The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING)

[felix]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

BobE,

So, Paul is using an unbiblical (oral/roman/traditional) law to back his statement to Corinthians. Isn't it?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

BobE,

So, Paul is using an unbiblical (oral/roman/traditional) law to back his statement to Corinthians. Isn't it?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Actually no, I don't think Paul is doing that. I think he is referring to an issue that was brought to his attention by Chloe's representatives (1 Cor 1:11). The issue appears to be that some in the Corinthian church were attempting to impose oral law on new believers in Christ. Specifically, it seems they were quoting the Talmud, saying that it is shameful for women to speak in church or in the synagogue. After referring to this law, and its contents, Paul seems to rebuke these people.

Paul does not forbid women speaking in the church of Corinth. In fact, prior to this chapter he clearly allows them to pray and prophesy. Both of these activities involve speaking in church. Paul also refutes those who suggest that the creation order is an indication of male superiority. He does both of these things in his letter to the Corinthians. For him to later quote the Talmud and attempt to silence women makes no sense whatsoever. It also makes no sense to suggest that he is quoting the Old Testament law, because the statement, "it is shameful for women to speak" in the church or synagogue is not found there, anywhere. It is only found in the oral law of his day.

This is my position, and I respect that yours may differ.

 

[Chris.]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

The correct position?
I like to be to the left of the pulpit about 3 rows back from the front.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

I believe he is referring to another law. And, there was another law present in Paul's day that Paul was very familiar with that did say the exact things he was referring to. I quoted from the Talmud to illustrate that the oral law of Paul's day did in fact command women to be silent, and it did in fact say that it was shameful for them to speak.

If Paul is indeed referring to the oral law, than it is very likely that he is not agreeing with it. Verses 36-40 would then rightly be understood as a rebuke of those seeking to impose oppressive oral traditions on the early church.

It does not matter what law he refers to, the point is he is talking about (to) the new church telling them "Let your women keep silence in the churches" and then to the point you make he said: "as also saith the law", who cares what law, he simply said the are to remain silent just like it did in some other law...

1 Corinthians 14:34 (KJV)
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi rrowel, and thanks for your comment. I think it does matter what law he is talking about. I'll copy and paste from another webpage to illustrate what I mean. If you're willing to read this through, I think you'll understand what I'm saying:

"Talmud Forbids Women from Speaking in the Assembly---Not Torah!

For a long time I’ve wondered what “law” was in view in verse 34. There is strong reason to believe that it is not the Old Testament, but the Talmud that is being cited. According to Wikipedia, “The Talmud is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history.” In Jesus’ day the first part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was in oral form, but in 200A.D. and 500A.D. it and the Gemara were put into writing. In brief, two key issues point to why the Jewish oral law (Talmud) was behind what was stated in vv.34-35.

1.) Only the Talmud silences women.

2.) Only the Talmud designates the speech of women as “shameful.”

The Talmud Silenced Women

Cheryl [Schatz] observes that “The silencing of women was a Jewish ordinance. Women were not permitted to speak in the assembly or even to ask questions. The rabbis taught that a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.”

Josephus, a Jewish historian, asserted that “the woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to a man. Let her accordingly be submissive.”

The Talmud clearly affirms the silence of females:

“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a).

“Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent” (summary of Talmudic sayings).

The Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman “Shameful”

“It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)

“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)

The English translation of the Greek word, aiskron, as “shameful” or “improper” hardly convey the strength of what the word encompasses. The affirmation in verse 35, Cheryl notes, is that a woman’s speaking is “lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty and morally degraded.”

Male and female prophesying was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). Paul approved the prophesying of women in 1st Corinthians 11:5.

In 1st Corinthians 14 he saw the whole body involved in prophesying – “everybody is prophesying” (v.24), “each one of you has a teaching” (v.26), “you may all prophesy one by one” (v.31). How could the same apostle Paul a few pen strokes later turn around and unequivocally designate women’s speech in the body as “filthy, lewd and vile”? It makes no sense at all. I have always felt like verses 34-35 didn’t sound like Paul. Something was awry.

The matter is cleared up by realizing that Paul did not write the negative words about women in vv.34-35. Instead, those basing their view of women on the oral law did. Paul never required women to be silent and never called female speaking “lewd and filthy.” The Talmud was guilty of advocating both.

This is further confirmed in verse 36 when Paul exclaims “What! Did the Word of Elohiym originate with you?”

The “What!” indicates that Paul is not in harmony with what was stated by others from the Talmud in vv.34-35. Thayer’s Lexicon notes that the “What” is a disjunctive conjunction “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand.”

