1 Timothy 2:11

Simon.d

1 Timothy 2:11
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

What do the members of this forum make of St. Paul's New Testament verse above?

prinz

You could take lines out of "Mein Kampf" and make Herr Hitler look like the jolliest peace loving man there has ever been.

If you're interested there are plenty of passages in the Bible about men and husbands serving women/wives.

PDN

I am speaking personally here, not on behalf of Christians in general or on behalf of any other posters in this forum.

I believe that there are two basic reasons for Paul's instruction in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

One is cultural. Ephesus (where Timothy was located) was known for its religious cults with female priestesses and female deities. Therefore Paul wanted to avoid any suggestion of similaar practices in the Church.

However, if we read verse 11 in context we see that Paul is grounding his prohibition in the order of creation, namely that Adam was created before Eve. This is interesting because the order of creation obviously does not bestow authority (otherwise the animals, being created prior to man, would have authority over man.) So Paul is obviously making a different point - one that lies in Jewish understanding of the Creation account. Eve was deceived while Adam was not. In other words, a gap occurred between Adam's creation and the Temptation - a gap sufficiently long for Adam to know better than to listen to the lies of the Serpent. Eve, however, because she had been more recently created and had learned less, was easily deceived. This is why Paul in his other letters speaks repeatedly of the sin of Adam, not of Eve. Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open!

So, applying Paul's argument to Timothy's congregation in First Century Ephesus, we find a parallel in that men were much more likely to be educated and literate than women. Therefore Paul sees women as being much more prone to deception. Therefore, until education is provided to both genders, it made sense to issue a prohibition against women teachers.

This is consistent with another Pauline passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which refers to the practice in early churches where women sat on one side of the room and men on the other (a custom carried over from Judaism). Women, being almost invariably less educated, were inclined to shout over to their husbands, "What is he talking about?" if they couldn't understand the preacher. Therefore Paul tells them to keep quiet and to wait until they get home to ask their husbands questions.

If you want to read a similar argument in greater detail then downloads this pdf file: http://www.intervarsity.org/mx/item/4175/download/

studiorat

Of course there's also the probability that these points could have been added into the text by a different author at a later date, as Fee suggested for similar in Corinthians.

I find the notion of women, however uneducated shouting across the synagogue for their husbands guidance during the lesson, a little too far fetched for a convincing explanation really. Is any there evidence of this actually happening? I thought women deacons actually thought women in the synagogues at the time... The likes of Phoebe etc.

I find the first explanation most probable. However his requests for them to dress modestly does not necessarily point to them as being members of pagan cults. Luke states Paul was actively seeking out influential women to convert.

My particular favorite from Tim. of course is "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

studiorat

prinz wrote: »

You could take lines out of "Mein Kampf" and make Herr Hitler look like the jolliest peace loving man there has ever been.

Well you gotta give him his due..
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Adolf Hitler

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

I find the notion of women, however uneducated shouting across the synagogue for their husbands guidance during the lesson, a little too far fetched for a convincing explanation really. Is any there evidence of this actually happening?

I've seen it happening, and in Dublin too! It was in a Romanian gypsy church where the men sit separate from the women, and an illiterate old woman was asking her deaf husband (sitting across an aisle about 10 feet away from her) continual questions in a loud 'stage whisper'. Absolutely hilarious stuff.

Phototoxin

Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open!

In fairness he wasn't there so how could he know. Also Genesis gives 2 separate accounts of creation.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

If you're interested there are plenty of passages in the Bible about men and husbands serving women/wives.

Aren't they always though in the form of the man having a responsibility to his wife and children as the head of the household?

PDN

Phototoxin wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't there so how could he know. Also Genesis gives 2 separate accounts of creation.

He was there enough to eat the fruit. He did that in the full knowledge that he was disobeying God.

As for there being two accounts of creation, I'm not sure quite how that's relevant. There are four accounts of the crucifixion, but that doesn't stop us gleaning details from one of them.

BrianCalgary

studiorat wrote: »

I find the notion of women, however uneducated shouting across the synagogue for their husbands guidance during the lesson, a little too far fetched for a convincing explanation really. Is any there evidence of this actually happening? I thought women deacons actually thought women in the synagogues at the time... The likes of Phoebe etc.

The grand-father of one of our missionaries recounts an experience in China early 20th century where it happened.

