Woman can't teach in the congregation
- Thread starter Affltr
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Paul was also having a sharp argument with Barnabas because he did not want to give Mark a second chance.
Peter was afraid of judaistic Christians from Jerusalem.
Apostolic synod in Jerusalem said that Christians should not eat meat sacrificed to idols, Paul allowed it.
You cannot use acts of apostles on the same level as commands of apostles that are based in theology and inspired by the Spirit.
Peter was afraid of judaistic Christians from Jerusalem.
Apostolic synod in Jerusalem said that Christians should not eat meat sacrificed to idols, Paul allowed it.
You cannot use acts of apostles on the same level as commands of apostles that are based in theology and inspired by the Spirit.
i know where "wives, submit yourselves to your husbands" is ((Ephesians 5:22)), but where is the command "husbands, submit yourselves to your wives" ?
please have a look at that chapter. the wife is to submit to the husband as to the Lord, and the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church. if that means the husband is to submit to the authority of the wife, then Christ must submit to the authority of the church, His bride. so... is that the case?
the picture is
also, welcome to CC Nauga!
hi, i'm post
please have a look at that chapter. the wife is to submit to the husband as to the Lord, and the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church. if that means the husband is to submit to the authority of the wife, then Christ must submit to the authority of the church, His bride. so... is that the case?
the picture is
husband:wife :: Christ:church
also, welcome to CC Nauga!
hi, i'm post
-
3
- Show all
today we call virtually every service in the church the job of the 'preacher' or 'pastor'
i don't know much about church history, but i think this wasn't always the case . . ?
like, pastor and preacher aren't necessarily interchangeable terms, but we use them that way these days and expect them to be the primary teachers, counselors, mentors, organizers, evangelists, caretakers, visiting sick and elderly and troubled, mowing the lawns, speaking in tongues, keeping the finances, moderating the chatrooms, taking charge of the buffet, etc etc
anyway ((my point)) so just because a woman filled a role that today we call 'the preachers job' doesn't mean she was the teacher of the church 2,000 years ago. we could easily be radically misusing the word 'preacher'
i don't know much about church history, but i think this wasn't always the case . . ?
like, pastor and preacher aren't necessarily interchangeable terms, but we use them that way these days and expect them to be the primary teachers, counselors, mentors, organizers, evangelists, caretakers, visiting sick and elderly and troubled, mowing the lawns, speaking in tongues, keeping the finances, moderating the chatrooms, taking charge of the buffet, etc etc
anyway ((my point)) so just because a woman filled a role that today we call 'the preachers job' doesn't mean she was the teacher of the church 2,000 years ago. we could easily be radically misusing the word 'preacher'
-
1
- Show all
Because, after all, it says so right there in Speculations 4:9.
-
1
- Show all
Anyone "without an agenda" would look at the wider context and recognize that women are expressly permitted to speak aloud in chapter 11, and that they are not expressly excluded anywhere else in the letter. Anyone "without an agenda" would recognize that Jesus treated women far better than was common in the culture of the day. Anyone "without an agenda" would look at the roles occupied by Junia, Priscilla, Phoebe, and a host of others, and wonder how they fulfilled those roles (with Paul's blessing!) if women are to be silent.
Since it is "crystal clear", please go ahead and present the verse in the Law where it states clearly that women shall be silent and/or in subjection.
Good luck.
Since it is "crystal clear", please go ahead and present the verse in the Law where it states clearly that women shall be silent and/or in subjection.
Good luck.
-
3
- Show all
I agree that there were women in the Bible who served in ways that seem to contradict the interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe are the most commonly given examples as you mentioned. Ultimately, Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah are meaningless to the issue at hand, as Paul is addressing leadership in the church. Leadership in old covenant Israel is not the subject at hand. Regarding Priscilla and Phoebe, the New Testament nowhere describes them serving in a way that contradicts 1 Tim 2:11-12. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, discipled Apollos in their home Acts 18:26. Phoebe is simply identified as a servant of the church Romans 16:1.
