a woman teaching

Helen, I tried to explain my reasons why I would be uncomfortable with it.

I think your understanding authentein is misguided, BTW. That word is a hapax legomennon, I believe. Much creativity has been used to explain why it doesn't mean "authority," but rather "authority with corporal punishment" (which make no sense in the context ... what church pastor practices corporal punishment on his members???), "teaching under the authority of a man" ("under the authority" is not found in the text) or some such other meaning. Attempts to make authentein anything but authority are found all over, and they are all found wanting.

Secondly, the text says "teach or have authority." So it is, in reality, prohibiting two things: 1) teaching men; 2) having authority over men. It is not merely prohibiting one thing.

I am a lot more comfortable with people who say "Paul was limited by his first century context" than with those who say "the words really mean something else."

I think confusing "material" with "presentation" is not helpful. Your response about Eddys' teaching is true ... It is wrong no matter who presents it. But the fact that material is right does not lead us to conclude that anyone can present it. Again, the Bible gives two reasons, based on Gen 1-3 (which you should know as well as any), that have not changed.

I think we should take a quick look at 1 Tim 2.

1. The context is the public gathering of the church.
2. The prohibition is for women to teach or have authority. There are no exceptions for the kind of authority or team teaching, or any such thing.
3. The reasons given are creation reasons, not contextual reasons (e.g. women's education status, first century view of women, women susceptible to false teaching, women not teaching under the pastor or husband, etc.)

One last comment: The fact that a woman can teach men effectively is not the point. The fact that a woman might stand beside her husband to clarify her husband's technical language is not the point. The point is about the text and its teaching. I see no reason to abandon the text.

 

Great post, Bro Larry!

When I think of how often we choose to alter the word 'just a tiny bit' to fit into our circumstances I then remember instances like, Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, Ananais and Saphira and know that God's holiness is not to be tampered with or altered, not one miniscule bit!

As my daily read through is now in Leviticus, the book of holiness, I even more clearly see that God has zero tolerance for altering His statutes and commands to our own preferences! :godisgood:

 

I'm not Pastor Larry, but I'll take a stab at it... The Baptist Board is not church.

 

Is this not God's best? You even state that it would be your preference!

When men and women appear together in the pulpit do they not have the appearance of being a united team in presenting to the congregation?

When Susie and Johnny are co-pastors is this scriptually acceptable?

Is there a difference here? For real, or by preference?

Actually anonymity on the board is preferable as then ideas and issues can be discussed scripturally and without all the gender influence and frivolity and consideration entering in. Some however, prefer to be known!

Just my 2c and IMOP.
In remembering all the years my dad was pastor I actually dont remember once when my mother entered the pulpit. She did however, participate mightily within the ladies groups.

 

To quote myself from the above post, 1. The context is the public gathering of the church.

Here, as in teh Baptist Board? None. But in a public setting, particularly in a church, a teacher does have authority. That is why he/she is teaching. They are believed to have knowledge on teh subject that they think others should be informed about. In the context of teaching Scripture, a teacher has the authority vested in him to tell people what God says, and what they should believe and do.

Silly perhaps, but not wrong. ... I am kidding. I appreciate what you ahve said on here about creationism and origins. But again, remember that this is not a public gathering of the church, the body of Christ.

So all your questions were, in reality, based on a faulty presupposition that the prescriptions of 1 Tim 2 and women teaching apply outside the body.

 

Was it a church gathering, not asking if it was at a chhurch, but was it the CHURCH gathered for the lecture, or just any old body, did a church ask you to come there? Why was it not in their building, but a public building?
I don't think it matters where a church meets, in the church building or not, they are still the church.

 

Your OP said, This past weekend, we were the only speakers at a retreat for a church at Lake Tahoe. So was it a church or was it not? The church is not the building. It is the people (as you later say). So to say you weren't in a church isn't really true, if you were there at the invitation of hte church for a church gathering.

No it's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of ecclesiology.

Yes it does. Paul is giving instructions about "how one ought to conduct himself in the church" (1 Tim 3:14).

Not at all. The fact that something is true in church does not mean that it is not true elsewhere. So Paul's commands for modesty are for modesty in church, which I could lay out the case for it here if I had time, but I am hungry and my wife is waiting, so perhaps later. But the principles of modesty in the church worship have application elsewhere, as well as explicit teaching elsewhere.

The text does not say this last statement, does it? You have added to the text.

Not in the church.

First, creationism is doctrine. Second, Priscilla, if she spoke, did so when her and her husband were discipling one man. It was not a gathering of the church.

To say you had no authority is curious. If you had no authority, then why were you invited to speak? That invitation, in and of itself, indicates that the church viewed you and Barry as an authority on the matter at hand. Furthermore, the very nature of teaching is telling someone what is true, and therefore, what they must believe to be in line with Scripture.

