Can Woman teach Sunday School

27. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB, 1995)

So is God a bi-sexual or a female chicken?

I believe that he is God, and he certainly is not a little girl with freckles and pigtails.

 

There is an infinitely giant leap between God bestowing qualities on another and having those qualities Himself. He bestowed freckles and pigtails upon little girls, but God Himself does not have those qualities. God also bestowed upon apes and monkeys the qualities that make them what they are. According to the logic in your post, God is a monkey! (Or is that a bi-sexual or female chicken?) When one goes astray from the word of God, one finds himself in some very ridiculous places, but this is about as ridiculous as I have ever seen. Maybe all of this is a nightmare—could this really be happening?

What is it that you wanted me to notice about Col. 1:16-20?

Col. 1:16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
20. and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
(NASB, 1995)

 

Now I know why some women want to teach some men.

 

Folks, This is a lot more clear than some are willing to accept. There are many passages being used out of context by some of my good friends here.

For instance, the woman in Prov 31 was a mother and she is not said to be teaching men in church, especially since the church didn't even exist yet.

Wisdom is appealed to as a woman teacher, but wisdom is a feminine noun, which is why it is referred to as a she. No one can seriously suggest that that phenomenon means women can teach.

Aquila and Priscilla discipled a man, but that does not imply that Priscilla did any of the teaching. They simply took the man to their house to teach him.

Furthermore, you have to remember that Eunice and Lois were a mother and grandmother teaching their son/grandson, but even at that, the text quoted says nothing about teaching. That was a stretch to work that in there.

I say all that to say this is a huge stretch to try to find women teachers in the NT church. Add that to the clear prohibition, and you have a clear cut case, it seems to me.

 

27. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB, 1995)

So is God a bi-sexual or a female chicken?

I believe that he is God, and he certainly is not a little girl with freckles and pigtails. </font>[/QUOTE]Is that how you interpret those verses, Craig? I understand now that your argument is with the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the holy men of old to write these words, Not me who cites them. That is the only explanation as I made no commentary on the verses except to say that they were examples of feminine qualities ascribed to God by the Scriptures. It was merely to show you that God is not ALWAYS described as a male, as you earlier asserted. Once again, it is too bad you do not like the wording but I am not the One who wrote it.

I have seen you use this technique before. When you are backed into a corner with no recourse, you lash out with ad hominem and putting words in your opponents mouth. It is quite sad to watch, really. It is a sure sign that you really have nothing more to contribute.

As it was Larry that I originally addressed on the thread, I will wait for his response. At least he doesn't panic when he is presented with an argument to which he can not immediately respond. That may lead to something edifying rather than your trying to pull the thread off course. Good day, Craig.

 

No, the woman in Proverbs 31 is a virtuous wife. The Hebrew acrostic begins in verse 10. The mother is mentioned in the title of the chapter.

That is not what the Passage says.

Acts 18:26
this one also began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and Aquilas and Priscilla having heard of him, took him to them, and did more exactly expound to him the way of God, Young's Literal Translation

 

2 Timothy 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [The Greek for [whom] is plural] you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.


I will not expound upon the term "childhood" as I am sure you are aware of its connotations in the original language.

 

“feminine qualities ascribed to God by the Scriptures”

And you question my hermeneutics?

 

Then correct me using those verses, not the other thousands that use masculine gender, but those verses in particular. Maybe one of the lady Sunday School teachers can help you if you are having difficulties.

Craig, I view God as the Father but I get my image of Him from the Scriptures, Passages of which I have cited for you. You on the other hand seem quite determined to create Him in your own image.

If you disagree, please explain Genesis 1:27 for us and how you can remove the word "female" from it. Explain why Christ uses the analogy of a hen instead of a rooster or another male animal that protects its young. Why would these verses bother you so much? Not just a "harumph," but a clear, logical explanation.

I wish to know the truth. Please explain it to me.

 

Acts 18:24-26, "Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

If some believe a woman cannot teach a man then look above. Also take a look at one of the leaders in the SBC. W.A. Criswell's wife taught Sunday School at FBC Dallas.

Would Criswell be a liberal too?

There is a huge diference between a pastor-teacher and a teacher. One would only have to read their Bible to notice the difference.

If those in the SBC believe a woman should not teach a man then don't go to SWBTS because a woman is teaching Hebrew there under Paige Patterson.

Seems to me like Patterson made the comment that they ought to be just like the chruch but that professor of Hebrew is still there. Is he going back on his word to dismiss Karen Bullock and retain a woman Hebrew professor.

 

In this verse, Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned; it does not say that his mother and grandmother continued to teach him as an adult. By the way, the Greek word translated “whom” is singular in many manuscripts, but plural in others. My view is that the plural reading is the correct reading and that it refers primarily to Timothy’s mother and grandmother, but it may refer to other teachers (some commentators believe that Barnabas was one of them). If the singular reading is the correct reading, it may refer to either Christ or the Apostle Paul. The matter is uncertain.

 

27. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

I do not remove the word “female” from this passage. However, the verse says that God created man (Hebrew = Adam) in his own image. It does NOT say that He created Adam and Eve in His own image. He created Adam in His own image, and from Adam’s rib he created Eve.

Christ uses an analogy of a bird gathering it young under its wings. Rooster’s don’t do that, so Jesus spoke of a hen. The analogy extends only to the action, not to the physical characteristics of the bird. I’m sorry that my initial reaction bothered you, but your handling of this verse shocked me because it is so ridiculous.

These verses do not bother me at all, but your interpretation and use of them troubles me not a little.

 

Alright - Craigbythesea and all of you others - I DEMAND you go forth and bring back all the female missionaries back from overseas! Especially the single ones! Start with the cute young ones - my address available upon request.

