Does the Bible support Women Preachers? ( Debate -- Long video)

[Christ4Ever]

would disagree with you on the culture thing, even with the examples you gave.

We know that circumcision was done away with through nailing the ceremonial law to the cross, not based on culture, but based on the word saying so, but there are times Paul did things not because he was into their culture, but to show that he was not against God's law perse, God gave the law of circumcision, not culture.

And even concerning the things he said in Acts, about not eating the blood, and so on and so forth, which is also mentioned in the law, was a law of God.

And then there are factors of weak faith, and eating things sacrifice to idols, this had nothing to do with conforming with culture, but rather it was an issue, of if a brother saw a strong brother in the faith, eat things sacrifice to idols, his faith might be weakened, via his conscience in many different ways, which we must walk in love towards a weak brother.

Yes Paul was all to all, but never in a way to conform himself to this world.

To the Jew, he would speak after a certain manner so to gain them to Christ, and to the Gentiles likewise.

And is all culture wrong ?

No, there is issues were a certain culture eats certain foods and stuff, but in the issues we are covering, it has nothing to do with culture.

It's all come around to not giving offense doesn't it.
Being in the World yet not of the world.

Again, I'll give you more on the effect of culture in the Church even today. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (Head covering amongst a few other instances.) So, now we see where Paul is dictating covering of the head in Corinth. Why there when the Jewish faith does not require it of women or for men far as I know. Do, you know what the local custom of heading covering of women signified in Corinth? In Corinth, women's head coverings signaled marital status, modesty, or social class in Hellenistic/Roman society. Uncovered heads could imply promiscuity or dishonor. The absence of a head covering could be seen as a lack of respect or a sign of a woman's independence, which was often associated with promiscuity in the eyes of society.

Do, you want me to go on and show the effect of how cultural affected the early church? What is important is that God's Will be done and not trying to tie one to a law. We know that Paul saw the Law as righteous, but are we seeking that in place of the righteousness accorded to us through Jesus instead?

Think of Deborah in the OT. Check out her story and see how that is to affect to what is being discussed, of leading men, or even dictating what would be done over men.

I tell you of truth, don't put God in a box, because the minute you do so, He will prove you wrong. (Heavy sigh) Which is what we do time and again when it comes to the Bible. Sola Scriptura is awesome, but it does not contain the all in all of God, or how He moves in and through the individual believer by the Holy Spirit. Unless you believe that this dictate of Paul, and I do believe it to be his dictate, affects a person's salvation, or believe that one who comes to Christ through the preaching/teaching of a woman is to no effect. I'd be careful tying what is in Scripture in such a way that makes the very pages you hold on to, worthy of worship. We know, then, that my brother would fall into idolatry, which is probably why God ensured the original autographs did not survive.

Do not think that Paul did not make dictates that were his and not ones of God and why I pointed out his use of "I" in his dictate. It does not mean that God did not approve, but more to the effect that it had none to His will being done. (1 Corinthians 7:25–40) Keep in mind that seeing it through the lens of Sola Scriptura without the Holy Spirit’s guidance to discern its relevance could lead to a perspective quite different from, dare I say, than the bigger picture of God’s will, even while not dismissing its intended message. (Think about slavery in scripture and you'll see what I mean by the last statement.)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Gerbolski]

It's all come around to not giving offense doesn't it.
Being in the World yet not of the world.

Again, I'll give you more on the effect of culture in the Church even today. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (Head covering amongst a few other instances.) So, now we see where Paul is dictating covering of the head in Corinth. Why there when the Jewish faith does not require it of women or for men far as I know. Do, you know what the local custom of heading covering of women signified in Corinth? In Corinth, women's head coverings signaled marital status, modesty, or social class in Hellenistic/Roman society. Uncovered heads could imply promiscuity or dishonor. The absence of a head covering could be seen as a lack of respect or a sign of a woman's independence, which was often associated with promiscuity in the eyes of society.

Do, you want me to go on and show the effect of how cultural affected the early church? What is important is that God's Will be done and not trying to tie one to a law. We know that Paul saw the Law as righteous, but are we seeking that in place of the righteousness accorded to us through Jesus instead?