The women who had never attended a school or gathering other than for social reasons had no idea about the etiquette of a classroom or meeting. To them gatherings where always social where conversation and news was spoken of.

The missionary said that they were amazed to see 1 Corinthians in action.

Zombrex

Some what of a side, but does the Bible make a similar comment about uneducated men?

(not a trick question, PDN's explanation makes sense, not trying to trip anyone up)

Excelsior

studiorat wrote: »

Of course there's also the probability that these points could have been added into the text by a different author at a later date, as Fee suggested for similar in Corinthians.

But 1 Timothy lacks the textual basis for Fee's hypothesis which is fragmentary discrepancies in 1 Cor 14.

(Off topic but...)

studiorat wrote: »

My particular favorite from Tim. of course is "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

I once debated with a Norn Irish fundamentalist who viciously opposed all drinking of alcohol. When asked to explain this text, he informed me that Paul was advising Timothy to rub it on his belly!

Wicknight wrote:

Some what of a side, but does the Bible make a similar comment about uneducated men?

Not that I am aware of. But perhaps the Jewish basis of Christianity should be considered- literacy (amongst men) was very common. There are of course lots of interesting contemporaneous texts about the rise of the "new Roman women" who with their high-falutin' edumecation were making men very uncomfortable. I think particularly of Petronius or Juvenal's texts. The independent evidence for this kind of satire would give creedence to the (excellent) explanation PDN gave.

wolfsbane

Simon.d said:

1 Timothy 2:11
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

What do the members of this forum make of St. Paul's New Testament verse above?

I take it that women should not teach in a church gathering that includes men. Nor should they become elders/pastors/bishops/overseers, as that would involve them in both teaching men and exercising authority over them.

All of the NT teaches us the different roles of men and women, both in the church and in the home. Women do not have the leadership role in either. But they do have a crucial, God-honouring role. They are not lesser Christians.

Splendour

wolfsbane wrote: »

Simon.d said:

I take it that women should not teach in a church gathering that includes men. Nor should they become elders/pastors/bishops/overseers, as that would involve them in both teaching men and exercising authority over them.

All of the NT teaches us the different roles of men and women, both in the church and in the home. Women do not have the leadership role in either. But they do have a crucial, God-honouring role. They are not lesser Christians.

We have women preaching in our church. In fact one of the most popular preachers is female. She spoke one sunday morning on the topic of marraige and her husband spoke the following week also on this. It was very interesting to get both a male/female perspective from a married couple.

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

We have women preaching in our church. In fact one of the most popular preachers is female. She spoke one sunday morning on the topic of marraige and her husband spoke the following week also on this. It was very interesting to get both a male/female perspective from a married couple.

Women can be fine preachers, men can be poor preachers. The issue is, Does God permit a woman to preach to or teach men in the church? The answer is, NO.

The same defence is made for believers marrying unbelievers - some result in the eventual conversion of the unbeliever. But God forbids such a union. Does your church oppose these marriages?

God also forbids making a novice an elder - would your church appoint such a man if he were a good preacher?

When we defy God we assert that we are wiser than He. He may bring some good out of our sin, but there are always negative consequences.

Kipperhell

It weird to hear it said that some of the bible is just to do with the time and that it can be discounted based on that fact.

If every statement can be altered in this way then I see why some would go for the easier approach of just taking it as it is said allowing for the understanding of proverbs.

Given PDN explanation of why such a thing would be said in our modern eyes that would be just seen as bias and sexist.

It does seem strange that god would tell us how to live but ultimately never really preach equality. If all of Jesus views were so dangerous why was he afraid to make it known.

There really ends up being two arguments
1) Jesus didn't preach equality of sexes because it was too hard for the people of the time to understand.
2) He didn't preach it because it wasn't/isn't true.

I guess there is a 3rd where his disciples didn't preach it on his behalf but if you believe in the bible that is an impossibility.

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

It weird to hear it said that some of the bible is just to do with the time and that it can be discounted based on that fact.

Not at all. Just think about this for a moment. Here's a Bible verse to consider:
"Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers." (Philemon verse 22).

Now, how should we interpret this? Universally? Or addressed to a specific person, in a specific situation, in a specific point in time?

If we interpret it universally then every Christian should keep a special guest room in their house and pray for the Apostle Paul to be raised from the dead after 1950 years so he can come and stay in our guestrooms.

Of course we don't do that, because we understand it was written to Philemon with respect to a particular historical and cultural situation.

