Woman can't teach in the congregation

[SaintMichaels]

A couple years ago there was a long running thread about the role of woman in church and whether it was proper for a woman to wear pants in church. Also, at the same time there was another thread about whether it was acceptable to play musical instruments in church because the bible did not specifically say that it was acceptable to do so. Both threads were amusing and provided high entertainment value for many weeks.

Of course, being in the BDF there were heated arguments and the usual name calling bur that goes with the territory.

Your a relative new member so it may be hard to follow some of the posts from long time members who have been through a lot of stuff here on this site. Around that same time there was also the Office Max thread regarding transgenders being allowed to use either the men or women restroom regardless of one's sex. That one was a riot

Isn't that really sad though? I've not been here long enough to arrive at the experience you share in long ago posts but still, that , as you say, "...being in the BDF there were heated arguments and the usual name calling bur that goes with the territory."

Sharing in and about God's word and name calling is to be expected? How does this occur in discussing scripture and this scripture is overlooked? "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22
And all those other teachings from God that warn against unbridled tongues and especially in the company of one another.

Moving on.

I don't think the era in which the teaching in Deuteronomy, “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. " , is taken into account by those who insist a woman cannot wear pants. Especially in church.
Largely due to the fact that the Deuteronomy prohibition pertained to both sexes and at that time there was no such thing as pants. It seems women get the scrutiny in contemporary times using that OT verse. While, in the era in which the scripture was written women and men dressed much the same way.

Traditional Jewish attire in that day and age looked like that above. Taking into consideration the prohibition in Deuteronomy, these pictured persons are an abomination to God. And remember, Jesus dressed like the men pictured. As did the Mary's in his company. And all women in that time.

We're New Testament Christians today. Not Jews. If we're going to defend the edicts of the Hebrews Bible, watch out. Contemporary world laws aren't our friend.
Wear pants if you are female and like that style. God judges the heart. Not the closet.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I always use Septuagint, so I did not even realize that MT does not have it. Now I understand why you had a problem with it.

But its there in the LXX, so I see no problem with Paul´s reference to Gen 3:16.

Totally unlike Paul to refer to a Genesis verse as the law.

 

[SaintMichaels]

Tourist was making a point: some people believe that whatever is not specifically permitted is actually forbidden, like the Church of Christ does with musical instruments. Others believe that whatever is not specifically forbidden is permissible. There isn't a verse about women and pants.

There are verses describing music and singing praising God. No prohibition to that in scripture. Music and Singing
And I've already shown how the prohibition against women wearing pants is not in scripture.

 

[Magenta]

Very interesting response.

Jesus did say that no man as ascended into heaven and yet it appears that Enoch and Elijah did just that. Moses too. Of course, maybe they were not in heaven but in another place that Jesus dwells occasionally.

There is also the verse where it appears that Jesus is saying that if He wants the apostle John to remain alive until He returns what is it to Peter. Then a saying went out among the other apostles that Jesus said that this apostle (John) would not die, but actually what Jesus said was that if He wanted this apostle (John) to remain alive until He returns what is it to Peter.

I believe the lesson in this is that you have to be careful in what you read in scripture and not draw hasty conclusions but rather allow the Holy Spirit to led you in study and contemplation regarding spiritual matters and concerns.

It is my own personal opinion that the apostle John is still alive, either here on earth or some other place and that he will be one of the two witnesses for 3 1/2 years during the end time events, also, the other witness will be Elijah because it has been prophesied that he also will return.

Jesus is returning too. Sooner rather than later.

Praise God.

I think that regardless of how we understand or do not understand death, Jesus knew what He was talking about, and there was never any deceit or guile found in Him, for if there had been, He would not have been sinless and given His life as a ransom for ours, as the spotless Lamb of God. Therefore, since He said (in John 3:13), "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." I will believe Him

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

There are verses describing music and singing praising God. No prohibition to that in scripture. Music and Singing
And I've already shown how the prohibition against women wearing pants is not in scripture.

I think that thread about women wearing pants was started as a joke mocking some other discussions that were happening at the time..

 

[SaintMichaels]

Very interesting response.

Jesus did say that no man as ascended into heaven and yet it appears that Enoch and Elijah did just that. Moses too. Of course, maybe they were not in heaven but in another place that Jesus dwells occasionally.

There is also the verse where it appears that Jesus is saying that if He wants the apostle John to remain alive until He returns what is it to Peter. Then a saying went out among the other apostles that Jesus said that this apostle (John) would not die, but actually what Jesus said was that if He wanted this apostle (John) to remain alive until He returns what is it to Peter.