Honestly Helen, you are very good on creationism. But on some of these issues, it appears that you will go to great lengths to get around what the text says. For my end, I see no reason for it. I think we just go with the text.

 

I think this kind of response underlines the main issue which is a misunderstanding of context. This is not a church, and reading a book from someone is not a church. The prohibition is not against learning from women. It is against women teaching or having authority in a church.

 

No, I mean a church invites you their conference, and you stand up in front of the CHURCH and teach. Thats what I mean.

 

2 Tim 3:16 means that Paul’s words are God’s words. So this is God’s command because “All Scripture is God-breathed.”

Incorrect. 1 Tim 3:14 makes clear that Paul is addressing how people ought to conduct themselves in the church. The fact that a teaching might be applicable elsewhere, does not change the context of this one. So your understanding of the text is not only “not assured,” it is specifically contradicted by the Scriptures themselves.

Simply incorrect. Where did you get this from? You list no source by which it can be checked. I browsed quickly through TDNT and NIDNTT and see nothing of the sort right off. Brown (NIDNTT) says “The aim of all teaching is to communicate knowledge and skill with a view to developing the pupil’s abilities, but not to force his will in a particular direction” (3:760). That seems directly in opposition to your assertion about “requiring submission,” as does the rest of the discussion on this word.

It doesn’t literally read that way. The genitive case in Greek requires us to supply a word in English that is understood perfectly well in Greek. The text says nothing about a woman exercising authority under a man. That is your addition to the text. Never does a man have permission to call on a woman to disobey God in any context.

Again, simply incorrect. The word can mean to have authority over or to domineer. You have assumed the definition that fits your preconceived notion. The word does not require that, nor does it really make sense. Not even men are to “dominate.” They are to lead gently, and teach clearly. George Knight (New International Greek Testament Commentary) says, “ Contrary to the suggestion of the KJV’s “to usurp authority” and BAGD’s alternative, “domineer” (so also NEB), the use of the words no inherent negative sense of grasping or usurping authority or of exercising it in a harsh or authoritative way, but simply means “to have or exercise authority” (BAGD; LSJM; “to have full power or authority over”; cf. Preisigke, Worterbuch I, 235f., giving three nuances for four different papyri, all in the sphere of the above definition; cf. finally Lampe, Lexicon, whose four main meanings are in the same orbit; so NASB, RSV, TEV, NIV: “to have authority”).

He continues, “That a woman may not teach in the church, or teach a man, is underlined by the addition of [to remain quiet (he uses the Greek here, but most won’t understand it so I translated)]. The adversative particle alla indicates that this clause is contrasted with what precedes (not to teach or have authority but to be in silence). Some have suggested that Paul is only ruling out teaching or exercise of authority apart from a man’s oversight [which seems to be your position, Barry], or just a certain type of authoritative teaching. The insistence here on silence seems to rule out all these solutions. The clause as a whole describes the status of a woman not in relation to every aspect of the gathered assembly (i.e., praying, prophesying, singing, etc.; cf. again 1 Cor 11:5) but specifically in respect to that with which it is contrasted, i.e., teaching (and the exercise of authority), just as the first occurrence of [in silence] applied to the learning/teaching situation (v. 11).”

So you have failed to account for “remaining in silence” (v. 12), and learning in silence (v. 11).

That is most decidedly not a literal reading of the text. That is your interpretation of the text, to support your position. The text literally reads “To teach, a woman, I do not allow nor to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (You can get out your Greek New Testament and check it out.) Smoothed out for English construction, Paul literally says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to remain in silence.” The words you have added are your words, not God’s.

BTW, concerning “remaining silence,” do you still want to argue that this is not just about the church? As much as some men with talkative wives might find such a prescription helpful, it most certainly is not intended for outside the church.

Here, your wife asked for comments, so they were offered. I have tried to stay clear of making direct personal accusations while at the same time not compromising on the clear teaching of Scripture.

This is the last resort … Pull out the legalism card? Are we legalists because we insist on the outdated notion that men and women should not live together? That homosexuals should not marry? Why is it that taking the words of God and putting them into practice is legalism? Why pull this out?

The fact that I and others take the words of Scripture on this matter very seriously does not make us legalists. It is unfortunate that you stooped to that.

In short, Barry (I think there is a rule BTW against posting under someone else’s name), the text of Scripture is clear and your seven points are attempts to avoid the text. You have not participated in a straightforward reading of the text. You have mangled it, attempting to use Greek; you have ignored the context, both near and larger context of 1 Tim as a whole; you have ignored the impact of the doctrine of inspiration; you didn’t address remaining silent; you did not even attempt to address Paul’s reasons (creation and fall). If all you have said is true, then why did Paul speak so clearly in opposition to your position, and why did he use creation and fall as his proof?

