# Can women teach or have authority over men?



## Croghanite

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. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Titus 2
1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

*Questions:
1- Can a woman teach or have authority over a man in the church?
2- Can a woman teach or have authority over a man in any other place besides the church?

I really want to know what the PB believes concerning these questions.*


----------



## Chris

1, No
2, Yes


----------



## JoshCasey

1. Definite no.
2. Not in areas which authority is given to the man (family headship, spiritual leadership, etc). Non-spiritual/non-Christian matters are different.


----------



## satz

I believe the woman is not to be in authority in the church or marriage, though the bible would allow her to be in authority in areas of employment or the family (ie under her husband but over children and servants).

Women should not teach spiritual things in any official capacity, but can do so on an unofficial one, like Prisilla (sp?) helping to educate Apollos. I would not say the bible is necessarily against women teaching men in non religious things like mathematics etc.


----------



## Machaira

JoshCasey said:


> 1. Definite no.
> 2. Not in areas which authority is given to the man (family headship, spiritual leadership, etc). Non-spiritual/non-Christian matters are different.



 

Regarding #2, I think we need to ask ourselves; If women are not to teach or have authority over the _average_ man in the Church, why would it be ok for a woman to train future _leaders_ of the Church - who are supposed to be men?


----------



## Scott Bushey

It's ludicrous to think that a seminary would have a woman teach biblical things to men.......silliness.


----------



## Gryphonette

> Questions:
> 1- Can a woman teach or have authority over a man in the church?
> 2- Can a woman teach or have authority over a man in any other place besides the church?



1. No. "No" as in _absolutely not_.

2. In a limited capacity, such as teaching French or tennis, fine. Managing a store (which I've done, with male employees) or a department is fine. However, that is a "manager" as opposed to a "leader"; I would not vote for a female for a political leadership office such as mayor, governor or president (gosh, too bad, Hil!). The idea of a woman being the head of one of the branches of the military_ really_ makes me cringe. 

Which is a whole lot more than you probably wanted to know. Sorry about that.


----------



## Bondman

I judge the question to be vague and the answer options to the poll to be in some cases not mutually exclusive. 

(Let it be known that Bondman is himself the cousin of Layman Joe and is therefore obliged to make such remarks whenever he can)


----------



## Gryphonette

I'll grant you I had a hard time distinguishing a significant difference between #2 and #5. They seem to be essentially the same thing.


----------



## Bondman

Gryphonette said:


> I'll grant you I had a hard time distinguishing a significant difference between #2 and #5. They seem to be essentially the same thing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

1. Those who believe that a woman can neither teach men nor have authority over men in any case have to deal with both the woman of Proverbs 31 as well as the case of female heads of households (widows typically) in Scripture. It is also folly to think that a mother ceases being a teacher to her son once he is grown. Not the primary teacher but a teacher nonetheless.

2. I believe that Paul's admonitions within the Church deal primarily with Church Offices and gifts and especially as teaching in the Church is so closely associated with the role of a woman. I believe the primary idea is that women are not supposed to be in a position of Covenant leadership within the Church.

3. I think it is eisegesis to apply Paul's restrictions on the roles of a woman within the Church to all educational or vocational activity. That a woman's primary vocation is seen to be in the home, the idea of a woman prospering in the marketplace is sanctioned by the Scriptures. I'm almost certain some will only read: "Blah, blah, blah, woman can work in the marketplace, blah, blah, blah..." and completely miss what I just said. The woman's first vocation is as a helpmeet in the home managing the household but she may also be shrewd in the marketplace provided the former is in order. Women with small children are, for all intents and purposes, bound to the home, given the demands of the household but mothers of grown children and widows will be able to devote more time to another vocation.

