Woman can't teach in the congregation
- Thread starter Affltr
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So, I guess this thread is going to continue, with a lot of dogmatism, and using wrong translations to prove their point! Here is something I wrote a while back.
Basically, the word "authority" is translated totally wrong! Of course, how simple!
But really, the noun εξουσια (exousia) is the word the New Testament uses to translate the word authority. Eg. Matt 28:18 where Jesus has been given "all authority." Or Romans 13:1 where we are to obey the authorities, because all authority is given by God.
"διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ." 1 Tim. 2:12 1:
The word in 1 Tim. 2:12 is NOT exousia, but rather αὐθεντεῖν or authentein. This word authentein is a hapax legomena, which appears only once in the Bible. This means you cannot find the word anywhere else to compare how Paul or anyone else translated it. Authentein is also an infinitive. So, if you say, "a woman is not to domineer" you are using an infinitive! If you decide to say, "a woman is not to exercise authority over," well, you have taken an infinitive, turned it into a noun, authority; then added "to exercise" a different infinitive! But that is not good enough! Because, then you have "a woman is not to exercise authority" which no translation says. Nope, you have to add the preposition "over' which is not there in the original Greek, either.
In fact, you have to look at contemporaneous sources to find a definition, and there are over 50 different uses, ranging from murder and copulation to domineering. But most often it is translated “to domineer.”
So if you translate it using that, you get, "And not to domineer a man." Sounds reasonable to me! As believers we are not to domineer over other believers! Mutual submission, like Eph. 5:21 says.
"and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." Eph. 5:21
And then you don't have to add that extra word "exercise" which is needed as a verb, because authority is a noun. Just a small piece of grammar the translators seemed to miss! It is simply not good to take a verb, an infinitive, and change it to a noun, then add another, different infinitive, and a preposition. I guess I can't say this enough!
Of course, we can get into the cultural reasons why women were not allowed to teach in Ephesus, home of the temple of Artemis, one of the 7 original wonders of the world. A cult dedicated to women, who were in charge, and also highly uneducated, like all the women of their culture. And we might add, a little wild, those women??
As for keeping silent, well, another poor translation, based on the 16th century treatment that women were less than people. Probably quiet would be a better word, and consistent with the Jewish rabbinical practice that students were to learn quietly before the Master. So actually, Paul is giving permission in this and other places for a woman to learn. In fact, I believe he encourages it.
As for 1 Cor. 14:33-34, a very simple explanation.
"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. "
In fact, the only confusion comes from the fact that the punctuation is in the wrong place. "For God is not a god of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."
You see, the original Greek was in majuscules, or capitals, all squished together, and no punctuation. Very easy to put a period in the wrong place if it suits your purpose. ESV is very male hierarchical (they call themselves "complementarians" but you get the idea!) and they have lovingly retained the KJV mistake. LOL!
Now the reason scholars know the punctuation is in the wrong place, is because of the last part of the passage. "As the law says". Except for in no place does it say in the law, that women should not speak, not even in the synagogue. So Paul is likely quoting someone, and being sarcastic. I was in an Orthodox synagogue two years ago when I took Hebrew, and the women talked to each other, and to the men over the barriers separating the men from the women. They obviously had never heard of a law prohibiting women from speaking either! So those are what are fondly known as "the two disputed passages." Of course, there are other texts, but I have been through all of them with a fine tooth comb, and none of them has any validity restricting women from ministry. Or that a man has "authority over a women" at all! There are those pesky Roman household and Greek household codes, which Paul and Peter both try to use to have people be better witnesses to the surrounding cultures, but even if you want to go with marriage roles (which I do not- they are part of the Fall, not redeemed and saved people!) there is simply no biblical basis for any man having authority over every woman.
Really, what it boils down to, is looking closely at who has "pasa exousia", all authority! And that is Christ!
"And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt 28:18
Basically, the word "authority" is translated totally wrong! Of course, how simple!
But really, the noun εξουσια (exousia) is the word the New Testament uses to translate the word authority. Eg. Matt 28:18 where Jesus has been given "all authority." Or Romans 13:1 where we are to obey the authorities, because all authority is given by God.
"διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ." 1 Tim. 2:12 1:
The word in 1 Tim. 2:12 is NOT exousia, but rather αὐθεντεῖν or authentein. This word authentein is a hapax legomena, which appears only once in the Bible. This means you cannot find the word anywhere else to compare how Paul or anyone else translated it. Authentein is also an infinitive. So, if you say, "a woman is not to domineer" you are using an infinitive! If you decide to say, "a woman is not to exercise authority over," well, you have taken an infinitive, turned it into a noun, authority; then added "to exercise" a different infinitive! But that is not good enough! Because, then you have "a woman is not to exercise authority" which no translation says. Nope, you have to add the preposition "over' which is not there in the original Greek, either.
In fact, you have to look at contemporaneous sources to find a definition, and there are over 50 different uses, ranging from murder and copulation to domineering. But most often it is translated “to domineer.”
So if you translate it using that, you get, "And not to domineer a man." Sounds reasonable to me! As believers we are not to domineer over other believers! Mutual submission, like Eph. 5:21 says.
"and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." Eph. 5:21
And then you don't have to add that extra word "exercise" which is needed as a verb, because authority is a noun. Just a small piece of grammar the translators seemed to miss! It is simply not good to take a verb, an infinitive, and change it to a noun, then add another, different infinitive, and a preposition. I guess I can't say this enough!
Of course, we can get into the cultural reasons why women were not allowed to teach in Ephesus, home of the temple of Artemis, one of the 7 original wonders of the world. A cult dedicated to women, who were in charge, and also highly uneducated, like all the women of their culture. And we might add, a little wild, those women??
As for keeping silent, well, another poor translation, based on the 16th century treatment that women were less than people. Probably quiet would be a better word, and consistent with the Jewish rabbinical practice that students were to learn quietly before the Master. So actually, Paul is giving permission in this and other places for a woman to learn. In fact, I believe he encourages it.
As for 1 Cor. 14:33-34, a very simple explanation.
"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. "
In fact, the only confusion comes from the fact that the punctuation is in the wrong place. "For God is not a god of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."
You see, the original Greek was in majuscules, or capitals, all squished together, and no punctuation. Very easy to put a period in the wrong place if it suits your purpose. ESV is very male hierarchical (they call themselves "complementarians" but you get the idea!) and they have lovingly retained the KJV mistake. LOL!
Now the reason scholars know the punctuation is in the wrong place, is because of the last part of the passage. "As the law says". Except for in no place does it say in the law, that women should not speak, not even in the synagogue. So Paul is likely quoting someone, and being sarcastic. I was in an Orthodox synagogue two years ago when I took Hebrew, and the women talked to each other, and to the men over the barriers separating the men from the women. They obviously had never heard of a law prohibiting women from speaking either! So those are what are fondly known as "the two disputed passages." Of course, there are other texts, but I have been through all of them with a fine tooth comb, and none of them has any validity restricting women from ministry. Or that a man has "authority over a women" at all! There are those pesky Roman household and Greek household codes, which Paul and Peter both try to use to have people be better witnesses to the surrounding cultures, but even if you want to go with marriage roles (which I do not- they are part of the Fall, not redeemed and saved people!) there is simply no biblical basis for any man having authority over every woman.
Really, what it boils down to, is looking closely at who has "pasa exousia", all authority! And that is Christ!
"And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt 28:18
-
2
-
2
- Show all
As for all the people blaming Eve, perhaps they need to read their Bibles more?
"So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed." Romans 5:12-14
Clearly, Paul is blaming Adam for sin. Now, I am not saying Eve did not sin! She was deceived, having heard the command second hand! And certainly, the serpent tricked her!
"Now the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the LordGod had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." Gen. 3:1-7
"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.” Gen. 3:8-13
Adam refused to acknowledge his guilt, and blamed Eve, who at least had the decency to confess honestly what she had done.
Eve confessed her sin, Adam did not. If he was supposed to be the leader, he should have stood steadfast and not eaten of the fruit himself. I'm not sure how that would have worked out theologically for the future, but the fact is, Adam was told directly by God, and then he blamed Eve, instead of confessing. That is a double sin - eating and directly disobeying God, and then refusing to confess his sin. At the very least, Adam should have confessed his sin, which he never did! Some headship!
