THE WOMEN OF THE CHURCH
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- 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.
Yes. This is one argument used. Its weakness is that they can argue from context that Paul was not talking about not speaking entirely but simply not teaching men. The argument I use is stronger, as it is not even in reference to unmarried women at all; nor is it really about a married woman being unable to teach other men. The principle is simply that when it comes to her husband she should reflect the marriage of Christ and the Bride and let him lead.
Those women who marry men they are stronger than in the word should pray for their husbands, but the biggest part of the problem is that Christian men are not being taught all of this accurately. So they think their main responsibility is to put food on the table and provide, but when the word is taught accurately to them from a young age, they understand that their primary responsibility will be to be a man of God in the home, one walking close to the Lord Jesus Christ who is his head, and therefore able to be a true spiritual leader and protector to the woman he loves and has given his life to.
I'm sorry Vindicator, but I would have to disagree as it says "for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"--Paul is addressing disorder in this particular Corinthian church, where it appears to be problematic. My sense is there were a few women doing this whose husbands were Christians before they were, so were more knowledgeable. It's so important to remember chapter and verses weren't added until the 16th century--letters were meant to be read as a whole. I assert again the the topic of this section of Paul's letter was to address disorderliness in worship--not a woman's place in the church or in the home.
In reference to it being a law (apparently a Roman law as this prohibition is not found in the OT) I found this commentary by Adame Clarke, a British theologian of the 19th Century:
In his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:12 Adam Clarke writes:
In reference to it being a law (apparently a Roman law as this prohibition is not found in the OT) I found this commentary by Adame Clarke, a British theologian of the 19th Century:
In his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:12 Adam Clarke writes:
Nor to usurp authority - A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws: In multis juris nostri articulis deterior est conditio foeminarum quam masculorun,; l. 9, Pap. Lib. 31, Quaest. Foeminoe ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt; et ideo nec judicis esse possunt, nec magistratum gerere, nec postulare, nec pro alio invenire, nec procuratores existere; l. 2, de Reg. Juris. Ulp. Lib. i. Ad Sab. - Vid. Poth. Pand. Justin., vol. i. p. 13.
“In our laws the condition of women is, in many respects, worse than that of men. Women are precluded from all public offices; therefore they cannot be judges, nor execute the function of magistrates; they cannot sue, plead, nor act in any case, as proxies.” They were under many other disabilities, which may be seen in different places of the Pandects. But to be in silence - It was lawful for men in public assemblies to ask questions, or even interrupt the speaker when there was any matter in his speech which they did not understand; but this liberty was not granted to women. See the note on 1Co_14:34, 1Co_14:35 (note).
Ok no, Lol. Paul was not referencing secular Roman law. If he were, he would have been citing the Law of pagan society as the basis for Christian doctrine, which is a truly bizarre position for Clarke to take.
Stick with your own arguments. They are better here.
This is a more valid argument, and we're in agreement that order was in fact always a central theme here. But here the order was specifically in reference to husbands and wives. Don't isolate the verse out from its previous context:
“As in all the congregations of the saints, wives should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a wife to speak in the church” (verses 33-35).
This is why it references a wife "usurping authority over her husband" elsewhere. If she speaks in the church as a teacher and is a married woman, she is essentially usurping authority over the man she is married to by becoming the spokesman for the marriage.
By "and he will rule over you," the Lord was laying down a judgment, upon Eve and all who would come after her. That judgment is still in force, just as it is still in force that wives experience pain in childbirth, the ground still bares thorns and thistles, and we all return to the dust of the earth from whence we came.
If it is a given that one rules over another, it is a given that the latter will be compelled to submit, and in the case of married Christian women, that compulsion is still in force from God Himself, as per the teachings of the Apostle Paul.
1 Timothy 2:11-14KJV
11 Let the wife learn in silence with all submission. 12 But I suffer not a wife to teach, nor to usurp authority over her husband, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but his wife being deceived was in the transgression.
Well this particular law is nowhere to be found in scripture; if not Roman law then it must refer to the synagogue as this is where both Jews and Gentiles gathered in assembly on the Sabbath. (and yes they also met together everyday). And just because Romans were pagan does not mean that the Christians did not have to follow the laws of the land. Please refer back to Clarke's commentary in my other post.
