All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
I do not permit a woman to teach
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Corinthians 7:8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
This topic has been discussed before, and I've often seen people bring up 1 Corinthians 7 as being Paul pointing out he was saying this, not God, but that in 1 Timothy 2, he doesn't qualify it as his words so it must be God's words.
As this verse came to mind, the very first word seemed to jump out in my mind...
I!
If Paul were speaking for God, wouldn't he have said, the Holy Spirit has shown me that..., or God has revealed to me that....? Those who have long been against women teaching or leading use 1 Timothy 2 as the standard. And while led by God, many in scripture also were speaking as men. It is an account of Jesus, His disciples, prophecy, creation, etc. By those who were there. When we feel led by the Spirit to write (aka - what I'm doing right now), we write about what we witness and believe. So why would we think Paul didn't also write things as he felt and believed? In places, he said God told him something or the Spirit led him, so why do we assume those things when he does not say that?
I believe this verse is exactly as stated:
I (Paul - me, myself, I...alone) do not permit a woman to teach.
After all, Paul was living in a time where women were considered lesser creatures.
Also interesting to note: Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. In this he is correct...Eve was the one who was deceived. Being the one who was personally told not to eat of the tree though, Adam WILLFULLY disobeyed and did what Eve did or told him. All we know is she gave it to him.
Another thought regarding 1 Corinthians 7. Paul said he would prefer all remain unmarried. But what did God say?
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Views: 1075
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
OK. I don't get the point this comment is meant to make. Please clarify.
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda on
-
I think this discussion is a good place to look at bible interpretation, and since I mentioned American history in my other comment, and how we use one historian's account as opposed to another historian's account to arrive at what really happened in the past, then we also can use the revelation of one author in the bible to discern what another author in the bible means. The bible has different genres. I think you call it reading it at face value. Matthew and John both witnessed the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and we can use one to verify what the other says, without even addressing divine inspiration at first. IOW, there's no real reason on any account why we can't use the bible to prove the bible.
-
-
-
The bible has different genres. I think you call it reading it at face value. Matthew and John both witnessed the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and we can use one to verify what the other says, without even addressing divine inspiration at first.
This is where I differ from some (probably many, if not most). Yes, John and Matthew are eyewitnesses, but I cannot separate the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at any point in Scripture. The validity of their testimony is good, but their recording of Matthew and John go beyond simply their eyewitness view. I take a very high view of Scripture and believe the Holy Spirit was involved in every jot and tittle that is recorded from Genesis to Revelation. I do not read John or Matthew as John or Matthew writing this for me to read, but rather as God writing this through Matthew and John for me to read. Many debate over where Mark got his information. That debate doesn't interest me in the least, for ultimately for me it is the Words of the Holy Spirit coming through and not just his interviews. The same rings true of Luke. He researched, but He was led and constrained by the Holy Spirit in the writing of Luke and Acts.
Though we see history recorded I do not rest on the person's perspective of history, but rather on the Holy Spirit speaking through these people regarding history. Thus, for me to compare Matthew and John I really am not comparing Matthew and John, but rather what the Holy Spirit said through Matthew and John.
there's no real reason on any account why we can't use the bible to prove the bible.
I do not use the Bible to prove the Bible. I compare Scripture with Scripture to seek to discern the truth (doctrine) being taught in Scripture for us to learn and live by. I already accept it to be wholly true. Yes, not everyone accepts it as wholly true, but human arguments and intellect alone will never come to that conclusion with absolute assurance. It is a work of the Holy Spirit similar to how we recognize Jesus as the Savior because the Holy Spirit reveals Him to us. Yes, He uses the intellect, but goes beyond what is humanly discernable and reveals spiritual truth that can only come by Him and Him alone.
-
-
-
That's where you are in your journey, but others are grappling with or flat out believing that it contains man's opinions, too, if not just that it's a word about God instead of God's Word. It's never been anything I've struggled with. I never have doubted the authenticity or inspiration of the Scriptures. Yet, others are. So, do we meet them where they are? I've heard it said by some that they followed the evidence. I wonder about that statement and if their faith is genuine but it's still the experience of some, and if they aren't willing to believe in the inspiration of Scriptures, there's no way we can convince or persuade them to believe, but we have to start where they are, don't we, even as Paul did in Acts 17?
-
-
-
You're not arguing with me because I have no problem with believing that Paul isn't stating an opinion in 1 Timothy 2:12. For those who think he is or could be, that's who need godly instruction and I was attempting to address that issue. I'll shut up now.
-
-
-
Yes, you meet them where they are at with the understanding that you will not convince them. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. If we can convince some one to believe then some one else can convince them to believe something else. Only when the Holy Spirit illuminates is a person truly enlightened.
We do not need to digress to human arguments, but rather trust in the power and authority of God's Word. Note the most successful apologist use "Scripture" in their debates. They respond to the questions posed by others, but their hope is not in their ability to out maneuver someone using human logic, but rather their hope is in God's Word impacting the soul of the hearer. To be fair, I suppose that is not true of all apologist, but trust it is of the most prominent ones leaving them nameless here.
