A sticky situation...

Good answer Scott.

 

Not if you use solid exegesis. The emphasis is on "holy" hands, meaning we are to be men of righteousness. We see that is the point by the focus on women of holiness in the succeeding verses. Raising hands in prayer is a traditional thing. It has no basis in the creation, as does Paul's command about women teachers. Come on, Scott. You are on pastoral staff. You should be able to do better exegesis than that.

I feel for you, man. I think of going back for a doctorate, and keep asking if I really want to go through that again. I hope you do well with it.

STudy of the text.

Becaquse Paul gives his reasons in vv. 13ff. neither of which have to do with the first century culture. There are some difficult cultural questions. This is not one of them, since Paul gives the reasons.

Yes it is. And I say there are some difficult ones. But this is simply not one of them. Paul gives his reasons for his injunction, and none of those reason (2 or 3 depending on how you count), have anything to do with the first century culture. The reasons are 1) Men were created first. That is a Genesis 1-2 issue, separated from the first century by at least six thousand years by the most conservative estimate. It has no first century bearing. 2) The woman were deceived, not man. THat is a Genesis 3 ordinance, separated from the first century by only a few days less than reason #1. Some like to argue here that women were more gullible in teh first century and that is why Paul said this; now that women are more educated and enlightened the problem is lessened. My response is that if Paul had meant that, he had words he could have used to say that. Instead, he used a multi-thousands year old reason. 3) Women have a different spiritual role, that of childbearing. We can debate whether this is a third reason or not. I am not quite sure at this point, so I won't be dogmatic.

IN short, Paul does not give even one cultural issue in this injunction. He reaches back thousands of years to creation and the fall for his teaching. Do you really think that has changed?

I don't really have a firm opinion on that. I think gullibility and naivete knows little of sex.

Yes, without any doubt. In fact, the Bible is one of hte few historical places where women were honored as equal to or above men. There is no personal elevation of one above the other. There is no hint of superiority of personhood. In fact, if you read the text of Gen 2, it is clear that man was completely inadequate without woman. He needed woman to make him complete. That was the whole point of "helper suitable."

You see, this is not about equality of personhood. It is about God's intent and role.

 

Pastor Larry,

Is it ever okay for a woman to teach a man?

Is it ever okay for a woman to be in authority over a man?

Thanks.

 

Not in the context of spiritual authority and church, according to Scripture.

 

The point I was making is that if you are going to strictly adhere to scripture in every case, then you must also abide by its historical context. If you did that, then would not have a Sunday School nor let women sit with their husbands in church.

I would say that while you make the claim to not let women teach you ignore the greater historical context of scripture regarding the body of believers. Historically males and females did not sit together. Historically men never counseled women. How many women in your church are veiled? How many times have you applied 1Cor. 14:29, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” in a service?

The application of scripture is not always so easily “cut and dried” as some claim.

There are those who call others wrong because they make great claims to know scripture while conveniently ignoring the greater historical context.

 

That makes no sense at all, GB. You know that. The teachings of Scripture have a historical context. That must be considered. There are both time bound (cultural/traditional) teachings that must be bridged to a new context, and there are timeless teachings. The difference is not always easy to see, but it is in this case, since Paul gives his reasons and they are not cultural reasons. They are creation reasons. Why aren't you recognzing that? I have pointed it out numerous times and you refuse to read what Paul said, or at least to believe it. If Pauls' teaching was a first century issue, then why didn't Paul use first century reasons?

BTW, there is nothing in the Bible that forbids SS or women sitting with their husbands. There is nothing that even addresses it. You are confusing things.

Totally irrelevant and my bet is that you know it. I don't recommend that men counsel women. I do it very rarely. According to Titus 2, women are to teach women. The Bible does not command that women wear veils. The "headcoverings" of 1 Cor 11 are clearly a contextual issue of authority. The reasons given there in the context are first century reasons. Therefore, it is completely dissimilar to 1 Tim 2. In 1 Cor 14:29, we let all the prophets who show up at church speak, and the rest of us pass judgment. It doesn't take long.

I don't recall anyone saying it is always easy. But in 1 Tim 2, where Paul gives the reasons for his injunction, it certainly is easy.

