LET THE WOMAN LEARN IN SILENCE - WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS MEANS?

[Dino246]

I looked it up the other day. You're right - she never said in words that it was not as good as it would have been for a man to have done the job of judging that she'd done. But I thought it over in the night, and thought of the fact that to be a prophetess and to be a public preacher or Bible teacher are not always the same thing. Since being a prophet doesn't always require public preaching or teaching. I see a good number of prophetesses mentioned in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. But I see absolutely no mention - either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament - of a woman preaching or doing public teaching or preaching. Plus I Timothy 2:12 as saying quite plainly in my view - that women are forbidden to do public preaching.

1 Tim 2:12-14

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

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
KJV
Verse 12 doesn't necessarily mean that women were not to ever speak at all in church. It is debatable what that part means about here need "to be silent." To me - it seems much more reasonable in this passage to just mean she should be silent (she shouldn't do this public kind of work in the church) as regards to the roles of public teaching or Bible teaching.

Okay... do you think that the prior creation of Adam is a good reason for women not to teach or preach? Or do you see Eve's deception as a reason? I don't. I think there is something else going on here (actually, I'm certain, but my certainty won't convince you). I believe that Paul wrote these words to Timothy to address a specific situation with a specific but unnamed woman who had been saved out of a gnostic cult, where women would offer men "private education sessions", and were taught supposedly secret knowledge which included the idea that Eve was formed first and that she had not been deceived. In light of that, the statement, "I do not permit a woman to teach or hold authority over a man" would have a very specific application, not the general application that so many today give it.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I think verse 11 might just be saying that women should not speak in church meetings without the approval of the man who is in authority over them - husband or father. That sounds reasonable and a good rule to me. However, I feel verse 12 certainly sounds clear in saying that in the case of preaching publicly - that women are not to be allowed to do that. In addition, there are absolutely no examples of women preaching publicly in the temple, tabernacle, or New Testament churches - in the Bible. Though yes, there are examples of prophetesses - both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Being a prophet doesn't require doing public preaching.

How did the prophets deliver their prophecies back in the day? How literate were women prophets of the day? Are we now forbidding women from prophesying too so "I will pour My Spirit on all flesh, and My daughters will not prophesy" now, or "My daughters will prophesy in silence"? Would this promise of God not be made null and void if taken that way...? I can understand the guys are preferred in leadership roles, never had a problem with that. But how did we go from banning teaching (theology?) to banning also prophesying, preaching, evangelizing, exhortation, comforting, encouraging...? Who profits from binding half of the Body of Christ? I honestly struggle making sense combining that understanding with the rest of the Bible.

You mentioned Genesis 3:16. If we consult Hebrew scholars, this means likely that God said the woman will not be given to have the upper hand, or control Adam. This would make sense in the analogy of Christ and His Bride that the Bride is one with Christ in love and given all things she asked of Him in love, yet not having upper hand, controlling God. This is jmo... But I like to point out that this same phrase occurs in one more place in the Bible and this is why I believe the phrase is to be taken a bit differently than people usually take it:

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee (Cain) shall be his (Abel's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

So Abel's desire shall be unto Cain and Cain will rule over Abel. Abel is not the villain here, so the ever villified Eve is, surprisingly, not analogous to Cain (which most people would likely expect to see), but to Abel! Also we can see that "desire being unto" has nothing romantic involved and has to do with who has the upper hand. I am just pointing out that this subject calls for a little deeper Biblical examination rather than accepting something just because it's inherited understanding.

