No women preachers? An exegetical case from 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2

As you've refined your thinking, it appears that you've focused on these opinions from Paul. But it is important to realize that if none of that existed...

The case for women pastors would still be lacking.

The major denominations that have not ordained women for many centuries and are against doing so at present, when explaining it often don't even take these verses about women keeping silent, etc. and submitting to their husbands into their calculations. Yet they base their opposition on Scripture. That being the case, is it not the fact that no matter which way you or I look at 1 Corinthians and/or 1 Timothy, it won't settle the matter in favor of women pastors?

Albion said:

As you've refined your thinking, it appears that you've focused on these opinions from Paul. But it is important to realize that if none of that existed...

The case for women pastors would still be lacking.

The major denominations that have not ordained women for many centuries and are against doing so at present don't even take these verses about women keeping silent, etc. and submitting to their husbands into their calculations. Yet they base their opposition on Scripture. That being the case, is it not the fact that no matter which way one looks at 1 Corinthians and/or 1 Timothy, it won't settle the matter?

Click to expand...

On what Scripture do they base it?

The Bible does NOT allow for women to preach/pastor/teach in the Church, when there are men present. They can teach in a womans meeting, or children. Nether can the hold the position of pastor/elder. the Bible has never changed on this, even though there are "churches" who do their own thing against the Teaching of the Bible, and have women in this positions. They are most certainly NOT blessed by the Lord in this.

Albion said:

As you've refined your thinking, it appears that you've focused on these opinions from Paul. But it is important to realize that if none of that existed...

The case for women pastors would still be lacking.

The major denominations that have not ordained women for many centuries and are against doing so at present, when explaining it often don't even take these verses about women keeping silent, etc. and submitting to their husbands into their calculations. Yet they base their opposition on Scripture. That being the case, is it not the fact that no matter which way you or I look at 1 Corinthians and/or 1 Timothy, it won't settle the matter in favor of women pastors?

Click to expand...

There is no biblical justification for ordination. Pastors only just rate a mention in the NT. Church structure generally is far from the Bible pattern. The "new wine" (life of the church) is more important than the "wineskin" (structure). Nevertheless, the "wineskin" is necessary for the church to be effective in Kingdom work.

Women should not be elders, pastors or be an authority in the local church. They are encouraged to teach other women, especially those less mature. Someone like Joyce Meyer is a tremendous blessing, especially to women. She is a great example of how women can serve God. By definition, she has gone through experiences that only a woman can go through.

She knows the power of God to deliver and she knows the principles of how to receive God's power. She is able to pass that on.

Kilk1 said:

Hello!

1 Corinthians 14
It seems the point of 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 is that if someone speaks (2980 laleo) in tongues, they shouldn't address an assembly that doesn't know the language unless there's one to interpret. Instead, they should "keep silent" (4601 sigao) in church. Likewise, the point of 1 Corinthians 14:29-30 is that two or three prophets should speak (2980 laleo), but if something is revealed to someone else, the first speaker should not address the assembly but should "keep silent" (4601 sigao) so that this new speaker can do so instead.

In the first two cases, the subjects addressed (tongue-speakers and prophets) could speak in church but had to "keep silent" under certain circumstances. However, when Paul gets to the third subject, the women, there are no qualifiers given. Instead, he writes in 1 Corinthians 14:34, "Let your women keep silent [4601 sigao] in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak [2980 laleo]; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Paul then goes on to add in 1 Corinthians 15:35: "And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak [2980 laleo] in church."

Naturally, wouldn't "speak" (2980 laleo) and "keep silent" (4601 sigao) mean the same in verses 34-35 that the terms mean elsewhere in the chapter, i.e., addressing the assembly versus not addressing the assembly, respectively? If so, Paul would seem to rule out women preachers here, as they would not be permitted to address the church assembly. (Note: There's a specific context to this passage, "in church" [vv. 26, 28, 34-35, etc.], so this certainly can't forbid women from teaching in other contexts, such as when Priscilla and her husband Aquila taught Apollos [Acts of the Apostles 18:26].)

1 Timothy 2
Another passage is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which says, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." I know there's debate over the context of this passage. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but the context would seem to be either about church (since the chapter before and the chapter after are discussing the church) or, if 1 Timothy 2:8 is an indicator, the context would apply "everywhere." Either way, this would preclude a woman from being a preacher in church.


Above is my current train of thought. Let me know if there are any holes in it. Thanks!

Click to expand...

