# Women should keep silent - and all these ladies on the PB



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

Under the restrictive view of some, the command that women should keep silent in the church means a blanket command that a woman should never teach a man (even if not in ecclesiastical authority or in a church setting). If some hold to this view, why are there woman posters on the PB? 

You know, they might teach a man something on here? 

Should we move to restrict women posters to only hitting the Thanks key or posting Amen?




Or....

Are men and women able to mutually bless each other by theological conversation? If they disagree, should a woman ever then argue for her point?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Oct 3, 2008)

Ban them all. 


. . . that's a joke.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 3, 2008)

Interesting point, Pergy. I have been on a forum where those views were propounded even more aggresively than here. I have marveled at the fact that those doing the most "teaching" on the subject of male headship and women not teaching or having authority over men were women who essentially anathematized all those daring to disagree with any aspect of their teaching!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 3, 2008)

Well, one answer is that they don't own the board.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

Rich; 

Some would reply that the owners of the board have placed themselves under either the Bible or the WCF and need to be subservient to that. 

(I guess the Bible because if the board was only under the WCF then us baptists might not be welcome). 

Then they would argue that since this is the case, we must not allow women to exercise authority over a man by trying to teach us something through differing with our posts. 



.....Also, I guess they would say that the PB owners are meanies if they wield their power arbitrarily.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> .....Also, I guess they would say that the PB owners are meanies if they wield their power arbitrarily.



I've never heard that one before.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 3, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > .....Also, I guess they would say that the PB owners are meanies if they wield their power arbitrarily.
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

Do we have a sarcasm smiley?


----------



## larryjf (Oct 3, 2008)

The answer is quite simple:
It's our duty as men to make sure that we don't learn anything from the women.

(in case someone can't tell...it's a joke).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Grace Alone (Oct 3, 2008)




----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

I try every day not to learn anything from my wife - but then she breaks out the ol' frying Pan and tells me my lessons can come in two forms; smooth or lumpy.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I try every day not to learn anything from my wife - but then she breaks out the ol' frying Pan and tells me my lessons can come in two forms; smooth or lumpy.



I busted out laughing when i read that....hysterical!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 3, 2008)

Outside the pulpit and worship service, those that obsess over learning from women are not the type of people I want to learn from.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 3, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Outside the pulpit and worship service, those that obsess over learning from women are not the type of people I want to learn from.



_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. (1Ti 2:11-14)
_
Since this passage references creation and the fall as a reason for women not teaching men (authoritative teaching)...why would it be limited to within the church?


----------



## JOwen (Oct 3, 2008)

My wife is one of my best teachers (love, patience, etc.). I think of Priscilla and Aquila and THEIR teaching of Apollo. Why is Priscilla mentioned in so many texts if she too was not a "teacher" or "leader" of a kind? There is official ecclesiastical teaching which women are barred from, and then there is regular, everyday life. I'm taught by men and women. Some women better than many men.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I try every day not to learn anything from my wife - but then she breaks out the ol' frying Pan and tells me my lessons can come in *two forms; smooth or lumpy*.



Not right Pergy! You shouldn't criticize your wife's mashed potatoes on a public forum.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 3, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Outside the pulpit and worship service, those that obsess over learning from women are not the type of people I want to learn from.
> ...



Because this is the context that Paul delivers that small snippet from. I'm not interested in the argument in this thread. There are many absurdities that I could draw (and downright Scriptural contradictions) if we make this apply to every sphere of activity that a woman participates in but I will refrain.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 3, 2008)

JOwen said:


> My wife is one of my best teachers (love, patience, etc.). I think of Priscilla and Aquila and THEIR teaching of Apollo. Why is Priscilla mentioned in so many texts if she too was not a "teacher" or "leader" of a kind? There is official ecclesiastical teaching which women are barred from, and then there is regular, everyday life. I'm taught by men and women. Some women better than many men.



_He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Act 18:26)
_
Why would we presume that when Priscilla and Aquila were teaching that she was the teacher in authority rather than her husband?


