Women Can't Preach

[Mariposa36]

I saw this today and thought of this thread... Tales of a Male 'Preacher's Wife' - Christian Piatt | Sojourners Magazine - June 2013

 

[katautumn]

Here is an interesting article that discuss the issue:
For the sake of the gospel, let women speak

That article is written from the perspective that the only words in the Bible that matter are the ones printed in red. I'm also perplexed about the fact that you're posting in the *conservative* sub-forum and linking to articles written by a feminist, liberal, egalitarian, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, heretic.

 

[Johnnz]

That article is written from the perspective that the only words in the Bible that matter are the ones printed in red. I'm also perplexed about the fact that you're posting in the *conservative* sub-forum and linking to articles written by a feminist, liberal, egalitarian, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, heretic.

Not at all. Nothing in that article undermines Scripture. Like many of us who also follow Jesus and are committed deeply to understanding the Scriptures she presents a sensible, non polemical position based on an understanding of the scriptures within their historical/cultural context, not the 19-20th century evangelical lens you see them through. Its OK to differ, but name calling may just mask an unwillingness to debate meaningfully.

John
NZ

 

[Albion]

Not at all. Nothing in that article undermines Scripture. Like many of us who also follow Jesus and are committed deeply to understanding the Scriptures she presents a sensible, non polemical position based on an understanding of the scriptures within their historical/cultural context, not the 19-20th century evangelical lens you see them through. Its OK to differ, but name calling may just mask an unwillingness to debate meaningfully.

John
NZ

Well, I'm sure glad that you don't approve of polemics or name calling.

 

[katautumn]

Not at all. Nothing in that article undermines Scripture. Like many of us who also follow Jesus and are committed deeply to understanding the Scriptures she presents a sensible, non polemical position based on an understanding of the scriptures within their historical/cultural context, not the 19-20th century evangelical lens you see them through. Its OK to differ, but name calling may just mask an unwillingness to debate meaningfully.

John
NZ

Rachel Held Evans is a teacher of heresies. A person who teaches heresies is a heretic. I'm not sure what else to call her. I certainly cannot, with any certainty, claim she is my sister in Christ. Her views fly in the face of all that the Bible stands for. The entire article undermines the Scriptures and reduces Paul's letters to the early churches as nothing more that a little friendly chastening between friends with absolutely zero application today. Evans failed to acknowledge that Paul wrote under the direct guidance of God. That Paul merely put God's words on paper. That God doesn't change His mind. He's the same yesterday, today and forever.

I am always leery when people use the culture angle to try and refute that certain passages of Scripture don't apply to us. She also focused mainly on the passage where Paul says he suffers not a woman to teach. As best I could tell, unless I missed it, she never once address the pastoral qualifications laid out in 1 Timothy and Titus and how they clearly disqualify women from the pastorship.

 

[Albion]

I am always leery when people use the culture angle to try and refute that certain passages of Scripture don't apply to us. She also focused mainly on the passage where Paul says he suffers not a woman to teach. As best I could tell, unless I missed it, she never once address the pastoral qualifications laid out in 1 Timothy and Titus and how they clearly disqualify women from the pastorship.

In other words, the most relevant passages in Scripture were not...uh, relevant in her opinion. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

 

[katautumn]

In other words, the most relevant passages in Scripture were not...uh, relevant in her opinion. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Well, I think a lot of people get hung up on that one verse, about not suffering a woman to teach, and they overlook the other passages that explicitly lay out the qualifications of a pastor or deacon. It's really hard to make a case for either side by isolating just one verse out of the entire New Testament. But when we read the pastoral epistles in their entirety, we see that the hierarchy of the church reflects the hierarchy of the home. God>Christ>Man>Woman>Children.

It isn't about beating women down. Women have many uses in their homes and churches that men could never fulfill, and vice versa. It's about gender distinction and not trying to keep someone from exercising their God given gifts.

 

[Johnnz]

Rachel Held Evans is a teacher of heresies. A person who teaches heresies is a heretic. I'm not sure what else to call her. I certainly cannot, with any certainty, claim she is my sister in Christ. Her views fly in the face of all that the Bible stands for. The entire article undermines the Scriptures and reduces Paul's letters to the early churches as nothing more that a little friendly chastening between friends with absolutely zero application today. Evans failed to acknowledge that Paul wrote under the direct guidance of God. That Paul merely put God's words on paper. That God doesn't change His mind. He's the same yesterday, today and forever.