The first hole in the 1 Corinthians passage is that Paul clearly allowed women to speak in church in the very same letter. (1 Corinthians 11:5)

The second hole is that the first two groups weren't being categorically forbidden to speak in church. Both groups were encouraged to use their gifts in church if exercised appropriately. If the first two groups were permitted to speak in church at the appropriate time, why wouldn't the third? All three groups were told to "be quiet" using exactly the same verb. Paul is addressing church order, (14:40), and we shouldn't read any more to it than that, especially in light of 11:5.


The 1 Timothy 2 passage has another context that you haven't considered, and that is that the man and the woman in 2:11-15 are husband and wife, and the context therefore has nothing to do with addressing the church service.

The Common English Bible translates that passage this way:

A wife should learn quietly with complete submission. I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener. Adam was formed first, and then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but rather his wife became the one who stepped over the line because she was completely deceived. But a wife will be brought safely through childbirth, if they both continue in faith, love, and holiness, together with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (CEB)

This translation is well supported historically by a number of sources.

The CEB Study Bible elaborates on their translation of the passage:


Although Paul's instructions could refer to women's roles in a church service, the language of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 fits specific practices in the home much better. The Greek term gynë (used throughout this section) could simply refer to "a woman" but it's often used more specifically to refer to "a woman who is married"- that is, "a wife.' The best translation is indicated by the context, usually by the mention of a man, her husband (in Paul, see 1 Cor 5:1;7:2,3, 4, 10, 11, 12,14,16,33; 9:5; Eph 5:23, 28, 31, 33). The context in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 indicates that Paul is referring to "a wife" (and husband). First, Paul's language refers to an individual woman (singular) and an individual man. In the Greco-Roman world, such language wouldn't be appropriate in references to persons outside of close family members. Second, this text involves specific directions regarding the instruction of a woman in the faith, which is the responsibility of her husband in the home (see 1 Cor 14:35). Third, Paul's instruction is supported by a reference to the classic passage concerning marriage, Genesis 2:18-24. Fourth, this text ends with a focus on childbirth, which is clearly a domestic issue. Finally, the letter as a whole indicates that false teaching among women was being discussed in the day-to-day activities of the home. Through private storytelling, myths, genealogies, gossip, and slander, false teaching was spreading from house to house (1 Tim 3:11;4:7; 5:13 cf. 1 Tim 1:4). In part, this false teaching attacked marriage and marital relations (1 Tim 4:3; 5:14). Moreover, 2 Timothy 3:6-7 indicates that men who were false teachers in Ephesus were targeting women in their homes. In contrast, women aren’t singled out for violations in public teaching in either 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy.
If instructions for men to "pray everywhere in 1 Timothy 2:8 shouldn't be limited to public worship services, and if the instructions concerning women's dress wouldn't have been limited to worship services, then Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be best read as the apostle's attempt to deal with false teaching that was being spread (more privately) among women from home to home. As in Corinth (1 Cor 14:35), it was necessary for wives to receive instruction about the Christian faith in the home in order to solve these problems. (1 Corinthians 2:11-15 CEB Study Bible)

That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't find your understanding of the two passages to be compelling, and certainly not enough to limit the ministry of half of the Lord's church.

Prophesying is talking about doing something in the future. It's not about celebrating the sacraments.

Chrystal-J said:

Prophesying is talking about doing something in the future. It's not about celebrating the sacraments.

Click to expand...

Even if that were entirely true, it would have no bearing on this discussion, which is about whether 1 Corinthians 14:34f forbids women from speaking in church at all. Women were either forbidden from speaking, or they were not.

Kilk1 said:

Hello!

1 Corinthians 14
It seems the point of 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 is that if someone speaks (2980 laleo) in tongues, they shouldn't address an assembly that doesn't know the language unless there's one to interpret. Instead, they should "keep silent" (4601 sigao) in church. Likewise, the point of 1 Corinthians 14:29-30 is that two or three prophets should speak (2980 laleo), but if something is revealed to someone else, the first speaker should not address the assembly but should "keep silent" (4601 sigao) so that this new speaker can do so instead.

In the first two cases, the subjects addressed (tongue-speakers and prophets) could speak in church but had to "keep silent" under certain circumstances. However, when Paul gets to the third subject, the women, there are no qualifiers given. Instead, he writes in 1 Corinthians 14:34, "Let your women keep silent [4601 sigao] in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak [2980 laleo]; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Paul then goes on to add in 1 Corinthians 15:35: "And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak [2980 laleo] in church."

Naturally, wouldn't "speak" (2980 laleo) and "keep silent" (4601 sigao) mean the same in verses 34-35 that the terms mean elsewhere in the chapter, i.e., addressing the assembly versus not addressing the assembly, respectively? If so, Paul would seem to rule out women preachers here, as they would not be permitted to address the church assembly. (Note: There's a specific context to this passage, "in church" [vv. 26, 28, 34-35, etc.], so this certainly can't forbid women from teaching in other contexts, such as when Priscilla and her husband Aquila taught Apollos [Acts of the Apostles 18:26].)

