt like throwing a laugh!

Seriously, I see the roles for men and women clearly as complementary rather than exclusive to either genders.

pilgrim.1:

Talk to your brother sage - he's the one who tried to force the idea that leadership among God's people in the OT was the exclusive preserve of men; whereas that's not what the Bible teaches at all.

The Bible teaches that overall charge was the preserve of males. Women hade roles and responsibilities. But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of male rulership.

pilgrim.1:

You guys are simply making a a weak case. If Deborah's case was not pivotal in terms of leadership among God's people, she would not even be recorded in Scripture at all!!

Listen to yourself Miss. Deborahs case is not pivotal to leadership amongst God's people. Not then and not now. There were many OT kings both in united and divided Israel, presumably they are not pivotal? Keep hiding behind an anomalous OT example, whilst steadfastly ignoring the undeniable OT themes of male leadership (as in charge, rule).

pilgrim.1:

Why is her case so much of a trouble for you guys - just because she happens to have been a woman? Would you have treated Deborah's case on the same weak premise if she happened to have been a man?

The discussion can't overlook gender. That's what it's about. Niether does the Bible do so, although you beg to differ.

pilgrim.1:

That Deborah's case was indeed pivotal at a critical time in history of the entire nation of Israel has been offered already - so try not dismiss her case on mere human pressumptions.

Pivoltal to what exactly? Certainly not to the notion that leadership of God's people was a gender-neutral exercise. Please stop misappropriating that word.

pilgrim.1:

Besides, I have noted that she was not the only one as a woman that God used in the leadership of His people - please go back and see.

See what exactly? There is nothing too see or too suggest that there is anything other than a pattern of male leadership (as in rule, not care) in the congregation of the faithful.

pilgrim.1:

Cry all you want. The issues are clearly before you; and how you can falsify that presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is a term of leadership applied to both men and women is still yet to be done. Until you show me where that term is specifically applied to only men, you have no weight to your assertive denials.

Ah, now we are talking pivotal. This is the crux of your whole premise. That the word "presbuteros" means church or religious elder in all instances. That is nothing less than new-age, militant feminist PC theology. The usage and context that underpins your whole arguement (along with Sister Debbie  ) in no way suggests that "Female Church Elders" were being refered to. Indeed nothing in scripture suggests there is such a creature.

pilgrim.1:

Oh dear, something must be amiss in this kind of reasoning. TV01, for brotherly love's sake, let me point out a simple issue you're missing. The 1st epistle of Peter was written by someone who was both an apostle (ch. 1:1) and at the same time an elder (ch. 5:1). He did not drop one for the other to accommodate the reasoning you're putting forward here. Both terms do not mean the same thing; but it does not necessarily mean that Peter was seen in only one while writing the epistle, whereas he clearly stated both in the same epistle.  .

I have repeatedly invited you to enlighten us as to what Apostles do in the local congregation in this day and age. How they would align and harmonise with the other leadership functions you see, but you keep slipping and sliding like the "Teflon Don" are there "Donnettes"?   (And I don't mean Donnie's back up crew from Christ Embassy 0!   ).

pilgrim.1:

This excuse that Peter did not outline the "qualifications" for eldership in his epistle does not negate the fact that he clearly used the same term for "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) - the very same term Paul used for both males and females in his epistle to speak of elders as leaders. Please go check out the Greek term for "elders" in 1 Pet. 5:1, and ask yourself how that differs from the same term applied to both men and women in 1 Tim. 5:1 & 2. (Oh boy! This is so easy!)  .

The same word in context had a different meaning. He was speaking to those who shepherded the flock - Church Elders - no dispute.

pilgrim.1:

Very good, bros. .  very good. Why has it taken you forever to asnswer the one simple question of stating how many apostles you read in the NT? Just why is it taken you forever?

Apostles as named. Those doing apostolic (foundational) work, quite a few. Learn to identify the purpose of office and function. The phases of planning and building to a blueprint. And how once completed control and structure are maintained.