I am always leery when people use the culture angle to try and refute that certain passages of Scripture don't apply to us. She also focused mainly on the passage where Paul says he suffers not a woman to teach. As best I could tell, unless I missed it, she never once address the pastoral qualifications laid out in 1 Timothy and Titus and how they clearly disqualify women from the pastorship.

You are a bit harsh I think. Yes, she did comment on a limited number of scriptures. But that is usually all the that can be accomplished in a short article anyway.

Why don't you address her listing of other discrepancies of 'literal' interpretations? Who is being selective?

Dedicated Christian scholars and teachers who see some Scriptures differently cannot be easily assigned to the category of heretics. Those that I have read have delved into the biblical texts very deeply, far more than any of us will ever manage to do. That does not make them heretics if they present a reasonable case for revising previous views.

I find it interesting that. eventually on an issue like this, name calling becomes common. But the name callers never interact seriously with the logic, research and exegesis being presented.

You may not be aware that the 'finger of God' style for inspiration is becoming less common within many evangelical teachers. People are reading the texts within a wider context, still attesting to the Scriptures being inspired, and presenting a far more fully rounded and challenging faith than has been taught for some centuries.

If a 21st century, American, male dominated, middle class mindset remains the only way to understand the 'true meaning' of Scripture I am not sure we are on very secure grounds long term. I have become aware of many of my own cultural preconceptions that scripture has challenged (what is family, what was a judge in biblical times, what dominant cultural values for things like success are at odds with biblical values?). Getting back to an understanding of biblical times has been very productive for me and has led to a far richer, life related faith.

And, relegation of women within the church arose from Greek thinking very early on in history. 'What the bible says' has been largely influenced by that non Christian influence. Time to abandon that paganism I reckon.

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

Well, I'm sure glad that you don't approve of polemics or name calling.

What exactly was the name calling and polemics that was in the words you red lined?

John
NZ

 

[Simon_Templar]

You are a bit harsh I think. Yes, she did comment on a limited number of scriptures. But that is usually all the that can be accomplished in a short article anyway.

Why don't you address her listing of other discrepancies of 'literal' interpretations? Who is being selective?

Dedicated Christian scholars and teachers who see some Scriptures differently cannot be easily assigned to the category of heretics. Those that I have read have delved into the biblical texts very deeply, far more than any of us will ever manage to do. That does not make them heretics if they present a reasonable case for revising previous views.

I find it interesting that. eventually on an issue like this, name calling becomes common. But the name callers never interact seriously with the logic, research and exegesis being presented.

You may not be aware that the 'finger of God' style for inspiration is becoming less common within many evangelical teachers. People are reading the texts within a wider context, still attesting to the Scriptures being inspired, and presenting a far more fully rounded and challenging faith than has been taught for some centuries.

If a 21st century, American, male dominated, middle class mindset remains the only way to understand the 'true meaning' of Scripture I am not sure we are on very secure grounds long term. I have become aware of many of my own cultural preconceptions that scripture has challenged (what is family, what was a judge in biblical times, what dominant cultural values for things like success are at odds with biblical values?). Getting back to an understanding of biblical times has been very productive for me and has led to a far richer, life related faith.

And, relegation of women within the church arose from Greek thinking very early on in history. 'What the bible says' has been largely influenced by that non Christian influence. Time to abandon that paganism I reckon.

John
NZ

After looking around Rachel Held Evan's blog, I would have to agree that I would class her in the heretic column and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that virtually all of her positions that I came across are directly opposite of the rules of this forum (meaning the conservative sub-forum).

But of one thing I can assure you... I absolutely agree that we should get rid of the 21st century mindset when studying scripture. And the 20th century mindset, and the 19th century mindset, and the 18th century mindset, and the 17th century mindset, and the 16th century mindset.

Much like Rachel Held Evans, I was raised in an evangelical Christian home in the evangelical sub-culture of the 80's and 90's. Also much like her I ran into some things that eventually caused me to abandon that sub culture and that entire worldview or mindset when looking at Christianity and the bible.

The difference is that Rachel Held Evans appears to have replaced her 20th century American Evangelical mindset, with a 21st century "post-modern" emergent American mindset.