I believe the lesson in this is that you have to be careful in what you read in scripture and not draw hasty conclusions but rather allow the Holy Spirit to led you in study and contemplation regarding spiritual matters and concerns.

It is my own personal opinion that the apostle John is still alive, either here on earth or some other place and that he will be one of the two witnesses for 3 1/2 years during the end time events, also, the other witness will be Elijah because it has been prophesied that he also will return.

Jesus is returning too. Sooner rather than later.

Praise God.

I would say that a lot is lost in not reading the context of John 3 as pertains to the single verse 13 so as to comprehend the full teaching as he intended.
It doesn't say what may be thought or hoped in some cases.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I always use Septuagint, so I did not even realize that MT does not have it. Now I understand why you had a problem with it.

But its there in the LXX, so I see no problem with Paul´s reference to Gen 3:16.

καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου
and thy submission shall be to thy husband

I'm looking at this word occurance in the LXX, and every place it's used (except Genesis 3:16 and 4:7) it means to return or to turn away from. Submission doesn't make sense.

 

[CS1]

Tourist was making a point: some people believe that whatever is not specifically permitted is actually forbidden, like the Church of Christ does with musical instruments. Others believe that whatever is not specifically forbidden is permissible. There isn't a verse about women and pants.

those who hold to the legalist slave mentality would fight it .. if they were a women LOL. Are we not to treat women as we are to be treated? Did not the same God save women and place His Spirit inside her ? And Did not God use women greatly in the word of God who also spoke the word of the Lord ? Yes How is it that the Holy Spirit today would just tell them they can't speak ? foolishness.

 

[Angela53510]

I always use Septuagint, so I did not even realize that MT does not have it. Now I understand why you had a problem with it.

But its there in the LXX, so I see no problem with Paul´s reference to Gen 3:16.

καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου
and thy submission shall be to thy husband

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/3.asp?pg=2

I am sorry, I do not see hypotasso in that LXX version of Gen. 3:16. I did find an interesting article, which talks about both the Hebrew and Greek for apostrophé.

"In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament, teshuqah is translated as apostrophē.[15][16] The etymology of apostrophē gives the meaning “a turning away”, but it is has a broader range of meanings, some of which are conflicting.

Liddell, Scott and Jones (LSJ), arguably one of the best lexicons of Ancient Greek, has several definitions for apostrophē. Most don’t fit the context of Genesis 3:16 at all. For definition III, however, the LSJ says that apostrophē is used rhetorically when one turns away from all others to one person and addresses him specifically.[17] This meaning makes good sense in the contexts of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

Since the preposition pros (“towards”) also occurs in Genesis 3:16 (“your turning (apostrophē) will be towards (pros) your husband”), I think the meaning of a woman turning away from others to turn towards, or even long for, her husband may well be what is intended here.[18]

Skip Moen believes that teshuqah may not mean “desire” and he looks to the early Greek, Syriac, and Coptic translations, for insight. He writes,

“But there is another translation stream arising through the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta and Coptic translations. This stream views the rare Hebrew word teshuqah as “turning,” not “lust.” If this stream is correct, then the word in Genesis 3:16 is about Eve’s mistake of “turning” her principle devotion toward Adam rather than God. Eve makes Adam her priority . . . .”[19]

Walter Kaiser likewise states that teshuqah should be understood as “turning”.

The Hebrew word teshuqah, now almost universally translated as ‘desire,’ was previously rendered as ‘turning.’ The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only three times: here in Genesis 3:16, in Genesis 4:7 and in Song of Songs 7:10. Of the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s Greek, Theodotion’s Greek and the Latin Vulgate), almost every one (twenty-one out of twenty-eight times) renders these three instances of teshuqah as “turning,” not “desire.” Likewise, the church fathers (Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, along with Philo, a Jew who died about A.D. 50) seem to be ignorant of any other sense for this word teshuqah than the translation of “turning.” Furthermore, the Latin rendering was conversio and the Greek was apostrophē or epistrophē, words all meaning “a turning”.[20]

https://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/

There is more in this article, well worth reading!

 

[Angela53510]

Of course Paul is giving women a permission to learn.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 1Tm 2:11

He is not giving them a permission to teach men, though.



If the dot placement is ambiguous, you cannot say that its traditional placement is wrong and your placement is right.

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace as in all the churches of the saints. Women should keep silent. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."

Women should keep silent where if not at church... at home, then?


Hm, "sarcasm" argument. In this way everything can be dismissed.

The simple fact that in our today´s Bibles there is no such Law doest not prove anything. We are 2000 years after Paul, 4000 years after the Law was written. No surprise some OT texts are lost or changed. Also, most commentaries link it to Gen 3:16.