 

[lenna]

I think verse 11 might just be saying that women should not speak in church meetings without the approval of the man who is in authority over them - husband or father. That sounds reasonable and a good rule to me. However, I feel verse 12 certainly sounds clear in saying that in the case of preaching publicly - that women are not to be allowed to do that. In addition, there are absolutely no examples of women preaching publicly in the temple, tabernacle, or New Testament churches - in the Bible. Though yes, there are examples of prophetesses - both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Being a prophet doesn't require doing public preaching.

nope. I disagree. I don't think that is what is being said but you have made it understood that is what you think it is saying.

let's see, I have a decent education under the belt. I have taught in adult education, counselled, run a small business and yes, given Bible studies as well and had plenty of experience with Children in Sunday School. And I really have done plenty of other things but this is not about me. I have worked as an administrator in business, been responsible to oversee the salaries of 150 people and took care of their company insurance as well. etc etc

So I should go to church, sit beside a man and pretend my brain went catatonic. I should play dumb so I guess being blond and all might help with that. That and the fact if I wore pink when younger I looked a little dumb cause my teeth were straight

First off, I don't call out in church anyway and that is not the habit of anyone I know, of either sex, because we just do not do that sort of thing in our culture. If you do, the local exorcist may give you the eye and chat with you. (jking or maybe not ) I have also held trusted roles in leadership and you are not trusted if you are not trustworthy. In our culture, women hold all kinds of positions. This is an entirely different world than it was in Paul's day.

Why would women be preaching in the temple over 2000 years ago, when they were basically chattel in many cultures? Therefore, it is imperative to know and understand the culture and it was, it really was, a man's world back then. However they should be grateful that women supported the replenishment of the male population whether or not they wanted to. Wars took their toll and still do.

Look, make a REASONABLE argument for your belief. Forget all the NT scripture that indicates women did hold authoritative positions and tell yourself you have nothing to do and no responsibility. Just shop for groceries and dust the house.

Being a prophet doesn't require doing public preaching.

so how did they do it then if not in public? I don't think you understand or maybe do not care to understand (RESPONSIBILITY) the NT church and the gifts of the Spirit. But then I am not a cessationist and have different views than those who are from that neck of the woods

But don't tell me I should ask my questions at home because people come to me with questions because I provide answers and that is a fearful thing to some.

And by the way, my husband and I do not believe entirely the same, but we do agree on what counts. Some diversity is a good thing cause I have a low threshold for boredom.

Now don't take this personally, but I am SO UP TO HERE WITH ALL THE WHINY RESPONSES AND REALLY POOR EXCUSES from some women who seem to think it is ok for men to put them in their place. By their place, I mean the place where the men put them.

Not the place where God would put them. And for the record, I prefer a male pastor but I would expect his wife would roll up her sleeves and not just make cakes and potatoes for the men's meetings.

All of the above said with a touch of sarcasm, some truth but not desire to step on toes. However I am not a shrinking violet, so there is that too.

 

[garee]

I looked it up the other day. You're right - she never said in words that it was not as good as it would have been for a man to have done the job of judging that she'd done. But I thought it over in the night, and thought of the fact that to be a prophetess and to be a public preacher or Bible teacher are not always the same thing. Since being a prophet doesn't always require public preaching or teaching. I see a good number of prophetesses mentioned in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. But I see absolutely no mention - either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament - of a woman preaching or doing public teaching or preaching. Plus I Timothy 2:12 as saying quite plainly in my view - that women are forbidden to do public preaching.

1 Tim 2:12-14

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

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
KJV
Verse 12 doesn't necessarily mean that women were not to ever speak at all in church. It is debatable what that part means about here need "to be silent." To me - it seems much more reasonable in this passage to just mean she should be silent (she shouldn't do this public kind of work in the church) as regards to the roles of public teaching or Bible teaching.

To be silent means to do the preaching to you husband at home. Not a time for private Bible study. Eve a prophetess took away the virtuous or intimacy of the three strands . Lorded it over the man not giving him a equal opportunity to share.

Ecclesiastes 4:12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

Broke the cord of intimacy' the virtue of the chaste virgin bride of Christ (mankind was separated )

 

[MyrtleTrees]

While that sounds reasonable, it fails when you consider that many adult women in the church are not married, and many who are attend church without their husbands. A rule that applies to perhaps 25-50% of women cannot be imposed on all women.


So women may not preach the gospel, share their personal testimony, or read Scripture? Again, when you examine the implications of your interpretation, it falls apart quickly.

