There is a difference between teaching and preaching the gospel

[Lik3]

Paul mentioned that he suffered a woman not to teach or usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. I interpret this to mean that a woman not to teach in a school, or rather in an educational assembly, which could have a more secular connotation, even though it may be a wrong interpretation. However, he meant for the women teacher to usurp, or forcefully take power, illegally, which could also have a secular connotation as well. The Bible also never said or implied that women have a lesser role than men, which could have a secular meaning as well.

I personally think that there is some misinterpretation of God's Word when it comes to leadership and women's roles in leadership. Preaching obviously implies a religious, context. Paul was writing about a woman illegally taking authority over a male who is in authority. It is obvious that deacons and bishops are men who are to be true in finances, temperance, conduct, holiness, and how he treats his family.

Women are to learn in silence, which is definitely in the Bible, for there is both a religious and secular context. To be, which is God's Word, in silence means that a woman, namely a wife is to submit to her husband and her husband only. Yes, the Bible teaches that a husband is to rule over his wife in the sense that God told Eve that because of her husband, he shall rule over her. The wife has influence over her husband, but the husband is still the head of the home.

I agree with all of this since it is written in the Bible. I will always follow God's teachings since I am a Christian. I will not do anything to harm anyone, nor will strive to not be at peace with all and thus live unholy. Having written that, I believe that there are verses we as Christians need to look at in its proper context, even though I believe that two or a larger group of Christians have the right to disagree with one another. That I feel is why I feel that we are not to live by feeling but by faith and obedience as well to God's Word and by and through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion, Paul wasn't just about a woman not being allowed to preach, but there is a legal definition between being able to teach. I just believe that there is a difference between teaching and preaching. Preaching is about presenting the gospel, for a lack of a better term to an assembly in a religious context. The Bible never said that a woman cannot preach unless she illegally tries to or takes over the authority over a man.

It says to teach, which is often taken in a literal sense to mean that in often a secular setting, it is about a group of people gaining knowledge about various subjects, in important matters, so there is a different view of what women can and cannot do. I personally believe that because a woman preaches the gospel to an assembly does not mean that she is breaking or disobeying God's law or at the very least is leading an assembly, mainly often to a group of women since I notice it is usually the case in an assembly filled with women. This I noticed to be true. Yes, this I noticed.

I admit that this point of view is very long. I just hope that you can agree, disagree, or agree to disagree with my points of view. Okay, I only have one rule. Let us all be constructive and not rude or insulting. If I am wrong, then correct me if I am wrong. No rudeness or name calling, which it is unnecessary, something I would not expect in a mostly Christian forum.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Well that's rather unfair since the Op is about me not saying anything. But before you proceed you should give us the law that Paul was referring to when he said women should be silent according to the law.

Since there isn't one you should realize that Paul taught allegorically. Just as we can believe that the OT be taken to have literally happened so that we can learn from their mistakes so can we learn from the NT. When we try to understand the happenings of the OT we need to look at it from a spiritual standpoint.

The NT is applied to the situation of the time. Since Purim there was a law given that men rule over women. Relate that to Christ and the church and it's the bride that is to keep silent by not adding to what God has taught. That ends the conversation for me as to what Paul taught if it weren't for the fact that I know he was allegorically relating law to spiritual as in Galatians 4. (and as my signature says)

What God wants from His bride is for us to be submissive to Him. When I first presented this 12 yrs ago the reaction I got was "but that makes men look at what kind of a wife they are to Him". But to me that's the facts. Deal with it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Paul mentioned that he suffered a woman not to teach or usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Either you are reading it wrong or he screwed up.
If you treat others as you would wish to be treated,
then gender must be ignored. So lets hope you are
reading it wrong, or it violates the royal law.