3. Provided it does not violate Covenant order within a Church, a woman is only commanded in Scripture to submit to her own husband and not every man. In other words, women are not to submit to men, in general, but to whoever their Covenant head is. For a young woman it is her father but for a wife it is her husband. An widow or even a grown unmarried daughter of a man who dies without sons may be the head of a household and has the responsibility of providing for that house. Anyone in the woman's employment or in her household is under her authority. Plain and simple. In fact, this is true of the wife in para. 3 who has a secondary vocation in the marketplace.

4. I also believe that women who have a vocation outside the home or are household heads may teach other men. A prohibition of teaching men in the Church is not a blanket prohibition of teaching all sons of Adam in general. 

5. Whether or not one may sanction the fact that some women are in positions of political power and hold magisterial positions, they are, nevertheless, in positions of real authority. To disregard the ruling of a magistrate on the basis that women cannot have authority over men denies the principle that all authority descends from God, including the authority that comes about by wicked means in the mystery of His Providence. In other words, if Senator Clinton is ever President Clinton then she will have real authority over men whether they recognize it or not.


----------



## Croghanite

Bondman said:


> I judge the question to be vague and the answer options to the poll to be in some cases not mutually exclusive.
> 
> (Let it be known that Bondman is himself the cousin of Layman Joe and is therefore obliged to make such remarks whenever he can)



This is why I have a "yes and no, I will post why" choices. I was hoping people would explain their position in details like Rich and others have. Dont sit with me at Church tommorow, your not welcome in the rear right quadrant. Thats right...


----------



## beej6

I read the thread before voting, and I was still unclear about the poll choices!

I read the intent of the question narrowly, in a church/religious context. Of course women can teach men mathematics - though maybe not at a seminary .

Where a woman has influence on a man is at home, with her husband. I fully expect my wife to correct me when I'm wrong, and question me about religious and non-religious issues. If that means teaching me, that's fine. I'd be a fool to assert my "authority" when I'm in the wrong.


----------



## AV1611

Not in the Church but she can teach men elsewhere


----------



## BJClark

Women can't teach in church over men, but the secular world is completely different.

Women most certainly teach their sons, who will grow up one day be men..(look at Timothy, his mother and grandmother both taught Him) and if we look at Proverbs 31 we see it starts out..

"The words of King Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him."

So to say that women can not teach men, even things concerning doctrine, I believe is false...


----------



## SRoper

While there is a lot of overlap, there is a difference between choices two and five. Number two says women should not teach in the church. Number five says women should not teach doctrine to men. Number two might allow women to teach doctrine in a private setting.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I'm with Ivy and Rich on this one.

Trevour, it is sad but true...like politics and our country, it shows a serious fault in our churches. Where women go, there SHOULD be a lead man present to head over the area and teach the men. Therefore, I still do not believe these women are to be leading the church in these areas, but like in regular life, they can witness and explain their beliefs to the men. But again, this is a serious flaw to not have a man present to lead the mission. In missions, I see serious roles for women in education, medicine, and midwifery (and yes, I separated the last two for a reason).


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Women Teaching*

Hay:

I do not see the limitation of "only in the church" in 1 Tim. 2. Paul does not say that women can teach "outside" of the church, but just the opposite. By referring back to the way God created man and women it seems that he is referring to all of life, and not just "spiritual matters" when it comes to women teaching.

Just my  

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## LadyFlynt

Women do witness to men...therefore to say they cannot period outside of the church would silence them in this way also...as well as say they can't teach a man to read or any college courses...heavens it would mean I couldn't teach a gent to knit.


----------



## Machaira

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> I do not see the limitation of "only in the church" in 1 Tim. 2. Paul does not say that women can teach "outside" of the church, but just the opposite. By referring back to the way God created man and women it seems that he is referring to all of life, and not just "spiritual matters" when it comes to women teaching.
> 
> Just my
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



I would just point out that while Paul doesn't say so explicitly in 1 Tim. 2, he does say "in the church" in 1 Cor. 14. Women learning seems to be the common theme of both passages. 

1Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 
1Ti 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 

1Co 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 
1Co 14:34 the women should keep silent *in the churches.* For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 
1Co 14:35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak *in church.*


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Out of the Church?*

Hay Macharia:

I understand that Paul uses the term "in the church" in 1 Corinthians 14. But the whole context of the chapter he is referring to "in the church" and the abberant practices of the Corinthians. It appears to me, then, that he is emphasizing the silence of women "in the church" to the Corinthians for a specific reason.

The context of 1 Timothy 2 is not "in the church" notice the language:

*I desire that in every place the men should pray,* vs. 8 - notice "every place" does not strictly apply to "in the church."

And, as I pointed out before:

*For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor,* vs. 13.

Do you think that Paul means that women are only deceived "in the church" but "outside the church" the deceivableness of women does not occur?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Civbert

I answered "_Yes, I will post why_". I woman can be a man's boss at a company. A woman can hire men to work on her house or to do all sorts of things for her household. A woman can teach a man things she knows and he doesn't. I've taken professional courses taught by women. My wife has taught me many things about medicine, money management, the best route to get from A to B, and about being a good husband to her.

A Christian woman can not have authority over or teach a Christian man regarding spiritual matters in church. She should not have authority over her husband. She can teach her husband non-spiritual things. She might be allowed to teach him spiritual things under some circumstances. This is especially true if he is not a believer but is interested in becoming one and inquires after her. I _think _she can instruct a believing husband outside of church if he is willing. But it is really the husbands responsibility to instruct his family and he should not abdicate this role to her under normal circumstances.


----------



## Gloria

SemperFideles said:


> 1. Those who believe that a woman can neither teach men nor have authority over men in any case have to deal with both the woman of Proverbs 31 as well as the case of female heads of households (widows typically) in Scripture. It is also folly to think that a mother ceases being a teacher to her son once he is grown. Not the primary teacher but a teacher nonetheless.
> 
> 2. I believe that Paul's admonitions within the Church deal primarily with Church Offices and gifts and especially as teaching in the Church is so closely associated with the role of a woman. I believe the primary idea is that women are not supposed to be in a position of Covenant leadership within the Church.
> 
> 3. I think it is eisegesis to apply Paul's restrictions on the roles of a woman within the Church to all educational or vocational activity. That a woman's primary vocation is seen to be in the home, the idea of a woman prospering in the marketplace is sanctioned by the Scriptures. I'm almost certain some will only read: "Blah, blah, blah, woman can work in the marketplace, blah, blah, blah..." and completely miss what I just said. The woman's first vocation is as a helpmeet in the home managing the household but she may also be shrewd in the marketplace provided the former is in order. Women with small children are, for all intents and purposes, bound to the home, given the demands of the household but mothers of grown children and widows will be able to devote more time to another vocation.
> 
> 3. Provided it does not violate Covenant order within a Church, a woman is only commanded in Scripture to submit to her own husband and not every man. In other words, women are not to submit to men, in general, but to whoever their Covenant head is. For a young woman it is her father but for a wife it is her husband. An widow or even a grown unmarried daughter of a man who dies without sons may be the head of a household and has the responsibility of providing for that house. Anyone in the woman's employment or in her household is under her authority. Plain and simple. In fact, this is true of the wife in para. 3 who has a secondary vocation in the marketplace.
> 
> 4. I also believe that women who have a vocation outside the home or are household heads may teach other men. A prohibition of teaching men in the Church is not a blanket prohibition of teaching all sons of Adam in general.
> 
> 5. Whether or not one may sanction the fact that some women are in positions of political power and hold magisterial positions, they are, nevertheless, in positions of real authority. To disregard the ruling of a magistrate on the basis that women cannot have authority over men denies the principle that all authority descends from God, including the authority that comes about by wicked means in the mystery of His Providence. In other words, if Senator Clinton is ever President Clinton then she will have real authority over men whether they recognize it or not.


----------