First, if there were a plethora of verses supporting women not being in ministry, and this was just another verse added to those many verses, I think your point on the location of the period would be well taken.

Instead, 1 Cor. 14 is one of the ONLY verses that supports women being silent, a verse that can be easily challenged. Fact, not a lot of verses to go on, saying women can't preach or teach. I've covered most of 1 Tim. 2:12, although not the "teach" part.

Suffice it to say, in a private document, Paul is not telling Timothy privately a universal principle found no where else. He is writing to him about the church in Ephesus, and a situation that has arisen. If the principle that women were not to teach was important, it would be in Romans, and other books. Maybe even Luke would have written about it in Acts.

Instead, we have this letter to Timothy, about "A" woman. And the women is to learn! In fact, this was the exact instructions given to rabbinical students of that day. They were to learn in silence. And that didn't mean silence forever. Basically, till they had the knowledge and information to be teachers! And Paul, far from wanting woman to be barefoot, silent and pregnant, wanted the women to learn in the same manner the rabbinical students learned, which he knew from having been a rabbinical student, and most Jews of the day understood, because there were quite a few rabbinical students.

Further, with regards to context, Corinthians was one of FOUR letters Paul wrote in a correspondence with that church. So, he dealt with sexual immorality, and what to do about it, he dealt with wrong use of the gifts, how to to order the Church, and that women should be praying (out loud) and prophecying (also out loud). So, 1 Cor. 14 seems to be in direct conflict with what Paul just said a few chapters earlier.

Because God is not the author of confusion, we can be certain that Paul did not contradict himself. In fact, we are listening in on an ongoing conversation between the Corinthian church and Paul. I am certain he is quoting a letter from the church, with irony, because the Law simply never says women should be silent in church. To pretend there is a lost law in the OT saying this, is to say that God was not able to preserve his Word. That is blasphemy, in my opinion!

If you can't figure out what Paul is talking about, best not to use it as a proof text. But, the case against women in ministry, is so feeble, that people like you are grasping at straws, like a lost Law forbidding women to speak in church. As I said, modern Jewish women openly converse in the synagogue, to the point of distraction.

Further, using Genesis 3 to prove women should be submissive to all men, is totally wrong. First, it was a statement of the consequences of their sin - both men and women. This sin, called THE FALL, is NOT God's best plan for humanity. Jesus came to redeem us from the consequences of the law, not to keep women in some kind of subservient "role" (a word that never appears in the Bible!) for all eternity.

That is why Paul celebrates women, commends them as deacons, apostles and teachers. And says, there is no male or female, in Gal. 3:28! Of course, there are differences physically between men and women. And women certainly were treated badly for millennia by men - and I am not just talking Christian men. Eve was called an ezer or warrior, before the Fall. That is a term in Hebrew reserved for God, helping Israel, and military allies. No "help meet" there!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Further, using Genesis 3 to prove women should be submissive to all men, is totally wrong.

Totally wrong for whom? You, Paul, or the Holy Spirit?

The Bible teaches two things: (1) Christian women must be in submission to their own husbands (not all men) and (2) all women must keep silent in church meetings.

That silence includes Christian women being forbidden to preach, teach, or assume authority within the local assembly (1 Tim 2:12).

It is significant to note that before Feminism arrived on the scene, all conservative Christian commentators connected Gen 3:16 to 1 Cor 14:34 (and my Bible marginal reference also makes that connection).

John Gill's Commentarty ( 1 Cor 14:34)

But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
In ( Genesis 3:16 ) , "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.

We should not allow our prejudices or preference to determine Bible truth. When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:34 "but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" , he is calling the Torah "the law", and since Genesis 3:16 is in the Torah, he is using that reference as AUTHORITATIVE for determining that women should keep silent in the churches.

 

[Dino246]

Totally wrong for whom? You, Paul, or the Holy Spirit?

The Bible teaches two things: (1) Christian women must be in submission to their own husbands (not all men) and (2) all women must keep silent in church meetings.

That silence includes Christian women being forbidden to preach, teach, or assume authority within the local assembly (1 Tim 2:12).

It is significant to note that before Feminism arrived on the scene, all conservative Christian commentators connected Gen 3:16 to 1 Cor 14:34 (and my Bible marginal reference also makes that connection).

John Gill's Commentarty ( 1 Cor 14:34)

But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
In ( Genesis 3:16 ) , "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.

We should not allow our prejudices or preference to determine Bible truth. When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:34 "but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" , he is calling the Torah "the law", and since Genesis 3:16 is in the Torah, he is using that reference as AUTHORITATIVE for determining that women should keep silent in the churches.

