Discussion ...I suffer Not a woman to teach . look into the spirit of it

[Alithis]

Eve was deceived - I'm not disputing that; it's clear from Scripture.
Why was she able to be deceived, or tricked? Because she didn't KNOW what God had said.
This also fits in with 1 Timothy 2:11 "LET women learn .." they were not allowed to in that society. If women KNOW the truth, they will be unlikely to be deceived - applies to anyone really.



If that's addressed to me, maybe you could answer some of the points I have made, and questions I have asked.
Or maybe you can't - so it's easier to dismiss it as defensiveness than to admit that you have made a mistake.

Actually i think some points you've made are quite valid. But dont actually detract from the Op.
And if you look at ephesus they were predominantly into female gods.. or the goddess ..
So this usurping of the God created way by the devil was a huge facter (and we see it still is today with mary worship)
Men were prone to stepping back and letting woman lead the way because they had grown up in a culture of feminine dieties. And that lie has always been trying to reinsert itself as we see in the rcc where it remains fully intact with no sign of repentance.
Just accept the facts
We are prone to error and sin .
Are you(not you personally.an example) prone to alcaholism ?
No?
How about coveting new shoes....

Fact ..woman are MORE prone to coveting new shoes then men are.
BOTH do it...
But men are MORE Prone to lusting sexually as inappropriate content site stats prove.
But BOTH do it.
..the premise is the same.
The risk is real it exists .we must be on gaurd.
Just because the lord has equalled the feild ,we dont assume all professing believers are acting in the holy spirit.

 

[Strong in Him]

And if you look at ephesus they were predominantly into female gods.. or the goddess ..

Yes, they were Greeks, not Jews, and worshipped the goddess Artemis.

So this usurping of the God created way by the devil was a huge facter

But did they know the One true God that Israel worshipped, or were they taught, and brought up, to worship Artemis? If they'd never been taught about God, how could they have rejected him?
If I hadn't been taken to Sunday school and taught about God, I could have grown up believing that atheism, a cult or the occult was real.

Men were prone to stepping back and letting woman lead the way because they had grown up in a culture of feminine dieties.

That may, or may not, have been true in Ephesus; it was not true in Israel.
In fact, the opposite was true in Israel - they grew up with the Patriarchs, the covenant was circumcision, which only affected boys, the prophets were mostly men (but not all), and they had kings on the throne.
So you could say of the Israelites, that because men received the mark of the covenant, were educated, inherited etc, that girls/women were counted as nothing, overlooked and got walked over because the culture said that men were more important.

That's why what Jesus did was so revolutionary.
True, his closest followers were men, but in a culture where women could not learn, Jesus taught them. When Mary sat at his feet it was in the place assumed by male students learning from their Rabbi. Jesus commended this, and he allowed women to follow him.
In a time when women were unclean at certain times of the month, Jesus healed a woman with an issue of blood. She was breaking the law by being out of her her, and by touching Jesus, made him ceremonially unclean - yet he called her daughter.
In a time when women were thought to be unreliable witnesses, Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness of the resurrection.

And that lie has always been trying to reinsert itself as we see in the rcc where it remains fully intact with no sign of repentance.

If God chooses a woman to be a leader, and it's clear he sometimes did, and does; how can it be a sin?

Just accept the facts
We are prone to error and sin .

Yes - we all have a sinful nature.

Are you(not you personally.an example) prone to alcaholism ?
No?
How about coveting new shoes....

No and no.
I don't drink, and I hated buying shoes even before I had mobility problems.

Fact ..woman are MORE prone to coveting new shoes then men are.
BOTH do it...

That might be true.
Women tend to be more fashionable than men, certainly in this culture, though it might not be true everywhere. That could be partly because we have more options open to us - skirts/dresses/suits/blouses, formal and informal/jumpers/knitted tops - etc.
Men tend to more prone to buying, and obsessed with gadgets - computers/power tools/electronic devises etc.
All that is still a generalisation thought. Some men are very fashionable and may spend more time getting ready than I do, while they may hate computers. Some women, while liking clothes, don't go for designer labels or the latest fashions, and may love to use power tools and do handiwork.

