posted
Does anyone have any insights for this verse?
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Phillip & Mary Cohen \o/ \o/ \o/ Jesus still fixes broken lives. \o/ \o/ \o/
doug mifflin
posted
"Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace." 1Tim.2:12 JNT
The key to me above is found in verse 11 which sets the context of learning and teaching. The Greek manthaneto does not mean learn as we use it, (to aquire knowledge), but rather it is more closely related to mathetes (disciple). The context is discipling and being discipled. This is a very intimate exchange of learning through growth by sharing of lives and heart attitudes.
Another key to me is the word translated 'peace' above. Linguistically, it is permissible to render it 'silence', but absolute silence is an entirely different Greek word. This word, esuchia, means peace, restful, quietness or silent. This same word is translated 'settled down' and 'quietness' in Acts 22:2 & 2Thes. 3:12
Timothy is to let women be discipled in peace, restfulness, without being disturbed. To be discipled requires one to be fully submitted to the Lord. However, due to the intimate nature of dicsipling, it is not wise for a woman to be in such an authority role, over a man. Therefore, Paul does not permit this. It can be inviting fleshly failure when intimate, vulnerable situations come up. Scripture does not conflict scripture; and since Paul acknowledges women as prophesying and praying; this can not mean absolute silence. Also, Paul commends women leaders and teachers such as Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla and others.
My 2 cents....
G_d bless, doug Mazie, OK
Rhonda
posted
Since this is a women's topic, and I have had to deal with this issue in my not too distant life, I want to respond to this. It means exactly what it says. Because Adam was formed first and then Eve, and because the woman was the one deceived in the garden, not the man it is the man's rightful place to be the teacher -not the woman's. Many also like to turn to the Greek in order to come up with a more "suitable" conclution or to whatever version tells them what they want. Women can teach other women;though, but the Bible is very specific what : "The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."
posted
Adam being formed and then Eve does not mean that men are not just as fallen as women, or that they can not be deceived also. Paul was addressing the gnostic heresy here and they were followers of women only.
I don't believe Paul was intending to write a rule book for all time when he addressed these issues in his letters. Priscilla and Aquilla worked as a team when they told Apollos who was already mighty in the scriptures about Jesus. Phoebe was a deaconess and there are other women who were used by God in both Old and New Testaments. Some had Churches in their homes.
I think it is wonderful to have godly men to lead the sheep and I personally would rather have good male leadership but if this is not available for some reason we should not lock ourselves and God into a box over it.
1 Tim 2:12 was written with a focus toward a problem Timothy was having in Ephesus where he was pastoring; they were having problems with a cult called gnosticism. You can look it up and learn more about it.
darla
posted
I think a lot of this you can research out and its important to do deeper study on it.
The other poster mentioned gnositism, which is important reason that this verse was written to this church. Not to mention other problems in that particular church.
That said here are a couple tools. Find a bible LIKE NIV STUDY or another that has textual notes. Get a couple versions like from the used book store or a library might have them (borrow from friends if need be). Vines Dicitionary to understand meanings of words when written is also helpful. A really good concordance is helpful (big and thick) to find obsure verses. AND PRAY for understanding... ask God for revelation.
First thing to remember is that Scripture always interprets scripture. It cannot go against itself... so if there is something that seems to conflict that is from OUR lack of understanding something.
Given that find all the verses you can because one section of verses does not a doctrine make.
There were many church women that were leaders. Paul names many co-workers that he named.
PHOEBE is the ONLY Deacon mentioned by name in the bible,
PRISCILLA was mentioned before her husband (order important in culture as showing importance) as a Discipler of believers includign the man APOLLOS, it was teaming with husband ACQUILA
JUNIAS who was a female named with the other apostles (meaning more than the 12 different usage than original 12) and was IMPRISONED with Paul.
There are many more Euodia and Syntyche Mary Magdeline Apphia a leader of a house church there are 4 phrophetesses mentioned among meany others (this would be public speaking, preaching teaching and perhaps serving communion)
Women were first to see Jesus reserectted.
In Acts the HOly spirit fell on women as well as men... do you see any distiction in the gifts of phrophecy etc for men as opposed to women? Phrophecy is a public speaking.
I think before taking one text set of verses that whole context and understanding has to be given. Part of the reason there are cults is because peopel don't know their bibles, and will listen to 1/2 truths.
DARLA
Brad Wheeler
posted
Women in the Church :
Older women are to teach the younger women.
(Titus 2:3-4 “The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,”)
Women may pray and prophecy both publicly and, of course, privately.
(1 Cor. 11:5,13 “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”; “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”)
(Acts 2:17 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophecy:”
Women may NOT be teachers in a public group setting with men present.
(1 Cor. 14:34,35 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”)
(1 Tim. 2:11,12 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, NOR to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.)
