Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
You seem to have found a few liberal theologians to support your view.
In plain black and white:
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Matthew Pool commentary:
But I suffer not a woman to teach; not to teach in the public congregation, except she be a prophetess, endued with extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as Mary, and Anna, and Huldah, and Deborah, and some women in the primitive church, concerning whom we read, 1 Corinthians 11:5, that they prophesied.
Nor to usurp authority over the man: ordinary teaching of the woman was a usurpation of authority over the man, who is the head, which the apostle also forbade in 1 Corinthians 11:3, and here repeateth. It is probable that the speaking of some women in the church who had extraordinary revelations, imboldened others also to aim at the like, which the apostle here directs his speech against. Nevertheless women may, and it is their duty to instruct their children and families at home, especially in the absence of their husbands.
|
No verse is of its own interpretation. Yes, it is easy to look at this single verse and come to that conclusion.
But, Paul also said "in the church there is neither male nor female" -- you have not responded to this even though you used this very same concept to proclaim that James was wrong for writing to Jewish believers because "he was making a distinction between Jews and Gentiles" and in the church there is no "Jew nor Gentile".
There are other verses which charge older women to teach the younger women. Therefore there is no prohibition about teaching.
Matthew Pool tries to explain that "teaching a man" is equivalent to "usurping authority over a man". That is rarely ever true, though the one example I gave would be. Just like a company appoints a few individuals to have authority to speak on behalf of the organization (to the press, to the government, in response to certain public events) so too the church could. If you took it upon yourself to do this that would be equivalent to "usurping authority".
Then there are other verses that talk about the woman prophesying and praying in the meeting. You try to make a distinction between prophesying and teaching. I don't buy it. In my experience prophesying has much more authority than teaching.
Witness Lee understood that so he interpreted the teaching here as "defining doctrine". I don't buy that, it seems contrived.
The bottom line is that you are pushing an interpretation that is full of problems and does little to explain what is being said. Why, for example did Paul have female coworkers who were mentioned in a way that suggests they were leading coworkers?
Why do the NT teachings and the epistles of Paul support the women's suffrage movement?
You are the one who is forcing the square peg into a round hole.