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 3, 2008)

*John Gill's Exposition & John Calvin's Commentary*

From Gill:

1 Timothy 2:11

Ver. 11. Let the woman learn in silence,.... The apostle goes on to give some other instructions to women, how they should behave themselves in public worship, in the church of God; he would have them be learners and not teachers, sit and hear, and learn more of Christ, and of the truth of the Gospel, and to maintain good works; and he would have them learn in silence, and not offer to rise and speak, under a pretence of having a word from the Lord, or of being under an impulse of the Spirit of the Lord, as some frantic women have done; and if they should meet with anything, under the ministry of the word, they did not understand, or they had an objection to, they were not to speak in public, but ask their own husbands at home; see 1Co 14:34. And thus, they were to behave

with all subjection; both to the ministers of the word, and to their own husbands; obeying from the heart the form of doctrine delivered to them; and submitting cheerfully to the ordinances of Christ; the whole of which is a professed subjection to the Gospel, and which becomes all professing godliness.


1 Timothy 2:12

Ver. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, &c,] They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pr 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

but to be in silence; to sit and hear quietly and silently, and learn, and not teach, as in 1Ti 2:11.


1 Timothy 2:13

Ver. 13. For Adam was first formed,.... Immediately by God, out of the dust of the earth; and the breath of life was breathed into him, and he became a living soul; thus wonderfully and fearfully was he made; after this he was put into the garden of Eden, to dress it, and all creatures were brought to him, to give them names; and still an help meet or a companion was not found for him. All this while Eve was not as yet formed, but after this,

then Eve. She was formed out of him, was made out of one of his ribs; and was formed for him, for his use, service, help and comfort; and here lies the strength of the apostle's reason, why the woman should be in subjection to the man; not so much because he was made before her; for so were the beasts of the field before Adam; and yet this gave them no superiority to him; but because she was made out of him, and made for him, see 1Co 11:8. So that the woman's subjection to the man is according to the laws of nature and creation; and was antecedent to the fall; and would have been, if that had never been; though that brought her into a lower, and meaner, and more depressed estate; which the apostle next mentions. The words may be rendered, "the first Adam", or "Adam the first was formed, and then Eve". See 1Co 15:45.


1 Timothy 2:14

Ver. 14. And Adam was not deceived,.... There is no need to say with interpreters, that he was not deceived first; and that he was not deceived immediately by the serpent, but by Eve; and that he is never said in Scripture to be deceived, as Melchizedek is never said to have a father or mother. The apostle's positive assertion is to be taken without any such limitations or qualifications; Adam never was deceived at all; neither by the serpent, with whom he never conversed; nor by his wife, he knew what he did, when he took the fruit of her, and ate; he ate it not under any deception, or vain imagination, that they should not die, but should be as gods, knowing good and evil. He took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him:

but the woman being deceived was in the transgression: and the serpent really beguiled her; she owned it herself, Ge 3:13. And this is elsewhere said of her, 2Co 11:3 which never is of Adam. She really thought the serpent spoke truth, that she and her husband should not die, if they ate of the fruit; but that it was good to make them wise; and that, upon eating it, they should be as gods, knowing good and evil; and under this deception she fell into the transgression, and was the cause and means, by her persuasions and example, of bringing her husband into the same sin; which involved him and all his posterity in ruin and destruction. And therefore she is called by the Jews {p} Nweh Ma, "the mother of iniquity and sin"; to which they refer, Ps 51:5. And they say, {q} she was the cause of death to Adam, and to all the world: See Gill on "Ro 5:12". And they observe {r} the order of the punishment of the serpent, Eve, and Adam, as of their sin; the serpent was first accursed, then Eve, and last of all Adam. They say

"{s} Samael (the devil) could not subvert Adam, till the serpent came and turned the heart of Eve, and Eve turned his heart, and they both sinned; wherefore it is said, "the woman which thou gavest me"; Samael had no power to turn him, till Eve came, and she was the cause of his eating.''

Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh: and she was brought into a more depressed state of dependence on him, and subjection to him; see Ge 3:16. The Ethiopic version renders the text, "Adam hath not deceived, the woman hath deceived and prevaricated".