..the premise is the same.

I don't get what you're saying, sorry.

Just because the lord has equalled the feild ,we dont assume all professing believers are acting in the holy spirit.

I don't assume anything.
I dare say that some women who say they are called to be ordained, or preachers, are mistaken, have the wrong motives or may not have heard from God. That could equally be true for men.
But I do personally know women who are ordained and/or preachers, and have heard their testimonies about how God called and they ignored him - and how he kept calling until they obeyed. Or that he removed the things that they had thought were obstacles. Before the C of E ordained women, I also saw the pain and frustration of some who were wanting to obey the Lord, and were denied that opportunity by men - as debates on these forums show only too well. Some might, in the past, have had their calling rejected by the church simply because they were the "wrong" gender.
These women then had the difficult decision of either leaving the church they loved, or staying and somehow living with the situation.

 

[mourningdove~]

...I suffer Not a woman to teach .
look into the spirit of it

Okay.
Let's look at it ...

1. In the gospels, several women preachers proclaimed the good news.
(Matt. 28:1-10, Lk. 24:9-11, Jn. 4:28:-30, Jn. 20:16-18)

2. The Spirit was prophesied to be poured out on women, and they are supposed to prophesy. If it only takes two or three to make a church, how are they to prophesy if not within a church?
(Acts 2:14-21, Joel 2:28-31)

3. Philip had four daughters who were prophetesses.
(Acts 21:8-9)

4. Romans 16 tells of a number of women servants of the Lord who were leaders of congregations. These were Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, and Julia.

5. In Philippians 4:2, Euodias and Syntyche are mentioned as leaders of the church in Philippi.

6. Corinthian women prophesied and prayed in church. (I Cor. 11:4-5)
( I Cor. 14:34-35 refers to women who talked out loud to husbands across the room during the service, thus interrupting the preacher.)

7. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to a body, and all parts (men and women) are members of the body and are to function as the Lord directs.

8. Women were used of God in the Old Testament as prophetesses.
(Ex. 15:20, Judg. 4:4, II Ki. 22:14, Neh. 6:14, II Chron. 34:22, Isa. 8:3, Luke 1:39-56, 2:36)

 

[Alithis]

Yes, they were Greeks, not Jews, and worshipped the goddess Artemis.



But did they know the One true God that Israel worshipped, or were they taught, and brought up, to worship Artemis? If they'd never been taught about God, how could they have rejected him?
If I hadn't been taken to Sunday school and taught about God, I could have grown up believing that atheism, a cult or the occult was real.



That may, or may not, have been true in Ephesus; it was not true in Israel.
In fact, the opposite was true in Israel - they grew up with the Patriarchs, the covenant was circumcision, which only affected boys, the prophets were mostly men (but not all), and they had kings on the throne.
So you could say of the Israelites, that because men received the mark of the covenant, were educated, inherited etc, that girls/women were counted as nothing, overlooked and got walked over because the culture said that men were more important.

That's why what Jesus did was so revolutionary.
True, his closest followers were men, but in a culture where women could not learn, Jesus taught them. When Mary sat at his feet it was in the place assumed by male students learning from their Rabbi. Jesus commended this, and he allowed women to follow him.
In a time when women were unclean at certain times of the month, Jesus healed a woman with an issue of blood. She was breaking the law by being out of her her, and by touching Jesus, made him ceremonially unclean - yet he called her daughter.
In a time when women were thought to be unreliable witnesses, Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness of the resurrection.



If God chooses a woman to be a leader, and it's clear he sometimes did, and does; how can it be a sin?



Yes - we all have a sinful nature.



No and no.
I don't drink, and I hated buying shoes even before I had mobility problems.