 

[Lik3]

Either you are reading it wrong or he screwed up.
If you treat others as you would wish to be treated,
then gender must be ignored. So lets hope you are
reading it wrong, or it violates the royal law.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I never implied in any way, shape, or form that Paul was sexist or anything like that. I was just wondering to an extent why so many in the Church, which I won't dispute its teachings as I fully believe what the Bible says. I also know that many in the Church see it in a literal context, while others see it in a more allegorical or symbolic context. I do see where so many believe (especially Baptist as I am one of them, obviously) that women should not be preachers. I have great difficulty believing that women should not be preachers. I believe that the Bible should be taken in a more literal context, though some may not agree and that is okay. l also try to see what Paul says from a more legal and not divisive standpoint as well in a more secular and religious sense.

I may be the only one; While Paul is no misogynist by any stretch and I believe in the Bible and believe that the Word is to be obeyed and we are all to live holy lives, I believe that there is some difference between what the Bible says in a literal sense as a woman cannot illegally take away the authority of teaching the Bible over the man. It would be disrespectful for the woman to do so, even in the area of preaching the Word of God meaning in a secular context.

However, I need help in understanding why a woman cannot preach the Word of God. Even as a Baptist, I need help in understanding this. I have been told for years that there are people who don't believe that women should be preachers. I never got why? I also need to know what the eternal significance would be if a woman were to preach.

I get that men and women have different functions and that while believe it is the truth, there are differences between men in women in that we as women can have children and have much influence in the home and are to be treated with dignity and respect. Men are to be the heads of households and also that they are on the whole physically stronger than women.

Even though all of these things are true, I certainly agree with what the Bible says. I will never dispute what God's Word says. I certainly will not disagree with the Lord, whose Word states that we are to also live holy lives. But since so many believe that women should not be teachers or preachers, would a woman, who has not taken away or disrespect a man's authority.

However, the Bible clearly does state that both bishops and deacons are to be men who are holy and righteous and thus faithful to his wife and to the Word of God. Also help me to understand something. If women are not supposed to teach or to preach, then as far as eternity goes, if in the event she is truly saved as in holy, enduring, righteous, and also preach the true gospel, will she be judged more harshly than a man who is doing the same thing? Will she judged as far as believers being judged as a Christian in the Judgment Seat of Christ? Correct me if I am wrong, but will she be saved, but her work will be burned up? I am trying to correct myself as I was just reading 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. How will a woman, if she isn't trying to or illegally disrespects a man's authority?

 

[Paidiske]

Lik, I'm having difficulty working out exactly what you're asking.

It sounds as if your reasoning is that women are permitted by God to preach, and can lawfully do so if the church authorises it, and you are thus questioning why some churches refuse to authorise it?

I think you're right, and women who are genuinely called by God and qualified for the work should be authorised to preach.

 

[Lik3]

Lik, I'm having difficulty working out exactly what you're asking.

It sounds as if your reasoning is that women are permitted by God to preach, and can lawfully do so if the church authorises it, and you are thus questioning why some churches refuse to authorise it?

I think you're right, and women who are genuinely called by God and qualified for the work should be authorised to preach.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate all of them. That is true, paidiske, but I think that sometimes the way many believe that many of us even I am guilty of this at least once has misquoted God's Word. We all have our rights to our opinions, and our interpretations as long as it doesn't have anything with preaching another gospel, to disagree. I don't think that radical feminism is good for women even because of the positions they take such as abortion for instance. Anyways, I am of the understanding that there is a difference between teaching the gospel and preaching the gospel. I do see, however that many believe that teaching the gospel would be similar as a woman preaching the gospel. I have also noted what were to eternally happen to a woman who would preach the true gospel as compared to a man who would do the exact same thing. Will she suffer somewhat as far as her work goes; how would she be judged as far as eternity goes? There are some things I may be wrong in. I want to be in the know. I just need understanding and/or need correction, or rather one's own beliefs on this very subject.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The authority over a man is teaching God’s Word and spiritual things of God.

Not education like in schools like biology or English grammar.

 

[Lik3]

ToBeLoved, I can't argue with you there, so I thank you for your response. I was of the understanding that teaching would imply a more secular context as preaching would imply a more religious context, yet teaching can also imply a religious context as well, judging by what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:12.