{p} Tzeror Hammor, fol. 141. 3. {q} T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 5. 2. Zohar in Gcn. fol. 27. 3. Caphtor, fol. 37. 2. {r} T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 18. 1. & Taanith, fol. 15. 2. Bereshit Rabba, sect. 20. fol. 17. 1. {s} Midrash Ruth in Zohar in Gen. fol. 27. 3.

From Calvin:

11 Let a woman learn in quietness. After having spoken of dress, he now adds with what modesty women ought to conduct themselves in the holy assembly. And first he bids them learn quietly; for quietness means silence, that they may not take upon them to speak in public. This he immediately explains more clearly, by forbidding them to teach.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach. Not that he takes from them the charge of instructing their family, but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only. On this subject we have explained our views in the exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (Judges 4:4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

He adds — what is closely allied to the office of teaching — and not to assume authority over the man; for the very reason, why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their condition. They are subject, and to teach implies the rank of power or authority. Yet it may be thought that there is no great force in this argument; because even prophets and teachers are subject to kings and to other magistrates. I reply, there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying, when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for γυναικοκρατία (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. Accordingly, he bids them be “quiet,” that is, keep within their own rank. 

13 For Adam was first created He assigns two reasons why women ought to be subject to men; because not only did God enact this law at the beginning, but he also inflicted it as a punishment on the woman. (Genesis 3:16.) He accordingly shews that, although mankind had stood in their first and original uprightness, the true order of nature, which proceeded from the command of God, bears that women shall be subject. Nor is this inconsistent with the fact, that Adam, by falling from his first dignity, deprived himself of his authority; for in the ruins, which followed sin, there still linger some remains of the divine blessing, and it was not proper that woman, by her own fault, should make her condition better than before. Yet the reason that Paul assigns, that woman was second in the order of creation, appears not to be a very strong argument in favor of her subjection; for John the Baptist was before Christ in the order of time, and yet was greatly inferior in rank. But although Paul does not state all the circumstances which are related by Moses, yet he intended that his readers should take them into consideration. Now Moses shews that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. (Genesis 2:21.) Since, therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the Apostle justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed.
14 And Adam was not deceived He alludes to the punishment inflicted on the woman:

“Because thou hast obeyed the voice of the serpent, thou shalt be subject to the authority of thy husband, and thy desire shall be to him.” 
Because she had given fatal advice, it was right that she should learn that she was under the power and will of another; and because she had drawn her husband aside from the command of God, it was right that she should be deprived of all liberty and placed under the yoke. Besides, the Apostle does not rest his argument entirely or absolutely on the cause of the transgression, but founds it on the sentence which was pronounced by God.

Yet it may be thought that these two statements are somewhat contradictory: that the subjection of the woman is the punishment of her transgression, and yet that it was imposed on her from the creation; for thence it will follow, that she was doomed to servitude before she sinned. I reply, there is nothing to hinder that the condition of obeying should be natural from the beginning, and that afterwards the accidental condition of serving should come into existence; so that the subjection was now less voluntary and agreeable than it had formerly been.

Again, this passage has given to some people an occasion for affirming that Adam did not fall by means of error, but that he was only overcome by the allurements of his wife. Accordingly, they think that the woman only was deceived by the wiles of the devil, to believe that she and her husband would be like the gods; But that Adam was not at all persuaded of this, but tasted the fruit in order to please his wife. But it is easy to refute this opinion; for, if Adam had not given credit to the falsehood of Satan, God would not have reproached him:
“Behold, Adam is become like one of us.” (Genesis 3:22.)

There are other reasons of which I say nothing; for there needs not a long refutation of an error which does not rest on any probable conjecture. By these words Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, but that the cause or source of the transgression proceeded from Eve.


----------



## satz (Oct 3, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Outside the pulpit and worship service, those that obsess over learning from women are not the type of people I want to learn from.
> ...



The bare facts of what happened in creation and the fall do not logically imply anything for women living today. Rather, we are limited to God's revelation of what they mean. 

If God had not written the first half those verses but had only wrote "Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor", that wouldn't have any practical effect on what women can, or cannot do, without God telling us how that history should affect us today.

