Are Women Not Allowed to Preach in Every Case?

[Dino246]

You are both right.
Yes I agree with @Dino246 that the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20 tells us that ".....holy men spoke from God"....indicating that they didn't interpret what God said for them to write, but rather they literally wrote down exactly what He said. "All Scripture is God-Breathed."

....but....From the whole council of God, we derive that Scripture is not supposed to be interpreted, but rather declared and obeyed. The Word tells us when it is using a figure of speech.

Technically, @JeremiahsCup is correct about the principle he is getting at, but his use of 2 Peter 1:20 is not the right verse to support the position.

I'm glad we found something on which to agree.

I wonder though... how do you obey Scripture if you don't understand it, or if its 'declaration' leaves you with questions? Interpretation is inherent to reading (or hearing). We have a particular understanding of the meanings of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. A given sentence can mean something to one person, and something quite different to another person. Scripture probably did mean something a little different to its original audience, because they had a different understanding of the culture in which it was written.

Have you cut off your hand, or gouged out your eye? No? Then, I suggest, you don't believe in 'no interpretation' either.

 

[Dan_473]

I don't remember. I read them 2 or 3 years ago when I was teaching through this subject.
but like I said in post 304:
"there is no explicit age given in the Bible.
But for the purposes of this discussion I don't think the exact age is important because a women that is continually teaching and excising authority over men is usually never near the age that a girl becomes a women. It's usually when that women has has known the Lord for years and know the Word well enough to teach it." I'm not claiming that there is an exact age. I'm not concerned with the details the Bible doesn't give us

there is no explicit age given in the Bible.
As I said in post 304:
"But for the purposes of this discussion I don't think the exact age is important because a women that is continually teaching and excising authority over men is usually never near the age that a girl becomes a women. Its usually when that women has has known the Lord for years and know the Word well enough to teach it."

( my opinion on this is not based on anything concrete, but because you asked, I will give you my opinion)
my best guess is that the age is between 11 and 25

Thanks for your answers!
For the males involved? Is it your understanding that women are not to teach males of any age? Or is there an age for males above which it is inappropriate for a woman to teach them, in your view?

 

[Diakonos]

Have you cut off your hand, or gouged out your eye? No? Then, I suggest, you don't believe in 'no interpretation' either.

Like I said: "The Word ( the whole council of God) tells us when it is using a figure of speech"....I didn't say that you can find the clarification in the same section as the figure being used. From other parts of the Bible we can find clarification that God doesn't want anyone to cut themselves. E.g. "You are the sons of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves" Deuteronomy 14:1. So since God's word tells us somewhere else that its forbidden to self-mutilate, that means that Jesus was using a figure there during the sermon on the mount. Another example is when Ruth 2:12 says "May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge.” writes. Does God have wings? No, because Ezekiel says in his visions that God had "the form of a man" (Ezk 1:26, 8:2). So we never assume figures of speech unless the Word tells us somewhere.

 

[Dino246]

Like I said: "The Word ( the whole council of God) tells us when it is using a figure of speech"....I didn't say that you can find the clarification in the same section as the figure being used. From other parts of the Bible we can find clarification that God doesn't want anyone to cut themselves. E.g. "You are the sons of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves" Deuteronomy 14:1. So since God's word tells us somewhere else that its forbidden to self-mutilate, that means that Jesus was using a figure there during the sermon on the mount. Another example is when Ruth 2:12 says "May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge.” writes. Does God have wings? No, because Ezekiel says in his visions that God had "the form of a man" (Ezk 1:26, 8:2). So we never assume figures of speech unless the Word tells us somewhere.

Yet you claim that you are not interpreting the Word?

 

[Diakonos]

Thanks for your answers!
For the males involved? Is it your understanding that women are not to teach males of any age? Or is there an age for males above which it is inappropriate for a woman to teach them, in your view?

I would guess that the same age range would categorize them as "men".