Comment: If the above verse was only teaching the authority issue, then there would have been no need for the phrase “to teach”. It simply could have read, “But I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man”. The fact that the phrase “to teach” is present in this verse, plus the phrase “but to be in silence” is definitely stating that women are not to be teachers over men. (The exception is found in the story of Aquila & Priscilla in Acts 18:26. Notice however, “they took him unto [them]”. This indicates that this time of teaching was not in a public setting with other men and women present, but in private.
Women may minister in the gifts of the Holy Spirit with one exception.
(1 Cor. 14:26 “How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, EVERY ONE of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”)
Comment: EVERY ONE certainly includes the women in the church. Women are scripturally free to participate in any of the spiritual gifts except teaching. And this exception of teaching only applies when men are present.
Women may not be elders .
(1 Tim. 3:2 “… husband of one wife” and Titus 1:6 “… the husband of one wife”)
Women may not be deacons
(1 Tim. 3:12 “Let the deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”)
(Acts 6:3 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out amoung you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”) Comment: Notice from 1 Peter 5:1 how Peter, who we know was an apostle, also identified himself as holding the office of elder. Men with ministerial giftings often also hold the office of elder or deacon, but not always. We know that Phillip, was an evangelist, but also held the office of deacon.
Husband & wife together may teach a man in a private type setting
(i.e. Aquila & Priscilla, Acts 18:26 “…,THEY took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”)
Comment: Apollos had just been preaching and teaching about Jesus in a very public setting, but Aquilla & Priscilla both perceived that he did not possess the anointing or baptism of the Holy Spirit. But, notice that they took him unto them. In other words, they taught him in a private type setting with just the 3 of them present.
Dennis W.
posted
I think 'reason' should play a part with all 'serious' modern biblical study, because we as a culture and/or society of this age cannot easilly or accurately grasp the cultural & social issues of the day in which the scriptures were written. It makes sense to me that ANY person claiming to have a 'handle' on the interpretation of these debated scriptures, would be guilty first of having a 'teachable heart' themselves. They should be humble and accepting of others' views. It should be obvious, to the casual observer, that they would NEVER say they 'understand' the scripture if they haven't adequately studied the true language/culture/ and social implication of the statement of said scripture, the whole while, they remembering to read the scripture in 'context', or the general meaning, as exposed by the surrounding scripture verses or even entire chapters!. I further think it becomes obvious that some have a basic inability to 'simply understand' the true meaning of scripture, because of their apparent 'lack of reason'. Instead they march off in error, trudging down their 'doctrinal ditch', refusing to 'study to show themselves approved...'. Lastly I want to say that I find it very obvious that God has nothing against women teachers and 'laborers in the gospel'. What He is against, is someone who is basically disqualified by their own lack of good character and good judgement(reason), who are no teachers at all...trying to force others to become that which they have become...someone who doesn't know the 'truth' and cannot in their way of thinking set anyone 'free'. No, their way of thinking smells like 'bondage' to me! Scripture supports the idea that we are all kings and priests...we've all been redeemed and made joint heirs. Discipling is a 'current' word from God(and has been current since it was first written in scripture). Is it possible we are 'senselessly debating the obvious?' Of course it makes good & proper sense for women to disciple women- men to men. And that my friends was true more-so in the days the scriptures we now debate were written. I always wonder when men(i am a man) who constantly debate the women/submission/teaching issue spend 1/2 the same amount of time trying to persuade their buddies to 'love their wive as Christ loved the church.
James
posted
I am not a scholar, but I would like to add that we have to take the whole of the word not just one verse. What about the verse in 1 John 2:27 "you do not need anyone to teach you."(niv) So now we have no woman or man teachers. Also in Gal.3:28 There is neither ....male nor female,for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Just an observation
In His Grip James
chubbena
posted
This response is for Darla. Phoebe - "deacon" doesn't neceassarily mean leader nor teacher. (I thought the topic was about women being teacher). Please refer to Mat 23:11 (and quite a few other verses) which the same word is translated "servant". Priscilla - please pay attention that her name was after Aquilas at Acts 18:26 (KJV and YLT) and 1 Cor 16:19 where teaching was possibly involved. Even if you refer to NIV at Acts 18:26 where her name came up first, it didn't imply that she's teaching but rather receiving Apollos. Junias - "apostle" doesn't necessarily mean teacher. Besides, her name was after Andronicus in the context instead of stand alone - thus she might not be an apostle but rather someone related to the apostle Andronicus, although I'm not 100% sure. Euodia and Syntyche - the Bible didn't indicate whether they were leaders or teachers.It only indicated that they didn't agree with each other. Apphia - the Bible didn't say she's a leader but rather a sister in the church. Having said that, the Bible did say that there were female prophets. In fact, every Christian can be used by the Lord to prophesize (1 Cor 14:31). Please do not put our words into the Bible to support what we want to say.