That might be true.
Women tend to be more fashionable than men, certainly in this culture, though it might not be true everywhere. That could be partly because we have more options open to us - skirts/dresses/suits/blouses, formal and informal/jumpers/knitted tops - etc.
Men tend to more prone to buying, and obsessed with gadgets - computers/power tools/electronic devises etc.
All that is still a generalisation thought. Some men are very fashionable and may spend more time getting ready than I do, while they may hate computers. Some women, while liking clothes, don't go for designer labels or the latest fashions, and may love to use power tools and do handiwork.



I don't get what you're saying, sorry.



I don't assume anything.
I dare say that some women who say they are called to be ordained, or preachers, are mistaken, have the wrong motives or may not have heard from God. That could equally be true for men.
But I do personally know women who are ordained and/or preachers, and have heard their testimonies about how God called and they ignored him - and how he kept calling until they obeyed. Or that he removed the things that they had thought were obstacles. Before the C of E ordained women, I also saw the pain and frustration of some who were wanting to obey the Lord, and were denied that opportunity by men - as debates on these forums show only too well. Some might, in the past, have had their calling rejected by the church simply because they were the "wrong" gender.
These women then had the difficult decision of either leaving the church they loved, or staying and somehow living with the situation.

Ok this is just defensive goings on.
You made many assumptions and aee not displaying any attitude that allows one to see.
I mean you ask how does that make it a sin?
Yet absolutley no one said anything about a woman teaching being sin.
It is a look into why Paul... Said to timothy
"I" suffer not a woman to teach etc.. And he goes on to say why.
He never tells timothy to forbid it or makes any law about it.
He is giving as always good holy spirit inspired advice.
But it takes a humble heartedness to recieve it.
In this world its mostly westeners that get a bit uppity when recognition of position is challanged because thats whats most important to them .

If there is one thing i have learned.if you want to serve God living seperated from the world and in obedience to the Lord JESUS you must be willing to be no one ,be known of know one.be recognised by no one...

But i observe most often people are seeking the exact oppisite.

 

[Alithis]

Okay.
Let's look at it ...

1. In the gospels, several women preachers proclaimed the good news.
(Matt. 28:1-10, Lk. 24:9-11, Jn. 4:28:-30, Jn. 20:16-18)

2. The Spirit was prophesied to be poured out on women, and they are supposed to prophesy. If it only takes two or three to make a church, how are they to prophesy if not within a church?
(Acts 2:14-21, Joel 2:28-31)

3. Philip had four daughters who were prophetesses.
(Acts 21:8-9)

4. Romans 16 tells of a number of women servants of the Lord who were leaders of congregations. These were Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, and Julia.

5. In Philippians 4:2, Euodias and Syntyche are mentioned as leaders of the church in Philippi.

6. Corinthian women prophesied and prayed in church. (I Cor. 11:4-5)
( I Cor. 14:34-35 refers to women who talked out loud to husbands across the room during the service, thus interrupting the preacher.)

7. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to a body, and all parts (men and women) are members of the body and are to function as the Lord directs.

8. Women were used of God in the Old Testament as prophetesses.
(Ex. 15:20, Judg. 4:4, II Ki. 22:14, Neh. 6:14, II Chron. 34:22, Isa. 8:3, Luke 1:39-56, 2:36)

You could not have missed the point or message in the OP more.

 

[JackRT]

Our Apostle Paul says >

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

This is according to the King James translation of 1 Timothy 2:12.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

In addition the writer says "But I suffer not a woman to teach ............" This is a very clear indication that the author is giving his opinion at a particular time and place in history. This writer is not nearly as egalitarian as Paul and has been influenced by the cultural standards of the Mediterranean world.

 

[Alithis]

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

In addition the writer says "But I suffer not a woman to teach ............" This is a very clear indication that the author is giving his opinion at a particular time and place in history. This writer is not nearly as egalitarian as Paul and has been influenced by the cultural standards of the Mediterranean world.

I care nothing for modern scholars.

 

[W2L]

I have a solution to this dilemma. I dont listen to any teachers. Problem solved,.

 

[Alithis]

I have a solution to this dilemma. I dont listen to any teachers. Problem solved,.

