Women In Authority – Teaching Mixed Assemblies in Church

[intojoy]

So you accept EVERY word, verse, tenet, instruction literally, apply it today and don't question - EVER??

a) I don't believe that is correct. The Bible itself says we are to study to show ourselves approved by God, and that we are to have an answer for the hope that is in us. God also gave us enquiring minds and the ability to ask questions - it's not wrong to do so. That's why there are many threads on this forum; we are discussing, and studying, Scripture and Scriptural matters.
And if you do read the Bible literally, you'll probably find it contradicts itself. E.g Paul tells women HOW to pray and prophesy, then tells them to be silent.
The Bible is true. It does not cease to be true if we don't read, and apply it, literally. In fact if we do so, we will make it say things which the authors never intended it to say.

b) You must have an interesting life. Do you wear robes, so that you can tear them occasionally, and sandals, and speak Aramaic? Do you live as they lived in the first century? If so, why are you on this forum and using a computer? If not, why are you insisting that we should live like that or we are not obeying Scripture?

Or is it that you can't answer my questions so it is easier to accuse me of arguing with God's word?

No, women are to be silent " during" the called out assembly. It's not a contradiction. A women have the same spiritual gifts as men thus Paul instructs them in their use of the gifts and adds restrictions as to where those gifts are allowed to be used by women. No contradiction there.

 

[intojoy]

How do you know?

Paul says that he does not permit a woman to have (usurp) authority over a man, but he conveniently forgets, or ignores, the fact that God appointed Deborah to do just that? Rather unlikely.

So God give women gifts of evangelism, teaching, prophecy, leadership - but puts restrictions on how we can use these gifts? Really? I don't see evidence of that in Scripture.
The woman at the well went to her village, gave her testimony, told them about Jesus, and people came to find him and believed. Mary Magdalene told the disciples about the resurrection and gave them a message from Jesus. priscilla taught Apollos. Huldah gave the word of the Lord to men - told them what he said and was going to do. Deborah led the nation, heard people's disputes and gave advice or instruction. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah's wife and Philip's daughters prophesied. Lydia, and friends, met regularly for prayer; Lydia persuaded Paul to stay with her after she was converted, and that's possibly how the church at Philippi started.

Why would God give us gifts and then tell us that we couldn't use them, or that they were conditional?

You're not seeing the difference in pre atonement and post atonement. Your arguments are based on the lack of dividing the word of truth. Adam and Noah were vegetarians, then Noah became a "if it moves eat it" person. Later Moses is restricted in his diet and yet again later Peter is "if it moves eat it". These are examples of literal dietary commands that changed over the different ages of humanity. Deborah lived under the Mosaic Law Code 613 commandments not just 10. Jesus by atoning for sin with his own blood rendered the 613 laws of Moses inoperative by virtue of the fact that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah and not Levi thus he cannot be our high priest according to the Law of Moses.
Paul is writing from that position of post Mosaic Law and is implementing the Law of Christ which is not just 2, but contains hundreds of commandments to which Deborah was not obligated to obey. Women share in spiritual gifts as much as men do. Men and women both will be rewarded on the basis of how those gifts were used. Some women who have the gifts of pastor and teacher and who use that gift to teach men scripture will have those works burn as wood hay and stubble regardless of whether or not the men in the audience learned from those women. Why ? It is not that the women didn't have the gift and were enabled to teach scripture as well as any man, it is because even though well intended, they are breaking the Law of Liberty also known as the Law of Christ.

 

[intojoy]

Men will also suffer loss at the Bema Judgement for failing to follow the laws in the NT. women are permitted to teach other women and children God's Word. Why isn't that enough for you?

 

[Assyrian]

Would it qualify as "spiritual authority" if Paul was financed by Phoebe? Because authority in the material realm is not what Paul talked about at all.

And you know Paul was talking about 'spiritual authority'? 'Usurp authority' is a very vague translation of authentein in 1Tim 21:12, the word was never used for spiritual or religious authority in secular Greek, or for spiritual authority, authority in the church or church leadership in the bible. People read into it what they want to ban women from.

There are Eight Covenants of God not two

Does that change my point in any way?