Darla, I think you're exhibiting God's decree towards Eve, and by extension to all women in Genesis 3:16, "and your desire (to rule, to stretch for) shall be towards your husband, and he shall rule over you."
God's created order is an ordered creation; in every area of life, God gives order; in 33 years as a Christ-follower, I've seen men and women 'buck the system' to create their own Scriptural meanings against the clear word of God. Darla, God's design for male leadership in His Church is quite clear, as is His acknowledgment (even decree) that in their hearts, women will seek to buck the system, always.
Even if a man makes a very poor head, he is to be the head of his wife, as a servant-leader per Ephesians 5:22-27, viz:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."
When one sees this scriptural headship and submission, one sees order and harmony in the family and the church. God's Word does not refute itself, nor is His created order arrayed against itself, sis.
posted
In Acts 1:21 when Peter was saying that someone had to be picked to replace Judas it says that it must be from among the "men" that had been with them during the time the Jesus was with them. Here we have the real look at the truth about the issue of who lead the early church.
If apostles had to be from among the men, then Junia, despite all that others say, could not (I will say it again, COULD NOT) have been a woman at all.
And also Acts 1:21 also tells us why the first 12 disciples were men too. They were not men just because it just happened that way, but rather because there was a purpose for it. Jesus meant it to be that way.
Many people try to go back into the Greek and say that Junia was a woman's name but according to Acts 1:21 this would have been impossible, seeing that apostles had to be from the men not women.
posted
There is not much I can add here that others have not already stated, but I wanted to share a teaching that was written in 1879, by a dead guy (my favorite kind of preacher). It is long, and I had a hard time with the beginning, but it gets better. I think he explains a woman's role well.
quote:Originally posted by Lis: There is not much I can add here that others have not already stated, but I wanted to share a teaching that was written in 1879, by a dead guy (my favorite kind of preacher). It is long, and I had a hard time with the beginning, but it gets better. I think he explains a woman's role well.
Thanks Lis for this article by a clear headed man. Unfortunately I am not dead and so can't come up to your standards! This post will finish with a question.
I think a point needs to be made.That since women are not to teach but they may prophesy this means that in the second instance it is Christ preaching through them via a high level of inspiration. So the woman isn't teaching it is the Spirit. Even if a woman can prophesy there is no record in scripture of female prophets being pastors. Rather prophets- in the bible- are special messengers of God not priests.
Those who prophesy in church are not being made pastors or holding a position of 'institutional' authority by the virtue of their prophesying. (Even though of course genuine prophecy carries great spiritual authority).
I think the scriptural principle revealed in the above quoted verses- and those quoted in the article- is that 'average' believers must follow the practice of men in authority but in cases of special divine inspiration women may openly prophesy.
The only real controversy left in the minds of those who accept the scriptures is whether a woman who is a gifted teacher- in the sense of someone called in almost apostolic grace- should then be allowed to teach men as this is almost the same as prophesying- due to the degree of their divine inspiration?
Remember that their are gifts of apostles, prophets and teachers. This does not mean 'ordinary' bible teachers but people of particular historical and spiritual importance. Some people would, for example, regard Martin Luther, John Wesley, or a number of female Catholic saints as specially divinely anointed teachers. The possible scriptural exception to the rule is that:
Alternative Literal Translation: 1Co 14:26 What then is it, brothers [and sisters]? Whenever you* shall be coming together, each [one] of you* has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation [or, a translation]. Be letting all [things] be for building up [or, edification]. This verse seems to refer to communal sharing by male and female believers rather than any actual positions of authority.
In other words if their is a female called as a teacher who has the status of someone so inspired as to be giving a 'revelation' then would that alone allow her to teach as another woman may prophesy?
This of course would be for the Holy Spirit to interpret to church elders who would then make the right decision. A claim made by a woman that she is filled with the Spirit is not enough- the false basis for Pentecostals and others having women pastors.
Are their any women in history who readers here believe had the stature of specially called and divinely inspired teachers so revelatory as to be able to teach men?
posted
Why are women not happy and content in the role for which God created us? It seems to me that the real issue here is not tearing apart the scriptures but to really look at the way in which God intends for us to live. He created man and woman different for a reason. As a homeschooling mom of 4 AND a mother that teaches my children the Bible at home I am content that my ministry is important. I also run a mothers' group online in the spirit of encourageing each other. I do not feel the need to teach a man or find a way to justify doing this. What makes us so discontent in the ministry of discipling the next generation of Christians? Is this not so very important? I feel that we have failed as Christian keepers at home if we get to heaven and find all of these random people there and not the members of our own homes because of the feeling that the role God gave us was not enough. The world will tell you that a Biblical woman's role is demeaning, unfulfilling and not important. But we are not called to be of the world are we?
posted
Mother of 4, i applaud your work and attitude. Probably your husband is a blessed man. However, there are a couple of other items which can be further commented upon from this thread.