Yes we know.. Cessationist do not listen to the holy spirit either. The one Jesus said will teach you all things .

 

[RDKirk]

"I suffer not a woman to teach...."

First thing to understand is what the activity was that he was actually not suffering a woman to do.

What was "teaching" in the 1st century?

We know that from a number of extra-biblical sources, but let's just stick to the primary example of a teacher/student relationship in the New Testament: The relationship of Jesus with His disciples.

I'm going to paraphrase a bit, but it goes like this:

Jesus: "Your mama and daddy named you Simon, but I'm naming you Peter. Peter is your name from now on. "

Jesus: "I'm tired. I'm going to sit down at this well and ask this woman for some water. Y'all--all y'all-- go into town, get me something to eat, and bring it back here."

Jesus: "I'm tired. I don't feel like walking into Jerusalem. All y'all walk into town, get me a donkey--I know a guy there. Walk the donkey back here to me. I'll ride the donkey while all y'all walk behind me."

Jesus: "Y'all are so dense!"

A teacher had complete authority over his disciple. A disciple was practically a servant to his teacher. His teacher controlled his life. The closest approximation we have today to that concept is the Asian sensei. Western cultures don't even do that anymore.

It's that relationship that Paul was talking about. It was a totally authoritative relationship. That's the relationship he'd had under Gamaliel. That's what Paul understood "teaching" to be. He did not permit men to be disciples under women in that kind of relationship.

Nor, apparently, did he allow women to be discipled under men in that kind of relationship, as he also instructed that it should be older women who teach younger women.

That did not preclude women from conveying information in non-authoritative relationships. Priscilla, for instance, could expound the gospel to Apollos. There was no sense there of her taking authority over him.

It was not the conveyance of information that Paul took issue with, it was the problem of one person taking authority over another.

Real authority, not notional authority. Real authority is, to put it bluntly, the power to punish. In Paul's day, teachers could punish their disciples as they willed, and nobody else had any say in the matter. If a person must go "up the chain" to have someone punished, that person does not have real authority.

So in a Sunday School class today, what we call "teachers" are merely people who are "expounding" a lesson written by someone else. Sunday school teachers are rarely anyone with authority (like an elder or a pastor).

And certainly a guest speaker has no authority, not to mention someone whose CDs you just listen to. All they are doing is expounding information.

Now, we can go on debating why Paul didn't want co-ed discipling going on, but let's understand that he was not talking about a woman standing in front of a class of men reading from a prepared course book.

 

[W2L]

Yes we know.. Cessationist do not listen to the holy spirit either. The one Jesus said will teach you all things .

Im not a cessationist. I only lean that way because i dont see any real apostles, prophets or teachers. I see only people trained in fallible theology who claim to be apostles and teachers. As for the Spirit, i do follow Him, and thats why i dont need a fallible teacher to teach me fallacy.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

This thread is an interesting subject. It got me looking into synagogue practices, again, especially from around the time of Paul. Remember, of course, that Christianity has its roots in Judaism, and the earliest form of it was regarded by some as a sect of Judaism. Not coincidentally, women were not allowed to preach in the Jewish synagogues, either. For that matter, they were not allowed to lead the congregation in prayer, or to sing. They sat in the back, behind a partition. When I see people in the forums stating that women should not preach, but then they make exceptions, such as that women can lead a women-only group, or lead worship, etc. I'm not certain whether they go too far or not far enough. If we understand Paul's background, then likely the services originally had women sitting in the back, quietly, and not a significant visible role in the service.

If I visit Orthodox Jewish sites to find the reason why, the most common excuse is that it is to keep the men from lusting after the women, either by sight, or by the sound of their voices. I've got to be honest and say that it makes men out to be such utter beasts, which they are not, and I think that it is more likely an explanation invented over the years, with the original reason being completely lost. One thing I know for certain is that segregation was the norm, and the official roles were filled by men. There were no women priests to offer sacrifices for the women.

I'm still chewing on the idea. I'm listening, but I'm not set on the reason why women were segregated and prohibited from teaching.

