Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
By the same token we need more than no mention of women listed as heroes of faith in Hebrews 11.
Women cannot usurp authority over a man. That is plain and simple.
One might argue, though, what if a woman is GIVEN authority over a man? Is it still usurped?
We really have to consider all angles and have an answer beyond an argument from silence. |
Actually, those who argue in favour of women having oversight of the church are arguing from silence.
But to answer the question about a woman being "given authority" as opposed to "usurping authority", here is what the Scripture actually says...
gunaiki de didaskein ouk epitrepo oude authentein andros all' einai en esouchia
The word translated "usurp authority" actually means "1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one"
The context indicates that Paul is speaking of a woman who "governs, exercises dominion over" the man. The woman is not to do this, by apostolic edict.
The context sheds more light:
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
The woman is to "learn in silence with all subjection." The woman is NOT to "teach, nor to usurp authority [ie govern, exercise dominion] over the man." The woman IS to "be in silence." The reason given is the order of creation, and in verse 14 is tied explicitly to the fall, which hearkens back to God's pronouncement on that day that the man would "rule over" the woman (have authority, dominion).
So then this passage rules out the idea that a man may (with divine approval) "give" a woman authority that she is forbidden by God to have. Men cannot morally undo what God has done, nor may men authorise that which God has either not authorised or explicitly forbidden.
Linear Mode