Think of Deborah in the OT. Check out her story and see how that is to affect to what is being discussed, of leading men, or even dictating what would be done over men.

I tell you of truth, don't put God in a box, because the minute you do so, He will prove you wrong. (Heavy sigh) Which is what we do time and again when it comes to the Bible. Sola Scriptura is awesome, but it does not contain the all in all of God, or how He moves in and through the individual believer by the Holy Spirit. Unless you believe that this dictate of Paul, and I do believe it to be his dictate, affects a person's salvation, or believe that one who comes to Christ through the preaching/teaching of a woman is to no effect. I'd be careful tying what is in Scripture in such a way that makes the very pages you hold on to, worthy of worship. We know, then, that my brother would fall into idolatry, which is probably why God ensured the original autographs did not survive.

Do not think that Paul did not make dictates that were his and not ones of God and why I pointed out his use of "I" in his dictate. It does not mean that God did not approve, but more to the effect that it had none to His will being done. (1 Corinthians 7:25–40) Keep in mind that seeing it through the lens of Sola Scriptura without the Holy Spirit’s guidance to discern its relevance could lead to a perspective quite different from, dare I say, than the bigger picture of God’s will, even while not dismissing its intended message. (Think about slavery in scripture and you'll see what I mean by the last statement.)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

On the issue of the veil, yes in that case there was a cultural issue, which is one of the things I was already thinking about, but I see this issue as an issue that Paul was correcting, and showing what the true vail was.

And concerning Deborah and those other prophetesses, you have to read very carefully what they were doing, which I might relate some more on this, some time later, when I have time.

I am not putting God in a box.

 

[Gerbolski]

It's all come around to not giving offense doesn't it.

Not fully, in some cases yes, in other cases no.

 

[Gerbolski]

The book of Acts issue

What was happening in the book of Acts, what was the issue ?

Act 15:1
(1) And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Act 15:24
(24) Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

This is some of the things they were dealing with, in the book of Acts, they knew what they were talking about, they knew that circumcision was no longer, which is obvious from the statements.

These ones from Judea (which some call Judaizers), were saying unless you be circumcised you cannot be saved, which they were looking towards that to save them, which is wrong, and also they did not fully see what was accomplished at the cross, which renders physical circumcision useless, which is no longer a commandment, so this meeting, was in motion, knowing these things.

Then it says this:

Act 15:28-29
(28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
(29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Why did James (Acts 15:13) and the gang, settle on these laws, why fornication, why not thou shalt not murder, why not thou shalt not steel, or other parts of the moral law ?

Well here James and the gang, were dealing with pertinent issues of that moment, which concerned the Gentiles, which God takes people one step at a time, and there is a good reason why they mentioned things such as fornication, abstaining from blood, and so on.

And here are verses in the Old testament, that mentions such like things:

Lev 17:14-15
(14) For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
(15) And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.

Why did James mention only these particular things ?

(What is Meant in Acts 15:19-20? – Church of the Eternal God)

("...These four prohibitions were especially mentioned in Acts 15 to emphasize to the Gentiles that they were still binding on Christians, to avoid any misunderstanding. Prior to their conversion, many Gentiles would engage in those practices. They would of course sacrifice to idols; they would often times drink blood with their sacrifices or they would eat their sacrifices with the blood still in the meat ( as happens when animals are strangled); or they would commit fornication with temple prostitutes in their religious services....")

The reason why James covered those specific things via the Gentiles, is for these very reasons, for they had come out of this cultural idol worship, and in them observing these things, of not eating blood and so on, it would prevent them from going back to their old idol worshipping ways.

So the laws James gave were not cultural, but rather they were already in the bible, but used in this case, in such a way, so as to prevent Gentile believers, to going back to their old cultural, idol worshipping ways, which God takes people one step at a time.

 

[Gerbolski]

The Harmony of the word

Now I will show forth, how much in harmony the word is with the word, but before I go there, I just want to set some issues strait.

Now of course we know that women can be a witness to whosoever.

Examples:

1. The Mary's proclaiming the resurrection of Christ to the disciples.

And then there were the prophetesses, what did they do ?