Also note that I didn't ask you an obtuse question. I asked you what, why and how and told you exactly why I was enquiring and how it related to the discussion.

pilgrim.1:

Oya sage, where are you? I don't see how you've been forcing the idea of men leading the "pue worship" of Christian believers.

In reference to your last lines, I would like you to please clearly enunciate where in the NT only men lead the "pure worship" of Christians. I'll wait until you do so, before I show you what you're missing.?

It's almost admirable, the way you bat around non-essentials, and digress down dead-ends. Worship can be individual, but also in a sense collective. In it's collective sense, there is an element of structure, authority and rule. Your wilfully misreading Sage is evidence of the futility of your premise.

Pertinent to note is that even if Sage is 100% wrong on this point, it advances your case not a jot. But I guess you enjoy the non-consequential little skirmishes sha  !

pilgrim.1:

Can we look forward to a discussion henceforth, or we continue to play it the way you make out?

Happy to discuss. But you have very little to go on. Indeed, I almost pity you. One abberation (not truly relevent anyway) and one misinterpretation to make a plausible case. Hard work girl.

I am not even going to say your conclusion is wrong, just that you have not yet proven (even to the degree of putting doubt in my mind) it to any real degree.

Let me hail you as the "Queen of the futile endeavour"  

pilgrim.1:

Cheers.

Warm regards

God bless
TV

@TV01

we are all in a merry go round.

Sister Pilgrim, Tayo D and Stimulus all erronously based their arguments mainly on this belief


Quote from pilgrim

The Bible never said that women are not to "have" authority - rather, it said that they should not "usurp" authority over the men!

but The bible says this

1 Tim 2:11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 [b]I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


and this

1 Cor 14: 33-35

33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
      As in all the congregations of the saints[/b], 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

@TV01,

I've tried to carefully read through your latest reposte, but it doesn't appear that you've said anything much worthy of consideration to add fresh light to what has gone before. The one mistake you guys keep making is your refusal to look carefully at the texts offered in my persuasions and discuss them, rather than argue against them with nothing to offer to the point.

That said, I'll just tease through your latest rejoinder to pass time.

TV01:

The Bible teaches that overall charge was the preserve of males. Women hade roles and responsibilities. But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of male rulership.

The Bible does not teach what you've been forever assuming. This is the one reason why you guys have severally mistaken the leadership roles exemplified in the lives of women like Miriam, Deborah and Huldah.

People who argue the way you do have often held onto just a few verses that speak about men to the exclusion of those that address the leadership roles of women - and that is why the forced idea that "overall charge" is to be interpreted as the "preserve" or males, contrary to what Scripture teaches.

I'm only asking just one thing of you guys: read the whole of God's Word, and not just a few favorite verses that people use to argue a non-existent "overall charge" for men.

TV01:

Listen to yourself Miss. Deborahs case is not pivotal to leadership amongst God's people. Not then and not now. There were many OT kings both in united and divided Israel, presumably they are not pivotal? Keep hiding behind an anomalous OT example, whilst steadfastly ignoring the undeniable OT themes of male leadership (as in charge, rule).

First, I wasn't hiding under any excuses the way you guys have been doing - else, I would not have been able to discuss it in such a way that even up until now you have had nothing of substance to say other than your lame denials.

Second, if Deborah's case was not pivotal, how is it that you have said nothing of the challenges I offered previously about the features of her leadership?

Third, if Deborah had been a man, would you have still been arguing that she actually was a judge? Your excuses are making it all the more obvious that simply because she happened to be a woman, that automatically presents you with a huge perennial problem in recognizing that God sovereignly chose her as judge over the NATION of Israel.

It was not pivotal, you say? I'm sorry for you, TV01. Go back and see exactly how mightily God used that woman before you come back whimpering again. I asked for a discussion, not lazy denials.

