# Should women Teach at Church when men present???



## Francisco Luna (Jul 14, 2012)

I'm sure this topic has been in another thread before, but I want to hear your opinions regarding this, especifically 1 Timoty 2:11-15 and 1st Corinthians 14:34-40. To me, the Bible is crystal clear about the authorithy role of men and women in the congregation, but, WHY is that, that many people and churches find so hard to obey and underestand this passages and they grab all king of justifications to ignore this command?????


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 14, 2012)

I think one of the first steps in this regressive cycle is ones view of holy Scripture. If the Bible is not inerrant, inspired, and infallible, one need not see those verses you cited as binding. To get a good look at this, check out the mainline denominations......gay clergy, women teaching men, Jesus as merely a good teacher, the gospel reduced to us helping our fellow man from his earthly woes,...............


----------



## Mindaboo (Jul 14, 2012)

Gforce9 said:


> I think one of the first steps in this regressive cycle is ones view of holy Scripture. If the Bible is not inerrant, inspired, and infallible, one need not see those verses you cited as binding. To get a good look at this, check out the mainline denominations......gay clergy, women teaching men, Jesus as merely a good teacher, the gospel reduced to us helping our fellow man from his earthly woes,...............



Add with that the inclination of woman to usurp man's authority over them and the men abdicating that authority...

I've heard the excuse from women that men won't stand up in the churches, so they have to do it. That is just sin compounding sin. I also think that people don't study the Bible. They believe that was cultural and only for that time. You have people following Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen, etc. People seem to want feel good religion, not true biblical Christianity.


----------



## JoannaV (Jul 14, 2012)

As soon as a church decide to interpret the Bible as meaning something other than the truth on one issue, there isn't much stopping them from applying this to other issues too.


----------



## BibleCyst (Jul 14, 2012)

Priscilla.

Acts 18:24-26 KJV:
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

*I don't hold to female eldership*, but in light of the female leadership we do see in the New Testament (the verse quoted above being the most clear), I do not believe it is a sin for a woman to teach a man. I'm not trying to start a debate; I will stand corrected if I'm in error.


----------



## Francisco Luna (Jul 14, 2012)

I moved last year from California to Florda and I attended for a brief time the Baptist Church in Boca Raton Down Town. The Sunday Bible Study was held by a couple, Husband and wife, and I truly believe this is perfectly OK with the Lords Word. That woman, as well Priscilla in Acts, were teaching in unity with the other "one" (Genesis 2:24), probably not in front of the congregation.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 14, 2012)

Richard, it seems that in that context, that they did this privately not in public worship. And that right there is Aquila who was expounding the Word with Priscilla being his God-ordained helper. But again this is privately as opposed to public worship. 

Where 1 Tim 2 is clear that women are not have (in public worship) authority over a man or teach a man.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 14, 2012)

I was noticing this week reading about the woman at the well in conjunction with reading about Mary Magdalene on the morning of the resurrection, in conjunction with reading Psalm 68, that there is certainly a special place for women to speak of Christ, even to men.

But the epistles are clear that it is not from the pulpit. And in observing this part our Savior's perfect will for us, we learn more of Him to share. Our place of submission in the Lord is part and parcel of our ability to speak experientially of Christ to men in a different way than they (in their place of sacrificial leadership) are able to speak to one another, and to us.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 14, 2012)

Some of this confusion may also come from the erosion of public worship. The idea that there is something properly called public worship seems to be out of vogue in Evangelicalism right now. The current mantra seems to be "all life is worship" and that is then taken to mean something that is okay in one setting is okay in all settings.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 14, 2012)

Francisco Luna said:


> I'm sure this topic has been in another thread before, but I want to hear your opinions regarding this, especifically 1 Timoty 2:11-15 and 1st Corinthians 14:34-40. To me, the Bible is crystal clear about the authorithy role of men and women in the congregation, but, WHY is that, that many people and churches find so hard to obey and underestand this passages and they grab all king of justifications to ignore this command?????



They do whatever seems right IN *THEIR* EYES.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 15, 2012)

It's as foretold in Isaiah 3 v12,
_As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths._


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 15, 2012)

Francisco Luna said:


> 1 Timoty 2:11-15 and 1st Corinthians 14:34-40. To me, the Bible is crystal clear about the authorithy role of men and women in the congregation



In addition to these explicit instructions, there are those which qualify church officers, I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, e.g. there being no qualifications for "wives of one husband," and further,

the pattern in Creation evidences it is not normal for women to rule over men.

By derivation, this would also apply to a stepped- down form of teaching, "exhorting," authoritative reading of scripture, etc. in situations of ecclesiastical authority.


My understanding of Scripture is women may:
1) teach women (Titus 2)
2 and young children
3) assist in incidental aspects of corporate worship,
4) assist in private exercise of worship,

but that is not your post question.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 15, 2012)

BibleCyst said:


> Priscilla.
> 
> Acts 18:24-26 KJV:
> 24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
> ...


