Yes, it does, viz:
"But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: that the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." --Titus 2:1-5
It doesn't say they can only teach boys aged 19 or younger.
Yes it is and yes it does, viz:
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." --1 Timothy 2:12
So why did he allow Priscilla to teach Apollos (an Apostle)?
Why didn't he say that although teaching is a gift of the Spirit it will not be given to a woman?
Why did he say that women are allowed to prophesy? They can't do that in silence.
for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
What law?
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Yes - they were clearly asking questions in the service while the preacher was speaking. Not only that, they were asking questions of the nearest man, instead of waiting til they got home and asking their husbands.
Paul would not have told them not to do this if they weren't doing it.
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
They might well have been commands of the Lord; I can easily imagine Paul praying and asking God how he should deal with this problem in one of his churches.
But that is a long way from saying that God has commanded that no woman should teach or preach the Gospel; ever.
Jesus certainly never taught that, nor showed it by his actions, and he came to show us what God is like and teach us his will. Neither did Paul say this to the church in Rome, where he listed his many female co-workers, Galatia, Philippi, where they had deaconesses, Thessalonica, Colossae or anywhere else.
In the OT, God made very sure that people knew his commands; he told them to write them on their foreheads, teach them to their children and said that those who didn't keep them would be punished. We don't see this apparent "command" from God being taught in the same way - indeed it seems to be so unimportant that even the Son of God didn't mention it.
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order." --1 Corinthians 14:33-40
Exactly.
He tells women to be silent, then he tells them all to covet the gift of prophecy?
Your first example is simply an equivocation of teaching and prophesying: if your false equivalency were true, then all teachers would be prophets and all prophets teachers, thus the word teaching would simply be another word for prophesying.
I'm talking about the fact of women being silent.
Paul has already said that women can prophesy, 1 Corinthians 11:4-10. How does a woman prophesy if she is not allowed to speak?
Your second example suffers from the same logic, in that it too is another equivocation, but exceedingly absurd; for if announcing were teaching, then what is teaching? and what is announcing?
Actually it was a question, not an example.
But the question of how we define teaching is a good one.
Mary was telling the disciples something that they didn't know - something that would change their lives, in fact. The message about meeting Jesus in Jerusalem was an announcement/message. The first bit was the lifechanging Gospel and a personal testimony; it made a huge difference to their faith to know that Jesus was alive.
So supposing a woman writes a book/hymn/poem, those reading it learn something about God and their faith grows? Isn't that teaching? Supposing I write something and someone says, as they did a while back, "I didn't know that" - was I teaching, or passing on what I had read in a commentary?
So if a woman stands in a pulpit and gives a sermon which will probably include information given in commentaries, as well as what God wants them to say; is that teaching?
That is not found in scripture: you should defer to what the scriptures actually say instead of following the traditions of men.
Your opening statement was that women can teach boys under the age of 19 - a statement found nowhere in Scripture.
Again, you ought defer to the scriptures for the truth about the nature of men, and not the traditions and laws of men.
No, society is very different now to what it was then.
It's a fact that people come of age age 18; an age when they can legally vote, drink, get married etc.
If you are saying that our society and lives today have to imitate exactly those laid down in Scripture, you're going to get into trouble. The OT says, for example, that anyone who doesn't rest on the Sabbath, should be stoned to death. Try to apply that and you'll be arrested for murder - which is against the commandments. It also says that anyone caught committing adultery should be stoned to death; if we did that it'd be fairly easy to convert the world; there'd be no one left.
Your objection is without coherence.
No, it's logical.
You quoted that passage because it mentions men over the age of 20, and you want to prove that boys become men when they are 20. I said, "
if you are applying that literally, it talks about shekels and Gerahs", which I'm sure you realise we don't have as our currency.
It's inconsistent to quote the Bible because a passage says what you want it to say, and then, when I point out what that passage also says, say "that's not a coherent point."
In other words, you can't pick out bits of Scripture that fit with your agenda, but dismiss other bits.
Sorry that you reject God's word.
Sorry that you don't understand how to read and apply God's word.
Hopefully presenting the scriptures to you
You've presented select Scriptures to me, and ignored others.
will now cause you to turn from the traditions of men to the commands of God.
Nothing of what you have posted is a command of God.
(Sorry that you accept the traditional age of 18 instead of God's command of 20.)
God has not commanded that coming of age is 20.
The Bible was written to, and by, people in different cultures - all these cultures had, and will have, very different rules about coming of age and childhood. None of this changes or affects what God told people at the time.
If you had a son who broke the law at the age of 18; unless you live somewhere that 21 is coming of age, I am sure they would be dealt with by an adult court - however much you tried to insist that he was still a child.
I'm sorry that you don't understand:
Ditto.
I hope that presenting the scriptures to you will cause you to abandon your way for the Lord's way.
I do not have "a way"; I follow the Lord's way.
Remember, every man is a liar, unless He is teaching what the Spirit says to the Churches.
If someone does not read the Scriptures in context, studies to understand what they mean and applies them in the wrong way, they are making the Bible say something that its authors never intended. And if they teach others to do the same, there will be a lot of Scriptural misunderstanding out there.
After all, would you say that:
"then Judas went and hanged himself", Matthew 27:5
"Go and do likewise", Luke 10:37 and
"what you are about to do, do quickly", John 13:27
was a Scriptural doctrine urging, and condoning, suicide?
No? Well why choose a few random OT verses, say that they show the Lord has commanded that boys come of age at 20 and tell me that I clearly don't believe God?
Not to mention the fact that you first made a statement saying that women could teach boys up to the age of 19.
)
