The Bible Teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church

The Bible records it was women who taught the male apostles that Jesus' prophetic word was fulfilled in his resurrection, but the apostles would not believe at first. (Luke 24:5-11) He keeps asking for an example of a woman teaching a man in the Bible. Here is one (Acts 18:24-26); Aquilla and his wife Prisdilla (Acts 18:2) both expounded (teached) the way of God more correctly to Apollos; so not only the man, but the woman also was teaching. "An actual source states that fair is an adjective that means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." So my opponent here is admitting that "fair" means free 'from injustice,' which means ‘to be just.' Someone who is free from injustice is just. Yet, in his first post he said: "Scripture teaches that God is Just, but never that he is fair." I will ask my opponent to clarify this for me. In his first post he claims God is just but not fair, and in his second post he defines "fair" as "just," that is - "free from injustice." So which is it? If fairness means "free from injustice," then God being "just" would also have to be fair. You admitted that Scripture teaches that God is just, and since fairness is free from injustice, this tells me you have admitted that God is fair. So have you abandoned your argument that God is not fair? If not, what on earth could "free from injustice" mean except to be "just"? It is clear even from Con's own source that fairness means to be just; and since he admits God is just, then God is fair. ". In Acts we see that he does not show partiality in reference to salvation. However, no where do we see that God does not show partiality in reference to calling." So my opponent is arguing that God is unfair. He worships an unfair God. He claims that God is partial in reference to calling. If that is so, why preach to all nations instead of some? (Matt 24:14) He claims that because God allows bad things to happen that it must be according to his will. But Scripture shows it is God's will for none to be destroyed, but for all men to be saved (2 Pet 3:9). The fact that some will be destroyed does not mean it is God's will that it should be so, but rather, that the choices the wicked make leave God no option but to do what he never likes to do, destroy people. (Eze 18:23) Not everything that happens is God's will. "If God allows bad things to happen, it is according to his will." So the holocaust was God's will? Homosexuality is God's will? Rape is God's will? WWI was God's will? Sin is God's will? God told Adam not to eat of the tree, how then could his eating of it be God's will? Did God desire him to both eat it, and to not eat of it? The fact that God allowed him to eat the fruit and to set in motion all the horrible things that occurred in human history is no evidence that God willed it to be so! God's will is that we use our free will to obey him, not to disobey him. If I don't accept your position in this debate, is that God's will to? If everything that happens is the will of God, then murderers and rapists should be commended for doing God's will! "Furthermore my opponent claims that we cannot call God's actions unfair if they are justified. The only justification that God gives to Job, who God himself held up as an example of blamelessness, is "I'm God, and I wanted to." God showed Job that his knowledge and ways is so vastly superior (Job 38) that we can trust that he is always doing the best thing even when we don't know his reasons. Also, the fact that he has not given us a reason for something doesn't mean that he is not justified in his actions. We can only say he is not justified if (1) we know his reasons, and (2) we have good reason to reject the reasons given as inadequate. Since my opponent doesn't know God's reasons for allowing suffering, he cannot say that his allowing suffering is unfair. What is more is that Job was rewarded with more than he had before, and will have eternal benefits to come, and this indeed justifies anything he experienced. The things to come are worth suffering for. (Rom 8:18; Job 42:10-17) God doesn't cause unnecessary suffering, and he rewards us beyond what we suffer. I don't see any unfairness in this. The fact that my opponent was driven to the extreme of arguing that God is not fair to prove his point tells me that deep down he knows that givin men the opportunity to teach in church and not women is unfair. It is gender discrimination. In 1Corinthians 11:4 notice that Paul jumps right in about the "head covering" and says, "Every man (this means male in the Greek) praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonors his head." But then in verse 5 he says, "But EVERY WOMAN (FEMALE) that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head..." NOTICE THAT THE WOMEN ARE PRAYING AND PROPHESYING! The whole section of 1Corinthians 11:1-16 is to establish that ladies (in their culture) when they pray or prophesy in church need to have their heads covered, NOT that they can't pray or prophesy at all! This shows that women should not "keep silent" in the Church at all! Paul was responding to what was happening in the church, ilcluding false teachings that crept in. While Paul wrote his response (our Scriptures of 1Corinthians) BACK to the Corinthian church, he previously and thoroughly read THEIR LETTER that they sent to him ─ 1Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning things whereof YOU WROTE UNTO ME...." In fact, he wrote down parts of their letter back to them and rebuked them for their foolish teachings. Paul established through his entire letter and particularly in chapters 11 thru 14 that there is no difference between a male and female being appointed and/or receiving the gifts, callings and offices of Christ. Before he wrote down their "foolish scripture" that they wrote to him, he wrote this preface: "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1Corinthians 14:33). Then in verses 34-35 he repeated what they first wrote to him: "Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the Law. And if they will learn any thing let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Immediately after Paul wrote this, the next word he wrote was, "WHAT?" (v36). In the Greek, the word "what" is a negative disclaimer. We would say, "What, are you nuts?" Paul said, "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or did it come unto you only?" (v36). Meaning, that the previous statement that he wrote from the letter he received from them referring that women are to keep silent in the church was not from God at all. In fact, it was pure silliness. He just got done writing in a few paragraphs previous to this what we now know as 1Corinthians 11:1-16, establishing that when women prophesy or pray in the church they are to have their heads covered. "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered…." needs to put on her head covering and then it would be acceptable (1Corinthians 11:5). Praying and prophesying involves "speaking," so it is obvious Paul was refuting this idea that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 2 Tim 2:9-15 does not mention a gathering for worship and is probably discussing matters in the family setting where we know a husband is head of his wife, therefore he would be the one teaching the family. Note the reference to childbearing in verse 15 is not a church matter but a private family matter. Also, Paul was not saying a woman could not teach a man anymore than he was saying she couldn't wear jewelry or braids (vs 9). His main emphasis was that she display modesty in these areas and not overdo.