Paul doesn't have Deborah in mind. Women have the same spiritual gifts as men, Paul says they are restricted in the use of them, simple.

Where does Paul say that women are restricted from using their gifts in church? How is it possible that women are less free under the new covenant, where there is no distinction in Christ between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, than they were under the law when Deborah led the people of God?

 

[Strong in Him]

No, women are to be silent " during" the called out assembly.

Yes - "if they want to enquire about anything, they should ask their own husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor 14:35)

Asking questions in a service while the leader is speaking; interrupting or heckling, is not on. It undermines the speaker's authority. And the implication here is that women may have been asking questions of other women's husbands, not their own. Paul has already been writing about the need for order in the service/assembly - no more than two or three people speaking in tongues, and then only one at a time. Only two or three people prophesying, and if someone has a word while another person is speaking, the latter must sit down. In the same way, women must be silent and only ask questions of their own husbands when they get home. All this is because God is a God of order.

Agreed, it's not a contradiction - it has nothing to do with a woman preaching the Gospel and using the gifts God has given her - UNLESS people read Scripture literally. There are some, even on these forums, who say, or have said, "women must be silent in church, therefore they can't even say 'amen' at the end of the prayers - not if men are present." If they read the Scriptures like this, there is contradiction because Paul told women how to pray and prophesy.

A women have the same spiritual gifts as men thus Paul instructs them in their use of the gifts and adds restrictions as to where those gifts are allowed to be used by women.

Again, why would God give women gifts and then tell us we can only use them in certain ways - especially when there were no restrictions upon Mary Magdalene, Deborah et al?

 

[Strong in Him]

You're not seeing the difference in pre atonement and post atonement. Your arguments are based on the lack of dividing the word of truth.

I don't think so.

Adam and Noah were vegetarians, then Noah became a "if it moves eat it" person.

Only because GOD told him that he was giving him everything for food.

Later Moses is restricted in his diet and yet again later Peter is "if it moves eat it".

When God rescued the Israelites from Egypt he gave them commands and law and showed them how they were to live. This included not eating certain types of meat.
When Jesus came he said that food could not make a person unclean; it was not what went into the mouth which did that, but what came out of it - and elsewhere he said that what we say reflects the state of our hearts.

Deborah lived under the Mosaic Law Code 613 commandments not just 10.

What's that got to do with it??
Deborah was appointed by God to be judge over all the nation. If there was a law which said that women could not lead, God himself broke it when he appointed her. If there was nothing in their 613 laws which said women could not lead, what did Paul mean when he said "women should be silent, as the law says"? And why would he have told people to live by the law when he spent so much of his time arguing that it was not necessary?

Jesus by atoning for sin with his own blood rendered the 613 laws of Moses inoperative by virtue of the fact that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah and not Levi thus he cannot be our high priest according to the Law of Moses.

No, Jesus came to FULFIL the law - not to "render it inoperative".

Jesus is greater than Moses.

Paul is writing from that position of post Mosaic Law and is implementing the Law of Christ which is not just 2, but contains hundreds of commandments

Such as?

The 10 commandments were summed up by Jesus in just two - love God with all your heart (first 4 of the 10); love your neighbour as yourself (last 6 of the 10.) He gave us a NEW commandment, which was to love others as he loves us. And he showed his love for us because he gave his life for us. True, no one in the OT could have obeyed this - they didn't know Jesus. Although I think that anyone in the OT who gave their life for someone else was in fact obeying this command, but without knowing it.

Men and women both will be rewarded on the basis of how those gifts were used. Some women who have the gifts of pastor and teacher and who use that gift to teach men scripture will have those works burn as wood hay and stubble regardless of whether or not the men in the audience learned from those women.

How come, and how do you know?

Do you believe women are included in the Great Commission, to go and make disciples? Are women allowed to preach the Gospel?
If so, how can someone explain what Scripture says about God, sin, forgiveness, repentance, the cross, Holy Spirit, being born again etc etc, without teaching? How can someone "make disciples and TEACH them everything I have taught you" (Matt 28:20) if they are not allowed to teach?

If their work "would burn as wood, hay and stubble", that would suggest it has been worthless. How can telling someone about Jesus, teaching and proclaiming the Good News - as he commanded -0 be worthless, wrong or sinful?