This is irrelevant since I am not guilty of this. I have not ignored any historical context. What I have pointed out, time and time again, is that Paul's reasons in vv. 13ff have nothing to do with teh first century. If this were a time bound issue for the first century, then we would expect his reasons to be first century reasons. They are not. They are creation and fall reasons. Do you believe the historical context of the creation and the fall are different now than in the first century? Do you believe that vv. 13-14 are no longer true?

You are conflating some issues in your mind and writing, and you are confusing others. That does not result from good exegesis.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
BTW, there is nothing in the Bible that forbids SS or women sitting with their husbands. There is nothing that even addresses it. You are confusing things.

The Bible never addresses every issue in society. But the scripture sits within a context that dictated other than what you seem to think. Again you forgot the historical context in which scripture lies. It was then and in many cases still the same today. It was forbidden in that culture for men to sit with women in a church context. That was unacceptable. In some of those same countries the same thing is still practiced.

The Bible does not command that women wear veils. The "headcoverings" of 1 Cor 11 are clearly a contextual issue of authority. The reasons given there in the context are first century reasons.

Every word in scripture lies within a historical context. But you have chosen to ignore some commands and adhere to others. I Cor 11:6 is full of imperatives and you throw it out as cultural.

Certainly the context of 1 Cor. lies within a culture– the church at Corinth. That culture and scripture commands for a woman to have her head covered. You have chosen to pick and choose and call it cultural. That is a choice everyone of us make. I am not so sure the hedonistic church of America has made many wise choices.

If you look at the clear reason why a woman was to have her head covered that reason has not changed.

There are those who would claim that head coverings are not tied to culture.

If you will go back not very long even American women wore head coverings in church and in society. Scripture has not changed in the past few years. Was it right then and not now?

 

Look,

Once you understand the cultural context the passage makes sense. In N.T. churches, they did things much the way the Jews did. The men sat in the front of the building/church with the pastor while the women sat in the back and behind what we would call a curtain. Since the churches of the day had no P.A. system, the women had trouble hearing what was being said. They had a tendency to speak out and ask questions.

When Paul told women to be quiet, it was not anything more than a cultural directive. The women of this time were obviously less learned because of the culture and the history of this time. The women were to learn from their husbands at that time. Since that which is perfect is in our hands (regardless of translation) and we do not make women sit behind curtains in the back of the auditorium, women are able to learn just as a man is able to learn. Therefore, women are spiritually qualified to teach today where they were not qualified to teach in Paul's day.

The principle of scripture emphasizes the qualification of leaders everywhere we look. If the wife or woman is spiritually qualified and knowledgable in the consideration of the pastor, then there is NO restriction on her ability to teach as something less than a Pastor or Elder. A sunday school teacher does not rise to either position.

Remember, when we view scripture as an American and not as one who was originally written to, we will be incorrect more than we are correct.

 

Look,

Once you understand the cultural context the passage makes sense. In N.T. churches, they did things much the way the Jews did. The men sat in the front of the building/church with the pastor while the women sat in the back and behind what we would call a curtain. Since the churches of the day had no P.A. system, the women had trouble hearing what was being said. They had a tendency to speak out and ask questions.

When Paul told women to be quiet, it was not anything more than a cultural directive. The women of this time were obviously less learned because of the culture and the history of this time. The women were to learn from their husbands at that time. Since that which is perfect is in our hands (regardless of translation) and we do not make women sit behind curtains in the back of the auditorium, women are able to learn just as a man is able to learn. Therefore, women are spiritually qualified to teach today where they were not qualified to teach in Paul's day.

The principle of scripture emphasizes the qualification of leaders everywhere we look. If the wife or woman is spiritually qualified and knowledgable in the consideration of the pastor, then there is NO restriction on her ability to teach as something less than a Pastor or Elder. A sunday school teacher does not rise to either position.

Remember, when we view scripture as an American and not as one who was originally written to, we will be incorrect more than we are correct.
Glad I slept through that one

 

Your home site is not user friendly,
I cannot post a comentary without signing up.
I cannot e-mail you from their 'email' selection
cause they don't give your e-mail addy.

Anway, here is what i was going to say:

----------------------
Ed Edwards here supporting you in daily prayer.

I'm praying this:

May all God's best blessings be on Scott Emerson, his
family, and his ministry. May this be granted so that
we might give all the more honor and glory unto our
blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah Jesus. Amen!
----------------------

 

Did someone say that it did?? I missed that.

