The Bible Teaches that Women can Teach Men in the Church

My opponent argues that if Christians are teaching one another that it necessarily means that women are teaching men. If a woman teaches another woman, are they not teaching one another? My opponent quotes Galatians 3:28, again... this is in the context of salvation. We do not suddenly become amorphous non-gendered beings. The fact that there is specific instruction for men and women (separately) shows that Paul still viewed a difference between men and women. Rather, Paul is saying that "in Christ" (in reference to salvation) there is no male or female. My opponent seems to be building his definition of "teach" off current definitions. However, we must respect the definitions that were being used at the time of writing. "Teach" comes from the Greek word "Didasko" which means "to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses"[A] If a person walks up to you and says "The Red Socks just won the World Series" they are not delivering a didactic discourse, nor are they holding discourse in order to instruct." The passage in question in Luke simply says the women "told" them. This is the word "Lego" and is the simple act of speaking. [B] In reference to the account of Aquilla and Priscilla, my apologies... I can see how my wording was confusing. I am not refuting that Aquilla and Priscilla taught Apollos... rather, I am saying that a Descriptive passage in Acts that shows a woman participating in teaching man (I think it is telling that the only account of a woman actually teaching a man is shown in the context of teaching along side her husband) does not constitute the Bible teaching us that women should teach man. My opponent argues that the fact that Priscilla was not reprimanded and did not repent means the Bible is authorizing her actions. However, the Bible does not say that this is an example we should follow. We do not know that she was not reprimanded... we do not know that she did not repent. Simply put, this passage does not affirmatively teach us that we should follow Priscilla's example. Luke did not intend this book to be a didactic work... rather he intended it to be a descriptive account of the early Church. In Acts 2, members of the Church sell everything they own and enter a communistic community where everyone shares everything. Does my opponent advocate that we do this? Has my opponent done this? I doubt it, this passage is descriptive only, and the passage with Priscilla is also descriptive only. My opponent again misunderstand the meaning of a definition that uses multiple adjectives. He argues that if Fair means "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice" that unfair must mean "biased, dishonest, or unjust." I'll stay away from the two-legged dog illustration... and just go with a normal dog. "Dog free from Catness, Purpleness, and Liquid-Form" This definition is true, it is valid. However, just because something is free from Catness, Purpleness, and Liquid-Form... it does not mean it is a dog. This kind of definition is telling you what Fair is not, rather than what it is. However, something can have all the same adjective describing it and not be a dog. A Rabbit for example is free from Catness, Purpleness, and Liquid-Form... but a rabbit is not a dog. Likewise, something can be "Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice..." and not be fair. If a meteor falls out of the sky and lands on my head and kills me... it is not biased, (it did not pick me out of bias) it is not dishonest, (it did not tell me it wasn't going to land on me and then do it) and it is not unjust, (there is no violation of justice in random circumstances like this). However, I think that anyone would argue that if this happened to them... it would be unfair. In response to the discussion of wills... this is a non-sequitor. However, I will respond one last time. If God CAN stop something, but doesn't... it means he intentionally did not stop it. That means he willed not to stop it... and it happened according to his will. In 2 Peter 3:9. Here is the verse "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Now, here is where it gets tricky... I do not know why, but modern translations have used the word "you" when the Greek uses the word "us (heymas)". The passage, literally translated, is "...but is patient toward us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." We must ask "who is included in the us?" The answer is the Church. Peter is writing to believers... so the passage is saying that God is not willing that any believers should perish but that all come to repentance. This passage is NOT saying that God wants all people everywhere to be saved... because if he wants all people everywhere to be saved and they are not... God's will has been thwarted. However, as I said... this discussion of God's will and how it plays out is off topic and I will not address it anymore. If my opponent wishes to explain why it is pertinent... then we can resume the discussion in the following round. Again, my opponent latches onto a poor translation of 1 Corinthians 14:36 translating "hay (in Greek) as "What?" This is a poor translation. My opponent asserts that Paul was responding to a prior letter written from the Corinthians in which a false teaching that women should keep silent was espoused. This is a novel approach, however it is lacking when we consider the fact that other Pauline epistles contain clear affirmative arguments supporting this stance. Finally, my opponent seeks to connect the teaching in 1 Tim 2:9-15 to the family. However, the letter written to Timothy is explicitly instructions on the Church. No where in the letter does Paul give instructions that are to Family Relations. The only mention of Family Relations at all is in the qualifications for Elder and Deacon. However... these are simply qualifying statements rather than instruction on how to manage a home. Cross Reference this with the letter to the Ephesians which explicitly teaches about how to run a household. He then seeks to argue that the discussion of child birth "proves" that this is about the family. However, in order for that to be true... salvation would come to women through child birth. Is this what my opponent wishes to argue? Is he arguing that a woman is saved because she gives birth to children? Of course not. Rather, the passage about "her" being "saved through child birth" refers to Eve (and consequently Adam and all of humanity) being saved by childbearing... which would eventually lead to Christ the savior. My opponent is simply incorrect in arguing that this is a teaching about family life, rather it is exactly what it appears to be... Paul does not allow women to teach over men in the Church because the man was created before the woman, and the woman was deceived in the garden. While this may not be the line of logic I would choose, it is the one that Paul does... and the one the Bible teaches. And that after all is what the debate is about, what the Bible teaches. To conclude this round, I would like to echo my opponents statement. This debate has been challenging and highly enjoyable to participate in. I hope that the readers have enjoyed it as much as we have. Thank you for your patience as readers, I look forward to the next round. [A] http://www.blueletterbible.org... [B] http://www.blueletterbible.org...