female preacher

[Clare73]

It's not.
Otherwise God wouldn't call them; he would be going against his own word.

You place the personal experience of fallen man over the word of God written.

That is either failure to realize, or a choice to ignore, that all is to be measured by Scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

You place the personal experience of fallen man over the word of God written.

That is either failure to realize, or a choice to ignore, that all is to be measured by Scripture.

I place the experience of several Christian women, all of whom I personally know/knew, over some people's interpretation of a few verses of Scripture. The denominations we belong to - made up of educated, theologically trained men - also agree that God may call women to preach his word or lead his church, if he wishes. And he will not contradict his word. So if he HAD forbidden women from leading and teaching a) he would not have appointed Deborah to be judge over the whole nation and b) he would not be calling these Christian women today.

The Pharisees knew their Scriptures very well; they had to learn them by heart. But they were so convinced that they knew how the Messiah would come and what kind of person he would be, that they missed him when he was standing right in front of them. They accused their Messiah of driving out demons in the power of Beelzebub - and finally, they crucified him. No doubt while insisting that their Messiah would never die.

 

[Clare73]

I place the experience of several Christian women, all of whom I personally know/knew, over some people's interpretation of a few verses of Scripture.

Please exegete 1 Tim 2:12-14, in consistency with its text and context.

 

[Strong in Him]

Please exegete 1 Tim 2:12-14, in consistency with its text and context.

Why?
I did a little of this in post #6, and asked what it meant - and you said "I will not be defending the plain teaching of Scripture against your denial."
You seem to have already decided what it means, and anyone saying otherwise is denying/contradicting Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

Why?
I did a little of this in post #6, and asked what it meant - and you said "I will not be defending the plain teaching of Scripture against your denial."
You seem to have already decided what it means, and anyone saying otherwise is denying/contradicting Scripture.

Pretty obvious, don't you think?

But to labor the obvious. . .
A "little" exegesis does not give full understanding
A full exegesis of 1 Tim 2:12-14 is needed to understand it correctly.

 

[Strong in Him]

Pretty obvious, don't you think?

But to labor the obvious. . .
A "little" exegesis does not give full understanding
A full exegesis of 1 Tim 2:12-14 is needed to understand it correctly.

If you insist.

Exegesis involves looking at the context: type of writing, who was it written by, who was it written to, language, background, what the author meant by those words, and what those who read/heard the words have understood by them.

Type of writing: Personal letter.
Written by: Paul, though some scholars have doubted this. Probably written in Ephesus.
Who addressed to: Timothy.
Language: Greek.
Background:
i) this letter was written against a Jewish background. For Jews, women had a large part to play in home and family life, but officially, women had a very low position in society and almost no rights. A woman was the property of her father or husband, forbidden from learning, took no part in the Synagogue service. A woman could not even teach the youngest children in school, a strict Rabbi would not greet a woman on the street; not even his own wife, mother or daughter. (Source, William Barclay.)
ii) it was written against a Greek background. In Greek religion, women had a very low place. The temple of Aphrodite had 1000 priestesses who were, in fact, prostitutes. A respectable Greek woman never appeared on the streets alone and never went into a public gathering or place of worship. If Christian women in a Greek town had taken part in the work of the church and spoken - even prophesied, the church would have gained a reputation of being the resort of loose women. There were women whose whole life consisted of wearing expensive clothes and elaborately braiding their hair. Apparently, the Greeks and the Romans were shocked at some of the extravagances of a woman's clothing.
(Sources, William Barclay, Tom Wright.)
iii) The early church preached to Jews and Greeks. The way Jesus had treated women was very different to these cultural norms - he allowed Mary of Bethany to sit at his feet and learn, as a male student Rabbi would. God himself had said that a woman who wanted to learn had "chosen the best way". He allowed a woman to go back to her town to tell the men about him and he chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection. It was women who had followed him to the cross and who went to anoint his body. Women prayed with the disciples before Pentecost and hosted early church meetings in their homes. In addition, Priscilla was a respected teacher, Phoebe was a deacon, Lydia was one of the first converts in Philippi and may have been a founder member of the church, there were deaconesses in the church, Paul had female co-workers who he greatly valued. All of this took place before Paul wrote this letter - maybe his last - to Timothy.
iv) within Christianity, therefore, women were becoming liberated - after the example of Jesus himself. It is likely that, in their new-found enthusiasm, some women were getting carried away and beginning to dominate the men )source, The New IVP Bible commentary.

