Women should not be allowed to preach in church

[Lucy-Pevensie]

they can talk and speak all they want they just cant get up on that pole pit and preach.

You're right. Let the men do the dancing.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Snags the MJ emoji...

You're right. Let the men do the dancing.

 

[Dino246]

...
Where does that leave us? There had to have been a discussion between the man and the woman that isn’t recorded for us. Adam was not deceived by the serpent but convinced by his wife to eat of the fruit. I agree that they came to a consensus and ate the fruit together as stated in Genesis 3:6.

It does make sense that there is an unrecorded conversation; that is not contested. However, as the plausible conversation is neither recorded nor directly referenced, anything based on it is an argument from silence. We can only be certain of what is recorded. God said Adam listened to his wife; those are the only words that Eve spoke and are recorded.

It is the fact that Eve was deceived by the serpent that disqualifies women from teaching under the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 and it is this fact that started this discussion in the first place and you seemed to be at odds with this.

I am "at odds" with this, because I believe it to be an incorrect and unwarranted interpretation of Paul's message to Timothy. I believe that Paul was addressing locally-prevalent false teachings that included the idea that Eve was created first, and that she had special knowledge from eating the fruit (reference: "Who Said Women Can't Teach", ch. 16 by Charles Trombley). The "for" in verse then means "here is the countering truth" rather than "because of these reasons". Can I prove all this from Scripture? No, but to me it makes perfect sense of the passage, and does not violate any scriptural principle.

Paul does not say, "I don't permit any woman..." or "all women"; he said, "a woman" suggesting a local issue involving a single wayward individual. Even then, the recommendation is corrective and redemptive: "let her learn quietly and with submission"... as was required of male students also.

It doesn't follow logically that a single woman (Eve) was deceived a single time, and therefore no woman ever can teach in the Church. If that were logical, then it would be more logical that no man could teach because of Adam's sin. There is nothing in Scripture supporting the idea that women are more subject to deception than men. It also doesn't make sense that women shouldn't teach "simply because Adam was created before Eve"; that would be a non sequitur. Women as well as men are fully redeemed in Christ. Only salvation in Christ and the gifting and instruction of the Holy Spirit make anyone, man or woman, competent to teach in the Church.

 

[Icetech]

No. I disagree with YOU and think you do not have the mind of God in this matter.

I only know what is revealed in Gods word.

 

[Icetech]

It doesn't follow logically that a single woman (Eve) was deceived a single time, and therefore no woman ever can teach in the Church.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

 

[Dino246]

I only know what is revealed in Gods word.

... and what is revealed in God's word is interpreted in your mind. Nobody is arguing what the Scripture says. We're arguing what it means. We all interpret Scripture; we cannot not interpret it. We read it through the filters of our understanding, experience, worldview, bias, presumption, assumption and inference. That's why a systematic approach to understanding is valuable. That's also why we should be cautious in our conclusions rather than dogmatic.

 

[wolfwint]

And so you join the Eisegesis club, inventing dialogue or situations that aren't recorded in Scripture in order to support your position.

In the same way you need much eisegese for to find arguments for your position. Nobody wonders that nobody can find clear historical reports that women were eldest ore pastors ore were in position to preach in church. If it would be normal in the early church we would find clear hints for that in the first centuries, but we dont find them. You have to use non clear examples like Junias for that. But the bible speaks clear against your view.

 

[Icetech]

... and what is revealed in God's word is interpreted in your mind. Nobody is arguing what the Scripture says. We're arguing what it means. We all interpret Scripture; we cannot not interpret it. We read it through the filters of our understanding, experience, worldview, bias, presumption, assumption and inference. That's why a systematic approach to understanding is valuable. That's also why we should be cautious in our conclusions rather than dogmatic.

Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:12 that "we use plainness of speech." It is apparent some people do not like what the Bible has to say.

 

[Dino246]

Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:12 that "we use plainness of speech." It is apparent some people do not like what the Bible has to say.

I notice that you're adept at sniping, but not so quick to engage with reason and rationale. I can snipe too... but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding.

 

[Icetech]

I notice that you're adept at sniping, but not so quick to engage with reason and rationale. I can snipe too... but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding.

