Objections To The Study Examined

Objections Against This Study
A certain Minister who supports women preachers has read this study. He did not deal with the issues presented and ignored all the evidences. His defense for women preachers took on a new form, trying to justify them with logic and use of extra-biblical examples of women accepted as ministers. Thus, he has rejected the entire contents of this Bible Study as being false. While Pastor Reckart and he are friends in spite of this disagreement, the Pastor nevertheless believes this Minister and others must come out of the false doctrine that permits females in the New Testament Priesthood. They must return to the Ministry that began in Jerusalem to be true Apostolic. They cannot turn to the second century for authority of female preachers from the Montanist or any other group. They must abide in the Truth on the male only Priesthood as taught by the Apostles including Paul, or they are not true Apostolics, they will merely be Pentecostals with their own traditions of men concerning females in the Five-Fold-Ministry.
That Jesus had a Priesthood and ordained this same anointing upon males only, I have only to point to Psalms 110:4; Mark 3:14; Acts 1:17, 22; Hebrews 5:10, 7:4; and 1Peter 2:5, 9. These texts set forth the Priesthood of Jesus Messiah and those he ordained as an extension of his Priesthood to Minister as Apostles in the Church and throughout the world. There is absolutely no such thing as a female priestesshood within this one Priesthood. Within the collective New Testament body of Believers there is ONE PRIESTHOOD, One calling into it, One ordination, One gospel, and One faith.
Contrary to the opinions of some, every Believer is not a "priest" as claimed by the Presbyterians and those who follow John Calvin's doctrines. Yes, I believe that if a man preaches a lie about the New Testament Ministry and the qualifications of the ordination that accompany it, he will be lost for spreading error and deception in spite of all the other truths he may preach. Yes, I believe all females who are masquerading falsely as Ministers will be lost if they have not repented of corrupting the Word of God to make provision for themselves in the pulpit and usurping authority over males in the Church. And yes, I believe there is a point in time and a place to break off fellowship with those who walk disorderly according to the Gospel and the Apostolic faith as delivered to the Apostles by Jesus. Obviously some have asked how I can be friends with a man who rejects the Apostle's doctrine on a male only New Testament Priesthood? My answer is that I can fellowship him until the day I see him commit by way of teaching or preaching the Messianic truths of the Kingdom to any women and consent to her preaching them. On that day I can assure all that I will terminate the fellowship. I DONOT and WILL NOT commit Truths to any man who will then turn and give them to women to preach and approve their doing such.
Below are some of this Brother's claims which he feels justifies rejecting everything in this study, and which I feel compelled to answer because most of them are simply twists of facts, words, intent of context, and false suppositions. The numbered statements in red type are the opposing Brother's claims to support women preachers and why he rejects the foregoing study against females in the Ministry. The blue text is Pastor Reckart's response:
1.) "OT priest were not the sole ministers of the OT, this is why God raised up JUDGES and PROPHETS to speak against the idolatry of Israel and this included the all-male priesthood! Of the Judges, at least one was a woman-Deborah."
***Pastor Reckart's Reply***
The priesthood of the OT was attended to by males ONLY. Judges and Prophets by their office or Ministry could NOT obtain for their hearers forgiveness, atonement, or salvation. Get THAT: NO JUDGE OR PROPHET COULD OBTAIN FOR ANYONE WHAT WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MALE ONLY PRIESTHOOD AT THE TABERNACLE, AND THAT WAS ATONEMENT AND SALVATION.