First, these remarks from Darla are on the mark: "First thing to remember is that Scripture always interprets scripture. It cannot go against itself... so if there is something that seems to conflict that is from OUR lack of understanding something." But in saying this, one must sometimes do a little study of the words to correctly understand them.
For sure, none of the Scriptures were written in English. No particular English translation carries authority. One must look at the believed original writings (and not depend upon a translator or some church denominations' interpretation). Next, one must look at the religious, cultural and social environment of 2d Temple Judaism to ever understand the NT (someday, i'll offer a post to prove this--but suffice to say, women in the ancient world were generally very subservient to men and never mixed with non-relative men in public, much like strict Muslims today).
Finally, if you want to be confused over the Word, try to avoid placing too much reliance on the professional clergy. They have never got it because they have been schooled and trained in their respective denominational pitches. The denominations use a few key Scriptures (which they usually don't understand) to support their positions and nothing else from the Book. They end up teaching and promoting Babylonian confusion; not understanding (that's why there are 40,000 different denominations today). Hopefully, the home movement will correct some of this.
For my part, i have already outlined my belief on the general role of women in another posting on beginnings and startups, leaders aloud. This seems to be the defining Scriptures (Gen 3:16; Isa 3:12; I Cor 11:1-15; 14:33-35; Eph 5:22-24; I Tim 2:9-12).
Next, reference to women deaconesses does not say or imply that these women were bosses of men. No, that word refers to helpers or assistants in the congregation. Thus, the KJV bishops and deacons is referring to overseers and assistants.
Persons familiar with a Orthodox Jewish synagogue will know and understand at once what the NT remarks mean on the role of women. Space and time presently will not allow an address of it--perhaps in the future in the context of NT worship. Suffice to say, the NT believers worshipped in two physical places--homes and Jewish synagogues (if anyone doubts this, he should spend some time in study to find truth). No NT believer ever worshipped in a Christian Church. There is nothing in the Word to support that theory.
For now it can said that there were women helpers and assistants in the Apostolic Assembly. What did they do? Well, they didn't supervise men, you can bank on it. Perhaps they cooked congregational meals. Or maybe they washed the dishes, cleaned the building, etc.
As for as Aquila & Priscilla, the Scriptural message to me is that Priscilla was a good woman who helped her husband. She was his assistant and helpmate. They were a team. He was the team leader or overseer and she was his queen, assistant and helper. Their work with Apollos was done in a private setting and not in public.
Did she help her husband teach in this context? Well, the Word says so. We can accept that she did. Did she rule over men? No way, Jose! Did she publicly teach men? No way Hose! Did she help her husband in his work? Yes, she did.
Finally, on James' cite of Gal.3:28 "There is neither ....male nor female." Of course, this seems true in terms of potential future salvation. Evidently, both Adamic men and women can sin, can experience forgiveness and be rewarded one day with an unmerited gift of life. But this remark has nothing to do with the reality of differences in men and women in this life. Yes, men and women are different in the world today in the physical (can men have babies or nurse babies?), cultural, social and even religious senses. Shalom, RD
posted
Greetings all. Here's an addendum to my last post.
Some of the most important texts in the Book on the roles of men and women are I Cor 11 and 14. Most modern discussions on the role of gender in society completely ignore these words of a true Hebrew Rav (teacher)--namely Shaul.
As cited in my prior post, the setting of 2d Temple Judaism is essential to understand the NT. As a proof of this, take the case of I Cor 14:34-35 about women being silent and if they want to ask their husbands anything, they should wait and do so at home. Anyone familiar with a Orthodox Jewish synagogue understands this at once.
Why?--because the 2d Temple synagogues were segregated by gender (based on the Temple pattern defined by YHWH). Women and children were seated apart from men (usually behind a curtain in the back or in a balcony). While the men around the bimah (platform containing the Torah) could engage in dicussions on the Torah, women did not participate. They had to be silent.
As Shaul said, if they want to understand, they were to wait until they got home to ask their husbands. That's the way it was then--and still largely today in an Orthodox synagogue. Understanding much of the NT (particularly on the role of women) demands a knowledge and understanding of 2d Temple Judaism.
Otherwise, one of the problems Christians face surfaces in I Cor 11 in that they usally cannot get the over-all purpose of the cite. This chapter addresses both hair length for men and women and the qustion of wearing a veil. The idea of a man wearing a hat or a woman wearing a hat/doily is not the focus of I Cor 11.
Like Shaul said, a man should wear short hair (this is based on the Torah, as Shaul was a teacher of the Torah) and women were to wear long hair (Shaul carefully cited nature and the natural order as proof). Hair length is part of the covering issue--not hats which are another matter. In fact, the priests working in the Temple had to wear a hat/mitra as a part of their uniforms and even while praying).
But the essence of Shaul's teaching at I Cor 11:5-10 is a veil. The words cover and covering (I Cor 11:6-7) come from the Greek “katakaluptos” which means to “cover up or to veil or to cover one’s self” (per Thayer’s “Greek-English Lexicon”).