Galatians 3:28 says that men and women are equal in God's eyes. Men and women are equal in God's eyes, but that is not the issue. The subject of Galatians 3:28 is equality in Christ, equal access to the salvation Christ offers. Men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slave and free are equal in this context. Church leadership is not the subject of Galatians 3:28. Further, we cannot take one verse and use it to cancel out another verse. Both Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are true. They do not contradict each other.
So, what would be the reason for the restriction on women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12,? The answer is given in the next two verses: For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, 1 Timothy 2:13-14. The order of creation and the nature of the fall impacts spiritual leadership in the church, and in the family, see Ephesians 5:22-33. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because women were created to be helpers to men and because Eve was deceived into sin. Through creation, and because of the Fall, God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.
So, what does this mean practically? What are women restricted from doing? The clear implication is that women are not to serve in any role which involves the authoritative spiritual teaching of men. The role of pastoring is reserved for men. This is confirmed in the two passages which deal specifically with the qualifications for church leadership 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9. Church leaders are described as the "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and a "men worthy of respect."
Rather than focusing on what ministries women are restricted from, the focus should be on the multitude of ways God calls and gifts women to serve. Women are nowhere restricted from proclaiming the gospel to the lost Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15. Women are encouraged to teach other women Titus 2:3-5. Women are nowhere restricted from teaching children. Women being restricted from spiritual teaching authority over men is not a punishment. Rather, it is a refocusing to the ministries, skills, and gifts with which God blesses women.
Galatians 3:28 says that men and women are equal in God's eyes. Men and women are equal in God's eyes, but that is not the issue. The subject of Galatians 3:28 is equality in Christ, equal access to the salvation Christ offers. Men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slave and free are equal in this context. Church leadership is not the subject of Galatians 3:28. Further, we cannot take one verse and use it to cancel out another verse. Both Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are true. They do not contradict each other.
So, what would be the reason for the restriction on women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12,? The answer is given in the next two verses: For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, 1 Timothy 2:13-14. The order of creation and the nature of the fall impacts spiritual leadership in the church, and in the family, see Ephesians 5:22-33. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because women were created to be helpers to men and because Eve was deceived into sin. Through creation, and because of the Fall, God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.
So, what does this mean practically? What are women restricted from doing? The clear implication is that women are not to serve in any role which involves the authoritative spiritual teaching of men. The role of pastoring is reserved for men. This is confirmed in the two passages which deal specifically with the qualifications for church leadership 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9. Church leaders are described as the "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and a "men worthy of respect."
Rather than focusing on what ministries women are restricted from, the focus should be on the multitude of ways God calls and gifts women to serve. Women are nowhere restricted from proclaiming the gospel to the lost Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15. Women are encouraged to teach other women Titus 2:3-5. Women are nowhere restricted from teaching children. Women being restricted from spiritual teaching authority over men is not a punishment. Rather, it is a refocusing to the ministries, skills, and gifts with which God blesses women.
a) "...thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gn 3:16
b) Paul does not quote, he just makes a reference to law, so it does not have to be precisely in the same manner present there, but its more like "as you can see in the law". Sarah and Abraham can be such example, she called him her lord.
c) Does it have to be Moses' law? It can be also civil law, "natural law" etc.
b) Paul does not quote, he just makes a reference to law, so it does not have to be precisely in the same manner present there, but its more like "as you can see in the law". Sarah and Abraham can be such example, she called him her lord.
c) Does it have to be Moses' law? It can be also civil law, "natural law" etc.
You are perfectly correct. And giving Sarah and Abraham's relationship backs up what is stated in Genesis 3:16.
For the naysayers though, any excuse to avoid the full significance of these teachings is good enough. Some may say Paul was a misogynist, others will say that all these teachings were *inserted* into Scripture, others will say that Paul contradicts Christ, others will say Women's Lib trumps Scripture, etc. But all this is TOTAL NONSENSE.
For the naysayers though, any excuse to avoid the full significance of these teachings is good enough. Some may say Paul was a misogynist, others will say that all these teachings were *inserted* into Scripture, others will say that Paul contradicts Christ, others will say Women's Lib trumps Scripture, etc. But all this is TOTAL NONSENSE.
