The biblical case for women teaching women.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

— 1 Tim 2:11-15 KJV

A number of commenters have argued that Mary Kassian’s preaching is biblical because she is only preaching to other women.  This does seem to be a widely accepted (modern) view, and is the complementarian/CBMW view as well.  Yet while this is widely accepted, it is  surprisingly difficult to find clear exegetical arguments for this claim.

Note:  For the purpose of this post, the kind of teaching I am interested in is preaching and explaining Scripture.  Titus 2 encourages older women to teach younger women to be good wives, mothers, and homemakers, and this is not the kind of teaching I am focused on in this post.

My initial guess was that this was based on an assumption that “over the man” in 1 Tim 2:13 above applied both to authority and to teaching.  By this reading, the Apostle Paul wasn’t restricting women from teaching in general, but restricting women from teaching men.  Yet the way all translations I’ve seen render this verse it seems the more plain reading would be that women are not to teach and they are also not to have authority over men.  More importantly, the verses immediately prior and following strongly point in this same direction.  Prior to 1 Tim 2:12 Paul is saying women are to be silent and in subjection/submission.  After the verse he offers two reasons women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men.  The first reason is that Adam was created first;  this explains why Adam is the leader and not Eve, and why women are not to have authority over men.  The second reason offered is that Eve was the one who was deceived, not Adam;  this explains why women are not to teach.  If the reason women aren’t to teach is that they are more easily deceived, there is no reason to believe it is less dangerous to have women teaching women than having women teaching men.  Indeed, it would only be more dangerous to have the easily deceived teaching the easily deceived.

In search of the source of the argument.

But it could be that there is a better argument than the one I’m assuming, so I went to the 1991 book edited by Drs. John Piper and Wayne Grudem of the CBMW:  Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. The link is to a PDF file on the CBMW site, so I urge you to check it out and make sure I haven’t missed something. Alternately, for those who want the short version, you can skip to the summary and conclusion at the bottom of this post.

In Chapter 2 Grudem and Piper offer a sort of FAQ, and question 28 on page 66 touches on the topic.  They explain that contrary to the historical reading of 1 Timothy 2:14, they don’t think Paul was saying Eve was more easily deceived.  They instead have a new theory that they are “attracted to”. In this new theory, Paul is merely referring again to the creation order, reiterating what he just said in 1 Timothy 2:13:

28. Do you think women are more gullible than men?

First Timothy 2:14 says, “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Paul gives this as one of the reasons why he does not permit women “to teach or have authority over a man.” Historically this has usually been taken to mean that women are more gullible or deceivable than men and therefore less fit for the doctrinal oversight of the church. This may be true (see question 29). However, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument. We think that Satan’s main target was not Eve’s peculiar gullibility (if she had one), but rather Adam’s headship as the one ordained by God to be responsible for the life of the garden. Satan’s subtlety is that he knew the created order God had ordained for the good of the family, and he deliberately defied it by ignoring the man and taking up his dealings with the woman. Satan put her in the position of spokesman, leader, and defender. At that moment both the man and the woman slipped from their innocence and let themselves be drawn into a pattern of relating that to this day has proved destructive.

If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this:  “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”

In this case, the main point is not that the man is undeceivable or that the woman is more deceivable; the point is that when God’s order of leadership is repudiated it brings damage and ruin. Men and women are both more vulnerable to error and sin when they forsake the order that God has intended.

By their logic when Paul says “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” what he means is that Adam should have been the one who was deceived, but Eve took this honor from him.  This is a very strange, I would argue tortured, reading of the verse.  While they admit that this is not the traditional reading, their only argument in its favor is that they find it attractive.  They don’t explain why they find it attractive, but it should be obvious why this new interpretation is attractive in our feminist age.  But this points to another glaring flaw in their argument.  If what they are saying is true, Paul was wording his message in a way that was extremely likely to be misunderstood in the ancient world.  As feminists like to remind us, when the Paul sent the letter to Timothy the culture wasn’t as “enlightened” as it is now regarding women.  Clearly Paul would have expected contemporary readers to have understood him as saying women were more easily deceived.  This of course explains why this was the traditional reading.  But why would Paul word his letter to Timothy in such a way that the “real meaning” wouldn’t be apparent until 2000 years later, following the women’s liberation movement?

All of this is at the core of the matter, because as I will show their assumption of what Paul meant here is the foundation of the CBMW view that women are permitted to preach to women.  If you don’t accept their argument that Paul meant Adam was created first when he wrote Eve was the one who was deceived, you have to reject their conclusion that Paul was only forbidding women from teaching men.

Enter Dr. Douglass Moo

There is a full chapter in the book devoted to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 written by Dr. Douglass Moo:  “What does it mean not to teach or have authority over men?”  Dr. Moo breaks the verses down in great detail, and on page 181 he addresses the question of what kind of teaching this Scripture is talking about.  He concludes that the kind of teaching Paul is referring to is preaching, as well as some Bible studies:

In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching (note 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word . . . with careful instruction” [teaching, didache ̄]), and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities-leading Bible studies, for instance-may be included, depending on how they are done. Still others-evangelistic witnessing, counseling, teaching subjects other than Bible or doctrine-are not, in our opinion, teaching in the sense Paul intends here.

This is exactly the type of teaching Kassian is doing, and it fits with my reading of the text;  I wouldn’t read it as being in contradiction to the kind of teaching Paul urges women to do in Titus 2:3-5:

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

There is an obvious difference between urging younger women to live as submissive wives and homemakers, and preaching or otherwise explaining the meaning of Scripture.

Next Moo tackles the core question;  does this prohibit women from preaching to other women, or just prohibit them from preaching to men?  Moo makes an astonishingly weak argument.  All he argues is that you can read the verse either way, and then claims that Titus 2:3-4 indicates that Paul must have intended to allow women to preach to women:

C. Is Every Kind of Teaching Prohibited, Or Only Teaching of Men?

Is Paul prohibiting women from all teaching? We do not think so. The word man (andros), which is plainly the object of the verb have authority (authentein), should be construed as the object of the verb teach also. This construction is grammatically unobjectionable, 16 and it alone suits the context, in which Paul bases the prohibitions of verse 12 on the created differences between men and women (verse 13). Indeed, as we have argued, this male/female differentiation pervades this passage and comes to direct expression in the word that immediately precedes verse 12, submission. Paul’s position in the pastoral epistles is, then, consistent: he allows women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-4), 17 but prohibits them to teach men.

His claim that this is required to make the verse consistent with Titus 2 doesn’t make sense, because he already stated that this is about preaching and teaching doctrine, not about urging other women to be good mothers and wives.  This leaves us with the endnotes 16 and 17 (in red above), but here he merely reiterates the same uncompelling arguments:

16. Despite Payne’s objections (“Surrejoinder,” pp. 107-108), Acts 8:21 is a valid illustration of the point at issue: that two words, connected by oudé (“nor”), can both depend on an object that follows the second only. The nature of the relationship of the two words and the fact that the object takes the case demanded by the second word only is immaterial. On the latter point, see Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), who notes specifically that in such cases the object will take the case demanded by the nearer verb (p. 1634). Payne objects further that the word order with teach separated from man by six words militates against construing them together. But not only is Greek word order notoriously flexible in such areas, but Paul has probably thrust teach forward in the sentence for the sake of an emphatic contrast with learn in verse 11: “Let the women learn, but, as for teaching. . . . “

17. The purpose clause in Titus 2:4, “in order that they might train young women to love their husbands . . .,” shows that the “teaching” of verse 3 is restricted to teaching young women.

This ends Moo’s formal argument in the chapter on the specific question of women being allowed to preach to women.  However, later in the chapter (P 185) he addresses some feminist arguments that the verses are specific to a small group of women in Ephesis who were teaching false doctrines, and don’t apply in general.  In the course of arguing against this feminist position, Moo addresses the reading that Piper and Grudem explained had until our feminist age been the standard reading (emphasis mine):

If the issue, then, is deception, it may be that Paul wants to imply that all women are, like Eve, more susceptible to being deceived than are men, and that this is why they should not be teaching men! While this interpretation is not impossible, we think it unlikely. For one thing, there is nothing in the Genesis accounts or in Scripture elsewhere to suggest that Eve’s deception is representative of women in general. But second, and more important, this interpretation does not mesh with the context. Paul, as we have seen, is concerned to prohibit women from teaching men; the focus is on the role relationship of men and women. But a statement about the nature of women per se would move the discussion away from this central issue, and it would have a serious and strange implication. After all, does Paul care only that the women not teach men false doctrines? Does he not care that they not teach them to other women? More likely, then, verse 14, in conjunction with verse 13, is intended to remind the women at Ephesus that Eve was deceived by the serpent in the Garden (Genesis 3:13) precisely in taking the initiative over the man whom God had given to be with her and to care for her.

It is strange that Moo only addresses this off hand as he does, since it is central to the question of whether Paul meant women should not preach at all, or women should not preach to men.  By omitting this above, he failed to address what Piper and Grudem explain is the traditional reading.  Moreover, his dismissal is even weaker than the rest of his assertions.  He says that nowhere in Genesis or the NT is it implied that women are in general more easily deceived than men, but this isn’t true.  Paul is after all stating this in the very verse in question!  Moo offers his denial of this traditional reading as proof that it isn’t so.  In addition, Paul warns of the same susceptibility for deception in 2 Tim 3:6-7.  Moo’s second (circular) argument is that it can’t be that Paul is saying women are more easily deceived, because we already know that Paul wasn’t restricting women from preaching to women.  How do we know Paul wasn’t prohibiting women from preaching to women?  Because Paul was not saying women are more easily deceived.  He is offering his conclusion as evidence for his argument.

However, note that Moo does agree with me on one point;  if Paul really does mean in 1 Tim 2:14 that women are more susceptible to being deceived, this means that Paul is forbidding women from preaching to both men and women in 1 Tim 2:12.

In Summary:

  1. Piper and Grudem acknowledge that the traditional reading of 1 Tim 2:14 is that women are more easily deceived.
  2. Piper and Grudem offer no real argument against the traditional reading, but explain that they are “attracted to” a new more feminist friendly reading of the passage which assumes Paul was merely talking about creation order when he explained that Adam was not deceived but Eve was.
  3. The expert Piper and Grudem selected to explain the CBMW reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 acknowledges that if the traditional reading of 1 Tim 2:14 is correct, Paul means to prohibit women from teaching both women and men in 1 Tim 2:12.

Conclusion

I can only conclude Piper, Grudem, and Moo don’t have a compelling argument for their modern interpretation of Scripture regarding women preaching to women.  If they had a compelling argument, I can not see why they refused to share it in this book.  What seems to have happened is somewhere along the line conservative Christians caved on this issue without ever really putting up a fight, and now everyone knows this is what the Scripture means without understanding just what they are buying into.  Piper, Grudem, and the CBMW are at best moderates in the fight against Christian feminist rebellion, and when they ceded this ground there was no one left who was willing to point out the gaping holes in the feminist reinterpretation of this Scripture.

