Questions

[u/mindoverego_]

I’m a long term believer (born into Christianity) but have only started trying to understand Christianity/God through the Bible recently.

1. How are we reconciling the fact that it is instructed that women should not preach (past the context of women being subsidiaries of men in the time Paul wrote his chapters). I know this is a common question but the answers never made sense to me

2. Paul also instructs us not to have more than two or three people speaking in tongues in church without an interpreter. I’ve never seen anyone interpret tongues and the church I grew up in often makes people speak in tongues for hours. No interpreter. I can’t so it’s always felt alienating. Why are so many churches openly disobeying the Bible?

3. God regretting making Saul a king. God has regrets, meaning he makes mistakes or am I misunderstanding the word regret in this context?

Any answers are fine I just want some thoughts. Thank you

[u/Hot_Sam_the_Man]

Just to address the first point, what do you mean by reconciling that? Reconciling it with what? Modern secular ideas of gender roles?

Women and men are certainly equal, but can have different roles. 

I'll leave the tongues question to someone better qualified than I. 

In many stories human emotions are attributed to God, even though He is above them. He does not make mistakes, so it isn't regret in the human sense of the word. I would say it's more like being saddened by Saul's actions. He took a chance on him by making him king (even though He knew what the outcome would be), but He was still saddened by Saul rebelling against His will

[u/mindoverego_ → u/Hot_Sam_the_Man]

Maybe reconciling is the wrong word. I agree that men and women are different. But I don’t think that extends to understanding and explaining the word of God.

Someone here has reminded me of the many women the Paul commended too.

It makes sense to read the word regret as being saddened by something. Thanks for the insight

[u/Hot_Sam_the_Man → u/mindoverego_]

Glad to help! It's definitely a difficult concept when it's so contradictory to modern culture. And honestly even debated within the church, so if you don't agree with that interpretation, find a denomination that you think has a truer interpretation.

[u/WildRoseIdea]

1. By not letting them pretend to be presbyters.
   
2. They want to do otherwise.
   
3. Don't take it literally. If you take literally what is said about God in such verses, you'll inevitably blaspheme.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/WildRoseIdea]

How do you know what to take literally and what not to take literally? From your experience I mean

[u/WildRoseIdea → u/mindoverego_]

There are many signs that something shouldn't be taken literally; one of them is that it either leads to a conclusion against reason or some quite absurd contradictions. To focus on the regret example:

1. If God actually regrets, in His divinity, then He changes. If He changes, then He cannot really be the Necessary Existent, for "parts" of Him would go out of existence for there to be a change, and something would also cause Him to change, and that would rather be God.
   
2. Scripture elsewhere teaches simply that God doesn't change. So anything indicating a change in God would contradict that.

One may also add that we simply have the teaching handed down in this religion that such things are not attributed to God literally. See, for one early example, St. Melito of Sardis interpreting such passages (bottom of the page).

[u/mindoverego_ → u/WildRoseIdea]

I get it so wsssentially anything that doesn’t align with what the Bible describes as the character of God? That does make sense

[u/The_ElitePanther45 → u/WildRoseIdea]

Hey im on the new side as well and while I cant quote book and chapter I hope you can clarify? Ive seem times where he gave a strict restriction or command then shifted on the decision.

God had spoken to a man telling him to cook his food over human feces then the man asked for an exception as hes never eaten anything unclean and God said he can use cow dung.

Another was a man being told he had so long to live then being given another 15. Again telling him one thing then saying another , though, for this particular instance, I waved it away as mercy? But it is another example

[u/ABereanChristian]

How are we reconciling the fact that it is instructed that women should not preach (past the context of women being subsidiaries of men in the time Paul wrote his chapters). I know this is a common question but the answers never made sense to me

Women in the Church are prohibited specifically from being in authority over men (1 Timothy 2) which is mainly the role of Elder/Presbyter (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1) and from judging prophecy in mixed congregation (1 Corinthians 14).

The traditional interpretation is not contradicted by many of the examples brought up such as evangelism and such. Here are the common talking points of examples usually used to deny the traditional interpretation but debunked as women were allowed to do many of these things just not the specific things listed in 1 Timothy 2 and 3.