Jdg 4:4-6
(4) And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
(5) And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
(6) And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

Here it mentions Deborah giving a warning of what the Lord would have this Barak do, it was not preaching in the temple as the priests would do before the congregation, but warning individuals of what the Lord requires, and often times that is what old testament prophets did, they went to warn individuals of things, and God was not against this whether men or woman, but as far as who thought the congregation of men and women, it was men, which at that time were priests, and done in the temple.

Of course now we are the temple of the Holy Ghost, and now this duty via the man, is within the offices of an overseer, or as other verses say elders.

Act 18:24-26
(24) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
(25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
(26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Now via discussing the word, does a woman always need a man with her, well I know concerning testifying of the resurrection that the Mary's did not, and concerning Deborah's warnings, she did not, but in the case of Priscilla she had her husband with her.

All I will say to this , is seek the leading of the Spirit, and use wisdom.

So now let us get to the harmony of the word:

1Ti 2:12-14 (12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1Co 14:34 (34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Eph 5:23 (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Gen 3:16 (16) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Deu 33:8-10 (8) And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah; (9) Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. (10) They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar. Isa 3:12 (12) As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

These verses seem to me in perfect harmony, of God's ways towards man and women not changing.

 

[Gerbolski]

What has been cleansed ?

1Ti 4:4-5 (4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (5) For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Act 11:8-9 (8) But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. (9) But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Now on the Acts side, it had a double meaning, pointing to all meats being cleanse (clean and unclean meats), and also it points to the Gentiles.

On the Timothy side, it speaks of every creature (clean and unclean beasts), that they can be eaten, and they are cleansed by the word and prayer.

But concerning these next verses, which say:

Act 15:28-29
(28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
(29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

These verses in Acts chapter 15, are not mentioning clean and unclean meats at all, but rather the eating of blood and so on.

 

[Bill]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

I've only seen it done correctly once, or during one service I should say as it happened four times at during the same service.

In my own life, when I married my wife. I told her straight up that I was not looking for her to be underneath me but to be my equal. This doesn't mean that I don't expect her to submit to me as my wife. But to be equal with me in our decisions and our children. Because it's not one-sided when it comes to children

This being said, women do not understand the fullness of submission in these days. I would say few understand. But for the vast majority because of society women's rights and all the other things they just don't understand the freedom that comes through submission.

Women have to understand that they need to submit to God. Men also have to submit to God but women even more so.

In the scripture it states how men are subject to the laws of God. And women are subject to men. The man has the greater responsibility being subject to the laws of God, this includes respect of his spouse and other women including his mother. And if you do not respect your spouse other women and your mother then those men are in deep trouble with God.

Now I put this out there for you to understand where my mind is at when it comes to if women should be preaching at the pulpit. A few years ago I saw something I've never seen before and I knew in my heart through the holy spirit that this was correct.

What took place was at a Baptist Church that I was invited to. As I watched the preacher stood up and introduced his wife. And then he gave her his Blessing and then she preached. In my heart I knew that the holy spirit said this was the way it needed to be done. That his wife could not just go up to the pulpit without receiving her husband's blessing.

The preaching was fantastic. Some of the best preaching I've ever heard at a Protestant church. Not only did this happen once but at that time there were four preachers as they were going to have one of their annual meetings that day. There were four preachers and their wives at the service and each preacher did the same thing with their wife giving her his Blessing and then she preached to the congregation.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Women have to understand that they need to submit to God. Men also have to submit to God but women even more so.

I think women might be able to teach men a thing or two about how to submit.
For they not only submit to God, as men do as well, which you have rightly noted, but they must also submit to men.
That is one of the reasons why in most churches you will find women more likely to be servants in the different programs that a church may oversee, instead of men. A servant's heart really needs to know what it means to submit.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

Dear Brother,
I like the post #224, which is clear to purpose. It would have been better if you had also included Acts 10:9-16, for that also had significance to the subject being spoken of here as well. I would have liked it openly, but for the following part that you added at the end. I'm also assuming that you directed this towards my comment, though if so, you did not note it so. If so, my reply is below.

So the laws James gave were not cultural, but rather they were already in the bible, but used in this case, in such a way, so as to prevent Gentile believers, to going back to their old cultural, idol worshipping ways, which God takes people one step at a time.