In other words, when Paul references creation and the fall he does so to back up a specific point he is making, namely "Let a woman learn quietly..." etc. So the extent to which Paul's restriction of women's authority applies is understood by determining the context and application of 1 Tim 2:11-14, not from trying to second guess the implications of the fall beyond what Paul has specifically set out for us.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 3, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



If you are going to mention absurdities and contradictions i think that it would only be right to state what they are instead of refraining from them, yet not refraining from talking about them in general.

Let's look at more of the context of the passage:
_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. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1Ti 2:8-15)
_
Men should pray *in every place*. Certainly that doesn't mean only in church. And certainly we aren't supposed to pray without anger or quarreling only in church.

The it says "likewise... women..." so it seems to me it's still on the topic of all of life and not just church service. Otherwise, why would he speak of bearing children? certainly this passage has further implications than just within the walls of the church.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

She is mentioned first; and they are always mentioned together. They appear to be a missionary team. It seems that they both spoke and talked to him about spiritual things and that he learned from both.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> She is mentioned first; and they are always mentioned together. They appear to be a missionary team. It seems that they both spoke and talked to him about spiritual things and that he learned from both.



It goes back to teaching in authority, not simply teaching.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 3, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...



I guess I'll just be not right and yet refrain. You've made your case. I disagree. We'll leave it at that. If you want to see my reasons then you're welcome to search the PB where I've interacted on this before but I'm not going to engage on yet another thread where every sphere of activity is flattened into one. I'm not arguing that a woman may have spiritual authority over another man within the Church and probably could have phrased what I stated better but the point is that some people are looking for any opportunity to fret when they might learn something from a woman. It certainly didn't freak out King Lemuel.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

So a woman can teach, as long as she is not in authority?


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy (Oct 3, 2008)

Notice no women have posted in this thread .... (looks both way) ... (goes back into hiding) ...


----------



## larryjf (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> So a woman can teach, as long as she is not in authority?



yup


----------



## Solus Christus (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Under the restrictive view of some, the command that women should keep silent *in the church* means a blanket command that a woman should never teach a man (even if not in ecclesiastical authority or in a church setting). If some hold to this view, why are there woman posters on the PB?



Another thing to point out (actually, my wife pointed this one out ), is the PB isn't a church. So I'm not sure this can be applied here anyways.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

But if women are to refrain from all spheres of life whereby they teach men, then it does not matter that the PB is not a church, it is still in gross violation of Scripture if we grant this assumption. So, is ANY and EVERY conversation about a Bible with a woman. 


okay, im going for a walk and going to wrestle with my son........and listen to my wife's godly advice today and be taught by her example.


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2008)

> But if women are to refrain from all spheres of life whereby they teach men, then it does not matter that the PB is not a church, it is still in gross violation of Scripture if we grant this assumption. So, if ANY and EVERY conversation about a Bible with a woman.



It's October already and this has been the biggest straw man I've seen all year. Going from two female evangalists in church planting activity teaching men the Gospel at the place of their ministry without any male supervision at all and comparing it to me asking the women at my church for advice with raising my 14 year old daughter


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

There is not "no male supervision at all", the leader is just in another city - they are sent by a team headed up by males and with the approval of a local church. They are in a private home and are merely answering questions from uninvited men who come in.


I notice you said "comparing it to me asking the women at my church for advice with raising my 14 year old." 
How about advice how to be saved? Suppose you needed to know that? Or if you engaged in Scriptural dialogue?


----------



## Galatians220 (Oct 3, 2008)

Kenneth_Murphy said:


> Notice no women have posted in this thread .... (looks both way) ... (goes back into hiding) ...


 
Not so, Mr. Murphy: look at No. 10...  _Janis is there._  You are not escaping notice by the feminine contingent here, _*not by a long shot.*_  

We're waiting in the weeds, and when we strike, it's going to be with ecclesiastical-grade plutonium, for starters.

 Just joking! ​ 
Those of us who are wives are supposed to be submissive to our own husbands (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18) and most of us make a game, _unsnarky_ effort to do so... Even though it can be really, really hard!   

