Comments on: Only one verse prohibits women to teach men?

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:35:10 +0000

Greg,
I just read the page you quoted on-line in Grudem’s book and he completely ignores the “two or three witnesses” rule concerning a charge of sin. None one of the verses that he quotes is a charge of sin. This is a very weak point as he then has to explain why God would pick a book written to an individual instead of a church to create a brand new law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men. It would then become the only law that is spoken as a law coming from a man instead of God, only law that isn’t repeated in scripture, only law that has an obscure word in it uniquely used in this passage and extremely rarely used outside the NT that has had theologians puzzling over it for years. On top of that we have the end result of the prohibition given as the salvation of women if we take what some say is the “clear” meaning. I think it is about time that these men are challenged with the inconsistencies that their charge of sin creates and then have them explain why God has given women who do not see this passage as forbidding all women from teaching men, a second witness so that they can be sure of their “sin”? Is God prejudiced against women? I would like to see these men in the hot seat having to answer the really hard questions. I didn’t find any explanation in Grudem’s book why there is just one sin that doesn’t have a second witness. Perhaps he is unaware that this is a requirement and he might have to be taught.

By: Greg Anderson

Greg Anderson — Mon, 12 May 2008 06:15:08 +0000

Hey ya’ll, a lot of what many comps. out there rely on, is Grudem’s book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. On page 362 he says: “The Bible has to say something only once for it to be true and God’s word for us.” He goes on to cite examples that on the surface seem to be sound and that the conclusion necessarily follows that women are not permitted to teach or hold leadership positions in the church.
I’ve noticed a pattern with these guys, Grudem, Slick, MacArthur et al. , they rely on preaching to choirs of rubes, undecideds, and people afraid to think critically for themselves. They win by intimidation. If they had to face somebody like Cheryl, Paula, or Greg Koukle, they’d turn tail, bail and spout something to the effect of “may God have mercy on your soul” Maybe they’d throw holy water too? like in the old Dracula flicks?

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Mon, 12 May 2008 03:30:30 +0000

tiro3,

I will see about writing a post. It may take a bit since I am about done for the day and may not get back to this for a day or two. Thanks for prompting me!

Lin,

Good thoughts! You are so right in that this one verse taken out of context conflicts with so many other scriptures. We either have to make all kinds of “exceptions” to the rule but even then verse 15 doesn’t fit the idea that Paul is restricting all women because we then don’t know who “she” and “they” are. Paul was a master at his language. He was very deep and with the Holy Spirit’s leading, he was very precise with his grammar. In fact he made verse 15 so precise that there is no other that “a woman” to attach the “she” to and that causes all kinds of problems with our hierarchy theology. When we drop the hierarchy things start falling into place and we can allow Paul to define his own terms.

By: Lin

Lin — Mon, 12 May 2008 02:44:37 +0000

What is amazing about this is that he claims this is a definite prohibition for all women to teach all men but then ignores so many other passages that are obvious ’exceptions’ to this supposed rule. Even one exception in the NT would negate the ‘rule’ or prohibition. At the most, they could argue this is the rule from ‘Paul’ for the Ephesian church. That is it. But since the grammar is singular, that does not work.

The only problem Paul had with women prophesying was whether their heads should be covered or not while doing so! He assumed they were doing it within the Body in 1 Corin 11!

We have too many examples of women prophesying (including the fulfillement of prophecy at Pentecost) publicly that cannot be ignored or explained away easily. They simply are ignored and all focus on this one verse. It really is ridiculous when one thinks about it.

As my step dad says, if you want to know what Paul thinks of women in the church, read Romans 16. :o)

By: tiro3

tiro3 — Mon, 12 May 2008 01:09:42 +0000

Very good case, both of you. It would be good if you could write a post about this (minus M.Slick references) for the EqualityCentral Blog.

These points need to be spread around the internet. YES! \o/\o/\o/

By: Paula

Paula — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:49:51 +0000

I’ve written before that if something is a law, then there must be penalties for breaking it. This is of particular importance on the issue of legalism and whether the old Levitical Law applies to Christians. The fact that there are no penalties in the NT for, say, failing to tithe, tells us it is not a law for us.

Likewise, if something is a sin, then there must be prescribed penalties for committing it, or remedies for forgiveness. No such penalties or remedies exist in the NT for a woman preaching correct doctrine, so it cannot be a sin. And if it is not a sin, then we must ask whether it applies under the general principle of being considerate of the “weak in faith” or the surrounding culture, per Romans 14. This is exactly the case with head coverings, especially for Christian women married to unbelieving men.

I think this argument is even tougher for male supremacists to circumvent.

Slick again commits a logical fallacy in this case, trying to equate the non-repeating of Heb. 10:25 as proof that God doesn’t have to repeat a law. His error lies in calling this a law at all. Is every grammatical command in the NT to be called a law? Hardly. Does he actually think Paul, the great liberator from the old law, went about making up new ones that were on the same plane as the old? Hardly.

The fact is that Heb. 10:25 is not a law, and there is no law against women teaching true doctrine either. Neither is repeated; neither carries penalties for violation. Slick apparently does not understand why you’re making the point about repeated laws at all. You’re saying we know it’s not a law because it’s not repeated, but he thinks everything is a law.

Paul prescribed actions to take against the man who had his father’s wife, and against false teachers, and John wrote strongly against “proud Diotrephes” who put people out of the church. But where is the penalty for women teaching the truth? What does the NT tell us to do as punishment? If the NT gives instructions for other things then why not for this? The answer, of course, is that it isn’t a sin, a law, or even an impropriety.