That isn't a step in the right direction. It's actually a step further down the rabbit hole.

I went the other direction and actually went back to the original Christians and found out what they really believed and what they really did.

As a student of history and a student of scripture I find it rather funny, in a sad and frustrating way, when 21st century people, completely entrenched in 21st century worldviews, taken captive by 21st century philosophies, take one tiny piece of historical information (which is usually of suspect reliability) like what the women of the Corinthian Church were doing on Sundays, and use that piece of information to then try and reconstruct the message of the bible in their own 21st century worldview, according to their 21st century values and philosophies, and then they call that "context"... and imagine that they have escaped the narrow modern American evangelical mindset.

The truth is that they are doing nothing different than Adam and Eve did in the Garden. They are trying to remake God's truth in their own image.

 

[Johnnz]

As a student of history and a student of scripture I find it rather funny, in a sad and frustrating way, when 21st century people, completely entrenched in 21st century worldviews, taken captive by 21st century philosophies, take one tiny piece of historical information (which is usually of suspect reliability) like what the women of the Corinthian Church were doing on Sundays, and use that piece of information to then try and reconstruct the message of the bible in their own 21st century worldview, according to their 21st century values and philosophies, and then they call that "context"... and imagine that they have escaped the narrow modern American evangelical mindset.

You have had an interesting journey, similar to mine, although we may have come to referent conclusions on some matters.

I must disagree with the above though. N T Wight, a staunch advocate for the trustworthiness of the Bible, Gordon Fee a widely recognised NT scholar from an Assemblies of God background, Craig Keener also from a Pentecostal.evangelical upbringing, who has published under the IVP label, are three enormously well versed scholars of biblical times - no fragments snatched from history with any of those men.

I find that many of the critics on a topic like this one, where fresh views are put out there have never read any really good material by these and similar authors. They operate in a kind of teaching vacuum, unaware of just how thoroughly they have studied Scripture out of a deep commitment to Jesus.

John
NZ

 

[Alithis]

way back to the start with the OP title

"woman cant preach"

perhaps its splitting hairs ..but its incorrect .
some woman can preach very well indeed !

the question should have been are they allowed to ?

and the answer must surely be - since we are not under the law ( as set out in the first 5 books of the bible ) but under grace and the and the new rule/law government of the "spirit of life in Christ Jesus"- Which to me designates a resurrected live of obedience to the holy Spirit- if the Holy Spirit tells you to preach (seeing that God is no respecter of persons -and - that there is no Jew nor Greek nor man now woman etc ) then you would do well to OBEY the Lord - whomever you are .

 

[Simon_Templar]

You have had an interesting journey, similar to mine, although we may have come to referent conclusions on some matters.

I must disagree with the above though. N T Wight, a staunch advocate for the trustworthiness of the Bible, Gordon Fee a widely recognised NT scholar from an Assemblies of God background, Craig Keener also from a Pentecostal.evangelical upbringing, who has published under the IVP label, are three enormously well versed scholars of biblical times - no fragments snatched from history with any of those men.

I find that many of the critics on a topic like this one, where fresh views are put out there have never read any really good material by these and similar authors. They operate in a kind of teaching vacuum, unaware of just how thoroughly they have studied Scripture out of a deep commitment to Jesus.

John
NZ

As a former Anglican (After leaving the church I grew up in, I first became Anglican) I'm very familiar with NT Wright and his scholarly cred. I know the name Gordon Fee though I have never read any of his writing. The other guy I don't know.

While I would obviously not question NT Wright's credentials and his vast scholarship. To be honest I find his comments on 1 Timothy 2 to be very shallow and the reasoning involved to be almost laughably so.

For example, it is suggested that 1 Timothy was written to Timothy while he was in the city of Ephesus. The major cult in Ephesus was the temple of Artemis (Diana) and because she was a goddesses, her temple was run exclusively by priestesses. In fact, he refers to the cult of Artemis as a "female-only cult". He says that the priestesses ruled the men and kept them in their place.

Wright uses this to suggest that the Ephesians with this matriarchal religious lens would have misunderstood Paul's instruction that women be allowed to study and learn and thus he basically had to hedge his bet by saying that women shouldn't dominate the men... basically saying that the Church should not become like the temple of Artemis, run by women.

The first point to be made is that NT Wright's historical information here is simply flat out wrong.