The reason my opinion reflects this age range is because most aspects of maturity are in play. Puberty begins around age 11, and the brains stops developing at age 25. But everyone "grows up" differently. Women in Jesus' day grew up (became women) quicker because they had more responsibility in the home, i.e. a 16 year old girl back then was probably much more mature than a 16 year old girl today. Factors of personal maturity are affected by our upbringing, culture, experiences and relationship with the Lord. But there is a general parameter that we can't control (puberty and brain growth).
To summarize, I don't think a girl has the possibility to become a women until at least age 12 (because of puberty), and I think a girl can become a women before age 25 (depending on the personal and mental growth).

 

[Diakonos]

Yet you claim that you are not interpreting the Word?

I am not claiming anything.

Having said that, I prefer to use other words than "interpret" because modern English understands it to mean something different than what the Biblical authors intended.

In addition, we are never commanded to interpret the Word. God has already interpreted the Word. I may take what God has interpreted and pass it on, but I'm not going to say that I am the one who interpreted it.

"Do not interpretations belong to God?" Genesis 40:8 .

 

[Dino246]

Having said that, I prefer to use other words than "interpret" because modern English understands it to mean something different than what the Biblical authors intended.

You know this because Scripture declares it to be so, or because you or someone else interpreted it?

In addition, we are never commanded to interpret the Word. God has already interpreted the Word. I may take what God has interpreted and pass it on, but I'm not going to say that I am the one who interpreted it.

You're missing the point. You can't understand Scripture without interpreting it. Even if you read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek fluently, you'd still be interpreting, because you filter the meaning of the words on the page through your understanding of those words in your head. You can't avoid it, even if you don't like the English word for it. Reading involves (actually, requires) interpretation, as does hearing.

"Do not interpretations belong to God?" Genesis 40:8 .

You're ripping that verse out of context. It's talking about dreams, not Scripture.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

My position would be that women in leadership and teaching positions should be overseen by male leadership, due to the creation order.

Eve was deceived, and not Adam. Scripture indicates that women are more susceptible to deception than men.

However, this does not negate from the value of women in teaching children or other women.

It is very easy to see how certain denominations have been drug off into severe doctrinal error with regards to homosexuality and other perversions by women leadership.

Additionally, some cults and world religions have women leadership, or were heavily affected by women from their inception.

For instance:

- Islam may have died out if Mohammad's wife Khadijah had not encouraged him.
- Ellen G. White heavily influenced Seventh Day Adventism.
- Armstrongism was encouraged by the dreams of Herbert Armstrong's wife
- Groups such as United Methodists allowed women ordination before descending into allowing practicing gays as priests or pastors

Do I claim that women can have no teaching roles? No...but they need to be responsive to male leadership

Do I claim that males are not susceptible to doctrinal error ? No...but their leadership is, indeed, part of the creation order.

Females are equipped to care for the young. This is obvious. God expects them to perform this role. Distracting from this role is disastrous for society as a whole. And, having female leadership strutting about in domination over males is disgusting.

Unfortunately, certain groups within professing Christianity insist upon ignoring the creation order and doing this.

I would immediately leave a church that ordains women as a head pastor.

 

[Dino246]

Eve was deceived, and not Adam. Scripture indicates that women are more susceptible to deception than men.

No it does not... anywhere.

It is very easy to see how certain denominations have been drug off into severe doctrinal error with regards to homosexuality and other perversions by women leadership.

Name a single one where "severe doctrinal error" can be traced directly to female leaders.

Additionally, some cults and world religions have women leadership, or were heavily affected by women from their inception.

For instance:

- Islam may have died out if Mohammad's wife Khadijah had not encouraged him.
- Ellen G. White heavily influenced Seventh Day Adventism.
- Armstrongism was encouraged by the dreams of Herbert Armstrong's wife
- Groups such as United Methodists allowed women ordination before descending into allowing practicing gays as priests or pastors

All irrelevant. Mormons and JW's have male leaders exclusively, but you aren't calling them out. You're inconsistent... and still using the fallacy of guilt by association.

 

[notuptome]

My position would be that women in leadership and teaching positions should be overseen by male leadership, due to the creation order.

Not a bad idea.

I would immediately leave a church that ordains women as a head pastor.

A lot of churches do not have a single head pastor but use multiple elders.

It is not the system I'm comfortable with but many prefer that system.