And if the law isn't roman law, then it must refer to a law of the synagogue.
I have't read anything elsewhere that the teaching of scriptures should be done by the man--again since there will be times when the wife may be more knowledgeable as more theologically accurate. In any case there doesn't need to be submission when studying scripture together--we are co-equals in Christ. Submission is more of a role--like president and vice-president. One has to be the one to back down otherwise there would be anarchy--and if the husband is loving his wife like Christ loved the church (rather than lording over a woman and thinking he is 'superior to her) then submission is easy.
And if the law isn't roman law, then it must refer to a law of the synagogue.
I have't read anything elsewhere that the teaching of scriptures should be done by the man--again since there will be times when the wife may be more knowledgeable as more theologically accurate. In any case there doesn't need to be submission when studying scripture together--we are co-equals in Christ. Submission is more of a role--like president and vice-president. One has to be the one to back down otherwise there would be anarchy--and if the husband is loving his wife like Christ loved the church (rather than lording over a woman and thinking he is 'superior to her) then submission is easy.
The verse says
29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
From blood in general as the Greek word gives no distinction between human or animal. Pagan Gentiles used blood both human and animal in pagan worship.
Blood in general is not good to ingest as to why we know in modern times how sanitary and safer it is to fully cook your meat.
29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
From blood in general as the Greek word gives no distinction between human or animal. Pagan Gentiles used blood both human and animal in pagan worship.
Blood in general is not good to ingest as to why we know in modern times how sanitary and safer it is to fully cook your meat.
Most definitely when proper study and rightly understood in the context of all of scripture.
For you to even ask that question I assume you are of the camp that wants to see more suppression of women. Which is your interpretation of a few verses.
This interpretation has been debated for centuries and on this site plenty of times. The arguments of suppression do not hold up. Nor do I care to rehash it out. Others will, I'm sure, feel led to do that.
For you to even ask that question I assume you are of the camp that wants to see more suppression of women. Which is your interpretation of a few verses.
This interpretation has been debated for centuries and on this site plenty of times. The arguments of suppression do not hold up. Nor do I care to rehash it out. Others will, I'm sure, feel led to do that.
-
1
- Show all
I'll leave this here,
Acts 18:2
And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them,
Acts 18:18
After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.
Acts 18:24-26
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak 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.
Acts 18:2
And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them,
Acts 18:18
After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.
Acts 18:24-26
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak 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.
-
2
- Show all
Hmm? Now this I've never heard of--is this a teaching you received from a denomination or elsewhere? How would a married woman be usurping authority over her husband if she is teaching in a church?
There were no pastors as we know them now; in the synagogues of the first century, they had customs which were required to be followed; however, in the individual believers homes, they were simply a group of Christians getting together and studying scriptures or reading the letters--no one was in charge. There were elders/overseers over areas and towns--not in the individual churches that met in homes. They would come around periodically to teach, to encourage, and admonish and to bring financial support. I understand that these elders were all men, however women were deacons and did various acts of service and possibly facilitated meetings as likely Lydia did since it was her home that the church met in Thyatira. I think a woman may not be an elder or a 'lead pastor' --since a lead pastor must also be an elder. I do however, see no reason why a woman couldn't teach in a church.
There were no pastors as we know them now; in the synagogues of the first century, they had customs which were required to be followed; however, in the individual believers homes, they were simply a group of Christians getting together and studying scriptures or reading the letters--no one was in charge. There were elders/overseers over areas and towns--not in the individual churches that met in homes. They would come around periodically to teach, to encourage, and admonish and to bring financial support. I understand that these elders were all men, however women were deacons and did various acts of service and possibly facilitated meetings as likely Lydia did since it was her home that the church met in Thyatira. I think a woman may not be an elder or a 'lead pastor' --since a lead pastor must also be an elder. I do however, see no reason why a woman couldn't teach in a church.
S
true
I find this particular op one of the worst that has ever appeared in this forum
it's beyond reality. I find it disgusting quite honestly
women should not even be allowed to teach other women in church. I mean hey .... why even allow them in the church
it's shocking that someone thinks this way and uses the Bible to hide behind from which to launch attacks on women
-
1
- Show all