women teachers

[Robert Snow]

Yeah, I suppose we could take a verse out of context, interpret it hyper-literally, without regard to context, ignore the analogy of scripture, and come to that conclusion.

Context and what you call "hyper-literal" seems to apply only when the conclusions match your preconceived ideas. If we, on the other side, say that because of context we feel it is acceptable for a woman to teach, we are violating scripture. We don't all live on a one-way street, like you apparently do.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Context and what you call "hyper-literal" seems to apply only when the conclusions match your preconceived ideas. If we, on the other side, say that because of context we feel it is acceptable for a woman to teach, we are violating scripture. We don't all live on a one-way street, like you apparently do.

Sorry you feel that way.

The Bible is very clear that women do have a vital ministry in the church, it just isn't as a pastor or preaching or teaching to men.

 

[Robert Snow]

Sorry you feel that way.

The Bible is very clear that women do have a vital ministry in the church, it just isn't as a pastor or preaching or teaching to men.

They should not pastor, but teaching, under authority, does not violate scripture. We will just disagree.

 

[BobinKy]

Umm - is not all of the New Testament "1st century detail"? It absolutely DOES speak directly to the issue of gender - by speaking of a "husband of one wife" and speaking of a "man". It does not speak of people in general. Where do we see that the New Testament church were bowing to culture instead of bowing to Jesus? Where do we see "well, we're doing this because everyone does this but we don't HAVE to do this" sort of thing? I think the Scripture is pretty clear - so clear that even my 8 year old can see it.

But not all of the 1st century detail is recorded in the New Testament. In fact, if we were to do some number crunching, we would probably find that less than 1% of the 1st century detail is recorded in the New Testament.

This is one reason why the discipline of Biblical Backgrounds studies the cultural background of the 1st century.

IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament

Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds NT Commentary, 4 Volumes

The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament Within Its Cultural Contexts

...Bob

 

[annsni]

In our church, we have many women teachers - but none of them teach men...except in sign language class (although that's mostly taught by Antonio but Cindy does teach as well). We have also had a couple of couples teach a class with couples but not women teaching a mixed class.

 

[BobinKy]

We try to keep our women tied up in the back room as much as we can.

Are you speaking literally or figuratively?

...Bob

 

[Amy.G]

In our church, we have many women teachers - but none of them teach men...except in sign language class (although that's mostly taught by Antonio but Cindy does teach as well). We have also had a couple of couples teach a class with couples but not women teaching a mixed class.

If you have couples teaching couples, you still have a woman teaching men. If you say that's because the woman is under the authority of her husband, then why is that different than a woman being under the authority of the pastor?

 

[annsni]

But not all of the 1st century detail is recorded in the New Testament. In fact, if we were to do some number crunching, we would probably find that less than 1% of the 1st century detail is recorded in the New Testament.

This is one reason why the discipline of Biblical Backgrounds studies the cultural background of the 1st century.

IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament

Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds NT Commentary, 4 Volumes

The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament Within Its Cultural Contexts

...Bob

What does that have to do with what the Bible directly says? Do we take culture over the Bible? Do we say "Well, they didn't add in this because the culture wouldn't have accepted it."? I don't think so. Scripture is clear. Women are not to be pastors or to teach men. You can't get more direct than the Scriptures themselves.

 

[BobinKy]

Context and what you call "hyper-literal" seems to apply only when the conclusions match your preconceived ideas. If we, on the other side, say that because of context we feel it is acceptable for a woman to teach, we are violating scripture. We don't all live on a one-way street, like you apparently do.

I agree.

We are doing an injustice to ourselves, our family, and our local church when we limit Biblical study to justifying doctrine and preconceptions.

We need to dig into the culture, geography, archaeology, and history of the region. We need to challenge doctrine. We need to challenge preconceptions. We need to ask: What is not recorded in the New Testament about 1st century Christians?

Furthermore, we need to study other cultures of that day, because the 1st century Christians lived in that world, separated from that world, and survived that world. How did they do it? In many respects, we are in the same situation today.

Finally, we need to seek out other Christian traditions and groups to share information and concepts. I like liturgical church services. But I also like what is often termed primitive church services. I am not speaking of the Primitive Baptist churches specifically. I am speaking about all churches that attempt to worship our Lord according to some model of the 1st century church.

There is nothing to fear but prejudice itself.

...Bob

 

[BobinKy]

If you have couples teaching couples, you still have a woman teaching men. If you say that's because the woman is under the authority of her husband, then why is that different than a woman being under the authority of the pastor?

Amy.G...

Very good question.

