Are women allowed to Preach?

[Waggles]

Despite 62 pages of debate and 1,240 posts
it is still NO

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

If I have offended anyone, then I apologize. For I have only brought you the "true word" in an effort to help you.

You enjoy Lording it over women obviously. That's impression you have left of yourself.

 

[Bladerunner]

You enjoy Lording it over women obviously. That's impression you have left of yourself.

Lucy....for the absence of a woman I would not be here..Women are needed and can preach to other women and children....Yes, they cannot by God's law teach other men or become part of the hierarchy of a congregation. Yet, they are the Backbone of Everything we hold dear.

 

[wolfwint]

I am not offended, nor have I found your "true word" helpful or true.

Then you are maby not open for it? The scripture is clear!

 

[wolfwint]

Despite 62 pages of debate and 1,240 posts
it is still NO

The first time I agree with you

 

[Dino246]

If you have proof, then show me the verse where Paul said women could preach in the church.

Double fallacy: burden of proof reversal and argument from silence.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

There was no anger there. It has been you and others resorting to insults out of anger. The proof of this is on the pages. People who tell truth get persecuted, just like you people have persecuted me. More truth in Bible prophesy.

I noticed you cannot think of snappy answers unless you are hurling Bible verses at women or a man that takes exception to your type of conduct

you are not persecuted

move to Iran and put a big 'I am a Christian' sign on your door and start handing out Bibles

then come back and say you are persecuted

 

[Dino246]

I have always maintained that Ruckman, Riplinger etc. represent the LUNATIC FRINGE. I have also recommended that all the naysayers read and study The King James Bible Defended by Edward F. Hills (a genuine scholar). However, this is another tangent which did not need to be brought up in this thread. Pure obfuscation.

Again, your recommendations to read Hills are darkly tainted by your rude and insulting refusal to read James White. Please, understand that intellectual integrity demands that one give both sides of a matter fair hearing, even if one is inclined to read the "other side" with thick skepticism.

Getting back to the subject, it does not matter which English translation you use. All the passages pertaining to role of women within the home and within the local church say the same thing. And they are plain enough so that they DO NOT NEED ANY INTERPRETATION (hermeneutic flim-flam). Let's take one example (1 Cor 14:34):

What you so unnecessarily toss aside as "hermeneutic flim-flam" is sound principles of interpretation taught at good Bible schools and seminaries.

Whether a passage is clear to you is absolutely irrelevant to anyone else. I don't accept your assertion that this particular passage is "clear" simply because there is no Law in the OT that clearly states that women are to be silent and/or in subjection. Further, it is at least equally clear that Paul allows women to speak in chapter 11. Either chapter 11 is wrong, or your understanding of chapter 14 is wrong.

I have already addressed your understanding of Genesis 3 in another post; perhaps you didn't see it.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

If you have proof, then show me the verse where Paul said women could preach in the church.

just like I said

no answer

just distancing from any truthful engagement or actual response

 

[7seasrekeyed]

If you have proof, then show me the verse where Paul said women could preach in the church.

don't you have the entire chapter of I Corinthians 14 in your Bible?

you did exactly as I said you would

seems I have your number...well I think most of us do

no actual engagement when someone actually posts a thorough rebuttal to your opinions

if you have proof you can actually digest such a thing, we are waiting for your comments

zzzzzzzzzz.......

 

[7seasrekeyed]

You enjoy Lording it over women obviously. That's impression you have left of yourself.

I disagree

my impression is that no matter how hard he tries he just can't lord it over women so he is...uh...perturbed x 21

sitting behind our computers and all...he can't even make us leave the room so the men folk can enjoy their manliness

 

[Dino246]

"The Law" can mean many things depending on the context -- anywhere from all of Scripture to just the Ten Commandments. Most commentators believe that Paul is referring to Genesis 3:16 which generically states that men will rule over women (Adam to rule over Eve).