All of this was obtained at the Tabernacle or the Temple under the Ministry of the male only priesthood. Since Judges and Prophets could not act as the Priesthood, they were outside of the Ministry of salvation. To claim that Deborah could and did obtain for others forgiveness, atonement, or salvation is just simply false. I covered her life already in a preceding chapter and the fact that she DID NOT do a single thing that would give any soul salvation from sin. The office of a Judge was "outside" of the Priesthood and this proves Deborah was not in the Priesthood. The work of a "judge" was a civil office and not a religious office connected to the Male Only priesthood. Deborah did not think her office as a Judge qualified her to attend to the business of soul salvation at the altar in the Tabernacle and she NEVER went there to claim she did. What makes any woman think she can march into the Tabernacle, which is the Church of God, and take over the Priesthood of the New Testament claiming Deborah as her ordination, jump over the altar, charge the pulpit, and replace her husband or another man, based upon some similar action by Deborah? Deborah did no such thing. She stayed out of the Priesthood because females were prohibited from that honor. It is a great leap of falsehood to claim a woman in the New Testament has a right to be in the Melchizedec Priesthood of Jesus and serve the altar on behalf of the salvation of souls based upon some false claim Deborah did it. Is just simply is not so. No one is denying Deborah was a judge. But being a judge (a civil office) had absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of souls at the Tabernacle. The voice of Deborah was never heard in the Tabernacle. She was prohibited from even entering into the outer court. She had to stop at the door to the Tabernacle. Consequently unlike the pagan altars that allowed female priestess, there were no female priestess in the Tabernacle. Deborah's office as a judge was therefore not prophesying or preaching. Let this be the rule by which women conduct themselves in the New Testament. Do not falsify Deborah's office or her work and call her a female preacher when she was not.
2.) "Of the ministry of PROPHETS this included women! Young's Analytical Concordance p. 78 defines a "PROPHETESS" as a female preacher."
***Pastor Reckart's Reply***
This is also covered in chapter 7. Let's get something straight here. If there is a historical precedent or evidence that there were female preachers in the Old Testament then the testimony would reveal this. Young could state this as a fact and cite the text. He does not because there are no text. It is then Young's OPINION that a Prophetess is a female preacher. Opinions, even educated opinions are not fact or true unless they are backed up by testimony. Where is there a single testimony of a Prophetess preaching? Did Miriam preach? Answer NO! Did Deborah preach? Answer NO! Did Huldah preach? Answer NO! Did Noadiah preach? Answer NO! Did Anna preach? Answer NO!
We have said and I repeat here, a woman may have the gift of prophecy but that no more places her into the Five-Fold New Testament Ministry than a man who has the same gift. The gifts are not qualifications for the Ministry. The office of a Prophet has nothing to do with having the gift of prophecy. Those who use the gift have no authority with it, the Prophet has authority with his Ministry because it is a CALLING not a gift.
Women can have the gift of prophecy in the New Testament because women in the Old Testament were allowed that gift. Women in the Old Testament were not in the calling or office of a Prophet because that is a male only calling or office. Thus the same holds true for the New Testament and this qualifies Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17 as speaking to the gift of prophecy and not the ordaining or calling of Prophets or prophetesses into some Ministry. But when God inspired the sacred hands to write the Offices in the Five-Fold Ministry only Prophets (males) were listed. If there was a New Testament office of a Prophetess in the Ministry God would not have omitted this. Therefore we conclude that any woman who has the gift of prophecy has just that, a gift, and is NOT included in the Ministry. This holds true for the other gifts. Having one or all of the nine gifts does not place any man or woman into the Ministry. In the qualifications of males as Elders, Bishops, and Deacons, there is no mention of having a gift or gifts as a requirement.
So opinions, even Young's opinions are not valid unless backed up by scripture. A prophetess who by the gift of prophecy speaks in a Church is NOT CONSIDERED preaching. She can do it from the pew where it is most always operated anyway. But now they want control over the pulpit, get up and preach and call that prophesying? That is false!
The gift of prophecy operates in the same manner as the unknown tongue and interpretation. In fact many interpretations are the gift of prophecy in operation and who in their right mind who has ever witnessed this operation would say the person was preaching? Did they ever charge the pulpit and demand a license to preach because they interpreted a tongue? Young did not believe the gifts were in the present day Church, had never seen them in operation, and thus could only describe a Prophetess according to his own opinion of the practice in the Old Testament and transfer that over to the New. And, like the Church of Christ who believe Prophesying is preaching, these assume if a woman is used in the gift of prophecy that also must be preaching. Such is simply false doctrine and reasoning and any opinions springing out of such error regardless of who makes them are heresy.