There is no evidence given here that Priscilla did the actual expounding, only that she was with her husband when it was done. If we interpret the passage in light of the other relavent scripture, it is implying sin on the part of our sister to state that she was teaching a man. It is not a matter of how we feel or what we think, the scripture is clear that a woman is not to teach a man.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 15, 2012)

The grammar of the passage gives evidence that they jointly expounded, Brad. It was the same "they" who took Apollos aside who also "expounded". But since that was obviously something more along the lines of a private conversation, it gives no ground for accusing Priscilla of sin. She was in no way usurping authority or teaching formally or authoritatively; she was explaining and helping her husband to explain something to a new acquaintance.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 15, 2012)

I have to disagree, Ruben. If I were to invite someone from Church home for lunch, and in the course of dining discoursed with him about the Sabbath and what is appropriate in its observance, to which he then agreed and altered his practice, most of the membership of my Church would say the "Fullers" had 'taken him aside and expounded' our views to him. Would their grammar indicate that Mindy or the kids had taken part in the expounding? Not necessarily, and definitely not actually due to our convictions that women are not to teach men according to clear scripture. The 1Tim 2 passage nowhere indicates that the prohibition is limited to Church function only, but in all spiritual matters. So in my reading, to infer that Priscilla actively participated in teaching Apollos the way of God more accurately is to accuse her of sin.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 15, 2012)

That seems very unnatural, Brad. I don't normally claim that "Heidi and I" or "we" spoke to or dealt with someone if only I was involved. It is not enough for Heidi to be present; she has to participate, or the plural pronoun is inaccurate. Perhaps an illustration will make this quite clear: sometimes people say, "We talked to so and so over the phone". Now when they say that you don't know if they spoke to the person on the other end serially, trading the handset, or if they used a speakerphone and were on simultaneously; but the information conveyed by the data is that there were three parties to the call.

Your understanding of 1 Timothy 2 I think is also untenable. You say it is not limited to church function: but in fact it is not limited to spiritual matters. Teaching and usurping authority are prohibited: being in silence is not. It is a presupposition that Paul is speaking about teaching of spiritual matters there; as far as the verse itself goes, it applies equally to tuba performance and string theory. We don't typically interpret it that way, because we deduce from the broader scope of Paul's teaching that he's addressing himself to something specific. The same would apply to whether a prohibition relates to a particular sphere or not.
But in fact we do have an indication that Paul is speaking about the practice of the church, in 3:15. The whole point of 1 Timothy is to teach Timothy how to conduct himself in connection with the church: the center of gravity for chapters 2,3,4, and 5 is the church.
Furthermore, _teaching_ is a word with overtones of authority; but _explanation_ is not. Neither Priscilla nor Aquila would have had authority over Apollos; but that didn't (and shouldn't have) kept either one from speaking with him to point something out. When Peter "expounded" the matter in order, it was an explanation of what had happened: something that any competent witness could have been called on to provide (Acts 11:4).
If your view of 1 Timothy 2:12 is correct (which I deny), and if you think that any explanation is authoritative teaching (which I also deny), it would follow that women should refrain from speaking with men at all: let them in silence absorb the pearls of wisdom that fall from our mustachioed lips!
Such a view seems quite a far cry from Lemuel's respectful transmission of his mother's advice.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 15, 2012)

py3ak said:


> We don't typically interpret it that way, because we deduce from the broader scope of Paul's teaching that he's addressing himself to something specific. The same would apply to whether a prohibition relates to a particular sphere or not.
> But in fact we do have an indication that Paul is speaking about the practice of the church, in 3:15. The whole point of 1 Timothy is to teach Timothy how to conduct himself in connection with the church: the center of gravity for chapters 2,3,4, and 5 is the church.


I should clarify. My statement regarding "Church function" I should have expressed as events within the confines of called Church functions such as Sunday School, bible studies, and worship. The reality is that all spiritual matters ARE Church functions, in that they are carried out by Church members in relation to spiritual subjects, and yes, all those matters are the subject of 1 Timothy. So I would agree that it is appropriate to presuppose Paul is limiting his focus to Church functions, but I would disagree that those functions do not include a discussion of spiritual matters held between myself and a male acquiantance in my living room where I was attempting to more clearly explain the Gospel rather than teach him to play the tuba. And before the assumption is made that I came to that conclusion out of some inate chauvinism, I will say that it was my wife's conviction on this matter that eventually brought me to agree with it - not through didaction but instead by her quiet practice of it.

So we will have to disagree. I believe to infer that Priscilla actively participated in this expounding is to infer sin on her part, and the passage does not necessitate such an inference. I could be wrong, but it will take more than what I've seen here to convince me otherwise.

No big deal, brother.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 15, 2012)

If all spiritual endeavors are church endeavors, then you have erased the category of family worship. As a spiritual matter, it falls under the regulations that govern the church, and in that setting also a woman may not teach. And at that point, you run afoul of Paul's commendation of Timothy's mother and grandmother, as well as of the forecited prophecy that Lemuel's mother gave to him, because family worship now a church matter, subject to the same restrictions. The position you espouse is unsustainable in the light of where it leads.

Your approach to Acts 18 involves slicing and dicing the referent of pronouns in quite an unnatural way: Aquila and Priscilla both took Apollos aside, but only Aquila expounded anything to him, even though the text attributes equal agency to both of them in each action. It's commendable not to attribute sin to Priscilla, but there is no need to subject the passage to dissection to avoid making that charge. On the contrary, an untenable reading of 1 Timothy is now forcing you to argue against the straightforward reading of Acts.

Unsustainable, unnatural, untenable - we can add unnecessary to the list, because no evidence has been offered that conversation is equivalent to teaching, that expounding is in some way a usurpation of authority.