There is however another issue here aside from conservative Christians caving on the question of whether women are permitted to preach to women.  Just as important is the question of what a lack of prohibition in this regard means.  Conservative Christians haven’t just rolled over on whether having women to preach to women is prohibited;  they have jumped far past that to the claim that women must preach to women.  I will cover this second issue in future posts.

 

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dr. John Piper, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Mary Kassian, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to The biblical case for women teaching women.

  1. Bill Smith says:

    Does violating Biblical order have any different consequences than a proclivity to error? I would almost think that violating ordering would be worse, since it is operating in open rebellion to God’s order.

    I don’t see any release for them even if it is based on the Biblical order. The challenge lies in carrying out that order, not modern proclivities. Applying that order to the modern situation may be a challenge, but would bring about all the same results as far as I can see.

    I would ask if you have looked at the original Greek in your review Dalrock. That would be more reliable than just looking at translations, though the translations can (in some cases) give better insight into what the Greek meant if you do not know much Greek.

  2. Pingback: The biblical case for women teaching women. | Neoreactive

  3. Dalrock says:

    @Bill Smith

    I would ask if you have looked at the original Greek in your review Dalrock. That would be more reliable than just looking at translations, though the translations can (in some cases) give better insight into what the Greek meant if you do not know much Greek.

    You are missing the point. They have carefully studied this in the original Greek, and they aren’t claiming the English translation is wrong. They are claiming 1 Tim 2:12 can be read in Greek (as it can in English) to either state that women can not teach at all, or that women can’t teach men. This isn’t the area of disagreement. What they are basing their argument on is a claim that when Paul points out that Eve was deceived and Adam was not, he wasn’t really pointing out that Eve was deceived. They don’t base this argument on a clever interpretation of the Greek, they just say they like that idea better. As Dr. Moo makes clear, if you think Paul was pointing out that women are more easily deceived in 1 Tim 2:14, then 1 Tim 2:12 clearly means that women are not to teach either women or men. To argue it only prohibits women from teaching men would be absurd in that case:

    If the issue, then, is deception, it may be that Paul wants to imply that all women are, like Eve, more susceptible to being deceived than are men, and that this is why they should not be teaching men!…
    But a statement about the nature of women per se would move the discussion away from this central issue, and it would have a serious and strange implication. After all, does Paul care only that the women not teach men false doctrines? Does he not care that they not teach them to other women?

  4. Pingback: The biblical case for women teaching women. – Manosphere.com

  5. PokeSalad says:

    We think that Satan’s main target was not Eve’s peculiar gullibility (if she had one), but rather Adam’s headship as the one ordained by God to be responsible for the life of the garden. Satan’s subtlety is that he knew the created order God had ordained for the good of the family, and he deliberately defied it by ignoring the man and taking up his dealings with the woman.

    Interesting. In Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994), he puts it as ” …in approaching Eve first, [Satan] was attempting to institute a role reversal by tempting Eve to take the leadership in disobeying God.” (p. 463)

  6. My problem with Dalrock’s exegesis is that Paul specifically said “I do not permit a woman to preach or assert authority over a man.” He could have said: “The Lord says…..” He could have ended the passage by saying something like: “And in this I have the spirit of the Lord…” He did not. He also did not issue a command that YOU should not let women speak in church but said “I do not.” This suggests to me the passage is not a divine command but rather advice given by an Apostle based on his opinion and reading of a specific situation. Of course this situation in Ephasis and Corinth is EXACTLY what is faced by modern churches today with feminist rebellion so his words are extremely important. However, I maintain they are not infallible divine commands.

    Put another way…if we got circumcised should we “just go the whole way and castrate yourselves.” In that instance Paul actually said “I wish you would (cut off your wiener if you feel like that) which is far closer to an actual “command” than what he says in the case of women speaking in church.

    I think there may be some reasonable grounds for interpretation and distinctions between what is said to be Holy Scripture and what is said to be one man’s opinion. Of course it is an excellent opinion and a most excellent example. Dalrock has taught us the danger from the complementarians when they let a woman speak- she is more easily deceived (I love how Paul recognized the female Hamster 2,000 years ago!!!) but he has not convinced me that these commands excluding women from teaching are divine commands rather than friendly advice.

    There is also danger in erring to far on the other side of barring women from speaking or teaching. Women in the early church evangalized, they were crucified by the Romans as “Deacons.” The homes of rich Christian women served as the earliest churches. Did these women not even introduce the parishioners and say “Hi” when they came in the door?

    We have women on this board asking if it is OK to evangalize and spread the Good News! Dalrock, I hope you will clarify you are not telling women they cannot evangelize! A literal reading of your interpretation of Paul’s personal ministerial practices that all women are to always remain meek and silent, waiting for their husband to voice their witness, appears to me at odds with the far more important and far more clear COMMAND from the Lord on the Great Commission.

  7. Per Desteen says:

    How does Paul’s instruction about the husband teaching and directing his wife apply to this argument? Even women teaching other women must still be at the direction of her husband, or women will spread heresy and sin to the ones they propose to “teach”.

  8. Per Desteen says:

    @bluepillprofessor

    Are you taking the position then that, by the standard of opinion, much (or any!) of the New Testament is opinion, and therefore not the word of God?

    I don’t think you want to go down that rabbit hole, not even by an inch,

  9. PokeSalad says:

    @ BPP
    Note: For the purpose of this post, the kind of teaching I am interested in is preaching and explaining Scripture.

    Guess you missed this part of the post. I’m pretty sure I know the difference between witnessing and “unpacking” Scripture.

  10. Neguy says:

    Driscoll wasn’t all wrong. One thing he got right was his claim that if you are doing a Greek word study on a passage, it’s almost certainly to try to find a way to get out of the actual command of God in the text.

    These complementarian folks have taken the point of view – explicitly in some cases – that whatever is not forbidden is permitted, and in fact should be encouraged. And then the list of things which are forbidden are heavily cut down through clever exegesis resulting in “figureheadship” and the like.

    You see this everywhere. I recently saw a situation where a PCA church needed to undertake a search for a new pastor. They wanted to make a woman the head of the selection committee. The logic was that since this wasn’t forbidden by the Bible, it must be ok. What’s more, they should then go out of their way to do it in order to showcase their affirmation of women’s giftings.

  11. All this rules lawyering makes for an interesting doctrinal study, but all you really need to do to understand Paul’s edict on women’s teaching or the gender hierarchy to Eve’s deception in the garden is listen to what women will teach when they are allowed carte blanche to do so.

    Very few high profile evangelical women ‘speakers’ (so as not to be confused with preaching or teaching) can pack an auditorium for a message based on how women ought to be better wives, mothers, or otherwise teach young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

    Rather their message is catered to women’s fempowerment – virtue and strength derived through no other qualification than that they are women. In the Christianized sense they add the caveat that their female strength is a gift they uniquely hold and affirm because God (and a feminine defined Holy Spirit) ordains it as such.

    When evangelical women ‘teach’ other women that message isn’t one of biblical submssion, but rather it’s almost universally a variation on the Disney / Pixar story of “Brave”. The model of Paul’s women teaching women to be better wives, mothers, supportive, submissive is replaced with a Christian Kosher version of ‘princess’ Merida – only she’s renamed Deborah, Jael, Hannah, Abigail, Esther, ect.

    http://www.quibblo.com/quiz/31PTajW/What-Woman-of-the-Bible-Are-You

    By their fruits you will know them. It’s easy to dismiss this women ‘teaching’ women about the Bible Biblical empowerment of women as being a a net positive – who wants “weakling women” as Kassian puts it? – however it’s a mistake to think that this teaching will remain compartmentalized with just women. Once that Christianized fempowerment narrative is internalized it becomes the expectation of women that their menfolk (their Christian brothers and husbands who should be setting themselves apart from the World) will necessarily adopt and reinforce this for them. Combine this with the fact that the only ordained sex their menfolk are likely to enjoy (without sin) and you can see why Beta Christian men are eager participants in encouraging the Christian Kosher role model of a Merida for them.

  12. By teaching women, evangelical women are also teaching men.

  13. Out of Nod says:

    I find hermeneutics to be rather lacking in our modern church environment. Where the hermeneutic tends to start with finding the plain meaning of the words, many arm chair theologians tend fit the scripture into a box of their own or their preachers making.

    This is an example of one such case where pop theologians have gone off the rails and read what they want into the scripture so as to tickle the ears of their audience in the hopes of spreading the gospel further. The ends justify the means…

  14. TomG says:

    Good points as I have been taught that it’s okay for women to teach other women. Unfortunately, society has changed and women want their own spaces. It is awfully wrong for men to crash their female only gatherings. I would allow women to teach other women as long as she is under the firm guidance of a male authority. This will be difficult with Mary Kassian who earned a doctorate and feels her education gives her full authority. Nonetheless, Drs. John Piper and Wayne Grudem have conceded the point and this will live on even if they refute it later.

  15. ladonai says:

    For those who are interested, here are Greek texts of 1 Timothy 2:12.

    This is from the Nestle-Aland 28 (earlier Nestle-Aland editions underlie the NIV and ESV):

    1Timothy 2:12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

    This is from the Textus Receptus (underlies the KJV and NKJV):

    1Timothy 2:12 γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

    The word order is slightly different in that “woman” and “teach” are transposed in the NA28 text.

    Nonetheless, in both texts, “I do not permit” is placed between the concepts of teaching and having authority. In other words, the Greek word order and syntax support two separate ideas, that a woman should neither teach. . . nor have authority over a man.

  16. Pingback: Women teaching women in Church | Christianity and the manosphere

  17. theasdgamer says:

    Regarding deception…there’s such a dearth of it that we need women to step up and fill the void, lol. Men just can’t do the job by themselves.

  18. theasdgamer says:

    What is the context of the text in question?…”men in every place”…”lifting up holy hands to pray”…likewise the women…we’re talking about Christians meeting to worship God…both men and women…women aren’t to teach during the church’s worship times because men are there and women aren’t allowed to teach men…otoh, women are to teach women, per Titus. We don’t need women to exegete scripture, because we men are quite capable of twisting scripture without their help.

  19. The Noticer says:

    Just a general point on women and teaching outside of the Church: my observation is that women are far more likely to embrace common opinion than men. Critical thinking and aggressively challenging the received dogma is more common among men (though this also depends on other factors like intelligence). Not saying women can’t do it, but it’s more rare. The best female scholars I know of typically lean more toward history than to politics or fields that require lots of creative thought and outside the box thinking. This may be why women often get better GPAs. They’re more likely to submit to authority and follow directions and repeat the common opinion. This is only a partially developed hypothesis but I think it may help to explain the rational basis for why Paul would command what he did.

  20. TLM says:

    One only needs to look at the utter nonsense “taught” by such awesome women leaders/preachers like Beth Moore, Joyce Meyer, Sarah Young, and a boatload of others to understand why women shouldn’t be teaching the Word of God to anyone. This subject comes down to having the stones to tell the women it is not their place to be teaching others concerning the Word. Men have no problem calling out kooks like Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, etc etc, but then get all weak in the knees when needing to address the heresies paraded around by women in the Churchian bookstore/media cartel.

