woman preaachers

  • 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.
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
#41
I do not think the acquisition of truth can be obtained when our starting place is to question the legitimacy of scripture, especially those with which one disagrees.
I don't think the acquisition of truth can be obtained when we ignore truth GOD puts in front of our faces. I didn't go looking for a way to invalidate scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I was trying to figure out what Paul meant when he said the law says something the law doesn't say (verse 34). Now I know there is a good chance Paul didn't even write that, so that clears up the problem I was trying to resolve.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#42
I don't think the acquisition of truth can be obtained when we ignore truth GOD puts in front of our faces. I didn't go looking for a way to invalidate scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I was trying to figure out what Paul meant when he said the law says something the law doesn't say (verse 34). Now I know there is a good chance Paul didn't even write that, so that clears up the problem I was trying to resolve.
Let us just assume for the moment that the text is authentic. What precisely is it that you think Paul is saying when he refers to the Law in verse 34?
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
#43
Let us just assume for the moment that the text is authentic. What precisely is it that you think Paul is saying when he refers to the Law in verse 34?
I can't answer that question because of the facts that the law does not say that and I don't know of any instance where Paul wrote the law without meaning the law of Moses.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#44
I can't answer that question because of the facts that the law does not say that and I don't know of any instance where Paul wrote the law without meaning the law of Moses.
This is most popularly read as if saying that women are to keep silent just as the Law also says. Indeed, the Law never made such a statement. This however, is not at all what Paul said. What he said is "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." What Paul is referring to in the Law is that the women are to subject themselves. The argument from the Law shows the timelessness of this revealed principle. They are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” Revealed principles never change and they are never overturned. The mark of this subjection was their silence in the assembly.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
#45
This is most popularly read as if saying that women are to keep silent just as the Law also says. Indeed, the Law never made such a statement. This however, is not at all what Paul said. What he said is "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." What Paul is referring to in the Law is that the women are to subject themselves. The argument from the Law shows the timelessness of this revealed principle. They are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” Revealed principles never change and they are never overturned. The mark of this subjection was their silence in the assembly.
Where is that stated in the law?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#46
Where is that stated in the law?
It does not have to represent a direct statement. The principle is embedded all through the Law. This is not the only time we see in scripture were a principle is stated from the Law in the NT but no direct statement is made to the effect. Look at the priestly system. This was an exclusively male function. Even the arrangement of the temple displays the subordinate role of women.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#47
Paul also uses the appointed stewardship of the gospel to reinforce the symbolism. “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” If God had entrusted the woman with the gospel, of if she alone had received it, then this would have changed all the rules; But, she did not. God did not entrust the word of God to women, but to men. This has absolutely nothing to do with superior intelligence, abilities, talents, or skills. This is in keeping with the divinely established symbolism of both the man and the woman. For the woman to assume the role of the teacher or the preacher, she is refusing to acknowledge her assigned place in the revelation continuum. For the man to surrender his place in this revelation continuum to the woman destroys the symbolism of the hierarchy of authority.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
#48
It does not have to represent a direct statement. The principle is embedded all through the Law. This is not the only time we see in scripture were a principle is stated from the Law in the NT but no direct statement is made to the effect. Look at the priestly system. This was an exclusively male function. Even the arrangement of the temple displays the subordinate role of women.
I don't buy it. From what evidence we do have, Paul never communicated like that when referring to the law.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#49
I don't buy it. From what evidence we do have, Paul never communicated like that when referring to the law.
He did here. Besides, you cannot deny that principle is found throughout the OT. Even if you dismiss the Paul's reverence to the Law, you still have to contend with his following argument of the gospel not being entrusted to the woman.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
#50
He did here. Besides, you cannot deny that principle is found throughout the OT. Even if you dismiss the Paul's reverence to the Law, you still have to contend with his following argument of the gospel not being entrusted to the woman.
That's your opinion and belief that he wrote it. There is enough evidence in my mind to doubt that (which you are willfully choosing to ignore). Yes, GOD did entrust the gospel to men, but it's not a law as evidenced by the OT women who were entrusted with GOD's authority.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#51
That's your opinion and belief that he wrote it. There is enough evidence in my mind to doubt that (which you are willfully choosing to ignore). Yes, GOD did entrust the gospel to men, but it's not a law as evidenced by the OT women who were entrusted with GOD's authority.
One thing you have to understand, these two verses appear in EVERY complete mss we have of 1Corinthians, even if the order of verses is not the same. This in itself, is not sufficient evidence to claim it is an interpolation. There is no doubt of its authenticity. The reason such scrutiny is given to this text is not because of any legitimate textual evidence against it, but because of its content. People simply do not like what it says.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#52
That's your opinion and belief that he wrote it. There is enough evidence in my mind to doubt that (which you are willfully choosing to ignore). Yes, GOD did entrust the gospel to men, but it's not a law as evidenced by the OT women who were entrusted with GOD's authority.
What OT examples of women being entrusted with God's authority did you have in mind?
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
#53
One thing you have to understand, these two verses appear in EVERY complete mss we have of 1Corinthians, even if the order of verses is not the same. This in itself, is not sufficient evidence to claim it is an interpolation. There is no doubt of its authenticity. The reason such scrutiny is given to this text is not because of any legitimate textual evidence against it, but because of its content. People simply do not like what it says.
What OT examples of women being entrusted with God's authority did you have in mind?
The order is not the only evidence.