Now back to Orthodox synagogues where both men and women wear something down over their heads to literally cover their heads (for men, called a talith; otherwise a prayer shawl). The idea here is humility.
Conversely, in the Greek sun worship cults, both men and women went about and worshipped bareheaded with nothing on their heads (as is true in much of modern Christendom).
Effectively Shaul was saying both were wrong. Men should not be covered with a veil and women should be covered with a veil--which elsewhere is the Tanakh proscription(Gen 24:65; Num 5:18; S of S 5:7). Thus, this demand does not allow women to substitute a little hat or doily for a veil.
On another matter, my 4th paragraph down didn't reflect what i really needed to say on the professional clergy. My idea is that persons wanting to avoid confusion over the Word should not rely on the professional clergy. Or if one wants to understand, don't rely on the professional clergy. i suppose intellectually the case case be made that a student of truth may study some of the words of the professional clergy. But i would add--do so carefully and critically and always in the context of the demands of I John 4:1-4.
The Book says that Satan comes to the election as an Angel of Light (II Cor 11:14). Yes, enemies of truth, who are really wolves, come in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15; 10:16; Lu 10:3; Jo 10:12; Acts 20:29). The professional clergy class looks good. But the evidence is conclusive that they operate under the power of bad spirits. Their teachings are bad.
All words, ideas and teachings have to be compared with the Book. My words as well as others in this forum must be checked to Scripture (I Jo 4:1-4).
posted
Rhonda, You are correct.It seems as though the feminization of our culture has led some men to superimpose the culture onto Scripture in order to be seen as inclusive or progressive. Let God be God.Paul is clear in his teaching and a reason is given.All sensible believers know that women and men are equal in their essence. The difference is that of roles not person. Thank you for your clear view of Scripture on this issue. (Just saw what an old posting Rhonda made.If you are out there Rhonda thanks again.)
posted
I have been taught all of my life that “The Bible” is the inherent Word of God, when in fact, John was very clear that Jesus was. The interpreted “Bible”, is in fact full of errors, minimizations, and even additions. One such addition is Matthew 17:21. There is not one Greek word for this entire verse! Look it up for yourself. The troubling thing is that even though Mark 9 holds the verse in Greek, the word fasting is not present in the Greek. This is irrefutable. I’m building a case here. I hold a degree in criminal justice, and looking at “The Bible” as a document repeatedly copied by imperfect men allows for errors, period. There should be no debate. This fact is very disconcerting, and has forced me to go Greek Interlinear for any proof text. The problem is then that there are also errors in the Greek. It would seem that 1 Cor 14:33b-36 is a later addition. “Paul’s” mention of the law in verse 34 is the clincher for me. There is much on this topic at this web sight if anyone is interested. http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1co14v33.htm As far as the usurping thing goes, who cares? It's just the common polite thing! :^) No one's authority should ever be usurped, neither God's, mens' or womans'. Remember the "golden rule?" This stuff isn't that complicated!
A heretic for Christ, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
Here's a few other thoughts to throw into the mix...
My lovely wife was an ordained minister and principal of a Christian school before we were married. And having been taught by several godly women over the years, I've come to, what I think are some scripturally sound personal conclusions on this topic:
1. It's a foolish man who won't be open to listen to a godly woman. The gifts Christ has given to his church also reside in them for edifying.
2. According to I Cor. 14:34-35, women are to keep silent in the church, and learn from their husband. However, what if she is a mature teacher of the word? And what if her husband gives his permission and encourages her to edify the church?
3. Concerning 1 Tim. 2:11-12, I found this interesting... Paul writes, "But I suffer not a woman to teach..." "I" suffer not...(personal). I believe this is different from "Thou Shalt Not" suffer...
4. I believe we husbands will give an account of our "husbandship." I want to do it with joy. I don't want to have to answer the question, "Why didn't you allow my daughter to give out what I gave her?"
Finally, everything bears fruit. If a woman has the fruit of encouraging the saints, edifying the church and turning others to righteousness, how can we speak against that? I wouldn't be where I'm at today if it weren't for some precious women of God who by word and deed encouraged me along the way. Anyone who injures or disrupts the church should be stopped, male or female. But it seems to me that we should have very strong reasons for preventing mature woman of faith from teaching, preaching, exhorting, prophesying, etc., I don't think, "Because she's a woman" is good enough. If that were the rule, then why was Deborah, among others, used the way they were?
My 2 cents anyway. I think the total is up to 4 cents now...
posted
Dear Pat Sipp, I am open to admit that finding error in the King James Bible is paramount to sin to some. However, I find that in my desire to come to know The LORD better, this is simply not the truth. Being a radical Christian [I try and follow The Way] I have learned to question anything man teaches or does. It is unfortunate that the original documents [read letters to the church] were lost. What we have is what we have, and the Greek is as good as it gets, unless archeologist (or another shepherd boy) discovers lost documents somewhere. The truth is, notations were made by those transcribing The Bible, and some of those notations ended up where they don’t belong, mixed into Scripture.
