Women speaking in church 5 - 1 Timothy 2

[Boo]

Step back, Jack. I'm neither feminist nor homosexual; consequently, your brush is erroneously and overly wide.


Once again, back off. Your assumptions here are that anyone who disagrees with your 'scholarly' opinion are flipping God the bird is just nonsense! There are at least 22 apostles named in the NT, and one is, in fact, female...Junias. If one chooses, as you apparently do, to ignore cultural differences, then that just points up poor scholarship and poor discernment. For you to fling the accusation that we are ignoring, or defying, God's authority, sovereignty, and will is nothing short of libelous.


Don't overlook Barnabas (Acts 13-14), Apollos (1 Corinthians), Timothy and Silas (1 Thessalonians), James, the Lord's brother, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, and Junias! Gimme a break, dude! These are all called apostles in the NT and there are waaaaaay more than 12! Don't try to dump your crappy old, "sinful disgrace" stuff on me, sir! I reject it, along with your presumptive judgments!

W

I took his comments the same way. It was obvious to me how the post was intended, so thanks for posting this response.

We still have the same God in place since before the Garden of Eden, and this same God has allowed women to testify and teach for longer than 2000 years.

I understand that there are men who would keep women silent despite their obvious ability to preach God's Word. I also think it doesn't matter if a woman preaches with mouth or print; it is still "preaching." If a woman writes a book concerning the Word of God that is instructional, is she OK as long as a man doesn't read it?

I have kept copies of some of the posts that Dani has written because they are so well done and so instructional. I guess Dani sinned because I am a man? Or did I sin because I heeded them? (Thanks, Dani, I do enjoy your posts!)

No, my brothers (and sisters), I took Paul's words as his desires for the time when the cultural differences demanded a decision in order to keep order in the church. I am not a "feminist" in the derogatory way that people use the term. I do believe that God blesses women with genetic differences that make them different than men (hallelujah!), but He also gives them the same spiritual gifts that He gives to men. For them to ignore God's calling to exercise those gifts would be very sad.

I have lead classes and delivered sermons, but I'd bet that some women are better at it than I am. I delievered what God gave me and I'm sure that women are gifted to do the same thing. I also do not think that the act of preaching consitutes exercising authority over a man, so that is a totally different subject which I will not go into right now.

Clay and Dani, keep on sharing........

[Dani H]

Clay and Dani, keep on sharing........

Hahahahaha if you knew me, you'd also know that I need no encouragement, although I highly appreciate it! Right back at you, brother!

You know, I'm all for order. I appreciate and respect God's order. But I see God's order being used as an excuse to subject others. That's hogwash. There is neither male nor female in Christ. We're all equal. There's none above or below. We're told to put others above ourselves. So what's with putting other people below oneself? That's just pride. That's all it is. Using Bible to hide your pride behind = bad. Real bad.

I understand the husband/wife order. I think it's beautiful. I respect my husband. But you know what? Only my husband is my husband, and only he is my head and that picture of Jesus to me, like I am that picture of the Lord's Bride to him. The rest of y'all ... sorry, not so much.

Having said THAT ... I respect any man who knows how to treat women properly. Not just outwardly and publicly, but privately and inwardly, and who has that integrity 100% all the time. Those kinds of men are treasures who deserve our respect and encouragement. Because the way women are treated in the world as a whole ... breaks my heart. Not many men have to be told to subject, use and objectify women. It's like a built-in thing to subject those one perceives as weaker and to depersonalize them.

If you have to be told to NOT subject others, then it's probably because it's not something that comes naturally to us in our fallen state. Think about that.

To those men out there who treasure the women in their lives, I say: Thank you. May the Lord shower His great blessings on you and use you as examples to a world in great need of what you have to give.

[Jemand]

I took his comments the same way. It was obvious to me how the post was intended, so thanks for posting this response.

I wrote the words and I know what was intended—and I was not at all suggesting that Watchman is a feminist or a homosexual. Such a thought had never entered my mind! What has there ever been in any of his posts that suggests such a thing? Nothing, nothing at all!

I took Paul's words as his desires for the time when the cultural differences demanded a decision in order to keep order in the church.