Why ? It is not that the women didn't have the gift and were enabled to teach scripture as well as any man, it is because even though well intended, they are breaking the Law of Liberty also known as the Law of Christ.

"Law of liberty" - which in fact is far more restrictive than the OT law?

Deborah was appointed by God to lead a nation, but she was under the OT law; when Christ, who fulfilled OT law and came to bring FREEDOM, came, he apparently told women they could not teach - even though his Spirit gave us the gift and ability to do so??
Doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Bro in Christ]

"Law of liberty" - which in fact is far more restrictive than the OT law?

Deborah was appointed by God to lead a nation, but she was under the OT law; when Christ, who fulfilled OT law and came to bring FREEDOM, came, he apparently told women they could not teach - even though his Spirit gave us the gift and ability to do so??
Doesn't make sense at all.

could not teach men ... but could teach other women and children .... why gen 3:16! the curse for sinning !

 

[Strong in Him]

could not teach men ... but could teach other women and children ....

So a woman cannot proclaim the Gospel to a man, tell him the Good News or teach him?

Strange that both Jesus and Paul allowed it.

 

[intojoy]

I appreciate your answers BIC. But I see evangelism as being different than teaching. And women are allowed to teach women and children and can answer questions and the prohibition to speak is only during the called out meeting of mandatory gatherings by the elders like weekly worship services. Women are allowed to govern and have authority over men at work and in society, they can teach the sciences and humanities. Teaching scripture is an exercise of spiritual authority which women are forbidden to do over the men. Deborah was the judge over Israel and not the spiritual leader as the high priest was. The Law of Moses did not forbid her from holding that position. Women did not have to offer sacrifices for sin either by the way. Hebrews plainly says that the Law is:

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. (Hebrews 7:12-14, 18 KJV)

The Law of Christ includes every dictate given by the apostles such as what James says concerning rich and poor believers, and such as Paul's statements like husbands loving their wives. These statements made by the NT are not optional they are commandments to be followed by Christians. The Law of Moses was a requirement for OT saints but had nothing to do with how an OT saint received salvation, it was merely the rule of life for them post salvation. Our rule of life for Christians is the Law of Christ which includes every command by Christ and his apostles.
Genesis says that the "desire of the woman shall be for the husband". This Hebrew phrase is the same one used for Cain concerning his sin having a desire for him. Womankind will have a inherited predisposition to rule over her husband is what this means. It usually manifests itself in the form of nagging.

 

[intojoy]

And you know Paul was talking about 'spiritual authority'? '



*Of course he was. Context is the role of men and women in the church



Usurp authority' is a very vague translation of authentein in 1Tim 21:12, the word was never used for spiritual or religious authority in secular Greek, or for spiritual authority, authority in the church or church leadership in the bible. People read into it what they want to ban women from.



Does that change my point in any way?


*Yes.



Where does Paul say that women are restricted from using their gifts in church? How is it possible that women are less free under the new covenant, where there is no distinction in Christ between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, than they were under the law when Deborah led the people of God?

*I am still a man in Christ and my wife is still a woman in Christ, our gender has not changed. I am an employer in Christ this is still the same, I am still a gentile in Christ I am not a Jew, what do you mean? The context of your quote is simple, we are all saved by the same method no matter our race, gender or societal position. You're a smarter guy than me, you do plenty of research yet you missed this? I have to conclude that its a pre conceived philosophical prejudice that allows you to make that passage say something it does not say. A Jew is still a Jew when he comes to Christ and we are not spiritual Jews when we as Gentiles come to faith.
The reason why the two covenant approach makes a difference is because it assumes that God was saving people in the OT by law and is saving people today by grace. Adam, Noah, Abraham, David and Israel received a total of 8 covenants and in those covenants were provisions/laws. The New Cov of Jeremiah 31, does not address the rules of life as do the others but the New Testament draws them out for us. So by saying that women were not free under the "old covenant" you're blanketing together everything women of faith were allowed to do and what they weren't allowed to do in an over simplification.

Deborah was not the spiritual leader of Israel that would have been the high priest.