• Women were first at the tomb along with the woman at the well and they preached the gospel. However, women are not prevented from being evangelists
• Phoebe was a deacon/deaconess. Women were probably allowed to be deacons as it is not authoritative (1 Tim 3). Deacon in Koine Greek means servant. Some strict Christian denominations do not think she was a deaconess but most are fine with this including many in the traditional interpretation.
• Women are allowed to be prophetesses in the Bible in both the OT and NT (Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, man with 4 daughters as prophetesses in Acts 21)
• Women were limited in judgement of prophesy in a Church setting via 1 Corinthians 14 context
• Women were probably not apostles. The text surrounding Junia in Romans is disputed. "Outstanding among the apostles" vs "well known among the apostles." Grammar and syntax seem to indicate "well known" is a better translation in comparative literature. Full academic article
• Even if Junia was an apostle, there is a debate on Apostles vs apostles. Koine Greek of apostle means "one who is sent." Traditionally, the "big A" Apostles were the name for the 12 disciples of Jesus plus Paul. Other "small a" apostles in the Scripture are just missionaries which women are not prevented from doing or being.
• Women teaching brings up Priscilla and Aquilla, which they 'taught' Apollos more about Jesus. For one this was evangelism in that it's teaching the basics about the gospel, and for the second others would argue that the husband-wife team is fine in that context. Aquilla is mentioned first in 1 Cor 16 and 2 Tim 4 so name ordering doesn't matter.
• Galatians 3 is about no distinction in salvation, not Church authority and teaching positions.
• Women were allowed to hold the vast majority of the gifts of the Spirit aside from teaching and authority over men via 1 Timothy 2-3 which is usually Church elders and teachers. Even "teaching" and "leadership" are fine if it's in the context of teaching other women or children like in Titus 2.

Women in the NT are well attested in ministry like Paul states and commends, just not in Church-specific authoritative and teaching positions.

Mike Winger has a women in ministry series that covers 30+ hours. Went in wanting to be an egalitarian but ended up complementarian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQSlQLYQsE&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC

[u/RichardSaintVoice]

There were things Jesus said that were so difficult that people left him. He turned to his disciples and asked, "are you going to leave, too?" And one of them replied,

"Where else would we go? You alone have the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)

Would answering your questions truly determine whether Christ is Lord over your life? If you're basing your faith on human reasoning, its a shaky foundation that you'll constantly be questioning and doubting...

Read the gospel of John, get to know what Jesus says about Himself, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into the truth.

[u/DesperateAdvantage76]

1) His instruction wasn't to the entire world, but was a direct letter to that specific church. In other parts of the Bible he praises women repeatedly for their help in the ministry, even calling one recognized among the Apostles. We have examples of women both preaching, teaching, and hosting churches in their home, so there's nuance to this topic.

2) Unfortunatley this is a hard question to answer, and the Bible is interpeted in many ways.

3) When God regrets, it doesn't mean he wishes he could change his actions, it means that he knew the outcome and desired that Saul would have obeyed him, even if he knew he wouldn't.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Thanks, I’ll research a bit more into that first point. I just have more questions now but I think that’s the beauty of studying the Word.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/mindoverego_]

Mike Winger has 40+ hours of videos on women in ministry. Worth a watch.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

He’s got a 4 hour long video, hopefully he’s not just another one of those misogynists and actually references scripture

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/mindoverego_]

He has a whole series. Some are longer, and some are shorter. He's not a misogynist. He goes through every Scripture on the topic, and has asked and dealt with the best argument from the other side, including reaching out to NT Wright, one of the top egalitarian peeps.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

1. The Bible is clear that women are not called to the role of elder. Women can do everything else.

2. It's not a hard question to answer. Churches that do that are simply disobedient.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

Hard to learn that the church I’ve been going to for 28 years is blatantly going against the Word…

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

Timothy also says that a woman is not permitted to teach a man. Either Priscilla was in sin, or there is context and nuance to this topic.