I never said that it "was culturally" driven, but could have been influenced by the culture, or as I stated "I included the Adam Clarke commentary to show that external factors can influence how one views the behavior of the early church, especially since they didn’t have the complete scripture we have today to reference, and the scripture we do have doesn’t capture all the influences that shaped their decision-making." You did nicely to turn it to that point in your post.

I’ve included my full statement here to be completely transparent. I always try to be honest in assessing both sides of any subject I comment on. As I mentioned, your post was clear in its purpose, which I appreciated, but I still don’t dismiss the idea that the cultural differences the Gentiles brought into the primarily Jewish church had no impact.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

All I will say to this , is seek the leading of the Spirit, and use wisdom.

Exactly.

These verses seem to me in perfect harmony, of God's ways towards man and women not changing.

I liked the 2-column table #225. However, it all would have been good, except you had to add the above "God's ways towards man and women not changing." And you say you don't put God into a box? lol

God is mostly, if not unpredictable to our own reasoning. Deborah, I used as an example of these concerning women because she was the only prophet that was also judge, and military commander. You would say it was a byproduct of her being a prophet, yet none other, be it woman or man had such positions accorded them. An exception rather than the rule? Maybe, but that’s why, especially on this subject, I don’t dismiss the cultural mores of the day as having no influence. The harmony of scripture you presented—which I like, by the way—can now also be seen as supporting it.

Still, as you said for which I agreed with "...seek the leading of the Spirit, and use wisdom."

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Gerbolski]

I liked the 2-column table #225. However, it all would have been good, except you had to add the above "God's ways towards man and women not changing." And you say you don't put God into a box? lol

God is mostly, if not unpredictable to our own reasoning. Deborah, I used as an example of these concerning women because she was the only prophet that was also judge, and military commander.

Your reasoning about me saying, God's ways towards a man and women has not changed, the way your are saying it is very strange, and how I am putting God in a box in saying this is also very strange.

Deborah was a Judge and a prophetess that is what it clearly shows, not a military commander, even though she did give direction in that matter but as a prophetess, nowhere does it say she was a military commander, I checked it out, and it is not found anywhere.

I know some websites says that, but that title for her is not in there, just because she gave direction as a prophetess, does not mean she was a military commander, just like Jeremiah gave direction, but it does not say he was a military commander, stop adding to the word.

God's word cannot be changed, feelings is not what should lead us.

 

[Gerbolski]

1Ti 2:12-13
(12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

This remains the same, the argument of I feel this or that about it, is no way to justifying changing what it says, if God says no, it is no, no matter how we try to reason things otherwise, or saying the Holy Ghost this, or the Holy Ghost that.

 

[Gerbolski]

The harmony of scripture you presented—which I like, by the way—can now also be seen as supporting it.

I do not agree with that, because being the preacher and teacher of the assembly is different from witnessing, or of just warning individuals.

 

[Gerbolski]

Judges

Jdg 2:16-18
(16) Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
(17) And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a ******* after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.
(18) And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

The thing is that judges would give some type of direction politically, and even give direction towards the military at times, but the military had to obey, give heed, the judges would judge matters.

But prophetesses would give direction as well.

And in the case of Gideon he was a judge but also fought with the sword, Deborah was a judge but did not.

A military commander, is a military commander, and a judge is a judge.

As we can see in our text the people had to harken to the judge, and if they did not, there were consequences.

So how God sees judges, he sees them, and we just need to agree with God.

 

[Gerbolski]

The one that Deborah had association with was Barak, it does not say exactly what he was, but he was a military personnel, which some say he was the military commander.

Though in this case, I admit it cannot be proven word for word, but no doubt he was high up in the military.

So concerning Barak, was Deborah used as a judge or as a prophetess towards him, well one thing is for sure, she was both.

And who knows it could have been both.

But concerning Barak, it does say this:

Jdg 4:6
(6) And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

So it may be implied here concerning Barak possibly being the military commander, and it is said also of Gideon that he was a judge and a military commander.

But being a judge all by itself does not mean that someone is a military commander.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Your reasoning about me saying, God's ways towards a man and women has not changed, the way your are saying it is very strange, and how I am putting God in a box in saying this is also very strange.