 

[Strong in Him]

Deborah was not the spiritual leader of Israel that would have been the high priest.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but Deborah was judge of the nation and prophetess. She gave God's word to people and solved disputes with God's wisdom. The book of Judges says that when the nation had a judge to lead them, the people feared the Lord, walked in his ways and obeyed his laws (Judges 2:18-19), when the judge died they went back to their own ways.

But even if you think that, in spite of this, Deborah was not the ultimate spiritual leader; it doesn't matter. If 1 Tim says that it is God's will that a woman should not have authority over a man, then a woman should never have been allowed to have authority over a man - much less appointed to do so by God.

 

[intojoy]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but Deborah was judge of the nation and prophetess. She gave God's word to people and solved disputes with God's wisdom. The book of Judges says that when the nation had a judge to lead them, the people feared the Lord, walked in his ways and obeyed his laws (Judges 2:18-19), when the judge died they went back to their own ways.

But even if you think that, in spite of this, Deborah was not the ultimate spiritual leader; it doesn't matter. If 1 Tim says that it is God's will that a woman should not have authority over a man, then a woman should never have been allowed to have authority over a man - much less appointed to do so by God.

Deborah is a smoke screen to the OP. she was forbidden to enter parts of the tabernacle and could not offer sacrifices because of her gender.

 

[Strong in Him]

Deborah is a smoke screen to the OP. she was forbidden to enter parts of the tabernacle and could not offer sacrifices because of her gender.

No. People say that in 1 Tim 2 Paul is saying that GOD does not want a woman to teach or have authority over a man. Deborah did both - not only with God's blessing by by his appointment.

OT, God appoints someone to lead the nation, teach the people to obey his commands, brings them his word and there is peace in the land and people follow God for 40 years.
NT, God apparently forbids women to teach men.
Did he change his mind?

Focus Text – I Tim 2:11-14

Many argue that Paul lived in different times and was constrained by his culture but by going back to Adam and Eve who existed thousands of years before him, Paul wasn't using reasons contemporaneous with his own culture, he was transcending his own culture.

Deborah is not a smokescreen to the OP. CIU says that Paul goes back to Adam and Eve to illustrate his argument - Deborah lived AFTER Adam and Eve.
If no woman after Eve EVER led, taught or gave the word of the Lord to men, it would be consistent to say that women could never do this. But they did.

Have you ever read about Huldah (2 Kings 22)? King Josiah wanted to know what God had to say to them about a scroll that had been found in the temple. Jeremiah was a prophet at that time, so was Zephaniah and apparently a couple of other men were too - yet the priests and king's advisors chose to go to a woman. She told them what God said about the scroll and what was in it; she effectively confirmed that it was God's word. This led to repentance and reformation on the part of Josiah - there was a mini revival.

 

[intojoy]

No. People say that in 1 Tim 2 Paul is saying that GOD does not want a woman to teach or have authority over a man. Deborah did both - not only with God's blessing by by his appointment.

OT, God appoints someone to lead the nation, teach the people to obey his commands, brings them his word and there is peace in the land and people follow God for 40 years.
NT, God apparently forbids women to teach men.
Did he change his mind?

Deborah is not a smokescreen to the OP. CIU says that Paul goes back to Adam and Eve to illustrate his argument - Deborah lived AFTER Adam and Eve.
If no woman after Eve EVER led, taught or gave the word of the Lord to men, it would be consistent to say that women could never do this. But they did.

Have you ever read about Huldah (2 Kings 22)? King Josiah wanted to know what God had to say to them about a scroll that had been found in the temple. Jeremiah was a prophet at that time, so was Zephaniah and apparently a couple of other men were too - yet the priests and king's advisors chose to go to a woman. She told them what God said about the scroll and what was in it; she effectively confirmed that it was God's word. This led to repentance and reformation on the part of Josiah - there was a mini revival.

These references all are from people who were commanded to obey the Torah. Paul says we are not obligated to what they were obligated to. God changed His rules several times throughout history - that's obvious. If you want to let a woman teach men go ahead, you're breaking His Law not mine.

 

[Strong in Him]

These references all are from people who were commanded to obey the Torah. Paul says we are not obligated to what they were obligated to.