 

[Paidiske]

I have also noted what were to eternally happen to a woman who would preach the true gospel as compared to a man who would do the exact same thing. Will she suffer somewhat as far as her work goes; how would she be judged as far as eternity goes? There are some things I may be wrong in. I want to be in the know. I just need understanding and/or need correction, or rather one's own beliefs on this very subject.

Look at it this way; why would God punish her for what God called her to do?

Nobody - man or woman - should be preaching without God's call. But if it is there, isn't that enough of a sign of God's approval?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Look at it this way; why would God punish her for what God called her to do?

Nobody - man or woman - should be preaching without God's call. But if it is there, isn't that enough of a sign of God's approval?

So then a person's preference to want to serve or that they think they are called is fine even if God's Word tells us no.

Then there is no standard at all. If someone feels God tells them not to keep a child or divorce or kill it is all ok. There is no standard authority from God. People do as they like

 

[Soyeong]

Paul mentioned that he suffered a woman not to teach or usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. I interpret this to mean that a woman not to teach in a school, or rather in an educational assembly, which could have a more secular connotation, even though it may be a wrong interpretation. However, he meant for the women teacher to usurp, or forcefully take power, illegally, which could also have a secular connotation as well. The Bible also never said or implied that women have a lesser role than men, which could have a secular meaning as well.

I personally think that there is some misinterpretation of God's Word when it comes to leadership and women's roles in leadership. Preaching obviously implies a religious, context. Paul was writing about a woman illegally taking authority over a male who is in authority. It is obvious that deacons and bishops are men who are to be true in finances, temperance, conduct, holiness, and how he treats his family.

Women are to learn in silence, which is definitely in the Bible, for there is both a religious and secular context. To be, which is God's Word, in silence means that a woman, namely a wife is to submit to her husband and her husband only. Yes, the Bible teaches that a husband is to rule over his wife in the sense that God told Eve that because of her husband, he shall rule over her. The wife has influence over her husband, but the husband is still the head of the home.

I agree with all of this since it is written in the Bible. I will always follow God's teachings since I am a Christian. I will not do anything to harm anyone, nor will strive to not be at peace with all and thus live unholy. Having written that, I believe that there are verses we as Christians need to look at in its proper context, even though I believe that two or a larger group of Christians have the right to disagree with one another. That I feel is why I feel that we are not to live by feeling but by faith and obedience as well to God's Word and by and through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion, Paul wasn't just about a woman not being allowed to preach, but there is a legal definition between being able to teach. I just believe that there is a difference between teaching and preaching. Preaching is about presenting the gospel, for a lack of a better term to an assembly in a religious context. The Bible never said that a woman cannot preach unless she illegally tries to or takes over the authority over a man.

It says to teach, which is often taken in a literal sense to mean that in often a secular setting, it is about a group of people gaining knowledge about various subjects, in important matters, so there is a different view of what women can and cannot do. I personally believe that because a woman preaches the gospel to an assembly does not mean that she is breaking or disobeying God's law or at the very least is leading an assembly, mainly often to a group of women since I notice it is usually the case in an assembly filled with women. This I noticed to be true. Yes, this I noticed.

I admit that this point of view is very long. I just hope that you can agree, disagree, or agree to disagree with my points of view. Okay, I only have one rule. Let us all be constructive and not rude or insulting. If I am wrong, then correct me if I am wrong. No rudeness or name calling, which it is unnecessary, something I would not expect in a mostly Christian forum.

The main thing to keep in mind is that we are reading someone else's mail, so at times it can be like hearing only one side of a conversation, where we don't know what questions were asked or what specific issues Paul was addressing, so we need to be careful not to take something that was only addressing a specific issue as being a general principle, especially if that principle is not found elsewhere in the Bible. Everything should be established by two or three witnesses.

 

[FireDragon76]

Considering that the apostle Paul never really wrote that, I'ld take it with a grain of salt. That epistle was written by one of his disciples, most likely. This has been known since Luther's time, based on ancient evidence from the early Church that those books were disputed.

 

[Paidiske]

So then a person's preference to want to serve or that they think they are called is fine even if God's Word tells us no.