We know that the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus was actually run by a male (a Eunuch) High Priest called the Megabyzus (deriving from Persian, meaning "god Saved")

Further, we know that the priestesses of Artemis were "consecrated maidens" who served as the assistant to the Eunuch high priest or 'Megabyzus'. We don't know for certain how many such priestesses there were at any given time. However, we do know that every extant reference to a priestess by name shows her to have been of Roman/Greek aristocratic and wealthy origin. The references also suggest that the priestesses served a temporary term probably of a year. It was expected that the priestess would distribute a large sum of money upon receiving the honor of being appointed priestess of Artemis, which demonstrates that they had to come from a wealthy family.

The records also show that the priestesses were almost certainly unmarried and since they are all identified by their parent's names, were probably still young, maybe early teens.

All of this strongly suggests that the position of priestess was a temporary honor bestowed upon the daughters of the aristocratic Ephesian families. Far from a dominating religious caste.

The temple hierarchy was not exclusively female, and the cult worship wasn't either. In fact it was the state cult of the entire city so almost everyone in the city was involved.

In fact the only people barred from entering the temple of Artemis were Hetairai, basically female courtesian companions (high class prostitutes).


Secondly, NT Wright's analysis ignores the fact that Greek culture in general was one of the most misogynistic of the ancient world. Far from being matriarchal women had few rights and were often little better than property in many cases. I can't think of any Greek city, or temple where women ruled over men and kept the men in their place. The only exception to this being in mythology, the Amazons (who were not themselves Greek).

This point suggests another observation that I don't think I've ever seen any scholar make. (I could be wrong)

The Romans and the Greeks for certain, and probably most of the other ANE cultures were far more misogynistic and male dominated that Biblical Culture. Yet all of those cultures have priestesses and goddesses.
IF the biblical prohibitions against women in ordained ministry, the exclusive male priesthood in the OT is all the result of culture... why is it that the cultures that were more anti-woman and in which women had less rights and less value, all had priestesses?

In fact, Hebrew/Biblical culture and religion is UNIQUE in the ancient world for the fact that it has no concept of a priestess. In the culture of the ancient near east and Mediterranean world priestesses (ordained women) and goddesses were UNIVERSAL elements of culture, except for Israel and the Bible.

This destroys the whole "culture" argument regarding the Bible's gender roles and teaching on men and women. The fact is that the Bible is pretty much the opposite of every other surrounding culture of that time.

 

[Simon_Templar]

way back to the start with the OP title

"woman cant preach"

perhaps its splitting hairs ..but its incorrect .
some woman can preach very well indeed !

the question should have been are they allowed to ?

and the answer must surely be - since we are not under the law ( as set out in the first 5 books of the bible ) but under grace and the and the new rule/law government of the "spirit of life in Christ Jesus"- Which to me designates a resurrected live of obedience to the holy Spirit- if the Holy Spirit tells you to preach (seeing that God is no respecter of persons -and - that there is no Jew nor Greek nor man now woman etc ) then you would do well to OBEY the Lord - whomever you are .

The misuse of the "no man nor woman in Christ" line is a pet peeve of mine. If Paul meant by this what people commonly use it to mean, then he certainly wasted a lot of ink telling men and women what their respective God given roles and responsibilities are.

It would seem a lot people read Paul something like this.... "men do this, women do that, men do this, women do that.... oh yea, all that stuff I just wrote about what men should do and what women should do... yea just throw all that out and forget it because there are no men and women in Christ!"

 

[Alithis]

The misuse of the "no man nor woman in Christ" line is a pet peeve of mine. If Paul meant by this what people commonly use it to mean, then he certainly wasted a lot of ink telling men and women what their respective God given roles and responsibilities are.

