Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)
Why was he so adamant and are there any Christians who support this. After all, it IS in the bible, it IS contextual, and it can not be misinterpreted.
And please, let us not go with the cultural gambit one hears often. The Taliban use that one also.
If that were the case, then you need to read Romans. For the entire purpose of that letter was to send Phoebe to be deacon of the Christian community in Rome, the most important city of the ancient world. And he asked that they do what she required of them.
Prior to Paul, no man had ever written as much about the importance of women in his work. In fact, I dare anyone to find another man up to the 20th century who gave credit to so many different women.
There are about 29 women mentioned by name in the New Testament. Paul and his disciple Luke name all of them. Without Paul, the only New Testament women we'd know by name would be Mary, Mary, Mary, Martha, and Salome.
It was Paul who stated that husbands and wives had sexual equality, which was a jaw-dropper in that time and culture. It was also Paul who stated that an unmarried woman had the right to remain unmarried if that was her desire--another jaw-dropper. Paul had no ability to declare that men and women were equal in Roman society (it was not his mission to "fix" the Roman empire), but he did declare them spiritually equal--which was also a very new thing for that time and culture.
As has been mentioned already, Paul decleared Phoebe to be a deacon in the Church, and he spoke of Syntache and Euodia as striving by his side for the gospel. There is some disputed scripture that he called a woman named Junia an apostle. He spoke of his friend Priscilla in terms equal to that of her husband.
All of this was extraordinary for his time and place, and would have been extraordinary for a man in any time or place right up to the close of the 20th century.
Now, there are two statements all this "Paul is a myscogenist" talk derives from. The first is a clear misunderstanding of the times and terminologies.
The first is the issue of women as teachers. What was in Paul's mind when he said "teacher?" In Paul's time, the concept of a "teacher" was perhaps most similar to "sensei" today. It was an extremely close and authoritative personal relationship, with the teacher having utter disciplinary and doctrinal authority over the student. We can see this in the gospels in Jesus' authority over His disciples: Absolute.
Paul declared that he did not permit a man to be discipled under a woman in such a relationship. However, Paul also wrote that older women should be teachers over younger women. In other words, Paul prohibited "co-ed" teaching and wanted young men to be discipled under older men, young women under older women. Given the absolutely authoritative nature of "teaching" in that day, that was certainly reasonable.
"Teaching" in Paul's understanding did not include positions that lacked such authority. Someone who merely expounded the gospel (as Priscilla did to Apollos) was not a "teacher." A prophet was not a "teacher."
Let's go back to Phoebe for a moment. The context of Paul's commendation of Phoebe to the church in Rome suggests that Phoebe was the head of the delegation he sent there with the charge of hand-delivering the most important theological treatise he'd written. Certainly a woman did not make such a journey alone, and not even with other women. Phoebe--probably an older wealthy woman--would have been leading young men in the delgation to Rome. This was not the inherent authority of the master-disciple relationship, though, but a delegated authority.
The other verse was about women keeping "silent" in the church. Does this mean "absolutely silent?" Certainly not. Only a few verses before, Paul is talking about women giving prophesies during the service.
But he specifies "asking questions." This is significant because "asking questions" relates directly to the aspect of the master/discipleship relationship. Teachers taught by the Socratic method--asking questions of students and the students asking questions of their teachers. A student's understanding was measured by the depth of his questions.
Going back to the gospel of Luke, we see that Jesus astounded the lawyers and scribes of the temple by the quality of His questions to them. "Asking questions" was what students did of teachers.
In this case, by "asking questions" these women were insinuating themselves into a co-ed master/disciple relationship with male teachers that Paul had already prohbited. If they were married, they should have been asking questions of their husbands; if they were unmarried they should have been asking questions of their female teachers.
How would gender roles be an indication of "love"? They are an innate part of who we are. I feel you are assuming that someone has chosen to place limitations on one gender within the faith community by their own will. Most rather seem to believe those limitations were placed by their God and not by them. Of course when we as humans disagree with something we prefer to attack those closest to us rather than take it to the one who is the source for a variety of reasons.
Yes, indeed, and that is the point; such control is not love and not of God.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)
Why was he so adamant and are there any Christians who support this. After all, it IS in the bible, it IS contextual, and it can not be misinterpreted.
And please, let us not go with the cultural gambit one hears often. The Taliban use that one also.
The verse is saying that man is be the authority over the woman. Of course a woman that actually Follows Christ would embrace this.
That means you are insane. You are claiming a fact to not be so. If God placed them you cannot say God did not place them. Perhaps you should limit your discussion to some particular limitation that you see being placed that is clearly not placed by God rather than just say that what God did He did not do. Not logical.
That means you are insane. You are claiming a fact to not be so. If God placed them you cannot say God did not place them. Perhaps you should limit your discussion to some particular limitation that you see being placed that is clearly not placed by God rather than just say that what God did He did not do. Not logical.
The corollary is not that I am insane, but that the information that God placed them is wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
