PDA

View Full Version : Woman have no right to speak or preach?



SpeakSlow
Mar 26th 2007, 11:23 PM
1Cor.14

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[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.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

So, how does everyone feel about this? It is in the word (new testament nontheless) so I believe we should abide by it. BUT, their is still something very unsavory about it. I can think of so many women evangelists and whatnot.

What's the deal? Should we follow this or not?

Centurionoflight
Mar 26th 2007, 11:27 PM
So, how does everyone feel about this? It is in the word (new testament nontheless) so I believe we should abide by it. BUT, their is still something very unsavory about it. I can think of so many women evangelists and whatnot. It is not a issue of how we FEEL about it.
It is as God the spirit thru Paul stated it.




What's the deal? Should we follow this or not?
If one wants a focus on truth it should be followed.

1 tim 2

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

SpeakSlow
Mar 26th 2007, 11:35 PM
It is not a issue of how we FEEL about it.
It is as God the spirit thru Paul stated it.


If one wants a focus on truth it should be followed.


1 tim 2
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.


14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The only reason I used the word "feel" was because everyone seems to break this "rule" and I am wondering why it is so disregarded.

Like, if this is presented to a female preacher/evangelist what are they gonna do?

aurora77
Mar 26th 2007, 11:44 PM
The only reason I used the word "feel" was because everyone seems to break this "rule" and I am wondering why it is so disregarded.

Like, if this is presented to a female preacher/evangelist what are they gonna do?
I think that this verse shows that there shouldn't be female pastors or ministers. BUT, it doesn't say anything about women teaching in places other than the pulpit. After all, the most important person in teaching the faith to children is their mother.

If a denomination allows female pastors, and claims to follow the Bible completely, its leaders need to reconcile this issue; it doesn't seem like both can be true.

Centurionoflight
Mar 26th 2007, 11:50 PM
SpeakSlow



The only reason I used the word "feel" was because everyone seems to break this "rule" and I am wondering why it is so disregarded.


Man breaks alot of directions from God.



Like, if this is presented to a female preacher/evangelist what are they gonna do?


Make up some excuse as to why it doesnt apply to them.

SpeakSlow
Mar 27th 2007, 12:48 AM
Don't Lutherans (I believe many of you are Lutheran, no?) allow female pastors?

Steve M
Mar 27th 2007, 01:12 AM
A lot of mainstream Protestant organizations have folded. Some of the fundies have followed suit. The big money went that way a while back.

Most of the battle over this was fought silently in the 20s and 30s, in the seminaries.

It ought not to be so. The stakes are high--the discussions should be too.

TrustingFollower
Mar 27th 2007, 01:34 AM
1Cor 14:34
34The women are to (BF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=49#cen-NASB-28713BF))keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but (BG (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=49#cen-NASB-28713BG))are to subject themselves, just as (BH (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=49#cen-NASB-28713BH))the Law also says.

What law are they refering to in this verse?

ChristopherE
Mar 27th 2007, 01:45 AM
1Cor 14:34
34The women are to (BF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=49#cen-NASB-28713BF))keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but (BG (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=49#cen-NASB-28713BG))are to subject themselves, just as (BH (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=14&version=49#cen-NASB-28713BH))the Law also says.

What law are they refering to in this verse?

In first Timothy 2, Paul refers to the principle founded since Adam and Eve. "The Law" in general is the teachings of the OT - of course, in Paul's time, it would have just been the scriptures.

TrustingFollower
Mar 27th 2007, 02:15 AM
In first Timothy 2, Paul refers to the principle founded since Adam and Eve. "The Law" in general is the teachings of the OT - of course, in Paul's time, it would have just been the scriptures.
Was that law not fulfilled.

Hebrews 10:9-12
9then He said, "(R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30143R))BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

10By this will we have been (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144S))sanctified through (T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144T))the offering of (U (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144U))the body of Jesus Christ (V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144V))once for all.
11Every priest stands daily ministering and (W (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30145W))offering time after time the same sacrifices, which (X (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30145X))can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice (Y (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30146Y))for sins (Z (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30146Z))for all time, (AA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30146AA))SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

If we are no longer under Levitical law than how does this apply?

lrl
Mar 27th 2007, 02:54 AM
I looked these verses up in the Amplified Bible, because it is not an "interpretation of an interpretation", but rather of the original languages.

According to the Amplified, the words that Paul used:

4The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says.
35But if there is anything they want to learn, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to talk in church [for her to usurp and exercise authority over men in the church].

If we test scripture against scripture, we will see that there are other times when a woman's "place" is subordinate to mens. In fact, does it not say in Ephesians:

22Wives, be subject (be submissive and adapt yourselves) to your own husbands as [a service] to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Savior of [His] body.
24As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,

Let's pick this apart: wives are submissive to their husbands (and thus the spiritual "heads" of their families, including church family) as the church (the full body of believers) is submissive to Jesus. Their husbands are to love their wives as Jesus loves His church.

Using that scripture to help us define what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, it does NOT makes sense that Paul is telling the women to sit down and shut up.....because Jesus NEVER addressed His church in such a manner. Rather, Paul is reasserting a similar precedence: women are in submission to their husbands and then men in the church, meaning they are not in a position of power or authority over them. However, their husbands and the men of the church then make it their mission to love the women as Christ loves His body, His church.

Neither can the case be made that OT women were supposed to "sit down and shut up". Deborah, Esther and other's wouldn't have "made it" into the Bible if they had done so!

If we use additional scripture, we see women prominently displayed throughout scripture. Since God doesn't "waste" words or people in scripture, we have to assume that He wanted women prominently displayed in His Word for a reason.

Esther, Ruth, Deborah, Lydia and others.

Our Lord appeared first to women and sent a woman to tell the disciples of His resurrection! If Christ Himself trusted a woman to proclaim His resurrection (which would be difficult, if women are forbidden from speaking!) to His trusted disciples, can we not assume that Jesus would still ask women to do the same today?

Yet, at the same time, Jesus did not place any of these women into a position of "power". They were present, and they were participating, but ultimately the disciples were all men.

My firm belief is that men have been given the honor and responsibility of being the "head" spiritually. Women are not to usurp or assert their authority over men, but are certainly to be active members of the body in sharing the gospel! It's more of a supportive role then an authoritative role. If we have questions, we are supposed to go to our GOD appointed heads (the men in our "family") for help, not disrupt God's "flow" of things and take matters into their own hands. They can instruct and train, but do so in a supportive role.

It's certainly not "PC" to say women must "submit", but we MUST define "submit" the way the Bible does. Do we not submit when we are saved? Is that a submission of humiliation and abuse? Or a submission that ultimately leads to freedom and love?

threebigrocks
Mar 27th 2007, 03:04 AM
Yes, women are to be submissive. That doesn't mean that we are less.

Women are explicitly mentioned as being the teachers of the children and younger women. Imagine your church congregation on Sunday with all the adult men standing up. Look at all those sitting down, minus those women who are the older and spiritually mature women. That is what we as women are working with. The list of womens issues are lengthy in and of itself, let alone a myriad of other things. Can we never help or disciple a man? No, but there is a time where we must step away and let a man take over.

Either way, we are all to become less, so that Christ can become more. If we are indeed godly men and women, it ought not be an issue.

VerticalReality
Mar 27th 2007, 03:25 AM
Women's lib. has taken a toll on the church as a whole. This direction in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 pertaining to the role of women in the church was not temporary. It was not just due to the culture of the time. It was not because women of the day were ignorant. It was not because women of the day were out of order all the time in the service. Paul gave this instruction simply because this is the order that God has ordained in the church. It doesn't make men better and it doesn't make women lesser. It's simply the roles that God has ordained in the church and in the household. Today's society, with the help of a lot of chauvinistic men out there trying to take advantage of this order, has attempted to abolish this instruction given in the Word of God. This is just another area where the church has shoved aside the Word for their own agenda.

aurora77
Mar 27th 2007, 03:43 AM
Yes, women are to be submissive. That doesn't mean that we are less.

Exactly. That is a huge problem facing society and the Church today--the idea that men and women are the same. We are all beloved in the eyes of God, but that doesn't make us the same. To say that men and women have the same roles, the same gifts is to make light of both men and women. Men are called to be the leaders of congregations, but that doesn't diminish the role of women in any way. As a Catholic, I've really had to deal with this issue, as the Church does not ordain women to the priesthood. I've known a number of more liberal Catholics who thought this was just some remnant of the dark ages; they didn't understand the Scriptural support for the idea of the all male priesthood.

I like the point that Irl made; it wasn't until last year that I began to more clearly understand that teaching in Ephesians. Yes, women are called to "submit" to the authority of their husbands, but submit doesn't = doormat. Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church--they should be ready to give their lives for their wives.

Jesusinmyheart
Mar 27th 2007, 04:04 AM
Hint to the word "Let" your women keep silent. it does not mean the same as Make, don't allow..... it was said to establish order as scripture was taught and read, and women were hitherto not allowed to participate, and now they were asking questions shouting across the room to their husbands asking what this or that meant.

This has been discussed to death before, and here's a great thread on this:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=55872 and it went into the controversials forum after the debate.....

VerticalReality
Mar 27th 2007, 04:11 AM
Hint to the word "Let" your women keep silent. it does not mean the same as Make, don't allow..... it was said to establish order as scripture was taught and read, and women were hitherto not allowed to participate, and now they were asking questions shouting across the room to their husbands asking what this or that meant.

This has been discussed to death before, and here's a great thread on this:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=55872 and it went into the controversials forum after the debate.....

This seems pretty straight forward and absolute to me . . .



1 Timothy 2:12-14
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


It doesn't sound to me like he's speaking of women shouting across the room at their husbands. It sounds to me like he's setting the church straight on the role of women in the church, and that they are not to teach or have authority over a man. Pretty clear cut.

Jesusinmyheart
Mar 27th 2007, 04:27 AM
VR,
you left out the most critical verse to understanding the rest of what you posted in context:

1Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
Let = allow ..... for this particular group of verses, as it deals more with women learning the Word of God.

Anyway, i strongly recoment reading the thread i mentioned previously, it goes into all thast debate that will ensue once again here.
I'm not really in the frame of mind to rehash all that.

ChristopherE
Mar 27th 2007, 05:04 AM
Was that law not fulfilled.

Hebrews 10:9-12
9then He said, "(R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30143R))BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

10By this will we have been (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144S))sanctified through (T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144T))the offering of (U (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144U))the body of Jesus Christ (V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30144V))once for all.
11Every priest stands daily ministering and (W (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30145W))offering time after time the same sacrifices, which (X (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30145X))can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice (Y (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30146Y))for sins (Z (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30146Z))for all time, (AA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=49#cen-NASB-30146AA))SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

If we are no longer under Levitical law than how does this apply?

There's a difference between the levitcal law and moral principal. Man is always to live by God's moral law.

chisel
Mar 27th 2007, 05:53 AM
I see there's a lot of misunderstanding regarding Paul's words about women. It's not really what you think it is...

You have to understand the environment and the circumstances in the early Christian church, then you'll see why Paul's words are practical.
Firstly, the early Christians didn't have temples where they could gather once and week for a formal service. During these times the followers of Christ were pretty much an underground movement, gathering once a week in people's houses, almost like a cell group. This week your house, that week my house etc. etc.

Something else that you need to understand is that the early Christians consisted of people with mixed backgrounds, some jewish, some gentile Christians. Paul had his hands full keeping the peace, much of Paul's writings are about tolerance between jewish and gentile Christians, because the jewish Christians still retained much of the Mosaic law and obviously the gentile Christians didn't.

In Romans 14 Paul encourages people to respect each other's traditions and as I said, it was difficult because you had jews and gentiles coming together, each with their own traditions and rightly so, because the law of circumcision was never given to the gentile, neither was the sabbath law, but is was given to the jew.

Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Romans 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Hopefully that gave you a bit of background regarding the early church, and makes it easier to understand Paul's seemingly chauvisnic statements.
Jewish law states that women must cover their heads in public and that women should keep quiet in public and behave a certain way. According to law she can do whatever she wants at home, but in public places, there were very strict laws.

See the problem?

Once a week the early Christians assembled in people's houses, so naturally the woman of the house feels that she is allowed to speak and needn't cover her head, because she's at home.

However, the other Christians saw it as a public gathering and thus a public place. This obviously offends the other jewish Christians, because these women are talking and walking around with their heads uncovered.
So to keep the peace, Paul said to the women that the house becomes like a public place when there's a gathering and that the women should behave as if they were in public, so as not to offend the other people.
It is not at all about not having female preachers of having female public speakers at all.

The Holy Spirit was poured out on men and women alike.

Those verses don't apply to us today. It was just a practical means to keep the peace in the early congregations.

I hope you folks find this helpful.

VerticalReality
Mar 27th 2007, 12:25 PM
VR,
you left out the most critical verse to understanding the rest of what you posted in context:

1Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
Let = allow ..... for this particular group of verses, as it deals more with women learning the Word of God.

Anyway, i strongly recoment reading the thread i mentioned previously, it goes into all thast debate that will ensue once again here.
I'm not really in the frame of mind to rehash all that.

I simply didn't include it because you had already posted it. I just gave the rest of the passage that you left out. He's not talking about women shouting across the church at their husbands. He's simply talking about women teaching and having authority over men.

Also, the Greek term for "let" there is mathano and it means the following . . .


1) to learn, be appraised
a) to increase one's knowledge, to be increased in knowledge
b) to hear, be informed
c) to learn by use and practice 1) to be in the habit of, accustomed to

This does not indicate anything about this being something that needs to be "allowed", and it's not a debatable issue depending on the circumstances. This is a direct statement made by Paul in regards to the role of women in the church. They are to be in subjection. There's no other way around it. We can sit here and try to add to scripture and state that it was because women were shouting across the church at their husbands, but that is simply assumption based upon people's distaste for the subject matter. Nowhere does Paul indicate that this is the case. We should simply take the passage of scripture for what it says. If Paul states that women are not to teach men or have authority over them, that should be the end of it and we should accept the direction we've been given.

VerticalReality
Mar 27th 2007, 12:36 PM
I hope you folks find this helpful.

I believe it's in disagreement with Scripture. Paul gave his reasoning for why he was making his statements in 1 Timothy 2, and it wasn't because it was Jewish custom or the culture of the time. Paul's reason was an unchanging fact of history that never changes regardless of the culture or who is involved.



1 Timothy 2:12-14
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


This reason that Paul gave is not because of Jewish law. It's not because people of the day would have been offended. It's because of what happened in the Garden of Eden when Eve was deceived by the serpent.

If you will take notice of Genesis 3 and what God said to Eve . . .



Genesis 3:16
To the woman He said:
I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.


This is the role that women have been given since the fall. This was before the Jewish law and it was not due to the culture.

The Parson
Mar 27th 2007, 01:32 PM
I too believe that the scriptures are plain spoken over the roles of men and women. This is quite a controversial subject so I ask that passions stay in check if we continue it.

Toolapc
Mar 27th 2007, 01:39 PM
Well today women have rights and its ok for them to teach. im sure paul would be very upset with all the false teachings that we have today. Back in those times women had no rights today they have rights.
Mary Magdalena is a great example of a women with no rights but she was alive in christ and new more on heavenly things then the other apostles. she wasnt aloud to teach and when she did teach the apostle were jealous because God chose her. Today women have rights and they should be able to teach.