Deborah was a Judge and a prophetess that is what it clearly shows, not a military commander, even though she did give direction in that matter but as a prophetess, nowhere does it say she was a military commander, I checked it out, and it is not found anywhere.

I know some websites says that, but that title for her is not in there, just because she gave direction as a prophetess, does not mean she was a military commander, just like Jeremiah gave direction, but it does not say he was a military commander, stop adding to the word.

God's word cannot be changed, feelings is not what should lead us.

Agreed that it's not about feelings, so don't let it be.
Would that battle have happened if Deborah had not gone with Barak? (Judges 4:8) There are leaders, and there are followers in the military. Clearly, Barak was a follower of Deborah, for he would not have been there if Deborah was not there on that day. Plus, I don't recall ever reading a Song (Judges 5) being sung after a battle that included a prophet. Giving all Glory to God of course. You really need to set feelings aside and give a person their due. Especially as they are being faithful to what God has asked of them to do.

To address your opening. Well, you might find it strange, but it is your words I am quoting there. For it's not the harmony of the word you are commenting on, which I can agree with, but you are making it specific to "God's ways towards man and women". Maybe, you could have expanded upon it out a bit more, but you did not, so I read it as presented to me by you.

See brother believe it or not I too believe that women should not be in authority over men, however, here is where we differ. If no man is willing to step up, then God will use a woman to do so! For ultimately it is God's Will that must/will, be done.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

1Ti 2:12-13
(12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

This remains the same, the argument of I feel this or that about it, is no way to justifying changing what it says, if God says no, it is no, no matter how we try to reason things otherwise, or saying the Holy Ghost this, or the Holy Ghost that.

And what did I say concerning the culture of the day, and the presentation of the Adam Clarke's commentary?
Keep in mind that Rome's existence, and law predated Christianity, and with the openness of the Gentiles, and women specifically, inclusion to the church by women noted in the NT, it became necessary to define certain rules of decorum. Like what I said in the last post I just sent to you; "If no man is willing to step up, then God will use a woman to do so! For ultimately it is God's Will that must/will, be done."

When it comes to God the Holy Spirit, I’d be careful about challenging Him on various matters or attributing His guidance to human reasoning. I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant, but only the person He’s communicating with can truly know the purpose of His guidance. Even then it might not be clear at first, but staying faithful to it often makes everything much clearer in time.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Gerbolski]

Jdg 4:8
(8) And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

Jdg 4:14
(14) 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.

It was Barak that asked Deborah to go with him, and he said he would not go, unless she would go, but that does not make her a a military commander, the 10,000 men went after Barak, not after Deborah.

She was clearly a judge and a prophetess, and not in command of 10,000 men, for Barak was in command of them, that is not going by feelings, that is what it shows that they went after Barak, not after Deborah.

Deborah told Barak what God told her, and he wanted her there, plain and simple.

 

[Gerbolski]

Kings and Judges

We know that God allowed Deborah to be a judge, but what about kings?

Well we know that at the beginning, God did not want a king, but allowed it because of Israel's insistence.

Well what does the bible say about kings ?


Deu 17:15-17
(15) Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
(16) But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
(17) Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

God shows that he chose men to be kings, and that they should not have many wives, which obviously shows that they should have one wife.

Now many kings did not do a good job of things and at the beginning did have one wife, but eventually multiplied many wives, which was not good, and some kings God chose, and there are others which was not God's choice.

Well in the New covenant, we have a similar standard towards Bishops and deacons, how they must be the husband of one wife, and today through the cross of calvary, we have been made free from the power of sin to reign in our lives, but then the cross had not happened.

So then is there a difference between a king and a judge ?

God did allow one woman judge, but no woman king.

There may be a slight difference between court judges and the judges of the Old testament, but in some ways, do they have similarities, because both did and do, types of judgments.

If God says something, let us stick to what he says, and if God sees things a certain way, let us stick to how he sees things, King's were to be the husband of one wife, and overseers are to be the husbands of one wife, and it actually says that, no culture there.

 

[Gerbolski]

Deu 17:15-17
(15) Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
(16) But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
(17) Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

God gave instruction towards this, not culture.