In a recent posting on COGWRITER, "Are Women to Give Sermons?", Bob Thiel says...
"Let me make a few points.
First, while Tina Engelbart is entitled to her opinion about what she thinks the Greek means, the reality is that there is no record of Christian women preaching in either the New Testament nor in early Christian writings. While it is possible that the apostate Simon Magus may have had a female preach, and maybe some of the other apostates did, people who understood koine Greek at the time apparently did not feel that the Apostle Paul was allowing women to preach.
Second, UCG is correct that women should not be preaching. This is confirmed by the following passage that is in the Bible (hence, even allowing for a different translation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, this is not something only to be derived from the Talmud as Tina Engelbart indicates):
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
It is also a historically accurate position as the early COG did not have women preaching in services."
https://www.cogwriter.com/news/doctrine/are-women-to-give-sermons/
I would suggest that Dr Thiel keep reading to fully understand Paul's reasons for his opinions. And that this is just Paul's opinion.
Let me make a few points as well...
I Timothy 2:
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.... KEEP READING BOB 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
First of all, Paul says it is his rule. He does not permit it. It's his opinion and he has nothing from his hallucinatory Jesus to quote about the issue. Neither would he find anything in the Gospels which came long after his death.
Secondly, His opinion is based on the mythic story of Adam and Eve as to how men were first created and then women, (from the rib no less) of the first man Adam. The story is not literally true.
Paul makes Adam being created first a significant pecking order issue as to the differences between a man's authority and a woman's. The story of Adam and Eve is simply that, a story. You cannot take a myth, no matter what the context, to make up literally true rules.
The purpose of the story was to establish the fault of women for just about everything since time began and debunking goddess worship in the nations around Israel. The story is to promote Patriarchy in the form of Priests, Temples and Animal sacrifices as the way of Israel. The way of Matriarchy, as in the pagan nations worshipping fertility. agricultural phenomenon and the goddess was not going to be the way of Israel. This is the mentality of the Bronze and Iron Age and not the Computer and Space Age.
Thirdly, Paul makes the point that in his view and in the tale, Adam was not deceived. He was a total non-player, even in the story. The story actually reminds us that Adam was right there with Eve, but this is conveniently overlooked by Paul to make his opinion on the matter more valid and credible.
In reality, Adam evidently had a problem speaking up. At best, Adam was not in charge of the situation in the least. At worst, he was deceived equally "and did eat." They are both "transgressors" in this and equally. Paul downplays that reality so he can make his point and defend his position that woman are not to speak in church or sermonize. Paul had a personal problem with women in his life I suspect.
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it."
Genesis 3:16 16To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
How close women almost came to having painless and pleasurable childbirth! Thanks a lot Eve!
How convenient and ludicrous. In the story, Eve or no woman had yet given birth to another human, so it was evidently a convenient time to tell women that it would be painful and this is part of her punishment. I would like to suggest that had this story never been told, childbirth would probably still be painful but the reason would be simply because this kind of experience for a woman is painful.
It's kind of like the Jesuits showing up at an Indian village and announcing that if they did not turn over their land, they would make the Sun or the moon go dark. Knowing the timing of solar and lunar eclipses no doubt helped them along in this trickery. I would have loved to seen a knowledgeable tribe member tell them, "Ok, do it right now and we will, but if you fail, we'll burn you at the stake." "Yeah no...we gotta go"
Like Paul, Bob, that is merely your opinion, and have failed to tell the whole story.
So Women of the Church, If you would like to hear an hour and half of what Bob admits "might be a little controversial" and give the impression he's not quite sure himself about the topic, you will enjoy what your true "role" is.
Bob makes the poetic point that women "were not taken from the head of man to be over him nor from the feet to be trampled underfoot" as the nice quote goes, but from the rib as his equal, etc. The real reason women come from the rib of man is that men have lots of ribs and losing one is more because there are lots of them and won't be missed. Women weren't taken from fingers as one might need all ten along the way. Fingers are more significant than one of 24 ribs. So are men more than women.
When teaching anatomy in massage schools, I'd get to the anatomy of the rib cage and how breathing works and say "First of all we have 24 ribs...." Then I would wait. It was always a female student. Up goes the hand. "But men have one less right?" I'd say no but I understand where you get that from. They'd get upset because in church they were told the tale. My answer was that if I cut off your finger, your children would still have ten fingers at birth. And just counting modern-day man's ribs pretty much took care of the question. One said she was telling her dad what I said and I told her to have him call me if he'd like. (The "call me, let's reason together" is ever with me.) Dad must have chickened out. I admit I should not have said: "...and have him explain Santa to you too." It just slipped out.
"Enjoy..."