Now - having discovered the background and historical context, let's look at the text.
In 1 Timothy 2:8-10 Paul is dealing with the issue of women who wore extravagant clothes and braided their hair. Clearly that was a cultural issue.
He does not say, and we do not read it, that women today cannot have plaits or wear gold in church - otherwise bye bye wedding rings.

A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission.

We've already seen that, in both Jewish and Greek cultures, women were not allowed to learn. Paul says that they should. There is a note, however, to say that the word for woman can also mean wife.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

Paul did not permit a woman to teach or assume authority.
a) Most of Paul's letters were not sermons or statements of doctrine which he had spent hours composing; they were written -or dictated - quickly to meet an urgent need, answer a question or address a problem in the church. It is entirely possible that that was what was going on here (William Barclay.)
b) in the previous verses Paul says "women everywhere", here he says A woman.
c) As I said earlier the word for authority actually means to snatch authority forcibly from someone. If women - or A woman - was over-enthusiastic and beginning to dominate men, it would make sense that Paul was forbidding her from doing so. So that the Christian church was able to witness to the Greek society around it and not be brought into disrepute.
Paul was not commanding that ALL women in ALL the churches should behave like this - far less those in the future, since he believed that Jesus would return in his lifetime.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

If the word "woman" is to be translated as "wife" this makes more sense. But anyway, he does not say that women are inferior because they were created 2nd.

14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

This fits in with verse 11; "a woman should learn". Why? Because Eve was deceived. If you look at Genesis 2, Eve had not been created when Adam was given a command from God. Now read Genesis 3:3; when Eve repeated the command to the serpent, she got the words wrong. As we are not told that God directly spoke to Eve, it is reasonable to assume that Adam told her what he said. Either she remembered it wrongly or she hadn't been listening in the first place - she didn't KNOW, so the serpent was able to plant doubt in her mind. The serpent didn't approach Adam because it knew that Adam had heard directly from God. If you KNOW something, you are far less likely to be deceived.

15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

What does this mean? It's clearly not literal - women are saved by Jesus.

Hopefully you'll at least have the courtesy to address some of these points - most of which come from commentaries - and not just dismiss this post as "denial" or disobedience.

 

[Clare73]

If you insist.

Exegesis involves looking at the context: type of writing, who was it written by, who was it written to, language, background, what the author meant by those words, and what those who read/heard the words have understood by them.

Type of writing: Personal letter.
Written by: Paul, though some scholars have doubted this. Probably written in Ephesus.
Who addressed to: Timothy.
Language: Greek.
Background:
i) this letter was written against a Jewish background. For Jews, women had a large part to play in home and family life, but officially, women had a very low position in society and almost no rights. A woman was the property of her father or husband, forbidden from learning, took no part in the Synagogue service. A woman could not even teach the youngest children in school, a strict Rabbi would not greet a woman on the street; not even his own wife, mother or daughter. (Source, William Barclay.)
ii) it was written against a Greek background. In Greek religion, women had a very low place. The temple of Aphrodite had 1000 priestesses who were, in fact, prostitutes. A respectable Greek woman never appeared on the streets alone and never went into a public gathering or place of worship. If Christian women in a Greek town had taken part in the work of the church and spoken - even prophesied, the church would have gained a reputation of being the resort of loose women. There were women whose whole life consisted of wearing expensive clothes and elaborately braiding their hair. Apparently, the Greeks and the Romans were shocked at some of the extravagances of a woman's clothing.
(Sources, William Barclay, Tom Wright.)
iii) The early church preached to Jews and Greeks. The way Jesus had treated women was very different to these cultural norms - he allowed Mary of Bethany to sit at his feet and learn, as a male student Rabbi would. God himself had said that a woman who wanted to learn had "chosen the best way". He allowed a woman to go back to her town to tell the men about him and he chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection. It was women who had followed him to the cross and who went to anoint his body. Women prayed with the disciples before Pentecost and hosted early church meetings in their homes. In addition, Priscilla was a respected teacher, Phoebe was a deacon, Lydia was one of the first converts in Philippi and may have been a founder member of the church, there were deaconesses in the church, Paul had female co-workers who he greatly valued. All of this took place before Paul wrote this letter - maybe his last - to Timothy.
iv) within Christianity, therefore, women were becoming liberated - after the example of Jesus himself. It is likely that, in their new-found enthusiasm, some women were getting carried away and beginning to dominate the men )source, The New IVP Bible commentary.