Sir William Ramsey commented: “We should be ready to suspect that Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul’s known views.”

Paul contrasts his commands which promote edification by the varied contributions of all with the restrictive prohibitions upon women demanded by the anti-gospel Talmud. Paul saw the voices of the sisters as a vital part of the building up of the Body of Messiah. The Talmud, on the other hand, viewed female voices as “shameful” and as “filthy nakedness.”

We know that various concerns and questions came to Paul from the Corinthians in a letter. He refers to this communication several times in 1st Corinthians. If quotation marks are placed at the beginning and end of verses 34-35, thus seeing them as the words of some Corinthians to Paul, then the apparent contradiction between Paul’s encouragement of female participation and then his seeming silencing of them is resolved satisfactorily. [Please note, there are no quotation marks or other forms of punctuation in the Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians. Even spaces between words do not exist. Decisions in translation about what Paul was saying, and what Paul was quoting from the letter sent to him are made by context alone.]

Those who use 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 as a basis for requiring the sisters to be silent in the meetings would do well to consider the strong possibility that the words they cite as proof-texts are non-Pauline, and reflect the non-gospel viewpoint of the Talmud. Are they prepared to maintain, as the anti-feminine Talmud did, that a woman’s voice is “dirty” and “like filthy nakedness”? I submit that it is unthinkable that Paul would assign such awful sentiments to the sisters’ words.

Excerpts from Joanne Krupp’s “Woman: God’s plan not Man’s Tradition, Preparing the Way”, 1999, pp.80-83. (used with the permission of the author)

The Context of 1st Corinthians

What does the rest of 1st Corinthians tell us that will shed light on these verses?

We know the Corinthian Christians had written Paul a letter (7:1) and that in that letter a number of issues were raised that Paul needed to address.

In Paul’s letter, as he addressed a question or issue that had been raised by the Corinthians in their letter to him, sometimes he simply referred to the subject in question, and then responded to it, as in the following examples:

1:11 – “For it was declared to me about you, my brethren, by the ones of Chloe, that there are strifes among you ...”

7:1 – Paul says, “now concerning the things about which you wrote . . .”

7:25 – “now concerning virgins . . .”

8:1 – “now concerning things sacrificed to idols . . .”

9:1 – he asks questions to bring up the next subject, “Am I not free?”

“Am I not an apostle?,” etc. He is obviously referring to their questions regarding his being called an apostle.

12:1 – “now concerning spiritual gifts . . .”

Other times Paul repeated the Corinthian’s erroneous statements and then proceeded to correct, or bring balance to, their thinking.

6:12 – Paul seems to be quoting them: “All things are lawful for me,” then he counters with “but all things are not profitable.” Then he repeats again what probably was their statement to him, “All things are lawful for me,” and again balances that statement with, “but I will not be mastered by anything.” The Corinthians were justifying their license by their words because Paul had taught, “You are not under law, but under grace.”

The portion in question here, 1st Corinthians 14:34-35, finds Paul describing in some detail how the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be in operation in a church assembly, and specifically the gift of prophecy. At this point a new subject is being introduced. Paul seems to shift to the subject of women in the assembly.

It is very much in keeping with the pattern of this letter for Paul, in verses 34 and 35, simply to be repeating the words of the Corinthians:

“Let the women keep silence in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves just as the law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

What follows in verse 36 seem to rebut their statement when he says, “What! Was it from you that the Word of Elohiym (God) first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” Then he closes this chapter with a few more remarks concerning prophecy and speaking in tongues.

Which Law?

The key phrase in verse 34 is “just as the law also says.” Remember, Paul was an educated man. He called himself a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Certainly he knew the law. There is no Old Testament law or Scripture that either silences women or subjects them --– none whatsoever. Check the cross reference notes in your Bible for verse 34, and you’ll find no cross reference in the Old Testament. Rather, Psalm 68:11 says, “YHWH gives the command; the women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host.”

Does Paul have the right to silence that “great host of women”? Inconceivable!

However, the Jews were living according to the Talmud, not according to the Old Testament Law. Remember the Talmud contains regulations and traditions had had become more important than the Old Testament book of the Law. In the “Ten Curses of Eve” listed in the Babylonian Talmud, the sixth is summarized this way:

“He shall rule over thee,” the wife being in total submission and subjugation, since the wife is the personal property of the husband.

When he quotes their statement back to them in verses 34 and 35, which makes reference to the law, he is attempting to show them that they are still living and operating by the oral law of the Jews or Jewish traditions.