Call it what you want, 2 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are clear and there is nothing that is ambiguous in the text.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

So you make some wonderful point but it seems you might be a little frustrated so i just want to clarify i was not trying to be rude but rather give my interpretation of this scripture.
So your first post stated that for can mean because, that's incorrect the strong dictionary states that for is G1063 and translates to ( A primary particle; properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): - and, as, because (that), but, even, for indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.)
The second reply doesn't make sense all i said was if a woman of faith was to have a child they would not die i said nothing nor does the verse about woman who cant conceive children.
The third reply there are only so many ways to interpret a verse and this verse is clear but ill tell you what i do to properly interpret a verse i define each word of the verse by looking at the original translation in greek or hebrew this way i know exactly what that verse is saying it's not rocket science.
The fourth reply This passage is the the law that you want me to show you it's also a command as it states. This does not mean woman can talk at all in the church that's a lie they can talk and speak all they want they just cant get up on that pole pit and preach.So you just have to understand the context of this scripture to make heads or tails of it.
The final reply states that woman should not be reasonable for what eve did because of the blood of Jesus and your right but it still says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." This doesn't mean all woman have this permanent sin hanging over them no, it's just a command that was given for this transgression. I am always open to learn i am not stubborn or prideful if you feel that i am interpreting something wrong be straight with me as i will be with you for you are my brother or sister in Christ i don't know your gender but anyways i am relatively new to being a true born again Christian because before i was lukewarm and did nothing for god so now that i am studying to show myself approved i welcome all knowledge of the scripture so that i may rightly divide the word of truth.
God Bless you in Jesus name

There you have it ladies...we can't get up on that "pole pit..."

 

[Lewiz]

Because a head covering really is just a cultural thing. A head covering doesn't mean to us what it meant to them then. It's not a sign of submission now.

But Paul made it clear that a woman having pastoral teaching authority over a man is not cultural but is in accordance with God's order of authority.

Nothing wrong with a woman teacher. They just can't do it from a pastoral position of authority. We don't appreciate the significance of that because the office of pastor has changed in the church today. Instead of a pastor being able to wield great power and authority over the congregation a pastor today is simply the event organizer and administrator in the church, and often just works for a board of elders.

All postings about using 'authority' in positions in the church have it all wrong. All church positions are servant positions.

 

[Lewiz]

And if you subtract Judas what do you get?

When you add Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, & Matthias, what do you get?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

In the last days knowledge will be increased. Not stay the same. Thank God for His scholars.

 

[Dino246]

Call it what you want, 2 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are clear and there is nothing that is ambiguous in the text.

That's your view, and you're welcome to it. I don't consider them "clear" because in each case there is a glaring inconsistency in the "plain reading" of the text.

 

[Angela53510]

Because a head covering really is just a cultural thing. A head covering doesn't mean to us what it meant to them then. It's not a sign of submission now.

But Paul made it clear that a woman having pastoral teaching authority over a man is not cultural but is in accordance with God's order of authority.

Nothing wrong with a woman teacher. They just can't do it from a pastoral position of authority. We don't appreciate the significance of that because the office of pastor has changed in the church today. Instead of a pastor being able to wield great power and authority over the congregation a pastor today is simply the event organizer and administrator in the church, and often just works for a board of elders.

One more time! Is the word in 1 Tim. 2:12, ἐξουσία or αὐθεντειν

Authority from God or man - exousia - ἐξουσία Feminine noun Found 102 times in the Bible, making it a BASIC Greek Bible word! Here are some pertinent examples of the use of this word:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation," Romans 13:1-4 NET

"[FONT=&quot]Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω, οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2 ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν, οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λήμψονται.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]3 οἱ γὰρ ἄρχοντες οὐκ εἰσὶν φόβος τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ. θέλεις δὲ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν; τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει, καὶ ἕξεις ἔπαινον ἐξ αὐτῆς·" Romans 13:1-3 Greek[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

OR

[/FONT]"Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt 28:18 NET[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" Matt 28:18[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Not just authority, but ALL Authority Jesus has been given!

Then there is αὐθεντειν authentein, a word found only ONCE in the entire Bible (Including the Greek OT!) Search in vain in the Greek text below, to find Paul talking about godly authority or exousia. The word is not there, not even in Stephanus!