TV01:

The discussion can't overlook gender. That's what it's about. Niether does the Bible do so, although you beg to differ.

I'll just be kind enough to say this: I've not argued for what you abbreviated as "UGE" (universal gender equality), and you can save yourself a whole load of headaches to not slyly read that into my posts. Nor have I argued to say that we should overlook the gender-specific roles of either the men or the women. I've been making just one consistent statement in all my arguements: both men and women are called to LEADERSHIP according to their various roles in Church. That does not mean that I was trying to disregard gender in my inputs.

I hope you would not make me come back repeating myself on your troubles with your "UGE".

TV01:

Pivoltal to what exactly? Certainly not to the notion that leadership of God's people was a gender-neutral exercise. Please stop misappropriating that word.

Rubbish. If you cared to read posts and not assume what you already prejudged, you'd see what I argued in case of Deborah. Talk of "misappropriating" words - you didn't remember you were doing exactly that in arguing that Deborah was merely giving "advice" to Israel, instead of what Scripture said she did, NO?

TV01:

See what exactly? There is nothing too see or too suggest that there is anything other than a pattern of male leadership (as in rule, not care) in the congregation of the faithful.

Pride is not something that will help you, TV01. And because that is what you'd like to hold onto, that is why you can claim "there is nothing to see". This was precisely the attitude you assumed in Deborah's case until you were brought full circle to seeing what exactly God's Word said in her exemplary leadership.

When anyone has a prejudiced mindset, it doesn't come as a surprise to read them asserting that "there is nothing to see"; and if you don't want to see, no worries.

TV01:

Ah, now we are talking pivotal. This is the crux of your whole premise. That the word "presbuteros" means church or religious elder in all instances. That is nothing less than new-age, militant feminist PC theology.

TV01, don't be such a whining loser. Common sense would simply require you to:

         point out where my premise was wrong;
         how my argument contradicts what YOU find in Scripture;
         and what other verses YOU would have been able to point me to so I could see what I was missing.

I'm not a feminist; and if you don't have anything to offer in substance, please preserve whatever little else you pretend as your scholarship and save your attention-seeking rale on this thread.

TV01:

The usage and context that underpins your whole arguement (along with Sister Debbie  ) in no way suggests that "Female Church Elders" were being refered to. Indeed nothing in scripture suggests there is such a creature.

Okay, I hear you. Please tell me why and how the very same term that is used for male elders (PRESBUTEROS - πρεσβύτερος) is the very same term used for women (PRESBUTEROS - πρεσβύτερος).

TV01:

I have repeatedly invited you to enlighten us as to what Apostles do in the local congregation in this day and age. How they would align and harmonise with the other leadership functions you see, but you keep slipping and sliding like the "Teflon Don" are there "Donnettes"?   (And I don't mean Donnie's back up crew from Christ Embassy 0!   ).

Okay, I'll take that again as a joke.    Anyhow, I have my answers waiting for your enquiries, just as I've not been timid or shy to answer the one basic question you had asked.  I have offered both you and sage a teaser as to how many apostles you read of in the NT; and while sage at least offered me something, you have dramatically ducked that question up until now while coming back alleging me as above in your quote.

As long as you continue to duck questions offered you directly, don't dream that the sky would bend over for others to oblige you.

TV01:

The same word in context had a different meaning. He was speaking to those who shepherded the flock - Church Elders - no dispute.

Oh, I see. Why is that term in 1 Pet. 5:1 & 2 not to be regarded "old men" -- as you had argued for its occurence in other verses? Where did Peter specifically mention that he was speaking exclusively to MEN in those verses?

TV01:

Apostles as named. Those doing apostolic (foundational) work, quite a few. Learn to identify the purpose of office and function. The phases of planning and building to a blueprint. And how once completed control and structure are maintained.

Play games, TV01. . . play games (like babs787)!    How does that answer the simple question of "how many apostles do you read of in the NT"? You never cease to make me laugh!