The great German lexicographer, Schleusner, in his Greek-Latin Lexicon, declares the expression “as also saith the law”refers to the Oral Law of the Jews. Here are his words: “The oral laws of the Jews or Jewish traditions . . . in the Old Testament no precept concerning the matter exists,”and he cites Vitringa as showing that it was “forbidden by Jewish traditions for women to speak in the synagogue.”

Paul would never have made such a statement such as is quoted in verses 34 and 35 attributing something to Old Testament law that simply did not exist. Not only that but all through his letters he tried to free believers from the bondage of the (Pharisaic) Law, not hold them to it (Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16, 5:1).

By Paul’s response in verse 36, he is saying, “Who do you think you are, setting yourselves up to proclaim something as from God that is not supported by Scripture?”

We are doing Paul a disfavor and discrediting his intelligence by accusing him of originating this statement rather than understanding that he was simply quoting theirs. Paul is not attempting to establish the silencing of women in the New Testament Church. On the contrary, he is chiding the Corinthians for their attempt to keep women silent and thereby prevent them from freely ministering as the men were free to do.


[1] Charles Trombley, Who Said Women Can’t Teach? (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge Publishing, Inc, 1984), 30. Summarized from Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary by Herson.

[2] Johann Friedrich Schleusner, as quoted in Katherine Bushnell, God’s Word to Women (privately reprinted [ca. 1976] by Ray B. Munson, P.O. Box 417, North Collins, NY 14111, [originally published] 1923), 201." http://doubleportioninheritance.blogspot.ca/2011/10/talmud-forbids-women-from-speaking-in_6434.html

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi rrowel, and thanks for your comment. I think it does matter what law he is talking about. I'll copy and paste from another webpage to illustrate what I mean. If you're willing to read this through, I think you'll understand what I'm saying:

Hello BobE,

Interesting read, much to address...

I only cut the pasted part of the quote to keep the post from being to large, I think we can get more out of posts if they are kept short as possible and still get the point across... and it is a large subject and I hope we can work our way through this in enough steps to get our points across without being so windy that we lose the point of our posts...

With that in mind, I will begin again quoting what I just did in another post....

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi rrowel, and thanks for your comment. I think it does matter what law he is talking about. I'll copy and paste from another webpage to illustrate what I mean. If you're willing to read this through, I think you'll understand what I'm saying:

What is important in 1 Cor. 14 is to understand three very important things:

1. The time period this was penned.
2. Who he was addressing.
3. In no way do these passages apply to the church today.

If we were to apply the passages written here by Paul to the church today, women would not be able to sing (as they are commanded to do) or pray (as they are commanded to do) amongst other things...

addressing the aforementioned one at a time.

1. the Bible had not been written yet, the church was reliant on inspired men to learn the teachings the bible would bring, this was of the Apostolic age.

2. he was addressing those with prophetic power, and those that had this prophetic power in the church were men... this is why he is telling them the women are to remain silent... it was the prophets wives that were professing and they had no prophetic power, only their husbands had this power, and if they were to ask a question, they were told to ask their husbands, those who did have the power of prophecy... (this scripture does not say that all men were prophetic either).

3. because the Apostolic age is no longer here, the inspired prophecy of men are no longer, therefore it does not apply to the Church today.

What prohibits a woman to preach or teach is by a long shot not found in 1 Cor. 14. it is many others, one of which is found here :

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (KJV)
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Above is an example of how Paul teaches the church today to worship. (BTW: the above passage does not disaprove of a woman to teach unless she is usurping the authority of the man, this cannot be taken out of context)

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

What is important in 1 Cor. 14 is to understand three very important things:

1. The time period this was penned.
2. Who he was addressing.
3. In no way do these passages apply to the church today.

If we were to apply the passages written here by Paul to the church today, women would not be able to sing (as they are commanded to do) or pray (as they are commanded to do) amongst other things...

addressing the aforementioned one at a time.

1. the Bible had not been written yet, the church was reliant on inspired men to learn the teachings the bible would bring, this was of the Apostolic age.

2. he was addressing those with prophetic power, and those that had this prophetic power in the church were men... this is why he is telling them the women are to remain silent... it was the prophets wives that were professing and they had no prophetic power, only their husbands had this power, and if they were to ask a question, they were told to ask their husbands, those who did have the power of prophecy... (this scripture does not say that all men were prophetic either).

3. because the Apostolic age is no longer here, the inspired prophecy of men are no longer, therefore it does not apply to the Church today.

