1 Timothy 2:12 should a woman teach a man

"Man and woman fell together; together they must rise. After the resurrection, it was a woman who was first commissioned to carry the glad tidings of the risen Christ; and in Europe, where woman was in future days to be set free from many of the trammels of the East, it seems fitting that a woman should be the first believer. Not only, however, was Lydia a sort of first-fruit for Europe, but she probably also became a witness in her own city of Thyatira, in Asia. We do not know how the gospel was introduced into that city; but we are informed of the existence of a church there by the message of the ascended Christ, through his servant John, to "the angel of the church in Thyatira." Very likely Lydia became the herald of the gospel in her native place. Let the women who know the truth proclaim it; for why should their influence be lost? "The Lord giveth the word; the women that publish the tidings are a great host.""

 

Thank God this is a local chruch matter. In my opinion and interpretation of the Bible, and this is where my church stands, a woman teaching does not necessarily mean a position of authority.

Plus, when there are no men willing, what is the church to do? Many churches would have fallen by the way side many years ago if not for the stead fast contribution, and even leadership, by women who stepped up when the men (and shame on those men) refused to fulfill the role that God had given them.

 

Look at what I posted above on this. Paul was making the point that he was not quoting Jesus, but the instruction he was giving was being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Look at the note from the NET Bible I posted - and check out others.

As for truth and wisdom where I find it - I always check out the context. For example, a lot of Christians are saying to accept truth in Buddhism or Hinduism, etc. but I myself was involved with Eastern religions for many years before becoming a Christian. And one thing I know from that, what seems like truth in their beliefs is really not truth when you know the context.

 

It is not obvious. There is one verse and one verse only in the entire NT that has Priscilla doing anything like this and that is Acts 18.26. Check it out -- with her husband, they took Appollos aside and corrected him, apparently on some kind of error or misunderstanding on his part. This is hardly teaching in the church. This is not enough support for women teaching, especially in light of other scripture.

 

What you have here is the biblical support for the validity of women being evangelists, but not support for women teaching men. Evangelism and teaching are not the same thing in the Bible; they are mentioned separately.

 

Should a woman teach a man?

If she has been gifted with the gift of teaching the scriptures, OF COURSE she should teach men, women, kids, anyone who is listening to her.

Teach sister, teach!


:godisgood:

 

Of course it is obvious. Priscilla is named first and that goes against all tradition and customs of that time and place. It makes her the more important person in the relationship and thus Aquilla is seen as the secondary person, or less important person here.

We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.

And we must remember this is a letter to a specific individual, not a general letter to all Christians. He was address local situations and local issues. Paul does not say that I Timothy 2:12 is for all people everywhere. At the time of his writing to Timothy the area around Lystra had many gnostic believers and the large majority of those believers were women. It is highly likely that he was attempting to insure that no gnostic woman posing as a Christian be allowed to speak. There were Gnostics who said they believed in Christ, but that Christ could not be God for God cannot deal directly with wicked humans.

I Cor. 11:5 but every wife[a] who prays or(A) prophesies(B) with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same(C) as if her head were shaven.One definition of prophesy is "to teach a religious subject."

 

Your mind is not surrendered to the Word of God. When Paul said women are not to teach, that was the word of God for us, and you are rejecting that word. You are wrong to do so. I am being obedient to Scripture to point it out and call you and others to repentance for your disobedience and rejection of God's word. Listen, this is not a debatable issues. There are issues about which Scripture is not clear. And on that, good people can differ. But this is not one of them.

 

So you think a women should be encouraged to disobey God? How abusive can you be? Why in the world would you encourage anyone to disobey God?

 

That, in a word, is silly. It has no merit whatosever. Furthermore, there is no indication that it was taking place in church.

Perhaps a good definition of prophecy would be in order, and an argument that this was in a mixed assembly.

So what does being a deaconness have to do with teaching and exercising authority over men? I missed your argument there ... perhaps because you haven't bothered to make one.

So why does Paul appeal to creation and fall rather than the specific threat? Why doesn't Paul say, "I do not allow it because women are uneducated ... or troublemakers"? You need to give more serious thought to why Paul appeals to something that is universally true in all times and places (man created first; woman deceived).

Yes, to a pastor about how the church was to be led. Should we accept your argument and apply the standards for pastors only to the church at Ephesus in the first century? What about the teaching on money and contentment? Should we also reject that since it was given to a church in the first century facing a particular problem?

