Woman can't teach in the congregation

[Dino246]

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.

I don't accept (not "except") as authoritative those statements that are inexplicable. Genesis 3:16 does not command husbands to rule over wives. It most certainly does not command men to rule over women, yet this is how you are interpreting it. If Genesis 3:16 is a command, then all of the verse is a command, and you make your god into a monster who wants women to suffer in childbirth.

If this were a command, it would be the only command in the entire Bible where the object of the command (rather than the subject) is addressed. God does not say to Adam, "You shall rule over your wife"; He says to Eve, "Your husband shall rule over you." That is a statement of certain consequence, not a command.

If the order of creation were relevant for hierarchy, you need to submit to the plants, for they were formed first. Paul's letter to Timothy was addressing a prevalent heresy in that cultural context. It makes perfect sense in that context, and does not otherwise. Further, Eve's deception was never placed on all women. Women in general are not more subject to deception, as many men think.

As to your final sentence, it's an irrelevant appeal. Save it for those who don't recognize blatant logical fallacies.

 

[Donmech]

I don't accept (not "except") as authoritative those statements that are inexplicable. Genesis 3:16 does not command husbands to rule over wives. It most certainly does not command men to rule over women, yet this is how you are interpreting it. If Genesis 3:16 is a command, then all of the verse is a command, and you make your god into a monster who wants women to suffer in childbirth.

If this were a command, it would be the only command in the entire Bible where the object of the command (rather than the subject) is addressed. God does not say to Adam, "You shall rule over your wife"; He says to Eve, "Your husband shall rule over you." That is a statement of certain consequence, not a command.

If the order of creation were relevant for hierarchy, you need to submit to the plants, for they were formed first. Paul's letter to Timothy was addressing a prevalent heresy in that cultural context. It makes perfect sense in that context, and does not otherwise. Further, Eve's deception was never placed on all women. Women in general are not more subject to deception, as many men think.

As to your final sentence, it's an irrelevant appeal. Save it for those who don't recognize blatant logical fallacies.

What you are saying is that you don't except what you don't like, if you excepted scripture as infallible, inerrant and inspired of God, you would have no problem submitting to the Apostle Paul's teaching. You don't agree with Paul nor do you agree with God, you have a problem with the order set forth by God. Oh, I forgot, God's order to you is a blatant logical fallacy! (your own words)

 

[tourist]

Women were clearly serving the churches but NOT as elders, pastors, and teachers.

That would have been a violation of God's commandment. And that is what you and some others are advocating.

What commandment of God states explicitly that women cannot serve in the church in a position of authority. In Paul's writing he states the he does not permit this, the text does not say that God does not permit this. Paul says a lot of what you should not do but does not mention what you shall not do. Big difference. Besides that, it has been my observation in this forum through the years that since the commandments were first mentioned in the OT they are now obsolete as far as the NT is concerned. In fact, even though the OT is the Word of God as is the NT the OT is obsolete. I really don't see the problem here. Why follow a commandment of God from a book that is obsolete? Besides that, it is apparent that Paul was stating his own opinion on certain matters based solely on his own observations that were related to the customs and culture at the time. Everything in the bible is truthfully stated but not everything in the bible is a statement of truth. Cain killed his brother Abel but the bible does not condone murder. This is one example. In the bible there is the mention of many women in positions of authority and prominence.

 

[Dino246]

What you are saying is that you don't except what you don't like, if you excepted scripture as infallible, inerrant and inspired of God, you would have no problem submitting to the Apostle Paul's teaching. You don't agree with Paul nor do you agree with God, you have a problem with the order set forth by God. Oh, I forgot, God's order to you is a blatant logical fallacy! (your own words)

I find it rather telling that you ignore the spelling correction I provided, and continue in your usage of the incorrect word.

Accepting Scripture as inspired, infallible, and inerrant does not require me to accept your (or anyone's) particular interpretation of Scripture.

You clearly have little or no understanding of logical fallacies, so your employment of the term is laughably irrelevant.

 

[tourist]

What you are saying is that you don't except what you don't like, if you excepted scripture as infallible, inerrant and inspired of God, you would have no problem submitting to the Apostle Paul's teaching. You don't agree with Paul nor do you agree with God, you have a problem with the order set forth by God. Oh, I forgot, God's order to you is a blatant logical fallacy! (your own words)

As Dino correctly pointed out the correct term is 'accept' as the word 'except' means something totally different. It is hard to understand what you are saying due to the inaccuracies in your grammar.

 

[oldethennew]

you don't KNOW Tourist,

so, you need to grow-up and learn how to 'respect' your elders, and those who
have lived much longer than you and that 'KNOW-HAVE EXPERIENCED-LEARNED'
as our Saviour has taught them...

I don't know how 'old' you are, but you definitely need some Love/guidance...

 

[Nehemiah6]

What commandment of God states explicitly that women cannot serve in the church in a position of authority.

Come on. You know very well what God has spelled out. AND IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

 

[Dino246]

Come on. You know very well what God has spelled out. AND IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

Bold-face in one, all caps in another... what's next in your futile attempt to persuade others to your point of view... bold italic capitals with underlining, all in flashing red text?

Your posts lately remind me of the preacher's marginal gloss on his sermon notes: "Weak point; pound pulpit!"

