End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

When I was growing up Brother AO Holmes had a woman preach his campmeeting...I cannot remember if it was every night or one night of it...lol...Brother Scheel would know...

In my experience, even ministers who opposed women as pastors would occasionally allow a woman to speak. My own father did that a few times.

My problem with this debate is that the "silence in the church" is usually only taken literally in reference to preaching, when in fact, Paul specifically mentioned teaching and nothing else. The same people who oppose women preaching are often fine with them singing, testifying, prophesying or teaching Sunday School classes. That's inconsistent.

If they are going to take the passage literally, it should be to ban women from teaching positions--but not from preaching, prophesying, evangelizing or prophesying. The "usurp authority" part is not a problem, because as long as you aren't acting on your own authority, you aren't out of line with that part of the scripture. It's the "silence" part of the passage that is problematic.

I have difficulty taking anyone seriously if they don't first apply their own interpretations and line of logic consistently.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

In my experience, even ministers who opposed women as pastors would occasionally allow a woman to speak. My own father did that a few times.

My problem with this debate is that the "silence in the church" is usually only taken literally in reference to preaching, when in fact, Paul specifically mentioned teaching and nothing else. The same people who oppose women preaching are often fine with them singing, testifying, prophesying or teaching Sunday School classes. That's inconsistent.

If they are going to take the passage literally, it should be to ban women from teaching positions--but not from preaching, prophesying, evangelizing or prophesying. The "usurp authority" part is not a problem, because as long as you aren't acting on your own authority, you aren't out of line with that part of the scripture. It's the "silence" part of the passage that is problematic.

I have difficulty taking anyone seriously if they don't first apply their own interpretations and line of logic consistently.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

In my experience, even ministers who opposed women as pastors would occasionally allow a woman to speak. My own father did that a few times.

My problem with this debate is that the "silence in the church" is usually only taken literally in reference to preaching, when in fact, Paul specifically mentioned teaching and nothing else. The same people who oppose women preaching are often fine with them singing, testifying, prophesying or teaching Sunday School classes. That's inconsistent.

If they are going to take the passage literally, it should be to ban women from teaching positions--but not from preaching, prophesying, evangelizing or prophesying. The "usurp authority" part is not a problem, because as long as you aren't acting on your own authority, you aren't out of line with that part of the scripture. It's the "silence" part of the passage that is problematic.

I have difficulty taking anyone seriously if they don't first apply their own interpretations and line of logic consistently.

The passage in question, like all passages, have context. The individual context - sentence context. Then thought context such as a paragraph. Then the whole context of scripture. This is known as the hermeneutical circle.

"The hermeneutic circle (German: hermeneutischer Zirkel) describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context."
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Hermeneutic_...=2801&qsrc=999


With that said the passage is literal. However, Paul made exceptions to this. He is simply preventing women from taking the initiative in speaking and allows for exceptions when there are genuine pneumatic endowment - Holy Ghost inspiration through the gifts of the Spirit. Not teaching nor preaching to men but as a proclamation of something outside the natural possibility of knowledge. This origin of "prophecy" is not through the will of man but through the Spirit alone which provides the pronunciation. Women are also told to teach other women and children. Thus the single verse in literal and in context with the whole Paul allowed exceptions.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

In my experience, even ministers who opposed women as pastors would occasionally allow a woman to speak. My own father did that a few times.

My problem with this debate is that the "silence in the church" is usually only taken literally in reference to preaching, when in fact, Paul specifically mentioned teaching and nothing else. The same people who oppose women preaching are often fine with them singing, testifying, prophesying or teaching Sunday School classes. That's inconsistent.

If they are going to take the passage literally, it should be to ban women from teaching positions--but not from preaching, prophesying, evangelizing or prophesying. The "usurp authority" part is not a problem, because as long as you aren't acting on your own authority, you aren't out of line with that part of the scripture. It's the "silence" part of the passage that is problematic.