Most of the epistles of Paul are what we call 'occasional letters'. They were written to a specific group of people and addressed to specific issues and situations that arose. That means we need to study the context, learn as much as we can about about the author and the recipients of the letter, and determine whether they can be universally applied or not.

Of course some statements in the epistles are clearly intended to be statements of general doctrine, or declaring overarching principles. Like this one:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Splendour

Kipperhell wrote: »

It weird to hear it said that some of the bible is just to do with the time and that it can be discounted based on that fact.

What about slavery? Would you say it's ok to have a slave given that the bible doesn't condemn it?

The book of Philemon which PDN quoted from is about a slave who escaped from his master, met Paul, converted to Christianity and then Paul sent him back to his owner. (Note owner, as opposed to employer).

Jesus himself never condemded slavery although he did advise owners how to treat their slaves.

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Jesus didn't say that and from your early description of how to understand the reasons for treating woman differently it doesn't necessarily translate that this should be meant to be taken that they should be treated equally in this world.

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

Jesus didn't say that and from your early description of how to understand the reasons for treating woman differently it doesn't necessarily translate that this should be meant to be taken that they should be treated equally in this world.

Whether Jesus said it or not isn't actually that important. Christians historically believe in the inspiration of all the Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) not just the bits that record the words of Jesus.

And I agree with you that women shouldn't necessarily be treated equally with men in every situation. For example, I feel its perfectly OK for women to compete in separate sports in the Olympics instead of trying to compete against the men.

Pompey Magnus

studiorat wrote: »

Of course there's also the probability that these points could have been added into the text by a different author at a later date, as Fee suggested for similar in Corinthians.
[/COLOR]

It seems that instead of a scribe adding points to an original letter from Paul to Timothy, rather it appears that there was no original letter written by Paul, the entire letter (along with 2 Timothy and Titus) was almost certainly a pseudomymous epistle, i.e. it was written by 2nd or 3rd generation follower of Paul who signed the letter in Paul's name to address problems found in his own day which the real Paul never anticipated and therefore never dealt with in his genuine writings.

The vocabulary and writing style used in the letter appears to be non-Pauline and the letter describe Church structures which were not found in Paul's time but instead decades after his death. Most scholars are convinced that Paul did not write this letter (or the other two Pastoral epistles)

Splendour

Charco wrote: »

It seems that instead of a scribe adding points to an original letter from Paul to Timothy, rather it appears that there was no original letter written by Paul, the entire letter (along with 2 Timothy and Titus) was almost certainly a pseudomymous epistle, i.e. it was written by 2nd or 3rd generation follower of Paul who signed the letter in Paul's name to address problems found in his own day which the real Paul never anticipated and therefore never dealt with in his genuine writings.

The vocabulary and writing style used in the letter appears to be non-Pauline and the letter describe Church structures which were not found in Paul's time but instead decades after his death. Most scholars are convinced that Paul did not write this letter (or the other two Pastoral epistles)

This is something I've read up on too, but this doesn't change the content of the letter.
Though if it is true, would it have been chosen as part of the bible if it were not of Paul.
This then of course begs the question of how certain books/letters were chosen in the first place and why Martin Luther decided to take some out-if indeed he did.

Sorry, going off topic...

Splendour

wolfsbane wrote: »

Women can be fine preachers, men can be poor preachers. The issue is, Does God permit a woman to preach to or teach men in the church? The answer is, NO.

The same defence is made for believers marrying unbelievers - some result in the eventual conversion of the unbeliever. But God forbids such a union. Does your church oppose these marriages?

God also forbids making a novice an elder - would your church appoint such a man if he were a good preacher?

When we defy God we assert that we are wiser than He. He may bring some good out of our sin, but there are always negative consequences.

What negative consequences though? If a female preacher is bringing people to Christ this is surely a positive. What about female Christian authors,surely they are preaching to both men and women in the content of their books.

Can you tell me where it says in the bible about God forbiding making a novice an elder please-I'm not sure what this means! I can only assume it means a young Christian?

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

What negative consequences though? If a female preacher is bringing people to Christ this is surely a positive. What about female Christian authors,surely they are preaching to both men and women in the content of their books.

Can you tell me where it says in the bible about God forbiding making a novice an elder please-I'm not sure what this means! I can only assume it means a young Christian?