So in the OT God didn't mind a woman teaching a man because she was under the Torah? Even though it was a male dominated society and the Pharisees used to thank God daily for not creating them to be women - nevertheless, under the old law, a woman could teach a man?

Yet when Jesus came, said he fulfilled the Law and allowed women to proclaim his word, that means, in fact, that women can't teach now? Jesus restored women, gave them self worth and set them free, yet you think the result of all that is that women CAN'T now do for God what they once could?

Nope - doesn't make sense. If God's will is that a woman cannot have authority over a man, which as the OP says goes back to, and is because of, Eve - then Deborah should not have been appointed and allowed to lead the nation. Yet she was. Why? Because God does not have a problem with it. God wants people to hear his word and the Gospel. And if the instruments he chooses to use for this are women, donkeys, men, children or even stones - then that's what he will use. Our Sovereign God can choose, and use, whoever he wants to do his will. He chose Deborah, Huldah, Mary Magdalene, Gladys Aylward, Mother Teresa, and has chosen many others since.

If you want to let a woman teach men go ahead, you're breaking His Law not mine.

And if you want to surpress women, and not let them use the gifts God has given them; go ahead. If God has called them to serve him in this way, they will do so, inspite of human opposition. But you may, at some point, have to explain to God why you prevented his children from fulfilling their calling.

 

[intojoy]

So in the OT God didn't mind a woman teaching a man because she was under the Torah?

*Where do you see women teaching men in the OT? Did they use their iPhones? People were taught the Torah by the Levites.

Even though it was a male dominated society and the Pharisees used to thank God daily for not creating them to be women - nevertheless, under the old law, a woman could teach a man?

*prove it by the scriptures

Yet when Jesus came, said he fulfilled the Law and allowed women to proclaim his word, that means, in fact, that women can't teach now?


Jesus restored women,


* what are you talking about? Restored from what? According to you women were always allowed spiritual authority over men.


gave them self worth and set them free


*are you claiming that under Torah, women were without self worth and in slavery? Prove it by the scriptures.


, yet you think the result of all that is that women CAN'T now do for God what they once could?

* you just said women were slaves, without self worth in the OT. I don't agree with that and don't believe that about women OT or NT.


Nope - doesn't make sense. If God's will is that a woman cannot have authority over a man, which as the OP says goes back to, and is because of, Eve - then Deborah should not have been appointed and allowed to lead the nation.


*why not? She did not have the right to enter the Holy of Holies and the priesthood were males only. The very Law that God gave to Israel prohibited her from any function of priesthood whatsoever. They didn't have a bible in every home, people had to go and hear God's word taught by the priests.




Yet she was.


*Nope



Why? Because God does not have a problem with it.




*God doesn't hate women. He uses women in many ways to teach His Word. He has asked women to be in subjection to the men in the body and to cover their heads during the praying and prophesying time at church.



God wants people to hear his word and the Gospel.


*Amen



And if the instruments he chooses to use for this are women, donkeys, men, children or even stones - then that's what he will use.



*Never said He doesn't.


Our Sovereign God can choose, and use, whoever he wants to do his will.



*He did and He's asking for you to be obedient to the framework put in place for the role of women in the local church. Head covering, silence, modest apparel, teachers of younger women, teachers of children, forbidden to teach a man scripture because in doing this she is exercising spiritual authority over the man. The head of the man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man.



He chose Deborah, Huldah, Mary Magdalene, Gladys Aylward, Mother Teresa, and has chosen many others since.



*choosing us does not necessarily mean that we will do things His way.


Deborah governed the political economy, Huldah taught a child, Gladys and MT, if they taught scriptures to men, were ignorant of God's rule of life for them in this. They may have done many things for God and God may have accomplished mighty things thru them but in this regard if they exercised authority over the men in the church they did so in violation of NT laws.




And if you want to surpress women,



*i don't



. and not let them use the gifts God has given them;



*i encourage women to use their gifts and to live fruitful lives for The Lord. Including head covering and submission to their husbands spiritual headship over them.





go ahead.




If God has called them to serve him in this way, they will do so, inspite of human opposition.