Now - having discovered the background and historical context, let's look at the text.
In 1 Timothy 2:8-10 Paul is dealing with the issue of women who wore extravagant clothes and braided their hair. Clearly that was a cultural issue.
He does not say, and we do not read it, that women today cannot have plaits or wear gold in church - otherwise bye bye wedding rings.


We've already seen that, in both Jewish and Greek cultures, women were not allowed to learn. Paul says that they should. There is a note, however, to say that the word for woman can also mean wife.

Paul did not permit a woman to teach or assume authority.
a) Most of Paul's letters were not sermons or statements of doctrine which he had spent hours composing; they were written -or dictated - quickly to meet an urgent need, answer a question or address a problem in the church. It is entirely possible that that was what was going on here (William Barclay.)
b) in the previous verses Paul says "women everywhere", here he says A woman.
c) As I said earlier the word for authority actually means to snatch authority forcibly from someone. If women - or A woman - was over-enthusiastic and beginning to dominate men, it would make sense that Paul was forbidding her from doing so. So that the Christian church was able to witness to the Greek society around it and not be brought into disrepute.
Paul was not commanding that ALL women in ALL the churches should behave like this - far less those in the future, since he believed that Jesus would return in his lifetime.

If the word "woman" is to be translated as "wife" this makes more sense. But anyway, he does not say that women are inferior because they were created 2nd.

This fits in with verse 11; "a woman should learn". Why? Because Eve was deceived. If you look at Genesis 2, Eve had not been created when Adam was given a command from God. Now read Genesis 3:3; when Eve repeated the command to the serpent, she got the words wrong. As we are not told that God directly spoke to Eve, it is reasonable to assume that Adam told her what he said. Either she remembered it wrongly or she hadn't been listening in the first place - she didn't KNOW, so the serpent was able to plant doubt in her mind. The serpent didn't approach Adam because it knew that Adam had heard directly from God. If you KNOW something, you are far less likely to be deceived.

What does this mean? It's clearly not literal - women are saved by Jesus.

Hopefully you'll at least have the courtesy to address some of these points - most of which come from commentaries - and not just dismiss this post as "denial" or disobedience.

Don't confuse secular exegesis with Biblical exegesis.

 

[Strong in Him]

Don't confuse secular exegesis with Biblical exegesis.

I knew it!
I do what you ask and write a post - which took a considerable amount of time - only for you to dismiss it with a one-liner.

Either you don't understand what exegesis is, you are one of those people who dismisses everything outside the Bible as "secular " and therefore wrong, or you don't even want read my post in case it challenges your interpretation.

I'm not going all through it again. You've made up your mind and you'll find some excuse not to read it.
Believe what you like.

 

[Clare73]

I knew it!
I do what you ask and write a post - which took a considerable amount of time - only for you to dismiss it with a one-line

Sorry you are offended by my rejection of the exegetical method for secular literature, which literature enjoys no divine authority.

