Women and teaching. (again)

Paul clearly says that women are to teach women. The issue is that a woman is not to authoritatively teach the Word of God to men...

 

Paul told Titus that the older women were to teach the younger ones. Maybe he meant they were to wait until they went outside the church building, but since they didn't have church buildings I'm not sure how you could prove that. Maybe what he told Timothy was only for Timothy's church, but it sounds more general than that to me.

So, I don't know.

 

Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; [4] That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

I say this humbly, but it would seem you are wrong.

 

I would say that in the verse you quoted it seems to me that both phrases...."to teach" and "usurp authority over"........refer to the phrase "the man".

So that verse would be stating we are not to "teach the man" nor are we to "usurp authority over the man."

 

Stop teaching us about this stuff, Gina!

 

I think one of the most important things about bible study is understanding who they wrote to and why they wrote it to understand what it says and how it applies to us, using the rest of scripture to help in interpetation.

 

When the NT was written it was custom for the Jewsish (and new believers) women to sit on one side and the men on the other. So are you saying Gina we should do that also? Customs change, I agree with bapmom that women are not to usurp auhtority over men. This the bible is clear.

From the article on Hermenutics

Cultural / Historical Perspective

When attempting to interpret Scripture, it is important to remember that the Bible was written in a specific culture - the ancient Jewish or "Semitic" culture of the near East. Our culture - the post-Modern Western culture - is vastly different from that of the authors of Scripture; we will sometimes find deep differences in what we take to be "givens" in a specific area of knowledge and what the Biblical writers took as their "givens." The Biblical writer’s history, culture, customs, environment, and language are diverse and removed from our culture and way of life.

We will find that great gaps exist between eastern and western culture; therefore we need some help in bridging these gaps. We, as westerners, will find ourselves separated from the Bible culturally, geographically, historically and especially by language.

On the other hand, we believe God's Word to be universal in meaning and application. We believe the Holy Spirit will reveal all truth to us, particularly with regard to the Bible. Many in the New Testament churches did not understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament, yet the Apostles expected them to understand the truth of the Old Testament scriptures when translated into Greek. Does this mean that we may safely ignore the cultural, historical, and language differences between us and the Biblical writer? I don't believe it does, any more than we may rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us to speak or read or use logic. The Holy Spirit inspired the Biblical authors and illuminates God's Word to those who earnestly seek its truth, but interpretation is properly the responsibility of individual Christians.

Paul describes the one who "rightly divides" the Word of Truth as a "workman;" thus proper interpretation comes through effort. Paul is writing to Timothy who was apparently gifted as a teacher, and certainly the Holy Spirit provides the church gifted teachers to help us better understand God's Word, but Scripture is quite clear that we are all to read, study, and meditate upon God's Word (cf., 1 Timothy 4:13; Proverbs 4:2; Psalm 1:1-3) - and this can only be done if we are prepared to be "workmen" and to test the things our teachers teach us against the pure measure of Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_General/Hermeneutics.htm

 

I think I need to stop reading threads where ladies post because I keep learning things.

 

whatever,

oh don't do that........

 

My perplexity does not lie in Paul saying that women should not usurp the man's authority, but rather in his reasoned argument to back up this command, i.e., the woman's order in creation.

 

Perplexity?

 

Bapmom, I am glad that you did not tell us that what perplexity, because that would be teaching, and we would have to exercise church discipline on you or something.

BTW, (and you'll love this) the American Heritage Dictionary defines perplexity as the state of being perplexed. Whew! It's a good thing we have dictionaries.

 

I'm gonna side with donnA. Work on it. Figure it out. End all speculation. Write your conclusion, not your maybe's. Ged'er dun!

 

Calvi.....my friend,

anything Ive learned my husband has taught me....lol So Im just the parrot.......

I know the definition of the word perplexity....silly.....I was asking WHY he's perplexed over that part. And really, an expansion on his confusion would be helpful, as it would answer such things as if he is wondering why the order of creation would mean that the woman is second? Is he second-guessing Paul, or God?

 

Not at all, my sister! Because Paul's reason the woman should not usurp the man's authority was based on her order in creation, it would appear that the command not to usurp the man's authority would not be limited to church life only. Such, however, goes against all societal ways of Western thinking and practice, and therefore will recieve outcries of bigotry perhaps even in this thread.

 

Ahh, I see now Bluefalcon.

and I agree with you. Right now I think it would apply to the husband/wife relationship, and not necessarily to mean that all women must be under all men....

Im still thinkin'.