What does Lystra have to do with it? And on what textual basis do you say the argument had anything to do with Gnosticism? Can you even show that gnosticism existed at that time such as you are using it here? And would Paul just prevent gnostic women from preaching and teaching? What about gnostic men? In other words, if the problem was false teaching as you say, then it would apply to men as well as women. And you can see from the text (if you would actually read it), that Paul does not say these things about men. Yet we know from history that men are as susceptible to false teaching as women are. So if Paul's concern is false teaching, he is not really addressing the problem.

So your argument really has no merit from the text.

Another is to be a historian. So what?

 

Being a woman myself, I believe that no woman should have authority over a man.

 

Define authority for me.

Also, teaching does not necessarily man authority. Teaching is imparting knowledge, not ruling.

The "authority" argument is a red herring, or a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word teach and teacher.


From www.dictionary.com

PHP:

verb, taught, teach·ing, noun 
–verb (used with object) 1. to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in: She teaches mathematics.  
2. to impart knowledge or skill to; give instruction to: He teaches a large class.  
–verb (used without object) 3. to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction.  
–noun 4. Informal. teacher.  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: bef. 900; ME techen, OE tǣcan; akin to token] 


—Synonyms 1–3. coach. 2, 3. inform, enlighten, discipline, drill, school, indoctrinate. Teach, instruct, tutor, train, educate share

 

Pastor Larry responded to all this already and I agree with him.

You fail to make your case.

 

In theological instruction, teaching is authority because teaching is telling someone what to believe based on what the word says. But even at that, the passage says "teach or exercise authority" which are two different things most likely. It does not say "exercise authority by teaching."

Again, actually focusing on the text of Scripture answers a lot of these questions.

 

We don't go to a modern definition for teaching, but we go to the Bible to see what is meant by teaching in the context. In the NT, teaching in the church was a role of authority - it is equivalent to what a pastor does: bringing God's word to His people. It's what we call exegetical teaching today.

If you have a way to look up the word used for "teach" and "teaching" in a Strong's or something like it (I have the Word-Study Greek-English NT ed. by Paul McReynolds - very handy!), you can see this word is used many, many times in the gospels for Jesus teaching in the synagogue or temple. In Acts 18.26, this word is not used when scripture says that Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and corrected him. This was not teaching as it is presented in other passages.

We always need to let the Bible define terms, not our thinking or dictionaries. I think this is one reason there is confusion on this - some people are thinking of teaching in a very generic or contemporary sense whereas in most cases when the NT uses "teach," it is about teaching the word of God in a way that is authoratitive. And this is clearly what Paul means when he forbids women to teach.

There are examples of women prophesying, praying, serving, etc. but not teaching in the church in the way the Bible presents it.

 

I do not see imparting facts or beliefs as having authority and so far I can find no dictionary that gives a definition whereby teach means having authority over. If I were at the seminary in Prague I would have many more resources at hand and could do deeper research. However, and this is gently said, so far I see nothing to indicate that to teach means to have authority over.

You say "In theological instruction....." Theological instruction differs from seminary to seminary and differs depending on the theological bent of an institution. If you can give me a link where the two words are shown as synonyms I would appreciate it. None of the online theological dictionaries that I found define the word teach. I can see why some would like the two words to be synonyms, but so far I cannot find such a case.

Here are a few definitions I have found.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=teach&searchmode=nl

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/teach

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=teach&matchtype=exact

 

That is exactly what I've been saying. Paul is telling Timothy that women are not to be permitted to have the authority or role of pastor. This is what Paul means. It's not that she can't teach on a one on one basis. It's that she can't pastor the church.

If teaching (in the NT sense, as you are saying) means to pastor or have authority of the pastor, then no one would be allowed to teach, men or women. But Paul is addressing the role of women as under the authority of men, not that she can't teach a class. She is not to be pastor/teacher of the church. She is not to usurp the role and authority of the pastor.

My SS teacher is a man. But I am not under his authority. He has no authority over me. I am under the pastor's authority, as is my teacher.

 

Theological instruction isn't seminary or Bible college. It is teaching who God is and how we should respond. Theological instruction always has as its goal the transformation of the hearer by the response of the life to the commands of God. The GC puts it this way: Teach them to observe all that I commanded you. Command is clearly authoritative, and teaching is right there with it.

 

If it is not debatable, why are you debating?

Paul said, "I suffer not a woman to teach...,"not "Do not suffer a woman to teach."

1 Timothy was a statement, not a command. It was personal when Paul put the pronoun "I" in that statement.

You are wrong to accuse me of disobedience and need of repentance in this subject.