1 Tim. 2:12

[jules5solas]

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

I know that this was discussed and I did do a search but didn't get the exact answer I'm looking for and I don't have time to sort through it all right now, so forgive me.

I have understood that this verse says that women are not to teach men or exercise... (etc). Someone has argued that it means that women are not to teach Bible. Period. That the there is no direct object of teach. I disagree but I have no Greek or biblical language background. Can you help?

Also, does the word 'teach' have a particular definition? I read somewhere it was to teach with authority or to teach bible and its doctrines.

The argument continued to include that the only thing women are allowed to 'teach' is the older women are to teach the younger women à la Titus 2.

I agree that women are not to teach men. I agree that women are not to authoritatively preach or teach. But to not teach altogether? At all? Not even to a group of women? Not to speak about the Bible?

Again, is the word to teach mean "to teach men"? or does it mean "to teach authoritatively"? or both or none?

Sorry if this question is elementary. I just want to understand.

 

[TeachingTulip]

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

I know that this was discussed and I did do a search but didn't get the exact answer I'm looking for and I don't have time to sort through it all right now, so forgive me.

I have understood that this verse says that women are not to teach men or exercise... (etc). Someone has argued that it means that women are not to teach Bible. Period. That the there is no direct object of teach. I disagree but I have no Greek or biblical language background. Can you help?

Also, does the word 'teach' have a particular definition? I read somewhere it was to teach with authority or to teach bible and its doctrines.

The argument continued to include that the only thing women are allowed to 'teach' is the older women are to teach the younger women à la Titus 2.

I agree that women are not to teach men. I agree that women are not to authoritatively preach or teach. But to not teach altogether? At all? Not even to a group of women? Not to speak about the Bible?

Again, is the word to teach mean "to teach men"? or does it mean "to teach authoritatively"? or both or none?

Sorry if this question is elementary. I just want to understand.

Dear lady,

It seems to me, after reading your posts, that you are attempting to force some kind of "exact answer you search for."

I do not know what the "exact answer" might be in your mind, but what you seek seems to preclude resting in the wonderful privilege of being a woman, who is in position to submit to her male authorities, as representative of the church, who likewise submits to her "head," Jesus Christ.

Which witness also spiritually reflects and represents Christ's very submission to His head, the Father, who thereby is to be glorified as sovereign over all things.

Why would any woman consider this tremendous female role, designed and ordained by God, to witness to God's established order, according to His wise and sovereign rule, to be negative?

If a woman "teaches" anything, it should simply be to teach other females to love and submit to the authority of God and the headship of their husbands (and/or existing male pastoral oversights).

 

[rbcbob]

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

I know that this was discussed and I did do a search but didn't get the exact answer I'm looking for and I don't have time to sort through it all right now, so forgive me.

I have understood that this verse says that women are not to teach men or exercise... (etc). Someone has argued that it means that women are not to teach Bible. Period. That the there is no direct object of teach. I disagree but I have no Greek or biblical language background. Can you help?

Also, does the word 'teach' have a particular definition? I read somewhere it was to teach with authority or to teach bible and its doctrines.

The argument continued to include that the only thing women are allowed to 'teach' is the older women are to teach the younger women à la Titus 2.

I agree that women are not to teach men. I agree that women are not to authoritatively preach or teach. But to not teach altogether? At all? Not even to a group of women? Not to speak about the Bible?

Again, is the word to teach mean "to teach men"? or does it mean "to teach authoritatively"? or both or none?

Sorry if this question is elementary. I just want to understand.

The Greek word is didaskw and means 1. absolutely, a. to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses: Matt. 4:23; 21:23; Mark 1:21; 6:6; 14:49; Luke 4:15; 5:17; 6:6; John 6:59; 7:14; 18:20, and often in the Gospels; 1 Tim. 2:12. b. to be a teacher (see dida,skaloj, 6): Rom. 12:7. c. to discharge the office of teacher, conduct oneself as a teacher: 1 Cor. 4:17.

By the very nature of things to teach is to exercise authority and thus, in the Church she is not to teach anyone over whom she does not have authority.

 

[DMcFadden]

Lane (aka Greenbaggins) recently published a paper on this topic in The Confessional Presbyterian. Ask him.

 

[jules5solas]

Dear lady,

It seems to me, after reading your posts, that you are attempting to force some kind of "exact answer you search for."