3.) "In Hebrew the word "preacher" is a FEMININE word and literally means, *a FEMALE lector, orator, or a preacher.* Look it up in Strongs and see if this is the definition?"
***Pastor Reckart Reply***
The word "preacher" is a wrong translation in all of the text in Ecclesiastes. There is no such word as "preacher" in Hebrew. The Hebrew definitions in Strongs #6953 from the root of #6950 means: to gather(ed); to assemble(ed); and be together. There is no word actually describing preaching whatsoever. The words "the preacher" should be translated "the king" because it was king Solomon speaking. The king gathers or assembles together his court, his subjects, and then speaks to them. His speaking is to those gathered, assembled, and together. If preaching is understood to be instructing those assembled then we could backward interpolate that Solomon was preaching. But neither Solomon or those assembled to hear him would have considered him to be preaching in the text.
That the word "qoheleth" is feminine gender means nothing because it is applied to Solomon a man. It is NEVER applied to a woman. So claiming the word is feminine means absolutely nothing. This is proved in the New Testament where the words "preach and preacher" are applied only to a man. Strong says the word "preacher" in the Ecclesiastes text is a "nom de plume". This means the word "preacher" used to describe Solomon is a pseudonym, i.e a false name. Who inserted this false name into the text where it does not belong? Solomon was not a female and to use a feminine word to describe his speaking was simply wrong. In the Strongs rendering also pay attention to words in brackets such as his <female> that shows he is giving his opinion that females are included in the preaching but this is NOT IN THE TEXT OR THE CONTEXT and he DOES NOT PROVIDE the text to back up his opinion! For any Minister to use this argument to support females in the New Testament Priesthood and there is not one instance of the word "preacher" used to describe a female preaching, shows lack of truthfulness.
4.) "Biblically speaking Romans 16:1-2 describes Phebe as a Pastor. The word "servant" is "diakonos" Strongs defines this a "Christian minister or Pastor." Paul also states that Phebe was a "succourer" of many, this is the noun form of the verb "rule". A "succourer" according to THAYER means, "a woman set over others." Also Phebe was the one delegating business, "see that ye assist HER in whatsoever things SHE hath need of YOU to do." This does not describe the acts of a slave (as many would have us believe) or the text would have said, "see that SHE assist YOU in whatsoever things you hath need of HER." Phebe was the one in charge of the business of the Church.
***Pastor Reckart's Reply***
That is false. The noun form does not apply in the text to Phebe. It can only apply if the text and context so dictate and they do not. It is a dangerous thing to mishandle the Word of God and take the different applications and meanings of a word and use them all as a blanket coverage for ONE PARTICULAR DEFINITION. This Brother and others do this and it is wrong exegesis. They do not even know the difference between the meaning of a word and the personal opinions of the translators mixed with the meaning. The Romans text does not describe Phebe as a Pastor and to claim such is false. The word "diakonos" is used to describe the work of slaves; those who are attendants to the needs of others; to aid someone; to do menial duties; to run errands; or to be a waiter. It does not describe a Ministry in the New Testament Priesthood even when used for men. Strong renders the word servant in Romans 16:1 as:

Greek1248. diakonia, dee-ak-on-ee'-ah; from Grk1249; attendance (as a servant, etc.); figurative. (eleemosynary) aid, (official) service (espec. of the Chr. teacher, or techn. of the diaconate):-(ad-) minister (-ing, -tration, -try), office, relief, service (-ing).