You mistakenly “took” my words to say something that had never entered my mind! And you mistakenly “took” Paul’s words to say something that had never entered his mind! There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament or the writings of the Early Church Father’s that remotely suggests that what we read in his First Epistle to Timothy represents Paul’s “desires for the time when the cultural differences demanded a decision in order to keep order in the church.” Just as you did with my post, you are reading into the words of Paul thoughts and intentions which are not there! Indeed, as I have already posted, Paul tells Timothy the real reason why women are forbidden to speak in church,

1 Tim. 2:11. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NASB, 1995)

This has absolutely nothing to do with “cultural differences.”

Whenever Paul quotes or references the Old Testament to support his teaching, the teaching being supported is always, without exception, a timeless truth of substantial importance! That is exactly what we have in this passage before us.

I am not a "feminist" in the derogatory way that people use the term. I do believe that God blesses women with genetic differences that make them different than men (hallelujah!), but He also gives them the same spiritual gifts that He gives to men. For them to ignore God's calling to exercise those gifts would be very sad.

No woman should ever ignore God’s calling, but God did not call Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and God has never called any woman to sin in any other manner. He has blessed men and women with the same spiritual gifts, but He has also instructed both men and women regarding the use of those gifts.

I have lead classes and delivered sermons, but I'd bet that some women are better at it than I am. I delievered what God gave me and I'm sure that women are gifted to do the same thing. I also do not think that the act of preaching consitutes exercising authority over a man, so that is a totally different subject which I will not go into right now.

You have “lead,” you would “bet”, you “delivered,” you are “sure,” you “do not think,” but the Bible says,

1 Tim. 2:11. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NASB, 1995)

[The past form of the verb “lead” is “led,” not “lead.”]

[Watchman]

I wrote the words and I know what was intended—and I was not at all suggesting that Watchman is a feminist or a homosexual. Such a thought had never entered my mind! What has there ever been in any of his posts that suggests such a thing? Nothing, nothing at all!

Hi Jemand,

I'm hoping to have some time to jump back in here tonight. In the mean time, I stand by how your words came across in this medium; however, I take you at your word that this was unintended. Hopefully, everyone else will too! Bless you, brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ybiC,

Watchman

[svfox]

As I read the posts I had this thought. Whent he Angels tell Mary that Jesus is not here..he has risen from the dead.
Mary didn't run back to the men and say, 'Sorry I can't tell you because this would be teaching you and women aren't allowed to do that.'

Why does God bind every woman to Eve and her sin/actions??? I have no idea.
That is one big judgement.

When abortion comes up. I don't just say you can't have an abortion and go around telling women what they can or can't do. I say let me check the bible and God clearly opposes abortion saying don't do it as you risk my wrath and vengeance. God also tells us more about how he sees the unborn when he tells: when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting that the baby in her own womb, John the Baptist, "leaped for joy"

I expect all of God's commands to be dismantled one by one, since they are tests, and I am sure we are in the great falling away period.
So the bible will be diluted and as I look at the failings in the past it fits pretty good.

I also don't have problem with bible study. It is not teaching as much as people learning and sharing. It is more discovering than teaching. Later you can find the pastor and ask him all the questions and listen silently as he explains. Then go back to the bible and start researching over and over.


One part we can all take part in,
All scripture is inspired of God - The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer. Hence it is so profitable for doctrine, for instruction of the ignorant, for the reproof or conviction of them that are in error or sin, for the correction or amendment of whatever is amiss, and for instructing or training up the children of God in all righteousness.

We can all keep our teachers in line if we come across a truth the pastor doesn't know about and we enlighten him.

[Watchman]

We can all keep our teachers in line if we come across a truth the pastor doesn't know about and we enlighten him.

Teachers and pastors should be one in the same!

W

[Boo]

Teachers and pastors should be one in the same!

W

Actually, brother, the gift of shepherding and that of teaching are different. While we commonly expect to find the pastor doing the teaching, I have seen more effective teachings from people other than the pastor.

Eph 4:11-14 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

[Boo]

I wrote the words and I know what was intended—and I was not at all suggesting that Watchman is a feminist or a homosexual. Such a thought had never entered my mind! What has there ever been in any of his posts that suggests such a thing? Nothing, nothing at all!