This reminds me of another topic why priests cant marry. The bible clearly says that a bishop must have a wife. For some reason the church has broken this Rule and a lot of pain it has caused our priests. im watching that show God or the girl and these poor kids should be able to marry and be a priest. The chruch should change this rule and follow what the bible says

ikester7579
Mar 27th 2007, 02:18 PM
Part 1:

There is a difference between the words speak and preach. And by the way, "preach" is actually in God's word, and here are all the verses in just the new testament that contain the word preach.


mt 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

mt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

mt 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

mt 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

mt 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

mt 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

mt 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

mt 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

mt 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

mk 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

mk 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

mk 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

mk 1:38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.

mk 1:39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.

mk 2:2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

mk 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

mk 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

mk 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

mk 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

mk 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

lk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

lk 3:18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.

lk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

lk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

lk 4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

lk 4:44 And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.

lk 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

lk 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

lk 9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

lk 9:6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

lk 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

lk 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

lk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

lk 20:1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

lk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

acts 4:2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

acts 8:25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.

acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

acts 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

acts 9:27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

acts 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

acts 11:20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus.

acts 13:5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

acts 14:7 And there they preached the gospel.

acts 14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

acts 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

acts 14:25 And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia:

acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

acts 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

acts 15:36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the LORD, and see how they do.

acts 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

acts 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

ikester7579
Mar 27th 2007, 02:20 PM
Part:2


acts 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

acts 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

acts 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

acts 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

rom 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

rom 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

rom 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

1cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1cor 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1cor 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1cor 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1cor 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

1cor 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

1cor 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

1cor 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

1cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1cor 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

1cor 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

1cor 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

2cor 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

2cor 2:12 Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,

2cor 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

2cor 10:14 For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:

2cor 10:16 To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

2cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2cor 11:7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?

gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

gal 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

gal 4:13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.

gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

phil 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

phil 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:

phil 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

1thess 2:9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

1tim 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

1tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

2tim 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

2tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

2tim 4:17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

tit 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

1pet 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

1pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

1pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1pet 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

2pet 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,


And in all the listings above of every verse in the NT, not one forbids a woman to preach. All those verses prove that the translators had full ability and knowledge to use the word preach, instead of speak, when addressing a woman in God's word.

Does God's word actually make speaking and preaching two separate things?

mt 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

1cor 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

It is a known fact that a woman will speak 3-5 times more words that a man will in one day. Now, knowing this, and knowing God created both man and woman. Do you not think that this was said so that women would try and be quite while the word is being preached?

Speak: talk: express in speech.

Preach: deliver a sermon; "The minister is not preaching this Sunday". A sermon is an oration by a prophet or member of the clergy. Sermons address a biblical, theological, or religious topic, usually expounding on a type of belief or law (preaching).

1Cor.14

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[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.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1) You don't see the word gospel in those verses.
2) You do not see the use of the word preach.

In fact, I see "no" referrence to the woman who would speak, and be wrong to do so, as holding any position of authorative speaking. So are those verses pointing at women not preaching? Let's look closer.

Notice the referrence to women being plural. Now what part of the church is going to have several women? The congregation. Now notice that also the word husbands is plural as well. So what part of the church has several husbands? The congregation.

Now notice the word obedience. Now under what law, or covenant is the woman obedient to man? In marraige.

tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

To sun it up:
1) never in God's word is a woman stoned for being a prophetess (speaking God's word).
2) Out of all the verses where the word "preach" is used, never is it forbidden for women to preach.

Sorry about the long posts, but for the point to be made it had to be shown how many time the word preach is used. And how there is "no" referrence to a woman forbidden to preach.

aurora77
Mar 27th 2007, 02:24 PM
Well today women have rights and its ok for them to teach. im sure paul would be very upset with all the false teachings that we have today. Back in those times women had no rights today they have rights.

It's not a case of women not being allowed to teach; it's that women are not allowed to become pastors/ministers/priests/whatever you call the head of your church. There's a big difference. It's not about women's rights or men's rights, it's about embracing those different, yet both valuable roles given to us by God. Sure it's un-PC not to have women pastors, but God is the One who sets the rules, not society.

lrl
Mar 27th 2007, 02:44 PM
I very much disagree with Vim (for the record, I am a woman). I do not believe that any part of the NT "expired" with the early church. God's word is today, tomorrow and always.

Why would God put, in His book for all generations, only specific directions for a specific group at a specific time? Why record it forever? I'm certain there were conversations had during NT time regarding appropriate clothing (specifics regarding what to wear), etc..... and we don't see those comments recorded for future generations. It is dangerous to dismiss the word of God as something for "other people".

I dare say that it is "adding" to scripture to assume that Paul only meant it (by setting the "stage" of why it would have been said...........when that "stage" is not recorded, anywhere, in scripture) for that church. God did not waste words......the entire Bible is to be used for teaching.

2 Timothy 3:16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Not some, all. If parts have expired, which parts? It is dangerous, dangerous to claim parts of God's word have "expired" and no longer apply, particularly in the NT. Again, why would God have recorded it for all time?

To say that Paul was just trying to gain control of a "crowd" makes the words trivial. It's just a guy frustrated by all the noise and commotion, trying to calm the crowd down. It's like a glimpse into Paul's journal for the day: "Dear Diary, man those Jewish women are driving me NUTS! Don't they know that they only have right in their own homes...not the homes of others?? Sheesh. The only way for me to get their attention is for me to tell those ladies to pipe down!".

I don't believe that God puts "trivial" words in the Bible. If they are there, they are there for a reason. If He recorded the trivial, or things that only applied in first century churches, the Bible would have been a far larger book then it is.

If what Paul said only applied to the first century church, is the same true for all of his letter he wrote to those first century churches? Can we just dismiss the books of Corinthians? Galatians? Ephesians? Philippians? After all, he was writing to specific churches. Have these books "expired" because we don't live in Corinth?

But even IF Paul was saying this (and it was recorded after-the-fact) only to that group of believers, we have plenty of other scripture to back-up the "submissive" role of women.

Alabama Larry in K
Mar 27th 2007, 04:19 PM
See Joyce Meyer topic right below.

Frances
Mar 27th 2007, 05:17 PM
If no woman are to teach a man anything I wonder why Jesus Christ ensured the first person He met after He rose from the grave was a woman - and why He told her to teach (tell = teach) His disciples that glorious fact. . . and why God allowed Philip's four daughters to prophesy. (Acts 21:9) etc.etc.etc.

and why today He enables so many women to, very effectively, evangelise and lead so many people to the Lord. . . .

VerticalReality
Mar 27th 2007, 05:57 PM
If no woman are to teach a man anything I wonder why Jesus Christ ensured the first person He met after He rose from the grave was a woman - and why He told her to teach (tell = teach) His disciples that glorious fact. . . and why God allowed Philip's four daughters to prophesy. (Acts 21:9) etc.etc.etc.

and why today He enables so many women to, very effectively, evangelise and lead so many people to the Lord. . . .

Telling does not equal teaching and the same can be said for prophecy. In addition, the Scriptures do not say that a woman can't teach. It says that a woman should not teach a man.

ikester7579
Mar 28th 2007, 12:05 AM
Prophet: an authoritative person who divines the future
someone who speaks by divine inspiration; someone who is an interpreter of the will of God.

Prophetess: the female version of the above.

Both are in God's word. And never does it say that either cannot exist.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 01:18 AM
I don't believe that God puts "trivial" words in the Bible.

Sure he does:

Song of Solomon 8:8 We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts:
what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?


God allows a lot of things in scripture, even peoples own opinions:


1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Paul often will give his own advice which was not commanded to him by God. I believe the case of women not teaching is Paul's own opinion, not something God commanded. God nowhere states that women shouldn't teach in fact as has been shown God has used women as leaders and teachers and prophets!

divaD
Mar 28th 2007, 01:53 AM
Sure he does:

Song of Solomon 8:8 We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts:
what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?


God allows a lot of things in scripture, even peoples own opinions:


1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Paul often will give his own advice which was not commanded to him by God. I believe the case of women not teaching is Paul's own opinion, not something God commanded. God nowhere states that women shouldn't teach in fact as has been shown God has used women as leaders and teachers and prophets!







1 Timothy 2:11 *Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
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.
15 *Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.



This doesn't sound like an opinion , this sounds like revelation knowledge. I believe the context about Adam and Eve would be the clue that this is more than an opinion.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 01:58 AM
1 Timothy 2:11 *Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
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.
15 *Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.



This doesn't sound like an opinion , this sounds like revelation knowledge. I believe the context about Adam and Eve would be the clue that this is more than an opinion.

That proves an opinion because God needs no supporting evidence for any command. God doesn't need to justify anything. Did you miss that Paul said "I suffer not a woman" rather than "God suffers not a woman"?

lrl
Mar 28th 2007, 02:13 AM
Again, however, ALL scripture is God breathed. It's there for a reason.

Again, do we dismiss all writings by Paul, because they are mostly his opinion?

How can we reconcile that ALL scripture is God breathed, then say "expect when it's an opinion"?

Or does 2 Tim 3:16 not count either, since it was Paul saying it to Timothy?

I would never claim that any of God's words are "trivial". A specific "word", or even one verse....when taken away from the entirety of scripture.....can be trivial. But when considered in context, as part of the "whole" of scripture, it is not trivial. Like any work of literature, a single sentence can mean nothing. Yet when put in a paragraph, it's clear that the paragraph wouldn't be complete without the single sentence that initially appeared trivial.

Oh, and I never said (since you're quoting me) that women couldn't teach. I said that scripture says women cannot usurp the authority of men in the body, that they are submissive to them. They have a supportive role, but not an authoritative role. In an earlier post I specifically named great women that God used to further His work......clearly if women were supposed to just "shut up and sit down", they wouldn't be recorded in scripture.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 02:30 AM
Again, however, ALL scripture is God breathed. It's there for a reason.

Doesn't mean every word is a command from God either.


Again, do we dismiss all writings by Paul, because they are mostly his opinion?

No. We use discernment and wisdom to know when Paul is giving an opinion or when God is commanding through him.

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 05:53 AM
Dear all,

Allow me to clarify my position since I'm being accused of 'dismissing' scripture eg. "Can we just dismiss the books of Corinthians? Galatians? Ephesians? Philippians?"

I never said that women should not submit to men. I agree with that.

I agree with all the attributes that Peter states,

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
(1Pe 3:1-4)

Notice that Peter does not command the women to silence, but meekness and quietness. Both Peter and Paul fully understand how distracting a beautiful women all dressed up can be, that's why they need to be meek and quiet, and not adorned with jewelry etc. Does this mean that a women cannot wear a gold wedding band? No!
Dress so as not to be a distraction. That is the point of the message.

Both Paul and Peter fully understood how distracting a loud and prideful woman can be. Hence the statements. Does that mean a woman may not speak at all? No, but be meek and quiet in nature.

Paul however commands silence and that women shouldn't teach, something none of the other apostles command. Why?

I believe Paul had a unique problem that Peter didn't have since Peter focussed mostly on evangelising Jews, who already fully understood the behavioral etiquette.
Paul's congregations were a mixture, of jewish and gentile background, and the gentiles did not have such rules for behavior. In fact the gentiles had female gods such as venus, aphrodite, sophia etc. so they were used to a completely different environment.

Paul solves the ensuing confusion and conflict by saying:

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
(1Co 14:33-35)

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (1Co 11:6).
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1Ti 2:12)

Who suffers not a woman to teach? Paul!

The above verses are pretty clear that Paul has problems with the churches. In fact the entire book of 1 Corinthians was a letter written to sort out the problems faced by that congregation.

Does this mean that I am making the bible trivial? No, those same problems exist today and if the idea behind Paul's and Peter's writings are understood, they can be applied today.

Am I saying that not all scripture is useful? No! But not all scripture should be considered law.

Otherwise we should at all times sit on the grass, because Christ commanded it.
Mat 14:19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass

And I'm definitely not obeying the following command.
Hos 1:2 ...And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms...

Some scriptures have legal values, some have prophetic value, some have situational value.

It's a pity that 2 Timothy 3:16 is always used as a weapon to add legalistic value to certain scripture, that should be interpreted otherwise.

For the record:
I can't actually think of any female preacher worth defending. Certainly not JOyce Meyer, so I'm not going against what Paul said, but I'm not going to be legalistic about it, because I understand his reasoning.

I believe that women should submit and they should be meek. I believe women have been given an incredible nurturing capacity, and if they choose to minister the gospel, I believe they'll do well in a social/humanitarian capacity, such as what Mother Theresa did. I do not believe that they may under no circumstances teach.

Men on the hand are more suited for leading a congregation, evangelising through teaching etc. since God gave them that role.
ALL teachers should be servants, by Christ's example. All teacher should be humble, meek and kind hearted.

I hope I've clarified my position.

Thanks
V.

ChristopherE
Mar 28th 2007, 07:08 AM
That proves an opinion because God needs no supporting evidence for any command. God doesn't need to justify anything. Did you miss that Paul said "I suffer not a woman" rather than "God suffers not a woman"?

Did you miss that Paul is applying a scriptural moral guide?

Paul gives exactly one recomendation from his own cousel and he tells us when he does it and even that was spirit guided.

Why would I follow anything Paul wrote if I can pick and choose what's his opinion? Paul is just a man that is now dead long ago. Who is he to give me advice? That fact is I follow everything Paul wrote because it was ALL from the living God to us through Paul.

Paul didn't suffer it, not because of a whim or because he personally thought it would be more orderly, or not because it was traditional (he was breaking all kinds of tradition), or not because of societal laws, but because GOD laid out the order of life in the law that Paul was applying.

God's principals and morality are not situationally applied. They are the same yesturday, today and forever.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 07:17 AM
Did you miss that Paul is applying a scriptural moral guide?

Paul gives exactly one recomendation from his own cousel and he tells us when he does it and even that was spirit guided.

Why would I follow anything Paul wrote if I can pick and choose what's his opinion? Paul is just a man that is now dead long ago. Who is he to give me advice? That fact is I follow everything Paul wrote because it was ALL from the living God to us through Paul.

Paul didn't suffer it, not because of a whim or because he personally thought it would be more orderly, or not because it was traditional (he was breaking all kinds of tradition), or not because of societal laws, but because GOD laid out the order of life in the law that Paul was applying.

God's principals and morality are not situationally applied. They are the same yesturday, today and forever.

Gods are, but man's aren't. I maintain that Paul was speaking of his own personal opinion which has and had nothing at all to do with anything God expects or commands. God himself uses women to teach others including men in contradiction to Paul's personal belief so I rest my case.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 08:35 AM
Gods are, but man's aren't. I maintain that Paul was speaking of his own personal opinion which has and had nothing at all to do with anything God expects or commands. God himself uses women to teach others including men in contradiction to Paul's personal belief so I rest my case.

If he is voicing his own personal opinion, then he wouldn't use scripture (Genesis) to back up his opinion, would he. He does back up his opinion with scripture.

Besides this, if you believe that scripture was God-breathed, you must believe that even Paul's personal opinions were God-breathed. If you don't believe that, it implies that you don't believe Paul's writings are God-breathed.

acts1126
Mar 28th 2007, 08:49 AM
So what does this mean about Joyce Meyers

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 08:56 AM
If he is voicing his own personal opinion, then he wouldn't use scripture (Genesis) to back up his opinion, would he. He does back up his opinion with scripture.

I do the same thing lol. I agree with Paul's opinion for that day but it is not proper for today. Again, God decides who should teach or not, not us.


Besides this, if you believe that scripture was God-breathed, you must believe that even Paul's personal opinions were God-breathed.