I have read that there is doubt about its authenticity.

The sword cuts both ways. There is vested interest in deflecting scrutiny because of its content. So I am not moved by such an argument
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#54
The order is not the only evidence.

I have read that there is doubt about its authenticity.

The sword cuts both ways. There is vested interest in deflecting scrutiny because of its content. So I am not moved by such an argument
Yes, you can find people who claim it is not authentic and by the same token, it does not make it suspect. All the evidence weighed pro and con, I believe the evidence to be profoundly and overwhelmingly in favor of its authenticity. Those who do not like what it says will typically grasp at any strays they can to try to discredit these verses. I see this same approach used with a lot of different verse with which people strongly disagree.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,660
10,824
113
#55
I am fairly confident that the words "if an ADULT MALE desire the office of a Bishop" <---translated from the Greek is clear enough......
That translation would be clear enough if the Greek had the word "aner" or "andros" where you have "adult male". However, it doesn't. The word is "tis", which is equivalent to "anyone".
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
2,193
463
83
#56
One thing you have to understand, these two verses appear in EVERY complete mss we have of 1Corinthians, even if the order of verses is not the same. This in itself, is not sufficient evidence to claim it is an interpolation.
But it certainly makes it suspect. Why, if it was original, would it be in different places?

There is no doubt of its authenticity.
There is indeed doubt of its authenticity.

The reason such scrutiny is given to this text is not because of any legitimate textual evidence against it, but because of its content. People simply do not like what it says.
That's true. Those two verses' content is strange, it raises red flags, and its out of place in the context of 1 Cor 14. In Christ, there is no male or female. What about the unmarried women? Are they to remain ignorant, unable to get their questions answered? What about women whose husbands are unable to answer their questions? Where is there any indication in the Bible that women thought the word of God came to them only?

In 1 Cor 14:29ff, Paul is talking about people prophesying in church (and not just men, BTW.. (Acts 2:17)). Leave vv34-35 out (rightfully) and the section of scripture flows perfectly.

29) Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30) If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31) For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32) And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
36) What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#57
In 1 Cor 14:29ff, Paul is talking about people prophesying in church (and not just men, BTW.. (Acts 2:17)). Leave vv34-35 out (rightfully) and the section of scripture flows perfectly.

29) Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30) If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31) For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32) And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
36) What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
It flows perfectly with it. Let me show you.
By oldhermit
“Therefore if the whole church assembles together (This is the condition that specifies and limits everything that follows) and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints, The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

1. Notice – the occasion / condition is if the whole church assembles together. The anyone of verse 27 is qualified by the he of verse 28 and has a limited application. This instruction is given to all the churches of the saints. In the context of the prophesying and tongues, the women are to keep silent and are not permitted to speak. Their subjection is to be self imposed – subject themselves. This is active, not passive they are to be self-subjecting, not having to be forced to be in subjection. Clarification for whatever questions they may have was to be addressed at home. Why? Because it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

2. “You now have me confused because 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 are the two chapters that talk about this. You say 1 Corinthians 14 talks about if you have a psalm, teaching, revelation, tongue, or interpretation that to give them in a edification manner. It does not say women are not permitted to do those things, women not speaking during church is not referred to tell verse 34 where they are shown as part of the congregation. Then in 1 Timothy, he says 'I do not permit.' He does not say God does not permit. Paul does this a lot in his teachings throwing in some of the old traditions in his teachings that the gentile believers are not held to. (No, he never does this.) When you read the scripture make sure they say, God or the Lord says this, and not 'I 'say this.”

a. In verses 26 regarding the speaking in tongues, revelation, psalms, and interpretation, Paul address the men saying, “each one,” this is nom, masc, sing – he is speaking to the men. In verse 27 he says, “if anyone,” this too is nom, masc, sing. This is then reinforced in verse 28 by “let him be silent...let him speak to himself.” All of this is in regard to the one who has “a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” In verse 29-33 Paul then address the issue of prophesying and in verses 33 and 34 commands the women to keep silent in this as well and not to speak because it is improper for them to do so.

b. Paul ends all of this by saying, these things are the Lord's commandment.”

 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#58
Generalized Principles from this Chapter.

Why is the submission of the woman such a big deal? Why does Paul spend so much time stressing this particular issue in so many different places? Contrary to popular belief, these two texts are not the only ones where Paul addresses the submission of women in the Church. If this is such a small matter as some argue, why is so much time dedicated to it?

What we learn about the woman's place in this hierarchy of authority is that she is the ultimate symbol of the Church and its relationship to God. I think most women either overlook this or just simply do not appreciate the significance of the symbolism of the woman in the Church. They do not seem to appreciate the fact that this is a most honored position. The woman's position in relation to man is designed to reflect the relationship of the Church to Christ.

The woman is the feminine in her relationship to man and in just the same way, the Church is always represented as feminine in its relationship to Christ. She is the bride just as the Church is the bride. Just as the Church must always assume the position of submission to its head – Christ, so also must the woman always assume the position of subordination to her head – the man; and this is the only position she is permitted to occupy. Man represents God and woman represents the Church. Scripture reveals a number of ways in which this symbolism is reflected such as the covering of the head while praying or prophesying, being silent in the assembly, not assuming authority over the man, not presuming to teach or preach in the assembly, and being excluded from serving as elders. When the woman fails to honor any of this, she violates the symbol.

A. Ephesians 5:22-32 speaks volumes about the symbolism of the woman.
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (This emphasizes the degree to which she is to be in submission.) For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, (This establishes the symbolism.) He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”(And this is an unqualified statement that offers NO exceptions.)

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' (She is one with man just as the Church is one with Christ.) This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.”

Because the woman occupies such an honored position in her symbolism she is to be the recipient of tenderness, love, nurturing, supreme sacrifice (the husband must be willing to die for her). Her husband is to cherish her and regard her as holy, spotless, and blameless. When the man fails to do this, he dishonors the symbolism. This his how Christ honors the Church so, this is how the husband is to honor the wife.

B. Timothy 2:9-15
1. “Likewise, women are to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.(A woman's beauty is not reflected in outward adornment but in her conduct, her behavior.) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”

Why is the woman to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness,” because of the symbolism, this is how the Church is to receive her instruction from the Lord – quietly, with entire submissiveness. The woman as the symbol of the Church must reflect this same attitude.