You mistakenly “took” my words to say something that had never entered my mind! And you mistakenly “took” Paul’s words to say something that had never entered his mind! There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament or the writings of the Early Church Father’s that remotely suggests that what we read in his First Epistle to Timothy represents Paul’s “desires for the time when the cultural differences demanded a decision in order to keep order in the church.” Just as you did with my post, you are reading into the words of Paul thoughts and intentions which are not there! Indeed, as I have already posted, Paul tells Timothy the real reason why women are forbidden to speak in church,

1 Tim. 2:11. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NASB, 1995)

This has absolutely nothing to do with “cultural differences.”

Whenever Paul quotes or references the Old Testament to support his teaching, the teaching being supported is always, without exception, a timeless truth of substantial importance! That is exactly what we have in this passage before us.



No woman should ever ignore God’s calling, but God did not call Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and God has never called any woman to sin in any other manner. He has blessed men and women with the same spiritual gifts, but He has also instructed both men and women regarding the use of those gifts.



You have “lead,” you would “bet”, you “delivered,” you are “sure,” you “do not think,” but the Bible says,

1 Tim. 2:11. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NASB, 1995)

[The past form of the verb “lead” is “led,” not “lead.”]

Well, your intent and how it comes across are vastly different. Watchman was not the only person painted by that brush.

Also, brother, there is a thing known as history and it is written in documents that are not contained in the scriptures. There are records from people who lived in that time who recorded events of the church in the time of Paul and the early Christian churches. Those documents and Paul's writings themselves reveal events which took place.

It is really interesting to find out what the early church was like. So many times, I have been given to understand things that were apparently complicated because of the writings of people like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Theophilus, Irenaeus, etc, etc.

When Paul claims "I," he is speaking of his choices, not God's. Paul was sure to tell us when it was his instruction and not God's. His purpose at that time was to ensure order within the church. It does not mean it was for everyone and for all time. When told something that God revealed, it is. Why do you think Paul told us that God said marriage cannot be dissoved except for adultry, but then Paul said that it can be in the case of believers and non-believers? That was not God's intructions, they were Paul's. He made it clear when he said "but I say."

I see no difference when Paul said " I do not allow....." Your chosen belief would not allow a woman to write a book either - a man might read it.

[Watchman]

Actually, brother, the gift of shepherding and that of teaching are different. While we commonly expect to find the pastor doing the teaching, I have seen more effective teachings from people other than the pastor.

Eph 4:11-14 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

Hey Boo,

I've always considered the gifts to be separate, too. There's a construction in Greek in that verse that falls under the Granvill Sharp rule that indicates shepherds and teachers refer to the same person. If a shepherd cannot teach, then they are likely not gifted by God as a pastor. They've likely been chosen by either themselves or others and not the Lord. Likewise, if one who teaches cannot properly serve the flock, then the same thing exists. We have many folks in the body of Christ today who are occupying functions for which they are not equipped. That being said, I'll not get my boxers in a bunch over the [doma] gifts being 5 or 4!

blessings,

W

[Colight]

Well, your intent and how it comes across are vastly different. Watchman was not the only person painted by that brush.

Also, brother, there is a thing known as history and it is written in documents that are not contained in the scriptures. There are records from people who lived in that time who recorded events of the church in the time of Paul and the early Christian churches. Those documents and Paul's writings themselves reveal events which took place.

It is really interesting to find out what the early church was like. So many times, I have been given to understand things that were apparently complicated because of the writings of people like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Theophilus, Irenaeus, etc, etc.

When Paul claims "I," he is speaking of his choices, not God's. Paul was sure to tell us when it was his instruction and not God's. His purpose at that time was to ensure order within the church. It does not mean it was for everyone and for all time. When told something that God revealed, it is. Why do you think Paul told us that God said marriage cannot be dissoved except for adultry, but then Paul said that it can be in the case of believers and non-believers? That was not God's intructions, they were Paul's. He made it clear when he said "but I say."

I see no difference when Paul said " I do not allow....." Your chosen belief would not allow a woman to write a book either - a man might read it.

