For the sake of the thread I am reposting what I have written before:
The act of teaching from scriptures such as exegesis or expository teaching to edify those that are hearing is not exercising authority over a person and this is part of the error that has created this unbiblical ban on a women teaching scriptures.
The meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 in context of the wife toward the husband is that of respect. It could very well mean Suffer not a wife to Teach as in Correcting as in Usurping authority over him. Teaching him like she does one of the kids that needs correction.
This is not a forced hermeneutic in an effort to free women to be allowed to be bible teachers. It is a more natural hermeneutic considering the theological context of other passages that say the same things. Using the rule of hermeneutics of finding other passages that speak about the same subject especially those passages that use strikingly similar words and phrases we find the following:
Look at 1 Peter 3 and 1 Tim 2 Compare the similar sentences in each passage...
1Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,
2when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
3Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—
4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,
6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Now Look at 1 Tim 2
9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,
10but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
It is impossible not to notice that the topic is the same.
Peter sounds like he is quoting Paul (and I am of the opinion that he was) and yet by reason of Peter being a bit more verbose the authorial intent of Peter is made plain and it is never discussed as applying to instructions on how women can teach or not teach the bible while men are present. Everyone understands the subject matter of Peter as it relates to the attitude of the wife toward the husband.
Paul is most likely talking about the same thing and uses the word woman and man instead of husband and wife but it is the same subject matter as made obvious by the reference of Adam and Eve.
We have a much stronger reason to believe that if Paul was here right now and we could ask him "what did you mean by a woman cannot teach a man" that he might say "did you understand what Peter said?" and he might say "I was talking about the exact same thing?" A woman's attitude toward her husband.
We allow women to have authority over us at work. Are we sinning?
How does one who believes 1 Tim 2:12 means any woman cannot have authority over any man going to justify submitting to a female at work. But they do. Are they hypocrites?
If we create an explanation that excuses us from submitting to the authority of a female boss at work but not allowing women to hold leadership positions in the church based on this verse we are saying that we are not fully obedient to that verse. We only obey it at church but not at work.
Your not going to get out of this one easily. But I will enjoy watching you try.
You said the following:
"It’s important to understand that Paul does not prohibit women from teaching in all contexts (Titus 2:3; Acts 18:25-26), only from teaching the Bible to men in the church.
Notice that Paul prohibits women from doing two distinct things.
1.
Women may not teach the Bible to men in the church.
2.
Women may not exercise authority over men in the church."
You say that this scripture does not prohibit women from teaching in all contexts only to men in church. That is obviously eisegesis.
You would actually have a stronger argument if you said that you believed it taught that a woman cannot teach a man in all contexts since it does say "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man"
However, the bible or church or pulpit are not mentioned at all. Therefore you added them and this you have no authority to do.
So you made that up. You put that in there. It does not say "I suffer not a woman to teach
(the Bible in church) nor to usurp authority over the man
(In a leadership position in church) Therefore it is possible that Paul did not have pulpit ministry in mind at all.
It is actually IMPOSSIBLE that Paul could have had pulpit ministry in mind since Pulpits had not yet been invented.
So we can eliminate the possibility of "pulpit teaching" being Paul's authorial intent.
In hermeneutics your can eliminate those things that would not apply to the culture at the time. It is impossible that Paul was talking about a woman teaching a Sunday School Class where men were present because Sunday School classes were not invented yet. It is impossible that he meant Teaching the book of Revelation, because the book of Revelation had not yet been written. Therefore Paul did not have these things in mind. Many of the things people have said about this verse Paul could not have meant.
You stated the following:
The nature of women is the second reason Paul gives for prohibiting them from teaching or exercising authority in the church.
Paul says, “Adam was not deceived,
but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim 2:14). Paul is saying something about the natural constitution of men and women, that men as a class are naturally more fitted to teach and have authority in the church, but women are not.
And though Grudem may have said this is a popular view I can guarantee you even without looking it up that Grudem does not agree with this interpretation. I know him well and I know he is much smarter than this.
You see it would be impossible for it to mean that men are more naturally fitted to teach and that is the reason why men should teach and not women. Because this would be against the nature of what salvation and redemption has wrought in us.
Teaching the bible by the calling and empowering of the Spirit does not rely on the maleness of the human species nor his natural abilities.
The woman is not less saved, less redeemed, or less able to comprehend the spiritual things of God than a man can.
God does not rely on the natural abilities of the man to teach the Spirit empowered word of God. God can take an uneducated man and empower him with the Spirit to understand and to teach the word of God. And so why would an uneducated woman not also be illuminated and empowered by the Spirit to preach the Word of God?
Your interpretation suggest that Paul is saying that the redemption of Jesus Christ was sufficient to transform and equip a degenerate heroine shooting drunkard off the streets and turn him into the worlds greatest bible preacher but Jesus cannot do that with a woman because her femaleness? The woman cannot be delivered from some natural faults that you think she has but a man can? Jesus can't transform the mind of a crack smoking woman and make her a saved healed Bible preacher but he can do so with a man. Because a woman is likely to be deceived because remember what happened to Eve?
That is some serious false doctrine and a view of God that is not the God of the Bible, not the salvation of Jesus Christ and not the view that God has of women. And that you could say it and not recognize the error makes everything you say suspect.
Please find repentance if that is what you think God is like. I fear that you have been infected with the leaven of the Pharisees.