The issue is not that women cannot preach or teach, but that they must not do so in a setting that gives them teaching authority in the church. Doing so in a meeting of the church is just such a forbidden setting.

We cannot justify disobedience by pointing to good results - a Christian friend of mine married an unbeliever and later justified her decision by pointing to the conversion of her husband. But what about the bad results she may never have seen? Her example could have led others to defy the word of God and go with their own wisdom, not only in marrying unbelievers but in joining in heathen worship, for example - to show Christians are loving people and unwilling to say another religion is false.

The 'not a novice' text:
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Yes, it means one young in the faith rather than merely young.

Splendour

wolfsbane wrote: »

The issue is not that women cannot preach or teach, but that they must not do so in a setting that gives them teaching authority in the church. Doing so in a meeting of the church is just such a forbidden setting.

.

Not to nit pick but 1 Tim.2,11 doesn't actually mention where a woman can't preach. It catergorically states a woman can't preach to a man,so this means that any female written books should be chucked out the window by men!

Thanks for the 'novice' quote...

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

Not to nit pick but 1 Tim.2,11 doesn't actually mention where a woman can't preach. It catergorically states a woman can't preach to a man,so this means that any female written books should be chucked out the window by men!

Thanks for the 'novice' quote...

The larger context shows the church meeting is in view. For example, the ministry of Aquila & Priscilla to Apollos:

Acts 18:24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Splendour

wolfsbane wrote: »

The larger context shows the church meeting is in view. For example, the ministry of Aquila & Priscilla to Apollos:

Acts 18:24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

They took him aside as I imagine neither of them had the authority, or maybe the nerve, to speak out in the synagogue. If it were a case of just women not being able to speak up in the chuch, why didn't Aquila open his mouth? They had other reasons for taking Apollos aside...

As far as I'm aware, women were not allowed to speak out in any public forum hence Paul's statement re preaching in church. He was abiding by the laws of the land at the time. The same applies to Jesus not condeming slave owners. It was perfectly law abiding at that time to own slaves.

MatthewVII

The whole "shouting in church" and "didn't know if women were stupid" arguments are all very well and good (not really, both seem a bit twisted to suit modern ideas of equality), but why did the authors of the Gospels not preach that women should be just as educated as men instead of just glossing over it with temporary measures to get around their ignorance? Would it not have made sense? We know gender equality to be a fundamental human right, and yet these writers missed out on an excellent chance to cause serious positive social change. Did they honestly think women were inferior? (pretty evil if they did)

wolfsbane wrote:

We cannot justify disobedience by pointing to good results - a Christian friend of mine married an unbeliever and later justified her decision by pointing to the conversion of her husband. But what about the bad results she may never have seen? Her example could have led others to defy the word of God and go with their own wisdom, not only in marrying unbelievers but in joining in heathen worship, for example - to show Christians are loving people and unwilling to say another religion is false.

Heaven forbid Christians could be seen as loving people. Sometimes you scare me wolfsbane.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We cannot justify disobedience by pointing to good results - a Christian friend of mine married an unbeliever and later justified her decision by pointing to the conversion of her husband. But what about the bad results she may never have seen? Her example could have led others to defy the word of God and go with their own wisdom, not only in marrying unbelievers but in joining in heathen worship, for example - to show Christians are loving people and unwilling to say another religion is false.
Heaven forbid Christians could be seen as loving people. Sometimes you scare me wolfsbane.

Fear not, Matthew! I'm all for Christians loving people and being known for such. I am opposed to them sinning against God in their attempt to be seen as loving.

To use another example: some would consider it a loving act for a woman to give sexual satisfaction to a frustrated widower - a bit of compassion on his loneliness and frustration. But God has prescribed the proper place for sexual satisfaction and companionship - marriage.

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

They took him aside as I imagine neither of them had the authority, or maybe the nerve, to speak out in the synagogue. If it were a case of just women not being able to speak up in the chuch, why didn't Aquila open his mouth? They had other reasons for taking Apollos aside...

As far as I'm aware, women were not allowed to speak out in any public forum hence Paul's statement re preaching in church. He was abiding by the laws of the land at the time. The same applies to Jesus not condeming slave owners. It was perfectly law abiding at that time to own slaves.

My fault for not being clearer. I did not mean this was an example of a church meeting; only that it shows women are permitted to teach men in a non-church setting, contrary to your claim, It catergorically states a woman can't preach to a man,so this means that any female written books should be chucked out the window by men!

