Women Are Not To Teach From The Pulpit or In Church Media.

.
FAQ: Miriam was a prophet (Ex 15:20) Deborah was a prophet (Judg 4:4) and
Huldah was a prophet (2Kgs 22:14). How was it okay for those women to teach
and/or preach?


REPLY: Christ's association with his church trumps the prophets' association with
the Jews. I do not recommend using them as loop-holes to circumvent matters
pertaining to the governance and/or operations of Christian congregations.
_
 
Last edited:
.
1Cor 14:33-35 . . As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain
silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as
the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

How was Aimee Semple McPherson-- founder of Four Square Church --exempt from
that rule? And what bout Ellen G. White, founder of Seventh Day Adventism?
_
 
Then what does the verse mean? I'm not challenging you...just asking.

What it doesn't refer to is teaching from the pulpit, as the 1st century church consisted of house churches with no such thing as a pulpit.

The word authority, only used in the NT here has a connotation of domineering (link) rather than the mild term of "authority". Paul isn't putting women in general in their place or expecting single women to be in subjection to people who aren't their husbands. Instead, he's identifying a specific problem that is out of bounds of good behavior (Christian or otherwise).

In contrast to how the OP wants to twist the verse, Paul is quite the believer that women are of expected to pray and prophecy (1 Cor 11:5), teach and sing (1 Cor 14:26), and to teach again (Titus 2:3-4).

My suspicion (relying on the exposition of the late Dr. Gordon Fee) is that Christianity was quite womens lib compared to the Roman environment they were in, and some of the women had obviously taken their newfound equality in Christ a little far. The context of 1 Tim is dealing with teachers who don't know what they are talking about (1:3-11), and I suspect the group of women in view are part of the target audience. These women should learn (2:11) before they teach.
 
.
FAQ: Miriam was a prophet (Ex 15:20) Deborah was a prophet (Judg 4:4) and
Huldah was a prophet (2Kgs 22:14). How was it okay for those women to teach
and/or preach?
Female prophets have to do their prophesying outside the formal church meeting, I guess. May be write a book of prophesy, like Nostradamus. Can't say I've ever come across a female prophet to date.
How was Aimee Semple McPherson-- founder of Four Square Church --exempt from
that rule? And what bout Ellen G. White, founder of Seventh Day Adventism?
They weren't exempt. Not everyone can accept Paul's teaching. He said as much. Some will always be content with an inferior sort of Christianity.
 
.
1Cor 14:33-35 . . As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain
silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as
the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

How was Aimee Semple McPherson-- founder of Four Square Church --exempt from
that rule? And what bout Ellen G. White, founder of Seventh Day Adventism?
_

The answer to your question is simple. The verse didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts. Paul didn't write it.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/why-would-1-cor-143435-be-an-interpolation
 
.
Beware: the antiquity of a manuscript isn't an eo ipso guarantee of its reliability.
For example: misinformation was being propagated by professing Christians even
while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, Jud 1:3-4, 2Pet 3:15-16, 1John
2:18-19). The so-called "better" manuscripts may in fact be our worst sources.
_
 
.
Beware: the antiquity of a manuscript isn't an eo ipso guarantee of its reliability.
For example: misinformation was being propagated by professing Christians even
while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, Jud 1:3-4, 2Pet 3:15-16, 1John
2:18-19). The so-called "better" manuscripts may in fact be our worst sources.
_

The fact that the verses are off topic should be a clue that they don't belong. The next clue ought to be that the verses are not in the same place across the manuscripts which is a strong indicator that they were a later insertion. The next clue after that is that they directly contradict other statements by Paul within the letter.

There are several red flags for these verses and it should be with great trepidation that anybody should use them to assert any sort of doctrine.
 
I tend to believe this is particular to the church in question because Paul also refers to Nympha and Apphia who have churches in their houses elsewhere
 
The next clue after that is that they directly contradict other statements by Paul within the letter.
There is no internal contradiction between 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14. 1 Cor 11 isn't even talking about an assembly of the ecclesia. You need to distinguish the formal meeting of the ecclesia from what people did outside of such meetings.

Moreover the verses in 1 Cor 14, which are limited to the ecclesia, are strongly supported by circumstantial evidences: (a) the very name "ecclesia" in Greek was taken directly from an assembly limited to males over 18 years old, (b) gender segregation in Judaism in relation to the formalities of the temple, including Levitical priesthood limited to men, (c) the further arguments in 1 Tim 2:11,12.
 
This is Pauls gospel not Jesus. I dont remember Jesus making those laws only out from Pauls religious beliefs not Jesus.

That is why I follow the way of Jesus instead of Paul, he made up his own rules for his religious beliefs. Compare the two in their doctrines and see.
Apparently, you don’t believe Jesus either.
Jesus actually called and authorized Paul and his apostleship.

Luke wrote about Jesus AND he wrote about Paul

How do you explain accepting Luke’s writing about Jesus but you reject Luke’s writing about Paul ⁉️⁉️

Luke explains both Paul’s encounter with Jesus and his subsequent conversion.

Sure seems you just gratuitously pick and choose whatever scripture you wanna accept.
 