Either you don't understand what exegesis is, you are one of those people who dismisses everything outside the Bible as "secular " and therefore wrong, or you don't even want read my post in case it challenges your interpretation.

I'm not going all through it again. You've made up your mind and you'll find some excuse not to read it.
Believe what you like.

 

[Strong in Him]

Sorry you are offended by my rejection of the exegetical method for secular literature, which literature enjoys no divine authority.

I'm annoyed by the fact that I over a hour writing my reply to you - looking in commentaries so you couldn't say it was all my own ideas You didn't even try to engage with what I wrote, just dismissed the whole thing.

It wasn't secular literature, I was talking about Paul's letter to Timothy; maybe you didn't read that bit.

 

[Clare73]

I'm annoyed by the fact that I over a hour writing my reply to you

I do appreciate that time and effort you put into it.
But I disagree with your
1) secular method of rationalization regarding v. 12, in light of the principle stated in vv. 13-14, and
2) your minimalization of the unchanging principle stated in vv. 13-14
by which you arrive at your misunderstanding.

Too much effort to mitigate the plain text.
The issue is submission, not the meaning of the text, which couldn't be more clear.

 

[Strong in Him]

I do appreciate that time and effort you put into it.

Thank you.

But I disagree with your
1) secular method of rationalization regarding v. 12, in light of the principle stated in vv. 13-14,

I wasn't rationalising anything.
I was telling you the background of the letter. It was written against a Jewish and a Greek background; that is how they thought and what they believed about women. These are facts. I did not make them up because it suited my argument; I looked in several commentaries.
I'm sorry that you seem to be of the opinion that anything not stated in Scripture is "secular."

2) your minimalization of the unchanging principle stated in vv. 13-14
by which you arrive at your misunderstanding.

That's the problem - you seem to think that Paul is teaching a "principle" or Christian doctrine; he isn't.
This whole issue is one of church practice. Accept a woman's ministry to ordination, or don't - either way, we are saved and have eternal life. You will meet some female Ministers in heaven - but I don't think anyone will care then; we'll just be rejoicing that all belong to God.

Too much effort to mitigate the plain text.

Clearly not too much effort, as I spent over an hour on that reply to you.
If you had bothered to even acknowledge it, and not just dismiss it, I might have felt inclined to address the text. But these verses, and other texts, cannot be read in isolation to a) the rest of Scripture and b) their background and historical context. And I'm afraid that if you think they can, you are not only doing Scripture a disservice you are making it say something which its authors never intended.

The issue is submission, not the meaning of the text, which couldn't be more clear.

It could be a lot more clear and, furthermore, Jesus could have spelt it out as well. But he didn't.

And I asked you questions about it a while ago and you haven't even been able to answer. You just said that you were not going to "defend Scripture against my denial."

 

[Der Alte]

Please exegete 1 Tim 2:12-14, in consistency with its text and context.

PMFBI, pardon me from butting in but that passage does NOT say what a lot of people have been taught and strongly believe.

1 Timothy 2:12​

(12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

I note that Paul did NOT say "God does not suffer a woman to teach etc." Instead, Paul said "I do not suffer a woman to teach. etc" Note the word "usurp" αὐθεντέω

G831 αὐθεντέω authenteō​

Thayer Definition:​

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself​

2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic​

3) an absolute master​

4) to govern, exercise dominion over one​

Part of Speech: verb​

This word only occurs one time in the N.T., this verse.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you.

I wasn't rationalising anything.
I was telling you the background of the letter. It was written against a Jewish and a Greek background; that is how they thought and what they believed about women. These are facts. I did not make them up because it suited my argument; I looked in several commentaries.
I'm sorry that you seem to be of the opinion that anything not stated in Scripture is "secular."

That's the problem - you seem to think that Paul is teaching a "principle" or Christian doctrine; he isn't.

It couldn't be stated any plainer than it is in 1 Tim 2:12-14., the principle of which does not apply only to Ephesus.
Where do we find women pastors in the history of the NT church?