I would not stay in a church that ordains women to the pastorate. Many mainline denominations have fallen victim to this compromise in leadership.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[JeremiahsCup]

A person can't read the scriptures unless they are taught how to read the written spoken word. And a person can't read the word of God unless they are taught how to write the written spoken word first, because you can't learn to read without there being a book in which the spoken word is written. Well, except to those who believe the written spoken word evolved from the hieroglyphics of Pharaoh, or the cuneiform tablets of the Sumerians if you're Catholic.

Lol well yes, I suppose you are correct that one has to be literate in order to read the Bible, and well, pretty much any book.

 

[Dan_473]

I would guess that the same age range would categorize them as "men".

The reason my opinion reflects this age range is because most aspects of maturity are in play. Puberty begins around age 11, and the brains stops developing at age 25. But everyone "grows up" differently. Women in Jesus' day grew up (became women) quicker because they had more responsibility in the home, i.e. a 16 year old girl back then was probably much more mature than a 16 year old girl today. Factors of personal maturity are affected by our upbringing, culture, experiences and relationship with the Lord. But there is a general parameter that we can't control (puberty and brain growth).
To summarize, I don't think a girl has the possibility to become a women until at least age 12 (because of puberty), and I think a girl can become a women before age 25 (depending on the personal and mental growth).

How would you implement this in actual practice? Would there be an elder in the church who would decide for each male if they had become a man?

But whatever system you recommend, do you know of churches that are actually putting it into practice?

I think it's great for everyone to read the Bible and decide for themselves what it means. At the same time, if one finds oneself all alone, with no other Christians practicing the same thing, it's probably time seriously question whether the spirit has led you to that place.

 

[Diakonos]

I wouldn't implement this as a practice

 

[Diakonos]

I wouldn't implement this as a practice

If we know someone well enough to make them a leader in the church, then we know them well enough to determine if they are a man or woman.

 

[Diakonos]

It is very easy to see how certain denominations have been drug off into severe doctrinal error with regards to homosexuality and other perversions by women leadership.

Right. Because patterns of unbiblical female leadership in the church that reflect and promote the confusion over the true meaning of manhood and womanhood

 

[Diakonos]

Even if you read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek fluently, you'd still be interpreting

You are confusing interpretation with translation.

 

[Diakonos]

You know this because Scripture declares it to be so, or because you or someone else interpreted it?


You're missing the point. You can't understand Scripture without interpreting it. Even if you read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek fluently, you'd still be interpreting, because you filter the meaning of the words on the page through your understanding of those words in your head. You can't avoid it, even if you don't like the English word for it. Reading involves (actually, requires) interpretation, as does hearing.


You're ripping that verse out of context. It's talking about dreams, not Scripture.

When you say "it", are you referring to modern meanings of interpret or Biblical meaning of interpret?
There were 2 subjects in my sentence, I just want to make sure i know what you're asking

 

[Diakonos]

You know this because Scripture declares it to be so, or because you or someone else interpreted it?


You're missing the point. You can't understand Scripture without interpreting it. Even if you read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek fluently, you'd still be interpreting, because you filter the meaning of the words on the page through your understanding of those words in your head. You can't avoid it, even if you don't like the English word for it. Reading involves (actually, requires) interpretation, as does hearing.


You're ripping that verse out of context.

I wasn't making a blanket statement. I was giving an example of one category that interpretation applies....one category is dreams, another is tongues, but I see no Biblical category for interpreting Scripture. I am open to the idea though. If you consider "interpretation" as general thinking in order to come to conclusions, then yes I'm fine with using that word here in this forum, however, most people today hear the word "interpretation" and they assume that there's some esoteric or hidden meaning in what's being interpreted.

 

[Dino246]

You are confusing interpretation with translation.

I'm not confusing anything. Translation necessarily involves interpretation, because no two languages translate word for word.

 

[Dino246]

When you say "it", are you referring to modern meanings of interpret or Biblical meaning of interpret?
There were 2 subjects in my sentence, I just want to make sure i know what you're asking

There is no definition of "interpret" in Scripture, so whatever you mean by the "Biblical meaning" is actually, itself, an interpretation.