TV01:

Also note that I didn't ask you an obtuse question. I asked you what, why and how and told you exactly why I was enquiring and how it related to the discussion.

My question is crucial to the answers you're seeking. No lazy dribbling round my question permitted, please.  

TV01:

It's almost admirable, the way you bat around non-essentials, and digress down dead-ends. Worship can be individual, but also in a sense collective. In it's collective sense, there is an element of structure, authority and rule. Your wilfully misreading Sage is evidence of the futility of your premise.

I hear - allege all you want; but sage hasn't complained as yet that I was "willfully misreading" him.

The one reason why I offered that we distinguish those terms as Scripture does is because in his submissions, he was often mixing them up. Since I didn't want to misread him, I asked him pointedly if eldership (in whatever way he defined it) was the ONLY thing that defined LEADERSHIP to him. Several other questions I offered thereto came back with no replies in his repostes.

Let me assure you that I've not willfully misread him - and in order not to risk being misread myself, I took time to both outline and discuss my persuasions from Scripture. Rather than looking at those scriptures offered and discussing them more to the point, you guys have been dancing round words and expressions that rock your comfy zones in my rejoinders.

TV01:

Pertinent to note is that even if Sage is 100% wrong on this point, it advances your case not a jot. But I guess you enjoy the non-consequential little skirmishes sha  !

Maybe my case in not advanced by sage's reasoning; but no, I don't dwell on non-essentials -- which is what I've been asking you to leave behind and rather discuss what in my submissions are simply not in the Word.

TV01:

Happy to discuss. But you have very little to go on. Indeed, I almost pity you. One abberation (not truly relevent anyway) and one misinterpretation to make a plausible case. Hard work girl.

I'll be looking forward to a discussion - said so many times. You're yet to rest what 'abberations' and 'misrepresentations' you read in mine. And m-a-a-a-n. . . you aint seen nothing yet with the many examples that will greet every single objections you tender!  

TV01:

I am not even going to say your conclusion is wrong, just that you have not yet proven (even to the degree of putting doubt in my mind) it to any real degree.

Hehe, what is there to be "proven" beyond what you've already read and have not been able to counter?

TV01:

Let me hail you as the "Queen of the futile endeavour"  

Thank you - how nice. I'll just wait for any loser to push the wrong buttons!

Enjoy your week.

And of note is this

"IN ALL THE CONGREGATIONS OF THE SAINTS" (All of true christianity)

This left no room for any expansion or reinterpretation of the bible to include women overseers.

@sage,

sage:

we are all in a merry go round.

Sister Pilgrim, Tayo D and Stimulus all erronously based their arguments mainly on this belief


Quote from pilgrim

The Bible never said that women are not to "have" authority - rather, it said that they should not "usurp" authority over the men!

but The bible says this

1 Tim 2:11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Hi again, sage. I still stand by what I stated, and to emphasize that, I'll quote it here again:

     The Bible never said that women are not to "have" authority - rather,
     it said that they should not "usurp" authority over the men!

Let me offer a teaser yet again: It's all a matter of word-connections. Let me offer an example to clarify: the Bible never said that "money is the root of all evil"; but what it does say is that "THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil". Money is not the problem; but money-love (if I may so say) is what Scripture warns us to beware of.

In the same way, it's all here about word-connections. Remember that I shared with you guys that the phrase "usurp authority over" is just one word in the Greek. It does not say at all that a woman should not "have" authority; but my point is that she is cautioned to not use that authority in a domineering way over the man!