To minister here does not mean the person preaches as a New Testament Minister in the Priesthood of Jesus UNLESS the text of the verse or context of its setting describes an Apostle or another male in the Five-Fold-Ministry. No such designation is made of Phebe so the word takes on a non-Ministerial meaning. Phebe WAS NOT a Pastor and she was NOT a Preacher. All females are servants (slaves) unto the Lord. All males are servants (slaves) unto the Lord. Males who consider themselves such servants are not Pastors or Preachers. Even so, a male deacon IS NOT A PASTOR! He is NOT a preacher! He is a helper and this is first seen in Acts 6:2-6. The word "serve" in verse 2 as in "serve tables" is the Greek diakonia above. Now when the Apostles laid hands upon them and ordained them to this SPECIFIC serving was it preaching these Deacons were to perform or waiting on tables? Were they ordained to be Pastors over these Grecian widows or to serve them as waiters and aiding them to obtain their daily ministration or rations? Obviously then the word "diakonia" does not mean to Pastor or to Preach. There must be other internal evidences a person is an Apostle or a Pastor if the word "diakonia" is used of their labors.
When and if a male becomes a part of the Five-Fold Ministry he is no longer a deacon. And remember there are deacons who are ordained for a service that IS NOT a Ministry in the Priesthood of the New Testament Church. There is no office of a deacon in the Five-Fold Ministry. So do not make a "diakonos" into a Pastor. Such, as I have said before is not scholarship, it is ship wreck! Strong's opinion which he adds to the definitions are just that, OPINIONS. The Greek "diakonos" means an attendant, a waiter, someone who runs errands, to aid someone, and to do menial duties. All other words he uses are his opinion. When an opinion goes against the sacred testimony the opinion is rejected, even if it is an educated opinion. We do this in regard to the trinity and other heresies and it is no different here.
Since there were no female offices in the Five-Fold Ministry and no qualifications for female Elders, Bishops, or Deacons, any use of the word "diakonos" in relationship to a female must be understood to be outside of the New Testament Priesthood. The word "diakonos" is used in Greek literature for all sorts of classes of people who do menial work not even associated with religion. Any person who was an attendant at a public bath was a "diakonos." Those who ran errands for the king, a magistrate, or for a business purpose were called "diakonos." Even those females who acted as prostitutes for the temple of Cybele were called "diakonos" of the goddess and the temple. Males as servants to Zeus and the other gods of the Pantheon were called "diakonos." The error here of this Brother and those who think like him, is to think that the word "diakonos" somehow applies to Christian Preachers and Pastors exclusively so as to say when a person sees the word used in a text that this is the only possible meaning that can be implied. Strong and others who offer Greek and Hebrew renderings do a great injustice to meanings of words when they do not include how the word is used in the very culture from which it comes.
I covered Phebe pretty accurate in chapter 6 of the New Testament study on female preachers. Phebe was not a Pastor or a Preacher, she was a sister whom Paul counted faithful to look after the needs of those she went to Rome to aid. She was a servant (handmaiden) as all females are servants (handmaidens) of the Lord but she was not in the New Testament Ministry at all.
5.) "Let me give you a little lesson. The Montaninus (early oneness) ordained women preachers and pastors. There is a writing called the Acts of Paul and Thecla in which is described the martyrdom of the Apostle Thecla. Thecla was a woman and is mentioned several time by several early writers. In the story Paul tells Thecla to go and TEACH (didaske) the people."
***Pastor Reckart's Reply***
Montanus was a trinitarian and Tertullian's writing against Praxeas AFTER he joined the Montanus movement proves this. Do we base our doctrine on the practice of trinitarian apostates? The above claim does just that. He reasons that if an apostate group has women preachers then why not the true Church? That is dangerous doctrine!
My friend makes two statements here that need quite a bit of rebuttal. Everyone should reject this Minister's lesson. Why? To say Montaninus was an "early oneness" is absolutely false. Tertullian did not write his diatribe against Praxeas until AFTER he had been among the Montanus for a few years. There is no record Tertullian wrote anything against Montanus and if he was exactly what Praxeas was, then how could Tertullian not do so? Trinitarians can say what they want about Montanus being Monarchian but this is falsehood to lead attention away from the fact that Tertullian wrote in favor of the trinity doctrine AFTER he joined the Montanus. The claim Tertullian wrote against Praxeas for his being Oneness while he was joined Montanus who was Oneness, is falsehood. To claim Montanus was Oneness goes to the issue of his being able to gather data, analyze it, and then correlate it with the Truth in such a manner that what he teaches is the Truth.