 

[Donmech]

Sorry about the spelling error in my previous post. I believe I will leave this subject alone. I am perplexed and confounded that areas of scripture where no interpretation is needed how truth can be so misconstrued. I am satisfied to just read God's word and believe it for what it says. I realize there are areas of the bible that require deep thought and contemplation, but I am carful not to spiritualize and mystify very clear bible passages. Blessings to you all.

 

[Dino246]

Sorry about the spelling error in my previous post. I believe I will leave this subject alone. I am perplexed and confounded that areas of scripture where no interpretation is needed how truth can be so misconstrued. I am satisfied to just read God's word and believe it for what it says. I realize there are areas of the bible that require deep thought and contemplation, but I am carful not to spiritualize and mystify very clear bible passages. Blessings to you all.

Apology accepted, of course. We differ in what we find clear, and what perplexes us. Just as you don't "get" how people can misconstrue apparently-clear passages, I don't "get" why people adamantly assert that their perspective is the only right one, and denigrate the faith and understanding of others who disagree. Perhaps I'll see you in another thread... where we do agree. Blessings to you to.

 

[Deade]

Besides that, it is apparent that Paul was stating his own opinion on certain matters based solely on his own observations that were related to the customs and culture at the time. Everything in the bible is truthfully stated but not everything in the bible is a statement of truth

I think the following puts that theory to rest:

1 Cor. 14:34-37 "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. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

I think Paul knew there would be contensions on this subject so he was sure to include this message was from God.

Another instance where Paul affirms that he is only giving Christ instructions:
1 Tim. 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." Verity is truth!

Then he immediately affirms what he taught to the Corinthians:
1 Tim. 2:11, 12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." I rest my case.

 

[tourist]

I think the following puts that theory to rest:

1 Cor. 14:34-37 "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. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

I think Paul knew there would be contensions on this subject so he was sure to include this message was from God.

Another instance where Paul affirms that he is only giving Christ instructions:
1 Tim. 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." Verity is truth!

Then he immediately affirms what he taught to the Corinthians:
1 Tim. 2:11, 12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." I rest my case.

Well spoken but still there is a verse that says that all things are lawful but not all things are profitable. So to me it is obvious that there are certain exceptions in certain situations. Also, by saying what he permits or not permits rather that what God specifically permits or not permits seems to imply that even though everything he wrote was inspired it is of his own personal experience. Personally, I really don't worry over whether or not a woman should be allowed to preach or not but only stating my opinion on this certain issue based on how I interpret certain passages. Of course, my interpretation may be incorrect. Truthfully, I see no sin attached by a woman who believes in her heart that she was moved by the Holy Spirit to preach. I would say that as a general rule that a man should be appointed a pastor if such a person is qualified, otherwise perhaps a woman. Paul did say that not all things were profitable but did not say that everything is not profitable.

 

[Deade]

Well said tourist, but still the people I sometimes congregate with absolutely think no women preaching. The women even believe that. I just wanted people to know of these groups, that they exist, and they are numerous.

 

[tourist]

Well said tourist, but still the people I sometimes congregate with absolutely think no women preaching. The women even believe that. I just wanted people to know of these groups, that they exist, and they are numerous.

View attachment 184534

Thank you, kind sir.

I don't fault anyone for believing, by their interpretation of scripture, that women should not be allowed to preach, I am only suggesting that there are probably scriptural exceptions to this based on my own scriptural interpretation.

As I have had my say I believe that I will give this topic a rest now.

 

[tourist]

Come on. You know very well what God has spelled out. AND IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

The thing is, it is clear from scripture that it is God who appoints all those in positions of authority, whether good or bad to serve His express purpose.

 

[Nauga]

I'm not sure about the book of Speculations and what it says, but 1 Corinthians 14:34- 35 is crystal clear on the matter. You have to twist and contort the plain, clear writings of Paul to the Corinthians concerning teaching and preaching in the church to conclude otherwise. Anyone without an agenda, never having read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 would have no trouble understanding the context as well as the teaching. An honest commentary of these verses can only have one result. " The Bible means what it says, all we have to do is believe it".

You talk about context then you ignore context? Paul was answering a series of questions here...With some questions its clear what the question is. You'll have to go back to get the context...Go back to, I think, chapter 7 at the beginning...You'll see the questions and the answers all through....so when Paul read this question; "
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." his answer was; "
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?


37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The so called command for women not to teach is NOT in the law. Well....It's not in Jewish law....It's Roman law...And the man Paul was talking to war way our of line. You need to read much more much of time, than just two or three lines to get a context.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

c) Does it have to be Moses' law? It can be also civil law, "natural law" etc.

I know of no instance in Paul's writings where he uses the words the law to refer to anything other than the law of Moses. When he refers to law in another sense (e.g., Romans 3:27) it's always law.

 

[trofimus]

I know of no instance in Paul's writings where he uses the words the law to refer to anything other than the law of Moses. When he refers to law in another sense (e.g., Romans 3:27) it's always law.

This is a circular reasoning.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

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.

For me personally, there is enough doubt about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 being original that it would be sin for me to be dogmatic about it. Add to that the fact that no one can convincingly answer what the law refers to in verse 34.

 

[trofimus]

I know of no instance in Paul's writings where he uses the words the law to refer to anything other than the law of Moses. When he refers to law in another sense (e.g., Romans 3:27) it's always law.

..."but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me."

βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου.
R 7:23