Further, the absence of examples in Scripture does not preclude the practice in the church... unless you're a Church of Christ adherent. Bear in mind that the Bible was written within a patriarchal society.

Well, I guess we'll have to politely agree to disagree on the subject (a thing commonly necessary in view of how many different views even sincere Christians have on many Bible subjects. The important thing above all, is to not be purposely twisting scriptures (interpret with priority of pleasing self rather than God in one's conclusion). God judges those who do it.

It is to be expected that Christians, if sincere, will continue to grow in their knowledge and love for God with the passing of time. And daily prayer for God's help and guidance is important for every true Christian to be in the habit of always doing.

 

[Mem]

Not that I'd want to actually point my finger on it but, there's just something especially disturbing in a woman's complicity in the disregard of the legitimacy of women.

 

[wolfwint]

do you know the difference between culture and how a Christian should make decisions? your English here is a little broken I'm afraid and I might not quite get what it is you are saying (maybe rephrase?) but it seems you are saying we should do things as per scripture even if it was actually only cultural

Did anyone back then have a clue about how things are in the world today? Well no, but God certainly knows and while culture should not be the decisive factor in a Christians' decision making process, one should not be weighed down by antiquity either for the sake of mistaken 'biblical purity'

For example, some will argue that women should not wear slacks or jeans because that is for men only, even though EVERYONE used to wear robes back in the day. If a man walked around like that in the US today everyone would stare. Maybe that is a trivial example, but that is the type of thing people will argue over and stumble over and it is ridiculous to most I would think

what? timespirit? does not compute for me. sorry

No, of course we have to consider what was culture in the past and what is not depend from the past culture. Today we have culture where it is normal to say not the truth. Soif Gods word tell us not to lie, it is no matter of culture. According my understanding.
The word Zeitgeist seems has no english translation. So I translatet it word for word.
Zeit=time Geist=spirit. The meaning behind the word Zeitgeist is, to name the thinking what is modern in the present society. So f.e. if the society says lieing is normal. Then we would say according the Zeitgeist lieing is normal. So many thoughts from the present worldy thaughts (Zeitgeist) which is normal, comes also into the church.
Hope you could understand my explaining
No my english is not very good.

 

[Dino246]

To be silent means to do the preaching to you husband at home.

No, it means, "Don't speak". Why must you obfuscate the plain text?

 

[lenna]

No, of course we have to consider what was culture in the past and what is not depend from the past culture. Today we have culture where it is normal to say not the truth. Soif Gods word tell us not to lie, it is no matter of culture. According my understanding.
The word Zeitgeist seems has no english translation. So I translatet it word for word.
Zeit=time Geist=spirit. The meaning behind the word Zeitgeist is, to name the thinking what is modern in the present society. So f.e. if the society says lieing is normal. Then we would say according the Zeitgeist lieing is normal. So many thoughts from the present worldy thaughts (Zeitgeist) which is normal, comes also into the church.
Hope you could understand my explaining
No my english is not very good.

Well when we are told not to lie, it applies to everyone.

My question would be, if that is the criteria for absolute commands, would be to point out that applies to everyone.

So then, how would you apply a so called command stating every woman everywhere must sit as though made of stone, in church, for all time, IN SPITE of the fact we see this is not so according to the record in the NT ?!?

I think I understood you.

 

[Dino246]

Not that I'd want to actually point my finger on it but, there's just something especially disturbing in a woman's complicity in the disregard of the legitimacy of women.

The most disappointing response I have heard is from the wife of the senior pastor at a church I attended. While I'm paraphrasing her words, they were essentially, "I have no desire to preach or be in leadership, so I don't think any woman should."

smh...

 

[wolfwint]

Well when we are told not to lie, it applies to everyone.

My question would be, if that is the criteria for absolute commands, would be to point out that applies to everyone.

So then, how would you apply a so called command stating every woman everywhere must sit as though made of stone, in church, for all time, IN SPITE of the fact we see this is not so according to the record in the NT ?!?

I think I understood you.