Please go check it out carefully and see if what I'm saying is not what is in the Word. Let me tease you a little: perhaps you and TV01 should come back and post in bold capitals that there is NO verse at all in the entire Word of God where any woman is said to have authority in whatever capacity - home or church! Remember: this is simply a question of HAVING authority; so amuse me and come back in bold capitals to state that. O-boy. . . I have a shocker for you guys! Dare me! _{I promise to serve it gently, so I don't usurp authority!}  

sage:

and this

1 Cor 14: 33-35

33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
     As in all the congregations of the saints[/b], 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I've discussed this before and offered its contextual meaning. Why the inference I offered may be wrong, you guys are yet to discuss and show me. Instead of taking those verses to force the idea that only MEN are leaders in Church, why is it so difficult for you guys to carefully look at the other texts I offered?

If those verses mean to you that they should be "mute" in all the churches of the saints, then I asked: can women pray or prophesy in Church? Does Scripture say so or not? If women cannot do either in Church, then what do these verses mean, sage:

I Cor. 11:4 & 5 --

  For men: can they pray and prophesy in church?
   verse 4 -- Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

  For women: can they pray and prophesy in church?
   verse 5 -- But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.


Does Scripture exclude women from this Scripture: I Cor. 14:31

           "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."


So, if you don't carefully consider what I Cor. 14:34 means by women keeping silence in Church, then one may have to ask you if you're asking that they be "mute". If otherwise, please refer to where I already discussed the meaning of that verse to show that not all LEADERS in Church are called to be speakers or teachers (I Tim. 5:17). You can access it here:

     (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1280145)
     (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.288.html#msg1278020).

sage:

And of note is this

"IN ALL THE CONGREGATIONS OF THE SAINTS" (All of true christianity)

This left no room for any expansion or reinterpretation of the bible to include women overseers.

That kind of idea is reached simply because people refuse to look at other verses where women are discussed as pertaining to leadership in the Church. Have you noticed that the Bible never said any of these three things you guys have been arguing:

              "Only the men can be elders in ALL the churches/congregation of the saints"

               "Only the men have overall charge or leadership in ALL the Churches of the saints"

               "Only the men are called elders in ALL the Churches of the saints"

Scripture never taught any of the ideas above; but you guys constantly make the mistake of taking those few verses to mean that since she was not asked to "speak" or "teach", therefore only men are to be called "presbuteros" (πρεσβύτερος).

Please, let's just lay the fastidious male-only claim, look into Scripture and settle our thoughts there.


Cheers.

@Pilgrim

Yes the scriptures does teach that only Men can be Overseers (Simply because the work Overseers do, which includes presiding over, teaching and having authority over the whole congregation ie Men women and children, is incompactible with what women are allowed to do .


Need i remind you that you were the one that posted the definitions of the Greek word Presbuteros

1 It can be used to refer to people who are advanced in age

2 It can be used to refer to a person in position of oversight

When Paul refered to older men and women , as well as younger men and women in his letter to Timothy, he clearly was not refering to Congregation Overseers. He advised Timothy on how to relate with all in the congregation
(Given the fact that Timothy was a young man and and most likely an Overseer. Beign appointed an overseer was not a function of age, but that of spiritual maturity under the guidiance of the holy spirit)


You mentioned about Prophesying.

Where is that prophesying and praying done? The bible nowhere mentioned that if a woman was to Prophesy and pray on behalf of the congregation in the presence of Men in the congregation then,
It would be erronous to read that kind of meaning into that passage


And what does this have to do with Overseers

@Pilgrim

Let me clarify this to you

1 Men and Women who remain faithful expect the same reward.

2 The commision giving to all Christians is given to both men and women

3 God does not view men as beign more important than women in anyway.


But as Paul noted, God has divinely arrainged for how the congregation(like other things) is to be run.

For example take a look at marriage

Both man and woman are one in God's eyes. They are as of one body . The sexual intrest of one does not take precedence over the other and children are instructed to obey their father and mother in the same measure etc.

But note that within that ONE BODY, there is an unchangable arraingment for headship. The fact that they are one does not mean any part of that body can exercise headship over the other.
Headship is still reserved for that one part of the body ((Regardless of the fact that the two seen as one)

It would be[b] erronous [/b] for anybody to quote scriptures citing where God instructed kids to obey and respect their parents in the same manner, and where God says the two are now one body to suggest that headship is also applicable to the female part of this one body.