The second problem is that there was embellishment going on. For example, Matthew 17:21 does not exist in the Greek at all, and the word fasting was often added along with the existent Greek words for prayer. Check out Mark 9:29 in the Greek for example, (This is the place where Matthew 17:21 was taken from).
The third problem was that there was detail left out that should not have been. Take the King James rendering of Hebrews 10:24-25 "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."
Now, let’s look at the Greek Interlinear. “(verse 24) "And we may be down-minding (reminding) one another into beside-sharpening of love and of ideal acts." (verse 25) "No abandoning the on together-leading of themselves according as custom to any, but beside-calling and to so much, rather as much as you are looking nearing The Day."
So we have then; 1.)beside one another sharpening, 2.)together leading each other on, and 3.)beside one another calling. This is not the church of today, where we listen to a lecture and go home! This is why I’m here on this forum, “Radically Christian Café.” I want my theology offended!!! I figured, "What better way to have that happen, than among a group of believers that have left "the church" to return to The Church!
The truth is, I’m sick of playing church, and I want to know The Truth better. The fact that many Christian scalars agree that 1 Cor 14:33b-36 is probably a later marginal addition, just goes to show that a whole church teaching should not be built on one verse, especially when that verse seems to contradict what the same man wrote in at least seven other places!
I think where courage lies, is to question all of the religious dogma we have heard all of our lives. There is no courage in criticizing or condemning those who hold different opinions. Iron sharpens iron, and we are called to sharpen one another , not cut each other to shreds!
I hope this has "upped the anti" to six or seven sense ...oops, I meant cents! ;^)
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
(I want to go on the record as one who opposes the open criticism of scripture by some who practice textual criticism of the Word of God. It is inadvisable for any man to stand in a place where he criticizes God's work; for all scripture was given by inspiration of God who is the true Author.
And, God is very capable of preserving His word down through endless ages despite that some men feel they should have been placed in charge of keeping it pure and free from error.
Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.
If there are errors, apparent or otherwise, in the scriptures then surely God is aware of it and has allowed it. We cannot know His secret purposes but this we do know, that He does not answer to any man but all men will answer to Him. We also know that while on earth He spoke to the people in parables? Why did He not plainly tell them all truth? Because they would not accept it. I cannot speak for God but just perhaps he has allowed some errors in the scripture to expose the true character of those who wish to fasten themselves to doubt regarding His word.
Now I am not opposed to using several versions or even translations to help us understand His word more clearly. And, I use the Greek myself for fuller meanings at times and to test my beliefs. But Lord help me if I ever raise my voice to denounce His faithfulness and question His word.
I just felt that I needed to add this so that anyone reading this later would not think that I approve of raising doubts regarding God's Holy Word. If we destroy the Bible's credibility in our own minds then we might just as well burn it in the streets for it becomes of no value to us. And, if we are left without scripture then what will be our guide? The Holy Spirit brings things to our remembrance but it does not force us to digest it. It would be against God's character to force anything upon someone against their will. Thus, we must willingly place His word in our hearts and minds. That is our work. The work of the Holy Spirit is to help us comprehend spiritual things.)
Now, regarding the subject at hand. I do not believe that this matter will ever be resolved fully. This subject is divisive and can be highly controversial, even offensive.
I believe that there are highly qualified women teachers and there are some who should never leave the house. Therefore, this should be assessed on a case by case basis with much guidance from the Lord. Let the matter be decided by those who are best able to judge in each locality.
If we try to set some rule, even if based on how we understand scripture, we are very likely to make matters worse. The Lord is quite capable of being the head of His church and has placed no man in this position.
quote:Originally posted by jqlogan: (I want to go on the record as one who opposes the open criticism of scripture by some who practice textual criticism of the Word of God. It is inadvisable for any man to stand in a place where he criticizes God's work; for all scripture was given by inspiration of God who is the true Author. These are my thoughts.
You may think what you will, but the truth is still the truth. The fact that many scholars put together and are still putting together their best attempt at what the original authors said, is a fact of public record. That there is only a "general consensus" is also public record. There are no known original New Testament text to compare anything with. Scholars are still trying to decide what should and should not be included in The New Testament. This is why there are three different Greek text that are openly considered more reliable. For a wonderfully refreshing and honest Christian look at this, I found the web-sight below to be very intelligently and logically presented. Why not check it out?
posted
I agree with you on this one Jeff! I also believe that God is capable of preserving his word. Literarily speaking The Bible is the most reliable work of literature ever written in how it was coppied from the first time, and up to the present. The works of Socrates certainly have small errors in how it is translated to our language and yet the basic concepts remain the same, and few people argue with it's basic reliability. I also read from many versions of the Bible and go to the Greek when I get stuck.