*The human opposition is yours and those who only take the scriptures literally that fit your philosophy. Women are great and God uses them to carry out His plan. Calling Paul's words regarding the role of women in church a cultural issue Germain to his culture of the first century is fool hearty. Why would Paul need to tell women to be quite and so on if that was already a Jewish custom? Because women just like the men were baptized by the Spirit and received the gifts as much as men did. For this very reason, the fact that the women will now have the gifts of the Spirit, that Paul must remind the men of the role of headship, and remind women of their need, despite the evidence of the very same gifts, their need to submit, and by doing this they will give glory to God before His angels in heaven who are witnesses.


But you may, at some point, have to explain to God why you prevented his children from fulfilling their calling.

Just did

 

[Bro in Christ]

romans 16:1-2 phoebe did works but got here authority from working when a need arose and apostle Paul.... in acts 18 phoebe and her husband worked together

I believe this is basically eph 5:25-32 where they are one person but the man takes responsibility do to their relationship of prayer 1 peter 3:7, 1 tim 2:8 to God with one another so that they can hear it .... not quietly

Deborah was in a different dispensation .... but God has even used donkeys when man does not listen .... does not make me push the panic button

 

[intojoy]

Strong in Him, you're sincere and I respect that. Its fun arguing to see who's right but I had enough for this topic. I'm guessing you are a female? If so no disrespect is intended. Until our next beef, see ya.

 

[NorrinRadd]

romans 16:1-2 phoebe did works but got here authority from working when a need arose and apostle Paul.... in acts 18 phoebe and her husband worked together

Prisca, not Phoebe in Acts. And of course you are reading into the text, not letting it speak for itself. Nothing in that context suggests Prisca's authority was derivative.

I believe this is basically eph 5:25-32 where they are one person but the man takes responsibility do to their relationship of prayer 1 peter 3:7, 1 tim 2:8 to God with one another so that they can hear it .... not quietly

Please try to write more clearly, rather than haphazardly tossing words and random Bible verses into a blender and leaving it to us to try to decipher whatever strange meaning you may have in mind.

Deborah was in a different dispensation .... but God has even used donkeys when man does not listen .... does not make me push the panic button

Yes, Deborah was under a Covenant that was even more restrictive, in that it did not include passages such as Acts 2, where men and women are explicitly placed on equal footing in Spirit-empowered ministry, or Gal. 3, where the Obsolete Covenant's distinctions between social groups are eliminated.

You realize, of course, that the jazz about "when man does not listen" is nothing but another old canard raised by patriarchalists. Judges does not teach Deborah was called and appointed for any such reason. In point of fact, Debbie was a particularly interesting case. She was unlike most of the other Judges whose stories were told in the eponymous book. Most of them were primarily warrior-leaders. Debbie did actual "judging" of disputes, and delivered prophetic guidance. In those ways, she was, more than most of the other Judges cited, much like the first Judge, Moses, and the last Judge, Samuel.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Touche'. I agree. As long as you agree that Paul's prohibition of women teaching obviously encompasses teaching scripture.

Again, I agree. A good example of this would be using a narrative in Acts to try and overturn a prohibition from a Pastoral Epistle written much later. Nudge nudge, wink wink. I think you know what I'm getting at.



Set aside for a minute the fact that we disagree on that narrative passage from Acts, lets pretend you have just been installed as a female Pastor at your church. Your first teaching sermon will be on the subject of why you place an example from that narrative in Acts higher than an epistle written with the express purpose of allowing its recipient to know how to conduct church life. What is it about that example, which occurred before Paul laid down his guidelines recorded in 1 Timothy, that you feel liberates you to totally disregard Paul's later admonition?

I presume you are referring to the Prisca-Aquilla-Apollos narrative. Your hermeneutic seems to include the ideas that epistles are inherently more didactic than narratives, and that virtually all material in epistles is universally normative. What if those basic starting points are incorrect? What if the material selected for inclusion in narratives is intended to be instructive by establishing patterns; and what if epistles are primarily "occasional," directed primarily to the situations immediately facing their original recipients, and so, just like language, must be "translated" to other times and places?

That's a difference at a fairly basic interpretive level, and so a difficult divide across which to communicate.