  21. Looking Glass says:

    @Out of Nod:

    I can’t imagine you aren’t aware that it isn’t exactly a new issue. Given your name.🙂

    @BPP:

    Treat Paul’s explicit directions but not “Says the Lord” like Proverbs. They’re specific to guidelines that point to the Lord’s Wisdom. There’s a reason there’s actually very few Commands in the Bible and a significantly larger portion is given to understanding the application.

    There’s also the flipside issue that, if it was put as “the Lord commands”, Women we use it that specific passage to displace all responsibility, ever, onto the Men in their lives. The Lord can think ahead a bit.🙂

    @Dalrock:

    It’s always a Vanity issue. Rollo calls it the Feminine Imperative, but the core is always a Woman’s Vanity is her own god.

  22. Looking Glass says:

    Oh, on the “when did they lose this point?” discussion. They mostly gave up defending this concept, outside the Orthodox & Catholic Churches, somewhere in the late 1800s to early 1900s. This is much of the reason for the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s. The groundwork was lain long before it happened.

    At least in this iteration of the problem. See: Revelation 2:18-29 for a little more classical one.

  23. unsigma says:

    An angle I had not considered, but this explains a great many problems facing every church I have attended. I have been taking my family to the same church for quite a while, but not joined – the preacher has never asked my why (which I find supsect). One of the reasons is because of the women’s Sunday School class. The original reason that I did not want my wife going, was because the woman teaching the class was not teaching what the bible said she should be teaching.

    Excellent work

  24. PM says:

    Note: For the purpose of this post, the kind of teaching I am interested in is preaching and explaining Scripture. Titus 2 encourages older women to teach younger women to be good wives, mothers, and homemakers, and this is not the kind of teaching I am focused on in this post.

    A woman would have to explain the scripture to teach women to be good wives, mothers and homemakers. She would also need to do so in order to evangelize and tell others how they too can be saved. Women aren’t to teach men in church, yes. But I don’t see Biblical justification for telling them not to teach scripture outside of church and to other women.

  25. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “By teaching women, evangelical women are also teaching men.”

    Which is what happens when a woman’s husband has a question about Scripture. Who is she supposed to go to? If the husband, then what is the point of the teacher? If the female teacher, then what happens when the husband disagrees with what the teacher says? If the husband’s word is above hers, then why doesn’t the wife just go to the husband first? If the female teacher’s word is above his, then how she is not in authority over him spiritually?

  26. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “By teaching women, evangelical women are also teaching men.”

    Which is what happens when a woman’s husband has a question about Scripture. Who is she supposed to go to? If the husband, then what is the point of the teacher? If the female teacher, then what happens when the husband disagrees with what the teacher says? If the husband’s word is above hers, then why doesn’t the wife just go to the husband first? If the female teacher’s word is above his, then how she is not in authority over him spiritually?

    Exactly. You can see this in action when Mary Kassian and Kathy Keller teach that husbands must not tell their wives to submit. Keller at least is very open about teaching husbands in this case, so she dispenses with the pretext of not teaching men. But either way, the wives are being taught that their husbands can’t teach them. These aren’t fringe figures in complementarianism either. Kassian has been with the CBMW from the very first days, is on the council, and is a Women’s Studies professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Keller is married to the cofounder and 2nd in command of TGC.

  27. Dalrock says:

    @Bluepillprofessor

    My problem with Dalrock’s exegesis is that Paul specifically said “I do not permit a woman to preach or assert authority over a man.” He could have said: “The Lord says…..” He could have ended the passage by saying something like: “And in this I have the spirit of the Lord…” He did not. He also did not issue a command that YOU should not let women speak in church but said “I do not.” This suggests to me the passage is not a divine command but rather advice given by an Apostle based on his opinion and reading of a specific situation. Of course this situation in Ephasis and Corinth is EXACTLY what is faced by modern churches today with feminist rebellion so his words are extremely important. However, I maintain they are not infallible divine commands.

    This is a different argument than whether women can preach to women. This is the argument to allow women pastors, gay marriage, etc. Because basically you are tossing out all of the instruction on how to organize the church, as well as most of the content of the epistles. I would have to go back and check to be sure, but I suspect the CBMW book addresses this argument. Either way, you will find (and you likely already know) that your position isn’t common except by those who want to radically rework Christian theology to fit the modern world.

  28. Dalrock says:

    To add a bit more to my reply to Bluepillprofessor

    He could have ended the passage by saying something like: “And in this I have the spirit of the Lord…” He did not.

    In this case he did do something like that. He explained that the reason for the rule is timeless, as he took it back to Genesis (even back pre fall):

    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

  29. Heidi says:

    What do you think of a women’s Bible study? Are there conditions under which it is pr is not permissible?

  30. Heidi says:

    “pr” should be “or”

  31. DrTorch says:

    I agree w/ PM’s 1:53 post.

  32. Pingback: The biblical case for women teaching women. | Reaction Times

  33. Carlotta says:

    @PM
    “A woman would have to explain the scripture to teach women to be good wives, mothers and homemakers. She would also need to do so in order to evangelize and tell others how they too can be saved. Women aren’t to teach men in church, yes. But I don’t see Biblical justification for telling them not to teach scripture outside of church and to other women.”

    Not true at all. Nearly everything we ARE commanded to teach is done by example. For example being sober, chaste, love their husbands, love their children etc. The rest is more like on the job training. Being a keeper at home an older women can teach everything from financial management to dish washing without once “unpacking scriptures” for her. In fact, she can easily say to ask her husband later about scriptures but now let me show you how to nurse your baby.

    This is not what Kassin and her ilk are doing. They are setting themselves up as the head of the women instead of the husband. Women are not idiots. Read the Bible, pray, ask your husband. I don’t need to check in with Mary not once.

  34. Dalrock says:

    @PM

    A woman would have to explain the scripture to teach women to be good wives, mothers and homemakers.

    No. She wouldn’t. She would need only to say “Be a good wife, obedient to your husband. Be sure you are chaste and pure. Be sure you don’t drink too much. Be sure you love your children and your husband. Be a good homemaker.” Older women instruct younger women all the time, and it doesn’t require quoting (much less interpreting) Scripture. The only question is, what will older women teach the younger ones? Today they teach them not to be doormats, not to let their husband tell them to submit, make sure your husband does the housework, etc.

  35. Carlotta says:

    “Piper and Grudem offer no real argument against the traditional reading, but explain that they are “attracted to” a new more feminist friendly reading of the passage which assumes Paul was merely talking about creation order when he explained that Adam was not deceived but Eve was.”

    I already discussed these last several posts and topics with my honey, but this point in particular I have to ask him about. My understanding is that while Eve was his help meet in the garden, it wasn’t until the actual curse that he was going to rule over her. If that is correct, their reasoning is demonstrably wrong by simply quoting the verses regarding the curse which is after the fall.

    Just a side note, I wonder if they also use the creation order to agree with the verses regarding women covering their head….since Paul really goes to town on the creation order there. lol. I bet not.

  36. @ Heidi

    What do you think of a women’s Bible study? Are there conditions under which it is pr is not permissible?

    Do what the Bible says:

    TItus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may [b]encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

    Alright ladies… lets encourage each other on how to:

    ~ brainstorm ideas and share of how we can show love to our husbands and children
    ~ how we can show sensibility and pureness through how we dress and act
    ~ lighten the load off our husbands by being diligent workers at the home and good helpmeets
    ~ how to adapt an attitude of kindness in our daily lives
    ~ Encourage each other to be subject to our husbands even when it is hard

    Remember, if you have a good idea run it by your husband to see if he likes it first.

    Scripture has obvious face value much like the gospel is simple. This is why women can be envangelists and have that gift of the Spirit. All Christians are called to be a light. Encouraging other women to submit to their husbands is a face value concept that women should be teaching each other. It’s basically asking the question to yourself: “How can I do good to my husband and children? How can I grow in the fruits of the Spirit in my actions?”

    Generally speaking, if an older women is giving advice based on her experience to a younger women (let’s say mentor relationship) it should be framed like this:

    1. This is how this Scripture works in my marriage with my husband under his guidance.
    2. You should ask your husband how he wants things done.
    3. It may be different on how he interprets and handles things. That’s fine and good!

    What’s wrong over the past few posts is Kassian’s take which is namely: “I’m telling you the interpretation of this passage and it’s Scriptural implications of how we should be acting” That goes against what the Scriptures say straight out.

    A bit more about this here:

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/women-teaching-women-in-church

  37. A woman would have to explain the scripture to teach women to be good wives, mothers and homemakers. She would also need to do so in order to evangelize and tell others how they too can be saved. Women aren’t to teach men in church, yes. But I don’t see Biblical justification for telling them not to teach scripture outside of church and to other women.

    It’s the same justification used for telling them not to teach men, they will be deceived, and will teach that deception when they teach. It’s quite obvious that preaching doesn’t end at the Church door. The deception is strong, the willingness of women to usurp the duty of the husband to teach his wife scripture is massive. Older women are to teach women how to be loving wives, not how to follow scripture, for that, they need to tell said women to ask her husband, as Paul said.

    Why is it so hard to follow? When women teach scripture, you get an emotionally driven rant that seeks to conform the text to the woman’s feelings. When men teach, you get a logically driven examination of the texts that have to have reason in order to be accepted as meaningful. Women are not capable of examining a piece of writing without inserting pure emotion into it and thus are easily deceived. Men don’t have this issue.

  38. PM says:

    Dalrock and Carlotta

    The why is important. Women aren’t to be sober, loving, chaste and obedient to their husbands because Sister Older Woman says so, but so that the word of God will not be blasphemed. That requires referencing said word. And again what about evangelism?

    What about women with nonbelieving husbands who are trying to win their spouses without a word? How can these women ask at home about scripture? How can they know to win their husbands to Christ with their submissive behavior if they aren’t taught what the scripture says about it. A plain reading of the Bible in context doesn’t forbid women teaching women these things.

    Can women rebuke other women about their sins? If so then that would require reference to the scripture. What about confessing and praying together? That might also require some reference to scripture.

  39. Bill Smith says:

    I was not arguing against any of the conclusions Dalrock. I was just questioning the use of many translations to get to the real meaning. I read it to say that you were saying that was the basis for the idea. I just wondered if the Greek supported your conclusion. I find that as a more reliable source, as long as it is not twisted to claim something that is really not there.

    Reading The Living Bible, for example, would be a poor source for doctrine. One of the more literal translations would be more reliable, though we need to watch for bias even there.

    I only read the transliteration of Greek into English, so I that may be a limitation when I read the Greek, but I would rather hit that then rely on paraphrases. That is the context of my question.

  40. @BPProfessor

    My problem with Dalrock’s exegesis is that Paul specifically said “I do not permit a woman to preach or assert authority over a man.” He could have said: “The Lord says…..” He could have ended the passage by saying something like: “And in this I have the spirit of the Lord…” He did not. He also did not issue a command that YOU should not let women speak in church but said “I do not.” This suggests to me the passage is not a divine command but rather advice given by an Apostle based on his opinion and reading of a specific situation. Of course this situation in Ephasis and Corinth is EXACTLY what is faced by modern churches today with feminist rebellion so his words are extremely important. However, I maintain they are not infallible divine commands.