No one knows how much of Tertullian's trinitarian views were adopted from the Montanist or from Montanus himself. Clearly, Montanus believed Jesus was a created being and so did Tertullian. Oneness did not believe this false doctrine. One thing we know for certain, Tertullian did not use trinitarian language in some of his previous writings that appears after his Montanus conversion beginning with his hate rant against Praxeas.
The history of Montanus indicates he was once a priest(ess) of Cybele the Magna Mater (i.e. the Great Mother, elevating the female to the level of the gods making her an equal goddess, from which we get Alma Mater). To hold this office he had to be castrated if he was a male. Some believe he was a female who took on a male identity and he was really a she and her name was Carata. The trinity of the Montanus movement was Montanus, Maxmilla, and Priscilla. Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) incarnate. And my friend claims he was ONENESS? More emphasis then was placed on his "spirit Baptism" which Montanus gave to his/her followers than upon Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles. Hippolytus wrote: "They claim to have learned more from these women than from the Law, the Prophets, and from the Gospels. Yet they raise these wretched females above Christ's own Apostles and the gifts of Grace so much so that a few of them dare to assert that they contain in themselves something superior to Christ himself" (C. S. Clifton, Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics, p 99).
Praxeas was against the Montanus movement and WOMEN PREACHERS and we MUST believe this is part of what he opposed in the female priesthood Montanist had ordained. That is why Praxeas went to Rome and why Bishop Victor of Rome withdrew his permission for these women preachers. This action of Praxeas caused Tertullian's hate rant against him. Praxeas as a GREAT Oneness shows us women preachers were not recognized by the Monarchians of his day. Certainly no other existing Monarchians arose to refute or to challenge Praxeas on this issue or Tertullian would not have missed throwing this at him.
Priscilla is recorded to have said: "I had a vision of Christ, come in the glorious form of a woman, arrayed in royal garments of purple and gold. She has inspired me with wisdom of events which will transpire soon. Only those of purest heart shall endure. Most blessed are they, for they shall see New Jerusalem descending from the Heavens in Celestial Glory. This very city, Pepuza, shall be the earthly throne of the Divine One. And She shall come as the Bride of Heaven, arrayed with jewels of light" (H. Wace & W.C. Piercy, A Dictionary OF Christian Biography, p 37).
Jesus transformed into a woman, a female, a sissy?
And this Brother wants us to accept women preachers based upon these females ordained by Montanist?
Supposedly Montanus died first and when Maxmilla and Priscilla died they were buried, one on each side of the Paraclete (The Holy Ghost died and saw corruption?). There is some question about the dates of their deaths but it appears Montanus died after Tertullian's conversion which took place about 197-205AD. So we can assume if Montanus was born around 130-150AD as some suppose, he/she could have died say from 200 to 230AD.
In the sixth century 500-600AD, Bishop John of Ephesus read where Jerome and others said Montanus was a "semivir" half man-half woman and was an "abscissus" (a cut one either a castrated male or a female). John went to the grave site of Montanus which had been kept and maintained by his followers. To his surprise he found there three graves with stone markers. On one side was Prisca or Priscilla and on the other side of the center grave was Maxmilla. What was so shocking to John was that Montanus' name was not on the middle grave stone. Instead, upon that stone was the name CARATA, that of a female! It is alleged that John dug up all three graves and found in each the bones of a woman and he burned them up. Three women!
The late Rev. G. Salmon, of Dublin's Trinity College spent some time investigating this strange revelation but could not come to a solid conclusion. He said: "what is disguised under the name Carata, we cannot tell" (Wace, H. and Piercy, W.C., A Dictionary of Christian Biography, p 98).