The issue is faith/submission, not the meaning of the text, which is absolutely clear.

 

[Clare73]

PMFBI, pardon me from butting in but that passage does NOT say what a lot of people have been taught and strongly believe.

1 Timothy 2:12​

(12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

I note that Paul did NOT say "God does not suffer a woman to teach etc." Instead, Paul said "I do not suffer a woman to teach. etc" Note the word "usurp" αὐθεντέω

G831 αὐθεντέω authenteō​

Thayer Definition:​

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself​

2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic​

3) an absolute master​

4) to govern, exercise dominion over one​

Part of Speech: verb​

This word only occurs one time in the N.T., this verse.

Paul received his teaching in heaven (2 Co 12:1-4, 7-9), as did Jesus (Jn 3:13).

 

[Strong in Him]

It couldn't be stated any plainer than it is in 1 Tim 2:12-14.,

Of course it could.
Jesus could have said, "I will build my church - and women will never be allowed to lead in it."
Or "if you forgive any sins they will be forgiven - and if you ever let women lead in my church you will be in trouble".
Or "when you pray, say " ..... deliver us from evil and from female clergy".
Or quite simply, "GOD will never call a woman to lead, preach or be ordained".

, the principle of which does not apply only to Ephesus.

So why did he allow a woman to take his letter to be taken to the church in Rome - meaning that she would have read it to them and answered any questions?
Why did he commend his female co-workers, allow Priscilla to teach and say that Junia was outstanding among the Apostles?
Why did he tell the church in Philippi to support their deaconesses?
Why did he tell women how they were to prophesy, if he really just wanted them to sit down and be quiet?
Why didn't he say, in EVERY letter - God has commanded me to say that women must not lead a church; not now, not ever?

Where do we find women pastors in the history of the NT church?

Where do we find computers in the NT church? Where did Jesus teach that it was ok to do your evangelism online?
Where do we find Sunday school teachers, family workers, curates, Archbishops, Cardinals, the church secretary, the church choir, people working the sound and AV system? These things aren't in the Bible; why do we have them?
Conversely, why don't we have slaves - not "employees", slaves that we have bought at market. The Bible gives us instructions on how to treat them - yet slavery has been abolished.

The issue is faith/submission, not the meaning of the text, which is absolutely clear.

Women who are called to ordination, or to be lay preachers ARE showing faith and submitting to the one who called them.
If it were absolutely clear, there wouldn't be all these debates - which, on these forums, result in threads being closed due to all the flaming and insulting and people- not only women - being hurt by all the accusations.

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul received his teaching in heaven (2 Co 12:1-4, 7-9), as did Jesus (Jn 3:13).

Paul was not told - and never said - "I am passing on a command from God which will stand for all time - women must never preach, lead or be ordained. If they tell you I have called them to do this, they are wrong".
Such a word is clear, unambiguous and is clearly present as a command from God. Paul does not say anything of the kind in 1 Timothy 2:12.

 

[Clare73]

Of course it could.

We disagree. . .

 

[Clare73]

Paul was not told - and never said - "I am passing on a command from God which will stand for all time - women must never preach, lead or be ordained. If they tell you I have called them to do this, they are wrong".
Such a word is clear, unambiguous and is clearly present as a command from God. Paul does not say anything of the kind in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Oh, wow!

I rest my case.

 

[Der Alte]

Paul received his teaching in heaven (2 Co 12:1-4, 7-9), as did Jesus (Jn 3:13).

And this responds to my post, how?
"I [Paul] suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Note the word "usurp" αὐθεντέω authenteo "one who acts on his own authority, autocratic" If a church appoints a woman deacon or pastor she is NOT acting on her own and usurping authority. And OBTW I belong to a large southern denomination that largely does not have women pastors or deacons. A few years ago the pastor of a large church retired and the church elected a woman associate pastor to be head pastor. When the denominational big wigs learned of it they threatened to kick the church out of the denomination.