    I’m alway entertained when churchies tenaciously cling to the Bible being the literal, god-spoken truth when it comes to Genesis and creationism, but once you get past the first few chapters it’s all about personal interpretations from there until Revelations.

    From a literalist perspective “the Lord says” may as well be “I say”, or “I do not permit” may as well be “the Lord does not permit”. It’s a scripture in God’s book, it’s His word, right?

    Does it matter if it’s old or new testament? Is the old testament more literally true than the new testament? Or is everything after the gospels just guidelines for a future church to pick and pull as times and fashion make convenient? Does it hold more veracity if it’s Jesus or Paul who’s spoken something or commanded something? It’s in the Bible right? And if the Bible is God’s literal word then Paul determining women ought not to teach, or speak in church or even enter church without their heads covered should be just as valid as if Jesus or God himself had spoken it.

    And now you see why I’m not a Bible literalist, but evangelical women ‘speakers’ who claim the Bible is the literal god-spoken binary truth of God – Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, parting of the Red Sea, talking jack asses and all – are only too happy to ignore that literality when it comes to inconvenient edicts that affect them. Then it’s much less than literal truth; it’s figurative, “well the way we can apply this to OUR lives”, Paul gave us an outline for his times truth.

  41. Spike says:

    In other words, Piper and Grudem see the Word of God, but decide that they are too weak and scared to stand against feminazis, so they piss their pants and water down the Word with a long hamsterization worthy of Andrea Dworkin. it is the same story with every Bible verse that has a clear instruction in Scripture.

    Funny how the Serpent told the woman,
    “Did God really say that?…What He meant was…”
    – just like feminists and their weak willed white knight cohorts.

    I doubt such men have grasped Scriptural salvation, the price of commitment, and Jesus” words, “Whoever denies Me before men, I will deny before my Father in Heaven”. If they had grasped these concepts of Scripture, they would have no fear.

  42. Dave says:

    This still goes to buttress the fact that God never intended that theologians should interprete His words. The Bible was not written with any intermediary in mind. It was meant that the minimally educated could read it, understand it, and BELIEVE it.

    When a theologian takes up a passage of scripture—any passage—he almost always ends up stripping the passage of both its authority and its meaning, such that you end up with tasteless and meaningless words.
    Exegesis is an academic exercise, not a spiritual one. Most of the writers of the Bible would be lost today if confronted with the exegetical dissection of what they had written.
    I can say with little doubt that in over 35 years as a Christian, I have never received any additional meaningful revelation from any passage of scripture by reading the associated exegesis. Of course I would know more about the etymology of certain words, but that almost never bore any impact on my faith in the least.

  43. Swanny River says:

    Wow,again! In the 10 week church membership class I’m taking, we discussed gender roles yesterday. (Needs discussion I’m assuming because we don’t allow women elders or preachers or bible study leaders and so we probably think we need to apologize for that). The same Chapter 2 that Dalrock referenced was in our folder. I didn’t say anything in class so I could see how it would unfold. Just as Dalrock noticed a silence in G & P’s argument, just as he noted previously a silence in their confrontation of women’s rebellion, so no one in my class ever mentioned gender. We spent the entire time talking about our move from a reformed church to a PCA one.
    Handling the word of God like this post does is what I want from church. All I get is pushback instead.
    In the past I would’ve read Ch 2 and only noticed how honestly G & P wrote their questions, but I now notice a sense of fear and a lack of addressing the female contentious that the bible and the modern women are so full of (ended w a preposition, sorry).

  44. Carlotta says:

    @PM

    “Dalrock and Carlotta”

    Only speaking for Carlotta here, you probably know that but just thought I would say it🙂

    “The why is important. Women aren’t to be sober, loving, chaste and obedient to their husbands because Sister Older Woman says so, but so that the word of God will not be blasphemed.”

    You know, I don’t understand what your conflict is. This is not a case of evangelism. This is a case of older BELIEVERS IN THE BIBLE mentoring YOUNGER BELIEVERS IN THE BIBLE. Women can clearly read the Bible themselves. We are adults and have the gift of the Holy Spirit. If I get stuck I simply take it up the chain of command and ask my husband who is required by Yahweh to help me. This is talking about people who are already saved and are OBEYING the Bible. We are commanded to study and show ourselves to be approved and teachers are warned the will be held to a much higher standard..starting with obeying the qualifications and duties God commands. Women should read their own Bibles and it isn’t hard to understand, obeying is hard. People, like disobedient children, are constantly looking for loopholes and it is a horrible witness to unbelievers.

    “That requires referencing said word. ”

    Great. Ring, ring. “Calling to see how you did with the recipe I gave you and how you are doing with your new baby? Did you think about what I said about speaking more respectfully to your husband like I had to learn to after that incident at the potluck? Girl, I know how you feel, I had to read Peter like 5 times.Call me, we can do lunch.” And….scene.

    ” again what about evangelism?”
    What about it? No, seriously. None of these posts had anything to do with it. You know how I evangelize? By not killing my babies, but having lots of them and loving on them and my husband publicly. By keeping a clean house and offering hospitality often to everyone. By comforting those sick or hurt. I can because I don’t have a career. I am just a housewife wiping people’s tears when loved ones die and offering my testimony to them.
    I have never had to approach anyone about the Gospel, they ask me all the time. Walk right up to me in public, complete strangers. Crying sometimes.
    Evangelism isn’t always tents and microphones and I certainly don’t charge.
    Let me add, you brought up blasphemy of Yahweh. That is added because anyone who can read knows how believers should act, but they never see them do it. They claim to be women of God, but their homes are a wreck and they are out teaching Bible study. That is what we are being warned against.

    “What about women with nonbelieving husbands who are trying to win their spouses without a word? How can these women ask at home about scripture? How can they know to win their husbands to Christ with their submissive behavior if they aren’t taught what the scripture says about it.”

    I see you have a serious habit of assuming women are infants. How strange? Don’t you actually know any women who believe the Word? That read and follow it without being spoon fed? I mean Crack the Bible open, read it, do it. If they don’t, they don’t believe and no amount of teaching will help (always learning but never understanding).

    What about women with unbelieving spouses? I was one. I read my Bible and prayed and lived my faith. Took 18 years and he is saved. I would even ask him questions. I showed him in the Bible that I had to ask him and asked him to please help me. He did. It wasn’t until I stopped listening to all women preachers, going to Bible studies and just followed Yahweh that he even took me serious. Masculine men are not interested in watching their wives follow other people. Yahweh knows what he is about. I lived my faith, I took my questions to him and put him in charge. He took it seriously and it became a match between him and the Holy one instead of him and me or him and my Teacher.

    ” A plain reading of the Bible in context doesn’t forbid women teaching women these things.”

    A plain reading in context does forbid it unless you don’t understand English or the word NOT. But that would be Dalrock territory.

    “Can women rebuke other women about their sins? If so then that would require reference to the scripture. What about confessing and praying together? That might also require some reference to scripture.”

    Again, it is very strange that you keep going back to this context of women are idiots and can’t get the main points of the Bible for themselves in about a year.

    Let’s play though. A women I know from Church is cheating on her husband and I see it. Is it seriously your opinion that I am supposed to take her aside and “unpack” the ten commandments for her? I would tell my husband. Unless you are family, you really shouldn’t go around rebuking anyone, even then I would most likely take it to my honey.

    As for confessing and praying, unless you are catholic, you confess straight to Yahweh and ask for forgiveness of those you have wronged. I pray with my husband. Women can be friends and pray for each other, but there is no preaching involved.

    It is like you are contending, quite seriously, that women should be going around correcting others and telling them where they are wrong. That is chaos, forbidden and we have important things we are told to do.

    Hope that helps. I know, it is hard when you read the Bible yourself and just deal with what it actually says instead of what someone tells you you wish it said. I had to get where it was just me and Yahweh. Either he is in charge or you are. We all make the choice.

  45. RedPillPaul says:

    @ Rollo
    And now you see why I’m not a Bible literalist, but evangelical women ‘speakers’ who claim the Bible is the literal god-spoken binary truth of God – Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, parting of the Red Sea, talking jack asses and all – are only too happy to ignore that literality when it comes to inconvenient edicts that affect them. Then it’s much less than literal truth; it’s figurative, “well the way we can apply this to OUR lives”, Paul gave us an outline for his times truth.

    Somewhat of a thread jack
    I wouldnt let how other Christians say the Bible is literal and then watching them pick and choose should take away from the Bible being literal.

    The garden did happen, Red sea was parted, A donkey did talk to Balam. If as a Christian, you do not pick and choose and do believe these things literally happened, a harmonious view of what God is really like does start to appear through help of the Holy Spirit guiding you. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit so there is no reason (in faith, since its all about faith) that the Holy Spirit will not come help you understand.

    Look at the historical event of the garden of eden and believe it in faith to be true and i believe you will come to understand more/deeper on female nature, of which you have been doing an excellent job on you blog.

    I like your blog a lot, but it doesnt trump the Bible for me.

  46. feeriker says:

    Older women are to teach women how to be loving wives, not how to follow scripture.

    Time was when you couldn’t go through your day without meeting at least a dozen of these type of women (yeah, I know, I’m showing my geezer card here).

    And y’know what? If such women were as numerous today as they were when I was a lot younger, walking the talk with the younger women, I probably wouldn’t have any serious heartburn with them doing some teaching of the word to these younger women as a means of reinforcing what they’re obviously teaching by example, clear Scriptural prohibitions of the practice notwithstanding. Alas, the Christian June Cleavers of our society are long gone to be with the Lord, God bless their memories.

    What we see today in the overwhelming majority of “older women” are the Mary Kassians, Beth Moores, Kathy Kellers, and Sheilah Gregoires – Lite Churchian versions of Friedan, Steinem, Dworkin, and Greer, women who came of age as second-wave feminism was beginning to corrupt and corrode the church. Unlike their secular counterparts, these serpent-tongued Liliths move subtlety, making their influence over the younger generation of Christian women (the majority of whom probably grew up with almost no structure or discipline in their lives) that much more toxic than the secular feminist poison.

    So no, “older women” today unfortunately aren’t the universal answer to the problem, as the last two or three generations of them are as infected as their secular sisters. Exceptions? Absolutely (some of them appear here regularly). But unless these can clone themselves or a new revival creates more of them (Lord willing), they are too few and too far between to have a society-wide impact. The majority just need to keep their mouths shut and not do any more damage.

  47. I see absolutely nothing feminist or blue-pill about women preaching to women. In fact it might be red pill if done properly. Older women preaching to younger women to obey their husbands, maybe (just maybe) the young’uns might actually listen.

  48. I see absolutely nothing feminist or blue-pill about women preaching to women.

    Shall I link you to InsanityBytes or SunshineMary’s blog then?

  49. feeriker says:

    Shall I link you to InsanityBytes or SunshineMary’s blog then?

    That’s MRS. IBB talking. She’ll find her own way.

  50. you guys are funny. Seriously, sometimes women need to be guilted (shamed if you will) by other women in behaving in a non-feral manner. A women gone full feral will not listen to a man, but she might listen to another woman, an older woman. And no I have zero interest in listening to SunshineMary.