I don't believe every word in the bible is a command from God.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 28th 2007, 08:57 AM
If he is voicing his own personal opinion, then he wouldn't use scripture (Genesis) to back up his opinion, would he. He does back up his opinion with scripture.

Besides this, if you believe that scripture was God-breathed, you must believe that even Paul's personal opinions were God-breathed. If you don't believe that, it implies that you don't believe Paul's writings are God-breathed.

So Atrandom, what you are saying is that what Paul says needs to be followed, first of all because he uses Scripture to back himself up and secondly because it is inspired Scripture in the NT and thus needs to be followed by us?

The core issue of this whole discussion seems to be to which extent passages that Paul makes these statements in are applicable to us. Perhaps if we discuss those principles, we can come to the core of what this discussion is about.

Should we do everything Paul said simply because it is in the New Testament? Is what he says applicable to us because he uses the OT to validate his statement? Or are there cultural aspects that change the perspective? Are there reasons based on which we can say we need to apply the principle but not the actual command Paul is putting forth?

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 09:06 AM
The core issue of this whole discussion seems to be to which extent passages that Paul makes these statements in are applicable to us. Perhaps if we discuss those principles, we can come to the core of what this discussion is about.

Should we do everything Paul said simply because it is in the New Testament? Is what he says applicable to us because he uses the OT to validate his statement? Or are there cultural aspects that change the perspective? Are there reasons based on which we can say we need to apply the principle but not the actual command Paul is putting forth?

I agree. Well, first of all, since he does not use culture arguments to validate himself, but unchanging scriptural arguments, we must reason that he means what he says, and not try to read things into it. He things what he thinks on the basis of scripture. Clearly, Women should not teach because Eve was deceived and not Adam. Women should learn quetly. That is what he says and that is exactly what he means.

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 09:31 AM
Genesis does not back up that women should be silent. Genesis backs up that women should be submissive. There is a difference.

That is why the Holy Spirit was sent as a Comforter and a Guide, so that in Spirit and in truth we can worship God and know Him. The pharisees went and legalised the scripture taking every word literally without understanding the circumstances and without taking into account the greatest commandment of all, which is love.

If a person helped a sick person on the sabbath then he is guilty of breaking the sabbath, because the scripture says, you shall do nothing on the sabbath. In that way they hated Christ, because he healed a sick person on the sabbath day. I'm sure the very same words were shouted at Him. "God never changes, you are making God a liar etc."

Aren't we doing exactly the same thing here? Paul said woman should be quiet, and that is scripture so every woman who speaks in any Christian gathering, henceforth shall be guilty.
Is it completely unscriptural and illogical that Paul had very good reasons for saying that, and that we should understand those reasons before we just go about judging all and sundry for breaking divine law, toting the old favourite "All scripture is God given"?

What was the whole point of the parable of the good samaritan?
The levite and the priest walked past. Why? Because if they touched a dead guy, they'd be unclean for seven days, according to the Law.

But the samaritan acted out of love and compassion, and thereby risked breaking the law.

Did Christ not say. Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Everything we do, we should do out of love. The pharisees were very legalistic but they had no LOVE.

Did Paul himself not say: 1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

That is the whole point. I sincerely believe that Paul's instructions toward women was for the sake of neighbourly love. For the greater benefit of the entire congregation. Not because women generally shouldn't speak, but for the sake of those traditionally under the law. For the sake of every person who would get distracted by a conceited woman and outwardly beautiful woman. Paul knew what had happened to Dawid with Bethseba. Paul knew what happened to Adam. And to John the Baptist because of Herodia, and Elija because of Jesebel. etc. etc. And those are his reasons and they're good.

But if we're going to be legalistic about the whole thing, and prevent a women from giving a heartfelt and sincere testimony in Church, because of Paul's words, then we're not acting in spirit and truth, but like the pharisees.

Greetings

V.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 09:45 AM
Genesis does not back up that women should be silent. Genesis backs up that women should be submissive. There is a difference.

Not to mention she was to be submissive to her husband, not all males.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 09:48 AM
Genesis does not back up that women should be silent. Genesis backs up that women should be submissive. There is a difference.

That is why the Holy Spirit was sent as a Comforter and a Guide, so that in Spirit and in truth we can worship God and know Him. The pharisees went and legalised the scripture taking every word literally without understanding the circumstances and without taking into account the greatest commandment of all, which is love.

If a person helped a sick person on the sabbath then he is guilty of breaking the sabbath, because the scripture says, you shall do nothing on the sabbath. In that way they hated Christ, because he healed a sick person on the sabbath day. I'm sure the very same words were shouted at Him. "God never changes, you are making God a liar etc."

Aren't we doing exactly the same thing here? Paul said woman should be quiet, and that is scripture so every woman who speaks in any Christian gathering, henceforth shall be guilty.
Is it completely unscriptural and illogical that Paul had very good reasons for saying that, and that we should understand those reasons before we just go about judging all and sundry for breaking divine law, toting the old favourite "All scripture is God given"?

What was the whole point of the parable of the good samaritan?
The levite and the priest walked past. Why? Because if they touched a dead guy, they'd be unclean for seven days, according to the Law.

But the samaritan acted out of love and compassion, and thereby risked breaking the law.

Did Christ not say. Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Everything we do, we should do out of love. The pharisees were very legalistic but they had no LOVE.

Did Paul himself not say: 1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

That is the whole point. I sincerely believe that Paul's instructions toward women was for the sake of neighbourly love. For the greater benefit of the entire congregation. Not because women generally shouldn't speak, but for the sake of those traditionally under the law. For the sake of every person who would get distracted by a conceited woman and outwardly beautiful woman. Paul knew what had happened to Dawid with Bethseba. Paul knew what happened to Adam. And to John the Baptist because of Herodia, and Elija because of Jesebel. etc. etc. And those are his reasons and they're good.

But if we're going to be legalistic about the whole thing, and prevent a women from giving a heartfelt and sincere testimony in Church, because of Paul's words, then we're not acting in spirit and truth, but like the pharisees.

Greetings

V.

Sorry, but this is not legalistic, this has to do with creational order. Women, in being submissive to their husbands, should not be allowed to teach in church. Giving testimony is a whole different thing than teaching.

You say that it is because of loud women. Paul does not say that, he says that woman should be silent because they ought to in the light of scripture. He does NOT say that women should be silent because they're loud, even when he could have said so (theoretically).

Then concerning the Law. First, Have you ever heared of sanctification. This is not legalism, this is a sincere desire to serve the Lord as he wishes to be served. Jesus died for our sins, so disregarding his Will about how things should be lived is contempt for the Cross. We should eagerly and honestly search for God's will in our lives, including the role of men and women. Seconedly, Jesus himself had various instructions about life, and those were NOT an option. The problem of the pharasees was not that they had thought about the wil of God, their problem was that their righteousness was only outer, without a true commitment of the heart. Jesus even says (talking to the Jews) that they should do what the teachers of the Law (and Pharasees) instructed, but not to BE like them, since they honoured God with their lips, and their heart was far from Him. Their Righteousness was just an outer coating. THAT was the Pharasees' problem.

Paul says what he says, means what he means, basis it on scripture (NOT CULTURE), and we should do it. (besides the fact that he is an apostle and that it is in God's inspired Word (including Paul's Words)).

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 10:20 AM
Women, in being submissive to their husbands, should not be allowed to teach in church. Giving testimony is a whole different thing than teaching.




You say that it is because of loud women. Paul does not say that, he says that woman should be silent because they ought to in the light of scripture. He does NOT say that women should be silent because they're loud, even when he could have said so (theoretically).

Neither does Paul say in 1Ti 2:12 that this only applies to church, so if we're going to be hyper-critical it cuts both ways. I'm accused of 'throwing away the new testament' and 'disregarding God's will' and 'adding to scripture', where all I did was point out the circumstances.

I am not prepared to sway on this one, not because I'm too stubborn to accept 'reason' or because I'm a wicked heretic, but because I feel we should think. I fear God far too much to negate His Word and to invent my own ideas. I have no vested interested in saying believing what I believe.

If we're saying that women should not teach in church then I have some questions:
Does that apply to Sunday school too? Was my sunday school teacher acting against God's word?
What about cell groups? Females should be silent?

What about the following?


Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


How should these daughters and handmaidens prophesy, if they're not allowed to teach? Please note that in 1Ti 2:12 Paul is not limiting his instructions to the church so we cannot add to scripture by saying this only applies to church...

And don't try and define prophesy as only foretelling the future because 'prophesy' includes inspired teaching.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 10:35 AM
If we're saying that women should not teach in church then I have some questions:
Does that apply to Sunday school too? Was my sunday school teacher acting against God's word?
What about cell groups? Females should be silent?

Women are allowed to teach other women. We are told in scripture that if a woman has a question, she should ask her husband. I don't see why mothers shouldn't teach her children. Surely that is allowed. But they should not teach men. Yes, in cell groups, they should be silent according to scripture (but they can pray and prophecy if their heads are covered (Corithians 11)


How should these daughters and handmaidens prophesy, if they're not allowed to teach? Please note that in 1Ti 2:12 Paul is not limiting his instructions to the church so we cannot add to scripture by saying this only applies to church... And don't try and define prophesy as only foretelling the future because 'prophesy' includes inspired teaching.

Prophecy is being the mouthpiece of God. This is not teaching. It is when God himself tells someone, tell this to the church. It is clear that they should do this with their heads covered (see Corinthians) as a sign of the authority of their husbands over their head.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 10:37 AM
How should these daughters and handmaidens prophesy, if they're not allowed to teach? Please note that in 1Ti 2:12 Paul is not limiting his instructions to the church so we cannot add to scripture by saying this only applies to church...

And don't try and define prophesy as only foretelling the future because 'prophesy' includes inspired teaching.

4395
4395 propheteuo {prof-ate-yoo'-o}
from 4396; TDNT - 6:781,952; v
AV - prophesy 28; 28
1) to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations,
to predict
1a) to prophesy
1b) with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining esp.
to the kingdom of God
1c) to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known
by divine revelation
1d) to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or
praise of the divine counsels
1d1) under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish,
comfort others
1e) to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 10:39 AM
Women are allowed to teach other women.


I don't see why mothers shouldn't teach her children. Surely that is allowed.

So you defy Paul's "clear" teaching that women should not teach?

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 11:09 AM
So you defy Paul's "clear" teaching that women should not teach?

No, in Paul's scriptural defence of His teaching, He makes clear that it is because of the relationship between men and women, that women should not teach: Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived.

Paul makes clear that women should not teach men.

Women are allowed to teach their children. Look at Proverbs.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 11:17 AM
No, in Paul's scriptural defence of His teaching, He makes clear that it is because of the relationship between men and women, that women should not teach: Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived.

Paul makes clear that women should not teach men.

Women are allowed to teach their children. Look at Proverbs.

I think you get my point. If you get too dogmatic about what Paul said you would have to believe that women are not to teach anyone.

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 11:18 AM
Women are allowed to teach other women. We are told in scripture that if a woman has a question, she should ask her husband. I don't see why mothers shouldn't teach her children. Surely that is allowed. But they should not teach men. Yes, in cell groups, they should be silent according to scripture (but they can pray and prophecy if their heads are covered (Corithians 11)

What about this forum? I consider this to be a congregation of Christians. Are women allowed to post here, as long as men don't learn anything from their posts?
Should the women here keep quiet, just like in a cell group?



Prophecy is being the mouthpiece of God. This is not teaching. It is when God himself tells someone, tell this to the church. It is clear that they should do this with their heads covered (see Corinthians) as a sign of the authority of their husbands over their head.
That is your own definition. You can't redefine the meaning of prophesy now, because it doesn't suit your understanding of scripture.

Did people not gain knowledge from the prophesies? I thought ALL scripture is profitable for instruction (as per 2 Ti 3:16), are you saying the prophesies are not?
Are women allowed to prophesy as long as men don't learn anything from their words?

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 11:22 AM
If you get too dogmatic about what Paul said you would have to believe that women are not to teach anyone.

I'm not trying to be dogmatic, I'm trying to be biblical. Scripture says that woman are not allowed to teach MEN. That is what it says, I don't need to be dogmatic about it to know that. I believe that, since a woman helps raising her children, that it is entirely biblical and scriptural for a women to teach her children (including boys) in view of parenthood.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 11:30 AM
I'm not trying to be dogmatic, I'm trying to be biblical. Scripture says that woman are not allowed to teach MEN.


But that's not what Paul says. He says he does not allow women to teach. He doesn't say it's ok to teach other women or children.



That is what it says, I don't need to be dogmatic about it to know that. I believe that, since a woman helps raising her children, that it is entirely biblical and scriptural for a women to teach her children (including boys) in view of parenthood.

Good, you rationalize things and so are we who understand that Paul was not actually saying God is against women teaching men.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 11:33 AM
What about this forum? I consider this to be a congregation of Christians. Are women allowed to post here, as long as men don't learn anything from their posts?
Should the women here keep quiet, just like in a cell group?


That is your own definition. You can't redefine the meaning of prophesy now, because it doesn't suit your understanding of scripture.

Did people not gain knowledge from the prophesies? I thought ALL scripture is profitable for instruction (as per 2 Ti 3:16), are you saying the prophesies are not?
Are women allowed to prophesy as long as men don't learn anything from their words?

Sorry, but you're missing what I meant. Woman are allowed to prophecy, also to men, that is clear from scripture. However (read 1? Corinthians 11) women should wear something on their head as a sign of the authority that is over her. Prophecy is saying something that GOD tells you to say. If GOD tells you to say something, when you say it, it is God who speaks, not you yourself. Men should learn from prophecy (after it has been tested, of course), even when it is prophecied by a woman.

And about this forum: I haven't thought about rather or not woman should be allowed to post on a forum, to be honest. Besides this, it is not my job to decide who is allowed on this forum. You seems to think women should keep quiet to men for their entire life, which is not what Paul says. He says that woman should not teach men. Woman are allowed to ask questions. I believe I may safly say that in the light of this scripture, woman are not allowed to function as a teacher to men anywhere, (including a forum) (woman teaching children is allowed, as the Bible clearly shows)

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 11:36 AM
Sorry, but you're missing what I meant. Woman are allowed to prophecy, also to men, that is clear from scripture. However (read 1? Corinthians 11) women should wear something on their head as a sign of the authority that is over her. Prophecy is saying something that GOD tells you to say. If GOD tells you to say something, when you say it, it is God who speaks, not you yourself. Men should learn from prophecy (after it has been tested, of course), even when it is prophecied by a woman.

And about this forum: I haven't thought about rather or not woman should be allowed to post on a forum, to be honest. Besides this, it is not my job to decide who is allowed on this forum. You seems to think women should keep quiet to men for their entire life, which is not what Paul says. He says that woman should not teach men. Woman are allowed to ask questions. I believe I may safly say that in the light of this scripture, woman are not allowed to function as a teacher to men anywhere, (including a forum) (woman teaching children is allowed, as the Bible clearly shows)

Can women teach men they are not married to? You keep referring to the example of Adam and Eve but that is solely a man and a woman married to each other.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 11:38 AM
[quote=Naphal;1207431]But that's not what Paul says. He says he does not allow women to teach. He doesn't say it's ok to teach other women or children.[quote]

IN Timothy Paul says that He does not allow women to teach. In his explenation, he applies adam and eve to the situation, making clear that he means that women should not teach men. In Titus older women are told to instruct (or, teach) younger women. IN Proverbs (one of the last chapters) a women teaches her son (that is, her CHILD).