I hope you know that I would not in any way ruffle your peace or seek to attack you - and I am confident you have reason to know that I admire Mindy very greatly. But that makes me more, rather than less motivated, to invite you to reconsider your approach.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 15, 2012)

Ruben, the 1 Timothy passage refers to a 'man', which would then limit the prohibition to teaching by a woman of an adult male. Your examples of grammar in the earlier post were all first person, whereas the Acts passage is third person, so the 'Fullers' could take a man aside and 'expound' the benefits of the Sabbath, but it would only be Brad speaking, but if 'we' (Brad and Mindy) took him aside and did the same it would indicate both participated and that would be inappropriate. The teaching of children is a different matter. I would say that your position is the one that employs dicing and slicing in saying 'expounding' is not teaching. Family worship should be led by the head of that family except where impractible, but the 1 Timothy passage in no way addresses family worship or catechization. I doubt that Timothy's mother and grandmother were operating a seminary for adult males - they were simply catechizing the child under their roof. As for Lemuel, his identity is uncertain, much less his age at the point his mother gave her advice, so to assume that her teaching was done in violation of the Holy Spirit's directives in 1 Timothy is unnecessary and uncharitable to her.

When I take into account the instructions of scripture in 1 Timothy 2 in full, my reading of Acts 18 is very sustainable, natural, and tenable, and necessitates that I do not infer sin on the part of my dear sister Priscilla.

Mindy is very careful in discussions we have with others when men are present to distinguish between conversation and instruction. When things turn to the latter, she will quietly retreat from the discussion. I count that a difficult burden, but she does it so artfully that it's done before I notice. If that is 'slicing and dicing', then it is no more so than other ways we are to avoid offending or disobeying.

I am unshaken in my certainty of your affection for us, brother, as I am unshaken in my own affection for you and Heidi. We just disagree on this one issue. That affection will survive such a small matter as this entirely unscathed.

BUT... if you want to debate this further, I invite you to do so with Mindy. But be careful; she might teach you a thing or two.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 15, 2012)

I think it's easy for all of to take something from the Bible and run with it so that we can look much more holier than what we are.

There's certainly a difference between women being silent in church and not usurping authority over men when it comes to the structure of how worship must be done and women teaching others the Gospel outside of the church and its authority. And I Cor 14 tells us that it is within this context he is speaking "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 

A pastor has a permanent position of duties and authority within the church as does an elder/deacon. However, when we have sunday school and our Pastor or even one of the young men leads the sunday school they ask us questions. Women don't sit quietly by. They do answer the questions along with the men. This, however, doesn't somehow give them a permanent position of duties or authority. So 1Timothy 2 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." is telling us that women shouldn't be pastors or elders/deacons and their silence should be in these areas. The Bible helps us to not go crazy overboard in this area by providing us with examples like Aquila and Priscilla who were obvious spreaders of the Gospel. 

If we insist on taking these passages outside of the duties and authority of pastors/elders/deacons and say that women shouldn't say anything about Scriptures to men bc in some way that would be teaching, then technically woman wouldn't be allowed to tell the Gospel to the unsaved men around her. That of course makes no sense in so many ways. No Scripture says women cannot spread the Gospel to unsaved men. Also, being a spreader of the Gospel does not give anyone authority over another person. When I joined my church I stated as a member I would be obedient to the governing authorities according to Scripture and receive discipline when found wayward. My Pastor stating this fact and me agreeing to it showed who did and did not hold authority. Also, women teaching other women or other ppl's children does not give them authority over those women or those children. Those women if married are still under their husbands' authority as are the children and if the women are single they are under their Pastor's/elder's/deacon's authority according to what Scripture allows (my pastor doesn't tell me what color of clothes to buy). My point is that just bc someone is teaching doesn't automatically put them in authority. If that were the case then this place would certainly be in direct violation to Scripture, bc I have seen the most submissive and humble of women "teaching" on many posts here and not just meekly sitting by their husbands nodding in agreement.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 16, 2012)

Brad said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > If we insist on taking these passages outside of the duties and authority of pastors/elders/deacons and say that women shouldn't say anything about Scriptures to men bc in some way that would be teaching, then technically woman wouldn't be allowed to tell the Gospel to the unsaved men around her. That of course makes no sense in so many ways. No Scripture says women cannot spread the Gospel to unsaved men.
> ...



So you believe that when my atheist co-worker asks me about Christ I need to tell him, "Sorry, I can't tell you anything about Christ bc I'm a woman so you need to go find a male Christian and ask them your questions"? Do you believe that when I tell him of Christ I automatically have authority over him? Do you believe that when you tell a man or a woman about Christ that you automatically have authority over them? If so, which Scripture states that? If women cannot share the Gospel with unsaved men, then why do you allow your wife to comment on threads here at PB concerning Scriptural things? I would think that "teaching" saved men would be worse than "teaching" unsaved men. Just bc it's written out doesn't make it a less "teaching and authoritative" role than when spoken. Can she go over all she's ever posted here and say "yes, I would say that in person to a saved and unsaved man"? Because men don't just see that a comment was posted by a woman and overlook it as something for just the women to read. 