The Bible is different from any other book in that it is living and active! I know from experience that if we seek Him (vs. reading the Bible with the intent of keeping Him in our own little box) He WILL answer!!!
As to the question of women in the church, it is a subject that I have studied some (being a woman, it is a subject that has interested me), and also realize that I am still in the process of learning about. I am also in the process of learning about what Leadership in the church is really meant to look like in general (spurred on by recent threads- thanks to all of you).
What might be worth doing is not getting too caught up in specifics, but instead seeing if there are some principles here worth looking at. One thing that I have noticed is that most of the passages on womens roles in the church, as well as in marriage reference back to the creation story of Adam and Eve. I noticed this especially in Eph 5:31,32 where gen. is quoted "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh". This is a profound mystery- but I am talking about Christ and the Church." So who we are as men and women(mainly in marriage, but in other relationships also as seen in other passages like 1 cor 11) is supposed to somehow picture the relationship of Christ and us- his Church, His bride. We women instinctively know that our physical weakness is beautiful (we would rather have dainty hands and soft curves than square jaws and powerful muscles). Relationaly I think we should strive to showcase the beauty of weakness as well (after all the Bible says that He chose the week to shame the strong, and that when we are weak than we are strong). Somehow we should show the responsiveness of the Church to Christ. Now, in my house church experience this means a lot more than in my IC experience, as church is not a time to passively sit and turn off the brain, but a time to actively respond to each other, and collectively to Christ. And Christ certainly doesn't try to beat us into submission, but delights in our freedom and ability to serve along side him as Gods fellow heirs.
What does all this look like practicaly? I don't really know, and I certainly speak up pleanty in church, but I watch women in their marriages, and in the Church, and I somehow know when they are upholding these principles and when they are not.
posted
JeanneH I do not disagree that The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is the most reliable work of literature ever written (in how it was copied from antiquity to the present). There are just some minor questions with the New Testament. It's really not that complex. If you look around, most of this type of debate is over The New. The fact that there are questions, is simply a fact. One such question is whether Paul wrote 1 Cor. 14:33-36. That is addressed in some detail at the link below. I am not a woman. I just found this interesting, and possibly a bit freeing to women, that's all.
posted
Yes, I do understand your point of view, I just would hate for this to be a situation where we wrongly threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Doing church in a home in a participatory way has opened up my eyes to the beautiful, living type of relationship that Christ wants to have with his church- not one of rigid rules, ceremonies and hierarchy. However- this relationship is a bit ironic in that we have to die to ourselves, respond to Gods initiation towards us in Christ, and place ourselves as willing slaves to him, only to find out that it is through this path that we find we are finaly and completly free! Then he says as I mentioned before that this mystery is somehow related to the mystery of the marriage relationship between men and women. 1 Cor 11 talks about this also in relating man as the head of woman to Christ as the head of the Church, and then even to God the Father as the head of Christ. Now our limited human understanding and unfortunately our experience often tells us this is bad- but as I mentioned before- in our relationship with Christ it turns out to be very good! It is obviously good in the relationship between God the Father and the Son as well. By the way it is also interesting to note that Jesus can relate to both men and women as he is the head of the church, yet is under the headship of the Father.
We just need to be careful not to throw something in scripture out because it doesn't make sense to us.
quote:Originally posted by JeanneH: We just need to be careful not to throw something in scripture out because it doesn't make sense to us.
Again you speak with great wisdom. You continue to bless me over and over! Instead of throwing something in scripture out because it doesn't make sense to us, we must study until it does. Here is what I just found, and completed moments ago!!! It is part of an entire work in progress, and is not addressed to you to refute. I would love to hear your thoughts however.
*snip* Now, try refuting my findings in Romans 16:1&2. Phoebe was a (Greek diakonos) always interpreted “deacon” when speaking of men in the King James. The use of the more pure Greek to English word "servant" here makes it obvious that they knew what the word meant, but chose to alter it to "deacon" when speaking of men!!! This is obviously meant as chauvinistic bondage. Remember, the King James was not published until 1894. This gave religious folks over eighteen-hundred years to create a church hierarchy! Is this not an obvious attempt, by the writers of the King James, to keep an already existent church hierarchy in place? That not enough? Let’s read on in Romans 16: 3-5. Paul is writing of Priscilla and Aquila, (husband and wife). They are referred to as “helpers” here in the King James. The Greek word used here is “sunergos”. The horrid thing is, the King James chose to interpret the word as “deacons and bishops” in Philemon 1:1, where there was no specific mention of a women!!! This is ridiculous! The word is non-gender specific, and simply means together-actor! Together actor means doing the same job in the Greek! In verse six, Paul then addresses another woman! Now on to verse seven, where King James used the word “kinsmen” in stead of the word relatives! The fact is, this was a husband and wife, and one was not a man at all! The fact is, Paul called them “notable [apostles]” in the Greek where King James vagued this down by saying "who are of note" among the apostles. Well, that settles it for me. If Paul saw all of these women as his equals and fellow laborers, they were doing the same job he was doing. I bet they were as noisy as he was!!! There is freedom in Christ, even for women!