I will let others argue these matters. Several things we do know that hints at something crazy here. Montanus did not object to the prophecy of Prisca that Jesus would return as a woman. Tertullian did not object because he did not leave them and died a Montanist. He wrote NOTHING against them! Such heresy could easily envision female preachers then. This led to the Montanist teaching that the Holy Spirit was feminine in gender. Montanus also taught that all men and women should divorce their spouses and live celibate. He/she advocated female preachers and in the manner of the temple of Cybele, where there was a sexless male and female priesthood of prophetess, priestess, and prophets and priest. He/she advocated females to divorce their husbands and exalted virgins as special oracles of God. He/she believed that the world was evil and material things were evil, following some of the teachings of the gnostics. This led he/she to fast long periods of time and did not take baths. It is true they were strict in personal conduct to the point that some today might consider them a holiness movement. But such piety and self denial cannot elevate error, heresy, and false doctrine to the level of Truth. He/she believed that the time of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) had come to be manifest in the earth and he/she was that manifestation. Epiphanius quotes Montanus as saying: "I am neither an angel nor an envoy, but I the Lord God, the Father, have come."
Montanus, through Prisca, claimed the imenient appearing of Jesus (the female one) and that the New Jerusalem would come down in the region of Phrygia named Pepuza. His/her theology on the Godhead was a mixture of Trinitarianism and Arianism. A climate in which Tertullian and his Greek philosophy could adapt well. After Tertullian converted to the Montanist movement he saw an enemy in Praxeas the Monarchian who was against both female preachers and also the Montanist doctrine of Dynamic Monarchian trinitarianism, and his trinitarian theories. Praxeas would not have been anti-Montanus if this movement was of God. Praxeas was against women preachers and went to Rome and persuaded Bishop Victor to withdraw his letter authorizing Montanus, Priscilla, and Maxmilla, to preach in Churches in fellowship with Rome. Tertullian on the first page of his hate toward Praxeas accuses him of going to Rome and spreading "heretical pravity" and using false accusations against Montanus, Priscilla, and Maxmilla. Tertullian laments: "he drove away prophecy, and he brought heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete (Montanus) and he crucified the Father." Having laid the purpose of his attack upon Praxeas, to even the score of Praxeas against Montanus and his/her female preachers, Tertullian set forth the doctrine of the trinity against Praxean the true One God Monarchian to draw attention away from the female preachers and Monatinus to some suposed "greater evil" the Monarchian doctrine that Jesus was the incarnation of the Father. To claim that the authority or an authority for women preachers can be found in the Montanist movement, and this heretical cult is a pattern for Churches today, borders on insanity. I call for all who use this movement to award ordination upon females to repent.
Now as to Thecla. The whole account of this fairytale is filled with error and falsehood. Tertullian claims that it was written by a presbyter in Asia who confessed he conjured it all up. Several years later the story was adopted as being true by Catholic leaders using the virgin life of Thecla as a tool to promote women to become Nuns and dedicate themselves to the Church. The use of Thecla to prove a female ministry is extrabiblical and absolutely a falsehood. Nothing more need be said to refute the use of her as an example of women preaching in Apostolic Churches.
6.) "The man and the woman DOES NOT cover every man and woman in 1Timothy 2:12 for the context changes from MEN and WOMEN to just man and woman (singular) who is this man and woman? Well, Paul uses the illustration of Adam and Eve, who were they? They were HUSBAND and WIFE! The word man is "aner" and the word woman is "gune". These two words used together in the singular ALWAYS mean "husband and wife"! Paul goes on to say that the woman will be saved in childbearing, where dies this take place? In the church or in the home? Obviously in the home i.e. husband and wife. Paul concludes by saying "if THEY" continue in faith". Who is THEY? Well, obviously it is a HUSBAND and WIFE! Luther's German translation states: "I permit not a wife to teach or domineer over her husband." What Paul is prohibiting is a woman usurping authority over her husband."
***Pastor Reckart's Reply***
If a woman cannot teach or usurp authority over her husband then she has no right to teach or usurp authority over some other woman's husband. Thus, she cannot preach because to do so requires authority and rule over those being preached to. If she does not preach to her husband at home, why should she be allowed to come to Church and preach to other women's husband? When Paul said: "But I suffer (allow) not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence", he was instructing Timothy on how to run a Church Service (see 3:1). It is absolutely untenable to claim that the spiritual conduct in verses 2:1-10 are understood only to be at home. Paul said he did not allow a woman to teach men, ...the same men who in verse 8 are to pray every where, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. To say that a female can not teach and usurp authority over her husband at home but she can at Church while preaching is contradictory.