Are your familiar with Grudem and Piper’s book on this topic? You should familiarize yourself with it. The arguments you make are typical arguments made by evangelical feminism (which doesn’t necessarily make them wrong). As I said earlier, I have a lot more respect for people who just say, “Paul was trapped in first century culture,” than for those who try to change what the text says.

I think what you have given us is a classic attempt to justify women in teaching and authority roles in the church. Every church with women pastors would applaud your exegesis because it is exactly what they believe. And I think that we have shown sufficient holes in it to undermine any legitimacy it might pretend to have.

 

I don’t have a preference about that. I really don’t care. I just commented on what I thought the rule was. As far as I am concerned, Barry can post under whatever name he wants to. (Just don't go in the Holy of Holies, aka the women's private forum.) I honestly thought he had a registration.

Feel free to address these absurdities and I will do my best to respond. I supported what I said with various references. Feel free to do the lexical and exegetical work and respond. I am willing to be sharpened on this.


If you have read the arguments for women to be pastors, they are exactly what he gave. Seriously, read those who believe women can be pastors. They will argue that it’s Paul’s words, not God’s. They will argue that authentein is domineering authority. They will argue that it's okay as long as a man is the head pastor.

If Scripture says what it appears to say without the creativity, then we probably would have to come to a different conclusion on that. I have tried to avoid any direct accusation against you. I don’t think you or he intend to disobey in this area. I do think you have used some very creative exegesis and explanation to try to avoid it. And it won’t work. But I am trying very hard not to personalize it.

I have?? What did he mean then? If I missed something, please clarify.

Again, if you read those who support women pastors, you will see this very approach. It is almost identical to what they say. How do I know? Because I have read them. I have talked to them. I have interacted with them at length on my blog and on others. What Barry said is what they say.


Second, Paul is not just talking about an authoritarian role. He includes teaching, and uses the common word for teaching. (I would still be interested in knowing what lexical resources Barry used to get his ideas.) Paul is speaking about 1) teaching men and 2) exercising authority over men. How do we know that? Because that is what he said.

As I read the story of Priscilla and Aquila, and compare that to your story here, there are very few similarities.

One of my amazements in interacting with you and Barry over this and some other topics is that you hold the Word in such high regard with respect to creation, going against the bulk of modern “science” and culture. But then in other areas you do not appear to hold the Word in high regard. And that is amazing to me. This was a prime example of you doing to 1 Tim 2 exactly what Hugh Ross and others have done to Genesis 1-11. You have taken the plain reading of the text and redefined words and failed to deal with certain aspects of it, and failed to deal with the context of it.

I simply encourage you to rethink this, starting from the beginning, and putting aside whatever past ministry you have had. Pretend like that is not an issue. Pretend like modern culture is not an issue. Just deal with the text.

However, I did enjoy the recent telescope pictures, at least the ones I took time to download. The old dialup does not work real well with those large pictures. But they were incredible.

 

Recently I have read about Huldah the prophetess in 2 Kings 22 and (2 Chronincles as well). She was sought out by a king of all people, and that king (Josiah) was one in pursuit of God. God used her to confirm His words to Josiah. It concerned the Book of the Law. She was married as well, and it was SHE who did the talking.

We ought not try to make the Bible say what we want it to say.

 

Barry,

As I read back over the posts, I keep asking myself: "What am I missing here?"

Over and over again, I ask: "What is it that is troubling me?"

What is it that you are trying to gain from this discussion?

Permission for a woman to teach? No that is not it.

Permission for a man to teach? Certainly not.

I think what is troubling me is the constantly changing semantic range of the words being used in this exchange. Church is used, but later it means a hotel conference room. Teaching is used, but then it means teaching with corporal punishment (I really did not remember that from my Greek NT, but I might have learned something).

It is difficult to exchange ideas and interact on a subject when the topic seems to be mutating.

OK - for what it is worth - From what has been posted, I do not think that you were in error about your actions. But, your justification continues to amaze me. Honestly, I really do not know where you are going with your argument. In all sincerity, where are you going? Do not tell me or post to the board, but answer to your self - what 'it' is that you are trying to gain from this discussion?

For example: if you are trying to gain theological approval - I am not your pastor; if you are just trying to vent and release - you seem to still be hurting too much from the event to get the release IMHO; if you are trying to win an argument - you won't change the theology that I had arrived at before this all began; or if 'what'?

I really do not know what is going on in this thread. There is a constant head banging about something that most believers (including yourself) have already settled in their minds and in their hearts.

I continue to pray for you and your family. But, it is difficult to offer 'advice' when there does not seem to be an identifiable problem.

God bless

Wayne

 

Frankly, I think this is a topic we can find the appropriate verse somewhere to support what we want to believe.........either side, and in any version.

Cheers,

Jim

PS, Not pointing a finger at anyone. I just don't get hung up on it, except I fight for women's rights in this modern society.