Splendour

This...

wolfsbane wrote: »

My fault for not being clearer. I did not mean this was an example of a church meeting; only that it shows women are permitted to teach men in a non-church setting, contrary to your claim, It catergorically states a woman can't preach to a man,so this means that any female written books should be chucked out the window by men!

does not equate itself with this...

1 Timothy 2:11-12

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


This passage makes no mention at all of church setting or otherwise.

You could say then that Priscilla went against the teaching of Paul or it could be argued that Acts was written before the book of Timothy. However, given that Pricilla and Aquilla were friends of Pauls', I imagine they'd know the score.

I still reckon Paul said what he did to keep in with the law but yet had no problem with women preaching at all.

wolfsbane

Splendour said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My fault for not being clearer. I did not mean this was an example of a church meeting; only that it shows women are permitted to teach men in a non-church setting, contrary to your claim, It catergorically states a woman can't preach to a man,so this means that any female written books should be chucked out the window by men!

This...
does not equate itself with this...

1 Timothy 2:11-12

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


This passage makes no mention at all of church setting or otherwise.

You could say then that Priscilla went against the teaching of Paul or it could be argued that Acts was written before the book of Timothy. However, given that Pricilla and Aquilla were friends of Pauls', I imagine they'd know the score.

I still reckon Paul said what he did to keep in with the law but yet had no problem with women preaching at all.

You have used an invalid hermeneutic here. A text cannot be used in isolation - all the author says on the subject has be be taken into account.

Otherwise we have Jesus guaranteeing me and my wife a new red Posche each if we pray for one:
John 14:13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

It is to ignore the necessity of our requests being proper:
James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

So all that Paul and the rest of Scripture tells us about the role of women has to be reconciled with our understanding of their conduct in the church.

That holds true only if we believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, as it claims to be. If it is the fallible opinions of men, with God's word mixed in somewhere, then we can pick and choose as we please.

Splendour

From your posts wolfsbane, I gather it's the actual church building that women are forbidden to teach in?

So a preacher like Joyce Meyer who preaches daily to thousands of people who are 'the church' is not a problem then...

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

From your posts wolfsbane, I gather it's the actual church building that women are forbidden to teach in?

So a preacher like Joyce Meyer who preaches daily to thousands of people who are 'the church' is not a problem then...

No, it's not the building. It is the gathered body of believers, the local church, she is forbidden to teach in.

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it's not the building. It is the gathered body of believers, the local church, she is forbidden to teach in.

This is a bit strange, given the earlier example of Apollus where a woman can effectively advise the male preacher and teach him the meaning behind his preachings.

Do you understand this gathered body of believers to be at some official church ceremony or would it apply in informal settings too? For instance could a mother 'preach' to her family at evening prayer?

In a non-sacred setting, say in a university or an evening talk for example, is it proper that a female theologian should lecture a faithful audience on matters of faith?

What exactly do you understand by 'preaching'? Is it teaching, or leading a prayer group, or even giving public witness to Christ's love?

wolfsbane

postcynical said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, it's not the building. It is the gathered body of believers, the local church, she is forbidden to teach in.
This is a bit strange, given the earlier example of Apollus where a woman can effectively advise the male preacher and teach him the meaning behind his preachings.

Do you understand this gathered body of believers to be at some official church ceremony or would it apply in informal settings too? For instance could a mother 'preach' to her family at evening prayer?

In a non-sacred setting, say in a university or an evening talk for example, is it proper that a female theologian should lecture a faithful audience on matters of faith?

Yes, a mother can preach to her children.

In a non-gathered body situation, I see no problem in a woman instructing men in the truth. But it must not become a quasi-church thing, where her teaching becomes the effective ministry of the word for a local church, eg. where we don't have a Bible class but we all go to Ms. X's lectures on the New Testament.

What exactly do you understand by 'preaching'? Is it teaching, or leading a prayer group, or even giving public witness to Christ's love?

I think I'm right in saying preaching refers to gospel proclamation, teaching to instructing in doctrine. But the latter also has a quality of authority when it occurs in the gathered body setting.

Should a woman lead a mixed prayer meeting? No, if leading becomes an exercise of spiritual authority.

So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).

Splendour

I dunno wolfbane, I think you're splitting hairs here with preaching and teaching. As we can see from the Apollos story, Priscilla and her husband 'taught' Apollos in the ways of Christianity. He was already a Christian so Priscilla wasn't 'preaching' to him she was 'teaching' him.


