# Lady, sit down and be quiet!!!



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to *usurp authority over the man*, but to be in silence. 
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety​In a worship service, what does it mean for a woman to usurp authority over a man, beyond teaching/preaching? For example, (and I realize many reformed churches don't practice this) if a woman does the special music before/during the offering, is she usurping authority over a man? Are there times during a worship service when a woman can be the only person speaking/singing without usurping authority over a man? If a woman's behavior in church does usurp the authority of a man, is it speaking about any man in the congregation (is she usurping my authority? - what authority do I have within the worship setting by virtue of my being a man?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 20, 2007)

I think this is a fine understanding of the verses: 

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.

- John Gill


----------



## turmeric (Jul 20, 2007)

But that, by the reasoning expressed, assumes that the _man_ is superior. Is that what Scripture teaches?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 20, 2007)

turmeric said:


> But that, by the reasoning expressed, assumes that the _man_ is superior. Is that what Scripture teaches?



I think Gill's quite a bit off there - superiority with regard to position does not require, assume, or imply superiority with regard to ability. Certainly I can point to many women who have better reasoning and exegetical skills compared to many men, and who are spiritually more mature. However, God's authority structure doesn't depend on any of those things. 

The Son of God is inferior in authority to the Father - the Son submits, the Father decrees and rules. No orthodox theologian would argue that the Son is somehow less in ability or power. Similarly, in the marriage relationship, the man's position of authority derives from God's decree - not from the man's abilities, which may or may not be superior to those of his wife. 

The woman's teaching in the church is not a matter of ability or non-ability - but a matter of the order which God approves and teaches us in His word.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 20, 2007)

turmeric said:


> But that, by the reasoning expressed, assumes that the _man_ is superior. Is that what Scripture teaches?



I don't think Gill is off at all. Nor do I think he is saying men are superior. Could you explain why you came to that conclusion from his comments? I'd like to see how you read that into what he wrote. I did not get that impression. 

The position of authority between men and women is based on creation and that the woman was decieved, not that man. This never changes.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 20, 2007)

The GR for usurp is interesting. authenteō 

Thayer's has it in latter Greek as one who acts on his own authority, to govern, or excercise dominion. Teaching in the church is done by authority and is a dominon. This has not been given to women because of the order of their creation and their weakness in regard to deception. 

I understand the reaction to Gill's comment regarding superiority now. I look at his comment in terms of how the text defines it: Order and weakness. Men are superior in their ability to not be decieved and also to rule.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 20, 2007)

turmeric said:


> But that, by the reasoning expressed, assumes that the _man_ is superior. Is that what Scripture teaches?



Another thought on this statement. It should not be interepreted to mean man is superior generally, but specifically in regard to rule and teaching. I'll stop now before I am crucified...lol


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Jul 20, 2007)

I would like to see some more input on how women are more easily deceived by more examples than Eve. I am not necessarily denying it but trying to better understand and would like to see it hashed out more. I often see how I am weaker than my husband in many ways (more emotional) but he has his share of faulty thinking that I have been more inclined to spot more quickly than he does (more quick to use reason).  However, I know he has been feminized in his life time though he would beat his breast till its blue denying it. Heh heh. We are both learning more and more our godly roles by God's grace. 

Anyways, let's hash it out a bit more.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Jul 20, 2007)

lol. Oh, you're done for already brother! 



Reformed Baptist said:


> Another thought on this statement. It should not be interepreted to mean man is superior generally, but specifically in regard to rule and teaching. I'll stop now before I am crucified...lol


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 20, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> I don't think Gill is off at all. Nor do I think he is saying men are superior. Could you explain why you came to that conclusion from his comments? I'd like to see how you read that into what he wrote. I did not get that impression.



I'd be glad to share it... but please don't assume it's being "read into" what Gill wrote. His writing was rather plain.

Gill writes:



> 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:



He writes this as though it is pulled from thin air. His objection, at least here, is based on a supposition that persons who teach "have superior abilities to those who are taught by them."

ReformedBaptist wrote:


> The position of authority between men and women is based on creation and that the woman was decieved, not that man. This never changes.



