Are women allowed to Preach?

[Grace777x70]

The bible also says this too...so it looks like we are all doomed!...we are all blotted out of God's book because we have all sinned....

Exodus 32:33 (NASB)
[SUP]33 [/SUP] The LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.

Maybe we have to use other scriptures and contextual relevance into play?..just sayin'

 

[Gr8grace]

It doesn't matter who the indictment is on, I just know the bible plainly says a woman is not to teach and that's all that matters.

But its kinda nice to know why right? Don't ya ask questions or wonder?

On the surface it seems quite unreasonable of God to not allow a woman to teach a man bible doctrine. So why?

Because men are idiots and will choose the woman even if we KNOW she is wrong. Simple as that.

Adam was NOT DECEIVED and chose the woman.

 

[KJV1611]

Where does it say that Prisca taught men?

I'm not sure that Priscilla even taught him, but people use this verse to "prove" it's ok for women to teach and preach.

Acts 18:26 KJV
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them , and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

 

[Grace777x70]

it has to do with customs ...of a particular church has for whatever reason...

for example I heard about the women having a "covering over their head" needed for the Corinthians in their cultural setting because the temple prostitutes had shaved heads to show they were prostitutes.

Some were getting saved so out of love Paul asked the women to all wear a covering so that the prostitutes that came to be believers would not stand out in shame of their former lives..

Love covers .....

What does the churches of God having no custom regarding hair length have to do with a woman teaching a man?

 

[Gr8grace]

I'm not sure that Priscilla even taught him, but people use this verse to "prove" it's ok for women to teach and preach.

Acts 18:26 KJV
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them , and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

I am with you. People use that verse to try to say dogmatically that Prisca taught men. Thats pretty far fetched IMO.

The family is one of Gods divine institutions and he isn't breaking the leadership role up in a family.

 

[Dino246]

.
women can't teach because 1) the man was made first and 2)the woman was decieved, not the man.

1 Timothy 2:13-14 KJV
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I would like to question your logic here: does it make sense to restrict ALL women from preaching simply because Adam was formed before Eve? By itself, is that a logical reason? If so, what is the connection? Let's have some thoughtful discussion on this, so please don't just slough it off and reply, "That's what the Bible says."

Similarly, though Eve was deceived, how does that influence every other woman? And if ever having been deceived is a disqualification for preaching, then nobody, male or female, qualifies. Again, by itself, is this a logical reason to restrict all other women? (After all, Adam sinned; would that not disqualify every man as well?)

I suspect your first answer will be, 'it must be logical, because that's what God said'. I'll invite you to press into the question a little harder; God won't get offended.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing what the Bible says. Rather, I'm questioning the logic in your interpretation of these verses. I contest that connecting the verses with an implicit 'because' creates two illogical assertions, and so there may another reason why Paul makes these statements after his restriction.

 

[KJV1611]

it has to do with customs ...of a particular church has for whatever reason...

for example I heard about the women having a "covering over their head" needed for the Corinthians in their cultural setting because the temple prostitutes had shaved heads to show they were prostitutes.

Some were getting saved so out of love Paul asked the women to all wear a covering so that the prostitutes that came to be believers would not stand out in shame of their former lives..

Love covers .....

Why do you feel the need to change what the bible says? I mean do you feel discriminated against because God chose for women not to teach a man, do you feel God made you lesser... I truly don't understand why you and others with the same opinion as yours can't accept the plainly written and easy to understand words of the bible.

 

[Dino246]

Sure there's scriptural support... 1 Timothy states plainly that a woman is not to teach a man. Did Priscilla teach a man? Of course she did the bible says she did.

You haven't addressed the latter part of my post... the part where Paul clearly places Priscilla (an alleged wrong-doer) above her husband by naming her first... four times. Please explain this.

 

[KJV1611]

I would like to question your logic here: does it make sense to restrict ALL women from preaching simply because Adam was formed before Eve? By itself, is that a logical reason? If so, what is the connection? Let's have some thoughtful discussion on this, so please don't just slough it off and reply, "That's what the Bible says."

Similarly, though Eve was deceived, how does that influence every other woman? And if ever having been deceived is a disqualification for preaching, then nobody, male or female, qualifies. Again, by itself, is this a logical reason to restrict all other women? (After all, Adam sinned; would that not disqualify every man as well?)

I suspect your first answer will be, 'it must be logical, because that's what God said'. I'll invite you to press into the question a little harder; God won't get offended.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing what the Bible says. Rather, I'm questioning the logic in your interpretation of these verses. I contest that connecting the verses with an implicit 'because' creates two illogical assertions, and so there may another reason why Paul makes these statements after his restriction.

Sure... but keep in mind I'm not God and can't speak for Him as to why he does one thing verses another, but I can give you my opinion.

Typologically speaking, the man is a forshadow of Christ and the woman is a foreshadow of the church. God made this shadow for a reason.... to show heavenly things through the lives of human beings on earth. So following the shadow of heavenly things, the church doesn't teach or usrup authority over Christ.

My plane is taking off... have to leave.

 

[KJV1611]

You haven't addressed the latter part of my post... the part where Paul clearly places Priscilla (an alleged wrong-doer) above her husband by naming her first... four times. Please explain this.

The verses don't say anything about a "husband" it says not to teach a man.... husband is not in the verse.

 

[Grace777x70]

I just don't believe it....sometimes the King Jimmie bible translates words to the culture in 1611 as mandated by the King according to the church and society structure of the day...and also the scriptures must be viewed by the Holy Spirit giving "revelation" in matters....

Why do you feel the need to change what the bible says? I mean do you feel discriminated against because God chose for women not to teach a man, do you feel God made you lesser... I truly don't understand why you and others with the same opinion as yours can't accept the plainly written and easy to understand words of the bible.