Acts 18
24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Can I ask for your comments on the slave trade in biblical times. Paul never spoke out against slaves per se. So do you think it would be acceptable in the 21st century to have slaves albeit treat them in a Christian manner?
Why would Christian thinking change with regards to this but not to female preachers/teachers?

wolfsbane

Splendour said:

I dunno wolfbane, I think you're splitting hairs here with preaching and teaching. As we can see from the Apollos story, Priscilla and her husband 'taught' Apollos in the ways of Christianity. He was already a Christian so Priscilla wasn't 'preaching' to him she was 'teaching' him.

I agree. That's why I said, So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).
Acts 18
24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Can I ask for your comments on the slave trade in biblical times. Paul never spoke out against slaves per se. So do you think it would be acceptable in the 21st century to have slaves albeit treat them in a Christian manner?
Why would Christian thinking change with regards to this but not to female preachers/teachers?

The Bible - OT and NT - makes it clear that slavery is not the ideal. At best it was a means of survival for the destitute. Sometimes it was a judicial sanction. Like divorce, God tolerated and regulated it. In the NT Christ made the original standard of God our rule.

But the Christians were not the rulers of the world. The world had slavery as a big part of its institution. There were countless slaves. The choice for the slave was not slavery or freedom, but decent employment as a slave or miserable employment as a slave. The Christian rich enough to buy one could choose not to - but that would not help any slave. It would not cause the Roman empire to collapse under moral disapproval. Buying a slave would make it possible for the slave to know real kindness and the prospect of eventual freedom.

Only when Christianity had enough influence to stop slavery was it immoral to have a slave.

Slavery in its judicial form was used by 'Christian' nations at the time of the spread of European empires, and it can be argued that modern prisons have used for this. But the real moral objection is to the enslavement of innocent people, their transportation from their countries and harsh treatment.

That was the slavery which Wilberforce and his fellow-Christians rose up against.

So would it be acceptable to have a slave if the Roman slave system were imposed on our society today? Yes. If we have no democratic say, we must accept what society delivers.

Would it be moral to impose such a system? No. Any society which freely chooses oppression or even a reduction in man's rights is a society under God's wrath.

As you see, I'm saying Christian teaching has not changed regards slavery, nor should it regards the role of women.

postcynical

Thank you for your replies.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).

Can I ask you what you mean here by spiritual authority? Can any man of faith preach with spiritual authority or is it restricted to 'holy' men? Also would it be accurate to say that a sister can possess this spiritual authority, yet only employ it in a more humble manner (like Priscilla in the above story) rather than preaching?

Finally, what do you mean by a non-body setting? I understand you to mean a gathering of the faithful to pray and worship and listen to God's word, like at a Sunday service. Might such a setting also include a group of believers working with the poor or sick in the name of God?

Gingganggooley

There is a verse which confirms the entire absence of any females in heaven. :eek: Problem solved eh?

Rev. 8:1 " And.... there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour".

O'Coonassa

Simon.d wrote: »

1 Timothy 2:11
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

What do the members of this forum make of St. Paul's New Testament verse above?

That it wasn't written by Saul of Tarsus and nor indeed were any of the pastoral epistles. The Syrian/Antioch Chuch always said they were forgeries.

Gingganggooley

If you are so keen to omit passages as readily as that, then maybe I could do the same with the portions I have difficulty with, and then, in quick time, we wouldn't have any more Bible.

O'Coonassa

Gingganggooley wrote: »

If you are so keen to omit passages as readily as that, then maybe I could do the same with the portions I have difficulty with, and then, in quick time, we wouldn't have any more Bible.

I don't dismiss them readily there is reams of historical research on the matter. What do you have difficulty with? Chances are if it sounds wrong and you look into the history you'll see why it sounds wrong. The Bible wasn't put together until around 400AD IIRC. None of the early Christians had any Bible at all.

Beware of the Scribes was the advice.

Splendour

wolfsbane wrote: »

[But the Christians were not the rulers of the world.