Is the final excuse to ignore this command... it is just Paul speaking.... so we can ignore it because we do not like what he said, besides he wasn't speaking to us 2000 years later.
( I notice that people sure soak up the tongues thing which was also just a Paul speaking, yet these same people ignore and make excuses for Paul in different letters telling the women to be silent. )

Are we really to set doctrine based on non scriptural sources?
Especially when those sources, or at the very least the context of their interpretation , conflict with scripture?

There is a warning to those who disregard what Paul has laid out..
2 Peter 3
15....; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul was given wisdom.. so when he says he this is how he would run it.. it is not to be excused off.

You stated his purpose was to insure order in the Church...
Then by that logic, women teaching and speaking when the bible class is going on is a sign of DISORDER..
Now is women teaching in church really that important, to risk instability of the Church?
Is it that important to cater to the arrogance complex of some wayward out of control woman?


Therefore to have order they must be silent.
No teaching.. For women do not have the gift of Pastor teacher ( or was that just Paul speaking again )
No talking ( talk in the parking lot.. not when services are occurring...) For if they are talking they are not listening.

Just exactly is the purpose of the desire to have women talk any way?
What are they going to say that we should listen to... over the pastor with the God given gift cant say better and affect more people because he is in order when he speaks?

[Watchman]

moved this post...it appeared out of order for some reason

[Jemand]

Well, your intent and how it comes across are vastly different. Watchman was not the only person painted by that brush.

Also, brother, there is a thing known as history and it is written in documents that are not contained in the scriptures. There are records from people who lived in that time who recorded events of the church in the time of Paul and the early Christian churches. Those documents and Paul's writings themselves reveal events which took place.

Had you in reality read post #14 carefully enough to understand it, you would have been aware that I referred in that post to the writings of the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Father when I wrote,

For 1800 years, neither man nor woman dared to defy the authority of the Apostle Paul—but today, the authority of the Apostle Paul is being defied in our churches, our Bible colleges, and our seminaries. And this defiance is not being limited to the authority of the Apostle Paul—it is being extended to our Lord Christ Jesus—all in the name of “today’s culture!”

Moreover, had you in reality read those writings, you would know for yourself that none of them agree with the position that you and Watchman have put forth in your posts in this thread.

Furthermore, the syntactical relationship between the words and phrases in post #14 do not allow for the interpretation that you and watchman have incorrectly read into it. Anyone who is familiar with college-level English syntax would have very easily understood it. Indeed, anyone with who is familiar with eleventh-grade English syntax should have been able to understand it upon a careful reading.

Now let us take a look at the sentence in that post (which is the introductory sentence) that Watchman claims paints him as a feminist or a homosexual,

The argument from “the culture of the time” is the argument of feminists and homosexuals who defy the authority of God the Father, His Son Christ Jesus, and the Apostles of our Lord, and who argue that “today’s culture” has so drastically changed that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer applicable and that their lifestyle is not sinful in “today’s culture.”

This is a 64-word, complex compound sentence written at the 12th grade level. Let us break it down into its three main components:

The argument from “the culture of the time” is the argument of feminists and homosexuals

who defy the authority of God the Father, His Son Christ Jesus, and the Apostles of our Lord,

and who argue that “today’s culture” has so drastically changed that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer applicable and that their lifestyle is not sinful in “today’s culture.”

The subject of this 64-word sentence is, “The argument from “the culture of the time.” That argument is said to be “the argument of feminists and homosexuals.” That argument is NOT said to be limited to feminists and homosexuals. Indeed, I had already written in post #7 of the same thread that this argument was also the argument of “modernists.” Of whom else is this argument the argument? My posts do not say, and they do not suggest that I have provided a comprehensive list of the types of people who make such an argument!

The remaining two main components of the 64-word sentence describe some of the actions of the feminists and homosexuals who make such an argument. They do NOT describe the actions of the modernists or other groups of people who make such an argument.

[Watchman]

Jemand,

The reason I mistook your meaning is simple:

Premise 1: X is the reasoning of feminists and homosexuals.
Premise 2: Watchman is presenting X.
Conclusion: Watchman is feminist and/or homosexual.