I have difficulty taking anyone seriously if they don't first apply their own interpretations and line of logic consistently.

And, as you've been told over & over - go back & re-read this thread for my textual response to the ol' "complete silence" argument. Context & grammar, context & grammar - & this has been explained over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over - & OVER on this thread.


And, we're still waiting for an adequate textual explanation of I Timothy 2.11-14:___________?.....And probably still will be in eternity !

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

And, as you've been told over & over - go back & re-read this thread for my textual response to the ol' "complete silence" argument. Context & grammar, context & grammar - & this has been explained over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over - & OVER on this thread.


And, we're still waiting for an adequate textual explanation of I Timothy 2.11-14:___________?.....And probably still will be in eternity !

I'm not going to read through hundreds of posts that aren't going to answer my specific questions. If you don't want to discuss the topic with me, that's your prerogative.

And I haven't been told anything "over and over." I've barely participated in this thread.

[MissBrattified]

I guess I can walk through the passage, although I thought that particular request was pointed at Sister Alvear. I'm at a disadvantage from the scholars since I only have my Bible and a Strong's concordance to guide me.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Let the woman learn in quietness with all obedience.

I believe this refers to an attitude of obedience and subjection, not literal silence. No one likes a loud, boisterous, obnoxious woman who asks foolish questions. For that matter, no one cares for a man like that, either.


But I suffer not a woman to teach,

But I permit not a woman to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, [or] deliver didactic discourses, instill doctrine, explain or expound a thing

In my opinion, THIS is the only truly problematic portion of this entire passage. I don't understand why Paul would hone in on teaching--but not preaching, prophesying, praying, singing, testifying, etc. However, that is precisely what he did. Did Paul mean that HE didn't permit women to teach or that NO ONE should permit women to teach? Also, he goes out of his way to basically state that this is his opinion when he says "I permit not...." He didn't say "God permits not" or even "the church permits not." Whether it's accurate or not, this does leave room for the understanding of this passage to be Paul's personal preference rather than a church-wide, timeless mandate.

nor to usurp authority over the man,

nor to act of oneself, dominate, act on one's own authority, govern, or exercise dominion over the man

Back to verse 11...same feeling here. This is about acting within boundaries and under authority. If there are no elders, no husbands, no deacons and no men who object and a woman is asked to speak, then she is not "usurping authority"; she is still acting out of submission. Acting of oneself would be walking up to the platform, taking the mic, and speaking without permission. It would be standing up in the middle of a sermon, interrupting and taking over. That's being insubordinate--and out of order.


but to be in silence.

but to be in quietness. (Strong's says: description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others)

I believe this does indicate what a Christian woman's attitude is to be, but this doesn't require literal silence, and it doesn't require that a woman never speak to the church.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

This points to the different ways in which Adam and Eve were enticed to sin. Eve was deceived and sinned; Adam sinned, knowing full well what he was doing. I think this points to a woman's innocence, somewhat, and her ability to be easily "beguiled." I understand Paul's point here to say that men are less easily deceived and therefore in a better position to teach clear doctrine and answer questions.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pliny

...With that said the passage is literal. However, Paul made exceptions to this. He is simply preventing women from taking the initiative in speaking and allows for exceptions when there are genuine pneumatic endowment - Holy Ghost inspiration through the gifts of the Spirit.

I agree with you 100% here. I agree that women are to only act under authority, and I agree the exceptions are allowed for inspiration by the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is an argument from silence. You assume Luke preached when that has never been hinted at. ....

I'm not assuming that. I'm simply pointing out that, due to lack of evidence to the contrary, you can't assert definitively that he was not. Ergo, it's a poor argument.

Originally Posted by rdp

Teaching & Preaching are used interchangeably in Scripture. Or, are you suggesting that when someone is "teaching" they are not "preaching" ?

I'm only interested in the biblical definition and apparent distinction between the two.

Shall I repost (for about the 50th time) the lexical definition of "teach" in I Tim. 2.12 - (only to be completely ignored of course)?