 

[RDKirk]

This thread is an interesting subject. It got me looking into synagogue practices, again, especially from around the time of Paul. Remember, of course, that Christianity has its roots in Judaism, and the earliest form of it was regarded by some as a sect of Judaism. Not coincidentally, women were not allowed to preach in the Jewish synagogues, either. For that matter, they were not allowed to lead the congregation in prayer, or to sing. They sat in the back, behind a partition. When I see people in the forums stating that women should not preach, but then they make exceptions, such as that women can lead a women-only group, or lead worship, etc. I'm not certain whether they go too far or not far enough. If we understand Paul's background, then likely the services originally had women sitting in the back, quietly, and not a significant visible role in the service.

You're presuming Paul maintained Jewish standards when everything said about his activities in Acts and his own letters say otherwise.

It was Paul who said--more than once--that there was neither male nor female in Christ. It was Paul who assigned a woman to lead the delegation that carried his important treatise to the Romans. It was Paul who said, "These two women strove beside me for the gospel."

If you'll note in Acts, Luke makes special note of the significance of women in Paul's ministry--far more notice than gender relationships of the time would have one expect. Of 28 women named in the New Testament, Paul and his disciple Luke name 23 of them. Given the mores of the time, they need not have named any more than the five named in the other gospels.

So it would be better to conclude that whatever the Jewish religious norm was, Paul was in the habit of breaking it.

 

[Alithis]

"I suffer not a woman to teach...."

First thing to understand is what the activity was that he was actually not suffering a woman to do.

What was "teaching" in the 1st century?

We know that from a number of extra-biblical sources, but let's just stick to the primary example of a teacher/student relationship in the New Testament: The relationship of Jesus with His disciples.

I'm going to paraphrase a bit, but it goes like this:

Jesus: "Your mama and daddy named you Simon, but I'm naming you Peter. Peter is your name from now on. "

Jesus: "I'm tired. I'm going to sit down at this well and ask this woman for some water. Y'all--all y'all-- go into town, get me something to eat, and bring it back here."

Jesus: "I'm tired. I don't feel like walking into Jerusalem. All y'all walk into town, get me a donkey--I know a guy there. Walk the donkey back here to me. I'll ride the donkey while all y'all walk behind me."

Jesus: "Y'all are so dense!"

A teacher had complete authority over his disciple. A disciple was practically a servant to his teacher. His teacher controlled his life. The closest approximation we have today to that concept is the Asian sensei. Western cultures don't even do that anymore.

It's that relationship that Paul was talking about. It was a totally authoritative relationship. That's the relationship he'd had under Gamaliel. That's what Paul understood "teaching" to be. He did not permit men to be disciples under women in that kind of relationship.

Nor, apparently, did he allow women to be discipled under men in that kind of relationship, as he also instructed that it should be older women who teach younger women.

That did not preclude women from conveying information in non-authoritative relationships. Priscilla, for instance, could expound the gospel to Apollos. There was no sense there of her taking authority over him.

It was not the conveyance of information that Paul took issue with, it was the problem of one person taking authority over another.

Real authority, not notional authority. Real authority is, to put it bluntly, the power to punish. In Paul's day, teachers could punish their disciples as they willed, and nobody else had any say in the matter. If a person must go "up the chain" to have someone punished, that person does not have real authority.

So in a Sunday School class today, what we call "teachers" are merely people who are "expounding" a lesson written by someone else. Sunday school teachers are rarely anyone with authority (like an elder or a pastor).

And certainly a guest speaker has no authority, not to mention someone whose CDs you just listen to. All they are doing is expounding information.

Now, we can go on debating why Paul didn't want co-ed discipling going on, but let's understand that he was not talking about a woman standing in front of a class of men reading from a prepared course book.

Picture me nodding in an agreeable manner.
Its not the topic of the "spirit" behind why.. But its a valid non defensive statement.