  51. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock said in the original post:
    My initial guess was that this was based on an assumption that “over the man” in 1 Tim 2:13 above applied both to authority and to teaching. By this reading, the Apostle Paul wasn’t restricting women from teaching in general, but restricting women from teaching men. Yet the way all translations I’ve seen render this verse it seems the more plain reading would be that women are not to teach and they are also not to have authority over men. More importantly, the verses immediately prior and following strongly point in this same direction.

    I wonder if you would consider verse 12 to be so clear without the commas (it’s my understanding that commas were not used in the Greek), and with the word “or” replacing “nor” (which seems to be true of most of the more modern translations).

    Verse 12 in the King James Version, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

    Verse 12 in the New American Standard Bible, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

    I think Douglas Moo presents in Chapter 9 his belief that both the grammatical structure of the Greek wording, and the prior and following verses point to verse 12 meaning a woman should neither teach men, nor usurp authority over the man.

    Dalrock said in the original post:
    By their logic when Paul says “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” what he means is that Adam should have been the one who was deceived, but Eve took this honor from him. This is a very strange, I would argue tortured, reading of the verse.

    I have read and reread this post, and I find your claim that the book contends “that Adam should have been the one who was deceived, but Eve took this honor from him” to be a very strange, indeed tortured, reading of the book.

  52. nastynate says:

    “A women gone full feral will not listen to a man,”

    This is absolutely true. That’s why men in the past didn’t waste time negotiating with their wives. In the old set of books it was considered a righteous married mans prerogative to FORCE his wife to submit to his headship if need be. In the old Christian society, it was clearly outlined in the marriage vows that woman’s duty was to honor and obey her husband. Women by nature don’t want to honor and obey, but they want a man with the minerals to make her honor and obey. Government has taken away mans ability to pass this shit test. No one wants to outright say it lest they be labeled a misogynist; but it has to be said if a moral solution is to be found. If God’s plan is to have husband as head of the household, and as long as the husband is not compelling his family to sin; a wife’s autonomy should be significantly limited, not only spiritually, but legally and socially. We men don’t other people to just counsel and socially pressure our wives to yield to our headship, we need you to help us build a society which again respects and honors husbands and fathers and prevents government from empowering wives rebellion and betrayal.

  53. Dave says:

    What we see today in the overwhelming majority of “older women” are the Mary Kassians, Beth Moores, Kathy Kellers, and Sheilah Gregoires – Lite Churchian versions of Friedan, Steinem, Dworkin, and Greer, women who came of age as second-wave feminism was beginning to corrupt and corrode the church…

    Where are the older men? Why aren’t they calling these women to order?
    Without the men holding society down, these women won’t be able to carry out their robberies for sure.

  54. theasdgamer says:

    @ Rollo

    And now you see why I’m not a Bible literalist

    Lol, nobody is. Still, there are better and poorer ways to read the Bible. I approach it mainly looking for the plain reading of the text. What kind of text is it? Poetic? Historical? Theological? Allegorical?

    What was the ancient context? The biggest one that those of us in the 21st century are very blind to is that Paul’s audience was in a culture that had a very large percentage of slaves. Lots of those slaves had been free at one time. Slaves could be used for sex by their masters at the masters’ discretion. Imagining the implications of that for Paul’s original audience is quite difficult for us. For example, whom would Christian female slaves ask for explanations if their masters weren’t Christian? Paul doesn’t address that. Furthermore, the word translated “wife” is also translated “woman” and the translation choice depends on context and may not fit our view of marriage very well. What would have been the impact of Hypergamy and War Brides on female slavery? Maybe female slaves weren’t at all averse to being used for sex by their masters. Of course, there is nothing in the NT prohibiting female slaves from having sex with their masters. Nothing sexually immoral about that in the NT culture. But it’s hard for us to get around our feelings that there is something immoral about it because we impose our own culture on the text.

    Also, imagining the Judean context of the first century would likewise be very difficult for us. For example, imagining what it would have been like to live under both the Law of Moses and the Romans is almost impossible for us.

  55. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    I think Douglas Moo presents in Chapter 9 his belief that both the grammatical structure of the Greek wording, and the prior and following verses point to verse 12 meaning a woman should neither teach men, nor usurp authority over the man.

    He argues that the Greek wording could be read either way. Specifically, he says the reading that it means women should not teach men is “grammatically unobjectionable”. But you are right on the other part; he does argue that the context points to the verse meaning women are prohibited from teaching men. Note however that Moo himself acknowledges that if one reads 1 Tim 2:14 as meaning that Eve (and therefore women in general) was more easily deceived (the traditional reading according to Grudem and Piper) then this indicates that Paul was prohibiting women from teaching both men and women:

    If the issue, then, is deception, it may be that Paul wants to imply that all women are, like Eve, more susceptible to being deceived than are men, and that this is why they should not be teaching men! While this interpretation is not impossible, we think it unlikely. For one thing, there is nothing in the Genesis accounts or in Scripture elsewhere to suggest that Eve’s deception is representative of women in general. But second, and more important, this interpretation does not mesh with the context. Paul, as we have seen, is concerned to prohibit women from teaching men; the focus is on the role relationship of men and women. But a statement about the nature of women per se would move the discussion away from this central issue, and it would have a serious and strange implication. After all, does Paul care only that the women not teach men false doctrines? Does he not care that they not teach them to other women?

    So Moo and I are in agreement that:
    1) 1 Tim 2:12 can be read either way, and we need to look at the context.
    2) If one reads 1 Tim 2:14 as Paul saying women are more easily deceived (again the traditional reading according to Grudem and Piper), this indicates Paul means women are not to teach either women or men.

    Our fundamental disagreement is on Paul’s meaning in 1 Tim 2:14. The CBMW says Paul is not stating that women (as represented by Eve) are more easily deceived. But they also acknowledge that if you accept this traditional reading it indicates that Paul meant to prohibit women from teaching women.

    Do you agree with Piper, Grudem, and Moo that Paul was not stating that women are more easily deceived in 1 Tim 2:14?

  56. feeriker says:

    Where are the older men? Why aren’t they calling these women to order?
    Without the men holding society down, these women won’t be able to carry out their robberies for sure.

    I’ve been pilloried and stoned for saying this in the past, but I survived, so I’ll say it again. The older men today are the same ball-less saps who as young men rolled over and assumed the position when 2WF began its ascendance. Like the women of their generation, they wanted to be seen as “modern” and “progressive” (like every other generation, they were rebelling against their own parents’ moral code) and were more than happy to toss aside biblical precepts and social codes that had held society together for millennia in order to prove themselves superior. Needless to say, and predictably, it came back to bite them in the ass, and hard.

    Just as today’s grandmothers have been steeped in feminism for over half a century (and are thus not only worse than useless as teachers of younger women, but actively toxic), today’s grandfathers are self-flagellating autocastrati who wet and soil themselves at the very thought of even so much as looking at a woman in a way that will draw her ire. The very idea of disciplining a woman is unthinkable.

  57. PM says:

    Carlotta

    While I appreciate your comment and all of your personal examples you can’t seem to see past your own circumstances and think of how it might work for a woman who isn’t in your situation. The Bible applies to women in all times, circumstances and cultures. Some women won’t have husbands to ask, some women won’t be capable of reading it and interpreting it for themselves. Some women will be new to Christ or be unaware of what the scriptures say about certain behaviors.

    A plain reading of the scripture forbids women from teaching men in church. It doesn’t forbid women telling other women which scriptures apply to their situations or free women from the obligation to teach younger women, rebuke other believers as needed or evangelize. Scripture is necessary for these things.

  58. Dalrock says:

    @PM

    The Bible applies to women in all times, circumstances and cultures. Some women won’t have husbands to ask, some women won’t be capable of reading it and interpreting it for themselves. Some women will be new to Christ or be unaware of what the scriptures say about certain behaviors.

    A plain reading of the scripture forbids women from teaching men in church. It doesn’t forbid women telling other women which scriptures apply to their situations or free women from the obligation to teach younger women, rebuke other believers as needed or evangelize. Scripture is necessary for these things.

    You are implying that if a woman doesn’t have a husband, another woman must teach her the meaning of Scripture. This is a thoroughly modern view. It is also not the plain reading, as it assumes Paul wasn’t saying Eve was more easily deceived when he wrote that Eve was the one who was deceived, not Adam.

  59. If a woman doesn’t have a husband, then it’s her father she should ask. If she doesn’t have a father, her closest male relative should suffice. The problem is women want to look to other women to explain scripture to them, when that is what will lead them to deception. A woman is under her father or her father’s family until such a stage as she is married and then her husband takes over.

  60. theasdgamer says:

    @ fh

    What if the woman doesn’t have any male Christian relatives? Or she has male Christian relatives who are spiritually immature?

    What if the woman is a slave who has been removed from her native land and her male relatives were killed?

    What if the woman’s male Christian relatives are all Blue Pill?

  61. theasdgamer says:

    Maybe dalrock will post about about whether scripture allows women to correct men on a blog, lol.

  62. RedPillPaul says:

    @asd

    Didnt you defend Kassian in the previous posts? You are still seeped in blue pill thinking if this was so.

  63. For your discernment:

    “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of the Lord should come to me? As soon as the of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her.”

    “When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.”

    I wonder who provided all the information about the Annunciation, the Nativity, the flight into Egypt, and other elements of Jesus’ early life to the Gospel writers? Joseph was dead by the time Jesus began his public ministry. This person carried much of the institutional memory of the early Church within her, and was the source for much of what was written down by the Gospel writers. This person “instructed” or “taught” the Four Evangelists what to include about the pre-Nativity period and early life of Jesus. Or was her testimony treated with skepticism and discounted because she was a woman?

    Did you ever read any of those early Gospel passages from the pulpit, or pray or meditate on them? Perhaps you were taught by a woman without even realizing it. I do agree with much of what is said on this blog about the separate missions of men and women, but some of the pronouncements on this issue seem overly broad.

    I belong to a different church than the writer and probably the majority of the readers of this blog, and I don’t have a real world reference point for the problems being discussed in this series of posts. But even if you find the content of this comment to be irrelevant or incorrect, you may want to consider these points as part of polishing your arguments. May God grant you the grace to be successful in grappling with these issues.

  64. Pingback: Who’s to Blame for the Mess Today? | Notes From a Red Pill Girl

  65. theasdgamer says:

    @ Paul the Cornfuzed

    Didnt you defend Kassian in the previous posts

    Only sloppy thinkers would think that I ever defended Kassian or her silly Complementarianism.

  66. PM says:

    You are implying that if a woman doesn’t have a husband, another woman must teach her the meaning of Scripture. This is a thoroughly modern view. It is also not the plain reading, as it assumes Paul wasn’t saying Eve was more easily deceived when he wrote that Eve was the one who was deceived, not Adam.

    I am saying that a woman is allowed to teach her the meaning of scripture because that is not forbidden by the Bible. A man can also teach her.

    Paul says that Eve was deceived, not that she was “more easily deceived.” This distinction is important because there are dozens of verses in the Bible about being deceived, most of which are talking about men or believers in general. There were plenty of opportunities to say that women are “more easily deceived” than men, yet no where is this said.