To address the substantive issue: this _is_ informal. Most of us are sitting hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from each other, typing away. Where do we go if we want to discuss "things theological" with someone other than our husbands or our pastors? I like to bandy about ideas.

That said, yes, I agree, I shouldn't be instructing men, or trying to and failing as can be expected. I would have no problem with being banned from certain forums on that Scriptural basis. We ladies have the tea room, after all. I only ask that the "thanks" button not be taken away, either that or my second-favorite feature here, the "delete post" one!

"Galatians220" will rethink the idea of posting things that may be construed as an attempt to instruct men. (I'm grateful for this thread, too.)

Fair enough?

Margaret


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2008)

> "Galatians220" will rethink the idea of posting things that may be construed as an attempt to instruct men. (I'm grateful for this thread, too.)
> 
> Fair enough?



I wouldn't be happy with that, and even strict confessional churches have Bible studies where women can't teach, but can offer their input. It doesn't have to be all or none!


----------



## Grace Alone (Oct 3, 2008)

I will also attempt to continue witholding my vast storehouse of theological knowledge  to be certain that I do not accidentally teach any men on here.


----------



## Galatians220 (Oct 3, 2008)

Grace Alone said:


> I will also attempt to continue witholding my vast storehouse of theological knowledge  to be certain that I do not accidentally teach any men on here.


 


*That's *the spirit I was hoping for!!!!

(I find that I am often deemed most culpable for wrongdoing when I've embarked upon a particular enterprise "with only the best of intentions..." _C'est la vie. _)

Margaret


----------



## staythecourse (Oct 3, 2008)

This is a useful post. I am currently, even today, wanting to walk out from work as I work under women and feel the strain. Younger women and older. It's a pharmaceutical company. This is very apropos for my situation. How do you men handle working under women, those of you that do? Does it affect your masculinity and does it affect their femininity? Which I think is Paul's point in his going back to creation. What about working with unsaved women?

Too broad a question for the thread?


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2008)

Bryan, you just can't go there with the principles involved. Religious teaching and authority are under discussion, and that's about it. Down through the years there have been a couple blasts of the trumpet about women in positions of civil leadership, and I haven't seen anything written by confessional Reformed folk here in favor of women evangelists, even when grace would seeminly abound, but the Proverbs 31 lady did real estate, and started a vineyard. And anyone who knows the first thing about the agricultural aspect of that endeavor knows for a fact that the Proverbs 31 gal had guys doing at least some of the work under her authority.

In those situations you pretty much have to do what she says or look for different work.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 3, 2008)

Can I tell the owner of my business that I'm in authority over her because she's a woman? I wish.

I should add that she pays me to act like I own the place, so I'm lucky!

Galatians 220 quote - "We're waiting in the weeds, and when we strike, it's going to be with ecclesiastical-grade plutonium, for starters."

I love the ecclesiastical-grade plutonium statement, but if I use it, would that constitute me learning from a woman??? I really like it, but the moral dilemma that surrounds this concept is to much for a mere mortal man to bear. 

Just kidding on all, just in case anybody wonders otherwise, except the stuff about the owner of my business.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 3, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Can I tell the owner of my business that I'm in authority over her because she's a woman? I wish.
> 
> I should add that she pays me to act like I own the place, so I'm lucky!
> 
> Just kidding on all, just in case anybody wonders otherwise, except the stuff about the owner of my business.



Does your wife own the business?


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Under the restrictive view of some, the command that women should keep silent in the church means a blanket command that a woman should never teach a man (even if not in ecclesiastical authority or in a church setting). If some hold to this view, why are there woman posters on the PB?
> 
> You know, they might teach a man something on here?
> 
> ...





Pergy,

Has anyone ever pointed out to you that you have the spirit of a mischief-making little demon? You must have a LOT of spare time today to get this dustup started. 

Oops. I better get back to differentiating whether I want "my lessons" to "come . . . smooth or lumpy." Afterall, I have more degrees than my wife . . . however, with only three of them being theological degrees, I am still one behind her. 