 

[Alithis]

Im not a cessationist. I only lean that way because i dont see any real apostles, prophets or teachers. I see only people trained in fallible theology who claim to be apostles and teachers. As for the Spirit, i do follow Him, and thats why i dont need a fallible teacher to teach me fallacy.

Do try and stay on topic

 

[W2L]

Do try and stay on topic

Ive said enough anyway. Happy holidays Alithis.

 

[mourningdove~]

You could not have missed the point or message in the OP more.

Again, we disagree.

I do get 'the point' that you continue to try to make in this thread.
I did, from day one.

What I have been trying to do, kindly, is to show you, from Scripture ... and not opinion ...
that the 'point' (message) presented in the OP is not founded on sound Biblical exegesis.

But you are obviously not open to looking for confirmation (or not) of your beliefs from the Scriptures, as you repeatedly shut down anyone that uses the Scriptures to question or disprove your beliefs.

What you are obviously looking for in this thread is 'confirmation' of 'your' beliefs, and perhaps, to promote them.

Well, I can't give you that ...
so ... so long!

 

[Alithis]

Again, we disagree.

I do get 'the point' that you continue to try to make in this thread.
I did, from day one.

What I have been trying to do, kindly, is to show you, from Scripture ... and not opinion ...
that the 'point' (message) presented in the OP is not founded on sound Biblical exegesis.

But you are obviously not open to looking for confirmation (or not) of your beliefs from the Scriptures, as you repeatedly shut down anyone that uses the Scriptures to question or disprove your beliefs.

What you are obviously looking for in this thread is 'confirmation' of 'your' beliefs, and perhaps, to promote them.

Well, I can't give you that ...
so ... so long!

No .i just pointed out what paul said
..he also said why.
Eve was decieved first .
Deal with it. Move on .

 

[Strong in Him]

Ok this is just defensive goings on.

Maybe it sounds a tad defensive - but all this came from the OP where you stated that women are more easily deceived than men. If we were to accept that statement, then one obvious conclusion is that if a woman says she is called to preach, it can be dismissed - because she is "easily deceived", and therefore must be wrong.

You made many assumptions

Like what?

I mean you ask how does that make it a sin?
Yet absolutley no one said anything about a woman teaching being sin.

That was the tone of your response
You talked of men stepping back and letting women lead, a lie. You said that the Lord had "equalled the field", but we could not assume that all professing believers had the Holy Spirit. That suggests you think that just because a woman says she is called, doesn't mean that it's from God.

It is a look into why Paul... Said to timothy
"I" suffer not a woman to teach etc.. And he goes on to say why.
He never tells timothy to forbid it or makes any law about it.
He is giving as always good holy spirit inspired advice.
.

Yes, he was - advice to that church at that time.
But you said in the OP that preventing women from preaching protects the body of Christ because women are more easily deceived. You said that a woman who is led astray is a powerful weapon for the devil. THAT makes it universal. If women are more easily deceived, even today, then it's clear that Paul's words, which were apparently to protect the church, must still apply.
The obvious conclusion is that a woman cannot be in leadership, or teach, and if a woman says she is called by God to do this, she must be wrong because she is easily deceived.

In this world its mostly westeners that get a bit uppity when recognition of position is challanged because thats whats most important to them .

And that can equally apply to men who may be upset because ordination, preaching and church leadership are open to women now - "we've never done it that way before".

If there is one thing i have learned.if you want to serve God living seperated from the world and in obedience to the Lord JESUS you must be willing to be no one ,be known of know one.be recognised by no one...

Being called to a position of leadership does not negate that. The teaching "the first will be last and the last first", still applies to clergy, even if they are at the front leading.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think we should say that women are more easily deceived. That depends on the spiritual grounding of the woman.

I would say, though, and I could provide illustrative scriptures, that women are more spiritually sensitive in general than men--more sensitive as well than men to the the Holy Spirit, if they are grounded in the Holy Spirit.

My analogy in that regard is that women are like spiritual sails and men are like spiritual anchors. The ship can't travel without sails, but without anchors it will be dashed against the rocks.