    Women are outright told to teach other women. They aren’t told not to use the word of God to do it, in fact they are told to do it so that the word of God will not be blasphemed. The instructions to share the gospel are also given to all believers, not just men. Clearly women are allowed to use Scripture to teach.

  67. Dalrock says:

    @PM

    Paul says that Eve was deceived, not that she was “more easily deceived.”

    The translations vary slightly in wording (as we would expect), but they all say some variant of:

    Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    As Piper and Grudem note, the traditional reading of this is that Paul is saying women are more easily deceived than men. And as Dr. Moo asserts, if you accept this traditional reading, this means Paul was saying women are not to teach men or women. These two points are not in contention.

    Where I disagree with the CBMW (and you, and perhaps some others here) is on whether the traditional reading of “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” is correct. You can argue (as Piper, Grudem, and Moo do) that Christians got this wrong for 2,000 years, and thereby claim that women are permitted to teach women. But you must also acknowledge (as Piper and Grudem do) that this is a new interpretation. As a new interpretation, you can’t make a meaningful argument that this is the “plain reading of the text”, since it is obviously something which wasn’t plain until our feminist age.

  68. AnonS says:

    One problem is that the Greek word for women is the same word for wife, and when it is paired in relation to “men” it is normally translated wife. I haven’t heard an argument for why it must be women.

    I don’t see a problem with :

    “11 Let the wives learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a wife to teach, nor to usurp authority over her husband, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but his wife being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

    That lines up with the rest of scripture and lines up wives to childbearing. This is a view that Stand to Reason has brought up (http://www.str.org/).

    If it was translated women it would also imply your wife should be in “full submission” to every other man in your Church.

    Other scripture restricts leadership to 100% male, but I don’t see a mandate to boycott reading female authors or having female guest speakers (althou basic wisdom would rule out 99% of them).

  69. theasdgamer says:

    Can a woman teach the gospel? If we look at the case of Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos, the answer is obviously “yes”. (Acts 18:26)

    He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

  70. What if the woman doesn’t have any male Christian relatives? Or she has male Christian relatives who are spiritually immature?

    What if the woman is a slave who has been removed from her native land and her male relatives were killed?

    What if the woman’s male Christian relatives are all Blue Pill?

    What if? What if? What if? You’re playing a girl’s game.

  71. Pingback: She holds an authority you cannot hold. | Dalrock

  72. Caspar Reyes says:

    The scholars cited maintain that the man might have been deceived as the woman was, had he merely been in the right place at the right time, but she happened to be there instead. But if you are the deceiver bent on taking down humanity, and the Head is fair game, and you are particularly clever, why not go for the gusto, instead of the helpmeet?

    The woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    The was is not was but became.

    The diction being unwieldy to our millennial sensibilities, I conclude and teach based on what I know of Greek and of KJV English to mean “the woman was deceived into transgression” or “the woman, having been deceived, ended up in transgression”. The man was not deceived into transgression.

    1) The nature of the deception was not outright untruths intended to blind the target, but subtle, technical enticements intended to induce desire, a beguiling, a bait-and-switch, a “look what you could have, if only….” The man may have been susceptible to intimidation perhaps, but not beguiling; however, the man was the master of the garden and would not have been intimidated by any of its creatures.
    2) The deceiver did not seek to destroy humanity but to corrupt the hierarchy. After all, it was jealousy that felled Lucifer (“I shall be LIKE the most high”). Isn’t that the woman all over (“I shall be LIKE men.”) Any way but the right way, in particular MY way. A woman will unquestioningly submit to and obey a boss, a pastor, an elder, an officer, but as soon as it’s a question of a husband who loves her and protects and provides for her and lays down his life, there’s no end of resistance.
    3) The deceiver did not challenge the words of God, but of Adam. Eve repeated Adam’s command to her, which included the additional instruction “neither shall you touch it”. “You will not surely die [if you merely touch it].” Technically true. Subtext: “Your husband has no real authority to visit consequences on you.” Eve exceeded the boundaries that Adam had put down and suffered no direct consequence from Adam. What has changed since then?
    4) The reason that women are not to teach is intrinsic to women and not a function of the mere happenstance of who was the first target of deception. Otherwise, neither would men be allowed to teach in the assembly.

  73. Caspar Reyes says:

    Another subtext of #3 is, “If you touch it, you’re closer to God, because you’re obeying GOD by not eating it, rather than the man by not touching it.” Once the seed was planted, it was only a matter of time before Eve seduced herself into eating.

  74. theasdgamer says:

    @ fh

    What if I’m not?

  75. OKRickety says:

    theasdgamer said on March 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    @ Paul the Cornfuzed

    Didnt you defend Kassian in the previous posts

    Only sloppy thinkers would think that I ever defended Kassian or her silly Complementarianism.

    Then count me as a sloppy thinker! In Dalrock’s post The Apostle Paul’s Secret Feminist Message Finally Decoded, you post several comments which include these statements:
    – “Mary Kassian is using a brilliant argument against absurdity to destroy feminism.”
    – “Kassian did not twist scripture. Plenty of men here are falsely accusing her of all kinds of things.”
    – “Nova, you are wrong, just as Dal is wrong. You all are misreading Kassian.”
    – “Kassian’s talk wasn’t expositional; it was exhortational. She can be forgiven for ignoring most of the Timothy context. She was heads and tails above most of what I have heard in her word study. I have heard a lot more error from Southern Baptist preachers in their sermons.”

  76. theasdgamer says:

    @ OkRickety

    I was explaining that Dalrock misread Kassian’s talk/sermon/whatever rather than defending Kassian’s Complementarianism. Our issue is with Complementarianism, not with all of Kassian’s writings/talks/etc.

  77. Gunner Q says:

    PM @ March 7, 2016 at 4:47 pm:
    “The why is important. Women aren’t to be sober, loving, chaste and obedient to their husbands because Sister Older Woman says so, but so that the word of God will not be blasphemed. That requires referencing said word.”

    That isn’t how women think. They’re social creatures, not analytical creatures like men. Following the herd is a much stronger instinct than following the rules.

    “And again what about evangelism?”

    Evangelism isn’t teaching. I can prove God’s existence and the necessity of Christ’s salvation without quoting a single Bible verse. In fact, I have to because non-Christians don’t consider the Bible a reliable authority.

    Rollo Tomassi @ March 7, 2016 at 11:06 pm:
    “I see absolutely nothing feminist or blue-pill about women preaching to women.

    Shall I link you to InsanityBytes or SunshineMary’s blog then?”

    Ouch. Bull’s-eye!

    Dave @ 1:21 am:
    “Without the men holding society down, these women won’t be able to carry out their robberies for sure.”

    You mean, without society holding men down.

    Caspar Reyes @ 2:37 pm:
    “But if you are the deceiver bent on taking down humanity, and the Head is fair game, and you are particularly clever, why not go for the gusto, instead of the helpmeet?”

    Maybe to hit the softer target first and then do an inside job on Adam from a trusted direction? Frontal assaults are much easier to repel than knives in the back.

    Imagine if gov’t sent commissars to kidnap a man’s children at gunpoint instead of bribing his wife to play Judas. There would be a lot of dead commissars in America by now.

    “The deceiver did not challenge the words of God, but of Adam.”

    God made the more responsible human first and put him in charge of the less responsible human. Eve, being made from Adam, is never going to exceed him any more than Adam can be greater than God.

  78. OKRickety says:

    @Dalrock,

    Do you agree with Piper, Grudem, and Moo that Paul was not stating that women are more easily deceived in 1 Tim 2:14?

    I think Paul definitely implies that women are more easily deceived than men, but he doesn’t definitively state it. In 2 Tim. 3:6, he states that weak women are susceptible to deception. It seems Paul does believe that women are easily deceived. My own experience suggests that this is true. However, I do not think that the Bible ever says that women are more easily deceived than men. If it does, please tell me where.

    Now we know that Eve was deceived by the serpent, but we do not know that Adam would not have been deceived if he had been tempted by the serpent before Eve. In fact, it seems that Adam was himself deceived by Eve, as he knew God’s command regarding eating the fruit. Nonetheless, it is fact that Eve was the first deceived and the first to sin.

    Should women teach? They should not teach men. As to teaching other women or children, I see many possible answers, but I have not yet decided what I think is true.

    However, I will point out that if women should not teach anyone, then men have a great responsibility to do the teaching that is needed for both children and women, both at home and in the church.

  79. frenchy says:

    @ Bluepillprofessor,

    If you argue that Paul should have prefaced his arguments with “the Lord told me”, then you must discount nearly everything he said where he did not mention this.

    Look at 1 Cor 1: 7:6; 1 Cor 7:10; 1 Cor 7:12; 1 7:25; and 1 Cor 7:26 as examples of when Paul differentiated between what was his thinking, and not the Lord’s.

  80. frenchy says:

    @ OKRikety,

    No, Adam was not deceived. Come on! Paul even said it. 1 Tim 2:14.

  81. RedPillPaul says:

    @asd

    The very fact you missed Dalrocks post and defended Kassian “That is not what she ment” states that you are CORNFUSED?!?!??? What ever that means.

    I have never had a sexless marriage (AMOGing you)

  82. OKRickety says:

    frenchy said on March 8, 2016 at 6:39 pm
    No, Adam was not deceived. Come on! Paul even said it. 1 Tim 2:14.

    You’re right. I messed up.

    The fact that Adam was not deceived makes his decision to sin even harder to explain. Why would Adam choose to sin when he had been told the consequence? It seems stupid to me, and that might be why I was thinking that Adam must have been deceived.

  83. snowflake says:

    OkRickety,

    Why did Adam do it? The sex was fantastic. That’s probably why.

    We are talking about two sinless people created in perfection – no blemishes, no irritating personality quirks, no selfishness. Perfect bodies, no inhibitions or sinful mind games or anything to spoil true oneness. Adam had no reference for spiritual death, but he somehow weighed the price of separation from his wife (and all that entailed) against separation from God and ultimately chose the latter. I really believe it was sexually driven. Men’s tendency to kowtow to women is very often sexual bargaining at its root. Solomon is Exhibit A. See Neh 13:26.

  84. Never Comments says:

    Thought the gents here might “enjoy” this one: http://juniaproject.com/5-reasons-stop-using-1-timothy-212-against-women/

    Note the SJW tactic in the title. For bonus points the person who shared this on social media used the word “misogynist.”

  85. theasdgamer says:

    @ Never

    Lol @ silly shaming manginas. These people aren’t worth debating.

  86. RedPillPaul says:

    Have you ever considered that the events in the garden unfolded in this manner?

    Before I go into that, I think some background is needed.

    Adam and Eve were made in the image of God and God him self is good, love, and light. Is it too far of a stretch to say that Adam and Eve were cloth in light? For example, Moses talked “face to face” with God, but in actuality, Moses only saw the back of God because “no one can see my face and live”(Exodus 33:20). In Exodus 34 his face became illuminated because Moses “had spoken to the LORD” (Exodus 34:29b) to the point that he had to wear a veil to cover the light emitting from his face. How much more so do you think this is the case Adam and Eve who literally walk with God in the garden in a state of perfection? Before they sinned, they were a perfect image of God, and clothed in light.