Despite being true, the complementarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is not without its intrinsic anomalies and problems. However, taking the implications beyond the original intention of the divine author in the context of a rampantly egalitarian culture is a suicide mission! 

If I read Gen 3 correctly, a woman NEEDS to submit to her husband (Eph 5) precisely BECAUSE she is cursed with "desire" (תְּשׁוּקָה téshuqah, “desire”) for her husband's position. Similarly, a man NEEDS to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church" precisely BECAUSE he is cursed with a sinful proneness to "rule over" (יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ) her.


----------



## Webservant (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Are men and women able to mutually bless each other by theological conversation? If they disagree, should a woman ever then argue for her point?


My wife has taught me, tamed me, and <need another "t">... and... well, anyway, God blessed me with a better half who is both smarter and more patient and mature than I am. Surely God gave us these lovely creatures for reasons other than procreation?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

McFaddenator:

All true. Wives submit to husbands. Yep. Male ecclesiastical headship in the church. True.

However, in the realm of personal life, in one's home, and even in personal evangelism, a woman is allowed to answer a theological question is asked by a man. And they are allowed to engage in biblical discourse, even if (gasp) the man might learn something...or else the PB could not allow the fairer sex on here for fear that we learn sumthin'.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 3, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Under the restrictive view of some, the command that women should keep silent in the church means a blanket command that a woman should never teach a man (even if not in ecclesiastical authority or in a church setting). If some hold to this view, why are there woman posters on the PB?
> ...



As far as the mischief making: The airstrips are flooded and are closed, the river is up and my wife is sick - so I haven't spent more than a day away from our coastal home for 4 weeks now (at the same time that I have arranged to get a better internet connection).......

So..... its been a month of writing, correspondance, reports, and coastally based meetings/preaching, and too many sicknesses and death....And maybe a PB overdose.....Next week I should be more gainfully employed at a more distant location...


...but COME ONE....the question was begging to be asked, wasn't it!


----------



## satz (Oct 3, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> This is a useful post. I am currently, even today, wanting to walk out from work as I work under women and feel the strain. Younger women and older. It's a pharmaceutical company. This is very apropos for my situation. How do you men handle working under women, those of you that do? Does it affect your masculinity and does it affect their femininity? Which I think is Paul's point in his going back to creation. What about working with unsaved women?
> 
> Too broad a question for the thread?



I think we submit to a female boss at work in exactly the same manner as a male boss. I don't think that it affects my masculinity or vice versa anymore than obeying my mother does.

As TimV pointed out, male servants in OT Israel were under the authority of female family members.



> Which I think is Paul's point in his going back to creation.



As I tried to explain in my earlier post, I believe Paul's point in going back to creation was male/female relationships in the church (1 Tim 3:15). We know that because that is what he says. To attempt to push the practical implications beyond that without referring to additional bible verses is just speculation.


----------



## satz (Oct 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Are men and women able to mutually bless each other by theological conversation? If they disagree, should a woman ever then argue for her point?



1 Samuel 25:32-33 And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.

David wasn't ashamed to learn things from a woman.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 3, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Can I tell the owner of my business that I'm in authority over her because she's a woman? I wish.
> ...



Nope, my wife runs the business of home. I'm blessed. I'm lucky to have a wife that wanted to have a biblical marriage like I did. I don't like jokes that I hear (even in church) about "who wears the pants" in the family. These statements let me know that there is a power struggle going on in the home. When I hear these jokes, even at work by married couples, I like to respond that I'm the King, and my wife is the Queen, and we both rule gloriously. Since we are following what the bible says, we don't waste our precious time together with power struggles. We are both learning how to live up to our division of labor roles that we are expected to do. It allows us to spend lots of time together, enjoying each other for what we bring to the marriage.

Now, concerning work, my boss is a Sikh from India that's as right-wing politically leaning as I am. Pretty strange. Most people of another religion, especially from another country are usually liberal.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 4, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> McFaddenator:
> 
> All true. Wives submit to husbands. Yep. Male ecclesiastical headship in the church. True.
> 
> However, in the realm of personal life, in one's home, and even in personal evangelism, a woman is allowed to answer a theological question is asked by a man. And they are allowed to engage in biblical discourse, even if (gasp) the man might learn something...or else the PB could not allow the fairer sex on here for fear that we learn sumthin'.