REally? What did I say that indicated I think otherwise? Pleaes quote me and demonstrate this assertion.

Please demonstrate anywhere that I have forgotten historical context.

Can you offer any scriptural support for this? If not, then it is totally irrelevant. This discussion is about scripture and the scriptural text, not about tradition.

You have already said this.

Where?

No I didn't. I pointed out that the point of 1 Cor 11 is authority. That is not cultural. Today, men are under the authority of God, and women are under the authority of men. The cultural question is "How is submission to authority demonstrated?" Do you really mean to tell us that you have not studied this any deeper than what you indicate here?

For very clearly stated reasons.

My point exactly about 1 Tim 2. The "hedonistic church of America" has decided that Paul's command of 1 Tim 2:12 which is rooted in creation, not in culture, is a bad command. I simply disagree. I think Paul was right.

The reason has not changed. But the demonstration of the attitude has.

Okay. So?

Yes, and culture has changed since then. When you watch old baseball footage from the 20s, you see men at baseball games in coats and ties. Professional golfers wore ties to play golf. Culture has changed. The Bible has not.

What you continue to ignore,inexplicably, is that Paul's reasons are not cultural. Paul did not give first century reasons for his mandate. He gave creation reasons. The question is this: Do the reasons Paul gave still exist? Obviously. Therefore, teh command is not cultural.

 

Yes indeed.

Then why did Paul base his command in something (creation) that had nothing to do with the first century? Do you realize that everyone on your side has refused to address Paul's reasons? That is significant. Tell us, if Paul was making a commnad for the first century, why didn't he use first century reasons? Why did he go all the way back to creation?

Why so? Look at Paul's reasons. He said men were created first. Has that changed? He said the woman was deceived. Has that changed? I am not aware of any change in either of those two things. So on what basis do you say Paul was wrong?

So a SS teacher does not teach? Why call her a teacher if she doesn't teach? Paul doesn't address pastors in 1 Tim 2:12. He addresses them in 3:1ff. You are simply not reading the paassage.

Exactly. Women teaching men in the church began as an American thing. Americans, infatuated with supposed "equality," decided that Pauls' command didn't really apply. You, viewing this passage as an American, are incorrect. If you read it as the early church did, then you will agree with those who say that a woman should have authority or teach a man.

Tell me why no one on your side has bothered to talk about Paul's reasons.

 

I hate church politics ... It is a nightmare. I feel for you in that regard. I wish you the best in your ministry there. Keep going after it hard.

 

This was a fun one, and I missed it!

Oh well!

 

So let's make this simple, Paul is refering to PUBLIC services or what we would call worship service. Since Sunday School is an American invention and is generally broken down by different criteria, and meets in seperate rooms apart from the whole, Paul could not have been referring to Sunday School. The cultural context still applies. How do you find the cultural context? Start with Josephus and move to other authors of history and you will realize that the culture of today and when scripture was written is night and day. All authors of scripture wrote within a cultural context, and if the cultural context is not considered during interpretation, the interpretation WILL be incorrect.

Was Adam formed first? Yes, but Adam rejected his God given role when he chose sin. Eve was deceived, but Adam chose his sin. What does that mean, everything when we speak of why all men are sinners and Adams potential to choose righteousness over sin.

However, we are simply speaking of women teaching in the church. Just because Adam sinned and Eve was deceived does not change the role that God created Eve for. Eve was created as Adams helper and companion. That does not mean that she takes a secondary role in the body of Christ or in the church. If a woman is qualified in the eyes of the pastor to teach in a non-public way, ie. Sunday School, then there is no scriptural command to prohibit that. Since Paul in I Timothy and I Corinthians is refering to public services of the whole congregation, Sunday School is totally permissable.

 

Really??? Man, I need a new Bible, because mine doesn't say that. Tell me which version you have so I can get one. ... How does adding something to Scripture actually make it simple? Paul is very clear what he is talking about. In fact, you can pick it up right from the words that he uses. He is talking about 1) having authority and 2) teaching. He does not specify whether it is a public service or a small group Bible study.

Wrong. It is a British invention.

Why? Is there no authority and no teaching going on in the SS? If there is authority and teaching, then it most certainly does apply.

There was never a question of whether the cultural context applied. Of course the cultural context applies. The question is, "Is Paul's command addressing only a cultural/historical situation?" The textual answer to that is a resounding NO. How do we know? By looking at the reasoning Paul uses.

