Woman should not teach or assume authority over men (applies to secular????)

[Calmador]

If people interpret it to mean that women cannot have any authority over men in any setting, that would mean that no women would be able to have a job unless only women were employed in that setting. Why? Because eventually a woman would be over a man.

That seems to perpetuate inequality between men and women, and I think that interpretation goes beyond what the passage in Scripture is talking about.

That would also mean that all women who post on this forum would have to be quiet, and just silently read posts, or that we should just post in all women forums. Otherwise a man might read our posts and we might "teach" them something....

So, part of the question is how far is too far. How far do you take this?

Or maybe there is no such thing as too far... that is that this is absolutely how it should be. In somethings there is a too far or not far enough and what determines that is the word WHEN. When I've reached this line... I've gone too far. Lust might be a good example... When I look at a woman, is that okay? Well, only when I'm not lusting... when I do lust then I've looked too far.... and in other things... there is just this is how it should ALWAYS be or NEVER be.

I think this might be an always because genesis has me convinced that men ought to lead.

Also, from what I can tell, women generally don't exactly seek professions of high position and more so seek service and social positions that they would enjoy. I remember reading an article on that.

 

[CWJ]

Hello again,

What about in a forum situation like this? Should the same rules apply do you think, as spoken by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:12? Should women have input in matters of doctrine in a forum situation? I have taken part in a forum where it was suggested this should be so.

 

[Calmador]

Why? Because women are just sitting in a corner drooling into a cup? God would not have wasted His time giving some women great minds for business, politics, law, etc. if we weren't meant to use them.

The drooling cup comment doesn't help you. It hurts your character and credibility and of course that's not what I think. I think women can work as Proverbs 31 shows but as of now, I think men ought to lead everywhere.

 

[Misty77]

I believe the Proverbs 31 woman had a business. I just don't think women should have authority over men.

God commanded Abraham to obey his wife regarding Hagar and Ishmael.

Zipporah stepped in and circumcised her sons when her husband wouldn't do it, even though they were facing possible death because of it.

Deborah had authority over men.

Esther was placed in her position as queen by God to deliver His people. A queen is a political figure.

Anna served in the temple for decades and told every person (male and female) about what she witnessed about Christ.

Mary commanded the men at the wedding in Cana to obey her Son who submitted to His mother's request. If Jesus can submit to a woman, it must not be a sinful, wrong, or unwise thing to do.

Women were the first to witness and testify about the resurrection. Women were not prohibited from giving testimony, prophesying, and speaking in tongues in the early church.

Lydia was a wealthy merchant, so of course she was telling men what to do and making transactions with men.

Priscilla taught Paul just the same as her husband did. Then Apollos was also taught by BOTH Priscilla and Acquilla. The fact there her name was specifically mentioned means that she was equally influential. Just think of how many men are named in the Bible, but their wives are not. And Priscilla's name comes before her husband's just as many times as his comes before hers. In our culture, we will frequetntly say "Bob & Sue" as often as we say "Sue & Bob" so we miss how important it is that Priscilla is specifically addressed and that her name often comes before her husband's. (Acts 18)

 

[Les]

Why is this even a question? There were women of God in Scripture who played important roles, but that aside, if the Spirit comes upon a woman for her to speak a word in season, a prophecy, a teaching, who are we to question? Discernment should apply as with all who speak on our Lord's behalf, but to limit a woman because she is a woman is absurd if God wants to use her for whatever.

 

[Misty77]

The drooling cup comment doesn't help you. It hurts your character and credibility and of course that's not what I think. I think women can work as Proverbs 31 shows but as of now, I think men ought to lead everywhere.

It's a literary device called hyperbole, which is a purposeful exaggeration to emphasize a point. Academics and intellectuals understand that.

 

[Calmador]

Do you honestly think that women are more easily deceived and seduced by erroneous doctrine than men are?

I would venture to guess that there are just as many men who have been deceived and seduced by erroneous doctrine as women. If you look at the plethora of false teachers out there, most of them are men (probably because there are more men in the ministry than women). Are there some false teachers who are women? Of course there are.

What should a married woman do if she sees that her husband is being deceived? Should she confront him on it, or should she be silent and just say nothing? This does happen.

I think the problem of churches getting off has more to do with the fact that they are abandoning sound doctrine, not that they have allowed women into the ministry.

That actually may be the very reason why men should be in authority...

[h=3]1 Timothy 2:12-15[/h]


[SUP]12 [/SUP]But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And considering, women tend to lean more into liberal-minded thinking, even Christian women.... I think it has support.

 

[Calmador]

That is an interesting difference between the two?

Judges 4:4 (NIV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading[1] {Traditionally judging} Israel at that time.

The it is with the NOTE linked to the word leading. I wonder why they chose to Translate it that way? Could it be a reference to the fact that she DID lead Israel into the Battle, and on to Victory? Actually the only reason she did that, is the Commanding General turned into a total WIMP. If you don't count the will of GOD and the face that HE remained in TOTAL control, that is.

I'd have to find out what it really means.


However, in genesis when all things were perfect in the Garden of Eden, Adam was in charge Eve. Adam named Eve which shows authority and he was blamed for sin entering into the world, through one man Adam cam sin and through one man, Jesus Christ sin goes away. I think that's more powerful.

