Posted on 01/26/2018 7:15:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It wasn’t the authorization of a woman that was condemned. It was what she was teaching. Context means things.
Not if he disputes the following:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 1 2But 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. (1 Timother 2:11-15)
There it is: "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man."
Some try to link the 1st part with the 2nd. Ok. Women can teach children, but not men, because that would violate this injunction.
What's more, woman should "learn in silence" and "be in silence." Silence. There is not a church where the din of women cannot be heard in the congregation. Many pastors will carve out exceptions, but I see none mentioned here in 1 Timothy 2.
People don't like what the Bible says on this topic. I stand with the Word of God. (This will not doubt stimulate a floor of OT Bible references. Before one submits, I would encourage him/her to first read Hebrews, specifically chapters 8,9,10 which addresses those aspects of the Law which are no longer in effect, since they have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ -- the "carnal" ordinances.)
Great observation!
OH, shoe wouldn’t make everyone unhappy. I can generally get what I want.
But it is important to keep our requests within Biblical bounds to, and to treat your wife with love and respect. If both do this, problems will be speedily solved if they arise.
For instance, I had an argument with my wife last week about something. The thing is, it was the first one in about 6 months, and only lasted a short time.
The distinction in each of the cases cited is between taking initiative and being an actual organizational leader. None of the biblical women mentioned would have called themselves a leader, nor would they have been seen as leaders by the people in their context. They acted and got things done, but still had to live under the limitations placed on them.
RE: I’m just saying there’s no actual conversation showing that she was the lead voice.
No arguments there too, but my point is whether the lead voice or not, she took part in TEACHING Apollos. This verse is actually an argument IN FAVOR of allowing women to teach men (IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ).
I still find it intriguing that Priscilla’s name ( every time this couple is mentioned ), is mentioned FIRST. I am not sure if this is an indication of prominence, but it seems to be.
I will accept this explanation — Priscilla could teach Apollos but under the authority of her husband.
Generally speaking, a woman may teach male and female children without jeopardizing male headship, since children do not hold authority in the church, and a women may teach other women without limitation. On the other hand, a woman should not provide Biblical instruction to men (or mixed groups of men and women) except under very limited circumstances where precautions are taken to ensure male headship remains intact.
I cannot think of a single denomination that decided to permit female clergy and that did not within ten years go completely off the rails both in terms of theology and basic Christian morality. Not one.
I agree. Female ordination of ministers seems to also incorporate a strong lesbian orientation as well.
Calling one’s self a prophetess is not condemned since the gift of prophecy is not condemned. Philip’s daughters were prophetesses according to Scripture. Anna was a Prophetess. Huldah was a prophetess. God can and does use women in the prophetic “office”. The condemnation about wicked Jezebel was over her specific teaching. If you’re going to quote the verse, pull the whole thing.
Wrong: ARE WOMEN PASTORS BIBLICAL ?
If the author had wanted to build a case for women in ministry, she could have picked better examples of women in ministry.
If this is the best she could do, it actually builds a case against women in positions of leadership and pastoral type ministry.
On the other hand, I do not see it fit that a woman should be the leader/teacher--a "didaskala"--of, say, a "Women's Bible Studies" event, as contrasted with a seminar in homemaking or the arts of business (Prov. 31:10-31).
And actually, such a term--a woman teacher--does not even exist in the Koine Greek. Nor is Titus 2:3-5 addressed to a female; it is directed toward older women (see 1 Tim. 5:9) in the aggregate, perhaps even excluding spinsters who have not made a home for a husband.
I offer this as an opinion of an aged man, Bible-discipled, father, and divorced custodial homemaker for four children. And in the FR Religion Forum, more than one of the female contributors has attempted to trim me for it. But for the sake of maintaining peacefulness in an open forum, generally I don't bring the topical doctrine up or insist on it. But I would, in the choice of which Christ-naming assembly could claim my allegiance.
Amen. Meaning you are not driven by a chauvinistic misogynistic view of women, but love for God’s truth, contrary to the gender-baiters.
What is recorded that Paul said about women in this context...
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”
1 Timothy 2:12
And then there is what Paul did NOT say about women...
...OVER a man...
Galatians 3:28-29 KJV
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
That’s regarding your standing, not your state. Don’t help others to confuse the two, Els.
Some men are not fit for teaching doctrine, either. Francis . . . ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.