It would seem a lot people read Paul something like this.... "men do this, women do that, men do this, women do that.... oh yea, all that stuff I just wrote about what men should do and what women should do... yea just throw all that out and forget it because there are no men and women in Christ!"

well i see what you mean - but i was simplifying an issue that seems to be somewhat complicated by people ... to what end ? usually some form of control and /OR rebellion ,depending which camp your in .
i just think there are no camps to choose from .

let me ask you ; what do you make of the theory that the people to whom Paul was writing (and answering with good advice as opposed to rule of law ) had come out of a culture that worshiped female deities (woman gods) and taught that woman was created first . Thus causing men to fall back on old cultural habits of allowing woman to take spiritual leadership in the formulating of doctrines and in so doing were possible allowing doctrines opposed to the truth of the Gospel to sneak in ; and so Paul strongly raised the point about Man being created first and not the other way around .

i read in an English version of a Chinese study Bible a foot note Which gave it this interpretation - "suffer not a woman to formulate foundational doctrine" - which , to me . would make sense in the light of the culture of female god worship they had come out of .which was NOT of God nor in alignment with the truth of the Good news of the Lord Jesus -

thoughts ...?

 

[Simon_Templar]

well i see what you mean - but i was simplifying an issue that seems to be somewhat complicated by people ... to what end ? usually some form of control and /OR rebellion ,depending which camp your in .
i just think there are no camps to choose from .

let me ask you ; what do you make of the theory that the people to whom Paul was writing (and answering with good advice as opposed to rule of law ) had come out of a culture that worshiped female deities (woman gods) and taught that woman was created first . Thus causing men to fall back on old cultural habits of allowing woman to take spiritual leadership in the formulating of doctrines and in so doing were possible allowing doctrines opposed to the truth of the Gospel to sneak in ; and so Paul strongly raised the point about Man being created first and not the other way around .

In my opinion there are several problems with this.

#1 - All of the ancient near eastern cultures, from Egypt to Babylon to Greece, to Rome had goddesses. Yet in none of those cultures and even in the very temples of the goddesses, there was no matriarchy and no exclusive female hierarchy. You might have instances like the Vestal Virgins in Rome where a particular group was all female, but in every case I'm aware of they were not dominant over male society. The worship of female deities didn't produce matriarchy or female domination of religious hierarchy.

#2 - In every mythology of those cultures I've ever read or seen, man was created first (or male and female were created together). I've never seen one where woman was created first and then produced man. In Greek mythology specifically (since this letter was written to a Greek city) man was created first and the first woman, Pandora, was actually created as a kind of punishment upon mankind. (that kind of reflects the Greek attitude towards women, which was generally not very good).

Interestingly, the only religion/sect that I'm aware of which sometimes did put women on equal footing with men in religious authority and did have women leading men in doctrine and religion, were the gnostics. They believed that the physical world was inherently evil. This included the human body. As such the distinctions of the body, such as male and female, were often set aside.
But this seems more similar to the modern egalitarian view and thus would seem to strengthen the more traditional view.

#3 - Men allowing women to take spiritual leadership is not merely a cultural habit. It is what produced the original sin. There are of course many men who try to control women and lord it over women etc. But men refusing to take up their spiritual duty, or shirking their spiritual duty is universal male nature.
Sin created a kind of inversion in the relationship between man and woman. Woman desires to take man's place and to control, and Man wants to be served by woman, but not to serve her by doing his duty.

This isn't a local or cultural problem, it is a universal human problem resulting from sin.

#4 - Some have tried to argue that the Greek word "authentein" which is translated as "have authority" should actually be translated as "to be the origin of" or "to originate". Thus arguing that Paul is forbidding women to teach, or to claim to be the origin of men.

This just doesn't fit either with the ancient sources in which "authentein" is used, and it doesn't fit with the grammar of the passage itself. Authentein in classical/literary Greek meant "to murder" and in common/Koine Greek it meant to be tyrannical or to dominate. (ie to have/take authority)

In addition the grammar of the passage indicates that "teach" and "have authority" are two distinct concepts that Paul is listing, "teach" is not being modified by "have authority". In other words Paul is saying, I don't allow this or this. The point of this is that it can't be translated as "to teach in a domineering way" and it couldn't be translated as "to teach that women are the origin of men".

I don't think Paul stresses the order of creation, man being created first, because anyone was teaching the reverse, that woman was created first. I don't know of any historical evidence for that really. I think that he is stressing it because in Jewish/Israelite way of understanding scripture, the bible is full of typology and understanding the bible is dependent upon the typological principles. So the creation is not just about making the physical world.. the creation is full of types that establish and point to spiritual truths. It is spiritually and theologically significant that Adam was created first and that Eve was taken out of Adam's side.

i read in an English version of a Chinese study Bible a foot note Which gave it this interpretation - "suffer not a woman to formulate foundational doctrine" - which , to me . would make sense in the light of the culture of female god worship they had come out of .which was NOT of God nor in alignment with the truth of the Good news of the Lord Jesus -

thoughts ...?