Sure. Repost it.

Originally Posted by RJR

I am not so sure the early church had a clear line of demarcation between the two. Teaching can clearly become preaching and vice versa.

Notice the interchangeableness of the terms in these parallel gospels.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Act 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ....

I do see that, but the definitions aren't interchangeable. When Mark said "preach" he used the word "kerysso", and Matthew used the word teach (matheteuo) which has a very different meaning. Was one of them misquoting?

If you take Colossians 1:28 apart and couple it with your position, you could argue that anyone can "preach" to "warn every man", but women must refrain from "teaching...wisdom."

Originally Posted by RJR

...Would you say that the ministry referred to in Eph 4:11 was not preachers?

I don't think they are necessarily preachers. The only role that seems to demand it would be that of the evangelist, and that one is subjective. I actually was surprised to find that it didn't mention preachers. I had forgotten and mentally replaced "pastors" with "preachers."

[RJR]

In regards to Eph 4:11 being preachers you responded...

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't think they are necessarily preachers. The only role that seems to demand it would be that of the evangelist, and that one is subjective. I actually was surprised to find that it didn't mention preachers. I had forgotten and mentally replaced "pastors" with "preachers."

All that would be necessary is to show where an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher ever preached. Yes, they are preachers! Truly, I amazed at the straws that many will grasp for instead of embracing what the Bible says...

A woman is not speak in the church, which has been clearly demonstrated to be in the sense of teaching and exercising authority over the man.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by RJR

In regards to Eph 4:11 being preachers you responded...



All that would be necessary is to show where an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher ever preached. Yes, they are preachers! Truly, I amazed at the straws that many will grasp for instead of embracing what the Bible says...

A woman is not speak in the church, which has been clearly demonstrated to be in the sense of teaching and exercising authority over the man.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by RJR

In regards to Eph 4:11 being preachers you responded...

All that would be necessary is to show where an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher ever preached. Yes, they are preachers! Truly, I amazed at the straws that many will grasp for instead of embracing what the Bible says...

You're implying motive on my part that doesn't exist. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not arguing for the right to preach. However, I respect many women who have spoken to the entire church with the permission of their pastor, husband and/or elders, and I don't see how they are out of line with scripture since they are still subordinate. I've been in the church since I was born, and I have seen women who fell into both categories. Usually it's obvious to everyone when a woman is out of line and when she's acting in subjection to her own authorities.

Your take seems to be that teaching itself is equal to usurping authority. It seems to me that the usurping authority is what makes the teaching a negative thing. When a woman takes charge and acts of her own accord, out from under the authority of her elders and/or husband, then she "usurps authority" and has no right to teach.

My point with Eph 4:11 is only to say that a person can fulfill some offices without having to preach. For instance, a man could pastor a church or be a deacon without preaching. A man can be an elder without preaching. A man can teach and not preach. On the other hand, looking at the Strong's definitions, it appears to me that teaching is expounding on scripture, doctrine and moral teaching, while preaching is a more generic term proclaiming the Gospel/good news and would seem to be something we are all supposed to do. So maybe all Christians must preach, but only some will teach?

A woman is not speak in the church, which has been clearly demonstrated to be in the sense of teaching and exercising authority over the man.

If every man present is fine with it and a woman's authority figures are asking her to speak, then how is she usurping authority over anyone? What about in a more intimate setting, such as staff meetings? Our pastor sometimes asks the Sunday School teachers to prepare a devotional for all of the other teachers, some of whom are men. When we have our quarterly meetings, the teachers take turns sharing devotionals. How are you drawing a line between what is appropriate and what isn't, scripturally speaking?

Also, the fact that other authors used the words teach and preach interchangeably doesn't negate the fact that Paul only mentioned teaching, which has a distinct definition in the Greek. Adding preaching to the mix may be a valid conclusion, following a certain logic, but it definitely has to be inferred.