Completely irrelevant. No one disagrees.

Yes, and if the words of Scripture are not considered, the interpretation will be incorrect.

But Adam did not lose that role. It simply became harder for him, as the curse reveals. Plus, Paul does not add your caveat. It is clear that you have gone beyond Paul's reasons.

It means, according to God, that women are not to be teachers over men in spiritual matters.

I am not sure what "simply" means. It is a big issue.

This is absolutely true. Did God created women to teach men spiritually? No. Therefore, she should not teach men or have authority in the church, according to Paul.

No one is suggesting she should take a secondary role. You are completely confusing the issues.

So 1 Tim 2 isn't a scriptural command? WHat is a pastor decides that salvation is by works. Can he contradict that SCripture as well? I mean, after all, we are so much more enlightened today. There is no need to think that a 2000 year old story about a perfect man (whoever heard of that anyway ... no one's perfect) dying as a substitute for sinners is reallly true. That story is so first century. Let's get past that.

What about that command about fornication. Surely in this age when people are getting married later that command was cultural. It doesn't apply today. There is no reason to tell people they shouldn't have sex before marriage. That was a cultural thing for the first century.

I mean really ... How many Scriptural commmands are we allowed to write off?

Is SS not a public service? Did Paul make this distinction?

You see, your position is so weak that it takes very little thought to refute it. You have changed what Paul said, added to what Paul said, ignored what Paul said, and decided what you want to believe. That is not biblically driven obedience. You don't just get to write off the parts of Scripture that you think are out of style.

 

I am not adding to scripture, I am simply reading the scriptures with proper understanding. Since you are right that the Sunday School is a British invention how can Paul be referring to anything but public worship services? As far as having any authority, the authority rests in the pastor alone and it is the pastor that decides who is qualified and who is not. If you have a church of properly decipled women and have men who only come take part of the Sunday School or Bible Study when they feel like it, how can you allow an unqualified man to teach in Sunday School? The answer, you allow the woman to teach.

Paul is addressing a situation in which women were being disruptive in the church services and creating chaos by attempting to usurp the authority of the pastor, Timothy. As far as the reasoning for why, Paul said that he would not allow a person (women) to do whatever they want and create an atmosphere where the pastor had no authority. This was a choice of Paul only "But I suffer...", he never said that this was a command to all churches for all time, this applied to the situation at hand. And the eternal principle is that no one, man or woman, is to usurp the authority of the pastor. This is why Paul gave the reasons he did in the following verses. It is an example of proper order of authority for all, not just women. Men are to also follow the chain of authority; how many times have we seen men guilty of this?

I would never condone a women in charge of the church, but if a woman is following the will of God and the leading of the pastor, authority will never be an issue. Paul's use of the creative order is to show that Adam was appointed by God to a certain role, just as the pastor is to fulfill a specific role in the LNTC. A woman is to follow the leadership of Christ just as a man is supposed to do. The role of a woman is to follow and support her pastor if she has no husband. Either way, if the pastor feels that the woman is qualified to teach then she has every right to teach.

 

Paul was talking about "having authority" and "teaching." He did not limit it to "public worship services" as you do.

I don't allow unqualified men to teach. But neither do I allow women to be disobedient under my watch. Both are equally wrong. THe answer to weak men is to disciple the men. It is not to ask women to disobey God.

You see, Paul never says that. And the reasons Paul gives have nothing to do with being disruptive. Paul gives creation and fall reasons. These have nothing to do with the first century.

Again, Paul doesn't say this. You have read that into the context.

Don't undervalue inspiration. It was the choice of God.

The text doesn't say anything about the pastor. It says a woman is not to have authority or teach a man. It says nothing about other men, or about pastors. Come on ... Can we at least use the text a little bit??

But that is nowhere in the text. Paul never addresses the authority of men. He addresses women.

I don't think you have grounds for this, given your position.

Yes, because if she is following the will of God, she will not have autohrity over or teach a man. If she is, then she is not following the will of God.

BUt again, read the text. Paul is addressing the fact that women should not "have authority" or "teach" a man. There is no reason to see a parallel between ADam's role and the pastor's role. That is completely foreign to the context.

Not if she desires to be obedient to God. The pastor never has the right to call someone into a life of disobedience.