I do not know what the "exact answer" might be in your mind, but what you seek seems to preclude resting in the wonderful privilege of being a woman, who is in position to submit to her male authorities, as representative of the church, who likewise submits to her "head," Jesus Christ.

Which witness also spiritually reflects and represents Christ's very submission to His head, the Father, who thereby is to be glorified as sovereign over all things.

Why would any woman consider this tremendous female role, designed and ordained by God, to witness to God's established order, according to His wise and sovereign rule, to be negative?

I appreciate what you are saying because I wholeheartedly agree! I feel that people are 'reading' into my questions something that I am NOT trying to say. Perhaps I am not wording my questions properly.

I am not looking for an 'exact answer' or someone to approve of some wayward opinion that I hold. I am trying to clarify something that is not clear for those who remain in my previous church (and making sure that I'm not wrong as well!). Let me give you a situation and then perhaps my intentions for asking will be more clear.

The interpretation of this verse in that denomination is that ALL biblical teaching by women is wrong. That means a woman is not to teach at all, even women, EXCEPT what they believe to be the boundaries set by scripture - only in the realm of household / husbands / etc. They are saying that we should not be sitting around the breakfast table over coffee discussing topics such as the Trinity, the Sovereignty of God, Atonement, the imputation of Christ, etc. if there isn't a man present. Therefore, any Bible study that is women only - including Sunday school or home Bible studies (and that includes theological books) are frowned upon. They are ok if we want to sit around and discuss "The ya-ya sister's club" or something like that, but they are against discussing the gospel of Mark for example. I understand their concerns - that perhaps something that is doctrinally unsound might come out - but that can come out from a man in the pulpit!

I am not bucking against what the Lord has clearly defined in Scripture. I am completely sold out to stay at home with the children, be a helpmeet to my husband, be a keeper at home, be modest, submissive, serve others through mercy ministries and through activities that are not in the spotlight. I have absolutely no problems with that. In fact, I believe that there is great blessing and value in these roles. I am not wanting someone to tell me it's ok to be a Joyce Meyer! I'm not talking about teaching, strutting around, spewing out exegetically disastrous discourse! I'm talking about beautiful, humble, godly women like Elyse Fitzpatrick, Susan Hunt and others. I know this board doesn't believe that it's wrong for them to exhort other women especially using Scripture. However, I'm told that it's WRONG because of this specific verse and that no one should have anything to do with it!

What I am wondering is: Is it possible that this passage says that women are to abstain from teaching the Bible? Is a study with only women (under the leadership and authority of the local church's elders) - is it wrong? I know that someone has answered that somewhat in the other post I have on women's roles - but I'm specifically asking about this verse. Perhaps there is no one answer. I don't think that we should take only this verse and say that 'women should never teach about the Bible'. However, this seems to be the sticking point in a discussion I'm having with someone.

Please don't misunderstand me. I totally believe it is a precious privilege being a woman in submission to Christ and to the authorities He has placed around me. That's not the issue here at all. However, I would never even be able to have this sort of conversation with anyone in that church without causing some brouhaha. Does that make sense?

And to quote you again here:

If a woman "teaches" anything, it should simply be to teach other females to love and submit to the authority of God and the headship of their husbands (and/or existing male pastoral oversights).

I guess in a way you've answered my question. So, that's all we women are to teach. To love and submit to the authority of God etc. without bringing up anything else? Isn't it impossible to not talk about doctrine when even doing this?

Please be cautious about asserting what you *think* I am forcing or negatively saying.

-----Added 7/31/2009 at 12:52:02 EST-----

By the very nature of things to teach is to exercise authority and thus, in the Church she is not to teach anyone over whom she does not have authority.

And she has authority over... her own children...
- other children?
- younger women?
- other women?

Just trying to clarify.

 

[rbcbob]

1 Timothy 2:8-12 8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Why did the apostle write these words to Timothy? What was the context?

1 Timothy 3:14-15 14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The context is THE CHURCH. The proscription against women teaching and having authority is in the context of the church; not the home ... not society ... but THE CHURCH.

 

[jules5solas]

1 Timothy 2:8-12 8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Why did the apostle write these words to Timothy? What was the context?

1 Timothy 3:14-15 14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The context is THE CHURCH. The proscription against women teaching and having authority is in the context of the church; not the home ... not society ... but THE CHURCH.