7.) "You need to figure out what "LAW" is referred to in 1Corinthians 14:34-35. This "LAW" is the one that "SAYS" that a woman are to be silent in the churches "as also saith the law" then Paul states: "for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" literally this is "for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the congregation" what LAW says so? Study 1Corinthians and you will see that Paul is responding to a letter written to him by Chole 1Corinthians 1, and beginning at chapter u7 he deals with specific issues of the letter. Now concerning the things you wrote unto me... We find a pattern of Paul quoting from the letter written by the Corinthians or stating the situation in Corinth. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 IS NOT a command of Paul but rather a quotation from the letter written by the Corinthians who were imposing this "LAW" upon the church that women should not speak. What is this "LAW" the only LAw that says women should not speak in the congregation of men" --that is from the Talmud! The Corinthians had embraced the Talmud and were teaching it as the commandments of God, and Paul said, "WHAT" in Greek this is the "e" participle and is a stiff rebuke to what just proceeded it. Paul uses this many times in 1Corinthians. Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for not letting women speak. "WHAT" came the word of God unto you, WHAT or came it unto you only, if any man be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the thing I WRITE (as opposed to what the Corinthians had wrote) are the commandments of God." Paul wrote that women could pray and prophesy in church 1Corinthians 11. Paul wrote that women labored with him in THE GOSPEL Philippians 4:3. Paul wrote That a woman was a minister of the Church Romans 16:1. Paul write that a woman was an apostle Romans 16:7, Junia is a woman's name and to be "among the apostles" means to be apart of the apostles in the same sense that the tongue is among our members.
***Pastor Reckart's Reply***
I cannot believe what I just read has come from such an otherwise intelligent fellow; but the foregoing has many errors. If Paul said the Law said or taught something then is it wise to call Paul a liar by saying there is no such thing in the Law but it is only found in the Talmud? Obviously when Paul spoke that the Law said something, he was meaning the Old Testament and not just from Exodus to Malachi but also Genesis.
The term "as saith the Law" can also refer to the practice of the Law as the Jews understood it. Thus, if God said there would be a male only priesthood, and made no mention of a female priesthood, this is a form of saying something by "exclusion". In other words, if God excluded females from the priesthood, there was a reason and this reason speaks or tells us something, females CANNOT officate as Ministers and Priest in the house of God. In this regard the Law speaks by exclusion, even if there is no actual word saying "why" females were rejected from a priesthood in the house of God.
Paul saying "WHAT" is a rebuke challeging their intelligence or knowledge. The word only signifies to question their intelligence and actions. Paul's question to the Corinthians who were mixed up on so many things and ridgid about nothing, was concerning their reluctance to receive Paul's doctrine as an Apostle. So, he challenges them that the Word of God is not established as to practice by the opinions of the Corinthians only but also others chosen of the Lord. The "WHAT" of Paul does not mean he is questioning their rejection of female preachers. Such a claim is utter nonsense. The opposite is true. The gifts were being used out of order and we may assume by females in the Church. The whole Church meeting was disruptive with different ones speaking out of turn and disorderly. Paul is setting forth his doctrine in verse 24 "but if all prophesy"; and in verse 27 "If any man speak"; and in verse 28 "if there be no interpreter"; and in verse 29 "let the prophets speak"; and in verse 33 "for God is not the author of confusion"; and in verse 34 "let your women keep silence in the Churches"; and in verse 37 "if any man think himself to be a prophet". Paul is doing all of this INSTRUCTION and to claim that verse 34 is Paul reading from a Corinthian letter is simply a fib, a big fat lie. If Paul said women were to be silent in 1Tim 2:11, why would we think in 1Cor 14:34-35 he is not the one demanding they be silent there?
