1Timothy2 Challenge

[Fenstermacher]

I believe Paul was speaking of women generally, but probably in response to a specific issue; i.e. a specific issue at Timothy's church afforded him the opportunity to speak to the issue of female teaching and leadership in the church generally.

I agree with CmRoddy's analysis.

 

[razzelflabben]

I agree that Paul wrote about a specific situation, but 2 questions are what was the situation (was it about women or 1 woman) and how can we apply it today, (to all women or certain kinds of women?) if warranted?

I see nothing in the text that specifies the number of women involved. As in I might say the woman was gossiping but in reality someone had to be listening to the gossip, thus involving two, but singular woman was stated. In other words, we don't really know how many of the women were involved in the situation.

As to how to apply it today, that is what I was trying to talk about when I was told I was off topic and such things....so I have two choices, assume that I should "keep silent" because a woman cannot teach a man anything as some claim, or 2. continue with the discussion as put forth by the OPer and hope that it is accepted as contribution from someone who Love God and His Word with a passion to rival anything this world can throw at her.

 

[razzelflabben]

Got a question for you all... are we called to stand firm in the face of tribulations and trials? In the face of persecution?

If yes, how can a woman do so and still keep quiet before men? How can a woman, any woman, face persecution and still not speak or teach the men who are accusing her? How do you do that?

 

[Fenstermacher]

Got a question for you all... are we called to stand firm in the face of tribulations and trials? In the face of persecution?

If yes, how can a woman do so and still keep quiet before men? How can a woman, any woman, face persecution and still not speak or teach the men who are accusing her? How do you do that?

Why does standing firm require speech or teaching? ISTM that the requirement is to hold fast to the faith, to trust in Christ. This requires neither.

 

[razzelflabben]

Why does standing firm require speech or teaching? ISTM that the requirement is to hold fast to the faith, to trust in Christ. This requires neither.

I have been accused of teaching just by asking questions or obeying the commands of God on my life. Too many people see teaching as only getting in front of a group and lectureing, teaching is much broader, even in parenthood, teaching is often much more about example than words....wouldn't that apply here as well? If women in general are not allowed to teach men, then how can she live a Godly life and still attent the meetings.

 

[Fenstermacher]

I have been accused of teaching just by asking questions or obeying the commands of God on my life. Too many people see teaching as only getting in front of a group and lectureing, teaching is much broader, even in parenthood, teaching is often much more about example than words....wouldn't that apply here as well? If women in general are not allowed to teach men, then how can she live a Godly life and still attent the meetings.

Again though, no one is saying that women do not have the right and duty to ask questions, to learn and grow in the faith, to teach their children the truth of God's Word, etc. If you have encountered differently then I am very sorry.

Paul is talking about leadership and the office of elder in the church. He is talking about pastoral function as it is carried out by pastors and elders and teachers of doctrine in the church and so on.

Again though, see CmRoddy's remarks, no one is suggesting that women must keep absolute silence, the context is about the public teaching office in the church as it pertains to the whole congregation. Women may certainly teach children and other women, but the prohibition against their having teaching authority over men seems very clear.

 

[razzelflabben]

Again though, no one is saying that women do not have the right and duty to ask questions, to learn and grow in the faith, to teach their children the truth of God's Word, etc. If you have encountered differently then I am very sorry.

Paul is talking about leadership and the office of elder in the church. He is talking about pastoral function as it is carried out by pastors and elders and teachers of doctrine in the church and so on.

Again though, see CmRoddy's remarks, no one is suggesting that women must keep absolute silence, the context is about the public teaching office in the church as it pertains to the whole congregation. Women may certainly teach children and other women, but the prohibition against their having teaching authority over men seems very clear.

and yet according to the text, it is an isolated situation, not a world wide one

Edit: If Paul's amonishment to women to not teach men was meant for all woman in every church, why do we see prophetess? Why don't we see the teaching or reference to the teaching in the Paul's letters to the other churches. Look for example at the teaching of circumcision....it comes up more than once and is discussed many places. If the teaching were meant for every woman throughout the ages, why is it only talked about once and why is public lecture the only teaching mentioned and why were there prophetess that were not repremanded? Questions we must ask the text and allow the scriptures to answer for us.

 

[Fenstermacher]

and yet according to the text, it is an isolated situation, not a world wide one

I think that is a convenient construction. There is nothing there which necessarily implies that Paul was speaking only to a single instance and the larger context indicates that he is making a more general apostolic 'ruling'.

I am not a Greek scholar but I am pretty sure that Greek does not have an indefinite article so the "a" is put there by translators to help the text make sense in English. He seems to be speaking of "woman" in kind.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think that is a convenient construction. There is nothing there which necessarily implies that Paul was speaking only to a single instance and the larger context indicates that he is making a more general apostolic 'ruling'.

I am not a Greek scholar but I am pretty sure that Greek does not have an indefinite article so the "a" is put there by translators to help the text make sense in English. He seems to be speaking of "woman" in kind.

see edit above, that understanding requires us to ask questions of the text. So how does the text answer the new questions that arise in this understanding?

 

[Fenstermacher]

If I say, "I do not permit a man to take my money" why would you conclude that I am speaking of only one man other than the use of the indefinite article? The phrase "a man" here speaks also to kind, implying "any man".

I think Paul is using the same kind of linguistic construction.