The primary reason that men have the authority in the church is indeed based in creation and is NOT due to the fact that the woman was deceived. Adam was in authority over Eve BEFORE the Fall, not BECAUSE of the Fall. That interpretation is taken by liberal egalitarians who view the authority structure in the home as something that was imposed because of Eve's sin... but that is patently false and misses the point entirely. Paul does insert the comment about Eve being deceived, indeed... but a) I don't believe it's his primary argument here, b) it is CERTAINLY not his only argument, and c) the fact still remains that Adam's authority over Eve was not imposed by God because of Eve's sin - it was pre-existing.

Todd


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

If a church has special music during the service, should women be allowed to sing?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 20, 2007)

The primary reason that men have the authority in the church is indeed based in creation and is NOT due to the fact that the woman was deceived. Adam was in authority over Eve BEFORE the Fall said:


> I don't think so brother. At least that is not what I am convinced of by Scripture. God says,
> 
> 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> If a church has special music during the service, should women be allowed to sing?



I think that's up to the individual church's judgment in obeying the Word of GOd, don't you? I think we should give liberty on this. We can all agree that women are not to teach or usurp authority over men and are to be subject. The applications we will see of well-meaning brethren seeking to obey God are different. Let each one be convinced in their own mind the proper working out of obedience to this.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> I think that's up to the individual church's judgment in obeying the Word of GOd, don't you? I think we should give liberty on this. We can all agree that women are not to teach or usurp authority over men and are to be subject. The applications we will see of well-meaning brethren seeking to obey God are different. Let each one be convinced in their own mind the proper working out of obedience to this.


Sure, its up to the individual church to decide. 

I've heard it said, though, that they shouldn't be allowed because they are in some sense usurping authority over men by leading in worship. Just thinking it through as to how that might be the case.


----------



## sastark (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> If a church has special music during the service, should women be allowed to sing?



Yes. 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(you thought I was going to elaborate?)


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

sastark said:


> Yes.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


----------



## Peter (Jul 20, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I think Gill's quite a bit off there - superiority with regard to position does not require, assume, or imply superiority with regard to ability. Certainly I can point to many women who have better reasoning and exegetical skills compared to many men, and who are spiritually more mature. However, God's authority structure doesn't depend on any of those things.
> 
> The Son of God is inferior in authority to the Father - the Son submits, the Father decrees and rules. No orthodox theologian would argue that the Son is somehow less in ability or power. Similarly, in the marriage relationship, the man's position of authority derives from God's decree - not from the man's abilities, which may or may not be superior to those of his wife.
> 
> The woman's teaching in the church is not a matter of ability or non-ability - but a matter of the order which God approves and teaches us in His word.



The Son does not submit to the Father. There is no subordination in the Godhead. As Mediator the Son submits to the Father but not as the Son.

God's order is not arbitrary because if it was then it would not be order but confusion. God's order is that the weak submit to the strong and that the strong govern the weak. To say mankind's rule over womankind has no basis in nature means that the pattern belongs exclusively to the Church, yet it has been nearly the universal paradigm in the history of our race. I don't think its a coincidence.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 20, 2007)

Peter said:


> The Son does not submit to the Father. There is no subordination in the Godhead. As Mediator the Son submits to the Father but not as the Son.



Well, that's an interesting take on the Trinity. Submission by the Son to the Father is NOT unbiblical, nor does it mean ANYTHING concerning the absolute honor/power/Godness of the Son as compared to the Father.



> God's order is not arbitrary because if it was then it would not be order but confusion. God's order is that the weak submit to the strong and that the strong govern the weak. To say mankind's rule over womankind has no basis in nature means that the pattern belongs exclusively to the Church, yet it has been nearly the universal paradigm in the history of our race. I don't think its a coincidence.



Surely no coincidence, but the natural abilities and natural tendencies are NOT to be pointed to as the reason that men only should teach and rule in the church! The cause of BOTH the authority structure that is Biblically presented AND the natural strengths/weaknesses (one must agree, though, that the fall changed some of the latter) is God Himself, and His decree.

Todd


----------



## bookslover (Jul 21, 2007)

Peter said:


> The Son does not submit to the Father. There is no subordination in the Godhead. As Mediator the Son submits to the Father but not as the Son.



Peter, allow me to tweak this statement slightly. There is no *ontological* submission of Persons in the Trinity. There is, however, *economic* submission. (This is usually known as "subordination," not "submission" - though either term works.)


----------