-
1
- Show all
I'm not sure how you are missing the complete picture, I did provide you with a response which explains God's order and reason for that order.
If you are looking for an Old Testament scripture designating men to the office of the Priest, you might read: (Exodus 28:1) "And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.
If you are looking for an Old Testament scripture designating men to the office of the Priest, you might read: (Exodus 28:1) "And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.
I'm not "missing" anything; rather, I sincerely disagree with your position. The reason I consider your response inadequate is 1 Corinthians 14:34 has this: "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."
The problem is this: there is not a single place in the Law (the Torah; Genesis through Deuteronomy) where any command is given that women must be silent and/or subject themselves. It simply isn't there. Genesis 3:16, which many claim to be the verse to which "Paul" is referring, does not command women to subject themselves, nor to be silent. In it, God says to the woman (there was only one!) that "your husband shall rule over you." Nothing about silence, and I don't accept that as a command, but a consequence.
The key word in 1 Cor 14:34 is "nomos" - law. It does not clearly identify the Torah, but that is clearly the sense in which Paul uses the word elsewhere. However, although he makes reference to the Law, he also makes it clear that Christians are not subject to the Law.
The problem is this: there is not a single place in the Law (the Torah; Genesis through Deuteronomy) where any command is given that women must be silent and/or subject themselves. It simply isn't there. Genesis 3:16, which many claim to be the verse to which "Paul" is referring, does not command women to subject themselves, nor to be silent. In it, God says to the woman (there was only one!) that "your husband shall rule over you." Nothing about silence, and I don't accept that as a command, but a consequence.
The key word in 1 Cor 14:34 is "nomos" - law. It does not clearly identify the Torah, but that is clearly the sense in which Paul uses the word elsewhere. However, although he makes reference to the Law, he also makes it clear that Christians are not subject to the Law.
-
1
- Show all
Wow!
Why not just except Paul's authority on this matter as pertaining to the church? His teaching should be sufficient, and excepted. I believe as pertaining to 1 Corinthians 14:35 where Paul is referring back to the law as you pointed out in Genesis 3:16 clearly shows the order of authority that God has set up, the man ruling over the woman. Thusly, we see the harmony in what Paul wrote in 1 Cor.14: 38 and what is stated in Genesis 3:16. Authority in the home and authority in the church rest upon the men. This subject is probably one of the clearest teachings in the New Testament. To undermine Paul's authority and teaching is going against God, not me or anyone else who holds to proper biblical church order.
Why not just except Paul's authority on this matter as pertaining to the church? His teaching should be sufficient, and excepted. I believe as pertaining to 1 Corinthians 14:35 where Paul is referring back to the law as you pointed out in Genesis 3:16 clearly shows the order of authority that God has set up, the man ruling over the woman. Thusly, we see the harmony in what Paul wrote in 1 Cor.14: 38 and what is stated in Genesis 3:16. Authority in the home and authority in the church rest upon the men. This subject is probably one of the clearest teachings in the New Testament. To undermine Paul's authority and teaching is going against God, not me or anyone else who holds to proper biblical church order.
-
1
- Show all
a) "...thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gn 3:16
b) Paul does not quote, he just makes a reference to law, so it does not have to be precisely in the same manner present there, but its more like "as you can see in the law". Sarah and Abraham can be such example, she called him her lord.
c) Does it have to be Moses' law? It can be also civil law, "natural law" etc.
----
Its in the Law.
Its in the Law, even if we say its not a command - example of obedient wives are throughout the Law.
Civil law is, even though not the most probable, a possible solution to Paul's "as the law also says".
b) Paul does not quote, he just makes a reference to law, so it does not have to be precisely in the same manner present there, but its more like "as you can see in the law". Sarah and Abraham can be such example, she called him her lord.
c) Does it have to be Moses' law? It can be also civil law, "natural law" etc.
----
Its in the Law.
Its in the Law, even if we say its not a command - example of obedient wives are throughout the Law.
Civil law is, even though not the most probable, a possible solution to Paul's "as the law also says".