Laying A False Argument To Rest

Excellent, Cheryl.

I’d never really considered Huldah in this light.

With a growing understanding of how the patriarchal crowd gets around all of this, I think that they would find some peripheral red herring fact and make Huldah the scapegoat for the cause of all pestilence and and poverty for the next 100 years. As a Scriptural proof, they could site some verse like Proverbs 6:24
(To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman). Somehow that would be proof to all under their authority to explain everything without room for doubt. No one would notice the fact that, except for an evil woman who speaks, the association makes no sense.

If that didn’t work, they would press their belief that there are no modern day people who hold the office of prophet or who prophesy today.

It’s both funny and sad.

It’s really pretty sad.

What about the argument that women leaders or prophets were not the ‘norm’ back in the OT and for that reason the few ones were non normative and if God had intended it otherwise we would see much more of it?

Or that none of the Apostles were women and if God wanted to show that women were not in universal submission He would have had a woman apostle?

Or about the argument that history proves that all denominations that have ordained women or had women in leadership became liberal in doctrine which started their downfall?

I keep hearing these same tired arguments.

We will lay all of these false arguments to rest one at a time. The argument that God used a woman because he couldn’t find a man is used in the same breath as God used a donkey when he couldn’t find a man. It is insulting to God and insulting to the women that God chooses to use.

Lin wrote: Or about the argument that history proves that all denominations that have ordained women or had women in leadership became liberal in doctrine which started their downfall?

Hey it could have been to much spicy food that made them all crazy. We should check the locations of all those churches that became liberal enough to notice they were liberal. 🙂

The “traditionalist” side in any discussion can always say that those that do not follow their lead end include those that do X, where X is something negative. This is a totally spurious argument, it is a scare tactic. It only works on those who are scared, unfortunately, this seems to be significant number of believers.

Here is a chain demolishing some arguments, this is not original with me.
1. The Bible says that Miriam was a leader of the Israelites, along with Moses and Aaron, but perhaps she only led women.
2. But Deborah led men (sat in authority over them), being a judge, but perhaps God used her as their were no suitable men.
3. But Huldah declared at least Deuteronomy (and perhaps the Pentateuch) to be God’s word, even though there were other male prophets available to consult, including Jeremiah.

I think a lot of this stuff goes back to the old “descriptive” vs “prescriptive” arguments. Wayne Grudem, who is known in some circles as “the godfather of complementarianism”, maintains that since Huldah spoke to just five guys and that it was done privately and not to Israel as a corporate assembly, it was ok in God’s eyes. Grudem also maintains that there is a sharp distinction between the role of prophesying and teaching among God’s people both in the Old and New Testaments. Sharp distinction? How so? As Kevin Giles has pointed out, both scripture and human utterances when under the Holy Spirit are the very words of God, and to elevate one above the other is special pleading. Let’s get down to brass tacks here. What this whole controversy revolves around is Paul’s famous first letter to his protege (Timothy) in Ephesus. If it is a descriptive refutation of false teaching, that is, the Apostle’s response to a specific situation in the Ephesian congregation, then we can move on with confidence that the reformation did not end with Luther and Calvin, and that it is ongoing, with us as an organic unity. To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ’s efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation.

“To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ’s efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation.”

I never thought of it like that before. But when I ask comps if Jesus left earthly priests for women after the cross, they actually equivocate because they do see the husbands role as her priest. they just do not like the way I describe it. They say, “head” ans she submits to the head… but their interpretation of head is really ‘earthly priest’ when you get right down to it.

Great points, Don, Greg and Lin!

One of the arguments that complementarians employ against women in ministry is the argument that God only used women as prophets and leaders in the Bible when there were no men available at the time. Is this really a valid argument?

No, it’s not, because it leads to a reductio ad absurdum (reduces this specific argument to absurdity). Here’s how:

Premise 1: If some complementarians teach that God only uses women as prophets and spiritual leaders when there are no spiritually qualified men available, then such would apply to the 1st Century NT era as well.

Premise 2: There were female prophets and bible teachers in the 1st Century, New Testament era (Acts 2:17; 18:26; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5; Titus 2:3-5).

Conclusion: Therefore, there were no spiritually qualified men in the 1st Century NT era.

Obviously, the above syllogism shows the absurdity of this argument. :-)>

Dusman,
Great reasoning! I never saw it that way, but great, great reasoning!