Thats fine

Well, I Think 1. Cor. 14, 34ff speaks clear about that what woman should not do, but is not telling what they should do. What they should not do has to do with authority over man. This you will do when you preach and teach ore have a leading position.
I know the Zeitgeist today is saying the Opposit. The reason for this we find in genesis 3. Its an consequence which woman have to bear because of Evas sin. As the whole creation has to bear the consequences of it, man too.
And very important point woman are no Less worth then man. And it is not an matter of intellect ore the ability to speak good.
Its because of Evas sin.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

nope. I disagree. I don't think that is what is being said but you have made it understood that is what you think it is saying.

let's see, I have a decent education under the belt. I have taught in adult education, counselled, run a small business and yes, given Bible studies as well and had plenty of experience with Children in Sunday School. And I really have done plenty of other things but this is not about me. I have worked as an administrator in business, been responsible to oversee the salaries of 150 people and took care of their company insurance as well. etc etc

So I should go to church, sit beside a man and pretend my brain went catatonic. I should play dumb so I guess being blond and all might help with that. That and the fact if I wore pink when younger I looked a little dumb cause my teeth were straight

First off, I don't call out in church anyway and that is not the habit of anyone I know, of either sex, because we just do not do that sort of thing in our culture. If you do, the local exorcist may give you the eye and chat with you. (jking or maybe not ) I have also held trusted roles in leadership and you are not trusted if you are not trustworthy. In our culture, women hold all kinds of positions. This is an entirely different world than it was in Paul's day.

Why would women be preaching in the temple over 2000 years ago, when they were basically chattel in many cultures? Therefore, it is imperative to know and understand the culture and it was, it really was, a man's world back then. However they should be grateful that women supported the replenishment of the male population whether or not they wanted to. Wars took their toll and still do.

Look, make a REASONABLE argument for your belief. Forget all the NT scripture that indicates women did hold authoritative positions and tell yourself you have nothing to do and no responsibility. Just shop for groceries and dust the house.



so how did they do it then if not in public? I don't think you understand or maybe do not care to understand (RESPONSIBILITY) the NT church and the gifts of the Spirit. But then I am not a cessationist and have different views than those who are from that neck of the woods

But don't tell me I should ask my questions at home because people come to me with questions because I provide answers and that is a fearful thing to some.

And by the way, my husband and I do not believe entirely the same, but we do agree on what counts. Some diversity is a good thing cause I have a low threshold for boredom.

Now don't take this personally, but I am SO UP TO HERE WITH ALL THE WHINY RESPONSES AND REALLY POOR EXCUSES from some women who seem to think it is ok for men to put them in their place. By their place, I mean the place where the men put them.

Not the place where God would put them. And for the record, I prefer a male pastor but I would expect his wife would roll up her sleeves and not just make cakes and potatoes for the men's meetings.

All of the above said with a touch of sarcasm, some truth but not desire to step on toes. However I am not a shrinking violet, so there is that too.

It's not easy, I know - to imagine why others don't see spiritual things the way they do. So I understand the feeling. However, from experience and observation, I'm well aware that most Christians (even sincere ones) can't agree 100 % the same on all spiritual doctrines in the Bible.
It is important though, to always be interpreting the scriptures as correctly as one is able to, prayerfully. Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't have a right relationship with God yet. As God always demands first place in His people's lives.

 

[MyrtleTrees]

How did the prophets deliver their prophecies back in the day? How literate were women prophets of the day? Are we now forbidding women from prophesying too so "I will pour My Spirit on all flesh, and My daughters will not prophesy" now, or "My daughters will prophesy in silence"? Would this promise of God not be made null and void if taken that way...? I can understand the guys are preferred in leadership roles, never had a problem with that. But how did we go from banning teaching (theology?) to banning also prophesying, preaching, evangelizing, exhortation, comforting, encouraging...? Who profits from binding half of the Body of Christ? I honestly struggle making sense combining that understanding with the rest of the Bible.

