1 Timothy 2:12 should a woman teach a man

Then we should reject those words?

 

No, study the Word to say why Paul says what he spoke did was not of the Lord, but of his own instruction or preference.

 

It is not his own preference - that's the whole point, but you don't want to see that, although it's been explained. Paul is not quoting the Lord's words, but when he says "I, not the Lord," he's writing those words under the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Note on this from NET Bible:

 

Albert Barnes said the following concerning 1 Corinthians 7:12:

Verse 12. But to the rest. "I have spoken in regard to the duties of the unmarried, and the question whether it is right and advisable that they should marry, 1Co 7:1-9. I have also uttered the command of the Lord in regard to those who are married, and the question whether separation and divorce were proper. Now in regard to the rest of the persons and cases referred to, I will deliver my opinion."

I agree, Paul was giving his opinion here.

 

And don't forget that nothing could be more irrelevant to this point. No one says that a woman cannot teach her children. In fact the Bible commands it. So it would be better for the conversation if you would stop distracting from the topic. If you want to discuss a woman teaching her children, start a thread on it.

Where does the Bible say this? So far as I can tell, the Bible says nothing about teaching under someone else's authority. Could you please point to the phrase you are basing this view on.

So again, can you point to this in the Bible? If not, will you admit that you are not saying what the Scripture is saying?

 

Why do you resist the Scriptures? Why do you feel qualified to assert your opinion over that of the apostle who received revelation directly from the Lord?

Paul was giving his instruction as an apostle appointed to give apostolic instruction under the inspiration of the Spirit. You are disagreeing with God himself who breathed out the words that Paul said.

I can't help but note that you still have yet to deal with the multitude of similar Scriptures that use this same type of phrase. Isn't it painfully obvious that your view is simply unbiblical? Why not submit yourself to Scripture?

 

Never reject truth where every you find it. Words from the Lord do carry more weight than from a man ... but truth is to be followed.

Read the book "The Measure of a Man." This is not a religious book, but there is great wisdom in the book on living a life. Should we reject that wisdom just because it is not from the Bible or from a religious book? No! Accept truth and wisdom where you find it.

 

By your logic, we should come to the conclusion that when satan said 'Thou shalt not surely die' God told him to say it since all that is written in the Word of God was inspired by God.

 

You clearly are not familiar with any kind of logic, much less mine. And increasingly it seems that you are not even familiar with the rudiments of orthodoxy. For you to come in here and deny the doctrine inspiration is unconscionable.

When the Bible records that Satan said, "You shall not surely die," that is an accurate recording of his words. It is entirely different in every way than Paul's writing in 1 Tim 2. I can't imagine you made that argument with a straight face. But then I can't imagine you would say the kind of things you have said here in denial of Scripture. Brothers, these things ought not so to be.

 

2:11​

The proper way for any novice to learn was submissively and “quietly” (a closely related Greek term appears in 2:2 for all believers). Women were less likely to be literate than men, were trained in philosophy far less often than men, were trained in *rhetoric almost never, and in Judaism were far less likely to be educated in the *law. Given the bias against instructing women in the law, it is Paul’s advocacy of their learning the law, not his recognition that they started as novices and so had to learn quietly, that was radical and countercultural. (In the second century, Beruriah, wife of Rabbi Meir, was instructed in the law, but she was a rare exception. Women could hear expositions at the *synagogues and did sometimes attend rabbinic lectures, but the vast majority of *rabbis would never accept them as *disciples, and *Hellenistically oriented Jews like *Josephus and *Philo were even more biased against them than the rabbis were. There is evidence for a few women filling higher roles in some *Diaspora synagogues, in local cultures where women had higher social positions, but the same evidence shows that even there prominent women in synagogues were the rare exception rather than the rule.)​

​

2:12​

Given women’s lack of training in the Scriptures (see comment on 2:11), the heresy spreading in the Ephesian *churches through ignorant teachers (1:4-7), and the false teachers’ exploitation of these women’s lack of knowledge to spread their errors (5:13; 2 Tim 3:6), Paul’s prohibition here makes good sense. His short-range solution is that these women should not teach; his long-range solution is “let them learn” (2:11). The situation might be different after the women had been instructed (2:11; cf. Rom 16:1-4, 7; Phil 4:2-3).
​

​

From the IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament by Craig S. Keener

It wasn't that Paul forbade women from speaking altogether. Certainly we see him allowing women to teach in other epistles. The key is learning and understanding of the Word of God.

​

 

When the Bible records that Paul said "I suffer not..." it was an accurate recording of his words.

 

Yes, spoken as an apostolic command under the inspiration of the Spirit. That means it not his mere opinion, but the opinion of God about the matter.

Why persist in unbelief? Why not surrender your mind to the inspired word of God?

 

Paul ties his command not to the ignorance of first century women, but to the creation and fall. That means that it has nothing to do with what women knew or didn't know. It had to do with when they were created, and the fact that they were deceived. I find it hard to stomach the sexism involved in this statement you quote. The Bible never treats women in such a derogatory way.

And which other epistles were these?

So why does Paul say that the key is "man was created first" and "woman was deceived"? Was that merely his opinion as well?

 

1 Corinthians 11:1-5 tells us women can speak or teach in the Church.

Clearly a woman could prophesy in the congregation.

But later in the epistle, Paul wrote:

Was there a contradiction? No! Paul did not say women could not prophesy (a forthtelling of the Word of God), he said if they had questions to learn of their husbands at home.

Women were being disruptive in the congregation and not through teaching, but through their asking questions.

Women were allowed to teach the Word according to Chapter 11. But they were not to teach with their heads uncovered.

 

My mind is surrendered to the inspired Word of God.

You can accuse me of unbelief all you want. You are wrong to do so.

 

Teaching does not necessitate authority... it necessitates knowledge and understanding of God's Word.

 

Prophesying is a forthtelling of the Word of God. It is impossible for one to prophesy without teaching or preaching.

 

It is obvious from scripture that Priscilla taught Apollos.

We must remember that we are using terms that have changed in meaning over the centuries. For example the word, prophesy, is ancient times meant to teach.

From www.dictionary.com the 8th definition listed is:

We must also remember that there was not just one mono-culture in the Roman world. For instance the culture of Rome was quite different from the culture of Athens. In Athens or other Ionian cities a woman would never be allowed to teach. In other cultures of that day a woman could teach. I am speaking her not just of religious topics, but of topics of any kind. In many of the cultures of that day women were not allowed to be educated. I am certainly glad that Paul did not write a letter to Athens and say that a woman should not be educated so as to make the message he preached of Christ more acceptable to those in Athens.

I do not know enough about the culture of Lystra, where Timothy lived, to know if they allowed women to be educated there or not ... or if they allowed women to teach. Can anyone help me here ... and if so please give me a link that I can follow up and read. As Timothy's father is never mentioned it seems pretty obvious that his mother, a woman, taught him. Now I know someone is going to argue, but that was when he was a child. That obviously is ture, but we are never told that she did not continue to teach him when he was a young man. Guess that is a question we will learn the answer to when we are in heaven.