Now as to Junia being an apostle: that also is false and it is a perversion of the text to twist it to say something that it does not: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles; who were in Christ before me" (Romans 16:7). The phrase "who are of note among the apostles" does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that Andronicus and Junia were Apostles. That they are of "note" means only that they were known by the other Apostles. The Greek word here for note is Strongs #1978 and is used in Matthew 27:16 to describe Barabbas as a "notable" prisoner. The word "notable" here means "famous, well-known, remarkable because of his exploits, and a war hero against the Romans. By "notable" it means he was recognized as an important prisoner. Likewise, when we use the same Greek word for "note" in Romans 16:7, it can only mean these two men were "important" and "well known" by the Apostles as devout Messiahians (Christians). And that they had been in jail together with Paul shows they stood for the same Gospel he preached. These were early converts to the Lord Jesus. Since they were in Messiah (Christ) BEFORE Paul, and Paul came in before Acts 10, we have these Greek men in the Church as proselytes (perhaps mentioned in Acts 2:10). The Apostles would have known them then from the very day of Pentecost. We do not find the Apostles making proselytes of Gentiles until Samaria and then in Acts 10. It is doubtful that Andronicus and Junias were among these two groups. We know they were not with the Acts 10 group or afterward, because they were in Messiah's Kingdom before Paul and he came in before Acts 10.
It is alleged that the name Junia is a girls name and this means she was a female apostle. Those who believe in women preachers have had great influence to get this lie written in several books. But just because something is written in a book does not make it true. There is an old saying: "he who defines the words, wins the argument." Oneness Apostolics have been hammered down as a cult because they who define the words define them so they can brow-beat us, beat us up, abuse us, call us names, ridicule us, and condemn us. They write their hate in books. They define words so the ignorant and unlearned will use these false definitions as the truth and a reason to reject Acts 2:38 and the Oneness of God. It matters not then what any reprobate author writes in a book, if it does not agree with the Apostolic testimony it is still false and a heresy! Just because some liberal theologian who does not believe fat meat is greasy says Junia was a female apostle, does not make it true. Junia was not a female apostle. Any man or woman who claims she was is guilty of bearing false witness.
Junia was not a female! Even the man Junias was not an apostle. Andronicus was not an apostle. And if these were apostles and in the Church BEFORE Paul, then we would have expected to see their names mentioned in the history of the Church during its many conferences and events. They are absent as apostles. The Greek name for Junia is Junias and is a man's name (See Strongs #2458). The King James use of Junia is false! First, Paul calls them both fellowprisoners and girls are not fellows. Second, . In any case, Junia was not an Apostle. If a female could have been an apostle then why not in Acts 1, and why did Jesus not select one. Certainly his mother or some of the other faithful women would have qualified. To be an Apostle in Paul's day and in the days of the other Apostles required strict criteria. Females simply cannot qualify to be Apostles because Jesus did not authorize female apostles.
Since all apostles were Jewish, and not a SINGLE one Gentile, Junia (Junias) could not qualify any way! There is not one verse of Scripture for a Gentile apostle anywhere in the New Testament. And there will NEVER be a Gentile apostle! Does this mean the New Testament does not have Apostles? No! The New Testament Church is the Kingdom of God from the days of Jesus until his second coming. This Church will always have 12 Apostles and their voices, doctrines, faith, and practices, are in the true Church today. Are there living apostles today? No! Is it possible for a Gentile to be an Apostle today? No! The Church is already established and we do not need another Apostle. The Five-Fold Ministry is in the Church without the need or existence of modern apostles. The qualifications of an apostle make it impossible for a female or a Gentile to ever claim that dignity.
There are no females in the New Testament Church Ministry! Anyone who preaches that women can Minister today as a preacher is in false doctrine. If he or she cannot see the truth on this issue, I would caution all to be very careful what you receive from such persons, for if they are in error on this simple matter, they are prone to be in great error or other essential and important doctrines of the Apostolic faith.
Pastor Reckart

Tribute | Forward | Introduction | Home
Old Testament
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
New Testament
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20