You mentioned Genesis 3:16. If we consult Hebrew scholars, this means likely that God said the woman will not be given to have the upper hand, or control Adam. This would make sense in the analogy of Christ and His Bride that the Bride is one with Christ in love and given all things she asked of Him in love, yet not having upper hand, controlling God. This is jmo... But I like to point out that this same phrase occurs in one more place in the Bible and this is why I believe the phrase is to be taken a bit differently than people usually take it:

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee (Cain) shall be his (Abel's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

So Abel's desire shall be unto Cain and Cain will rule over Abel. Abel is not the villain here, so the ever villified Eve is, surprisingly, not analogous to Cain (which most people would likely expect to see), but to Abel! Also we can see that "desire being unto" has nothing romantic involved and has to do with who has the upper hand. I am just pointing out that this subject calls for a little deeper Biblical examination rather than accepting something just because it's inherited understanding.

Being literate or illiterate had nothing to do with it. Even illerate men became preachers in New Testament times. As for Joel's prophesy about both men and women to be prophesying - I don't see that the order for women not to preach or teach publicly prevents this - since prophesy doesn't always have to be done publicly. The woman at the well - for example - didn't preach or teach publicly. Yet she was a great help to Jesus in her area by preparing the people there to be willing to later listen to His preaching.

Thanks for your views, but I still understand the subject the same as I have already understood it. I don't expect Christians (even sincere ones) to agree on all points of doctrine in the Bible, as I believe the Bible indicates perfect agreement and understanding of things don't come to Christians till they get to heaven.

The important thing is to put God first in one's life, and not to let what we wish scripture to mean, to willingly nullify any of the scriptures. We are to prayerfully read and study God's Word regularly. But it's one's heart attitude that always matters the most to God. Any who willingly ignore truths of God that they understand but just don't want to accept do not yet have a right relationship with God. And need to repent.

 

[SoulWeaver]

The important thing is to put God first in one's life, and not to let what we wish scripture to mean, to willingly nullify any of the scriptures. We are to prayerfully read and study God's Word regularly. But it's one's heart attitude that always matters the most to God. Any who willingly ignore truths of God that they understand but just don't want to accept do not yet have a right relationship with God. And need to repent.

Is that what you are implying/believing about all people who understand the Scripture differently, or partially differently than you?
P.S. I don't worry about changing your mind, I am simply bringing facts out for consideration of all readers.

 

[Blade]

Hmm I would read what Paul said as God or sweet Holy Spirit said. That being said I wonder how many follow ANY Jews traditions or everything they did in that day and age. How many thousands of years has it been? Christian or not women were treated far different then they are now.

Do you offer a sacrifice for your sin? Some Jewish believer did. They were out in the world preaching the gospel and were not? Oh thats for the 6% Christians. The 94% are here in the USA. So how many have the word of God before you eyes day and night? How many are praying always about everything? There is SO much more..sorry this was about women learn in silence.

This is like Jesus saying the bread is for the children not the dogs. As if He thought of her as a some dog. Pluck out your eye.. cut of your hand. Like us today.. wow that scared me to death. You know what I mean. So women were treated far worse then even as believers then they are now. The bible talks about having slaves not exactly as we think of them today. The point is those were far different times.

We best be careful how we treat women today. We read not good for man to be alone. God makes a helper. Its strange how we interpret that word. And in Christ ALL are what? We all should have the mind of Christ that thought it not robbery to be called equal with God. And ALL are join heirs with Christ. But on earth.. MAN IS FIRST! haha not in heaven... it is as God sees it.. to like that here.

Praise GOD for women preachers/prophets/teachers/mothers so forth so on.

 

[lenna]

It's not easy, I know - to imagine why others don't see spiritual things the way they do. So I understand the feeling. However, from experience and observation, I'm well aware that most Christians (even sincere ones) can't agree 100 % the same on all spiritual doctrines in the Bible.
It is important though, to always be interpreting the scriptures as correctly as one is able to, prayerfully. Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't have a right relationship with God yet. As God always demands first place in His people's lives.

telling women to be quiet is a spiritual doctrine for you?

your post is patronizing whether you meant it that way or not, only you know

 

[Dino246]

Being literate or illiterate had nothing to do with it. Even illerate men became preachers in New Testament times. As for Joel's prophesy about both men and women to be prophesying - I don't see that the order for women not to preach or teach publicly prevents this - since prophesy doesn't always have to be done publicly. The woman at the well - for example - didn't preach or teach publicly. Yet she was a great help to Jesus in her area by preparing the people there to be willing to later listen to His preaching.