So, yes, Paul does mean that women are allowed to teach other women (see Titus) and are allowed to teach children (which is made clear from Proverbs)

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 11:42 AM
Can women teach men they are not married to? You keep referring to the example of Adam and Eve but that is solely a man and a woman married to each other.

I keep using the example of Adam and Eve because that is the example Paul uses. He states that Paul was formed first, and then Eve, and Eve was not deceived, but Adam, this is about men and women, not about husband and wife, because if it were, only married men are formed first, which is not the case. ALL men are formed first, that is, mankind was formed first, then womankind.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 11:47 AM
I keep using the example of Adam and Eve because that is the example Paul uses. He states that Paul was formed first, and then Eve, and Eve was not deceived, but Adam, this is about men and women, not about husband and wife,

Adam and Eve are examples of man and wife not just men and women in general.

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 11:49 AM
And about this forum: I haven't thought about rather or not woman should be allowed to post on a forum, to be honest. Besides this, it is not my job to decide who is allowed on this forum. You seems to think women should keep quiet to men for their entire life, which is not what Paul says. He says that woman should not teach men. Woman are allowed to ask questions. I believe I may safly say that in the light of this scripture, woman are not allowed to function as a teacher to men anywhere, (including a forum) (woman teaching children is allowed, as the Bible clearly shows)

You're chopping and changing, friend. you said women should keep quiet in a cell group. But now for the forum you are trying to limit that rule to teaching. Read your previous posts.

So you do believe that the women users on this forum should not teach? And by teaching we assume educate.
Why then didn't you complain when Irl, told me of the dangers of 'throwing away scripture' as she put it?
Why didn't you complain when PilgrimToZion voice her own position on this discussion?

I'm not fighting with you and I'm sure you dislike me very much right now, but I'm trying to show you how we legalize(and I still consider it legalism) to make hard and fast rules, without thinking. and by thinking I mean really looking at what Jesus would have said, in such a regard.

It's absolutely no skin off my back if women aren't allowed to teach. None whatsoever, but is it RIGHT? Or did Paul have some practical reasons?

V.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 11:57 AM
You're chopping and changing, friend. you said women should keep quiet in a cell group. But now for the forum you are trying to limit that rule to teaching. Read your previous posts.

Why didn't you complain when PilgrimToZion voice her own position on this discussion?

First of all, I know Pilgrimtozion personally, and it's a HE. Second, I did not change, Woman are not allowed to teach ANYWHERE. Not in forums either. THey ARE allowed to teach other woman and children. THat is what I have defended and what is scriptural and what I have always said.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 12:01 PM
Adam and Eve are examples of man and wife not just men and women in general.

Once Again, it has to do with creational ORDER. It is ADAM, the MAN who was formed first, THEN EVE, the WOMAN. It is women in general who should not teach men. They are not examples of man and wife because he spreaks about adam being formed first, and adam not being deceived, then saying the opposite of Eve. It is not logical to speak of adam and eve in this way if Paul was refering to man and wife, rather, Paul is speaking of male and female here: Creational Order

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 12:06 PM
I'm not fighting with you and I'm sure you dislike me very much right now, but I'm trying to show you how we legalize(and I still consider it legalism) to make hard and fast rules, without thinking. and by thinking I mean really looking at what Jesus would have said, in such a regard.

I don't dislike you :). I just disagree. Jesus is God, God inspired the Bible, and Paul happens to say what He says. Jesus says: "If ye Love me, keep my commandments". I'm not doing this without thinking, but I do believe that you have a tendency towards nonbiblical humanistic bibleinterpretation by putting the focus on your vague love. The Law, who's core thing was Love, is very legal. Jesus was very 'legalistic' in His approach to morality, in fact, morality is legal in it's very being. People who 'don't want the bible's rules, make their own. That is just as legalistic, but just more selfish and pleasing to the flesh than biblical morality.

Naphal
Mar 28th 2007, 12:06 PM
Second, I did not change, Woman are not allowed to teach ANYWHERE. Not in forums either. THey ARE allowed to teach other men and children. THat is what I have defended and what is scriptural and what I have always said.



It is women in general who should not teach men.

No comment.......

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 12:10 PM
No comment.......

Sorry, I meant that they could teach wo-men and children. I'm doing two things at the same time, which, as you know, is not a man's strongest point

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 12:19 PM
First of all, I know Pilgrimtozion personally, and it's a HE. Second, I did not change, Woman are not allowed to teach ANYWHERE. Not in forums either. THey ARE allowed to teach other woman and children. THat is what I have defended and what is scriptural and what I have always said.

Oops! hehe. I assumed by the avatar that he was a she.
In that case, sorry Pilgrim, can I use the fact that I'm new here as an excuse?

AtRandomDutch,
Paul said that women should be silent in the congregation.
1Co 14:34 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.

It's not limited to teaching...
So if this forum constitutes a congregation, which it certainly is, then the women should be silent, right?

I don't agree with that...

Regards

V.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 12:25 PM
Oops! hehe. I assumed by the avatar that he was a she.
In that case, sorry Pilgrim, can I use the fact that I'm new here as an excuse?

AtRandomDutch,
Paul said that women should be silent in the congregation.
1Co 14:34 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.

It's not limited to teaching...
So if this forum constitutes a congregation, which it certainly is, then the women should be silent, right?

I don't agree with that...

Regards

V.

In that case, you disagree with Paul... and consequently, as this is the opinion of Holy Scripture, with God. Please don't. (i mean this as kindly, and by no means, to insult anyone..)

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 12:33 PM
In that case, you disagree with Paul... and consequently, as this is the opinion of Holy Scripture, with God. Please don't. (i mean this as kindly, and by no means, to insult anyone..)

Please answer my question.... Should the women here be silent, since this is a congregation.

Also please refrain from calling what I believe a 'humanistic' approach.

Humanist
Of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfilment through reason and scientific method and often rejecting religion.

I find that very offensive, since humanism involves the deification of man, and that's something that I have a very strong dislike toward.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 12:43 PM
Please answer my question.... Should the women here be silent, since this is a congregation.

IF you believe this to be a congregation, yes. I personally think that woman can pray, prophecy in Church (as Paul says). But this clearly isn't a 'congregation', I believe, in the sence that Paul uses. We talk about loads of different subjects, some of which do not have to do with teaching at all, and are quite regular subjects.

Do you think this is a congregation? I don't.


Also please refrain from calling what I believe a 'humanistic' approach.

Humanist
Of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfilment through reason and scientific method and often rejecting religion.

I find that very offensive, since humanism involves the deification of man, and that's something that I have a very strong dislike toward.

Ok, sorry!

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 28th 2007, 12:43 PM
Hey guys, let's stick to discussing the topic without name-calling or making things personal. :)

On a side note, apology accepted. If you look to the right of my avatar, you will see that I note that she is my sweetheart...http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/images/smilies/original/wub.gif

ShirleyFord
Mar 28th 2007, 12:45 PM
We have a husband and wife team in the Bible who are in business and ministry together.

Business Partners

Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

Acts 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

Ministry Partners

Acts 18:25 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.
Acts 18:26 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.
1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

2 Timothy 4:19 Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus



Women Co-Laborers With Paul

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Shirley

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 12:46 PM
Hey guys, let's stick to discussing the topic without name-calling or making things personal. :)

On a side note, apology accepted. If you look to the right of my avatar, you will see that I note that she is my sweetheart...http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/images/smilies/original/wub.gif

Ahh, yes. Makes sense now :)

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 12:55 PM
AtRandomDutch,



IF you believe this to be a congregation, yes. I personally think that woman can pray, prophecy in Church (as Paul says). But this clearly isn't a 'congregation', I believe, in the sence that Paul uses. We talk about loads of different subjects, some of which do not have to do with teaching at all, and are quite regular subjects.


Look at the non-committal answer you're giving me now. "If you believe this is a congregation..."

Now you're trying to pass the buck because, now you're required to stand up for what you say. Something I've been doing all along, which most people here disagree with.

Now you're trying to redefine congregation to save youself from saying something that might offend.

According to Strong's a church is:
G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

Does this qualify as a 'popular meeting, especially religious?
Is this a church in the biblical meaning? Yes it certainly is...

Apology accepted for the humanist thing

Look, I'm not reducing God's commands to 'love'. If you say it like that then it sounds silly.
What is the greatest commandment of them all?

Do yourself a favour and read Matt 5-7. That is a very special section of the Bible for me, you know why?
Because, we all download sermons and things from the internet, but imagine downloading a sermon, by Jesus Christ himself, isn't that special? Matthew 5-7 is just that. What is the universal message in that sermon on the mount?
Kindness, love, humility, self-depravation, patience.

That's not reducing everything to 'love' in a airy fairy sense. All the laws that God gave, was in one way or another related to the commandments of love.
By the way, PilgrimToZion, you asked what it means to remain in God's love? That's what it means.

Cheers

V.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 01:11 PM
AtRandomDutch,

Look at the non-committal answer you're giving me now. "If you believe this is a congregation..."

Now you're trying to pass the buck because, now you're required to stand up for what you say. Something I've been doing all along, which most people here disagree with.

Now you're trying to redefine congregation to save youself from saying something that might offend.

According to Strong's a church is:
G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

Does this qualify as a 'popular meeting, especially religious?
Is this a church in the biblical meaning? Yes it certainly is...

Apology accepted for the humanist thing

Look, I'm not reducing God's commands to 'love'. If you say it like that then it sounds silly.
What is the greatest commandment of them all?

Do yourself a favour and read Matt 5-7. That is a very special section of the Bible for me, you know why?
Because, we all download sermons and things from the internet, but imagine downloading a sermon, by Jesus Christ himself, isn't that special? Matthew 5-7 is just that. What is the universal message in that sermon on the mount?
Kindness, love, humility, self-depravation, patience.

That's not reducing everything to 'love' in a airy fairy sense. All the laws that God gave, was in one way or another related to the commandments of love.
By the way, PilgrimToZion, you asked what it means to remain in God's love? That's what is means.

Cheers

V.

Ok, seeing the meaning, ok, granted, this is a meeting. Fine, that would mean woman need to be silent. That is creational order and that is (in that case) based upon Love... (My answer wasn't very smart, I admit, but I didn't mean to say something non-committal)

Atrandomdutch
Mar 28th 2007, 01:15 PM
We have a husband and wife team in the Bible who are in business and ministry together.

Business Partners

Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

Acts 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

Ministry Partners

Acts 18:25 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.
Acts 18:26 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.
1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

2 Timothy 4:19 Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus



Women Co-Laborers With Paul

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Shirley

the woman was created as a the helper (equal, but different) of the man. Thus, it is quite normal that they would help their husbands with their work.

About ministry: whatever work they did when helping their husband, women would certainly not teach men (seeing what the Bible teaches).

xgingerxbreadx
Mar 28th 2007, 02:01 PM
On person on this board was quoted saying "Women should not teach men anywhere." What about adult literacy programs? What about college professors who teach grown men? what about highschool teaching when the "men" (who can be adults because they are 18) Should men suffer with no literacy, and bad skills becaue a women should not teach anywhere? Im sorry im livid over this comment even though I should not be.
God Bless.
Jen

xgingerxbreadx
Mar 28th 2007, 02:04 PM
Woman are allowed to ask questions. I believe I may safly say that in the light of this scripture, woman are not allowed to function as a teacher to men anywhere, (including a forum) (woman teaching children is allowed, as the Bible clearly shows) Theres the quote I was talking about in my previous post.

Steve M
Mar 28th 2007, 05:00 PM
On person on this board was quoted saying "Women should not teach men anywhere." What about adult literacy programs? What about college professors who teach grown men? what about highschool teaching when the "men" (who can be adults because they are 18) Should men suffer with no literacy, and bad skills becaue a women should not teach anywhere? Im sorry im livid over this comment even though I should not be.
God Bless.
Jen
The context of the command was spiritual things, and the Church.

Otherwise I'd be in big trouble in my office, with five bosses, all women, and no men here who've been around long enough to teach me the job.

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 05:42 PM
Another important thing to think about is Deborah, the prophetess and governer of Israel spoken of in the Bible...

And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. 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. 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? And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. 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. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.
(Jdg 4:4-9)

Now, if Paul's statements regarding women was for practical reasons, the very existence of someone like Deborah as ruler as prophetess isn't a problem. If however, Paul's words regarding women in the churches was a universal and eternal law, then Deborah poses a bit of a problem. Why did God let her rule Israel? Why did God speak through her, and why did He display His might through her?

Another thing that is significant is the fact that none of the other apostels, nor Jesus Himself ever said that a woman shouldn't speak in the congregations or that women shouldn't teach. They did say that women should be modest, and inwardly focused, and submit to their husbands, and a common denominator is that women's outward appearance should be modest. I totaly agree with this. The references to Adam and Eve also refer to the submission of females, but not about being silent in congregations.

I have explained Paul's unique problems in his congregations and therefore I still maintain, that Paul's instructions were specific, but obviously these statements have great value for us today, because give us advice on how to maintain order and kinship where ever there is a conflict of tradition or any similar conflict.

I do not believe that the women here should be silenced despite the fact that this forum is a congregation as I do not believe that their presence and their posts here offends anybody. I'm sure we can debate whether God is offended by women posting here, but I don't believe that is the case. They certainly do not pose a distraction for the male reader as we cannot see them, and cannot be beguiled by their feminine beauty, as was the case with Delila, Herodias, Eve, Sarah, Jesebel, etc.

ChristopherE
Mar 28th 2007, 05:42 PM
Gods are, but man's aren't. I maintain that Paul was speaking of his own personal opinion which has and had nothing at all to do with anything God expects or commands. God himself uses women to teach others including men in contradiction to Paul's personal belief so I rest my case.

Personal situations are different than the organization of a church - a spiritual FAMILY - of which, men should be the head under God.

I don't read an opinionated Bible of arbitrary inconsistencies and "contradictions".

So I rest my case.

The Parson
Mar 28th 2007, 05:52 PM
In my humble opinion, as far as considering Bible Forums as a congregation, no, this is a fellowship. A congregation has a pastor as an undershepherd, are or should be of one mind and one accord, a constitution of one sort or another, and are able to perform the ordainances with the brethren witnessing it.

Again, as I see the scriptures, Paul was speaking to the pastor Timothy, he knew he was speaking to a congregation through it's pastor. So the compulsion for the woman not to teach nor usurp authority over a man was to the congregation. 1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Something simular was said to the Corinthian church body by Paul: 1st Corinthians 14:34 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. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Those who are proponents of female preachers in the congregation oft times will dismiss this particular scripture as only dealing with tongues. Actually it's a disqualifier from tongues, but plainly, in other matters too.

And if a woman wanted to be pastor, shouldn't she be scripturally qualified? If she was to fill such a position in the church where she is in authority over the men of the church, isn't that against the very Scriptures she wants to preach! The Scriptures use the title of bishop for pastor so let's take a look at what the Scriptures say about the qualifications of the bishop:
1st Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Plainly it says that "If a man", not the woman, which is a clear distinction!
1st Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; How can a woman be "the husband of one wife"? If she is the husband of one wife she's a practicing homosexuality and certainly out of God's will!
1st Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
1st Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; If she rules her home then here is another place she would be out of Gods will. The scriptural head of the family is the man, not the woman!
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23 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. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. We shouldn't even go down the road that the women of the church are being kept as second class members because of what Paul wrote. Women in the Missionary Baptist churches have always been a major driving force to the cause of Christ. I've seen many a church congregation that would have had to shut their doors if it hadn't been for the women. To suggest that these ladies of God are second class members because they are prohibited to preach is just plumb insulting to them. Every single member the church has been given a special calling according to their Holy Spirit given gifts, man and woman alike. 1st Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. If the Lord set down a way for us to conduct ourselves in the congregation, why should we question the very scriptures that God inspired through His Holy Spirit?