Wallace concludes "The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text.2 Otherwise, we have a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity). There are apparently no manuscripts that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above."
 
There is no internal contradiction between 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14. 1 Cor 11 isn't even talking about an assembly of the ecclesia. You need to distinguish the formal meeting of the ecclesia from what people did outside of such meetings.

Moreover the verses in 1 Cor 14, which are limited to the ecclesia, are strongly supported by circumstantial evidences: (a) the very name "ecclesia" in Greek was taken directly from an assembly limited to males over 18 years old, (b) gender segregation in Judaism in relation to the formalities of the temple, including Levitical priesthood limited to men, (c) the further arguments in 1 Tim 2:11,12.

If men were covering their heads in Romans 11 it was most definitely in the context of a religious gathering. See Plutarch's "Roman Questions" (link).

As Christians are not a part of the Levitical priesthood, but are priests after the order of Melchizedek, it would be improper to apply Levitical priesthood laws to the situation.

1 Tim 2:11-12 are addressed previously in the thread.
 
If men were covering their heads in Romans 11 it was most definitely in the context of a religious gathering. See Plutarch's "Roman Questions" (link).
Not every religious gathering is an ecclesia. The ecclesia was a special gathering of the whole church.

As Christians are not a part of the Levitical priesthood, but are priests after the order of Melchizedek, it would be improper to apply Levitical priesthood laws to the situation.
Not necessarily. There is a certain element of ritual associated with the ecclesia. Christ said that when people gather together he is present amongst them, so it is like the High Priest going into the Holy of holies. Paul refers to certain formalities associated with the breaking of bread: there must be order. The order of man over women persists in all of Pauls teachings, even in 1 Cor 11:3. Indeed because of 1 Cor 11:3, we would have to invent 1 Cor 14:34,35 if it wasn't already written.

1 Tim 2:11-12 are addressed previously in the thread.
I completely repudiate your idea that 1 Tim 2:11-12 only applies to husband-wife. The Greek word ἀνήρ is far too general to infer husband of itself. The use of ἴδιος (one's own) would be required to infer a husband. In 1 Tim 2:12 ἀνήρ is anarthrous (without even the article) so such means a male. Also γυνή is anarthrous so it just means a female.

Whatever bible translation you're using, junk it immediately, as it's bigotted and inaccurate.
 

Wallace concludes "The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text.2 Otherwise, we have a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity). There are apparently no manuscripts that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above."

You mean marks like these.


R.5ca02a0406e9e2d7d37838a2cb66f14e




I encourage people to do their own research, and start with reading the passage

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


This law is either

1) an unquoted OT law which nobody seems to be able to point to and Paul wasn't interested in imposing on Christians anyway (See Acts 15)​

or

2) This was a Roman law. If it is a Roman law, women and churches should feel free to ignore it.​


 
I think the reasons go deeper. Paul gives an answer:
13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

It is not dependant upon situational circumstances or customs of that day.
Actually it IS. The churches Paul's writing to are in areas of Diana / Artimis worship WHICH IS MATRIARCHAL. and teaches tha EVE was formed FIRST, and is the one with the "spiritual horsepower" NOT Adam. So obviously in a age-old social culture espousing MATRIARCHAL religion, you wouldn't want Immature Christian Women teaching ANYTHING, until they got grounded in the REAL FAITH and eschewed what they'd been taught to believe from their childhood on. IF a woma is called to preach-teach, then muzzling her (since there' no Male nor female (Gal 3:28) isn''t called for. Context Context Context!!!
 
1) an unquoted OT law which nobody seems to be able to point to and Paul wasn't interested in imposing on Christians anyway (See Acts 15)​
The law in question is Gen 3:16. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16.)

A law given by God himself, no less. Do they teach you anything worthwhile at your church?
 
Not every religious gathering is an ecclesia. The ecclesia was a special gathering of the whole church.


Not necessarily. There is a certain element of ritual associated with the ecclesia. Christ said that when people gather together he is present amongst them, so it is like the High Priest going into the Holy of holies. Paul refers to certain formalities associated with the breaking of bread: there must be order. The order of man over women persists in all of Pauls teachings, even in 1 Cor 11:3. Indeed because of 1 Cor 11:3, we would have to invent 1 Cor 14:34,35 if it wasn't already written.

The high priest went into the holy of holies alone and nobody was to be in the tabernacle (Lev 16:17). The breaking of bread is a passover celebration not a day of atonement celebration.

Further the idea that any man is head over my wife simply because he is male and my wife is female (as you are interpreting 1 Cor 11:3) is outright lunacy.
 
The law in question is Gen 3:16. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16.)

A law given by God himself, no less. Do they teach you anything worthwhile at your church?

That isn't a law. Laws don't proscribe desires. God is simply stating a fact given Adam and Eve's new situation. Likewise it isn't a law that the ground will be hard to farm, or childbirth will be painful. This fact also has no bearing on women being silent in meeting.

This fact happens to be husband and wife related. If you are using this to bolster your point on 1 Tim 2:12 about men and women in general versus the idea of husbands and wives, you've undercut yourself.
 
Back
Top