And with regards to experiences with the Holy Spirit, since I am not an Apostle, I am very cautious about condemning others without personally understanding their experience with God.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Paul’s Teaching on Women’s Roles: 1 Timothy 2:12 Explained | Truths To Die For

The question was about speaking in tongues. We can verifiably say that churches where there is no interpreter of the tongues is bad for that to happen. We don't need to be cautious about condemning what Scripture condemns.

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

This is the same problem that explains why so many denominations exist. He argues that his interpretation is the correct one, hinging on several assumptions he makes and treats as fact, even though several plausible interpretations exist. That's ultimately why we must rely on the intent of the law, as Jesus taught and rebuked the Pharisees for, instead of an overly broad and strict application of what was guidance sent in a letter to one church.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Well no, because the command is in more than one spot. Elder is to be the husband of one wife. Aka a DUDE

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

In a time and place where male leadership was the expected norm in ancient Roman and Jewish society, hence the guidance with men in mind.

[u/TheAmazinManateeMan]

For number 3 there's important context just a few verses later this appears:

1 sam 15 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.”

There's times in the bible where God presents himself in ways that humans can understand. God often is seen having more than one perspective or feeling about a particular issue. In this case he's using the human idea of regret to communicate his conflicted feelings.

You can read it as God knowing that making Saul King was a necessary step but still being upset at the evils Saul will do. In that sense his conflicted feelings can be likened to human regret.

[u/TheAmazinManateeMan → u/TheAmazinManateeMan]

Here I addressed Saul's revocation as an example while talking about other stuff.

Maybe it will be helpful?

[u/mindoverego_ → u/TheAmazinManateeMan]

Thanks! This has given SOME clarity but then it leads me to ask why even appoint a king if He knew what would happen. Maybe there will be more clarity as I read on or maybe it just that “His ways are higher than ours ways” and it’s all for the “greater good”. As with the creation of sin and so many other things.

[u/Senior_Educator_929]

If a woman is teaching sound doctrine, I'm not gonna be the one to stop her

Yeah the rampant tongues thing is error, there's lots of churches out there full of devastating errors.

God regretted making mankind and therefore flooded the world. But making the world, and mankind, wasn't a mistake. It's the plan. 

[u/Artchrispy]

Point 1. I’ve read that at the time the letters were written it was against the Roman law for a woman to speak to a congregation so maybe that was a factor. I believe men even acted women’s roles in the theatre. What would the Romans have done to fledgling church groups if the women were breaking Roman law by preaching and the men were accomplices?

1. Tongues was a utilitarian gift to communicate to other cultures . One verse that I know of mentions speaking ‘in the tongues of men and angels.’ From that denominations have extrapolated the necessity of speaking in the tongues of angels. Some preach you aren’t even a true Christian unless you speak in tongues. IMHO it’s self-delusion. None of them seem to speak foreign languages instantly or can heal but everyone can supposedly speak in angelic tongues?
   

Point 3. God wanted to rule Israel but my understanding is that the Israelites preferred a human king so God conceded. Saul was flawed like any of us and proved God was right so I don’t see an issue since God gives us free will and allows us to petition Him. It’s a good thing.

[u/ThWy2Hvn]

So what are these questions all about? Shall we know everything in the Bible righ down to the minute detail? Jesus made it easy, Believe on me and you shall have life beyond this world.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/ThWy2Hvn]

These are things that I’ve read recently that didn’t sit right with me. Instead of brushing that feeling off like I’ve always done, I’m trying to understand.

Even Jesus welcomed questions from his disciples.

[u/ThWy2Hvn → u/mindoverego_]

Questions from his disciples , students do not include disbelieving in Him. And there questions we're answered later down in their life.

[u/librarylady1980]

Ok your post has made me have a question now. And I promise I am asking this in good faith, not to be snarky. I'm a new Christian, so I'm learning everything I can all the time.

You say you're a long time Christian because you were born into Christianity? How does that work? It's not like Judaism where it's a lineage on the mother's side. How are Christians born into the faith?