2. “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (How does she reflect the symbolism in this? Would the Church presume to instruct the Lord? Would the Church presume to exorcise authority over the Lord?) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” Restraint is to be self-imposed just as the Church is to exercise self-restraint in all things.

C. Titus 1:1-5
“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.” Her behavior must reflect that of the Church of which she stands as a symbol.

D. Corinthians 11:3-12
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,033
544
113
67
Texas
#59
E. 1Corinthians 14:24-36, “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?”

1. This is a reciprocal relationship. This defines a relationship in which duties and obligations are owed by one individual to another and vice versa. A reciprocal contract is one in which both parties enter into a mutual agreement. Paul presents the hierarchy of authority in this way...

God
|
Christ
|
Man
|
Woman

The hierarchy of authority flows in only one direction with authority flowing from God down to man, (authority never flows from the bottom up,) and obligation being given upward from man to God. Our obligation to God in this relationship represents a reciprocal of status in which God stipulates the meaning of terms and assigns his own meaning to revealed symbols. This reciprocal is never reversed. Man is never allowed to occupy the status of the woman and the woman is never allowed to occupy the status of the man. This was reflected in the issue of the head covering and the wearing of long hair. It is also reflected in the teaching and remaining silent. Our current society has absolutely destroyed the meaning of the woman as a symbol. Popular rationalism and human experience insists that the assigned symbolism of the woman in the Church is out of date, sexist, archaic, chauvinistic and evil. This prohibition is deemed unnecessarily burdensome upon women. It is regarded as unreasonable and irrational. Submission to this divine prohibition involves an act of faith. Violation of it then is necessarily an act of faithlessness. Society has so deteriorated that it no longer recognizes the honored position of the woman. In fact, society has become so depraved that it doesn't even know which bathroom to use any more. Yet, they regard themselves as the enlightened ones.

By refusing to acknowledge the revealed status by refusing to be in submission, (which Paul says is exemplified here in her remaining silent in the assembly) violates this status. The woman is seen here as the terminus symbol. In this hierarchy of authority, she is the final link of symbolism which in reality represents the whole. When she refuses to render submission, she steps out of this reciprocal and out of revealed symbolism.

2. This status is stipulated by God who is the ultimate governing authority. God has designated the symbolism in this way...
Male/husband = “image and glory of God.”
Woman/wife = “glory of man.”
The argument from the Law shows the timelessness of this revealed principle. They are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” Revealed principles never change and they are never overturned.

Paul uses the appointed stewardship of the gospel to reinforce the symbolism. “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” If God had entrusted woman with the gospel, of if she alone had received, then this would have changed all the rules; But, he did not. God did not entrust the word of God to women, but to men. This has absolutely nothing to do with superior intelligence, abilities, talents, or skills. This is in keeping with the divinely established symbolism of both the man and the woman. For the woman to assume the role of the teacher or the preacher, she is refusing to acknowledge her assigned place in the revelation continuum. For the man to surrender his place in this revelation continuum to the woman destroys the symbolism of the hierarchy of authority.

F. Resistance
DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE REVEALED MEANING OF SYMBOLS, not by personal preference nor by social norms. Revelation must be allowed to burden our behavior and this is not related to society or culture nor is it controlled by time.

The source of contention in verses 37-38 is not revelation. It is human reason that attempts to assign its own meaning to revealed symbols. “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is to be ignored.”
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,660
10,824
113
#60
...

Paul presents the hierarchy of authority in this way...

God
|
Christ
|
Man
|
Woman
Um, no, he doesn't. That is an interpretation of Paul's words. Here is what he presents:

Christ is the head of every man

The man is the head of a woman (note the articles!)

God is the head of Christ

Taking this and making what you gave is forcing an interpretation on it. Yours is one interpretation, not necessarily the only valid one.
It does not follow from Paul's phrasing that "man" (generally) has authority over "woman" (generally).