    When Eve sinned, Adam was right next to her. Adam had no authority over Eve in their state of perfection, he did not have any veto power. In essence, they were equal. Adam only “ruled over” Eve as a result of sin.

    When the serpent came to Eve with Adam next to her, the serpent questions Eve “Did God really say “you must not eat any tree in the garden?”
    Eve clarifies that the only tree that is forbidden is the tree of knowledge of good and evil for if they eat it “they will die”
    Serpent says to the woman “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it, your eyes will be open, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”

    Eve was tempted with power.

    At this point, Adam is right next to her. It does not say what I am saying in the Bible, hence above I state “Have you ever considered that the events in the garden unfolded in this manner?”
    Adam, being right next to her is telling her that the serpent is wrong and not to do it. She wants power (gain wisdom) and she eats the fruit. Also remember I stated that before they sinned, they were equal. Adam cant force her not to eat the fruit. He DID STOP HER by telling her that the serpent was wrong but he has no authority to force her not to do what her free will wanted, which was to eat the fruit and gain wisdom. I guess she was strong and independent. How many times have you seen in your life a man tell his woman not to do something but she did it anyways? (Look at the next paragraph) How many times have you seen a man allow it and not put his foot down?

    The moment that Eve ate the fruit, her light disappeared. Adam knew for sure at that moment that he was right and that death really did enter into her. Here is where it gets a little interesting because it applies to us men. Remember way back in your life when you would do just about anything to be with the woman of your dreams. A sub program of wanting to have sexual relations would be there but there was a genuine desire just to be with her? How many men have you known to be in a terrible, non-physical relationship with their woman and were “devastated” when she left? Where he still wanted to be with her even though the circumstances of that relationship was far from ideal? I personally knew a friend/brother that went through a bad divorce, gave him room and board, paid for his lawyer fees and bought him a car and 2 years of my time. When he was first going through his divorce, even though she cheated on him and he took her back over 5 times throughout their “marriage” he still wanted her. Deep down in his heart he REALLY wanted that wicked woman back.

    I have stated this before. Women are tempted/desire power. Men are tempted/desire women. When Adam ate the fruit, he knew what was up. He saw the consequences with his own eyes. When we read Genesis 3:6 “…she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” It sounds like these events unfolded in 5 minutes. Verse 6 mentions nothing about what God says later in verse 17 “because you listened to your wife”. So from verse 17, we can now conclude that the events in verse 6 was more like

    She ate the fruit. Then her eyes were open. She realized that she sinned and was going to be cast out. Didn’t want to be alone, used the new wisdom she gained to convince Adam and told him what ever, Adam eats the fruit and now his eyes are open and they both realize that they are naked.
    There was a gap of information that one can unravel like a riddle here. Now some of that gap has been filled with this explanation and there is a lot of rich wisdom to glean in between the lines here.

    It is not Adams fault that he didn’t stop Eve. It is his fault that he LISTENED to her. Adam KNEW what he was doing. He saw the light of Eve disappear. HE WAS NOT DECEIVED. He heard what the serpent said and told Eve that the serpent was deceiving her. He had full knowledge of what would happen if he were to eat the fruit. He didn’t want to be alone with out Eve. He had plenty ribs to give to God to make him a new woman but he, for some reason (and if you can figure that out in more detail that what I have said, you will know more about your own nature. And if you do, please tell the rest of us) did not want to be separated from Eve.

    Isnt it poetic? their punishment. To Eve
    “you desired power and you will desire to rule over you husband. He told you that you were wrong and now I am giving him the authority to rule and over rule you”

    To Adam
    “I give you paradise where everything is provided for you. You took my provision for granted. Now you have to work really hard just to live because the earth is now cursed because of you. And see if your wife wants to stay with you if you cant provide for her. Oh, and have fun dealing with her curse, her desire to always usurp you”

    Can you see that it is in the woman’s nature to be more easily deceived now? Its in her nature to think she is better than what her natural place is. She honestly believes to be a goddess when she is beneath a man. She was only on his level when God made them perfect.

  87. Anne says:

    Women should never be taught to read- never ever. It fills their brains with nonsense, like the Holy scripture.God should of made em deaf dumb and blind- or maybe of borderline intelligence with passable eyesight and hearing- so they can commence with the mindless tending of young ones- cause really it don’t take much- goo- goo- ga-‘ga!! Weeee!!

    muteness would still be good so they can’t voice their opinion.
    The female teachers of the eighteen hundreds are what really destroyed this country. How dare they teach boys!!!

    In a rather serious note, are a couple of men who comment here that are decent human beings- Bill Smith, The Aspie dude, Richard, Go rickety, PM, Dr. Torch.. and a few others..
    The rest would be happy if all women were the troglodyte females in the film “Bone Tomaawk- if you have seen this film you understand my sentiment-

    Meanwhile, I apologize for the Creators mistake of making the majority of females
    Higher in intelligence than men. But celebrate your geniuses, and your dunces.

  88. JDG says:

    Anne –

    Who made you the judge of who is decent and who is not?

    That you actually have the arrogance to apologize for God (even worse, as a mockery towards others) is quite revealing about your understanding of the scriptures.

  89. RedPillPaul says:

    @Anne

    so intelligent that she was deceived.

    Shows how you define “intelligence”

    How does this go with “made in the image of God” again?

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    I apologize for the Creators mistake of making the majority of females
    Higher in intelligence than men.

    Cite?

  91. feeriker says:

    Don’t feed the troll(ette), guys.

  92. Lol, Anne. It would probably have indeed been better if no one had taught you to read and write. However, then we wouldn’t have been able to enjoy your rant. Got to take the good with the bad sometimes I guess..

    The female teachers of the eighteen hundreds are what really destroyed this country. How dare they teach boys!!!

    Oh sure, they’re doing such a bang up job of it now, aren’t they? Drugging boys into submission. The lesson is this, as soon as you let women into a sphere, they will eventually turn it into the feminine and destroy the masculine. Which is exactly what female teachers have done to the teaching profession.. So, balls to that, cupcake!

    Ha, trying to take sides with those few men here who still pussy worship, shows you are always looking for a man to come to your rescue. Not that you will suck any of their dicks, amiright?! They should just do it cuz they’re men and some naughty men have hurt your fweelings. Shame.

    You don’t get to apologise for God, no one does. You have revealed that Dalrock’s blog is getting to the femcunts; and this is good. Praise be.

  93. No one faps to Mary Kassian, not even her dickless husband. Haven’t you heard, fapping to a picture of her causes your dick to fall off, ask Mr Kassian..

  94. Why would Adam choose to sin when he had been told the consequence? It seems stupid to me, and that might be why I was thinking that Adam must have been deceived.

    The same reason why we are discussing women teaching. Men have a hard time telling women, ‘no’, in exactly the same way Adam did. Adam’s sin was listening to Eve and not to God. He should have told her ‘no’ and be done with her. Asked God for a new helper instead. Eve would have been sent out of the garden and left to fend for herself as would have been a right, proper and fitting punishment for her listening to the serpent and not Adam as she should have done.

  95. Stevesam221 says:

    The recent discussions here reminded me of a blog my wife used to read, coincidentally this topic recently came up in comments.

    http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2016/03/your-lifestyle-reveals-your-lifesource.html?m=1

    girlwithadragonflytattoo’s avatar – Go to profile

    girlwithadragonflytattoo · 15 hours ago
    Lori, do you think people can misuse this Romans 14 passage about personal convictions and try to simply control other people in their freedom? I know you’ve written about your stance on women teaching other women, and I remember you said that there were some who believed women should *never* be teaching other women, because they truly believe that is what Scripture teaches. I’ve even seen recently that some people believe Bible studies or all-female conventions should be forbidden if there’s a female talking – it’s too close to preaching and offends some people.

    If someone was to tell you that what you were doing (blogging encouraging & teaching women) was offensive, what would be your response? I’ve come across this kind of criticism, but I don’t think it’s wise to stop blogging just because my presence online offends someone. What are your thoughts though?
    Report
    Reply
    Lori Alexander’s avatar – Go to profile

    Lori Alexander · 15 hours ago
    I told Ken this recently and he told me, “How could you teach younger women all that you teach them if you weren’t able to teach them who they are in Christ? It’s only from knowing this that they can be good.” There’s nothing in Scripture that says a woman can’t teach other women.

    Many have told me that what I teach is offensive but God’s Word offends many so it doesn’t both me. At first it did but it doesn’t anymore. I’ve been blogging for over 5 years now but do have to monitor my comments and always will because of nasty comments. As long as Ken loves what I am doing and supports me as he does, I will continue to blog. I love spending my days teaching women!
    Report
    Reply
    girlwithadragonflytattoo’s avatar – Go to profile

    girlwithadragonflytattoo · 13 hours ago
    That makes so much sense, thank you. It’s disturbing to me to see that **Christians** can fall into deception like this, and then go out and spread their deception to others. But even more disturbing is how easy it can be to become deceived like that! All the more reason to limit who you’re influenced by…

    “He who walks [as a companion] with wise men will be wise,
    But the companions of [conceited, dull-witted] fools [are fools themselves and] will experience harm.” Proverbs 13:20 Amplified Bible

  96. Funny, girl with the tattoo comments here as well. She just called most men here non Christians.

    It shows exactly how the deception takes place. Instead of GWDFT going to her husband and asking him, she went to a woman online and asked her what the scriptures meant and got the answer she wanted, not what she needed. Now she has been deceived. She just overruled her husband’s authority over her and gave it to some strange woman on the internets.

    Case closed. Women are not to teach scripture.

  97. Boxer says:

    Case closed. Women are not to teach scripture.

    Most of these cuckold fetishists who turn their collars around and pretend to be men aren’t qualified either. (They’re men of the loin-cloth, rather than men of the cloth, in many cases.) Note that most men and women of average intelligence can get a handle on the New Testament with help from the writings of the church fathers and secular philosophers like Kierkegaard etc.. In this regard, most contemporary questions don’t need to be addressed by any of these feminist priests who seem more keen on draining your bank account than giving good advice or authentic readings of the text.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm

    Boxer

  98. Dalrock says:

    @Stevesam221

    The recent discussions here reminded me of a blog my wife used to read, coincidentally this topic recently came up in comments.

    http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2016/03/your-lifestyle-reveals-your-lifesource.html?m=1

    I haven’t read either the post or the discussion thread beyond what you quote in your larger comment, so my response is limited to what you shared. Also, my focus in this post is not on women blogging about Scripture. Moreover, I haven’t read Lori Alexander’s blog so I don’t know how much she teaches Scripture and how she is doing it. I don’t recall ever objecting to any of her comments on my own blog, however.

    I told Ken this recently and he told me, “How could you teach younger women all that you teach them if you weren’t able to teach them who they are in Christ? It’s only from knowing this that they can be good.” There’s nothing in Scripture that says a woman can’t teach other women.

    Dragonfly is very obviously trying to stir things up here, and I won’t assume Lori Alexander has read my post. She does however seem to be making an expansive case for women preaching to other women. At the same time, she invokes the opinion/coverage of her husband. I (and other men) are left the choice of either telling her her husband is wrong, or allowing her to teach that women are permitted to preach to other women without commenting. This very quandary I would offer is part of the problem with women teaching Scripture. My response to her and her husband would be:

    1) Are they really advocating that women like Kassian are permitted to preach, so long as it is to other women?