Pergy, sorry. I truncated my post in order to get away with my wife to see a movie. I meant to go on to say that yes, headship is true, BUT it is dangerous and wrong-headed to extend it restrictively into every nook and cranny of life. Not only does the Bible record numerous instances of women making an impact upon men, but I see NO biblical restrictions on women in their conversations with men (other than taking the official lead in the church). It is just as dangerous to build a Pharisee's hedge around the Word as to err on the side of latitudinarianism. BTW, while my wife and I had the same classes from Gundry and Moises Silva in Greek and NT in college, she did her seminary work in Christian education when I was doing my M.Div. Nothing wrong with an educated wife.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Oct 4, 2008)

One time a woman told me that the bible said a man should never let a woman teach him anything...so I refused to listen to her...and then figured out that I learned something from her...so...wait a minute.


----------



## JOwen (Oct 4, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Why would we presume that when Priscilla and Aquila were teaching that she was the teacher in authority rather than her husband?



No need to assume that Priscilla was "the authority" but the mention of her name, so very often, points out her exemplary godliness and therefore her personal impact. Not many other women are mentioned in this light, and we must assume then, that her presence was important to the broader picture (who else's wife is mentioned like this in the Word?). She was not a pastor, elder, deacon, or any other kind of officer, granted. But she did have the unofficial place of an instructor of sorts. I have met many such women who, despite their lack of office do, in a submissive and acceptable way, instruct by word and life. I know of several such women dead and living. Mary Winslow, and Ruth Bryan come to mind. If we as men could not learn from them, why then are their works published and read by many men in the Church? Perhaps a strongly worded letter to Reformation Heritage Books is in order?  
The Bible never intended to teach that a man could never learn from a woman in the wlak of faith. That is bad exegesis. 

Blessings!


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 4, 2008)

Someone mentioned the phrase "in every place" in 1 Timothy 2. This probably refers to every place of worship. Paul is, after all, writing to a pastor, and the context of the first part of the chapter is prayer, and almost certainly prayer in worship. The argument that it is not limited to worship because of the mention of childbearing in verse 15 falls to the ground if one takes it as "the childbearing," a reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. See my article on this passage in the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian Journal.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 4, 2008)

JOwen said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Why would we presume that when Priscilla and Aquila were teaching that she was the teacher in authority rather than her husband?
> ...



I don't think we're saying different things.
Women can and do teach, but to do so authoritatively (with men) is to go against God's order.
I would never say that the unauthoritative teaching of women is wrong.


----------



## satz (Oct 4, 2008)

Larry,

What do you mean by 'authoritatively' ?


----------



## larryjf (Oct 4, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Someone mentioned the phrase "in every place" in 1 Timothy 2. This probably refers to every place of worship. Paul is, after all, writing to a pastor, and the context of the first part of the chapter is prayer, and almost certainly prayer in worship. The argument that it is not limited to worship because of the mention of childbearing in verse 15 falls to the ground if one takes it as "the childbearing," a reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. See my article on this passage in the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian Journal.



Lane,
So you agree with Gill regarding the meaning of "childbearing"...interesting. Though i agree that may be part of the reference, i don't see it as the primary reference.
I like the way the Geneva note states it:


> He adds a comfort by the way, that their subjection does not hinder women from being saved as well as men, if they behave themselves in those duties of marriage in a holy and modest manner, with faith and charity.



I do see my error in expanding this passage to all areas of life the more i consider it and pray over it.
I am sorry for twisting the Scriptures in a way that suited my presupposition instead of allowing Scripture to mold my understanding.

However, i still see that the reference to creation and man being created first with woman being the first to transgress does point to a more fundamental order of female submission than simply at church.


----------



## larryjf (Oct 4, 2008)

satz said:


> Larry,
> 
> What do you mean by 'authoritatively' ?



Among other things it would include the ability to discipline those who are not submissive to godly teaching.