To further my point, do you believe that men in your congregation who talk with other woman in your congregation about what your Pastor taught that sunday have authority over those women? If you do, do you not believe that would be in direct violation to Scripture since Scripture has set up its own prerequisites of who is in authority (that being your pastors/elders/deacons)? Do you not believe there is a firm, unwavering set-up of authority given to pastors/elders/deacons that isn't undone by men and women talking to each other about the Scripture? I do. I believe that those men have been blessed with the ability to reason out Scripture, teach, and exercise the authority given to them by Scripture over the congregation. I don't believe their role is jeopardized if i speak to a male friend about Scripture. For one, that male friend never agreed that I would have that authority over him. He gave that to those in authority in the church. Also, that male friend isn't in authority over me by being male and bc he is talking to me about the Scripture. I didn't give him that authority and neither did Scripture. Scripture has set up its tier of authority: all are under Christ and his representatives of authority are pastors/elders/deacons (each having their own specific role), men are under the church's authority, wives and children under the husband's and be default single men and women are under that of the church's authority. 

If I seem uncharitable I certainly don't mean to....I'm quite sure you're a better obedient Christian than I am. I also get "holier than thou" plenty of times and that's why I said "all of us" and "we" bc as humans we sometimes like to add to God's law. We may have "good" intensions but if they fall out of line with God's law they are worthless. Grace is given to us in our learning by the goodwill of our Father....so we learn and grow but never dig in our heels refusing to see if what we hold true is Scripturally true.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 16, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> If we insist on taking these passages outside of the duties and authority of pastors/elders/deacons and say that women shouldn't say anything about Scriptures to men bc in some way that would be teaching, then technically woman wouldn't be allowed to tell the Gospel to the unsaved men around her.



This is true, Sarah. And if so then Christ was wrong to employ Mary Magdalene in informing the (male) disciples' that He was risen (which they did not know previously), and to allow the woman at the well to return to tell other grown men of him.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 16, 2012)

I would certainly not consider it disastrous to learn something from Mindy!

If "all spiritual matters are church matters" as you asserted earlier, then how is it possible that 1 Timothy 2 in no way addresses family worship? Either family worship is not a spiritual matter, or it is not true that "all spiritual matters are church matters".

Let's take another example from Acts, one where presuppositions will not have such an influence on the interpretation of the text: Acts 16:32,33. There we are told that "they" spoke to him the word of the Lord, and that "their" stripes were washed. Should we think only Paul spoke? Or that only Silas' stripes were washed? Since multiple pronouns continue to refer to the same antecedent (if they don't, we have no way of knowing who is meant), there has to be warrant to state that the referent has changed. You have no such warrant in Acts 16, or in Acts 18. It doesn't make any difference whether the pronouns (or the person of the verb, if you want to be technical about the Greek of Acts 18) are first, second, or third person: they function the same way. It's all very well to claim the charitable high ground, but it's not very effective as an argument when no one is accusing Priscilla of sin, and it certainly doesn't override the flow of the text.

I think the nub of the issue probably lies, though, in whether there is a distinction between private conversation and public teaching. If there is no difference, by what right does anyone not appointed to a teaching role share knowledge or thoughts with someone else? If you admit the distinction, that is more important to me than what happened in Acts 18, although I've seen nothing to suggest that "expounding" has to be understood as authoritative teaching. Aquila and Priscilla can be taken to have had an informal chat with Apollos. Your view would exclude women from partaking in "godly conference" except with one another. That may be all right with you, but it does kind of bring you into a degree of uncharitableness towards the Samaritan woman in John 4.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 16, 2012)

Sarah, I deleted that post after a minute, but not before you saw it. I am not enamored of the idea of engaging with you over this, and it was a mistake for me to post a response. The cat being proverbially out of the bag, I will state again that I believe you are mistakenly conflating teaching with authority. I believe they are separate actions, sometimes intermixed, sometimes not, and both prohibited.


py3ak said:


> If "all spiritual matters are church matters" as you asserted earlier, then how is it possible that 1 Timothy 2 in no way addresses family worship? Either family worship is not a spiritual matter, or it is not true that "all spiritual matters are church matters".


Ruben, the prohibition against women teaching men does not relate to the spiritual/Church matter of family worship except if the wife were to be leading and teaching the husband in that worship. Are you supporting that concept? I took for granted that we understood that to be inappropriate, and meant that the prohibition is not relavent to mothers teaching children. The prohibition does not address the spiritual/Church matter of mothers catechizing children as in the case of Lois and Eunice.



py3ak said:


> Let's take another example from Acts, one where presuppositions will not have such an influence on the interpretation of the text: Acts 16:32,33. There we are told that "they" spoke to him the word of the Lord, and that "their" stripes were washed. Should we think only Paul spoke? Or that only Silas' stripes were washed? Since multiple pronouns continue to refer to the same antecedent (if they don't, we have no way of knowing who is meant), there has to be warrant to state that the referent has changed. You have no such warrant in Acts, or in Acts 18. It doesn't make any difference whether the pronouns (or the person of the verb, if you want to be technical about the Greek of Acts 18) are first, second, or third person: they function the same way. It's all very well to claim the charitable high ground, but it's not very effective as an argument when no one is accusing Priscilla of sin, and it certainly doesn't override the flow of the text.


If, in another portion of scripture, Silas had been commanded to not 'speak the word of the Lord', we would not assume by the use of the pronoun 'they' that he had done so, just as when my family name is used in the scenario I described above does not infer that Mindy did the teaching. The pronoun 'their' being possessive, does indicate that both possessed stripes, but that is not relavent to our discussion since the pronoun in question, 'they', is not possessive.