Yet, out in the world, every child (man & woman) of God has the duty to preach, so to speak, because of the directive from our Savior. Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

chisel
Mar 28th 2007, 06:07 PM
Very good post, Parson.

Respect!

VerticalReality
Mar 28th 2007, 06:16 PM
In my humble opinion, as far as considering Bible Forums as a congregation, no, this is a fellowship. A congregation has a pastor as an undershepherd, are or should be of one mind and one accord, a constitution of one sort or another, and are able to perform the ordainances with the brethren witnessing it.

Again, as I see the scriptures, Paul was speaking to the pastor Timothy, he knew he was speaking to a congregation through it's pastor. So the compulsion for the woman not to teach nor usurp authority over a man was to the congregation. 1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Something simular was said to the Corinthian church body by Paul: 1st Corinthians 14:34 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. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Those who are proponents of female preachers in the congregation oft times will dismiss this particular scripture as only dealing with tongues. Actually it's a disqualifier from tongues, but plainly, in other matters too.

And if a woman wanted to be pastor, shouldn't she be scripturally qualified? If she was to fill such a position in the church where she is in authority over the men of the church, isn't that against the very Scriptures she wants to preach! The Scriptures use the title of bishop for pastor so let's take a look at what the Scriptures say about the qualifications of the bishop:

1st Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Plainly it says that "If a man", not the woman, which is a clear distinction!
1st Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; How can a woman be "the husband of one wife"? If she is the husband of one wife she's a practicing homosexuality and certainly out of God's will!
1st Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
1st Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; If she rules her home then here is another place she would be out of Gods will. The scriptural head of the family is the man, not the woman!

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23 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. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
We shouldn't even go down the road that the women of the church are being kept as second class members because of what Paul wrote. Women in the Missionary Baptist churches have always been a major driving force to the cause of Christ. I've seen many a church congregation that would have had to shut their doors if it hadn't been for the women. To suggest that these ladies of God are second class members because they are prohibited to preach is just plumb insulting to them. Every single member the church has been given a special calling according to their Holy Spirit given gifts, man and woman alike. 1st Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. If the Lord set down a way for us to conduct ourselves in the congregation, why should we question the very scriptures that God inspired through His Holy Spirit?

Yet, out in the world, every child (man & woman) of God has the duty to preach, so to speak, because of the directive from our Savior. Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

I agree with this 100%. We do not put aside the Scriptures simply because we do not like what it says, and we shouldn't argue around in circles with each other trying to find any possible means to justify what we want to believe. What Paul said is what Paul meant, and we should take it for what it says.

xgingerxbreadx
Mar 28th 2007, 06:57 PM
The context of the command was spiritual things, and the Church.

Otherwise I'd be in big trouble in my office, with five bosses, all women, and no men here who've been around long enough to teach me the job.
Then im sorry I took that out of context.

Steve M
Mar 28th 2007, 07:01 PM
It's cool; you certainly aren't the first to ask that question. We've had multiple threads dedicated to just that question.

The Parson
Mar 28th 2007, 07:44 PM
Thanks for the praise but I'm not really worthy of it. My understanding is from the old old school of Christianity. We go on a premise that if it causes confusion and disturbs peace, it's not of God. 1st Corinthians 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

One thing that might help your understanding of the scriptures is to not over complicate. I was studying this subject one time and came across a passage that read: 2nd Timothy 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,. Man, that just blew my mind because I was sure there was some hidden meaning to the word silly.

So I pondered over it, prayed, pondered, and prayed some more. I was sure God would give me the hidden meaning if I just kept at it. Then I felt compelled to call brother Hagan, an aged fellow preacher who was rock steady in the Word of God.

Brother Hagan, I said; what on earth did Paul mean here when he said "lead captive silly women". Brother Hagan was quiet for a second, I heard him chuckle under his breath, then he said: "Tim, silly means silly you silly thing." Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I was missing the context because I was sure there was some hidden meaning. That can happen if we over complicate the meaning of God in His Word. We will miss the precept all together because we are either digging deeper than the rabbit hole can go or feeding a pet agenda instead of taking the Spiritual Word of God for what it says.

The very same can happen with our understanding of our salvation. Facts are, either you are saved or you isn't. The bible gives us indicators about weather we are or not but the flesh can't seem to grasp it sometimes because it is natural and our salvation is spiritual. We need to learn to seperate the spiritual from the natural and then reassure ourselves that if Jesus promised that if we call on him, believeing, we would be saved. That's known as a "Know So" salvation... John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

DiscipleDave
Mar 28th 2007, 10:55 PM
1Cor.14

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[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.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

So, how does everyone feel about this? It is in the word (new testament nontheless) so I believe we should abide by it. BUT, their is still something very unsavory about it. I can think of so many women evangelists and whatnot.

What's the deal? Should we follow this or not?

Women can preach and women can teach, and women can asurp authority. They only can't do these things over man. but women can preach to women, and women can teach other women, and women can asurp authority over other women.

Ti:2:3: The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; :4: That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5: To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

So even according to Scripture women can teach women.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

ikester7579
Mar 29th 2007, 02:04 AM
Women can preach and women can teach, and women can asurp authority. They only can't do these things over man. but women can preach to women, and women can teach other women, and women can asurp authority over other women.

Ti:2:3: The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; :4: That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5: To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

So even according to Scripture women can teach women.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^


I have yet to see scripture where any man in church has direct authority over a woman. The only two things that the word of God makes clear where a man has complete authority is as the woman's father, or her husband.

If a man came up in church and told, with authority, my wife what to do, he might find himself on the floor (granted if I were married). For there is no man out side family or covenant (marriage) that has authority over a woman. The word husband is used for a reason in the verses where women are directed to do certain things. For it is only the husband who has that authority, and only over the woman he is married to.

ikester7579
Mar 29th 2007, 02:36 AM
In my humble opinion, as far as considering Bible Forums as a congregation, no, this is a fellowship. A congregation has a pastor as an undershepherd, are or should be of one mind and one accord, a constitution of one sort or another, and are able to perform the ordainances with the brethren witnessing it.

Again, as I see the scriptures, Paul was speaking to the pastor Timothy, he knew he was speaking to a congregation through it's pastor. So the compulsion for the woman not to teach nor usurp authority over a man was to the congregation. 1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Something simular was said to the Corinthian church body by Paul: 1st Corinthians 14:34 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. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Those who are proponents of female preachers in the congregation oft times will dismiss this particular scripture as only dealing with tongues. Actually it's a disqualifier from tongues, but plainly, in other matters too.

And if a woman wanted to be pastor, shouldn't she be scripturally qualified? If she was to fill such a position in the church where she is in authority over the men of the church, isn't that against the very Scriptures she wants to preach! The Scriptures use the title of bishop for pastor so let's take a look at what the Scriptures say about the qualifications of the bishop:
1st Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Plainly it says that "If a man", not the woman, which is a clear distinction!
1st Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; How can a woman be "the husband of one wife"? If she is the husband of one wife she's a practicing homosexuality and certainly out of God's will!
1st Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
1st Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; If she rules her home then here is another place she would be out of Gods will. The scriptural head of the family is the man, not the woman!
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23 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. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. We shouldn't even go down the road that the women of the church are being kept as second class members because of what Paul wrote. Women in the Missionary Baptist churches have always been a major driving force to the cause of Christ. I've seen many a church congregation that would have had to shut their doors if it hadn't been for the women. To suggest that these ladies of God are second class members because they are prohibited to preach is just plumb insulting to them. Every single member the church has been given a special calling according to their Holy Spirit given gifts, man and woman alike. 1st Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. If the Lord set down a way for us to conduct ourselves in the congregation, why should we question the very scriptures that God inspired through His Holy Spirit?

Yet, out in the world, every child (man & woman) of God has the duty to preach, so to speak, because of the directive from our Savior. Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

When a ministry is blessed that is supposetly out of God's will, who is blessing that ministry? God, or Satan?

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Satan cannot work against himself. And God is not going to mock Himself by blessing a ministry that is not working within His will. And God will not send the wrong message to his followers by blessing a ministry that is not within His will.

mk 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For if Satan is able to acheive a deception that is exactly like God, then how would we ever tell between good and evil? Satan has certain rules set by God that he has to work within. the story of Job is a perfect example. Satan had to get permission from God to do what he did to Job. Which means there are spiritual rules and laws set forth that Satan has to operate within.

Never once did Satan break these rules.

2pet 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

If Satan breaks the rules, or laws. He too can be put into chains. And is the reason he does not.

What is a prophet?
What is a prophetess?

And how would their roles differ because of their gender?

VerticalReality
Mar 29th 2007, 03:03 AM
When a ministry is blessed that is supposetly out of God's will, who is blessing that ministry? God, or Satan?

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Satan cannot work against himself. And God is not going to mock Himself by blessing a ministry that is not working within His will. And God will not send the wrong message to his followers by blessing a ministry that is not within His will.

mk 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For if Satan is able to acheive a deception that is exactly like God, then how would we ever tell between good and evil? Satan has certain rules set by God that he has to work within. the story of Job is a perfect example. Satan had to get permission from God to do what he did to Job. Which means there are spiritual rules and laws set forth that Satan has to operate within.

Never once did Satan break these rules.

2pet 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

If Satan breaks the rules, or laws. He too can be put into chains. And is the reason he does not.

What is a prophet?
What is a prophetess?

And how would their roles differ because of their gender?

You speak as if God can't bless something just because it may not be totally within His perfect will. Do you think it was God's will that Barnabas and Paul got into an argument over another Christian and ended up going their separate ways? Can you therefore conclude since they weren't necessarily in God's will by doing this that their ministries from that point forward would no longer be blessed? I would disagree with that strongly. God blessed both of their ministries even though they were bickering over another Christian. Just because a woman is disobeying the Word and teaching men in a congregation doesn't mean that God cannot move in that church and still bless those who are present. It simply means that this particular church is out of order is certain areas and they need to be corrected. God doesn't throw us under the bus everytime we do something that isn't in perfect harmony with His Word. He attempts to correct us. I don't believe God is necessarily going to totally cut off a church just because there are certain areas that aren't where they should be.

Naphal
Mar 29th 2007, 06:48 AM
I wanted to add that all Prophets (male and female) are teachers but not all teachers are prophets.

Therefore Paul's opinion about his not allowing women to be teachers cannot be used against women that God chooses to do specific, prophetic teaching.

If Paul lived today I have no doubt that he would not carry the same opinion about women not being teachers. In his day the average woman was not educated and therefore normally not qualified to teach but women are educated now and that and the customs now alter this considerably.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
First off we see that Paul wants silence from anyone in the case of not being an interpreter of tongues. This is tongues in the literal sense of human languages not unintelligible babble. If one can speak in a language but not able to translate what it into the right languages so they target listeners can understand then there is no point to speak in an unknown tongue or foreign language but it is best to simply remain silent. No offense to anyone, its just disruptive to speak in a language that no one can understand.

1 Corinthians 14:34 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.
1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Certainly on one level this is to prevent any disruptions in the church and the teachings. But, I believe there is more to it.
Paul often speaks his own opinion, not commandments from God and I believe this is one example of it. God no where commands silence from women. Obedience to men especially their husbands but not silence and God also doesn't speak against women being able to teach.
Phl 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life.
1 Corinthians 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

A woman can speak a prophecy if this is a gift given to her by God, and this is to teach
about the future.
Paul speaks highly of Godly women and even speaks of women that have the gift of prophecy which is a special form of teaching. This would make a woman a prophet-ess and out bible is mostly written by prophets. Women prophets simply are used more in the end times than in the past but thats ok.

We also know that God says daughters shall prophesy so that is that.
So I believe Paul is speaking his own opinion about the custom of the day in which women simply shouldn't be speaking or teaching in a church. I don't believe it applies today as long as the woman is gifted by God to do so. Otherwise they should remain silent. There are many who think they can teach or prophesy and they do so without the Spirit leading them.
Women in his day weren't schooled or taught scripture so it would have been rare that a woman would have been able to properly add to any teaching or discussion and so even those who had a decent grasp on scripture should have waited until home to speak to her husband about it all. Maybe that's unfair but that how it was back then.
I do believe in the natural order set forth by God and that men have authority over women in general just as Christ is over the church and the Father over Christ but this shouldn't be in a mean or cruel way. The Father loves the son, and a man should love his wife and fellow sisters in Christ and they should have proper respect in return.

jiggyfly
Mar 29th 2007, 10:12 AM
When a ministry is blessed that is supposetly out of God's will, who is blessing that ministry? God, or Satan?

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Satan cannot work against himself. And God is not going to mock Himself by blessing a ministry that is not working within His will. And God will not send the wrong message to his followers by blessing a ministry that is not within His will.

mk 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For if Satan is able to acheive a deception that is exactly like God, then how would we ever tell between good and evil? Satan has certain rules set by God that he has to work within. the story of Job is a perfect example. Satan had to get permission from God to do what he did to Job. Which means there are spiritual rules and laws set forth that Satan has to operate within.

Never once did Satan break these rules.

2pet 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

If Satan breaks the rules, or laws. He too can be put into chains. And is the reason he does not.

What is a prophet?
What is a prophetess?

And how would their roles differ because of their gender?
http://awildernessvoice.com/CouncilofHell.html

Satan comes as an angel of light

ikester7579
Mar 29th 2007, 11:59 AM
You speak as if God can't bless something just because it may not be totally within His perfect will. Do you think it was God's will that Barnabas and Paul got into an argument over another Christian and ended up going their separate ways? Can you therefore conclude since they weren't necessarily in God's will by doing this that their ministries from that point forward would no longer be blessed? I would disagree with that strongly. God blessed both of their ministries even though they were bickering over another Christian. Just because a woman is disobeying the Word and teaching men in a congregation doesn't mean that God cannot move in that church and still bless those who are present. It simply means that this particular church is out of order is certain areas and they need to be corrected. God doesn't throw us under the bus everytime we do something that isn't in perfect harmony with His Word. He attempts to correct us. I don't believe God is necessarily going to totally cut off a church just because there are certain areas that aren't where they should be.

You actually took that the wrong way because you just made my point for me. Which means we are in agreement. God's blessing shows His approval regardless of what happens, or is done.

In general about this whole topic:

We do not know what trial or tribulation that a pastor maybe going through. We may not know what God has to do to bring them through it. All that we can see is what is going on on the outside. God sees into the heart, and sees all and knows all.

This is why He can bless ministries that on the out side may seem unworthy to be blessed. Because God knows if that person is striving for truth, or wanting to decieve. Can we tell this just by looking at a person? Of course not. This is why we are supposed to look for God's approval for a ministry. And when we see God's approval, but we see things wrong. We have to understand that this person is going through a trial or tribulation. Once we realize that, we are not supposed to judge them, but pray that they come out of it with the truth they need to make their ministry for God even stronger.

But what do we do instead? We judge them until it becomes unbarable. We put up websites to make sure other people judge and condemn them too. What will we say when God pulls back the curtain of knowledge on judgement day, and allows us to see what was really going on? To show how people running ministries were trying to do what was right, and were going through their test to get it right. And then it is shown how what we say and did to them, kept them from finding it. How will we feel when we realize that we were more effective in keeping a ministry from finding truth, than Satan was?