My view on this whole passage is significantly different than most conservative protestants. Because my view of Church authority is different.

I believe that the Church hierarchy is ordained to serve as personal representatives of Christ in a spiritual way. In other words, their ministry is essentially Christ working through them. As such I believe that the ordained Hierarchy (specifically the Bishops) have real spiritual authority to teach binding doctrine and practice, as well as to discipline up to and including excommunicating people. The hierarchy are also ordained with authority to effect sacraments (which obviously most protestants don't believe in, so not really an issue for them).

In my view, a woman could be a great spiritual teacher, and I might go to her for advice and to learn, but she doesn't speak with the authority of the Church thus I am not morally/spiritually obligated to obey her. However, if an ordained bishop gave me a teaching or instruction for worship etc, I would be obligated to obey it, unless it expressly violated the existing deposit of truth.

I believe that what Paul is talking about here is specifically the ordained hierarchy of the Church.

I don't believe that he is issuing a general prohibition against a woman ever teaching or having any administrative or leadership role in the Church. In my view, he is speaking only of the authority vested in the ordained hierarchy.

So, for example, I would have no problem going to seminars or conferences on doctrine or theology where a woman taught and spoke. I would also have no problem with a woman holding leadership positions in Church organizations.

So, that is kind of similar to saying "not allowed to formulate foundational doctrine" but its a little more defined than that.

 

[Alithis]

wel i asked - informative - ty

don't agree with all of it - of course -especially not the last few paragraphs
but not going to argue it other then to state i disagree .

 

[PaulaS]

In my opinion there are several problems with this.

#1 - All of the ancient near eastern cultures, from Egypt to Babylon to Greece, to Rome had goddesses. Yet in none of those cultures and even in the very temples of the goddesses, there was no matriarchy and no exclusive female hierarchy. You might have instances like the Vestal Virgins in Rome where a particular group was all female, but in every case I'm aware of they were not dominant over male society. The worship of female deities didn't produce matriarchy or female domination of religious hierarchy.

#2 - In every mythology of those cultures I've ever read or seen, man was created first (or male and female were created together). I've never seen one where woman was created first and then produced man. In Greek mythology specifically (since this letter was written to a Greek city) man was created first and the first woman, Pandora, was actually created as a kind of punishment upon mankind. (that kind of reflects the Greek attitude towards women, which was generally not very good).

Interestingly, the only religion/sect that I'm aware of which sometimes did put women on equal footing with men in religious authority and did have women leading men in doctrine and religion, were the gnostics. They believed that the physical world was inherently evil. This included the human body. As such the distinctions of the body, such as male and female, were often set aside.
But this seems more similar to the modern egalitarian view and thus would seem to strengthen the more traditional view.

#3 - Men allowing women to take spiritual leadership is not merely a cultural habit. It is what produced the original sin. There are of course many men who try to control women and lord it over women etc. But men refusing to take up their spiritual duty, or shirking their spiritual duty is universal male nature.
Sin created a kind of inversion in the relationship between man and woman. Woman desires to take man's place and to control, and Man wants to be served by woman, but not to serve her by doing his duty.

This isn't a local or cultural problem, it is a universal human problem resulting from sin.

#4 - Some have tried to argue that the Greek word "authentein" which is translated as "have authority" should actually be translated as "to be the origin of" or "to originate". Thus arguing that Paul is forbidding women to teach, or to claim to be the origin of men.

This just doesn't fit either with the ancient sources in which "authentein" is used, and it doesn't fit with the grammar of the passage itself. Authentein in classical/literary Greek meant "to murder" and in common/Koine Greek it meant to be tyrannical or to dominate. (ie to have/take authority)

In addition the grammar of the passage indicates that "teach" and "have authority" are two distinct concepts that Paul is listing, "teach" is not being modified by "have authority". In other words Paul is saying, I don't allow this or this. The point of this is that it can't be translated as "to teach in a domineering way" and it couldn't be translated as "to teach that women are the origin of men".