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Strong's Concordance

mashal: to rule, have dominion, reign
​

Original Word: מָשַׁל
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: mashal
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-shal')
Short Definition: rule

Brown-Driver-Briggs
III. מָשַׁל verb rule, have dominion, reign(Late Hebrew Participle id.; Phoenician משל); —

1 human subject, rule, have dominion over (בְּ) Genesis 3:16; Genesis 4:7; Genesis 24:2 (all J),Genesis 45:8,26

Genesis 3:16 is not a command; it is a statement of certain consequence. Therefore it cannot be the verse to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 14:34. If it were a command, then a woman in labour taking pain relief would be sinning. If it were a command, it would have been given to Adam as "You shall rule over your wife". Nowhere else (that I can think of offhand) is a command given second-hand like this.

There is another reason why this cannot be what Paul is referencing: it says, "your husband shall rule over you"... singular, not corporate, within the context of marriage, not culture and certainly not the church.

Paul's entire message is freedom from the Law found in Christ. It is ludicrous to suggest that he would enforce an Old Covenant command upon the church.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Originally Posted by Nehemiah6

"The Law" can mean many things depending on the context -- anywhere from all of Scripture to just the Ten Commandments. Most commentators believe that Paul is referring to Genesis 3:16 which generically states that men will rule over women (Adam to rule over Eve).

I can't believe you wrote this nehemiah

really

a new low for this forum and it comes from someone I respected

this is just bunk and a sad attempt to make your personal point

 

[UnderGrace]

This was such an "aha" moment for me, when I understood this was a statement of consequence.

I really appreciate it coming from a man...Thank You!!!

Genesis 3:16 is not a command; it is a statement of certain consequence. Therefore it cannot be the verse to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 14:34. If it were a command, then a woman in labour taking pain relief would be sinning. If it were a command, it would have been given to Adam as "You shall rule over your wife". Nowhere else (that I can think of offhand) is a command given second-hand like this.

There is another reason why this cannot be what Paul is referencing: it says, "your husband shall rule over you"... singular, not corporate, within the context of marriage, not culture and certainly not the church.

Paul's entire message is freedom from the Law found in Christ. It is ludicrous to suggest that he would enforce an Old Covenant command upon the church.

 

[loyaldisciple]

I noticed you cannot think of snappy answers unless you are hurling Bible verses at women or a man that takes exception to your type of conduct

you are not persecuted

move to Iran and put a big 'I am a Christian' sign on your door and start handing out Bibles

then come back and say you are persecuted

Your rhetoric is a form of persecution right there. Maybe someday, but for now the U.S. doesn't force Christians to leave.

 

[loyaldisciple]

just like I said

no answer

just distancing from any truthful engagement or actual response

It is obvious who is "distancing" and it is you. Those who agree with the Bible have already provided proof for their position numerous times. It is you that cannot offer any biblical proof for your position.

 

[loyaldisciple]

I disagree

my impression is that no matter how hard he tries he just can't lord it over women so he is...uh...perturbed x 21

sitting behind our computers and all...he can't even make us leave the room so the men folk can enjoy their manliness

It is the BIBLE and the true word of God that has Lorded over you ladies. Can't you see that. Just look at your Bibles and read 1 Corinthians 14:34-14:35. It is clear enough you should be able to understand it.

 

[UnderGrace]

Sadly, people have used this approach "it is so clearly stated" to say God is okay with slavery too.

It is the BIBLE and the true word of God that has Lorded over you ladies. Can't you see that. Just look at your Bibles and read 1 Corinthians 14:34-14:35. It is clear enough you should be able to understand it.

 

[DJ2]

just like I said

no answer

just distancing from any truthful engagement or actual response

You expect an answer?? Are you not the author of:

oh

you are one of those 'answer my question' game players

I don't see you rushing to answer any questions.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I can't believe you wrote this nehemiah

I said "most commentators" reference this verse. Check them all out. Perhaps there are other verses which can also be applied. However, here is John Gill's commentary, and others also present the same argument.

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.