Dont go its not church - it doesnt count - we are the church - the building is squat

Lets also take the example of Deborah - judge of Israel

The principle is not that women shouldnt teach its that they should do so in their proper place and time and in submission to the correct authorities.

IE - if the pastor or an elder or a husband if he's capable - taint reviewing the lessons the lass is giving - then they are at fault and not the woman

And some of you for shame - I want you to call your mothers and tell them - Mom, I love you but since I was 18 you had no right to teach me anything; and you have no rights to do so now either.

Im not so foolish so as to think my mother cannot teach me things even as she gets old and decrepit - shes not decrepit yet tho....

Because again the building is nothing - WE ARE THE CHURCH - if two or more are gathered in My name; I am there

Well lesseee yer ma - Christian so thats one
you a Christian thats one

1+1 = 2
That equals church

Dont make me tell yer moms on you

 

I know. That wasn't the issue at hand.

That is exactly what the passage says. Your interpretation again depends on the best possible scenario for you. The text does not demand this, nor should it, in light of Scripture, be read into it.

Which is just what I said above. You are leaning on a slightly possible interpretation that doesn't prove your point anyway.

My brother Clint, I hope you know my respect and fondness for you, but I cannot accept these interpretations because they do not comport with the clear teaching of Scripture, and in eveyr single case, there is a clear meaning that does comport with the clear teaching of Scripture. You are, in essence, taking the clear teaching of 1 Tim 2 and subverting it to questionable interpretations. I do not believe that to be a sound hermeneutic.

 

These people can put whatever sign they like in front of their building, but they are not a church, let alone a baptist church.

Any group of people who allows perverts to join and be active members is in need of the Gospel themselves.

 

Sad! Heartbreaking! Maranatha!

 

Larry: I know. That wasn't the issue at hand. </font>[/QUOTE]No the issue was that in Proverbs 31:26, the virtuous woman/wife of whom the mother is giving oracle is declared a wisdom teacher. You are correct, there was no church at the time, wouldn't be for some centuries to come, but as the overall theology of Proverbs is that wisdom comes from fear of the Lord, it is hard to dismiss that her teaching was religious in nature. Unless you are perhaps contending that the New Testament reversed that role after the founding of the church? Please let me know and I will shift my defense to all New Testament.

For the time being I will drop the issue of Acts 18:26, though the interpretation is not mine alone, to be certain and is certainly one of the most straightforward statements towards a woman teacher. Even the Bible versions that put Priscilla second in Acts 18 place her name first in Romans 16:3 and 2Timothy 4:19. This certainly suggests how dominate her personality was in Paul's ministry.

Larry: Which is just what I said above. You are leaning on a slightly possible interpretation that doesn't prove your point anyway.</font>[/QUOTE]That Timothy was a Jewish/Greek halfbreed growing up in Lystra coupled with the fact that "from a child" is more literally "from infancy" leaves little wiggle room for Paul's insinuation not being towards Lois and Eunice as part of the from "whom he had learned", particulary in light of the mention of them in 2Timothy 1:5.

I appreciate that, Larry and I think we can, at worst, agree to disagree. However, as I'm sure you are aware, not all of the cards have yet been laid down. Titus 2:3 states that older women are to be "likewise," referring to verse 1 addressing the older men, "teachers of good things." The clause for teaching younger women occurs in the following verse and "teachers" is not gramatically reliant upon the condition that their "students" be younger women.

I would ask, however, are there other verses that support women NOT being teachers outside of 1Timothy 2:12 and 1Corinthians 14:34 (which we can address if that is part of your position)? Or are we defending against a position built upon two verses?

 

Is she?

-- King James
Proverbs 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

-- New King James
Proverbs 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness.

-- American Standard
Proverbs 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; And the law of kindness is on her tongue.

-- Revised Standard
Proverbs 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

-- Transliterated, Unaccented
Proverbs 31:26 Piyha patchah bchakmah wtowrat- checed `al- lshownah.

-- New American Standard
Proverbs 31:26 She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Proverbs 31:26 When she opens her mouth, she does so wisely;
on her tongue is kindly instruction.

-- New American with Apocrypha
Proverbs 31:26 She opens her mouth in wisdom,
and on her tongue is kindly counsel.

-- New Revised Standard with Apocrypha
Proverbs 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

-- Young's Bible
Proverbs 31:26 Her mouth she hath opened in wisdom, And the law of kindness [is] on her tongue.

-- Darby's Bible
Proverbs 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and upon her tongue is the law of kindness.

-- Webster's Bible
Proverbs 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and on her tongue [is] the law of kindness.

-- Latin Vulgate
Proverbs 31:26 phe os suum aperuit sapientiae et lex clementiae in lingua eius

 

Tow things. First, it does not say in what capacity she teaches. It could very well be a lifestyle teaching which is very common in Proverbs. Second, it could be secular teaching, or general life teaching as opposed to church teaching. The prohibition in the NT is not simply about women in authority. It is about the church specifically, and I think that carries more weight than you are allowing.

I agree, but a mother teaching her child is the biblical responsibility and is in no way in view in Paul's declaration in 1 Tim 2. I have no problem that Eunice and Lois taught Timothy from childhood. I would have a problem if they didn't. But that is a different scenario than is being considered in 1 Tim 2.

I think that is clear in the text. The teaching is so that younger women may learn ... I think that would be the weakest verse you have mentioned yet.

How many verses does it take for something to be true, especially when those verses have such extreme clarity? I would argue no more is necessary, and the not so clear passages that you appeal to should be interpreted in light of the clear passage of 1 Tim 2 which specifically addresses teaching and authority in the church.