Very helpful, thank you!

-----Added 7/31/2009 at 01:23:44 EST-----

Funny that right after the last post how the person I'm having the discussion with asked this to a bunch of us:

"Hello,

I have a question on how 1 Timothy 2:12 reads in the Greek.

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." (NASB)

Now in English, the phrase "over a man" can pertain to just "exercise authority", or both "exercise authority" and "to teach". Meaning, the sentence structure allows it to be open to interpretation (if we are only examining this verse alone).

What I wanted to know is if the Greek grammatical structure of this sentence contains the same ambiguity (can mean both or not) or if it follows a more rigid rule. You know what I mean?

If any of your scholarly friends can help me with this question, that would help my study on this subject a lot."

I'm responding with what you said rbcbob.

 

[TeachingTulip]

The interpretation of this verse in that denomination is that ALL biblical teaching by women is wrong. That means a woman is not to teach at all, even women, EXCEPT what they believe to be the boundaries set by scripture - only in the realm of household / husbands / etc. They are saying that we should not be sitting around the breakfast table over coffee discussing topics such as the Trinity, the Sovereignty of God, Atonement, the imputation of Christ, etc. if there isn't a man present. Therefore, any Bible study that is women only - including Sunday school or home Bible studies (and that includes theological books) are frowned upon.

Having male oversight in both the church and the home is natural, within God's order, and meant to protect against error. Ladies studies conducted without oversight can easily lead to problems. Not only problems of theological error, but problems of complaint and gossip.

They are ok if we want to sit around and discuss "The ya-ya sister's club" or something like that, but they are against discussing the gospel of Mark for example. I understand their concerns - that perhaps something that is doctrinally unsound might come out - but that can come out from a man in the pulpit!

Indeed, but the responsibility to correct error from the pulpit falls upon the men of the assembly. There is no way to biblically correct error that develops amongst women engaged without male oversight.

I know this board doesn't believe that it's wrong for them to exhort other women especially using Scripture. However, I'm told that it's WRONG because of this specific verse and that no one should have anything to do with it!

I agree with Bob that I Timothy 2:12 pertains to the church. This scripture does not preclude women from exhorting or witnessing to the truths of God in general; otherwise women could not participate on these boards.

But even in discussion groups like these, where women have the freedom to witness and testify to their faith, there is the security and comfort of having male oversight.

What I am wondering is: Is it possible that this passage says that women are to abstain from teaching the Bible? Is a study with only women (under the leadership and authority of the local church's elders) - is it wrong?

I simply do not see the need for women to have their own studies, to teach each other the bible, if they are in a church where where they sit under the teachings of men. What is the point? What is the need?

There can be other gatherings together of the women, where testimonies, fellowship, exhortations, spiritual support, prayer, and witnessing can be practiced, without formal teaching, which bring the ladies great blessing. But what is the need for women to teach the bible to women who regularly receive teaching from the men in church, and receive spiritual instruction from their husbands at home?

I don't think that we should take only this verse and say that 'women should never teach about the Bible'. However, this seems to be the sticking point in a discussion I'm having with someone.

I see a difference between assuming authority to "teach" the bible, and witnessing of one's faith and giving reasons for one's beliefs.

Please don't misunderstand me. I totally believe it is a precious privilege being a woman in submission to Christ and to the authorities He has placed around me. That's not the issue here at all. However, I would never even be able to have this sort of conversation with anyone in that church without causing some brouhaha. Does that make sense?

Yes, I certainly do. That is why I am responding to you!

And to quote you again here:

If a woman "teaches" anything, it should simply be to teach other females to love and submit to the authority of God and the headship of their husbands (and/or existing male pastoral oversights).

I guess in a way you've answered my question. So, that's all we women are to teach.

Within the church, yes. If there is need of personal female counsel amongst church members . . . woman to woman . . .the elders can arrange and make available the older women to advise the younger. Still within male oversight and authority.

To love and submit to the authority of God etc. without bringing up anything else? Isn't it impossible to not talk about doctrine when even doing this?

Again, witnessing or proclaiming the gospel are not "teaching." Referring to doctrines in a conversation is not formal teaching. Reiterating the biblical principles is not teaching. Participating in public discussions, such as this, is not teaching. None of these activities usurps the authority of the men in the church or home.

And she has authority over... her own children...