I don't think Paul stresses the order of creation, man being created first, because anyone was teaching the reverse, that woman was created first. I don't know of any historical evidence for that really. I think that he is stressing it because in Jewish/Israelite way of understanding scripture, the bible is full of typology and understanding the bible is dependent upon the typological principles. So the creation is not just about making the physical world.. the creation is full of types that establish and point to spiritual truths. It is spiritually and theologically significant that Adam was created first and that Eve was taken out of Adam's side.



My view on this whole passage is significantly different than most conservative protestants. Because my view of Church authority is different.

I believe that the Church hierarchy is ordained to serve as personal representatives of Christ in a spiritual way. In other words, their ministry is essentially Christ working through them. As such I believe that the ordained Hierarchy (specifically the Bishops) have real spiritual authority to teach binding doctrine and practice, as well as to discipline up to and including excommunicating people. The hierarchy are also ordained with authority to effect sacraments (which obviously most protestants don't believe in, so not really an issue for them).

In my view, a woman could be a great spiritual teacher, and I might go to her for advice and to learn, but she doesn't speak with the authority of the Church thus I am not morally/spiritually obligated to obey her. However, if an ordained bishop gave me a teaching or instruction for worship etc, I would be obligated to obey it, unless it expressly violated the existing deposit of truth.

I believe that what Paul is talking about here is specifically the ordained hierarchy of the Church.

I don't believe that he is issuing a general prohibition against a woman ever teaching or having any administrative or leadership role in the Church. In my view, he is speaking only of the authority vested in the ordained hierarchy.

So, for example, I would have no problem going to seminars or conferences on doctrine or theology where a woman taught and spoke. I would also have no problem with a woman holding leadership positions in Church organizations.

So, that is kind of similar to saying "not allowed to formulate foundational doctrine" but its a little more defined than that.

I will admit that I don't have a clue who some of these famous authors are but I do know somethings about the King James Version Bible. The following verses will explain how women should act in church and how the older women should teach the younger women. I am so thankful for both of my mamaws and all that they taught me while I was growing up and until I had 3 of my children for one of them, the other my 4th baby was 3 when a tornado took her life as well as everything we had. Thanks be to our Lord that HE made it possible for us to start over with 4 little doorsteps children. I ended up raising our four plus a nephew and a niece. I am positive that God did allowed the tornadoes for that purpose, to raise those two children also. My nephew was a 8 months younger than our oldest son and our niece is six months older than our youngest son. We were blessed with two boys and two girls of our own then a boy and a girl by my sister-n-law and brother-n-law when she passed away. Our Lord, Jesus Christ truly blessed us with all six of "our" children! Now we are the proud grandparents 11 grandchildren!

1 Corinthians 14:33-36
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 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.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?




1 Timothy 2:8-15

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.




The following is the purpose of women according to God's New Testament words. She is to teach the young women how to behave, be good wives to the young men, how to keep their homes, be obedient to their husbands, to love their husbands, to be discreet and to care for and love their children. In God's word, God comes first, then our husbands and then our children. Women are to submit themselves to their husbands as they submit themselves unto Jesus Christ. Now this does not mean to be beaten, raped or mistreated physically or mentally on a continuous basis, if you are married to the man God has chosen for you, you won't have to contend with those things. So WAIT!!!! God will provide the husband HE wants you to have. Believe me, I have been there before, I know what I am talking about.



Titus 2:3-5

3The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


1Corinthians 11:1-16

1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I don't know if this has led to more confusion or has helped someone to see. Every passage of scripture came from the New Testament of the King James Bible. You can look them up for yourself if you need to.
Love in Christ, Paula
​

 

[dogs4thewin]

Preaching and PASTOR are different things. To preach, to share the Gospel. A PASTOR is someone who has a church or in some small towns churches( if they meet every other week that they preach at on a near weekly basis. By saying that women can not preach you are saying that we can not spread the gospel by word or deed.

 

[Albion]

Preaching and PASTOR are different things. To preach, to share the Gospel. A PASTOR is someone who has a church or in some small towns churches( if they meet every other week that they preach at on a near weekly basis. By saying that women can not preach you are saying that we can not spread the gospel by word or deed.

...and there are a few people only who take that position.

It is a very big mistake--or a deliberate debating technique--for people to suggest that those who oppose the ordination of women on Biblical grounds are, in effect, saying that they should have no place in the congregation's leadership and should just keep silent. It's a mischaracterization of the position of most Christian churches that do not have women pastors.