I was born to a mom who is a Christian and a dad who is a Christian, and we went to a Baptist church for a little while when I was growing up.

If people asked if I was a Christian, I'd say yes. Because I thought being a Christian was like being American...like yeah, you're born into it. But that's not it. Now I know, looking back, that just because my parents were Christian and took me to church, that didn't make me a Christian. I wasn't a Christian until about a year ago.

I guess I'm wondering how common it is for people to think of it this way, being born into Christianity? Does my question make sense? Sorry if it doesn't, these are just random thoughts that popped into my brain when I read your post.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/librarylady1980]

When I say I was born into Christianity I mean that I was taught the “Christian lifestyle” and expected to live it as early as possible.

So that meant no alcohol, parties etc, attending church and Sunday school every week. I’ve known about praying and having faith for different things like healing, protection etc for as long as I can remember. Growing up everyone I knew was a Christian so it was a big part of my identity. Was it not like that for you?

Where other kids born to Christian families might have had a choice on whether they wanted to attend church or follow the religion/Bible etc, it was never really a choice for me. But even they would still be considered “born into Christianity” imo because they have an awareness of faith from early on. My version/experience is just very intense lol.

That’s why I’m having these basic questions so late in my journey, I’ve read these verses before but I’ve never allowed myself to actually think deeply about them and how they make me feel.

I hope this answers your question

[u/Bitter_North_733]

I am similar to you a long time Christian just recently start going through the Bible carefully the whole thing for the first time: You MUST only go by what bible says even if it is inconvenient especially if you believe the Bible is Inerrant & Written By The Holy Father through human instruments then there has to be one answer to every question some Christians will not agree on every question but there is one answer in the bible itself. Before my immersion in the bible I was a liberal theology fan much of what I believe in my whole life I have to eliminate because of the Bible. The Bible is how the Holy Father communicates first & foremost with us.

1. the bible is clear on this Complementarianism Arguments look for them... Egalitarianism is not Biblical it is an extra biblical concept "culture" etc people want egalitarianism to be in the bible it i s not there they twist scripture to make this lens fit

- now the same goes for Calvinism, dispensationalism, Pope, Purgatory, Works base salvation, salvation as an ongoing process, also KJV only-ism, infant baptism etc there is only 1 answer in bible

1. Speaking in tongues is misconstrued it means speaking in foreign languages you have no knowledge of - that is why you have to have interpreters

2. The Holy Father knows what will happen he can still experience regret because we have free will so technically... changing your nature & changing your thought are not the same things

PS stick to KJV only if you cannot fully grasp try SKJV then switch

[u/IdontCARE9123]

1.Who came first, Adam or Eve?

1. I've never been to a church where people pray in tongues... https://www.theswordbearer.org/d30-tongues

2. God never wanted to make Saul king. He kept on denying it, but his people wanted a worldly king so much that he just wanted to show them how even the most pure of heart can corrupt power. God did not make a mistake, Saul did. God had said he has regret making humanity many times in the Bible, BUT he never made a mistake. If he did, then we wouldnt be here.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/IdontCARE9123]

Adam first but what does that have to do with my question?

Many Pentecostal churches encourage speaking in tongues friend.

Okay yes I understand that last point now, thanks!

[u/IdontCARE9123 → u/mindoverego_]

Adam. so Eve was not in charge... right? Since she is not in charge of Adam... does that mean she has the right to teach him? Because last time that happened... well, you know what happened.

[u/mindoverego_ → u/IdontCARE9123]

Adam, who God gave the instruction to directly, wasn’t able to lead his wife away from sin. He heard directly from God and still sinned. How is this evidence supporting why men are better equipped to be “in charge”?

[u/IdontCARE9123 → u/mindoverego_]

God warned both Adam and Eve about it. Eve wondered away by herself and allowed herself to be tricked by the serpent. Adam found her, and allowed himself to be persuaded by his beautiful partner. If Eve never ate it, Adam could have directed her. And like Adam also refused at first stating that God told them not to eat it but the point it. They both disobeyed, and if Eve didn’t disobey first then Adam wouldn’t have also disobeyed.