WOMEN PREACHERS

[Charles Meadows]

SFIC does raise a valid point. This passage was not intended to answer the question, "Are women allowed to preach?"

Authentew itself means to exert authority or dominion. There is precedent in Hellenistic Greek writings to suggest that "authentew tinos andros" or something similar does in fact suggest improper usurping of authority of women over men.

But where does Paul say women cannot preach? I think that the correct answer is that Paul would have envisioned a woman in authority over men in a church setting to be improper. Indeed if that were not the case he likely would have had to defend his "progressive" view, which he does not.

But consider the scenario of a woman stranded on an island with 100 lost men. If she wins them to Christ who is the leader of their group? The woman. That is expedient. Jesus showed us that rules serve a purpose - they do not serve themselves only!

The best take on this (I think) is that the role of pastor or spiritual leader is a male role. But that does not mean that God would or could not use a woman in certain situations.

 

[Doc Tot]

There's no such thing.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Doc,

please elaborate....

no such thing as what?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I can just as easily argue that what Paul was addressing was not women preaching in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:35 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 Corinthians was not addressing women preaching. It was addressing women causing disruption in the church. That is why Paul said 'If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.' They were trying to get answers to questions they were asking and it was disrupting the services and distracting many from hearing the speaker. It had nothing to do at all with preaching.

A woman does not preach, and neither does a man for that matter, by asking questions.

If you think it means a woman is not to preach, you may as well go to the extreme and leave your wives at home and not take them to church, let them ask you how the services went. But that is contrary to the scripture.

We know womwn were allowed in the temple, for Anna the prophetess went to the temple daily.

What Paul was addressing was disruptive behavior from women asking questions, not from women preaching.

"Let them ask their husbands at home."

 

[rjprince]

What do you think "keep silence" and "not permitted to speak" means? Can you somehow limit that to only disruptive speaking.

temple -- assembly -- apples and oranges, as already pointed out...

An island? Good point. Clear statements in the Word of God must always be subjected to our personal preferences and whatever little vignettes we can come up with.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by rjprince:
What do you think "keep silence" and "not permitted to speak" means? Can you somehow limit that to only disruptive speaking.

Actually, yes. Again, if one disregards the context, one ends up with an incorrect application of scripture.

In the days that the NT was penned, congregations were men-only. Wives sat outside the congregation. So, it was common for women sitting outside the congregation to ask their men sitting inside their congregation to tell them what was being said from the pulpit. This back and forth chatter was increasingly disruptive to worship. Paul was instructing women to keep silent, and wait until they got home for their men to teach them what was being taught in the church. Today, we no longer have segregated congregations. Husbands and wives sit together. Therefore, the original application no longer applies. Today, a proper application would be for us to refrain from discussing the sermon, but to wait until we get home to discuss what was said during church.

To apply this verse to mean women should keep silent in general is not only a perversion of scripture, but it is an example of ignorance upon the one who makes such a claim.

 

[rjprince]

 

[rjprince]

JV

Ignorant? This is not established in the "context". If true, it is an example of background historical information, not disregarding the context, unless you define context so broadly as to include somewhat obscure historical info. If true it still does not deal with the Timothy passage. Oh, wait. That was only Paul's opinion, the reference to creation order is irrelevant. I keep forgetting.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Originally posted by Johnv:

... you're disregarding the overall context, not to mention the cultural and societal context, of the chapter ... Paul is here saying what he would not do in this specific situation. He's not delivering a doctrinal absolute for all time here. He's giving guidelines for a specific situation that needed to be dealt with, which, if one looks at the chapter as a whole, was the issue of certain false teachings entering the church (though we are never told what those false teachings were).

What???

This passage is to be taken in the context of false teachings? "Men should pray, lifting holy hands, without anger or quarreling" - with who? The false teacher? "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel" - as opposed to what they wore for false teaching sessions?

"Let a woman learn quietly ... with all submissiveness ... I do not permit ... RATHER ... she is to remain quiet. FOR ...the woman was deceived ..." She can't teach or exercise authority, but she can preach???????

You can contextualize yourself right out of context. This is the ESV. Seems pretty straightforward to me:

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." 1Timothy 2:5-14 (emphasis mine)

 

[rjprince]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
You can contextualize yourself right out of context...

This is good. I will use it. First time, I will give you credit. Second time, I will say that I once read... Third time, I will say, "I have always said...."

(unless of course you are present then I have to always give you credit!)

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rjprince:
What do you think "keep silence" and "not permitted to speak" means? Can you somehow limit that to only disruptive speaking.