So, I do see Eve as complicit in the garden. It is OBVIOUS!! But what is not so obvious, is that she willingly confessed to eating the fruit, even though she had only heard the command second hand from Adam (I'm assuming, since it is not directly written in the Bible, because she did appear to know that she was not supposed to eat the fruit). And really, if she started the Fall, Adam certainly sealed the deal with his disobedience and lack of confession.
"To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’" Gen. 3:17 and the following verses contain his curse. (The curses of the woman are in verse 16) Notice once again, God is telling Adam that he commanded ADAM (not Eve) in this verse. Technically the woman was not commanded by God, thus the references to her being only deceived, not directly disobedient.
"So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed." Romans 5:12-14
Clearly, Paul is blaming Adam for sin. Now, I am not saying Eve did not sin! She was deceived, having heard the command second hand! And certainly, the serpent tricked her!
"Now the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the LordGod had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." Gen. 3:1-7
"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.” Gen. 3:8-13
Adam refused to acknowledge his guilt, and blamed Eve, who at least had the decency to confess honestly what she had done.
Eve confessed her sin, Adam did not. If he was supposed to be the leader, he should have stood steadfast and not eaten of the fruit himself. I'm not sure how that would have worked out theologically for the future, but the fact is, Adam was told directly by God, and then he blamed Eve, instead of confessing. That is a double sin - eating and directly disobeying God, and then refusing to confess his sin. At the very least, Adam should have confessed his sin, which he never did! Some headship!
So, I do see Eve as complicit in the garden. It is OBVIOUS!! But what is not so obvious, is that she willingly confessed to eating the fruit, even though she had only heard the command second hand from Adam (I'm assuming, since it is not directly written in the Bible, because she did appear to know that she was not supposed to eat the fruit). And really, if she started the Fall, Adam certainly sealed the deal with his disobedience and lack of confession.
"To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’" Gen. 3:17 and the following verses contain his curse. (The curses of the woman are in verse 16) Notice once again, God is telling Adam that he commanded ADAM (not Eve) in this verse. Technically the woman was not commanded by God, thus the references to her being only deceived, not directly disobedient.
-
1
- Show all
Uh oh...is angela teaching..??? 
No, say it isn't so! And besides the fact that I might be teaching, (not going to commit to it), I am going to get a verbal tongue lashing and no one will actually refute what I wrote.
So tedious, some days!
-
1
- Show all
I really don't have a particular doctrine regarding this. I do believe, as in every word in the bible, that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write what he did Also, it is apparent to me that Paul, on certain matters is indeed offering his own unique point of view, but this too is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Personally, I see no issue whatsoever for a woman to teach and preach the Word of God, especially so if she is being led by the Holy Spirit to do so. If she is indeed being led by the Holy Spirit to do these things then there really is no argument that can be made to persuade her to do otherwise.
-
2
- Show all
Paul doesn't permit women to wear pants to church either, and it goes without saying that there are no musical instruments there because the bible does not say specifically that this is alright even though in the Psalms there was songs of praise using all kinds of instruments. Apparently, a woman's place is in the home in submission to her husband, slaving away on a hot stove while he's chilling on the couch watching TV.
-
1
- Show all
I know I just discussed this with you elsewhere angela, but it was just really neat to read your post #163 and my post on the spirit of the words, and to find that He took you (a scholar) and me, (an unlearned woman) by a different way to the same agreement. He didn't show me the greek at all and yet we arrived at the same place. He's just awesome!
-
2
- Show all
What epistle verse has Paul saying he doesn't permit women to wear pants in church?
"This then is what I mean. Let your lives be guided by the Spirit, and then you will certainly not indulge the cravings of your lower natures." Galatians 5:16
We're judged by the work we do that is of God. Not by the clothing we wear.
"This then is what I mean. Let your lives be guided by the Spirit, and then you will certainly not indulge the cravings of your lower natures." Galatians 5:16
We're judged by the work we do that is of God. Not by the clothing we wear.
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.
-
2
- Show all
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.
"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.
Not certain what you are asking? The church did not exist until the NT. Israel was apostate at that time and has remained in that state ever since.
The early church had sects that were plagued with internal rebellion against Gods word. The church today is not better but probably worse due to cultural influences.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The early church had sects that were plagued with internal rebellion against Gods word. The church today is not better but probably worse due to cultural influences.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