Within that one body, God reserves headship for only males.

The two are one yes, but they are not both allowed to perform the same roles. The wife does not become head over her husband.

The congregation is one body but their are guidelines when it comes to those appointed by holy spirit to take the lead

@sage,

It's sad to see again that you're making assertions for argument sake round what you read into Scripture but not out of it. So, I'll not like to dwell much on this, but make very quick short replies:

sage:

Yes the scriptures does teach that only Men can be Overseers (Simply because the work Overseers do, which includes presiding over, teaching and having authority over the whole congregation ie Men women and children, is incompactible with what women are allowed to do .

What are women allowed to do, that men find incompatible? Secondly, for the umpteenth time, is teaching/speaking the only things that define LEADERSHIP in Church? Do all elders or overseers do exactly the same things and must therefore all be "speakers/teachers"?

sage:

Need i remind you that you were the one that posted the definitions of the Greek word Presbuteros

And. . .??

sage:

1 It can be used to refer to people who are advanced in age

2 It can be used to refer to a person in position of oversight

When Paul refered to older men and women , as well as younger men and women in his letter to Timothy, he clearly was not refering to Congregation Overseers. He advised Timothy on how to relate with all in the congregation

Sorry sage, don't let your thoughts run ahead of you - that's what you did with Deborah and referred to her case as "advice" instead of "judge".

That Paul was not merely speaking of people advanced in age with grey hairs is evident from the fact that the very same singular word (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) is used for both men and women throughout that chapter in 1 Timothy 5; and in their occurences it is clear Paul was pointing to those who are in leadership as elders. Let me remind you of the few other verses you failed to consider within that same chapter:

1 Timothy 5 --

verse 1
"Rebuke not an elder^{(πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros)}, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren"

verse 2
"The elder women^{(πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros)} as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity."

verse 17
"Let the elders^{(πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros)} that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

verse 19
"Against an elder^{(πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros)} receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."

Please sage, give me one good reason why we should read all these merely as "old men" and "old women" instead of "elders" in leadership?

If at all they should read so as merely "old men" and "old women", why make an exception to the same occurence in verse 17 ("the elders^{(πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros)} that rule"?? You can see that your argument of Paul admonishing Timothy merely on how to relate with "old men" and "old women" will simply deflate any substance you hold in exception of verse 17.

Besides, Scripture uses other words for an "aged" person (although many people don't seem to recognize this at all). I just wonder that Scripture never confused those other terms with presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) that points more to "elders" who are leaders in Church. Let's consider a few of these other words:

   Rom. 9:12 - (μείζων - meizōn)
   "It was said unto her, The elder^{(μείζων - meizōn)} shall serve the younger."

   Philem. 9 - (πρεσβύτης - presbutēs)
   "Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged^{πρεσβύτης - presbutēs},
    and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ"


Please check up the meanings of the highlighted words and see the point I'm trying to make. Yet, in 1 Timothy 5, the word "presbuteros" (πρεσβύτερος) is used throughout that chapter in reference to those who "rule" as elders in Church - and that term was used for both men (vs. 1) and women (vs. 2). You can find why this is so in verse 17.

sage:

(Given the fact that Timothy was a young man and and most likely an Overseer. Beign appointed an overseer was not a function of age, but that of spiritual maturity under the guidiance of the holy spirit)

It still doesn't negate the point made just above. We are not told in God's Word that only men can be spiritually mature under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

sage:

You mentioned about Prophesying.