1 Timothy 2
Another passage is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which says, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." I know there's debate over the context of this passage. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but the context would seem to be either about church (since the chapter before and the chapter after are discussing the church) or, if 1 Timothy 2:8 is an indicator, the context would apply "everywhere." Either way, this would preclude a woman from being a preacher in church.


Above is my current train of thought. Let me know if there are any holes in it. Thanks!

Click to expand...

The passages were written for infant churches with no New Testament.
They followed the rules of the times they were written.
Paul mentions that he is making this advice in accord with the Law.
(What law? Nobody knows.)
Following local Law is of primary importance. Jesus mentioned this twice in His last days.


Local law prohibits discrimination based on gender.
That should be followed by churches.
It's disgusting that churches take advantage of special leniency
so that they can illegally discriminate based on gender.
But that's male leadership for you. The year is 2021.
In 1920 A.D. (white) women were allowed to vote for the first time.

Gregorikos said:

Even if that were entirely true, it would have no bearing on this discussion, which is about whether 1 Corinthians 14:34f forbids women from speaking in church at all. Women were either forbidden from speaking, or they were not.

Click to expand...

It really depends on what the law was at the time, as Paul explained.

Aussie Pete said:

There is no biblical justification for ordination. Pastors only just rate a mention in the NT.

Click to expand...

Well, there is in Scripture a list of qualifications that any candidate must meet must, and there are many mentions of ministers/clergy/bishops/presbyters/deacons also found therein, so we have to disagree.

Women can do whatever they set their minds to, up to and including teaching and being ordained.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

Women can do whatever they set their minds to, up to and including teaching and being ordained.
Ringo

Click to expand...

...which, however, isn't the issue. Yes, there are denominations which ordain women. The question here is whether that is right to do or not.

Ringo84 said:

Women can do whatever they set their minds to, up to and including teaching and being ordained.
Ringo

Click to expand...

And the early church did ordain women as deaconesses, and did also entrust them with very important roles. St. Nino, who evangelized the entire country of Georgia, which was the fifth country to adopt Christianity after Ethiopia, the Roman Empire, Armenia, and Edessa, was a woman. So one of the first five countries was converted to Christianity by an Armenian princess who was ordained a deaconness.

Deaconesses are installed into a lay office. They are not ordained, do not receive Holy Orders.

People who are interested in this issue and the different ways that the various denominations have approached it in recent times may find this link helpful.

Albion said:

Deaconesses are installed into a lay office. They are not ordained, do not receive Holy Orders.

Click to expand...

The only canons concerning them I found in the early church consisted of a minimum age of 40, later raised to 60.

Just out of curiosity, why should MEN be "preachers" (preach/pastor/teach in the Church)?

Albion said:

Well, there is in Scripture a list of qualifications that any candidate must meet must, and there are many mentions of ministers/clergy/bishops/presbyters/deacons also found therein, so we have to disagree.

Click to expand...

There is no mention of theological degrees, of ordination by a denomination, or of a separate class of paid religious professionals running the church. From memory, the word Pastor is mentioned twice in the NT. Not exactly the same profile as today. 1 Corinthians 14 describes what should be a typical church meeting.

The problem with the traditional exegesis of 1 Tim is that it implies that women shouldn’t teach because they are easily deceived. If that’s truly the situation, they shouldn’t be teaching Sunday School or even public school. They probably shouldn’t even vote. Of course historically many Christians actually believed these things, but Paul evidently did not when he wrote other letters.

Petsonally I think this letter wasn’t by Paul, and that the author actually did have that view of women. But I doubt that most CF readers will want to take that position.

Aussie Pete said:

There is no mention of theological degrees, of ordination by a denomination, or of a separate class of paid religious professionals running the church.

Click to expand...

Of course that's true, but none of those things existed in the first century AD. That alone explains why they are not characteristic of the early church. More to the point, your response to me objects to the particular words I used when referring to the church's ministerial offices, not to the positions or policies themselves.

If I say the same thing another way, the result remains the same: 1) the fact of the churches calling and installing men into the positions of bishop, presbyter, and deacon is Scriptural and borne out by the historical record as well. 2) certain qualifications were needed for candidates being eligible to serve in these positions, and being male was one of them. That's also clearly indicated in the New Testament.

You said, "there is no mention of theological degrees, of ordination by a denomination, or of a separate class of paid religious professionals running the church." You apparently have personal objections to all of those things, quite independent of anything I wrote in my post, but although some congregations these days do what you said, my post didn't refer to any of them. Had I done so, that would have been as off-topic as is your post here.