The Bible Teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church

My opponent has responded in a vigorous and thorough way. I would like to thank him for the time put into this argument. Response to Point A) The word in question in both Romans 2:11 an Acts 10:34 is Prosopolempsai. This is a fusion of two words, Prosopon meaning Face, and Lambano meaning I take or receive. Literally, the authors are saying "God does not take people at face value." This is an idiomatic expression that, according to Thayer's Lexicon [A], means "the fault of one who when called on to requite or to give judgement has respect to the outward circumstances of men and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is right, high-born, or powerful, to another who is destitute to such gifts." If you look at the context of Romans 2, Paul is talking to people who judge other people. In Rome, which was obsessed with wealth and status, it is clear that he is condemning people for judging people for using the criterion mentioned by Thayer. He is then contrasting God, who does not use those criterion. In Acts 10:34, Peter is discussing the difference between Jew and Gentile. He is referring salvation when he is discussing partiality and God's lack of it. You cannot apply this lack of Partiality in reference to salvation across the board to a lack of partiality in all things. This is poor exegesis. In Romans, we see God does not show partiality in references to wealth, power, or class. 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. My opponent claims that since it was not God who afflicted Job, and rather the Devil... that it was not God's "fault." This is ridiculous. If God allows bad things to happen, it is according to his will. He may have a reason to allow it, but it is still according to his 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." My opponent claims that the special treatment of Israel was justified because of the faithfulness of Abraham. However, what justifies the special treatment of Abraham? God did not wait for Abraham to be faithful to extend the call... to argue this goes against the very Christian Gospel. God chose Abraham simply because he chose Abraham. Abraham responded in faithfulness, but it was the call that precipitated the faith not the other way around. My opponent cites Wikipedia in his definition of fairness. An actual source states that fair is an adjective that means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice."[B] As my opponent said in his reference to Job, we cannot call something unfair unless God is not justified in doing so. Paul presents a legitimate argument for why women should not teach executively over men, so God has a justified position that is neither biased, dishonest, or unjust. Response to Point B) My opponent is making the argument that because people learn, by definition someone has taught. He therefore asserts that since women are allowed to prophesy in 1 Corinthians, that they are allowed to teach. However, there is a significant problem with his premise. Learning does not require teaching. There are many ways to learn that do not include teaching. Most children learn to talk without their parents explicitly teaching them. If I watch a person juggle, I can learn how to do that. In the same way, a prophet is speaking the message God gave them, it is not an explicit form of teaching. The two words are different. Prophesy is "to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict." [C] Teach is "hold a discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver a didactic discourse." [D] The two are different. Simply put, Paul allows women to prophesy but not to teach. My opponent claims that "Women were among the 120 disciples who taught men about the magnificent things of God in Acts 2:4-5, 11; 1:13-15. However, Acts 1:13-15 does not reference anyone teaching besides Peter. The passage says that Peter addressed the group (and comments on how large the group was). It is not saying that all 120 people taught, rather it is saying that Peter taught 120 people. Acts 2:4-5 is a reference to the group being inspired by the Holy Spirit who "gave them utterances." This appears to fit the definition of prophesying, in that they "speak forth by divine inspiration" in these utterances. There is no didactic discourse occurring in this passage. My opponent also references the Great Commission. However, he fails to include the audience to which Jesus spoke. In vs 28:16 we see that "the eleven disciples went to Galilee... and Jesus came and said to them..." The instruction to teach was not given to a group of mixed women and men. It was given to the eleven remaining disciples, who were all men. Is this a general instruction for all people, that is one possible interpretation. Another is that this was a distinct instruction given to the Disciples. The Bible does not EXPLICITLY teach here that women should teach over men. Furthermore, even if this is a general instruction for the whole Church, that do not mean that women should teach over men. Women may teach over other women and other children without violating Paul's prohibition of women teaching men, and still be a part of fulfilling this call. Response to Rebuttal against my affirmative point) My opponent has failed to explain why Paul uses a universal circumstances (the created order) to describe something that only applies in Ephesus. Until he responds to this point, we must concede that Paul is drawing his theology from a universal circumstance, and therefore it is a universal dictate. He attempts to show cases of women teaching in the Church by lifting up a woman named Euodia (Philipi) and a woman named Phoebe (Cenchreae), however what he fails to note is that those passages do not reference those two teaching. Most of the time when Paul references a specific believer he is writing to them because the Church meets in their home. That doesn't mean they are teaching, it simply means that the Church is meeting in their home. Phoebe is specifically called a Deaconess. Even today, Deacons rarely teach. This word comes from diakonos, which means someone who serves another person. In ancient Greek it meant someone who was a servant or a waiting-man. In fact, in Romans 16:2 Paul gives a more lengthy description of who Phoebe was he say "she has been a patron of many and of myself as well." This more likely means she financially supported others who were teaching, rather than teaching herself. Regardless, the two examples that Pro has given do not show example of women teaching. They are simple persons in the Church who served others. (We know next to nothing about Euodia... she is simply mentioned by Paul) As you can see reading my argument, Pro's argument is based three things. A) A faulty understanding of the "fairness of God" based on an incorrect understanding of the word "prosopolempsai" meaning "Respecter of persons." God is not partial in terms of salvation or sin, but that does not extend anywhere in scripture to vocation. B) A faulty association between the role of a prophet in prophesying (not limited to males) and a teacher in teaching (limited exclusively to males). C) A faulty assumption that just because Paul mentions someone, it means that they are teaching. We know nothing about Euodia, and Phoebe is not identified as a teacher. She is identified as a patron and deaconess. Thank you for reading. [A] http://www.blueletterbible.org... [B] http://dictionary.reference.com... [C] http://www.blueletterbible.org... [D] http://www.blueletterbible.org...