So then women are likewise COMMANDED to give birth in horrid pain. Men are likewise COMMANDED to grow thorns and thistles. Men are further COMMANDED to eat bread by the sweat on their brows. No mopping with the napkin now! On top of all that, God in His supreme wisdom puts sinful males in authority over sinful females.

Come on, man, give this a moment of actual thought. These statements in Genesis 3 make perfect sense as consequences. They make no sense as commands.

 

[Nehemiah6]

They make no sense as commands.

We can say what we want, but it was Paul who said -- under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- that "but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law".

This not only applied to Christians in Corinth, but was universally applicable is all Christians churches. And because this was taken for what it said, neither the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox churches permit women to be priests (who do their preaching and teaching and have authority in their churches).

You can check out the official positions of these two "traditionalist" churches, and even though they have many erroneous teachings, they have consistently adhered to ensuring that women are silent in their churches. This was also the position of most mainline denominations until recently, as well as almost all evangelical and fundamentalist churches.

 

[SaintMichaels]

those who hold to the legalist slave mentality would fight it .. if they were a women LOL. Are we not to treat women as we are to be treated? Did not the same God save women and place His Spirit inside her ? And Did not God use women greatly in the word of God who also spoke the word of the Lord ? Yes How is it that the Holy Spirit today would just tell them they can't speak ? foolishness.

Just to interject here. We may wish to reflect and ask ourselves concerning this debate as to women's fitness to preach and would they be called by God to do so, on the scripture that pertains to Jesus' great commission in Mark 16. He didn't say anything about women not being entitled to be included in the great commission. And as we know Jesus' teachings in the synoptic gospels predates any reference some may use in Paul's epistles wherein they claim Paul is stating women are to remain silent in church, and that then says they're unfit to preach.
That verse itself is not saying that at all.
It would also, for that body of person who think it does say women aren't to preach, have Paul contradicting his other epistle wherein he says there is no such thing as, among other things, male or female. Because we are all one in Christ Jesus.

The argument that women aren't called to preach revokes that God given decree.
And also, it would then disparage Paul's accounting of Priscilla, James four daughters who preached, as well as Anna's pastoral services in Jesus name.

Numbers 11:29 But Moses asked him, “Are you jealous on my account? If only all the Lord’s people were prophets and the Lord would place His Spirit on them!”

 

[SaintMichaels]

We can say what we want, but it was Paul who said -- under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- that "but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law".

Christians aren't under the law.

 

[garee]

Christians aren't under the law.

Can they get away with murder because they are Christians ?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Christians aren't under the law.

Kindly read what Paul has said and what meant.

And if you believe that Christians are not under the Law of Christ, then you need to study the matter in depth. The Law of Christ has replaced the Law of Moses, and is even more demanding.

 

[CS1]

Just to interject here. We may wish to reflect and ask ourselves concerning this debate as to women's fitness to preach and would they be called by God to do so, on the scripture that pertains to Jesus' great commission in Mark 16. He didn't say anything about women not being entitled to be included in the great commission. And as we know Jesus' teachings in the synoptic gospels predates any reference some may use in Paul's epistles wherein they claim Paul is stating women are to remain silent in church, and that then says they're unfit to preach.
That verse itself is not saying that at all.
It would also, for that body of person who think it does say women aren't to preach, have Paul contradicting his other epistle wherein he says there is no such thing as, among other things, male or female. Because we are all one in Christ Jesus.

The argument that women aren't called to preach revokes that God given decree.
And also, it would then disparage Paul's accounting of Priscilla, James four daughters who preached, as well as Anna's pastoral services in Jesus name.

Numbers 11:29 But Moses asked him, “Are you jealous on my account? If only all the Lord’s people were prophets and the Lord would place His Spirit on them!”

Don't forget Joel 2 says women the "Spirit of The Lord" would be poured out on them too. and they will Prophesies

 

[garee]

"Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn't the Law say the same thing?"
1 Corinthians 9:8

"In the Law it is written: ..."
1Cor 14:21

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."
1 Cor 14:34

I think that the verse in 14:34 is not so incomprehensible, its similar to others in the same letter.


It does...

...and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:16



Yes, I cant conclude that from Adam and Eve. But Paul can. If Paul meant Gen 3:16, his conclusion is right.

I do not insist that Paul had Gen 3:16 in mind. But there are some similarities, so its a possibility.

The submission is mutual, as one submits to another in love the other does the same. It's like the father and Son working together to form a government . If two or three gather together Christ is there.

In order to create a government two or more are needed. The father "ruling over" being in a greater position not a better person. Just as husband and wife.

 

[SaintMichaels]

Don't forget Joel 2 says women the "Spirit of The Lord" would be poured out on them too. and they will Prophesies

I didn't forget. Bless you for sharing.