A heretic for Christ, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
In the phrase, '...one of you...has a doctrine' as quoted from 1 Cor. 14:26 “How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, EVERY ONE of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” Clearly a doctrine is an explanation of scriptural teaching. So if women are included in expounding doctrines then clearly Paul is saying women are to be teachers... and then goes on to say women should be silent or quiet in church.
Like other apparent contradictions in the bible there is a contradiction of interpretation by readers but not in the essence of what he is saying. In my opinion Paul is basically saying that according to tradition and also to the relative roles of men and women assigned by God, women should be supporters of men in submission, but however in a situation where the Spirit of God is being poured out on an assembly any one who has any expression of truth from God is permitted to speak providing it is done in an orderly fashion.
To put put it more simply to emphasize the point: Let God speak through whom he will. If however people are speaking from human understanding or debate let the women give way to the men.
A second point is that in the interpretation of these passages about women the culture of the Jews is too often referred to as if we are reading of man made tradition when in fact Paul taught what was against the norm- Christianity was and is subversive to worldly society. It is revolution.
There is some deep spiritual significance to the silence of women: I think there is a hint that women speaking on their own authority at a place where God is speaking through inspired teachers and prophets is a kind of rebellion--- unless they are one of the inspired! For men however who have been given a natural right to be leaders the error is not so blatant.
What we are actually reading about I think is being in harmony with God's Spirit. It would be a sin for a woman not to speak when led by God, but otherwise it is proper naturally and spiritually to take a back seat.
Even in Paul's day and culture this was not always accepted because he says, 'he who will not recognize this let him not be recognized...'
posted
BlackSwan, First, let me say hello. I think the name you use to post here is wonderful. The words themselves brings to mind femininity, beauty, grace, ...but mystery.
Secondly, let me say that I never really thought [read "cared" (I'm so sorry)] about this topic, but for some strange reason it is important to my wife. :^)
The truth is, two nights before I posted that, she got really mad at me, because I informed her I was about to go as deep into this topic as I could, and see what I believed. (I am trying to be open to re-think my whole Biblical upbringing within the church, if need be.)
You see, my wife has horror story after horror story about men's treatment toward her, even in the church. Her anger toward me came (in part) from the fact that I refused to incorporate her findings into my beliefs ...unless she offered Biblical proof. You see, I DO THINK THE BIBLE IS SCRIPTURE. It is the foundation I try to live my life on. The problem was, I have always heard it said in the church (not so bluntly) "Women are less-than men." I didn't know what to believe.
Needless to say I was terrified at what I would find.
After our "intense fellowship," :^) it took me two days to finally work up the courage to dig into The Bible. I discovered that women did the exact same things men did in The New Testament, even to the point of being called [apostles]. I burst into tears, to the point I literally had my three year old daughter come over to me and ask, "You okay daddy?" The truth is, I was both angry (at the King James) and sad that the church today is preaching hurtful things in the name of my Lord and my Love.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I am finding a common theme throughout my studies... The theme? Jesus came to set the captive free.
A heretic for Christ, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
Dear Matthew, wife and all of God's children who are in marriage,
Let it be noted that on the first of June 2001, the bold search for genuine living truth of man and woman's relationship in the Church, began to be recorded on the forums of Radically Christian Café website!
Today, on January 26, 2008, we have arrived to where we MUST realize that only the "EXPERIENCE of CHRIST-JESUS" can provide the life to satisfy our questions, relieve us from doubts and to carry us in the victory over failures.
I just finished reading all the post of this discussion, and I very much share Matthew's tears in my own marriage and family and yet, I know how useless those tears can be, if they are misguided.
"For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death." 2Cor 7,10
May our tears be blessed of the Lord's Spirit, that we may be led to maturity, along with our spouses, within the local assemling to the kins, whom are born of God and with whom God places each one of us to GROW into His fulness.
This discussion begins by Philip and Mary asking for insight in the matter of 1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
I wonder if we might come to realise that Matthew's tears during his last post, and what promted Philip and Mary to post their request for insight might be very, very, very closely related?!?!?!...and that this relation's struggle is the same for all couples since Adam and Eve?!?!?!...
"Dear Lord, can You please lift us out of our ignorance and show us how much the depth of our indifferent nature to You and to the sound of Your voice here and now is the problem here. As You have mercy upon us and that You lift us out of Adam with Your sweet voice, open our individual eyes and hearts into the marriage that feeds from the Tree of Life(The experience of Christ-Jesus' s brotherhood, Saviorship, High Priesthood, Lordship and life-given Spirit of a
Email this page to someone.