I did.

sage:

Where is that prophesying and praying done? The bible nowhere mentioned that if a woman was to Prophesy and pray on behalf of the congregation in the presence of Men in the congregation then,

Could you show me where it says that women cannot pray or prophesy in Church? The Bible cautions them on just two issues: (a) that they do not teach; and (b) that they do not usurp authority. It never said they could not pray nor prophesy. Especially when I Cor. 14:31 clearly says that they ALL (men and women) could prophesy ONE BY ONE - does that exclude the women, sage?

sage:

It would be erronous to read that kind of meaning into that passage

Could you show me how so, especially in light of what's said just above?

sage:

And what does this have to do with Overseers

My dear brother sage, please go over to James 5:14 - "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."

Does the term "elders" (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros) apply to only men who can pray as "elders" of the Church? What would make you feel that God would not honour the prayer of faith offered by a woman who prays over the sick - especially if she was called as an "elder" (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros) by the same term that male elders are addressed?

sage:

Let me clarify this to you

1 Men and Women who remain faithful expect the same reward.

2 The commision giving to all Christians is given to both men and women

3 God does not view men as beign more important than women in anyway.


But as Paul noted, God has divinely arrainged for how the congregation(like other things) is to be run.

I haven't disparaged or argued against any of the above. The simple question is about women in leadership in the Church.

sage:

For example take a look at marriage

Both man and woman are one in God's eyes. They are as of one body . The sexual intrest of one does not take precedence over the other and children are instructed to obey their father and mother in the same measure etc.

Okay. . .

sage:

But note that within that ONE BODY, there is an unchangable arraingment for headship. The fact that they are one does not mean any part of that body can exercise headship over the other.

I can't believe my eyes; but reading further, it seems you have just negated that highlighted statement by this line:

sage:

Headship is still reserved for that one part of the body ((Regardless of the fact that the two seen as one)

What are you really saying, sage? On the one hand, neither part could exercise headship over the other; and on the other hand, headship can be exercise by one part over the other?

sage:

It would be[b] erronous [/b] for anybody to quote scriptures citing where God instructed kids to obey and respect their parents in the same manner, and where God says the two are now one body to suggest that headship is also applicable to the female part of this one body.

It seems you're run ahead with something else strangely introduced here. I didn't hint anywhere that children are elders or exercise headship or authority over their parents.

sage:

Within that one body, God reserves headship for only males.

Within the Body, there is only ONE Head - Christ Himself. There are no subheads. We need to carefully distinguish issue here and not misapply I Cor. 11:3.

sage:

The two are one yes, but they are not both allowed to perform the same roles. The wife does not become head over her husband.

I absolutely agree. Please note the highlighted (['i]they are not both allowed to perform the same roles[/i]'). men and women have various roles to fulfill - I said that a few times already.

sage:

The congregation is one body but their are guidelines when it comes to those appointed by holy spirit to take the lead

And both men and women are addressed clearly by the same term in leadership: "elder" (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros). The question is not that they are called to do exactly the same thing; but that they are rather called to shepherd the Church according to their various roles of leadership.

You've served me a good turn; and I must commend that, sage. There's nothing that impresses me more than good challenges that take me back to the Word - please keep it that way.

Cheers.

@pilgrim.1,

Good points you made; but take it easy with 'em men folks.

@Pilgrim

Bible passages are complimentary, not contradictory. The apostle Paul could not have been inspired by God to contradict himself

If there was any room for Female Overseers, the bible would automatically contradict itself.

(Ive already listed this things b/4)

1 Overseers are mandated to teach, instruct, preside and have authority over Men, Women and Children

2 Women, under divine standards cannot exercise authority over or teach Men (The primary commision of overseers) within the congregation (This is an unchangable divine standard that cannot be watered down)

3 A person not teaching, shepharding or exercising authority over the whole Congregation ie Men, Women and Childeren is NOT an overseer (They could be given other responsibilities) and since women are not approved by God to do that, then they cannot be Overseers Simple

The bogus use of a word that can both be used to represent a person advanced in age, as well a person holding an office and other foms of usage would not change an already set divine standard neither would it contradict the rest of the bible, neither would Paul contradict himself.

