1 Timothy 2:12 should a woman teach a man

As to the jewelry, thinking may have been referring to this verse:

¶ In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

It would appear Paul was saying the wearing of broided (plaited) hair, gold, pearls, or costly clothes was not modest.

Interesting that he added 'costly array' or expensive clothing in the equation of that which would not be considered modest.

Practically all clothing nowadays is 'costly.' Especially for those on low-income such as disability. To them, even the cheapest clothing is expensive.

 

For many years women taught us as children. I honestly have a very hard time understanding the prohibition on women teaching. No family can exist without women teaching I don't see why at a certain age women should be silent.

 

Paul is not giving just his opinion! All his words are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Also, this saying "I, not the Lord" means he is not quoting OT scripture. But "I" is speaking under the power and of the Holy Spirit, so those are God's words.

 

You must have missed what I posted. There is only one place I can find that mentions Priscilla instructed Apollos and she was doing it with her husband. This is very slender biblical support for a woman teaching a man - in fact, it is no evidence at all. In fact, they were correcting him on an error.

 

I know! :thumbs:

It doesn't say she was teaching. It is one verse - Acts 18.26, that says she and Aquila took Apollos aside to correct him. And she was with her husband. This is very different from being a regular teacher of men in a church and is not enough evidence to warrant that, especially in light of other passages.

Their exegesis may be great - and I think it's okay to write it out or discuss it. But teaching the Bible involves authority and a special responsibility. If a man is the spiritual head of the household, how can a woman take this role in a church?

Giving the gospel is not giving a sermon or teaching scripture. And quoting scripture is not teaching scripture. Explaining words in a passage like Deut. 18.10-12, which I do when talking about the occult, is not teaching scripture - I am explaining words, not giving a message.

Teaching scripture is exegesis - the way my pastor and other pastors "bring the message" to believers. I do not do that. I think one must be called to do that and I do not believe God calls women to it.

 

Good point. God obviously considers mothers to be quite adequate in teaching their children the scriptures. What children are taught is extremely important, and mothers/women have a God given responsibility to teach them. Yet when these same children who were taught by women become adults, the women are no longer allowed or qualified to teach them. That doesn't make sense. That's why I think Paul's instructions are being misunderstood. He was speaking to a particular problem in a particular church.

 

Teaching children and teaching men are 2 different things. Certainly, teaching one's own children is not the same as teaching adult men in a church!

I've looked at these passages very closely for years and also discussed and debated them, including here on the BB (where it has come up several times). Since I speak in churches, I had to be clear on this for myself.

I do not bring God's word to men by teaching it to them (like my pastor does). That is not a role that God calls women to and there is no support for it in the Bible.

I think women can be evangelists, which are different from teachers. In fact, evangelist and teacher are different categories in the Bible which mentions them together.

 

SFIC, I disagree. I see biblical reasons to avoid women preachers I do not apply the epistles only to the folks Paul was addressing, however, I do see reason to study the specific problems of the original churches, and how they differed from each other. But I don't think different rules apply to different churches, or else it would be impossible to know who was to do what, when. There is one gospel. There are different ways to err teaching it. That was Paul's work, to identify errors.

 

I disagree. If the Words Paul is speaking are from God and Paul says it him speaking and not the Lord, then it is Paul speaking and not God.

The Lord, He is God. Psalm 100:3

 

Don't you realize what you're saying? In essence, you have now claimed that the Bible does not originate 100% with God; there are little pieces of it that originated from Paul. So our Bible is 99.6% God-breathed and .4% Paul-breathed?

 

There are a few places where Paul says, "This is me speaking, not God." A few places where Paul says "This is God speaking." The majority of what Paul writes he does not say that it is either he or God speaking.

 

This is indicative of a continued misunderstanding that apparently comes from not actually reading what Paul said. He did not prohibit women teaching. He did not say anything about women teaching in the family. He made a very specific statement about women teaching and exercising authority over men. Why do we have this continual red herring? Is not the text clear?

Second, you say you don't understand it. Fine. Two points. First, does it matter if you don't understand it? When you tell a two-year old not to play next to the stove, do you expect him to understand it before he obeys it? Or do you expect him to obey it and hope he will understand later? Obviously the latter, correct? So our understanding of God's commands, while perhaps helpful, is not necessary. Our obedience to them is.

Second, Paul gives his reason: Man was created first, and woman was deceived. So long as that is true, women will be prohibited from teaching and exercising authority over men in the church.

See my above comments on making sense. If truth has to make sense to our small minds before it is to be obeyed, we live in a truly sad state. However, the commands make perfect sense to those who read the reasoning for them.

But Paul doesn't say anything about the particular problem in a particular church. His reason reaches back thousands of years to Genesis 1, which had nothing to do with Ephesus, and in fact his reasons are true about every church in every place in every time. So the "particular context" argument simply will not work.

You can disagree all you want, but Paul's words are God-breathed, which means that they came from God. You are creating a false dichotomy that destroys the authority of Scripture. I have given you a number of examples which to my knowledge you completely ignored. And rightly so. It proves you are wrong. You understanding of the Bible is simply deficient.The division between human and divine authorship is a false dichotomy in Scripture. You are denying the very words of Paul in 2 Tim 3:16.

 

actually, my point wasn't to say that women must not do these things. My point was that if someone is teaching that women can not be in a leadership role and teaching then what other things are they allowing that scripture also seems to say or are they just picking and choosing scripture to meet their thinking.

 

Exactly. You can't just focus on the parts that Paul says "this is me speaking" and say those parts weren't inspired, which is exactly what SFIC is saying.

 

1 Timothy 2:12 BBRV [Baptist Board Revised Version]
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, that is, any adult man, in the church setting, but to be in silence. However, she can teach a man Scripture, with her husband, outside of the assembly, as long as they call it "counseling". And she can teach men secular things outside of the assembly. Of course, she may sing her teaching in a church service, and that counts as silence.

 

When did the BBRV come out on the shelves? Why wasn't I notified?:laugh:

 

Now THAT would be a treat to read :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Don't forge that a woman can teach scripture to her children, who by the way, Jesus said if you offend one of these little ones it would be better if a millstone were tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea.
Teaching does not usurp authority if it is done under someone else's authority. I know several school teachers personally. And they cannot teach anything they feel like teaching. They are under the authority and supervision of the the School Board. They do not usurp the authority of the Board just because they are teachers. They are accountable to the School Board.
A teacher in the church is accountable to the pastor and under his authority. A Sunday School teacher has no authority in and of themselves. He/she is always under the authority of the pastor.

I believe that when Paul says he does not suffer a woman to teach, he means in a pastoral capacity, not a SS teacher.