God takes us to our breaking point to make us and mold us. But how many of us through judgement of another dish out more than can be bared by a person, who ends up falling away? This is why we are supposed to look for God's approval (blessings), and then realize that God is with them to carry them through a trial so that their ministry will become better.

The only difference between us and them is that a pastor's trials are there for everyone to see. Ours are not. But what if they were? And what if everyone condemned and judged you for the trial you were going through? How would you feel?

So when we judge a ministry that is blessed by God, who's work are we really doing? Condenming a ministry with judgement when it is blessed by God, is doing who's work? And who here in judgement can truly say they have the knowledge of God to do this, and be right 100% about what is done?

Will God bless a ministry that mocks Him?
Going through a trial, and looking bad is a ministry that is within God's will. We are not born perfect, and we are not made perfect upon being saved. so we need to stop judging people and ministries as if we are.

In fact, can someone here tell me with complete honesty, and being able to look into the heart of another, whether a pastor like Joyce is a willing deciever, or is she striving for truth? Anyone?

ikester7579
Mar 29th 2007, 12:10 PM
http://awildernessvoice.com/CouncilofHell.html

Satan comes as an angel of light

But can he bless someone in the real God's name?
Does a ministry doing Satan's work bring people to Christ?

Also, that website hurts my eyes. The person who owns it needs to select a color red that is not so bright. Or use a defusing color for a border that takes the brightness out, like certain shades of grey will do this.

jiggyfly
Mar 29th 2007, 12:14 PM
Will God bless a ministry that mocks Him?
Going through a trial, and looking bad is a ministry that is within God's will. We are not born perfect, and we are not made perfect upon being saved. so we need to stop judging people and ministries as if we are.

Matthew 5:43-48
43 “You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Love your neighbor’* and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies!* Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too. 46 If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends,* how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.


I find this way of reasoning unscriptural and very lacking.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 29th 2007, 01:19 PM
My main problem with women not being allowed to speak in church is that I cannot see the Biblical principle behind it. In Christ, there is neither male nor female just like there is neither free nor slave. Throughout history, women have been mightily used by God; the Bible itself has enough examples of that. Hey, Deborah was even a judge in Israel!

What is wrong with seeing the Scriptures mentioned in a cultural light? This is valid hermeneutical principle that I see no problems with.

VerticalReality
Mar 29th 2007, 01:31 PM
My main problem with women not being allowed to speak in church is that I cannot see the Biblical principle behind it. In Christ, there is neither male nor female just like there is neither free nor slave. Throughout history, women have been mightily used by God; the Bible itself has enough examples of that. Hey, Deborah was even a judge in Israel!

What is wrong with seeing the Scriptures mentioned in a cultural light? This is valid hermeneutical principle that I see no problems with.

In Christ there is no male or female. However, you still can't deny the roles that have been given while we are here in this world. When Paul taught in Timothy that women should not teach a man, he was speaking to those who are neither male nor female in Christ. However, the fact that there is no male or female in Christ doesn't negate the roles assigned. If you want to go that route you have to deny Ephesians 5 where Paul says that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. You also have to deny Genesis 3:16 that says the man will rule over the woman.

In the spirit there is no male or female. However, while we're in this flesh, there are roles that have been assigned.

jiggyfly
Mar 29th 2007, 01:44 PM
My main problem with women not being allowed to speak in church is that I cannot see the Biblical principle behind it. In Christ, there is neither male nor female just like there is neither free nor slave. Throughout history, women have been mightily used by God; the Bible itself has enough examples of that. Hey, Deborah was even a judge in Israel!

What is wrong with seeing the Scriptures mentioned in a cultural light? This is valid hermeneutical principle that I see no problems with.
I do not know the full truth concerning the subject of women speaking in "church" or women preaching to men. But I don't think that Galatians 3:28 has any validity concerning this subject unless it is taken out of context and misused.

Paul is stating that salvation is to everyone regardless of nationality, gender or social status. If there really is no Jew or Gentile then Why the book of Hebrews? If there is not male or female then why does Paul instruct us on how to treat our brothers and sisters? If there are no slaves and masters then why does Paul give instruction to born again slaves?

The Parson
Mar 29th 2007, 01:58 PM
My main problem with women not being allowed to speak in church is that I cannot see the Biblical principle behind it. In Christ, there is neither male nor female just like there is neither free nor slave. Throughout history, women have been mightily used by God; the Bible itself has enough examples of that. Hey, Deborah was even a judge in Israel!

What is wrong with seeing the Scriptures mentioned in a cultural light? This is valid hermeneutical principle that I see no problems with.I would have reservations with looking into scriptures in a cultural light my friend. Culture is carnal and scripture is Spiritual. The two do not mix. And if it was a no no then, it must be a no no now. And if any way will do, no way will do just as well don't you think???

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 29th 2007, 02:04 PM
I would have reservations with looking into scriptures in a cultural light my friend. Culture is carnal and scripture is Spiritual. The two do not mix. And if were a no no then, it must be a no no now. And if any way will do, no way will do just as well don't you think???

Frankly, no I don't. Plenty of scholars agree on the fact that some Scriptures contain principles to be heeded while the actual issue talked about doesn't necessarily apply. We have to remember that they're still letters written within a certain cultural context to certain people to convey a certain message with a certain purpose.

VerticalReality
Mar 29th 2007, 03:10 PM
Frankly, no I don't. Plenty of scholars agree on the fact that some Scriptures contain principles to be heeded while the actual issue talked about doesn't necessarily apply. We have to remember that they're still letters written within a certain cultural context to certain people to convey a certain message with a certain purpose.

I don't really care for how we throw around the title of "scholar". There are many "scholars" that will tell you that the creation account given in Genesis should not be taken literally. There are many "scholars" that will tell you that many of the accounts given in the Old Testament are completely allegorical and never really actually took place.

If it were culturally based with room for modification then Paul couldn't exactly make the statement . . .



2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 29th 2007, 03:35 PM
Yes, but do you realize what Paul was talking about when he said that? He was talking about the Old Testament! There was no New Testament Scripture at that time! That's just a side note, but I think it should be noticed all the same.

VerticalReality
Mar 29th 2007, 03:47 PM
Yes, but do you realize what Paul was talking about when he said that? He was talking about the Old Testament! There was no New Testament Scripture at that time! That's just a side note, but I think it should be noticed all the same.

Yes, I realize that. However, I'm also of the belief that it applies to New Testament scripture as well.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 29th 2007, 04:53 PM
Yes, I realize that. However, I'm also of the belief that it applies to New Testament scripture as well.

I agree with you. To me, however, this does not mean we do not take the cultural aspect into account. And if you consider the fact that women in those days were uneducated, men and women sat separately, and so yelling at each other was the only way to communicate, you begin to understand something of why Paul said women should ask about things at home and keep quiet in the congregation.

The Parson
Mar 29th 2007, 08:30 PM
Yes, I'm sure cultures have changed. Know that for a fact. But the cultures should never effect the truth of Gods Word. But that really isn't the issue at all. I may be stoned at the gates for bringing this out but see that It is needed.

1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Paul clearly gave his reason behind his statement. It's because the way God wired her trusting heart that she was prohibited. Not because of culture. I'll post more of an explaination later as I have time, because I certainly do not want my statement to be misunderstood.

SpeakSlow
Mar 29th 2007, 11:03 PM
Yes, I'm sure cultures have changed. Know that for a fact. But the cultures should never effect the truth of Gods Word. But that really isn't the issue at all. I may be stoned at the gates for bringing this out but see that It is needed.

1st Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Paul clearly gave his reason behind his statement. It's because the way God wired her trusting heart that she was prohibited. Not because of culture. I'll post more of an explaination later as I have time, because I certainly do not want my statement to be misunderstood.

I will personally look forward to it because I think you may be on to something.

The Parson
Mar 30th 2007, 03:55 AM
As promised, I'd like to try to delve deeper into the subject. I'm going to be very careful with my answer, not because I am afraid of hurting feelings but want to be very careful to make the precept as clear as possible.

Most of you that know me also know I am a police officer and chaplain. There are many times I have had to go into a home where there is a domestic dispute and calm things down. That's my duty as a peace officer. There are also times that I have had to arrest one or the other for violence against the other spouse. There are even times I have had to take a mother and her children out of harms way to a safe house so that beatings will cease.

To my amazment, 4 out of 5 of the women I take out of the house, within the next day, place themself and children right back into the same situation. Why? Most all of them say, "He will change! I just know it!" I also wind up going back to find she has been hurt again. Man, it breaks my heart to see it, but I am allowed to do only so much as an officer even if I know the abuser is nothing more than a ravenous wolf. Someone full of anger and bound towards destruction. But I can remove him from the home by carting his carcas to jail... Problem is that once he gets out of jail, a majority of the time the woman allows him back in the house.

Now, as for my self, and many other men that I have talked to say as do I, that if they were in a situation like these women put themselves into, they would hit the trail and not return.

I would ask you why again. Well, God wired a man's mind different from a womans. Most men wouldn't stick around in a dangerous relationship because after once or twice, our trust runs out. Yet, these women return and take some awful abuse because they really deep down don't want to give up on their dream of happiness and abandon the nest, so to speak.

Same thing with the preacher/pastor. A pastor must show the love of God and compassion but also his job is to watch the sheep. And one of his jobs in tending the sheep is to keep the wolves out. And if the wolf is in the congregation, there will come a time that wolf must be removed and quickly. Sure, once removed, if that wolf will allow it, the pastors duty is to minister and witness to them, but most certainly not let them back in the gate of the sheepfold. At lease not until that wolf is converted into a sheep. John, Chapter 10.

Please don't even assume I am saying a man is superior to a woman. He is by no means superior. Sure wish I could use both sides of my brain or have the patients God built into these precious ladies. Shoot, you macho men really haven't even got the endurance these ladies have nor can you withstand the pain they can endure. Any of you guys ever have a baby??? It's just that God has made both genders a certain way both in mind and in body and who are we to question God in his wisdom? Even more in the order He has laid out...

Do you get my meaning so far? Actually, it is quite deeper and I'll try to post more tomorrow..

chisel
Mar 30th 2007, 10:06 AM
Hi TheParson,
I'm enjoying your posts and taking what you say to heart.
Do you have any ideas on Debora?
Cheers
V.

DiscipleDave
Mar 30th 2007, 08:06 PM
I have yet to see scripture where any man in church has direct authority over a woman. The only two things that the word of God makes clear where a man has complete authority is as the woman's father, or her husband.

What does this have to do with the statement " women are not to have authority over men " ????? which is the Truth, they ( women ) are not to asurp authority over a man. Now if you would like to bring up another topic, such as ( Can any man asurp authority over a woman ) then by all means do so. But this topic is about women that asurp authority over men.


If a man came up in church and told, with authority, my wife what to do, he might find himself on the floor (granted if I were married). For there is no man out side family or covenant (marriage) that has authority over a woman. The word husband is used for a reason in the verses where women are directed to do certain things. For it is only the husband who has that authority, and only over the woman he is married to.

True, but we are discussing women having authority over men, not the other way around.

IN His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ

DiscipleDave

^i^

chisel
Apr 2nd 2007, 05:29 PM
I'd like to mention that I've changed my mind on this subject. I have given it a lot of thought and searched the scriptures as the Bible tells us, and apart from the good post from 'The Parson' I have found a piece of scripture outside of Paul's epistles that suggests the same thing and basically clinched it for me.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
(1Pe 3:1)

Now the word 'conversation' in the above should be interpreted as behavior. So basically the behavior of the women should be such that people be won without words.

Thanks for a pleasant albeit sometimes heated discussion.

V.

PS. I'm still looking for an answer on why Debora was allowed to govern Israel. Thanks :)

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2007, 05:55 PM
Same thing with the preacher/pastor. A pastor must show the love of God and compassion but also his job is to watch the sheep. And one of his jobs in tending the sheep is to keep the wolves out. And if the wolf is in the congregation, there will come a time that wolf must be removed and quickly. Sure, once removed, if that wolf will allow it, the pastors duty is to minister and witness to them, but most certainly not let them back in the gate of the sheepfold. At lease not until that wolf is converted into a sheep. John, Chapter 10.

Please don't even assume I am saying a man is superior to a woman. He is by no means superior. Sure wish I could use both sides of my brain or have the patients God built into these precious ladies. Shoot, you macho men really haven't even got the endurance these ladies have nor can you withstand the pain they can endure. Any of you guys ever have a baby??? It's just that God has made both genders a certain way both in mind and in body and who are we to question God in his wisdom? Even more in the order He has laid out...

Do you get my meaning so far? Actually, it is quite deeper and I'll try to post more tomorrow..

Yes I do!

That's me. I've been told I'm nice to a fault, and that was in a job review in an industry and atmosphere that is typically all men. I have even tried to be more like those men I worked with - draw the hard line and dare you to spit across it.

To a small extent, I've suceeded. I can play the bad guy. But once that task is done, I do not stay in that frame of mind. I take it out when I need it but it's not a part of who I am. It's my "ace in the hole" so to speak, and I'd just as soon not play that card. Instead I've learned to be more assertive up front, in order to avoid having to handle the ace.

Women are not wired like men, and vice versa. We were designed to compliment each other, but there are things that women and men are just not reciprocal with.

Steve M
Apr 2nd 2007, 06:08 PM
I'd like to mention that I've changed my mind on this subject. I have given it a lot of thought and searched the scriptures as the Bible tells us, and apart from the good post from 'The Parson' I have found a piece of scripture outside of Paul's epistles that suggests the same thing and basically clinched it for me.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
(1Pe 3:1)

Now the word 'conversation' in the above should be interpreted as behavior. So basically the behavior of the women should be such that people be won without words.

Thanks for a pleasant albeit sometimes heated discussion.

V.

PS. I'm still looking for an answer on why Debora was allowed to govern Israel. Thanks :)
Deborah's an interesting case, Vim.

For starters, we're told that she called Barak and told him to attack. He replied, he would only go if she went with him. She said, all right, but because of that, the glory would not be his, and God would put the enemy leader into the hand of a woman. Later, a woman put a tent-peg into the enemy general's skull.

Sounds like Barak was kind of weak, huh?

So far, so good. Now for the plot twist. Guess which one of the two is mentioned in the Hebrews Hall of Faith chapter? (Hebrews 11:32)

Not Deborah. She was never mentioned again.

We're told nothing about her authority except that she held court and Israel would come to her for judgements. Which is, admittedly, a lot better than some of the judges. Some of them (Samson) were just plain wild men who never gave God the glory till being humbled. Others doubted (Gideon, who also was mentioned in the Hall of Faith).

The time of the Judges was one of the worst times for the people of Israel, in general; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

Ideas about her? Only that it would be extremely hard to form doctrine one way or another based on her. She was a Judge, a physical leader, and a prophetess. She told Barack what to do, and seemed to chastise him for not going out without her. Despite that, he is called one of the faithful.

Did a Judge necessarily lead Israel? Not necessarily... Samson didn't. In fact, I got into an arguement with my preacher's wife once over whether Samson was really a judge. She looked at his actions and said 'he never really led Israel, physically or spiritually. He never judged their disputes as we're told Deborah did. All he did was run around and kill people and get in trouble!' Except we're told in the final verse he was mentioned in that he had judged Israel for 20 years. (Judges 16:31) Yet he was no king, and no spiritual leader.

Furthermore... the office of prophetess is another interesting one. Did the prophet's ever lead? No... Did they speak in the temple? Not usually, although occasionally they would 'invade' it to confront the king or the priests. Most prophet's were wanderers, showing up to dispense God's word.