Then there is no standard at all. If someone feels God tells them not to keep a child or divorce or kill it is all ok. There is no standard authority from God. People do as they like

Not at all. The discernment of a vocation to ministry is not something to be taken lightly, or just a preference. It is something to be discerned prayerfully, over time, with examination of the candidate and according to the discipline of the church.

To give you some idea, in order to be accepted as a candidate for ministry - just to be accepted for training - I had a psychological evaluation, a medical exam, and eight interviews (some of them looking specifically at vocation, at my potential for leadership, at my ability to sustain healthy relationships, at my spirituality and at my intellectual capacity). I also was required to go through a year-long discernment process with a mentor.

It's not about "preference" or people doing as they like, but the church asking very seriously, do we see the call of God upon this person's heart and life? And if the answer is no, it's no. But if the answer is yes, it should be yes.

 

[Dave-W]

The authority over a man is teaching God’s Word and spiritual things of God.

The operative word in that passage IMO is "usurp." To take authority by force, without proper authorization.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Not at all. The discernment of a vocation to ministry is not something to be taken lightly, or just a preference. It is something to be discerned prayerfully, over time, with examination of the candidate and according to the discipline of the church.

To give you some idea, in order to be accepted as a candidate for ministry - just to be accepted for training - I had a psychological evaluation, a medical exam, and eight interviews (some of them looking specifically at vocation, at my potential for leadership, at my ability to sustain healthy relationships, at my spirituality and at my intellectual capacity). I also was required to go through a year-long discernment process with a mentor.

It's not about "preference" or people doing as they like, but the church asking very seriously, do we see the call of God upon this person's heart and life? And if the answer is no, it's no. But if the answer is yes, it should be yes.

But spiritually how do any of us know if one was called. And if called at all to something that was to reach men.

My point is a lot of people create a scenario in their mind where they perceive God is leading when it is in fact self.

They then run with that. That is basic human desire to satisfy self.

For example, a calling to teach women or children. Then self says, why can’t I teach men? Am I less than men? And ego wants power status and recognition

 

[Paidiske]

But spiritually how do any of us know if one was called. And if called at all to something that was to reach men.

My point is a lot of people create a scenario in their mind where they perceive God is leading when it is in fact self.

They then run with that. That is basic human desire to satisfy self.

For example, a calling to teach women or children. Then self says, why can’t I teach men? Am I less than men? And ego wants power status and recognition

Do you know much about processes of discernment?

Of course it's possible to think God is calling you when really you're experiencing something else. That's a possibility for both men and women. That's why you get others to discern with you, why you test it.

But at some point, the person and the church have to be open to the possibility that a call is genuine. If someone discerns a call to preach and teach, and when given an opportunity to test that call, the church finds that their teaching and preaching is fruitful and edifying, that God is working through that person's ministry, and so on; then at some point you have to be prepared to say, this is of God, and we will be obedient to it.

It's not about being less than; it's about being faithful.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Do you know much about processes of discernment?

Of course it's possible to think God is calling you when really you're experiencing something else. That's a possibility for both men and women. That's why you get others to discern with you, why you test it.

But at some point, the person and the church have to be open to the possibility that a call is genuine. If someone discerns a call to preach and teach, and when given an opportunity to test that call, the church finds that their teaching and preaching is fruitful and edifying, that God is working through that person's ministry, and so on; then at some point you have to be prepared to say, this is of God, and we will be obedient to it.

It's not about being less than; it's about being faithful.

The churches I go to know enough that if it says 'no' in the Bible that they don't let sinful human beings discern for themselves.

It sounds like mankind or woman kinds way of working around God when they don't feel like it apply's to them or they don't want it to.

It's the doctrine preached when one wants to tickle ears.

 

[Paidiske]

Except that the Scriptures aren't nearly so clear as you seem to claim on this point.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Except that the Scriptures aren't nearly so clear as you seem to claim on this point.

Its pretty clear, your just not getting the answer you would like.

 

[Paidiske]

It's not a matter of what I "like." But if all you want to do is basically criticise me personally, this isn't going anywhere.