As far as logic goes, this is a fallacious argument, but the implication is easily seen. With that being said, I've already recognized your lack of intent with regards to the meaning of the statement, so can we get back to 1 Timothy? I'll pop back in later with some more material and some replies, but for some reason, real life keeps me away from the computer! I pray we can all remember that this is not a debate and that we are not adversaries here. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. We have disagreements, and these are burdens we are commanded to bear for, and along with, each other. The purpose of this entire study is not to refute scripture, not to sway anyone away from truth, or to subvert the Lord's authority. It is simply to revisit a topic wherein there are varied beliefs, opinions, and interpretations. If anyone is here simply to argue, then you're in the wrong thread (nobody specific in mind here!)

Bless y'all!

Watchman

[Jemand]

It is really interesting to find out what the early church was like. So many times, I have been given to understand things that were apparently complicated because of the writings of people like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Theophilus, Irenaeus, etc, etc.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Theophilus, Irenaeus, etc, interpret Paul as I do, NOT as you do! Please read what they wrote before commenting upon what they wrote!

When Paul claims "I," he is speaking of his choices, not God's. Paul was sure to tell us when it was his instruction and not God's.

In the case before us, Paul expressly told Timothy hat he was instructing him with apostolic authority!

His purpose at that time was to ensure order within the church.

And order in the church is no longer important because our culture has changed?

It does not mean it was for everyone and for all time. When told something that God revealed, it is.

Whenever Paul quotes or references the Old Testament to support his teaching, the teaching being supported is always, without exception, a timeless truth of substantial importance! That is exactly what we have in this passage before us, 1 Tim. 2:11-14.

Why do you think Paul told us that God said marriage cannot be dissoved except for adultry, but then Paul said that it can be in the case of believers and non-believers? That was not God's intructions, they were Paul's.

Paul did NOT tell us that God said marriage cannot be dissolved except for adultery. The exception clause found in Matt. 5:32 is a very early scribal gloss that Jesus never uttered and which was unknown to Paul, Mark, and Luke—and which none of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers believed to be genuine Scripture! Please see the very extensive literature on this gloss.

He made it clear when he said "but I say."

The passage that you are referring to is in First Corinthians 7,

1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
16. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
17. Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.

In this passage, Paul is making a distinction between what Jesus taught and what he is teaching. Notice that in verse 10, Paul writes that Jesus does not allow for divorce for adultery or any other cause. Indeed, Paul is referencing Luke 16:18,

18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Do you believe in the inspiration of Scripture? Do you believe that Paul‘s writings are inspired Scripture? The apostle Peter did, and so do I.

I see no difference when Paul said " I do not allow....."

I see the difference that is expressly there! In 1 Cor. 7, Paul is distinguishing between what Jesus taught regarding marriage and divorce, and the further information that he provided as an apostle of the Church!

Your chosen belief would not allow a woman to write a book either - a man might read it.

My “chosen belief” is the belief of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers that you yourself referenced!

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995)

[MaryFreeman]

The great news is god has blessed us with technology. Women can freely author books, videos, blogs, and share their enormous intelligence.

But it does look like God is saying one of your punishments because you were the one deceived and fell into transgression is that man will be given the authority of teaching.
It is purely Gods choice. It has nothing to do with man being greater than a woman.

Sorry dear one.... "Our" punishment is that our desire be for our husband and that he will rule us.... I am not married to every man on the planet lol.... Thanks and praise be to God....

Gen 3:16 LITV He said to the woman, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception; you shall bear sons in sorrow, and your desire shall be toward your husband; and he shall rule over you.

Adam was in authority over Eve.... Not the whole of manfolk.... Just Adam.... And childbirth hurts like nobodies business.... The teaching that says all men are in authority over all women is false.... Just as false and just as foul as feminism.... And it was a pagan tradition to rate women as second class.... I personally believe Paul was trying to keep pagans from having as many reasons to persecute his flock as he could....

1Co 11:16 KJV But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul says this concerning long hair.... A lot of what Paul said was tailored to what he saw his flock going through at the time.... And sociological and political conditions played such a huge part in that.... Back then a known christian could not buy food for his family.... They didn't need any attention drawn to them.... They were already suffering so much....

But we have this day and age now where woman have so much education you ask how can they share. Again, Books, ebooks, blogs. God has provided a way.

Sigh....