So that Deborah was both Prophetess and Judge proves little. Did either title make her a leader? (incidentally, the NIV translates "judged Israel" into "led Israel," which I don't think you can support from the original language)

Furthermore, read as a whole, what does her rebuke to Barack mean? Why did she rebuke him for saying he would not lead unless she came along? Why did the glory escape him that day, unless he was doing something displeasing to God in asking her to come with him?

Does the fact that Barack was mentioned in the Hall of Faith mean it wasn't a big deal that he asked her along?

Does the fact that Deborah was not mentioned there mean anything?

...

Well, as you can see, there's a lot of questions there, and a heckuva lot less actual conclusions.

Questions for my questions?

Steve M
Apr 2nd 2007, 06:29 PM
PS: I went looking for some articles on the matter, to see what other people said. I went to CARM first, because he's usually very thorough. He kind of skated around it, only addressing the surrounding scriptures.

These guys do good.

http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=155

Well, mostly good. Of note:


In a sermon on 1 Timothy 2:13-15, Calvin comments that God raised up Deborah to show men their slothfulness when the people of God were in bondage, and some believe that there are suggestions in Judges 4 and 5 that Deborah preferred it when men took the lead ("When the princes in Israel take the lead, when the people willingly offer themselves, praise the LORD!" "Judges 5:2) rather than being dependent upon a woman (Judges 4:8-9):

Barak said to here, "If you go with me, I will go, but if you don't go with me, I won't go. "Very well," Deborah said. "I will go with you, But the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, but the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman."Also:


These texts, as the surrounding contexts make clear, forbid women to teach or rule in the Church. Thus, whether a woman such as Deborah might legitimately exercise authority in the civil government, she may not in the Church.Make a distinction between service in a Church and authority outside the Church.

I also found a site that did all kinds of slander to Deborah... I'll refrain from posting that link. Sometimes when I look around and see the types of people I share positions with it's almost enough to make me rethinking my positions... until I glance at the other side and notice they have a character or two hidden among them doing the same thing, to their discomfiture. (you guys know the types I'm talking about!)

And I found one site that denied everything claimed in the first article I posted, but they had very little to add. All they said, basically, was that to draw the conclusion I cited above was reaching too far, and that what Deborah rebuked was the lack of faith that had kept Israel and Barack from already doing what she was leading them to do. That's the only part they considered worth challenging. To be fair, if they do manage to knock the feet out from under that claim, they have gone at least fifty percent of the way towards their claim. But that still leaves the question of whether that leadership is equivalent to leading or preaching inside a Church.

It's over here, http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/writings/genderdebate/deborah.html if you want to peruse it for yourself.

I found a half-dozen articles that gloss over the passage completely without really taking on any of the larger issues in it, as those I cited above do. Apparently this board isn't the only place people hesitate to jump in on that issue...

The Parson
Apr 2nd 2007, 06:39 PM
Sorry I'm getting back to the thread late but Steve conveyed my thoughts on the matter exactly Vim. Howdy TBR...

Steve M
Apr 2nd 2007, 06:48 PM
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0370.htm

In fact, Isaiah 3:12 in its context of God's judgment on unbelieving and
disobedient Israel indicates that God allowed weak leaders, either masculine
women or effeminate men, to rule as a part of His judgment on the sinning
nation.

Whoa. That's pretty far out there on stretching the meaning of the verse, methinks. Note that children are listed first; this seems more commentary on the weakness of Israel.

Still, it does seem to say that being ruled by women is a bad thing.

Weird.

Also, another article... I'm just force-feeding you food for thought, aren't I?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

This is a lengthy article. I agree with the first half, where they list facts from the Bible. Then they begin to interpret those, and I throw my hands in the air as they make claim after claim without backing them up to get to a conclusion I disagree entirely with...

But I posted this because they accurately list every situation where Paul and Jesus both threw aside the old ways of doing things and talked to women, preached to women, and treated women as equal.

I think that, given the way they acted, if they intended for women to serve as leaders, given how radically they were already separating from the culture of the day, they would have. Right on the spot.

But... that's another conclusion without too much to back it up besides conjecture. I already said those were bad, didn't I? :)

PS: Vim, if you don't yet regret asking me an open-ended question, you should. Oh, you should.

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2007, 06:50 PM
Sorry I'm getting back to the thread late but Steve conveyed my thoughts on the matter exactly Vim. Howdy TBR...

Howdy Parson! :bounce:

Naphal
Apr 2nd 2007, 08:26 PM
I'd like to mention that I've changed my mind on this subject. I have given it a lot of thought and searched the scriptures as the Bible tells us, and apart from the good post from 'The Parson' I have found a piece of scripture outside of Paul's epistles that suggests the same thing and basically clinched it for me.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
(1Pe 3:1)

Now the word 'conversation' in the above should be interpreted as behavior. So basically the behavior of the women should be such that people be won without words.

Thanks for a pleasant albeit sometimes heated discussion.

V.

PS. I'm still looking for an answer on why Debora was allowed to govern Israel. Thanks :)


God chose the best leader for the job and it was her. She wasn't married to "Israel" so there was no reason why she couldn't lead them.

Atrandomdutch
Apr 4th 2007, 07:47 PM
I think I have become somewhat more nuanced in terms of my opinion. When I posted, I was a little...overboard, I guess, just wanted to state that. Not that I don't believe that women can be a teacher in church (which I still do not believe) but my beliefs have been more nuanced.

BadDog
Apr 4th 2007, 11:24 PM
Well speakslow, I came to this thread kinda late. I hope that you are still perusing this thread. What I have to share is pretty unique, and IMO well supported from scripture. I once started a thread on this here after some extended study on it, so much of this is just cut-n-pasted. I'll just share an introduction to how this Bible text can be handled, then post after that other ways in which people have handled this text over the years. The purpose of this 1st part is to give some thoughts on interpreting the relevant texts...


Many are puzzled about 1 Timothy 2:11, 12.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

(I don't even want to get into the "women shall be preserved/saved through bearing of childtren." :D )

We cannot consider this underlined text above in 1 Timothy 2 without considering 1 Corinthians 14. Here's the portion that relates:

1 Corinthians 14:30-40 (NASB) But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

I color-coded the above for a reason... which I'll get to eventually. I'm convinced due to the grammtical structure, but also due to the context, that the text in 1 Corinthians 14:33b through vs. 35 ("...for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.") is a quote by Paul of the Corinthian letter written to him and that he actually strongly disagrees with it. In the Corinthians letter written to him, most commentaries agree that many Corinth sayings were included. Examples of this are...

1 Corinthians 6:12 “All things are lawful for me”— [Paul responds:] but not everything is beneficial. “All things are lawful for me”—[Paul responds:] but I will not be controlled by anything.
1 Corinthians 6:13 “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food," — [Paul responds:] but God will do away with both. The body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
NET note:

10sn All things are lawful for me. In the expressions in vv. 12-13 within quotation marks, Paul cites certain slogans the Corinthians apparently used to justify their behavior. Paul agrees with the slogans in part, but corrects them to show how the Corinthians have misused these ideas.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body”— [Paul responds:] but the immoral person sins against his own body.
1 Corinthians 7:1-3 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”— [Paul responds:] But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband. A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to her husband.
1 Corinthians 8:1, 2 With regard to food sacrificed to idols, we know that “we all have knowledge.”— [Paul responds:] Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know.
(Notice Paul's admonition for those who think they know something. Then notice the same sort of response by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 - Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. .)
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that “an idol in this world is nothing,” and that “there is no God but one.” If after all there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), — [Paul responds:]yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live
1 Corinthians 10:23 “Everything is lawful,” — [Paul responds:] but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,”— [Paul responds:] but not everything builds others up.
1 Corinthians 14:33b-40 "As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silent in the churches;" for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for "it is improper for a woman to speak in church." — [Paul responds:] Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

So, a crucial point we must recognize in this first of Paul's letters to the Corinthians is that he was responding to a letter sent to him. (See 7:1-3) IMO in chapter 14, as well as the others above, we see Paul considering some of the things the church at Corinth wrote to him about. We should not assume that what is written in any of those verses as truth, but something to which Paul is responding.

IMO Paul was writing regarding the speaking in tongues that some of the women were doing in the church service. Some in the church in Corinth felt that it wasn't proper for women to speak in the church assembled. "Let them ask their husbands at home if they don't understand something that was prophesied (through speaking in tongues without an interpreter)." This passage is controversial, and it's important that we understand its argument. If I'm right, then it REALLY doesn't make any sense to understand 1 Timothy 2 as Paul not permitting women to speak at all.

I've also become convinced that the difficult passages are difficult primarily for one reason: we don't really understand the surrounding context. The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is participatory ministry within a body of believers. I know that won't sit well with many, but I can't see any other way of understanding 1 Corinthians 12:1 - 14:40. How can Paul do a 180-degree turn and say that half of the body can't talk in a participatory, mutually ministering, body while assuming that such talking by women is taking place through speaking in tongues and prophesying just doesn't make sense when interpreted in the traditional manner. If that is what he is saying, then I would certainly think he would have offered a LOT more deatils in his explanation as to how one half is supposed to participate and the other half can't. Paul ends up contradicting himself, which obviously can't happen.


So while I'm convinced that the authority of men in the church and in the home is a fundamental teaching here, I do not think that 1 Corinthians 14 is saying that women should say not a word in a church meeting.


With that in mind, I'll address 1 Timothy 2. To fully explain my thoughts would take several posts; but let me ask some questions perhaps in the form of suggestions and offer some observations.

1st, ANER in 1 Timothy 2:8 can be translated "husband." (It also means "men.") That doesn't mean we have to, but go with me on this to see if it leads to a coherent and reasonable conclusion. If we chose "husband," then GUNH should be translated "wife." That would make sense because of what linguists call a "semantic frame." (GUNH can also be translated as "women.") IOW, what if the text here has a lot more to do with the relationship between a husband and wife than about women and men? This creates significant coherance between Paul's creation support--Adam and his wife Eve--and his forbidding the wife to teach and have authority over the husband.

Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a wife to teach or usurp authority over her husband, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the wife being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

Also, there is an interesting connotation of "murder" to the word used for authority here (AUQENTEW) and that connotation fits in with the story of the fall--"for when you eat of it [the tree] you will surely die." So Paul is very serious when he warns the women not to usurp authority over their husbands (or men in the church), and it ties in closely with the consequences outlined in Genesis for the fall.

Also, ISTM that most wives learn very early on that trying to teach (in the sense of sitting their husbands down and lecturing them) and expressing authority over their husbands just simply doesn't work. They're quite good at figuring out other, more effective means of accomplishing their purposes.

Secondly, what is the overall context about? ISTM it has a LOT to do with bearing witness to those outside the church. Note in 1:8 and following that the law is not intended for those who live in faithful obediance already. It is to call those outside of obediance to account. And note how Paul finishes the paragraph (vs 11)--"this accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God..." (NET).

Now, at this point in the letter Paul is addressing a Corinthian motto/comment from a previous letter to Paul. What was Paul's reaction to this motto? "Do you guys think that the Word of God came only to you guys?" Do you think you've got a corner on that market?! Paul does not approve nor does he agree with this. Instead he says that they should (including the women) desire to prophesy, and to speak in tongues. But it just needs to be done decently and in an orderly manner. You see, some women were apparently not only speaking in tongues, but giving a word of prophecy. That bothered some of the Corinthians. But was it the women that Paul was so concerned about, prophesying in meetings, or was it the lack of respect of the wives for the authority which God gave to their husbands? That's why Paul says "and do not forbid speaking in tongues." That is the context (1 Corinthians 12-14). Otherwise, this would seem to come out of the blue.

This letter is about how people "ought to conduct themselves in the household of God?" (3:15) IOW, how should Christians in the Corinthian's assembly conduct themselves so that the church stands solid with a real testimony to the truth?

So, coming back to 1 Timothy 2, Paul says that the men are, among other things, to participate in reaching out to the world by praying. Women are to be involved, among other ways, by raising children properly.

Well, there you have it. How would I translate it? ...hard to say.

1 Timothy 2:8-15 [Paul is telling Timothy he wants people to be praying for those in authority so the kingdom can be advanced. It is in that context that he says the following:]

- Therefore, I intend husbands to pray in every place, lifting committed hands without being angry or rationalizing.

- In the same way, [I intend] wives to dress in an appropriate manner with modesty and sensibility [so as] to beautify themselves not in braids and gold, or pearls, or a fine dress. On the contrary, her manner of dress should be consistent with a wife who asserts godly religion through good works.

- A wife should in quietness and complete obedience acquire understanding. I do not permit a wife to teach the husband and especially not to control him, on the contrary she is to be in quietness. Note Adam was not deceived, but the wife was, and because of her deception, she stepped outside the boundary. The wife will participate in salvation through childbearing, if the children stay in faith and love and dedication and [remain] sensible.


This interpretation agrees with Peter's comments in 1 Peter 3:1-7 quite well.

So, we need to separate the instruction to possess a quiet spirit with the action of being quiet in this context. First of all, it is linked with learning, and so implies listening to what is being taught rather than speaking. As for the Greek word rendered "have authority", some say that its meaning is somewhat unclear. Some have argued that there is sometimes a negative connotation such as abusing authority - to "usurp authority."

I did some research on this, and it does have much to back it up. Louw and Nida in their Lexicon with regard to "Semantic domains" give the meaning or sense of the word as "to control in a domineering manner" and glossed it "to control, to domineer." (Their lexicon is the #1 lexicon used by professionals and Bible translators.) They do not include it in the semantic domain, "Exercise Authority" (37.35-37.47), but in "Control, Restrain" 37.1-37.32.

Edited added: Robertson's Word Pictures says - OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS - "not to domineer men" - The word AUQENTEW is now cleared up by Kretschmer (Glotta, 1912, pp. 289ff.) and by Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary. See also Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus and Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 88f. AUTODIKEW was the literary word for playing the master while AUQENTEW was the vernacular term. It comes from AUTENTES, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. It occurs in the papyri (substantive auqenth�, master, verb AUQENTEW, to domineer, adjective auqentiko�, authoritative, "authentic")

IOW, the word Paul chose here has more to do with "domineering" than with "exercising authority." Paul made a choice here and he had other options. He often used ECW EXOUSIAN for exercising authority, so this choice here is significant, IMO. Hence Paul was probably referring to "usurping authority," not to "exercising authority over." Also, this particular word is often used in contexts involving murder and rape in extrabiblical and classical Greek.

Edited-added: So what we see then is that 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul refuting a Corinthian motto telling women to not speak in church by stating that they are not to forbid speaking in tongues. (That was the context.) And in 1 Timothy 2 Paul is not saying that women are not to exercise authority over men, but that wives are not to usurp authority from their husbands. I believe the authority structure that God has set up for the family and the church does have men in leadership, but that women are permitted to be in positions of leadership if they are under the umbrella of male leadership.[

How many of us are involved in churches in which the leadership for the children's ministries is a woman? They certainly are exercising some authority over men who are involved in the ministry - but IMO it is biblical if they have been placed under male leadership.