> I think the nub of the issue probably lies, though, in whether there is a distinction between private conversation and public teaching. If there is no difference, by what right does anyone not appointed to a teaching role share knowledge or thoughts with someone else? If you admit the distinction, that is more important to me than what happened in Acts 18, although I've seen nothing to suggest that "expounding" has to be understood as authoritative teaching. Aquila and Priscilla can be taken to have had an informal chat with Apollos. Your view would exclude women from partaking in "godly conference" except with one another. That may be all right with you, but it does kind of bring you into a degree of uncharitableness towards the Samaritan woman in John 4.


I do make a distinction between conversation and teaching, Ruben, both public and private. I was not present at the interaction between Apollos, Aquila, and Priscilla, and the scripture does not give us any more detail than that the way of God was explained more accurately (or 'expounded' as in the KJV). If that explanation was carried out in the course of discussion between the three, with Aquila and Priscilla answering questions or stating their own take on matters theological, I would view that as conversation and not teaching (but then that would call into question the need for seminaries, if such knowledge can be so easily and casually imparted), and would have no qualms about both particpating. If the discussion transitioned into instruction (which I would normally view 'explaning' and 'expounding' as such, but I digress), then it is my view that at least that part would have been carried out by Aquila.

The woman at the well was not teaching Jesus the way of God, she was asking and answering questions, and thus the situation is unrelated to our discussion.

I admitted above that I find the onus to determine where conversation turns to teaching to be a difficult one, but I think that is true whether in a private discussion at home or in a Sunday School setting. I do not believe my position excludes women from participating with men in godly conference, giving their views on a theological matter, sharing beneficial texts or concepts, or describing their experiences in the faith in mixed company with the intention of helping others, including men, to overcome difficulties or find more joy in their spiritual walk. I do believe it proscribes direct didactic instruction in either public or private settings, and I do believe it proscribes the propounding of the Gospel by women to unsaved grown men, except perhaps in answering questions pertaining to the hope that lies within them. And I believe even that should very quickly come to a referal to husband or Elders. It may simply be my and Mindy's foolish scruple, but it is what it is.

I have seen the Acts 18 verse used to justify many an error, up to and including the likes of Ellen White and Mary Baker Eddy, so I definitely want to be careful in my handling of it. I have also seen the effects of a creeping egalitarianism on both Church and culture, and have no desire to participate or acquiesce. I don't believe we'd be having this discussion if it were 1712 instead of 2012, and that always raises red flags for me, requiring irrefutable evidence that our elders were dead wrong before I will accept the modern version of things.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 16, 2012)

All right, we're making some progress.

The prohibition includes "keeping silence". I gather you are not quite as strict on the "silence" part relating to church matters. Naturally I have no difficulty with a mother catechizing her children - but I'm not the one claiming family worship is a church matter!

I don't think your conclusion follows. If elsewhere Silas had been commanded not to speak the word of the Lord we would not find him included as an antecedent to the plural pronoun. It doesn't make any difference whether the pronoun is possessive or not - it's a question of how pronouns work. If commands in other places affect what a pronoun means here, the ordinary functioning of language has been suspended.

I am glad you make a distinction between conversation and instruction. As you say, defining just where that line is may be difficult; but I think a vital characteristic must be that of authority. Within the Christian church, a woman may not, must not, have disciples, and that whether her activity happens as part of a church meeting or at a campground, conference facility, etc. Certainly there is more than, but distinguishing between authoritative instruction and non-authoritative godly conference is vital. Incidentally, I have to admit I'm not entirely clear on what the warrant would be for you or me to teach someone authoritatively in our homes.

Given that Apollos had many advantages already, I suspect the statement of some new facts and a quick pointer to redemptive history probably sufficed. Certainly it seems the simple way to preserve charity towards Priscilla without standing pronominal referents on their head.

Of course the woman at the well was not teaching Jesus - but what did she do after he revealed to her that he was the Christ who was to come? She went and invited others to come to him, pointing out that here was a man about whom the question of whether he was the Christ or not could only be answered in one way: and many believed because of her word.

Yes, Priscilla is often abused to bad ends; that doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from her inclusion in Acts 18, or that anyone who uses that text is endeavoring to obscure something clearly taught in Scripture. Jezebel (whether in Kings or in Revelation) is not the only way that relations between men and women can go wrong; there is also the way of Nabal. One of the very points that distinguishes David from Nabal is that David will listen to Abigail, treats her with respect, allows her to change his mind: Nabal would rather die!


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 16, 2012)

Alright, now what about Anna the prophetess in the temple in the book of Luke? Did not prophets and prophetesses have teaching authority?

(For the record I completely agree that women are not to be in pastoral roles or teaching over men. But this passage has always been a curiosity to me)


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 16, 2012)

Ruben, to use one of your own examples, in Acts 16 we have:


> Act 16:23 And when *they* had laid many stripes upon them, *they* cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely:


Would you contend that every person refered to in the first pronoun 'they' held the whip and administered the stripes? And each one had a hand on them while tossing them into the cell in the second occurance?


py3ak said:


> The prohibition includes "keeping silence". I gather you are not quite as strict on the "silence" part relating to church matters. Naturally I have no difficulty with a mother catechizing her children - but I'm not the one claiming family worship is a church matter!