[FONT=&quot]"διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ." 1 Tim. 2:12 SBL Greek NT
[/FONT]"[FONT=&quot]γυναικι δε διδασκειν ουκ επιτρεπω ουδε αυθεντειν ανδρος αλλ ειναι εν ησυχια" 1 Tim. 2:12 Stephanus TR1550 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2:12 KJV

This word is WRONGLY translated "usurp authority." No, no, no! If Paul wanted me to have godly authority over women, he would have used exousia - ἐξουσία, as he did in other places.


Instead, Paul picks a word found NO WHERE else in the Bible. In fact, in KJV days, they probably had no access to any of the common Greek texts and literature of the day, to compare what this word meant in non-Biblical settings. Now, there are quite a few contemporaneous documents that use this word, and these are the most common definitions.

Authentein - αὐθεντειν Present Active Infinitive - to domineer, to murder to copulate, to exercise authority.

Please notice - authentein is a verb - an infinitive. To use it to say "a man has authority over a woman" you must change the verb to a noun, because exousia is a noun. Then you have to fiddle around and add a verb, or you have "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to authority a man..." So basically you have changed the grammar and had to add a word to make it make sense.

Nope, so all the translations I looked at had added a verb. From the ridiculous "usurp" of the KJV above to the words "exercise, have, assume." But, if you translated the word "to domineer" you have an infinitive verb, and one which really fits the context well.

I won't go over the cultural reasons again. But just no to "usurp authority!" It simply does not fit the grammar at all, and is a single handed put down by the KJV translators, who have passed it down in various forms.

Men are NOT to have authority over women. The plan of salvation restores men and women to equals, in the sight of God, restoring what was taken after the Fall.

"[FONT=&quot]There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
"[FONT=&quot]οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· [/FONT][FONT=&quot][a][/FONT][FONT=&quot]πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ." Gal. 3:28 Greek[/FONT]

Finally, this whole doctrine of men having authority over women, is based on ONE Scripture, 1 Tim. 2:12, that I exegeted partly above. That is just terrible hermeneutics! The first rule of good Bible interpretation, is never make a doctrine out of one verse, especially one that has translational issues.

If you really want to know what God thinks about men and women, and their roles, try this verse.

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Eph. 5:21
[FONT=&quot]
And before you go quoting Eph. 5:22-23 The word for "submit" [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]ὑποτασσόμενοιm [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]doesn't even appear in the Greek! (Well, except in those later corrupted TR manuscripts.) None of the earliest and best manuscripts have women submitting to men at all.

But hey, go on believing a lie, verses out of context, bad translations, ignoring or somehow twisting verses to support the theory of male dominance in the Christian church. I know Paul and Jesus are not happy! [/FONT]

 

[Dino246]

In the same way you need much eisegese for to find arguments for your position. Nobody wonders that nobody can find clear historical reports that women were eldest ore pastors ore were in position to preach in church. If it would be normal in the early church we would find clear hints for that in the first centuries, but we dont find them. You have to use non clear examples like Junias for that. But the bible speaks clear against your view.

Perhaps you can give examples of what you call "eisegesis" on my part? I'm not aware of any, but I'm open to correction.

 

[Lewiz]

Temporarily. You will not find him mentioned again in the NT.

Ooh yeah, those that are temporary you won't find them mentioned again in the NT...... you know, over half of the original 12 apostles.

I'm being sarcastic.

 

[joefizz]

What I really laughed over was the argument that we don't have to obey The Law of Paul about head covering because that was just the custom of the place and time. Well, the custom of the place and time I live in is that women can speak, vote, work and preach. So since the head covering was just "custom" the argument did not further the mans argument.

Well the year and custom is quite "important" I mean to be honest a lot of people take bible scriptures out of context or warp them to their own beliefs so you have to consider all the "angles" to a circumstance that you can some scriptures can be rather "straightforward" some may pertain "only to certain people or to a time period" for example Jesus said many things to his "disciples" and intended them "for them" where as some would take it to heart that "everything" Jesus said to his disciples "applies to us" when that isn't quite "accurate".
Give a person a scripture from the bible without "clarification" and giving "mere claims" and they'll flock to it like moths to a flame.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Do you see how quick that happened? I said thank God for His scholars and He sends Angela right away. Thank you Angela! Thank you God!