-
-
-
This is a perfect example -- you giving your opinion. You are an anointed Christian, blood bought and born again, much the same as Paul. You also write articles. You preach sermons. You also post comments where you clarify that it isn't just your personal opinion but is biblical. What's the difference between what you write and what Paul wrote that is included in the canon of Scripture?
Seek has said in the initial post above that: Another thought regarding 1 Corinthians 7. Paul said he would prefer all remain unmarried. But what did God say? Then she quoted Genesis 1:28.
Why can we accept what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:8 as Paul's preference but not 1 Timothy 2:12 where he says, "I do not permit ...?" Should Paul have qualified what he was saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 as not I, but the Lord?
-
-
When I post a comment that says it is my opinion I acknowledge that I am not 100% sure, but have a level of confidence about the subject, and that confidence level will vary from subject to subject.
There are those of us who take a high view of Scripture and accept that it is not simply the work of men, but specifically the work of God (cover to cover) through these men for the purpose of God's revelation to man and wholly trustworthy. I, as a person, called to be a preacher/teacher do not speak revelation, but rather employ (hopefully)illumination as guided by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the special revelation God gave that brought about the Word of God closed with the death of the Apostle John. The Word of God is complete. There is nothing to add and nothing to take away. 1 Corinthians 7 is simply an option and both are godly choices. If one is able to remain unmarried ... great, and if they need to marry ... great, God blesses both. This is a choice (liberty) given to mankind. God allows Paul to insert His preference, but His opinion does not change the doctrine regarding getting married or not getting married and serving the Lord. The same is not true of 1 Timothy 2. His "I" statement is not just an opinion, but aligns with the rest of Scripture on the topic as seen in the qualifications, etc ... Paul does not come back and state that it is OK for women to teach. Thus there is a great difference between the options (marry or don't marry .. both godly choices) and Paul stating he does not permit women to teach and then acknowledges that God's plan is for women teachers and elders, etc ...
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
The comments in this discussion have been excellent. I would like to add just a little from my perspective about women teachers. Should a woman teach in church? Obviously, I can't authoritatively answer that. It could be that the emphasis is on doctrine. Should a woman teach doctrine?
Let's suppose you are a teacher of young converts and you are asked to teach them certain truths from Scripture. In this case you are assisting your pastor. You should not usurp his authority and teach those things that he is not in complete agreement with. If one finds themselves in disagreement with the pastor and begins to teach those things that are not in agreement with the doctrine he is presenting, I would recommend considering changing churches. I do not believe that anyone should be in disagreement with the leadership of the church unless, of course, the leadership is teaching those things that are very obviously against Scripture. However, when we have a point of view that is different from the leadership of the church, we should just keep that between God and ourselves.
I often find myself a little different since I hold mostly to Calvinistic views. However, I don't enjoy the worship of most Calvinists and much prefer the spontaneous worship found in more Arminian churches. I presently attend an Arminian church. Since the differences of these doctrines are not critical to salvation, I keep quiet. If God opens a door with the leadership I will share. If not, I am going to keep my mouth shut.
I think ladies are permitted to teach and preach as long as they are doing so under the authority of the leadership of the church and not presenting doctrines that are contrary to the church. It is very difficult to be the leader of a church. As long as our pastor is speaking according to the critical doctrines of Scripture, we should all support him.
Jesus is the answer. We don't need to be a Bible scholar to share that with men, women, boys or girls. The Great Commission was not given to only men. The angel appeared to women and instructed them to go tell the men, "He has risen." I don't believe Paul's letter has changed that.
Blessings.
-
-
Roy,
In a similar discussion not too long ago, we had dialogue regarding women submitting to men and submitting to authority in the church as well as teaching men. I commented there that we are called to submit to those who are in authority, and authority is mentioned in the verse 1 Timothy 2:12, I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ESV
There's an order in the way God created man and then woman and how they fell into sin. I'm just making a guess about why Satan targeted Eve, but, to me, it looks like women are more susceptible to being deceived than men, and that's why Satan targeted Eve. I've always wondered what 1 Peter 3:7 means by woman being the weaker vessel, perhaps it's not just physically but mentally, too.
My POV is that 1 Timothy 2 does restrict the ministry of women today just as much as back then. The thing about God's Word is that it remains accurate over time and is actually eternal as well. We must avoid the teachings that would seek to change it to make it adapt to the current times. It already adapts and is current.
The question is, what does Paul mean when he says not to teach or have authority over men? Is he just talking about a woman and her husband? Or, women and men in general?
I think he's talking about the ministry of women as a whole in the home, the church, the community, etceteras.
Here's the link to the other discussion on AAG where we were talking about this. http://www.allaboutgod.net/forum/topics/women-leaders-in-church-in-...
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