I contend that when didactic teaching of spiritual matters is taking place in mixed company, women are not to teach. A Christian family is a part of the body of Christ - the Church - and in that vein family worship is a Church matter. Paul makes no distinction in the 1 Tim 2 passage to these instructions as being relavent only to events within the Church walls. 


py3ak said:


> I don't think your conclusion follows. If elsewhere Silas had been commanded not to speak the word of the Lord we would not find him included as an antecedent to the plural pronoun. It doesn't make any difference whether the pronoun is possessive or not - it's a question of how pronouns work. If commands in other places affect what a pronoun means here, the ordinary functioning of language has been suspended.


"Their stripes" means stripes they had incurred, Ruben. This is not as convoluted as you seem to think. 'They', as I pointed out above, does not necessitate that ALL members of the group refered to carried out the physical action, it can mean they were all in agreement to it. 


py3ak said:


> I am glad you make a distinction between conversation and instruction. As you say, defining just where that line is may be difficult; but I think a vital characteristic must be that of authority. Within the Christian church, a woman may not, must not, have disciples, and that whether her activity happens as part of a church meeting or at a campground, conference facility, etc. Certainly there is more than, but distinguishing between authoritative instruction and non-authoritative godly conference is vital. Incidentally, I have to admit I'm not entirely clear on what the warrant would be for you or me to teach someone authoritatively in our homes.


Again, it is my view that the teaching prohibited is not to be conflated with the authority prohibited. The Spirit did not say "authoritative teaching", He said for women not "to teach, *nor *usurp authority over a man." (emphasis mine) These are two different things. In the same way we are instructed not to covet, AND not to steal, even if the two often go hand in hand, they are two different things. So the teaching you and I might do in our homes may not be authoritative, but it is still teaching, and a woman is prohibited from doing that with a man as a student.


py3ak said:


> Given that Apollos had many advantages already, I suspect the statement of some new facts and a quick pointer to redemptive history probably sufficed. Certainly it seems the simple way to preserve charity towards Priscilla without standing pronominal referents on their head.


That may be so, brother, but it is only conjecture, and we have no way of knowing. To use that as a defense of the concept that Priscilla 'taught' Apollos is specious. It is just as possible that there was didactic teaching taking place, that Aquinas carried that out, and Priscilla prepared refreshments, and no pronominal referents be turned on their heads, as with the handling of the whip in Acts 16.


py3ak said:


> Of course the woman at the well was not teaching Jesus - but what did she do after he revealed to her that he was the Christ who was to come? She went and invited others to come to him, pointing out that here was a man about whom the question of whether he was the Christ or not could only be answered in one way: and many believed because of her word.


There is no indication that the Samaritan woman sat the men down, broke out her flip chart, and began to teach them the Gospel or any other such thing. It says she went to her town and asked the men to come look at this fellow and tell her if they thought He was the Christ. To portray that, or Mary Magdelene's informing of the disciples that Christ had arisen, as the type of teaching I am refering to is a caricaturization of my position, and seems rather much a straw man. 


py3ak said:


> Yes, Priscilla is often abused to bad ends; that doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from her inclusion in Acts 18, or that anyone who uses that text is endeavoring to obscure something clearly taught in Scripture. Jezebel (whether in Kings or in Revelation) is not the only way that relations between men and women can go wrong; there is also the way of Nabal. One of the very points that distinguishes David from Nabal is that David will listen to Abigail, treats her with respect, allows her to change his mind: Nabal would rather die!


I really cannot conceive of how the conflict that arose between David and Nabal, nor Abigail's intercession, has any relavence to this discussion.

The statement that started all this was this: 


BibleCyst said:


> I don't hold to female eldership, but in light of the female leadership we do see in the New Testament (the verse quoted above being the most clear), I do not believe it is a sin for a woman to teach a man. I'm not trying to start a debate; I will stand corrected if I'm in error.


In the final analysis, have we concluded that the referenced verse in Acts 18 tells us that it is not a sin for a woman to teach a man?


----------



## py3ak (Jul 16, 2012)

Perhaps I should not learn not to express enthusiasm over making progress. 

Of course not. But I contend that every person included in the "them" received stripes. There is obviously a difference between speaking of a group large enough to be a conglomerate, and speaking of two. Inasmuch as Paul and Silas and Aquila and Priscilla each form a group of two, the analogy from the one to the other is a lot more straightforward. Furthermore, it was an action of the magistrates as such, where their decision was executed by their instruments. Would you prefer to say that Aquila expounded by the instrumentality of Priscilla, or that Priscilla expounded by the instrumentality of Aquila? Either one seems problematic given your view, but that is where your analogy leads.

Within the church walls is a red herring - it's not the location that has anything to do with it. It's the nature of what is being engaged in. And I don't think family worship is a church function: I think that's a blurring of two distinct spheres.

It's very convoluted, Brad. "...they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." There are two verbs: "took" and "expounded": there is one direct object of the verbs, "him" (referring to Apollos); there is one indirect object, "the way of God". And there is one subject: "they" (referring to Aquila and Priscilla). The same _they_ who did the taking also did the expounding. Any other rendering involves some very wire-drawn distinguishing which is not arising from anything in the passage.