 

[Calmador]

It's a literary device called hyperbole, which is a purposeful exaggeration to emphasize a point. Academics and intellectuals understand that.

Passive insult... I'm done talking with you. God Bless

 

[Calmador]

Hello again,

What about in a forum situation like this? Should the same rules apply do you think, as spoken by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:12? Should women have input in matters of doctrine in a forum situation? I have taken part in a forum where it was suggested this should be so.

I think men and women can talk. Just not teach and take authority over men. Scripture as far as I know does make a difference between men and children so women can still teach children.

 

[Misty77]

That actually may be the very reason why men should be in authority...

1 Timothy 2:12-15




[SUP]12 [/SUP]But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And considering, women tend to lean more into liberal-minded thinking, even Christian women.... I think it has support.

That is speaking of Eve the individual and has no precedence to be applied to women in general.

 

[Misty77]

Passive insult... I'm done talking with you. God Bless

No insult was intended. It is simply a matter of fact.

 

[Misty77]

I'd have to find out what it really means.


However, in genesis when all things were perfect in the Garden of Eden, Adam was in charge Eve. Adam named Eve which shows authority and he was blamed for sin entering into the world, through one man Adam cam sin and through one man, Jesus Christ sin goes away. I think that's more powerful.

He named her. Period. She was never his ward.

 

[Rachel20]

If people interpret it to mean that women cannot have any authority over men in any setting, that would mean that no women would be able to have a job unless only women were employed in that setting. Why? Because eventually a woman would be over a man.

That seems to perpetuate inequality between men and women, and I think that interpretation goes beyond what the passage in Scripture is talking about.

That would also mean that all women who post on this forum would have to be quiet, and just silently read posts, or that we should just post in all women forums. Otherwise a man might read our posts and we might "teach" them something....

So, part of the question is how far is too far. How far do you take this?

This might be too far, but not so far in such a line of thinking.

 

[Rachel20]

Also, from what I can tell, women generally don't exactly seek professions of high position and more so seek service and social positions that they would enjoy. I remember reading an article on that.

Oh please do share. Never heard of this.

Are they very good in making sandwiches?

T.

And considering, women tend to lean more into liberal-minded thinking, even Christian women.... I think it has support.

Do they make sandwiches liberally?

 

[Misty77]

Or maybe there is no such thing as too far...

That's scary.

I think this might be an always because genesis has me convinced that men ought to lead.

And if you read Genesis in the light of the other 65 books, you might get a more complete picture of how people of both genders can please God. Which makes me ask, why are you so concerned about a woman's place. You are not female. Each individual's primary concern should be their own status with God while encouraging (not boxing in) believers around them. I can only conclude that you think women to be incapable of searching scripture for themselves or of yielding to the leading of the spirit.

Also, from what I can tell, women generally don't exactly seek professions of high position and more so seek service and social positions that they would enjoy. I remember reading an article on that.

I read a similar study. It's not that women generally don't do something; it's that more women will tend to choose one over the other. There is a difference.

 

[Praus]

...........

Oh please do share. Never heard of this.

Are they very good in making sandwiches?



Do they make sandwiches liberally?

View attachment 69404

 

[Praus]

This might be too far, but not so far in such a line of thinking.

.........

 

[Rachel20]

View attachment 69407
.........

..............

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Or maybe there is no such thing as too far... that is that this is absolutely how it should be. In somethings there is a too far or not far enough and what determines that is the word WHEN. When I've reached this line... I've gone too far. Lust might be a good example... When I look at a woman, is that okay? Well, only when I'm not lusting... when I do lust then I've looked too far.... and in other things... there is just this is how it should ALWAYS be or NEVER be.

I think this might be an always because genesis has me convinced that men ought to lead.

If the examples I gave in the quote you were replying to are not taking things far enough...what about these situations here:

Okay, what about when a single woman finds herself in a church in which the leadership of the church is clearly taking the church in a direction that is unsound? For example, let's say that the church starts to embrace heresy, what should the woman do? Should she just leave the church without saying anything to anyone? Without trying to warn anyone? Or should she just continue going to the church because men are in the leadership position?

What if a woman is married to an abusive man. Should she remain silent, and just endure the abuse? Or is she allowed to speak out against it?

Should women only talk to other women and also to children, but remain silent whenever a man is present? (I'm talking about social settings here). Like, for example, should women enter a church building and say nothing to anyone...just go quietly to their seats, sit through the service, and then leave, without speaking to anyone who is not a woman or child? Or should she not say anything unless she can be sure that only other woman or children are in hearing range? A man might overhear her, and then she might accidentally teach him something.

In marriage, should the wife remain completely silent unless her husband addresses her and asks her to do something, or asks for her opinion on something, or whatever?

In all of these situations a woman might be said to "teach" a man something.

If there is no line, then we can keep getting more and more extreme until we reach the conclusion that a woman should not speak at all, if a man is present.

Somehow, I do not think that this is God's intent...

Also, from what I can tell, women generally don't exactly seek professions of high position and more so seek service and social positions that they would enjoy. I remember reading an article on that.

Not all women are the same. They have different interests and talents, just as men do.