The example i made with marriage is this

Gen 2:24

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

Ephisians 5:28

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body.

1st Corintians 7:3

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

Ephesians 6:1,2

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"—[/b]which is the first commandment with a promise



Should somebody make claims that this means that the two are one and can play the sam roles.

Even with the above scriptures, other passages compliment this by showing that

[b]The Man exercises headship over a woman and the woman is not allowed to exercise headship over a man in the family.

Headship in the family with the male mate present is only Preserved for the Male


(I am bewildered by arguments raised by some people here claiming that a male only Overseer appointment would mean a male only world and would be discrimintory and sexist.

1 How come a male only headship arraingment (ie with the male mate beign present) in the family is not accused of the same thing by these same people.

2 How come a woman can exercise authority over, instruct, teach, and preside over their husbands in the congregation when they cannot at home?

The reasons why the holy spirit would not appoint women is crystal clear (A similar reason as to why Jesus chose only Male apostles even with committed and faithful Women all around him) was

Divine arraingment.

A woman overseer would have to have taught and exercised authority over men (In the same vein that both the apostles and first century overseers exercised authority over Men, Women and Children). This is incompactible with the will of God for His congregated people as expressed in His inspired writing.


@ Sister Pilgrim

Come to look at it though.

Godly women like those faithful disciples of Jesus and the fist century female disciples

Never agitated to become apostles, never claimed to have the same authority as the apostles, never highlighted the short comings of Jesus male apostles and disciples to make a case for their own inclusion (what a man can do, a woman can also do mentality), never sought to claim a position of oversight which the holy spirit did not leave open to them, did not misquote the account of Joel and Deborah to justify what God's holy spirit does not approve of etc


They recognized their place in divine arraingment and complied to it.
They had God's blessing in full measure

No. This is not about been a good leader.

It's about the bible. Let the woman keep silent in the church. The woman is expected to preach but the man.

@ all

The problem with debates like this is that the people all agreed to use the bible as their standard but now want to water down some parts of it that they dont like to suit their own agenda.

If this was a secular debate, then that would be completely different.

We can then measure merits and demerits whys and hows etc.

But when you claim the bible as your standard you do not question its stand on anything.
Compliance to it is what is required for those who want to.


The only reason im saying the above is that from a human and secular standpoint certain Divine standards have no answer and might even seem unreasonable. For eg

1 What made the family of Moses (Aaron and his sons) the only ones that are fit to enter into the presence of the ark?

2 What made Moses the only one fit to see the presence of God

3 Why is it that well qualified Men like Korah, Dathan and Abiram who were not trying to insult God but felt that Moses was presumpteously hoarding everything for only his family and not allowing them to do more in the service of God were executed by Him?
From a secular standpoint was Korah's gain saying wrong and did Moses stand not look presumpteous?

4 Why would God appoint only males to Serve as Priests, Levites and Kings?
Can women not also lead a nation, lead in worship? Do women not posses the same capabilities to do the same things?

5 Why would God strike down Uzaah for trying to save the ark from falling off to the bewilderment of a whole nation ?

6 Why is Family headship giving only to men? Do women not possses the ability to head a house?

7 Why would God judge Saul (Who was not trying to deliberately insult God) so harshly for acting to save his people who were almost beign overrun?
What Saul did was it not reasonable from a human standpoint? (Whic man would just stand and watch and see his whole house go up in flames without acting?)

The answer to the above can be seen as

Divine Principle and arraingment.

Regardless of good intentions, good abilities, neccesity etc Divine principle remains the same.

For eg In Uzaahs case, God had decreed that anybody apart from a certain group of people who touched the ark would die.
Regardless of Uzahh having good intentions or not in trying to save the ark he was going to die for overstepping his place in God's arraingment.

Saul having a good motive ie to save God's people was not the point either. He overstepped his place also in God's divine arraingment and had to pay for it.