I am not conflating teaching and authority as you suppose. I am considering the concept of teaching as it is presented in the Bible as a whole. Certainly teaching and ruling can be distinguished, and 1 Timothy 2 prohibits either one. But that does not mean that teaching is not also something done with authority. Even in a secular setting, the teacher has (in theory, anyway) authority in many ways, including testing and passing or failing a student. In other words, I am not drawing my statement that authority has to be one of the critical points in drawing the line between conversing and teaching from 1 Timothy 2 at all: I am drawing it from things like the correlation of "teacher" and "disciple". A teacher also needs a commission: and you don't have that commission merely by virtue of being a man (though to your family you do have it in virtue of being the head of a household). If conversing crosses into teaching without an element of authority being introduced, again, _by what right do you host someone in your home and teach them?_ Who made *you* their teacher?

Perhaps I have not been clear. Priscilla was not teaching Apollos. Your mistake with regard to Acts 18 is regarding that interlude as teaching rather than as conversation. There is no defense of women teaching, and no accusation that Priscilla was teaching emanating from this quarter. But the conjectural interpretation of the passage is the one that says that though Priscilla participated in the "taking" of Apollos she was henceforth absolutely mum. That is not indicated by the text; that is not where the grammar of the passage leads; and that is not what 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 14 in any way requires.

No flip charts are needed to observe that the woman encountered Christ, and then told men about her encounter. Again, no defense of teaching. If you agree that this was appropriate, then we have something in common. I think characterizing what she did as asking them whether he was the Messiah, as though she needed their confirmation, is rather wretched. The question was not for her benefit. But if you find your position being caricatured, you may wish to ask yourself if you've really set it out as clearly as you think. Given what you have previously said you will allow, I don't understand on what basis you're maintaining that all Priscilla said to Aquila was that he could certainly have more soup if he would like to.

You expressed your motives for concern over the take I have presented on Acts 18:26; I reassured you that I understand your concern and do not wish to fall into the one error that you identify, and then pointed out that it is not the only possible error. That is the relevance Abigail has. There is as much real folly in refusing to listen to wise women, as in giving teaching or ruling authority to them in the church. If that error is not one you make, that's excellent: we can walk together attempting to avoid the ditches on the right hand and on the left. 

But if I apparently have not been clear that I am opposed to women teaching, I think you have been equally unclear - at least you seem to take away with one hand what you give with the other. 

I joined in this discussion because I believed your answer to Acts 18:26 runs contrary to the text: and I have attempted to show that when the prohibition of teaching is not abused to mean the prohibition of godly conference and fruitful interaction there is simply no need for your strained rendering. I can see why, from your standpoint, you would think I was not in agreement with you; just as I hope you can see why, from my standpoint, your position certainly seemed to entail a great deal too much.

So, to summarize: it _is_ a sin for a woman to teach a man (in spiritual matters); it is _not_ a sin for a woman to engage in godly conversation, or for a man to profit from that. If we are agreed on that, we are agreed on the issue of the thread. And if you will hesitate before asserting again that Priscilla said nothing to Apollos or that anyone who says she did accuses her thereby of sin, then I am content.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 16, 2012)

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 



> . . . *unquestionably, Paul here addresses men and women of all ranks*; nor would he simply have them take a slight taste merely of the word of Christ, but exhorts that it should dwell in them; that is, that it should have a settled abode, and that largely, that they may make it their aim to advance and increase more and more every day. . . .
> 
> Farther, he gives a short definition of this wisdom — that the Colossians teach one another. Teaching is taken here to mean profitable instruction, which tends to edification, as in Ro 12:7 — He that teacheth, on teaching; also in Timothy — “All Scripture is profitable for teaching.” (2Ti 3:16.) This is the true use of Christ’s word. As, however, doctrine is sometimes in itself cold, and, as one says, when it is simply shewn what is right, virtue is praised and left to starve, he adds at the same time admonition, which is, as it were, a confirmation of doctrine and incitement to it. Nor does he mean that the word of Christ ought to be of benefit merely to individuals, that they may teach themselves, *but he requires mutual teaching and admonition*.



(& lest anyone cavil that the teaching is restricted to Psalms and hymns, Calvin goes on to speak to that: Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 42: Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians: Commentary on Colossians: Chapter 3)



> *Again, this was no small modesty which was in Apollos, in that he doth suffer himself to be taught and instructed not only in [by] an handy-craftsman, but also by a woman.* He was mighty in the Scripture, and did surpass them; but as touching the accomplishment of the kingdom of Christ, those do polish and trim him who might seem to be scarce fit ministers. *Also, we see that at that time women were not so ignorant of the word of God as the Papists will have them; forasmuch as we see that one of the chief teachers of the Church was instructed by a woman. Notwithstanding, we must remember that Priscilla did execute this function of teaching at home in her own house, that she might not overthrow the order prescribed by God and nature*.



John Calvin, Acts 18:26

(It seems clear reading Calvin on several passages that there is a public *office* of teaching in holy assembly from which he takes it that women are excluded -- as in his comments on 1 Timothy 2:12. That they are included in the admonitions to mutually teach, and allowed to do so with their families and others in private settings, is equally clear. But that would seem to be a different sort of teaching.)