End of part I

BD

BadDog
Apr 4th 2007, 11:37 PM
OK, here are some other views on "women keeping silent in church." I conclude with my own personal view on this difficult topic. Hey, I could be wrong, but that would not be the first time: :D

Part 2:

OK, here are some more comments on this "women keeping silent" issue. I'll present various other views. Please feel free to comment on them:

- Authoritative Teaching Disallowed View:
Earlier I mentioned the possibility of DIDASKEIN and AUQENTEIN being a hendiadys where AUQENTEIN constrains the meaning of DIDASKEIN. There is debate about this. What this would mean is that instead of translating it as "But I do not permit/allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" but as "But I do not permit/allow a woman to teach domineeringly over a man." The 2 infinitives, "to teach" and "to usurp authority" (or "to exercise authority") are seen as really one expression. And remember that AUQENTEIN is really a loaded word. Would Paul approve of controlling or domineering for any kind of leadership? IMO, that is what this word means. So it is possible that AUQENTEIN ("to usurp authority") and DISASKEIN (" to teach") are strongly linked together in this text and should be translated something like, "authoritarian teaching."

I don't think Paul was commanding wives that they never teach their husband anything, or that they never teach a man anything, in general. And remember... Priscilla (with Aquila, her husband - but she appeared to have the dominant role, for they're usually listed with her name first) evidently did teach Apollos many things.

Acts 18:25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Priscilla and Aquila are usually mentioned with her name first... and always together. It's never "Priscilla" only or "Aquila" only. And if it is true that Priscilla had the teaching gift of the two, isn't it neat how supportive Aquila is of her and how they work together? If Priscilla had gone off on her own, perhaps she would have built u pa larger following, but God would not have honored it, and she wouldnot have been as effective in ministering in people's lives, IMO.

1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of the Asian province greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, along with the church that meets in their home.

Acts18:1-3 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.

vss. 18, 19 Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow. They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
(Obviously, there were some gifted individuals, because Paul left them in Ephesus [where they discover Apollos] to build up the church there. Paul trusted them.)

vss. 24-26 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Robertson's Greek Word Pictures says about verse 26:

...Instead of abusing the young and brilliant preacher for his ignorance they (particularly Priscilla) gave him the fuller story of the life and work of Jesus and of the apostolic period to fill up the gaps in his knowledge. It is a needed and delicate task, this thing of teaching gifted young ministers. They do not learn it all in schools. More of it comes from contact with men and women rich in grace and in the knowledge of God's ways...

But all of this must be taken in the context, as said earlier regarding vs. 15 and women being "preserved" through child-bearing, of the family. If we take those 2 infinitives as being really one expression, then we need to ask ourselves, "How does that relate to the family? How does the woman teaching in such a fashion that she usurps authority from her husband affect the family and its testimony in the world?"

I'd be interested in comments on this.


- Temporal Teaching View:

Another argument is made about these verses - that it should be seen in a temporal manner.

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." The word translated as "but" is DE - which can mean also "now" or "and." The take here is that Paul was saying that "now" - at thistime, I do not permit those things... I only mention thisin passing for some of you may read about such a view. But it simply has no grammatical support at all. The Greek word DE can mean "now"... but never in a temporal sense. It is simply a way of saying, "well, I was saying this, now I'm going to say something else or make a conclusion."


- Wives, Don't Badger Your Husbands View:

Another view of this text is that it refers to wives trying to teach their husbands by sitting them husbands down and lecturing them ("teaching authoritively/domineering") and thus expressing authority over their husbands." Personally, in context, I just don't buy that - but I wanted to let you know about that view.


- Only in Assembled Church View:

Some say that the admonition to "keep silent" was only in church services. OK, but what if the woman steps out of the church building and then teaches? Is that permissible? What's the difference, really? Can a woman on the membership role of one church teach the men in another church? What should happen on a bible forum such as this one? ISTM whatever arguments could be given to say that women shouldn't teach inside some church organization are just as applicable (or inapplicable) to women outside the organization. So let's think carefully before we draw conclusions too quickly. That is one of my main struggles with the traditional interpretation of these verses.

I do believe that the oversight role expressed in 1 Timothy 3 is for men - to be elders and deacons. That is clear from the context and from the Greek. (ANDRES/ANHR - "man/husband") However, I believe the arguments for women as deacons are strong enough to make those who hold to a position that the GUNH ("women/wives") refers to "wives" there at least a little uncomfortable.

Some wonder if such an approach as I've described is forcing a purely marital status on all people in a church. It's not any more than instructions to "sons" in Proverbs should not be considered by daughters. In any case, isn't Paul telling these women that having children is to be their focus? I think the emphasis here in this text has more to do with the witness of the character of the family unit to the world. I think we should also recognize that women at that time needed to get married. So, the assumption would be that a woman of marital age would be married.

Look at the context. The men were, among other things, to participate in bringing about a positive testimony for Christ in their world by praying. Women were to be involved, among other ways, in raising children properly. How often have you heard it said that one way to build a church is to raise a godly seed? That's what Paul is saying here. He is concerned with the me and women's involvement in that. That's the context. Paul s simply saying that we need to be aware of how the way we conduct ourselves affects our testimony.


- Cultural View:

Lastly, some view this command by Paul of women keeping silent and not usurping authority over their husbands as a cultural thing. OK, this word "to remain quiet" is similar to Peter's exhortation in 1 Peter 3:1-7 that women maintain a gentle, quiet spirit that was not taking a leading role in public assemblies. I know that will not sit well with many but the NT teaching appears to be more than just a cultural habit of the day. And remember - Paul (and Peter) are speaking in generalities. Yes, this could be a cultural emphasis by Paul. But we must be careful about making such assumptions. Where do we draw the line?

In its favor, let's consider the exhortation by Paul that women also were not to be seen in public without a head-covering:

1 Corinthians 11:7-14 A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God's image and glory, but woman is man's glory. For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head: because of the angels. However, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering. But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.

If we say that a woman keeping silent is not cultural, then must we interpret the above text that a woman must wear a head covering? Isn't it self-evident that this is cultural? (Consider what happens even today in Muslim countries.) Paul asks if even nature itself tells us that it's improper for a woman to pray in public with her head uncovered. My reaction? Uh, no, it doesn't... I don't get it.

And note Paul's response to this though: "Don't argue with me about it, and don't get all upset about this and fight with one another over it. I've got nothing else to say about it. And this stands in all of the churches of God!" Pretty adament.

FYI, here's how I view it: It is biblical for a woman to show respect for a man's authority (in the church and at home - to her own husband). These days, wearing a hat is not how this is clearly communicated. No one today would assume that the woman was trying to be respectful for doing so - they would see it as merely a fashion statement, right? So we need to ask ourselves, in today's world, what would express that? That's the principle. I would say that the woman, for example, allowing her husband/boy friend to open doors for her is one example. I once dated a woman who refused to allow me to do this. We didn't date very long - it became the deciding issue for both of us.

So I think we have to see Paul's authority as prescriptive for behavior of women in the churches in general - not just at that time. They were not to aspire to prominent teaching or leadership roles but rather were to aspire to childbearing as their chief role, with good deeds as their adornment. They were to let the men lead. I know, that sounds like women were to take the back seat. If we read in these contexts of these "keep silent" passages, we soon see a reference to Eve being deceived by the Serpent.

Any other ideas on this?

So IMO the cultural aspect canno tbe ignored in scripture, but I do not see women keeping silent in the church as completely cultural. There is a cultural dynamic there, IMO. But we need to look for the principle behind it, which IMO is the testimony of the family and church in the world, and the woman respecting the authority of men (in leadership) in the church and their own husbands.

- My View:

IMO God has determined to place the woman in the family (and the church also, IMO) in a position in which she can often be more effective by taking a less visible, less prominent role. We need to also be aware that the position of women in the family and in the church structure was determined from the time of the fall, and is not just a NT teaching or simply culturally determined. But we cannot ignore the place of culture in this.

In the bible chat group over a year ago now, we had an active scripture memory thread. ComeToLight and I were actively involved in that thread in which a few of us were trying to create an environment in which we could encourage one another to memorize scripture. I went through the Navigators TMS ("Topical Memory System") several years ago and memorized some more verses since then. So I had real convictions about the value of scripture memory.

As a result I took a fairly prominent role there. Any leadership I have exercised is not due to my being a man, or to having posted almost 5000 posts at the time, but because of my past experience and convictions on scripture memory. But I was not the leader there. ComeToLight (Laura) was. We talked about it, and we agreed that God was leading her to this role in that thread. (She was not seeking such a role.) I was convinced of this and refused to take the leadership role there. Similarly, I am convinced also that God can and does use women to teach us all in the body of Christ. So how does this reconcile with these "problem" texts? Well, first-of-all, Laura's not my wife. Also, that thread was handled, as most are here, in a sharing mode. If we take the "women keep silent in the church" in a fundamental manner, then we should conclude that women should not even participate in discussions in which a man leads. I think a key consideration is whether there is male leadership that the woman is under. (I think we at times make too much of women submitting, when often we men need to learn to submit to the leadership in the church that God has placed us under.)

Third, Laura was operating under the umbrella of the authority of the board here - which has male leadership.

So this certainly does not mean that they were not to teach men at all, IMO. (Comments?) I would be interested in what you all think is the biblical form of women teaching in their home and in the church.


FWIW. This is long enough.

Comments?

BD

BadDog
Apr 5th 2007, 12:03 AM
Several things must be said concerning the curse placed on women after the fall. First of all, this does not in any way imply any inferiority on the part of women.

Now concerning the role of women in the church—that women must not lead or teach men, and should not speak publicly (I Corinthians 14:33b-36; I Timothy 2:9-15)—let me say this: The role of women in the church and in marriage is not restricted to Paul’s teaching, nor should it be viewed as only related to the immoral context of the church in Corinth. It is a biblical doctrine, which has its origin in the third chapter of Genesis. That is why Paul wrote,

I Corinthians 14:34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

So we cannot simpy disregard God’s instruction as being cultural. Just as Satan drew Eve’s attention to the restriction of the one tree as her husband stood by silently, so he wants women to ignore the restriction placed upon women today. I think the key here is to seek what God desires for men and women both in the family and in the church assembled.

The men are to lead by love... at our own personal sacrifice, seeking what is best for our wife (Ephesians 5:25ff). Biblical leadership is patterned after our Lord.


Cultural basis: for those who think that the stuff described in 1 Timothy 2 is merely culturally based, and needs to be "adjusted" to our present-day culture, and to those who say we should ignore any cultural concerns... Let's look at the context.

2:9 refers to women not dressing ostentaciously - "with braided hair, etc." Now, do you think that women not wearing braided hair" is not culturally derived? Is it wrong for women to braid their hair now? You see, in those days, the braiding of the hair was looked upon as a sexually provocative thing to do. But it is seen almost the reverse today. That is certainly a matter of culture, right? Women can certainly wear their hair today in a manner that is provocative and improper... but to say in general, "don't braid your hair" would be to miss what Paul was saying, right?

So I'm asking, do you think that it is possible that some of what Paul commands these churches regarding how women are to behave is culturally derived? And if so, how much? Where do we draw the line? Any ideas?


Is it biblical for women to preach?
Well, my wife used to attend a church (before we were married) in which there were some female elders - who preached on occasion. The church justified it since the head pastor/elder was male and did most of the preaching. In general the church teaching was pretty sound, BTW. But I too just did not feel comfortable with it. The fact that some elders were women bothered me the most as scripture (1 Timothy 3) is very clear on this, IMO.

BD

Steve M
Apr 5th 2007, 12:24 PM
Wow, BD. Comments? It's gonna take all day for anybody else to catch up. :lol:

Comments on the head covering bit? I attend a head covering congregation.

Comments on the women as deacon? Well, isn't it interesting that although Paul gave NO requirements as to the wife of an elder, the deacon's wife must meet certain qualifications? Even though you would think the elder, being in a leadership position, would be held to a higher standard? I've heard some preachers say they think the wife of a deacon, by extension, must be qualified to serve with him as a female deacon.

Of course, I've always understood the role of deacon to be serving the physical needs of the Church so that the elders can concentrate on the spiritual needs... which sort of makes the issue of female deacons less about leadership and preaching, wouldn't it?

...

As always, it's a pleasure to go over this issue with you. Do I sense even more nuance to your position today than last time we spoke, or am I projecting?

BadDog
Apr 5th 2007, 05:59 PM
Wow, BD. Comments? It's gonna take all day for anybody else to catch up. :lol:

Comments on the head covering bit? I attend a head covering congregation.

Comments on the women as deacon? Well, isn't it interesting that although Paul gave NO requirements as to the wife of an elder, the deacon's wife must meet certain qualifications? Even though you would think the elder, being in a leadership position, would be held to a higher standard? I've heard some preachers say they think the wife of a deacon, by extension, must be qualified to serve with him as a female deacon.

Of course, I've always understood the role of deacon to be serving the physical needs of the Church so that the elders can concentrate on the spiritual needs... which sort of makes the issue of female deacons less about leadership and preaching, wouldn't it?

...

As always, it's a pleasure to go over this issue with you. Do I sense even more nuance to your position today than last time we spoke, or am I projecting?
Thx Steve. I agree with the above thoughts, BTW. I do think that the head covering tradition is culturally derived but does reflect the women showing respect and submitting to their husbands. I think that to require women to wear hats today is missing the point Paul is making. I wonder what requirement he would make today? I knew a husband who would not allow his wife to have her hair down. That was a privilege for only him - at home. I think that is an accurate way to put the principe into practice, but we should be careful about requiring others to follow the same practice.

I suppose today just wearing a wedding ring is an application of the principle, but it would seem to require something more demonstrative perhaps. You probably do not know that several years ago, when we had only been married a few years, I talked to my wife about wearing a hat. She did so for awhile, but after talking about it, I, no we, decided that I was missing the point. That was a short-lived period, but I did take that text very literally. (She would have continued to wear a hat if I had felt strongly about it.)

It is interesting that the term translated "submit" is a military term. It is similar to our present-day "fall in." It has to do with aligning ourselves with those that God has placed over us, just as a soldier will line-up behind the squad leader and line up with others in the platoon. It does not mean that we should have no personal ideas of our own, but it does indicate a respect for the leadership structure we each find ourselves under, and to considering what is best for the body in general. IOW, sometimes we all must place our own personal convictions and practices below the common good and common choices about issues.

I don't think there has been much change in my position since that last time. I do think that the Timothy text on women either as "women who are deacons" or as "wives of deacons" has strong arguments on both sides. You pointed out one of them - that it doesn't make sense that elders' wives would have no commands given to them, but deacons' wives would. That is a strong argument for interpreting GUNH as "women" (who are deacons).

That's why I think it is a mistake there to translate GUNH as "wives." If it is translated "women" (as the NASB does, for example), then it leaves it open to the reader to make his own interpretation.

Point of interest here: the TNIV 1st edition translated GUNH in 1 Timothy 3:11 as "deaconesses."

1 Timothy 3:11
NIV In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

TNIV - 1st edition - In the same way, deaconesses are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

TNIV - 2nd edition - In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

I had a real problem with the 1st edition, and though I liked the TNIV, in general, I could not endorse it since DOULOS ("deacon-servant") is not even present in the text!

Now regarding elders, I do not see any basis for interpreting 1 Timothy 3:2-4 as allowing for women elders:

Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect.

How can you be faithful to your wife if you are a wife (woman)?

Titus 1:6 says something fairly similar (the only other text to list requirements for an elder):

An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.


I just wanted to post that earlier stuff because people are not aware, in general, to all of the possible interpretations which have been taken over the years. I do think that some of that stuff is culturally derived. But, in general, it originates from the fall.

I also think that scripture is clear about women not exercising authority over men in the church or to teach men, in general. But as long as there is some clear male authority over the woman then I believe that it is biblical for women to teach in an environment in which men are being taught as part of a group.

But regarding the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14 (and 1 Timothy 2) regarding women (or wives) keeping quiet in the church, there are many possible interpretations to be considered.

Take care,

BD