This is my exactly my point! The Christians didn't rule the world and the law at the time said it was acceptable to keep a slave-so Christians went along with this and didn't dispute it, as we are taught to do in the bible.
That same world held a law which stated that women could not have authority over a man and therefore couldn't speak in public and Christians had to go along with this too, as we are taught in the bible.
When Paul made that statement, he was keeping in with the law of the land, as he was taught to do.
The laws of the land have changed considerably both with regards to slaves and women, therefore it is ok for Christians to accept slavery as wrong and women preachers as biblically ok.

robindch

Splendour wrote: »

The laws of the land have changed considerably both with regards to slaves and women, therefore it is ok for Christians to accept slavery as wrong and women preachers as biblically ok.

So, do you believe that the law of the land is what decides what's right and wrong, and not yourself, and not your religion?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

So, do you believe that the law of the land is what decides what's right and wrong, and not yourself, and not your religion?

Many things decide what is right and wrong. For example, the law of the land, your upbringing, society at large. The real question is if there are immutable truths out there. For the Christian, I would think the answer is yes.

wolfsbane

postcynical said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).
Can I ask you what you mean here by spiritual authority? Can any man of faith preach with spiritual authority or is it restricted to 'holy' men?

Any man may bring the word by the leading of the Spirit. It is the word that is authoritive, but only a man may exercise it over men. Spiritual authority also includes pastoral care of the church - a task commited to the pastors/elders/overseers. We are to listen to them with due diligence, in respect for their office. Again, that is a role barred to women.

Also would it be accurate to say that a sister can possess this spiritual authority, yet only employ it in a more humble manner (like Priscilla in the above story) rather than preaching?

Yes, that seems a good way to put it.

Finally, what do you mean by a non-body setting? I understand you to mean a gathering of the faithful to pray and worship and listen to God's word, like at a Sunday service. Might such a setting also include a group of believers working with the poor or sick in the name of God?

Where they gather to worship, that is where the restrictions apply. I think that includes a group from different local churches who meet together after they minister to the poor/sick, etc. If they are gathered in His name, He is in the midst, and a body experience exists.

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

This is my exactly my point! The Christians didn't rule the world and the law at the time said it was acceptable to keep a slave-so Christians went along with this and didn't dispute it, as we are taught to do in the bible.
That same world held a law which stated that women could not have authority over a man and therefore couldn't speak in public and Christians had to go along with this too, as we are taught in the bible.
When Paul made that statement, he was keeping in with the law of the land, as he was taught to do.
The laws of the land have changed considerably both with regards to slaves and women, therefore it is ok for Christians to accept slavery as wrong and women preachers as biblically ok.

If that was Paul's argument for women regarding silence/authority, then you would be right. But it is not - his argument is from the creation order:
1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

And when Paul appeals to the law, he does not mean civil law. He means the OT law.

Gingganggooley

It is ludicrous to suggest that all females are totally prohibited from teaching within the church. This passage does not go anywhere near making such a blanket taboo.

The verse in question refers to the women, with the definite article. This means the subjects were a known and identifiable subset within this church. This verse is not referring to all women in general. These women were part of this particular church, that was expressly under the charge of an individual whose name was Timothy. It is probable that Paul could have named them if he wanted to.

Should the entire church be deprived, on account of a reprimand that was handed down to a local church in order to deal with the misbehaviour of, at most, a few?

We must also take into consideration the cultural setting in which these words were first written. Their societal conventions stand in stark contrast to our own, especially inter-sexual relations. The vast majority of women would have been married at a very early age and would not have been allowed to participate in many of the front line activities of society such as politics or business.

It is quite possible that all we have here, are married woman who are inappropiately usurping their husbands' position in a publically humiliating fashion. She, or they, are being properly rebuked for their behaviour.

Given that we are dealing with married women, reference is made to the original couple to show how God's order is being disrupted both in marriage and, consequently, within the church. This reference could not be introduced if we were dealing with singletons. After all, what right does any individual have to exercise authority over another, when they are not joined by some prior arrangement, with mutual consent?

This verse is primarily concerned about keeping order in the church. Married women should conduct themselves in a manner that is commensurate with the commitments they have already willingly made. This however, is a far cry from saying that all women, at all times and in all ages can never utter an exhortation to edify the body of Christ.

O'Coonassa

Gingganggooley wrote: »

It is probable that Paul could have named them if he wanted to.

Not really, the chances of him ever having actually written that are pretty slim, the Greek it's written in just isn't his style. Amongst Biblical scholars the notion that the pastoral epistles are genuinely Pauline is a definite minority view.

Gingganggooley

In this case, I will gladly side with the minority.