    2) If yes to 1 above, what is their specific justification given 1 Tim 2:11-15? Is it their belief that the Apostle Paul was not stating that women are more easily deceived when he referenced Eve’s deception in 1 Tim 2:14?

  99. Stevesam221 says:

    Dalrock, look into it when you get a chance. I am quite sure she is a Kassian supporter, at least she endorses a book in several posts that Kassian co-authored.

  100. susanbotchie says:

    Sunshine Mary has a new blog??? But i thought she took it down two years ago! Was a bit saddened, because like her or not, Mary is a gifted writer.

  101. Stevesam221 says:

    Now Dragonfly compares Dalrock and Rollo to extreme Islam for saying the sorts of things in this post. Typical, women can’t hand the truth and scamper off to a safe girly site.

    https://notesfromaredpillgirl.com/2016/03/24/forgo-the-battle-of-the-sexes/#comment-8475

    Dragonflysaid:March 25, 2016 at 1:40 am
    “It’s weird having grown up within a strange family who actually taught me these things, but in a positive way – they were red pill parents and didn’t even know it, but I knew what they were teaching me was DRASTICALLY counter-culture. Basically, it was the basis of anti-feminism, and how to preserve old values even in our new value-less culture. I was intensely and purposefully taught things that made marriage work (from a woman’s side of keeping her end of the bargain up and doing it exceptionally well). It was an optimistic education, based on what my mom found out, and from a book handed down from her. I also heard parts of what men were dealing with, by listening frequently to the callers on Dr. Laura’s show when she was still on (my mom always listened). She constantly argued with women on air about their extreme selfishness and entitlement, and was able to convince many of how to be better wives. The thing is, these women weren’t taught what I was taught, but when being confronted, they were usually able to see how unfair they’ve been and horrible they’d been in the past and were sometimes horrified. Women are just as much lied to and led astray as men are right now, and no, they don’t need the harshness of the manosphere to wake them up (because as you can see, the men can’t hold in their anger long enough to get across to them effectively, which is most important). They need women who can reach them… because being told “Fuck your feelings,” doesn’t work. What is the goal the manosphere has? To influence and positively wake women up? No, it’s not catered to women, and they will adamantly not change their tone or approach, even if it does mean they add fuel to the feminist fire by turning more women away from anti-feminism.
    Finding the manosphere when a man linked to one of my marriage articles, opened my eyes to a world of (what I saw as) hurt, mostly middle-aged men, and the very few women that commented were overly harsh and critical, and more male-like than actual feminine, soft women. I only found Rollo’s and Dalrock’s first, so that probably explains that lol. But the main thing I noticed when I finally started reading more of their content and comments, was that instead of focusing on fixing things, 98 to 99% were much more focused on mostly pointing out all the negative things and wallowing in the toxicity in the comment threads. Sunshine Mary’s was the only place I found at that time, that touched on raising girls in a positive way, although I’m sure there were others like Stingray’s, etc.
    I get it that people automatically think negatively when met with these issues, that there’s no getting better, that there’s no way to raise daughters or sons right in this world now, but it’s wrong, and thinking that way continually, just spirals downward into despair or bitterness. Simply put: it’s not helpful to anyone. Even being around for a few years now, I’ve only seen it get more extreme. Dalrock, someone I used to love to read, is now zeroing in on women not being able to explain or “teach” Scripture to other women, at conventions or even at a simple women’s Bible study. He’s influenced other men in the manosphere (like Deepstrength, someone who I admired) to actually believe that women going to a Bible study, should ONLY talk about how to run their households, please their husbands and raise their kids… absolutely NO explaining, or diving into, or even reading of Scriptures, because to Dalrock, the Bible forbids any woman to teach other women biblical truths.
    Simply put, Bloom: It’s just getting more and more extreme and spiritually off or dangerous (particularly for the women readers who are getting confused spiritually). I think in this way, it’s becoming more divisive. We now are seeing more people support Elspeth’s unbiblical quote:
    “Women should not set themselves up as teachers of other women. PERIOD.”
    When the Bible clearly says women just shouldn’t be put in authoritative teaching roles over *men.* They are now extending this to mean over women as well. As I said, it’s getting more and more extreme (and yes, this makes me sad). Does pointing this out make me unfeminine? Arguing with the men at Dalrock’s over it certainly would be potentially nasty, but since your site is more geared toward women, isn’t it worth being able to talk about real issues like this that are cropping up? Is it really wrong to point out falsehoods even if the majority of the men are now believing it because Dalrock said it? It’s not that the men just talk to straight-forward that is turning women away, it’s that it’s getting more extreme. Feminism is one extreme, but Islam (the end result of extremist pro-masculine development) is just as bad an extreme where women have no voice, no rights, etc. Obviously it’s not like the manosphere is as bad as Islam (that’d be nuts to claim), but that’s just a real life example of what a society looks like when it’s the opposite extreme of feminism.
    I’ve been seeing in the past month or so, when Dalrock really got going on women and teaching, young women in their young or mid 20’s asking questions on there and being confused about whether or not they should even go to their weekly women’s Bible studies. Even Deti commented on Dalrock’s that “Scripture doesn’t even allow women to teach Scripture to anyone, including their own children.” This idea that women can be so extremely easily deceived and tempted and need to be kept in line, is seen with Islamic teachings that restrict women in the same way from having authority over each other, or even over their children (which they often do not). We know a Muslim family that our friends took in that gave us a horrific look inside what an
    Islamic family really looks like in secret. The children had been brainwashed to believe their mother was not even their real mother, and called her by her first name only. She had no authority over them, and certainly not to instruct them in their faith (which she religiously held). She was abused by the father (which is why our friends took these messed up kids in, because he was in jail). He would also abuse their children, beating them on the soles of their feet of all things, so that their teachers wouldn’t know. They were insanely violent with each other as well… our friends got them out of their house as fast as they could. It was almost satanic their level of hatred for America (where they were born).
    I think part of the pushback from women, even women who are truly sympathetic to men’s issues and who were raised to be hyper-sensitive to them, is seeing things like that on Dalrock’s blog now. It’s not that we want to argue directly with the men who are writing these topics now (obviously that’d be extremely unproductive to start arguing at Dalrock’s that he’s off when all the male commenters are eating it up and believing it), but it’s like the elephant in the room that no one wants to bring up. There has been some pushing more and more for women to no longer comment, or ask for clarification on articles, because apparently, Christian women should only be asking our husbands anything, because Dalrock’s blog is now considered a “church,” where women aren’t allowed to speak. This is divisive, Bloom.
    It’s getting very weird, so I get how Sue (or any woman) is getting majorly turned off by it all. I’ve had a couple of very young women (19 and 20) email me telling me that reading the manosphere stuff convinced them to become feminist, when they were raised anti-feminist and more like me growing up. So it’s having the **opposite** effect on women readers/lurkers/commentators. It’s in my opinion, increasing the divide and causing even sympathetic anti-feminists to
    “while what they were saying on first glance came across as very raw and even offensive, in reality what I was seeing is this is how guys talk to each other, all the time, every day — and they don’t get upset with each other about it! Male communication is very straightforward and there is little “sugar coating” involved.”
    You’re right that men talk a lot more strongly with each other, I often see it with my husband when he’s confronting an asshole (it actually just happened today! And I appreciate it, because we don’t get taken advantage of because of his confrontations, but it’s definitely NOT how I would handle anything). Men respect each other and test each other in this way, but they often do not do this to women (unless she’s clearly one of the guys and hangs out with them all the time… in other word, she’s lost her woman card). And there’s a reason for that. We are weaker sex as God made us this way, and God wants husbands to be gentle with their wives (women) because of this. I think you may be conflating two different issues here.
    Most men would NEVER talk to a female they meet in person they way they talk to female commentators in the manosphere, or even on your blog, which is supposed to be more for women to participate on. And they would never expect a female to talk to them like that in return (because it is too harsh, even for them). I’ve even had Glenn from Rollo’s blog apologize to me, and outright tell me he’d NEVER had talked to me in the rage-filled way he did if he had met me in person – he said he’d probably have been very polite (lol). He knew he was wrong even when he was doing it, but he didn’t care how it would impact me, he just wanted to vent his rage onto someone and admitted later that it “wasn’t fair.” I had literally just given birth a few weeks before that, and he knew this, he knew I had a cocktail of crazy postpartum hormones and was up all hours of the night breastfeeding, but he did not care because being online made him feel safe. There are no real life consequences when people comment online, unless they’re exposed by hackers, and this lack of structure, this knowledge that they can “get away with” saying anything, no matter how horrible or insulting, is a temptation for them when they’re hurting or just irrationally angry. Should I have stepped away and left Rollo’s blog for awhile, yes! Should females move on or not let it bother them? Of course!
    So while you’re right, that men do talk to each other differently, that’s not what’s going on most of the time when they’re confronting a female (even one who AGREES), it’s more complex than that because of the internet aspect.”

  102. Looking Glass says:

    @Stevesam221:

    I believe it was Dragonfly that caused Cane to implement his “no female commenters” policy. Mostly because he exposed her being completely up her own chuff most of the time. She’s never reigned in her vanity, and it’s rather annoying when it crops up.

  103. Feminist Hater says:

    Interesting to see how they turn in time. Trying to suck up to you first, when that doesn’t work, they try to shame you and then when they finally see that you ain’t going to roll over for them, they will compare you to all sorts of evil to try and win the day.

    She stirs the pot because she is deeply emotionally unstable and desperately needs authority in her life, her ramblings are proof of that. Don’t take any more notice of her, that’s what she feeds off. Rather ignore her attempts at shaming and tell her to submit to her husband and get off the internet.

  104. Pingback: Aborted morality. | Dalrock

  105. Pingback: Where have all the good chimps gone? | Dalrock

  106. Pingback: CBMW’s evolving position on spiritual headship. | Dalrock

  107. Bibliotheca Servare says:

    I wondered if you had heard of “Cry of the Hidden Heart Ministries”. It’s a group/study dedicated to teaching women the Joy and Holiness that is found in obeying Scripture’s command to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ. I mention it because it seems to be an example of women teaching women in a fashion that contradicts the heresy of this Kassian woman. (I followed the link to that post) I’ll provide a link; I’m interested in your perspective on it.
    Here one of the founders talks about submission not being limited to when it’s *agreeable* to submit, but also when it’s *disagreeable*
    http://www.hiddenheartministry.org/2014/04/12/a-wifes-greatest-fear/

    God bless!🙂

  108. Bibliotheca Servare says:

    Sorry, I should have clarified: the post I followed the link to was
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/servant-leaders-mind-their-own-business/
    which made me want to double check my memory of Hidden Heart Ministry’s teachings, because I was pretty much certain thatthey ttaught the opposite of what that heretical maniac was teaching.
    Again, God bless you.🙂

  109. Pingback: Who is she teaching? | Dalrock

  110. Pingback: Four legs good, two legs better. | Dalrock

  111. Pingback: Why there is a controversy about women teaching/preaching Scripture and doctrine. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s