Actually, yes. Again, if one disregards the context, one ends up with an incorrect application of scripture.

In the days that the NT was penned, congregations were men-only. Wives sat outside the congregation. So, it was common for women sitting outside the congregation to ask their men sitting inside their congregation to tell them what was being said from the pulpit. This back and forth chatter was increasingly disruptive to worship. Paul was instructing women to keep silent, and wait until they got home for their men to teach them what was being taught in the church. Today, we no longer have segregated congregations. Husbands and wives sit together. Therefore, the original application no longer applies. Today, a proper application would be for us to refrain from discussing the sermon, but to wait until we get home to discuss what was said during church.

To apply this verse to mean women should keep silent in general is not only a perversion of scripture, but it is an example of ignorance upon the one who makes such a claim. </font>[/QUOTE]Nonsense. Define context. Are you speaking of the context of the Scripture (i.e. internal context of the passage) or the context of the culture and times. If the culture and times, then you are speaking of extra-Biblical data that does not bear the same force and weight of inspired Scripture. If you are referring to the context within the Scriptures, then you must draw it out and specify it for us because I see no context within the passage supporting your assertions. What are you saying? What is your contextual support? Methinks you are using context as a connotative (i.e. emotional appeal)argument to bolster your faltering presuppositions. If so, it's all bluff and I call.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
I can just as easily argue that what Paul was addressing was not women preaching in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:35 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 Corinthians was not addressing women preaching. It was addressing women causing disruption in the church. That is why Paul said 'If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.' They were trying to get answers to questions they were asking and it was disrupting the services and distracting many from hearing the speaker. It had nothing to do at all with preaching.

A woman does not preach, and neither does a man for that matter, by asking questions.

If you think it means a woman is not to preach, you may as well go to the extreme and leave your wives at home and not take them to church, let them ask you how the services went. But that is contrary to the scripture.

We know womwn were allowed in the temple, for Anna the prophetess went to the temple daily.

What Paul was addressing was disruptive behavior from women asking questions, not from women preaching.

"Let them ask their husbands at home."

Now that we know what you think, how do you know this? It appears to me as revisionist thinking to reinterpret Scripture within light of modern thought. Women have never been accorded a general, although there may be what are considered exceptions, authoritative role in either the OT Hebrew culture or the NT church. Men and women perform different roles and there exists a definite gender difference.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
SFIC does raise a valid point. This passage was not intended to answer the question, "Are women allowed to preach?"

Authentew itself means to exert authority or dominion. There is precedent in Hellenistic Greek writings to suggest that "authentew tinos andros" or something similar does in fact suggest improper usurping of authority of women over men.

But where does Paul say women cannot preach? I think that the correct answer is that Paul would have envisioned a woman in authority over men in a church setting to be improper. Indeed if that were not the case he likely would have had to defend his "progressive" view, which he does not.

But consider the scenario of a woman stranded on an island with 100 lost men. If she wins them to Christ who is the leader of their group? The woman. That is expedient. Jesus showed us that rules serve a purpose - they do not serve themselves only!

The best take on this (I think) is that the role of pastor or spiritual leader is a male role. But that does not mean that God would or could not use a woman in certain situations.

Yes, you are perfectly correct in your observations. However, I would ask how you define preaching? Preaching is an authoritative declaration of thus saith the Lord according to sound doctrine and Scripture. My argument is that women are prohibited from this kind activity in that it exercises authority over men. On the other hand, witnessing, evangelizing and praising God is entirely different from the ecclesiastical function of preaching in the church but there is no restriction on witnessing (evangelizing) or praising God as we see women doing in the Bible.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
I can just as easily argue that what Paul was addressing was not women preaching in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:35 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 Corinthians was not addressing women preaching. It was addressing women causing disruption in the church. That is why Paul said 'If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.' They were trying to get answers to questions they were asking and it was disrupting the services and distracting many from hearing the speaker. It had nothing to do at all with preaching.

A woman does not preach, and neither does a man for that matter, by asking questions.

If you think it means a woman is not to preach, you may as well go to the extreme and leave your wives at home and not take them to church, let them ask you how the services went. But that is contrary to the scripture.

We know womwn were allowed in the temple, for Anna the prophetess went to the temple daily.

What Paul was addressing was disruptive behavior from women asking questions, not from women preaching.

"Let them ask their husbands at home."

Yes and have you ever observed that many instances, although not all, of confusion and aberrant teaching are situations of women preaching?