And the reason I think this is because the whole Bible speaks to a divinely established and necessary order, from Adam to the last man, which places man as the head of the woman and only that construction is consonant with this truth.

I do not see where this has been abrogated.

 

[Fenstermacher]

I would argue that the office or function of prophet is not what Paul is talking about here. He is talking about order and governance of the church.

Prophets and prophetesses certainly do "teach" but this is not what he's talking about, he is talking about the normal "liturgical" life of the church.

 

[razzelflabben]

If I say, "I do not permit a man to take my money" why would you conclude that I am speaking of only one man other than the use of the indefinite article? The phrase "a man" here speaks also to kind, implying "any man".

which is why I said that singular woman does not mean no one else was involved....but the bigger problem here for the "woman can't speak crowd" is in what your comment implies. When you say, "I do not permit" is has no authority behind it. It's your personally conviction...if on the other hand you say, "the law does not permit" you now have authority for what you are saying.

I think Paul is using the same kind of linguistic construction.

I think we agree here, woman does not necessarily mean only one woman was out of control.

And the reason I think this is because the whole Bible speaks to a divinely established and necessary order, from Adam to the last man, which places man as the head of the woman and only that construction is consonant with this truth.

I do not see where this has been abrogated.

what is that order? We are both receiving the same commands, to go and make disciples...to love...etc. The commands are the same. We are told to have order in worship, and yet the text in question shows a service that was not orderly, the woman were stirring things up, and Paul showed them how to correct the problem.

Let me ask you this, looking at Paul's letters to Timothy, do you think it is fair to apply everything Paul said to Timothy to every elder, every pastor out there....be careful in your answer, we aren't talking about the qualifications here....so can we then look at I Tim. and conclude that everyone who talks about myths and geneologies is a false teacher?

 

[razzelflabben]

I would argue that the office or function of prophet is not what Paul is talking about here. He is talking about order and governance of the church.

Prophets and prophetesses certainly do "teach" but this is not what he's talking about, he is talking about the normal "liturgical" life of the church.

Isn't that reading into the text what is not there? Doesn't Paul say that women should not teach men? If we start applying exceptions to the rule, what meaning does the rule have? Let the text speak for itself!!!! If there is order in the service, why is it necessary for women to not teach men? What do we gain, what purpose it there?

 

[Timothy2]

I believe Paul was speaking of women generally, but probably in response to a specific issue; i.e. a specific issue at Timothy's church afforded him the opportunity to speak to the issue of female teaching and leadership in the church generally.

I agree with CmRoddy's analysis.

I don't know CmRoddy's analysis and I don't have time to take any interest in it either.

So you do not believe that Paul was speaking to women in general for all time, as if what he was teaching could be applied to all women even in our day?

 

[Timothy2]

I see nothing in the text that specifies the number of women involved. As in I might say the woman was gossiping but in reality someone had to be listening to the gossip, thus involving two, but singular woman was stated. In other words, we don't really know how many of the women were involved in the situation.

At the very least there must be 1 woman he is writing about, but is there anything in the passage that proves he was speaking of more than 1? So if nothing can prove that he was speaking of more than 1 woman, then we rightly conclude that he wrote of only one.

As to how to apply it today, that is what I was trying to talk about when I was told I was off topic and such things....so I have two choices, assume that I should "keep silent" because a woman cannot teach a man anything as some claim, or 2. continue with the discussion as put forth by the OPer and hope that it is accepted as contribution from someone who Love God and His Word with a passion to rival anything this world can throw at her.

I understand you were talking about application, my point is that, there is no point to application without actualy KNOWING what we are to apply.

 

[razzelflabben]

At the very least there must be 1 woman he is writing about, but is there anything in the passage that proves he was speaking of more than 1? So if nothing can prove that he was speaking of more than 1 woman, then we rightly conclude that he wrote of only one.

okay, so now I am confused, what do you think is unclear here?

 

[Timothy2]

Got a question for you all... are we called to stand firm in the face of tribulations and trials? In the face of persecution?

If yes, how can a woman do so and still keep quiet before men? How can a woman, any woman, face persecution and still not speak or teach the men who are accusing her? How do you do that?

Before your question comes another question, what kind of woman did Paul command to learn, be quite and not teach?

 

[razzelflabben]

Before your question comes another question, what kind of woman did Paul command to learn, be quite and not teach?

Those who were stirring up discord and false teachings....

 

[razzelflabben]

Look at it this way, the way some interpret the passage we would have to conclude that men are saved through the Lord Jesus Christ and women through having children, therefore any barren woman is unsaved and will go to hell. I really don't think that is what Paul is intending. We do know however, that the church was plagued with false teaching...we know that if the women weren't involved in that, Paul wouldn't have mentioned it at all. So what does that tell us...are women saved through child birth and so unmarried or barren women have no chance of heaven?

 

[Timothy2]

Again though, see CmRoddy's remarks, no one is suggesting that women must keep absolute silence, the context is about the public teaching office in the church as it pertains to the whole congregation. Women may certainly teach children and other women, but the prohibition against their having teaching authority over men seems very clear.

Can you show me, Fenstermacher where in 1 Tim 2 it seems clear that Paul made a prohibiton against women having teaching authority over men, (for that specific situation)? How do you know Paul was even talking about women? Looks like we are going to go in circles.