----------



## JOwen (Oct 4, 2008)

> I don't think we're saying different things.
> Women can and do teach, but to do so authoritatively (with men) is to go against God's order.
> I would never say that the unauthoritative teaching of women is wrong.



Then we agree


----------



## charliejunfan (Oct 4, 2008)

I think we do need to change the rules on here a bit because if we do not I think we would be undermining the Bible's teaching. Living in the U.S. we are used to individuality and egalitarianism, as a result we feel guilty about limiting the opportunities for women. If I were to rebuke my friend for sinning, I myself would feel guilty since I sin regularly but the means are just as important as the ends in Christianity and we are taught that rebuke is one of the ways in which we love the brethren. If we undermine the proper biblical means for teaching here then how can we uphold them in our homes and churches, if we are to Reform the family we need to be very conscious of the means used to do this, we will always offend if we are properly teaching and living what the bible says.
I believe the way in which we as men learn from women is illustrated in this way, If I were to teach my younger sister something that is thought restrictive by our culture and yet she accepted it in humble submission this reaction to my teaching would teach me to be more Christlike. We learn from women in many ways by our observance rather than their direct teaching, the same is true when for instance, they teach children in a godly fashion, we can learn from that but they are not teaching us. 
Can women teach women when it comes to doctrine/theology? or is it all supposed to come from the man or men in each household?


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> Can women teach women? or is it all supposed to come from the man or men in each household?



Titus 2:2-5

Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. *They are to teach* what is good, and so *train the young women* to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

 Did I just teach something?


----------



## charliejunfan (Oct 4, 2008)

thanks nikki, but shame on you!!!!! lol I meant in regards to doctrine though, not application


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> thanks nikki, but shame on you!!!!! lol I meant in regards to doctrine though, not application



I would think some restatement or teaching of doctrine or theology would be necessary when training younger women in the application of that very doctrine we are taught to uphold.

For instance: an older woman is teaching younger women how to be submissive to their husbands, a younger women asks the question _why_? Should the older women say, _sorry I can't teach you that, as that would be veering off into doctrinal areas_? I think the older women would need to go into the the doctrine of the fall and the curse, and the doctrine and theology of marriage and what it represents (women submitting to their husbands as the church is submissive to Christ) to answer the young woman's question.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Oct 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> I think we do need to change the rules on here a bit because if we do not I think we would be undermining the Bible's teaching.



I am just curious -- which rules would you propose? And would you impose the same rules on the conversations at a fellowship dinner?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 4, 2008)

simply_nikki said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> > thanks nikki, but shame on you!!!!! Lol i meant in regards to doctrine though, not application
> ...




*
halteth! Haltheth


usurpation in progress! 

I repeat........

....usurpation in progress​​*


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> thanks nikki, but shame on you!!!!! lol I meant in regards to doctrine though, not application



So you would like to widely separate doctrine from application? Isn;'t Paul's practical exhortations part of our doctrine?


----------



## charliejunfan (Oct 6, 2008)

No, good point Pergamum. I'm attending a fundamentalist Baptist church which hates any mention of doctrine or terms, they make those who know terms feel guilty. Their big thing is that doctrinal discussions aren't edifying, but they get that idea from doctrine lol, anywho um.... about rules for a fellowship dinner, I think corporate worship and fellowship with both genders is biblical, so....I think the rule should be....corporate prayer, all together but separate discussions among varying numbers of people, during a meal lol. As far as fellowship I think that it's a corporate worship gathering and meal but within that you have the varying groups of people and topics, women can teach women, men can teach women, women can teach children, women might teach by questions (kinda like Ex Nihilo up there  lol), children might teach by questions, everyone might share something that taught them something that week/month/whatever. Women teaching is inevitable it will happen but I think we just strive for perfection? right? maybe? It's very confusing living in the U.S. where things are so different, for instance the way Christians now greet each other is by handshake or hugging when it used to be a kiss, so I don't know how much that applies to this. 

Fellowship is also suffering together against sin and persecution, each person in the church should have at least one "fellowship buddy" that they can hold accountable and be held accountable by for discussing sin, struggles, persecution and the like. This is a model that I just made up, make corrections as you will


----------