 

[Charles Meadows]

My argument is that women are prohibited from this kind activity in that it exercises authority over men.

I don't think I would put it quite so harshly. The Bible describes a correct relationship bewtween husband and wife. It also describes respectful order in worship. As such it is not proper for a woman, or a man for that matter, to violate that order of things. I do not however see a blanket statement that men have authority over women at all times. In Christ there is neither man nor woman.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> My argument is that women are prohibited from this kind activity in that it exercises authority over men.

I don't think I would put it quite so harshly. The Bible describes a correct relationship bewtween husband and wife. It also describes respectful order in worship. As such it is not proper for a woman, or a man for that matter, to violate that order of things. I do not however see a blanket statement that men have authority over women at all times. In Christ there is neither man nor woman. </font>[/QUOTE]On the contrary, I think that I stated it more mildly than Scripture. Do you not recall that Sarah, the exemplary wife, called Abraham Lord (1 Peter 3:5-6)?

Furthermore, I delimited my statement with “this kind [of] activity” (i.e. doctrinal preaching). So, it is specific and not overly generalized. Women are prohibited from doctrinal (read authoritative) preaching. They are not, however, barred from praising God, witnessing, or giving personal testimony. Furthermore, they are not to assume certain titled functions such as pastor.

Finally, your allusion to Galatians 3:28 is entirely out of context. Our standing in Christ, obviously from the context, has nothing to do with the distinctions on this earth since the divisions of Jew-Greek, male-female, and master-servant continued to exist even as Paul wrote. To grant your argument of rubbing out the distinctions for the roles of men and women in Christ is tantamount to the absurd argument that one is neither male nor female after salvation. It’s poor exegesis but it is often mouthed because it seems to superficially fits the modern mindset on gender equality.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Ahem.

Tap tap.

Men and women have different roles. Just what do you intend to show in citing Sarah's statement there? Are women to call their men "lord"? Certainly you will not go down that path.

Paul intends to point out that there are appropriate standards of conduct, especially in worship. Male headship is the rule of worship and family. Like it or not women must submit to that. But I would argue that there is no blanket male superiority in Paul's thought - just an exhortation to appropriate behavior.

Perhaps this IS actually similar to what you believe (assuming that you just wanted to take a brief stand on the soapbox ).

 

[Coov]

Humility is called upon everyone. The authority of man over woman is to be followed through with the upmost respect and dignity, not on a soap box of authority.

Preaching the Word of God is a responsibility that should never be taken lightly. Just as Christ loves the Church is the same devotion in sacrificial love that a preacher should have for his congregation, as a husband with his wife... so much of that absolute dedication having such a responsibility is lost in these days and times. Having such a grasp of that responsibility seems so rare, especially as most preach in front of the cross, rather than behind it.

It is so easy to take things for granted, and our responsibility to consume ourselves with the love that the Word of God lays out for us falls away so easily.

The authority that God gives man as a pastor, if done right, is relinquished back to God in his authority... especially behind the pulpit.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Ahem.

An unintelligible sound of clearing the mucus from one’s throat. What’s the meaning?

Tap tap.

Either I or M in Morse Code depending upon the duration. So, what’s the point?

Men and women have different roles. Just what do you intend to show in citing Sarah's statement there?

Simply what I stated. I was not as “harsh” (your word) or as bold (better word) as Scripture in describing the submissive role of the woman.

Are women to call their men "lord"? Certainly you will not go down that path.

Now, where did you get his inference? I never even thought of this but I’ll talk with my wife and see what she thinks about calling me Lord Paidagogos. It does have a rather nice ring to it.

Paul intends to point out that there are appropriate standards of conduct, especially in worship.

Amen!

Male headship is the rule of worship and family.

Exactly my point! Women are not to exercise authority in worship over men by doctrinal preaching in a public assembly although they are not prohibited from testifying of God’s grace or praising God.

Like it or not women must submit to that.

Agreed!

But I would argue that there is no blanket male superiority in Paul's thought - just an exhortation to appropriate behavior.

And I have never said or implied this. There are your words and thoughts. Again, I would argue with your word choice--superiority. We are not talking about superiority or inferiority at all. It is a matter of subjection or submission within appropriate roles.

Perhaps this IS actually similar to what you believe (assuming that you just wanted to take a brief stand on the soapbox ).

No soapbox--just a keyboard.

If you will read the previous postings, you will find that I was debating the women preachers issue with other posters when you tried to apply a corrective to one of my statements. I defended my statement as accurate.

 

[paidagogos]