Thanks for your views, but I still understand the subject the same as I have already understood it. I don't expect Christians (even sincere ones) to agree on all points of doctrine in the Bible, as I believe the Bible indicates perfect agreement and understanding of things don't come to Christians till they get to heaven.

The important thing is to put God first in one's life, and not to let what we wish scripture to mean, to willingly nullify any of the scriptures. We are to prayerfully read and study God's Word regularly. But it's one's heart attitude that always matters the most to God. Any who willingly ignore truths of God that they understand but just don't want to accept do not yet have a right relationship with God. And need to repent.

You say that you still understand the subject the same as previously, but you keep making statements that are simply not based in Scripture.

"Even illerate (sic) men became preachers in New Testament times." Really? Which verse tells you that?

"I don't see that the order for women not to preach or teach publicly...." Which order is that? It doesn't exist. Paul says to Timothy, "I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man." Nothing about "preaching"; nothing about "publicly", and nothing about teaching others.

"The woman at the well - for example - didn't preach or teach publicly." Really? John 4:28-29 says, "So the woman left her waterpot, and went in to the city and said to the men, "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?" That looks like "preaching publicly" to me.

Maybe it's time to examine what you believe in light of what Scripture actually says instead of adding words and making up a belief that is "sorta like" what Scripture says.

 

[SoulWeaver]

This is like Jesus saying the bread is for the children not the dogs. As if He thought of her as a some dog..

This is slightly unrelated, but the word that was actually used for her people wasn't "dog" but actually a diminutive, like "puppy" in English. But as for us, even without knowing Greek I think we all knew already by the Spirit that Jesus didn't mean it in hatred or contempt.

kunarion

 

[Mem]

The most disappointing response I have heard is from the wife of the senior pastor at a church I attended. While I'm paraphrasing her words, they were essentially, "I have no desire to preach or be in leadership, so I don't think any woman should."

smh...

Ppbbllhahahhaa!.... A point in case of why (that) woman should remain silent, yes, but...anyway....(sigh).

Meanwhile, I'll be back at the bat cave, fearing God alone. And I say 'bat' specifically in the Hebrew sense, even if it is deemed necessary that 'alone' remain ambiguous.

 

[lenna]

Thats fine

Well, I Think 1. Cor. 14, 34ff speaks clear about that what woman should not do, but is not telling what they should do. What they should not do has to do with authority over man. This you will do when you preach and teach ore have a leading position.
I know the Zeitgeist today is saying the Opposit. The reason for this we find in genesis 3. Its an consequence which woman have to bear because of Evas sin. As the whole creation has to bear the consequences of it, man too.
And very important point woman are no Less worth then man. And it is not an matter of intellect ore the ability to speak good.
Its because of Evas sin.

well so nice of you to state we have no less worth some men do not seem to think so

I don't try to have authority over anyone, let alone men. but I will object to someone trying to lord it over me. I don't do kissing the feet very well I'm afraid

now I have given Bible studies, invited no man, yet they showed up. apparently they wished to be there and had no problem with me and I did not think I had authority over them but I sure had a far better knowledge of scripture. unlike some of my posts in this forum, I actually do have alot of patience and welcome questions and discussion.

well I understand about Eve, but what is authority to you? isn't that telling someone what to do and they have to do it?

well here is the dictionary definition:

the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
"he had absolute authority over his subordinates"

sure seems to be a very clear definiton and I do not fit that profile and frankly, I don't think most women would

frankly, I would not let even a pastor have that kind of authority over me whether he be male or not.

enforcing obedience is what usually goes on in a cult. maybe submit one to another is a far better description of what should go on in a Christian community than giving orders that one must obey or be forced to obey

I'm going with that since that is actually what we find in scripture