 

[Grace777x70]

Safe flight brother! God bless you!

Sure... but keep in mind I'm not God and can't speak for Him as to why he does one thing verses another, but I can give you my opinion.

Typologically speaking, the man is a forshadow of Christ and the woman is a foreshadow of the church. God made this shadow for a reason.... to show heavenly things through the lives of human beings on earth. So following the shadow of heavenly things, the church doesn't teach or usrup authority over Christ.

My plane is taking off... have to leave.

 

[coby]

According to 1 Timothy 2:12 Priscilla went AGAINST the word of God. Just because someone does something in the bible doesn't make what the person did right. I mean geez was it OK for Abraham to go against God and sleep with Hagar? Of course not. Priscilla went against the word of God... she was in the wrong.

1 Timothy 2:12 KJV
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

She can't take authority over her own man. And I believe neither over a group of men in church. If she teaches she must be humble. Jesus only spoke what the Father said. If a woman does that, then who is speaking? The daughters of Philip prophesied, they weren't literally silent. Literally silent was about those women who yelled over the fedge to ask their husbands what he meant.
God once gave me a preaching when I was married to a pastor. He believed women could also preach if the husband was okay with it. You can't go against your own husband. I didn't want to so he preached the message lol. It was from God, otherwise he never listened to me lol. Being totally silent literally to your own husband doesn't make much sense if he asks you where his socks are. And an unmarried woman like Corrie ten Boom could preach. Why not? She was humble. It was from God. Control is just always wrong. Then the devil is in charge.

 

[Gr8grace]

You haven't addressed the latter part of my post... the part where Paul clearly places Priscilla (an alleged wrong-doer) above her husband by naming her first... four times. Please explain this.

She may have been advancing in the application of doctrine above her husband? She may have been more spiritually mature in other words.

Or it may have been the fact that Prisca was Akillians. a great Roman aristocratic family. Her husband was exiled from Rome and she went with him, they bought a home in Corinth and started a church. When they moved back to Rome , they had a church in Rome( their mansion) and also had a home(church) in Ephesus. She had wealth and influence. But most of all, she was a mature believer.

 

[KJV1611]

I just don't believe it....sometimes the King Jimmie bible translates words to the culture in 1611 as mandated by the King according to the church and society structure of the day...and also the scriptures must be viewed by the Holy Spirit giving "revelation" in matters....

Well that's not exactly true, the modern NIV translation says the same thing. It's not a KJV thing or a cultural thing, it's just how God wants things to be. Why not just accept it?


[h=1]1 Timothy 2:11-14New International Version (NIV)[/h]11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

[Grace777x70]

Because it is not consistent with the rest of scripture that talks about there is no difference between male and female in Christ.. The many instances where females did have roles of leadership...and the fact that scripture must be taken in it's cultural setting...if not you should also say that women should not wear gold or braid their hair...wear any costly garments..whatever that means....that is just stupid legalism at it's finest without taking the context into the scripture....

The scripture below is just before the keep silent one in verse 11...personally I love to hear the grace of Christ being taught no matter if it's a woman or a man..I don't not get any inward witness from the Holy Spirit that it is wrong..also I was never taught that in my religious upbringing so I don't have that as a stronghold in my mind either...so my mind is free to be renewed with God's word from all people..male or female..

1 Timothy 2:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

This scripture below applies to every man-made tradition that "appears" to be based on the scripture...but it invalids the true intent of the word of God.
Matthew 15:6 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Well that's not exactly true, the modern NIV translation says the same thing. It's not a KJV thing or a cultural thing, it's just how God wants things to be. Why not just accept it?


1 Timothy 2:11-14New International Version (NIV)

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

[Grace777x70]

One thing I noticed in studying that in Ephesians 5:22 and in 5:21 are the same Greek word....in essence the man is to be "subject" to the woman just as the woman is to the man.....now what does the word "subject" actually mean?..that's another topic..

Ephesians 5:22 (NASB)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:20-21 (NASB)
[SUP]20 [/SUP] always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father;
[SUP]21 [/SUP] and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

Now...if women are preaching and wearing pants at the same time ...that is a different story.. in that case.....the earth will definitely open up and swallow them

 

[Dino246]

The verses don't say anything about a "husband" it says not to teach a man.... husband is not in the verse.

You've either overlooked or dodged my question. You assert just by quoting 1 Tim 2:12 that Priscilla is a wrong-doer. Why would Paul repeatedly name a woman (who committed the allegedly heinous act of teaching a man) in a positive context? There is no evidence of Paul rebuking her specifically, or of her repenting, for teaching Apollos. Again I ask, please explain (without using circular reasoning).

 

[KJV1611]

You haven't addressed the latter part of my post... the part where Paul clearly places Priscilla (an alleged wrong-doer) above her husband by naming her first... four times. Please explain this.

I really don't follow your question, are you trying to say that Priscilla being mentioned before Aquila in a sentence means that she has authority over him? Isn't more sensible to believe the plainly written words "a woman is not to teach or usurp authority over the man" rather than to assume the woman being mentioned first in a sentence makes her the authority? That's cut and dry... it requires no interpretation or guessing.

 

[PeterJens]

To my mind Paul is correct. Women of his day did not read or write, lived in the home and worked bringing up children or as servants. If you wanted analytical of trained thought using men was mainly your only choice.

Today men and women are equal in education and ability to teach, handle complex subjects and often deal with important issues in churches. If the posses the gift of teaching, then why not teach.

On the question of authority, it actually comes down to the issue and who is given the role to lead. Being sexist is often very short sighted because most churches are full of women because most of the gospel is about relationships and how to maintain them well, which men are often singularly poor at doing. Jesus's principle of authority or leadership is the leaders serve there people rather than dominate them.