> Anointing signifies a communion of the gifts and office of Christ; or it is a participation in all the gifts of Christ, and consists in the participation of his kingly, sacerdotal and prophetical office. To be a partaker of the anointing of Christ, is, therefore, 1. To be a partaker of the Holy Ghost and of his gifts, for the Spirit of Christ is not idle or inactive in us, but works the same in us that he does in Christ, unless that Christ alone has more gifts than all of us, and these also in a greater or higher degree. 2. That Christ communicates his prophetical, sacerdotal and kingly office unto us.
> The prophetical dignity which is in Christians, is an understanding, acknowledgement, and confession of the true doctrine of God necessary for our salvation. Or, our prophetical office is 1. Rightly to know God and his will. 2. That every one in his place and degree profess the same, being correctly understood, faithfully, boldly and constantly, that God may thereby be celebrated, and his truth revealed in its living force and power. "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven," (Matthew 10:32)
> *The office of a priest is to teach, to intercede, and to offer sacrifice. Our priesthood, therefore, is 1. To teach others; that is, to show and communicate to them the knowledge of the true God. "When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Luke 22:32)* 2. To call upon God, having a correct knowledge of him. 3. To render proper gratitude, worship and obedience to God, or to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, pleasing and acceptable unto God . . .



from the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 32


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 16, 2012)

nevermind... not worth all this.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 16, 2012)

Brad, I briefly saw your post before you edited it - I wanted to thank you for the gracious tone you adopted in it and rejoice that we had come quite close to a mutual understanding. As I only saw it briefly, though, I'll leave things there so as not to run the risk of misrepresenting you in a reply that depends only on memory.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 17, 2012)

Again, what about Anna the prophetess? As I understand it, the role of prophet included a teaching role? What do you say when people point to her and say "See!? Women taught too!"


----------



## satz (Jul 17, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Again, what about Anna the prophetess? As I understand it, the role of prophet included a teaching role? What do you say when people point to her and say "See!? Women taught too!"



I think when you read the entire bible in context, there is a obvious exception to the general rule that women should not be spiritual teachers for genunie prophetesses. A real prophetess cannot be not ursuping the authority of men when it is actually God speaking through her. Off course, this would not apply any more today as there are no more prophetesses or prophets.


----------



## interalia (Jul 19, 2012)

If it is unbiblical, then is a woman ever really teaching a man? There may be more context to exegete in light of Priscilla, Junia, Deborah, Phoebe, Anna, et al., without sacrificing a commitment to absolute Scriptural authority.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 19, 2012)

satz said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > Again, what about Anna the prophetess? As I understand it, the role of prophet included a teaching role? What do you say when people point to her and say "See!? Women taught too!"
> ...



That wouldn't really make sense if it started in the Garden of Eden. Just bc she was a prophetess doesn't mean she was a teacher of God's word. It says she worshipped, fasted and prayed night and day, and yes, when she saw Jesus she knew he was the Deliver, but it doesn't say she taught in the synagog. When God poured out His Spirit during Pentecost He poured it on both male and female and they both were prophesying.... most likely of the "wonders of the Gospel" or in other words spreading the Good News but they were not teaching in the church having authority. The only one that really stumps me is Deborah in the OT......


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 19, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > J. Dean said:
> ...


Deborah, as far as I know, is a political judge rather than a spiritual figurehead. As to her taking over, John MacArthur pointed out that such a scenario was intended to show how bad Israel had become.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 19, 2012)

So, for the original post, I guess it depends what they are teaching and how they are viewed. First, a woman can't hold any office. Yes, I know that there are denominations that hold to a deaconess view (which I disagree) but for now lets speak specifically about the office of minister. Just as Christ has a threefold office, Prophet, Priest, King, so do church officers; Minister = prophet, Elder = king, Deacon = priest. The functions of each office is specific in what their roles ought to be. However, some of these offices might seem to overlap, I want to point out some major similarities within the office of minister as prophet. What were the roles of an OT prophet? Giving warnings, exhorting, and proclamation. These men were used by God to speak the very words of God. They knew that they were being used by God to speak His words. They started proclamations by saying "thus says the Lord". Now, what does this sound like to you? It sounds like the same thing you'd hear Sunday morning.

Also, Two passages I'd like to quote:

As in all the churches of the saints, 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. 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.(1 Cor 14:34-35)

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.(1 Tim 2)

Somethings to consider: 1) notice how the husband is present in both of these passages(same with the priscilla and aquila passage). This shows that the covenantal familial head is to be present when this takes place. This is nothing new. Scripture throughout shows us that the head is always the spiritual leader of the household. 2) both passages give a command for women not to speak within church. This isn't about a public vs private format(even though I do agree there is an aspect of women not speaking publicly within church). This is about worship. 

Well, I wish I could sit here and go further, but I must go to work! I'll continue this later, but I hope this helps.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 19, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > satz said:
> ...



She was a judge and a prophetess and I'm not sure where God states he put her in charge bc of how bad Israel had become since they enjoyed 40 years of peace under her rule if I remember correctly. I'm NOT AT ALL a John MacArthur fan and I don't think he gets some things correct, but I'll try to take some time and read that part of Judges and see if God states he made her judge and prophetess bc Israel was horrid. However, if you look at Israel's track record they didn't exactly soar the heavens with every male ruler they had either.


----------



## Tim (Jul 19, 2012)

Hi Sarah, here is a relevant verse that you might find useful (Isaiah 3:12):



> As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.



It is not a direct statement on Deborah, of course. There is a bit of interpretation to be done here, but it should provide a good start.


----------

