Looking at 1 Tim 2:11-14 there is no exception to a woman teaching a man doctrine or the bible in the church for she must be in silence and submission to the man. Liberals and others will try and re-interpret the plain message of scripture and then claim to be conservative but they are conservative only in their own eyes and among other churches like theirs.
You've posted this thread in direct response to my post encouraging Scarlett that she is absolutely right in teaching, under the authority of her pastor, a mixed-gender Sunday school class. By so doing, with the inclusion of this statement, you have attempted to identify me as a liberal. Therefore, I'm going to respond, even though I find you to be a disobedient and unrepentant member of the Body.
It is absolutely correct that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 imposes two restrictions on the ministry of women: They are not to teach Christian doctrine to men, and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church. These restrictions are permanent, authoritative for the church in all times and places and circumstances as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. Of that, there is no question.
However, you go much too far in excluding women from teaching when under the authority of someone who Paul would authorize to teach, such as the pastor or the woman's husband, for example When Paul uses the word "allow" in v. 12, it is the Greek epitrepo, which means primarily to "turn to," or "instruct." In other words, Paul does not instruct a woman to teach. He doesn't command them to do so. He doesn't bar them from all types of teaching, and in he does not "instruct" them to exercise authority over men -- as epitrepo is used by Paul to cover both circumstances of "to teach" and "to exercise authority."
Interesting word authenteo, the Greek translated "exercise." It literally means "one who with his own hands kills another or himself." In the figurative, it would mean to give one person absolute power in a certain area of another's life. Such is the church leadership's power over the congregant or member. Of course, one not satisfied or in disagreement with the result of that power can leave. Still, as Paul goes on to explain his reasoning, that Adam sinned by Eve was deceived, it is obvious he does not want the gospel placed in the hands of a woman without clear authority to present it to others.
We draw that conclusion from the use of the word didasko for "teach." It is used in the New Testament mainly to convey the idea of a very careful transmission of the truth concerning Jesus Christ, the authoritative proclamation of God’s will to believers in light of that teaching, and the way by which one must be empowered to appropriate His saving grace. Though the occurrence of the word is sometimes giving a broader spectrum of the meaning of "teach," here (and usually) it is to describe the general ministry of edification only by those gifted to teach, that takes place in various ways -- for example, through teaching, singing, praying, reading Scripture as in Colossians 3:16. We can see this is the following verses.
1 Corinthians 12, NASB
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
Ephesians 4
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
Within the parameters that are forced on the passage by Paul's choice of verbiage, it becomes plain that the "authority" of which Paul speaks is of a legitimate concern regarding the administrative function exercised under God by some Christians over others. Paul and an unknown writer (in my opinion, and which is a different thread) references the function of these offices in other epistles.
1 Thessalonians 5
12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction,
Hebrews 13
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
In the pastoral epistles, this governing activity is ascribed to the elders. Clearly, then, Paul’s prohibition of women’s having authority over a man would exclude a woman from becoming an elder as it is described in his letters to Timothy and Titus. By extension, then, women would be barred from occupying whatever position in a given local church would be equivalent to the pastoral epistles’ governing elder. My church, for example, calls them "deacons."
This would be the case even if a woman’s husband were to give her permission to occupy such a position, for Paul’s concern is not with a woman’s acting independently of her husband or usurping his authority but with the woman’s exercising authority in the church over any man. Teaching in Paul’s sense here is authoritative in and of itself, not all exercising of authority in the church is through teaching, and though Paul treats the two tasks as distinct elsewhere in 1 Timothy when discussing the work of elders in the church, it cannot be denied that teaching and having authority are closely related and that, therefore, Paul prohibits women from conducting either activity, whether jointly or in isolation, in relation to men.
Now I return to that all important consequence of the use of the Greek epitrepo in v. 12. As I said, it speak of Paul's declination to "turn to" or "instruct" a woman to teach, for the reasons of the deception of Eve by Satan. Why was she deceived? There is absolutely no evidence that Adam had ever instructed his wife regarding the imperative of the commands of the Lord, which were very limited at that time. He never told Eve "don't touch the fruit of those two trees" with any convincing or overarching authority in his words. She knew what had been said -- or did she? I ask because it is obvious she added words to the command.
Genesis 2
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
What did Eve tell Satan just a bit later?
Genesis 3
2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' " [Emphasis added]
So we can conclude that Adam didn't do a very good job of instructing his wife, yes? It seems obvious from the Hebrew structure of the sentence that the information was conveyed to Eve in a very off-hand manner, and that in her statement to the serpent, she was uncertain of what God really had said.
Paul clearly had no problem with Priscilla being an instructor for Apollos. Why? Because she was under the authority of her husband, and she was obviously well prepared for the task. Give the evidence in the passages I've quoted and from other Scripture that can easily be located throughout the Bible, it becomes evident that a properly prepared woman under the authority of -- at the very least -- her husband, and preferably under that of her pastor, can teach, even men.
But the bible is clear in that she cannot teach men in the church service nor can she preach.
I believe -- though undoubtedly you will disagree -- I have proven you incorrect. Holding a position of senior pastor would be unbiblical, as that wields the type of authority of which Paul speaks against, but any other position is perfectly legitimate according to biblical principle and teaching.
Did I overlook something? Paul says, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." This was Paul's practice. He does not tell us to do the same.
Actually, yes he does, within the limitations I've herein described.