Yes.

- other children?
- younger women?

Only if the male leadership gives her authority to teach children or counsel young women; while providing their oversight.

- other women?

No. The other women are solely under the authority of the male leadership in their churches and their husbands at home.

 

[Peairtach]

I would say also that I do not believe that women should teach men in theological colleges.

Lecturing in theology is, or should be, one of the closest things, to an act of formal worship as happens in "informal worship".

Women shouldn't be professional theologians, whatever they do or do not do informally.

I get the impression that female theologians are as much in the vanguard of heresy as their male counterparts, if not more so, for their relatively small numbers.

 

[jwithnell]

We are to give an answer for the hope that is within us. We are to profess Christ before others.That the Bible says so much -- from the wisdom literature through Paul's letters -- about how to speak, I believe we can and should speak on many subjects whether we are men or women. You talk about what you love most. Please spare me from another conversation about Pampered Chef. Please!

At the same time, Paul clearly gives instruction for the church, and Christ gave us an incredibly strong example when he appointed all male disciples.

Others far better equip to handle the Greek have jumped in already. I am hesitant, however to go against the general pattern we see in scripture where men retain authority -- in the church, in the home, and with older men teaching younger men in other contexts. With these thoughts in mind, when theology is the topic and we're dealing with a formal, adult teaching situation, I'm not sure women should be filling that role. But to discuss, as part of our lives? What better topic could we be discussing?

 

[jules5solas]

Ronda,
THAT is the exact type of response I was looking for! Thank you for your excellent comments and insight! You helped clarify for me a few points that I think I was mixed up on.

This scripture does not preclude women from exhorting or witnessing to the truths of God in general; otherwise women could not participate on these boards.

But even in discussion groups like these, where women have the freedom to witness and testify to their faith, there is the security and comfort of having male oversight.

Again, witnessing or proclaiming the gospel are not "teaching." Referring to doctrines in a conversation is not formal teaching. Reiterating the biblical principles is not teaching. Participating in public discussions, such as this, is not teaching. None of these activities usurps the authority of the men in the church or home.

Very helpful to give me words to sort out in my understanding the difference between 'teaching' women and 'exhorting or witnessing to the truths of God' to women. I really like the wording on that.

I believe my thinking on separate women's Bible study is changing...

-----Added 8/1/2009 at 11:59:02 EST-----

I would say also that I do not believe that women should teach men in theological colleges.

Lecturing in theology is, or should be, one of the closest things, to an act of formal worship as happens in "informal worship".

Women shouldn't be professional theologians, whatever they do or do not do informally.

I get the impression that female theologians are as much in the vanguard of heresy as their male counterparts, if not more so, for their relatively small numbers.

I agree. I never really thought of that but I totally agree. Are there women professors teaching theology in reformed universities?

 

[a mere housewife]

I'm not sure that womens' Bible studies are always either negative or positive; however, I can't think of any objection to women meeting together to have a lady give a devotional and to pray -- the advantage of this besides helping us to bear one another's burdens is often is that it can be used as outreach for other ladies in the community. I don't think our ideas of teaching should be so mixed up with headship that we can't learn from reading John Calvin (who isn't either our own elder or our own husband) or from reading Francis Ridley Havergal.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote
I agree. I never really thought of that but I totally agree. Are there women professors teaching theology in reformed universities?

I hope not, but there may be.

 

[Wannabee]

The feminine input in this thread is quite refreshing, encouraging and edifying. Thanks!

 

[jules5solas]

I'm not sure that womens' Bible studies are always either negative or positive; however, I can't think of any objection to women meeting together to have a lady give a devotional and to pray -- the advantage of this besides helping us to bear one another's burdens is often is that it can be used as outreach for other ladies in the community. I don't think our ideas of teaching should be so mixed up with headship that we can't learn from reading John Calvin (who isn't either our own elder or our own husband) or from reading Francis Ridley Havergal.

I don't think that we can say that all women's Bible studies are negative or positive. I do think that after all of these considerations we would be wise to be cautious. I used to be in a church where the teaching / preaching by the men was really bad. Not just in style but in content. At that time we were stuck to the church because we grew up in that denomination. We are now in an excellent church. I don't feel a need to go outside of what we have available to our congregation. Either way, I don't think it's forbidden but it is making me think twice about considering each situation seriously which I'm sure all on this board would do.