Why do we follow certain practices in our churches?
Why do we avoid other practices in our churches?
Why do we criticize the practices of other churches?
Why do we preach that our practices are the only true way to do church?

...Bob

 

[freeatlast]

They should not pastor, but teaching, under authority, does not violate scripture. We will just disagree.

No it is you who disagrees wuith the Lord. The scripture never says unless. There is no authority to be given to the woman since the Lord has withheld the authority to teach men. men cannot pass on their respionsibility or authority.

 

[webdog]

If you have couples teaching couples, you still have a woman teaching men. If you say that's because the woman is under the authority of her husband, then why is that different than a woman being under the authority of the pastor?

I think one difference might be the husband and wife are one flesh. Not sure, just throwing that out there to chew on.

 

[freeatlast]

In our church, we have many women teachers - but none of them teach men...except in sign language class (although that's mostly taught by Antonio but Cindy does teach as well). We have also had a couple of couples teach a class with couples but not women teaching a mixed class.

Even that is a violation of scripture. Scripture does not say that a woman can teach men if it is a couples class and she is part of a couple teaching. The wife of the husband teaching needs to remain silent, period.

 

[BobinKy]

What does that have to do with what the Bible directly says? Do we take culture over the Bible? Do we say "Well, they didn't add in this because the culture wouldn't have accepted it."? I don't think so. Scripture is clear. Women are not to be pastors or to teach men. You can't get more direct than the Scriptures themselves.

That is the point. Why is a certain practice only mentioned in one or two places in the New Testament?

Women make up 50% of the population--now and among the 1st century Christians. Why do we not hear more about women in the New Testament?

Yes you can. That is why the Holy Spirit came. That is why we pray in the name of Jesus. That is why we use the intelligence that the Father created in us.

...Bob

 

[Amy.G]

I think one difference might be the husband and wife are one flesh. Not sure, just throwing that out there to chew on.

Sounds to me like it's still women teaching men, but it's ok because of a technicality.

We know that women were allowed to prophesy in the church.
1 Corinthians 11:5 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.

Webster's 1828
1. In Scripture, to preach; to instruct in religious doctrines; to interpret or explain Scripture or religious subjects; to exhort. 1 Cor.13. Ezek.37.


To prophesy with her head "uncovered" means she is teaching without authority of a man. But if her head is "covered", she is under the authority of a man and her prophesying is permitted.


Something else to chew on.

 

[BobinKy]

Sounds to me like it's still women teaching men, but it's ok because of a technicality.

We know that women were allowed to prophesy in the church.
1 Corinthians 11:5 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.

Webster's 1828
1. In Scripture, to preach; to instruct in religious doctrines; to interpret or explain Scripture or religious subjects; to exhort. 1 Cor.13. Ezek.37.


To prophesy with her head "uncovered" means she is teaching without authority of a man. But if her head is "covered", she is under the authority of a man and her prophesying is permitted.


Something else to chew on.

Good interpretation. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

...Bob

 

[Robert Snow]

No it is you who disagrees with the Lord. The scripture never says unless. There is no authority to be given to the woman since the Lord has withheld the authority to teach men. men cannot pass on their respionsibility or authority.

You may think you are correct and that you speak for the Lord, but in reality, you only espouse your interpretation. Now I know you think your views are infallible, but they are not.

 

[freeatlast]

You may think you are correct and that you speak for the Lord, but in reality, you only espouse your interpretation. Now I know you think your views are infallible, but they are not.

I don't need a view i have the scripture and that is enough.

 

[freeatlast]

Sounds to me like it's still women teaching men, but it's ok because of a technicality.

We know that women were allowed to prophesy in the church.
1 Corinthians 11:5 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.

Webster's 1828
1. In Scripture, to preach; to instruct in religious doctrines; to interpret or explain Scripture or religious subjects; to exhort. 1 Cor.13. Ezek.37.


To prophesy with her head "uncovered" means she is teaching without authority of a man. But if her head is "covered", she is under the authority of a man and her prophesying is permitted.


Something else to chew on.

There is nothing to chew on when we have scripture. Trying to do end runs on scripture means we lose and God is mocked. The principle you gave is not to allow a woman some loophole to teach men. The passage is about rebellious women verses submission. Any woman who teaches men no matter the circumstances is in rebellion The woman cannot even teach women with her head uncovered and cannot teach men at all covered, uncovered or even in the presence of a man.

 

[BobinKy]

I don't need a view i have the scripture and that is enough.

Are you saying you do not need the Holy Spirit?
Are you saying you do not need prayer in the name of Jesus?

...Bob