What prohibits a woman to preach or teach is by a long shot not found in 1 Cor. 14. it is many others, one of which is found here :

1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Above is an example of how Paul teaches the church today to worship. (BTW: the above passage does not disaprove of a woman to teach unless she is usurping the authority of the man, this cannot be taken out of context)

Re. your reference to 1 Timothy 2:11-13. Just as it is important to understand the context of Paul's letter to the Corinthians (he was addressing disputes brought to his attention by people sent from Chloe, a woman in the church of Corinth), it is important to understand the Context of Paul's letter to Timothy.

I'd like to start by quoting from one theologian who completely ignored or was simply unaware of this context:

John Chrysostom 337-407 A.D. said, "Shall not women then be saved? Yes by means of children" http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/roles_kostenberger.pdf. He goes on to explain that women are saved when they have children that then live godly lives.

Chrysostom is referring to the following passage in 1 Timothy chapter 2:15:

"Nevertheless she will be saved in child-bearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control" (NKJV).

What's wrong with Chysostom's interpretation? Heh, what's not wrong with it. Women are apparently not saved by grace through faith. No, they must literally get married and have kids to experience salvation.

This happens to contradict the rest of the New Testament. At the same time, it indicates that Chrysostom really had no idea what Paul was talking about here.

Paul was writing to Timothy, a young pastor in Ephesus, where much of the population worshiped at a famous shrine to Diana. What does that have to do with 1 Timothy 2:15? Well, Diana was the patron goddess of easy childbirths.

Diana was also worshiped via interaction with temple prostitutes. Former adherents of Diana were likely to show up at church meetings in their tradition attire, which was designed to seduce men. Why am I mentioning this? Look what else Paul has to say to Timothy in chapter 2: "in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation"(NKJV).

When readers understand the context of Paul's letter, the verses about child-bearing make sense: don't trust Diana to help you in childbirth, trust in Christ. The verses about modesty also make sense: former temple prostitutes are called upon to forsake the customary seductive attire.

This brings us to 1 Timothy 2:12: "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (NKJV). Well, just as Chrysostom (and Augustine, and Jerome) got the child-bearing verse wrong--largely because of their incredible prejudice against women--they also got this verse badly wrong.

What's wrong with it? A serious problem recognized by historians in Paul's time was something called syncretism--the mixing of pre-existing religions with the gospel. Note how John attempts to address the blending of the gospel with gnosticism in his first epistle. Timothy would have had to contend with a different sort of syncretism, the blending of Diana worship with Christianity (Edwards, 2011). As I've already mentioned, Diana was worshiped through harlotry. She was also worshiped via sacrifice. In the Greek text, what Paul is not permitting is "authentein," a word used only once in the entirety of the Bible. In Augustine's time, and afterward, this verb has been translated "have authority." In Paul's time, however, the word simply did not have this meaning. In other Greek literature of Paul's day it consistently referred to something both sexual and murderous. Does this fit Diana worship? Perfectly.

In the historical context we know existed in Timothy's Ephesus there existed the problem of blending Christianity and Diana worship. This resulted in immodesty, trusting Diana for help in childbirth and doctrines that included pagan rituals of sex and sacrifice. All of these are addressed by Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 2. And, of course women mixing Diana worship and Christianity should not teach.

Without this context, commentators with strong prejudices against women, are likely to fall prey to something known as "confirmation bias." If we have a prejudiced belief about a people-group, our minds will focus selectively on evidence that seems to confirm our bias, even if we need to distort the evidence in the process. This is the very nature of prejudice, and it is clearly evident in the translation of passages like 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Corinthians 14.

It is not just the translation of authentein, however, that leads me to question traditional, patriachral translations. It is the abundance of biblical evidence indicating that women could indeed teach and have authority over men. Junia, a woman, was an apostle. Phoebe, a woman, was a diakonos, which is commonly translated minister or deacon, and a prostatis, commonly translated leader or ruler. Priscilla taught a man the gospel more perfectly; she corrected him. Deborah, a woman, was a judge over Israel, and Ruth 1:1 indicates that judges were in fact rulers.

Did God allow women to be rulers? Yes (Deborah). Could they be leaders in the church? Yes (Phoebe and Junia). Could they teach men? (Yes, Priscilla). Is this consistent with an erroneous and prejudiced intrepretation of 1 Timothy, that shows no knowledge or interest in the historical context of the letter? No, it is not consistent. Are these examples of women leading and teaching consistent with an accurate interpretation of authentein, and an appreciation of Timothy's context? Thankfully, yes.

I think the church needs to revisist the fact that many of the influential church fathers who ministered between 300 and 1000 A.D. were strongly prejudiced against women. This has nothing to do with God or their faith. It has everything to do with the male dominated cultures that raised them with a prejudice against women. These church fathers included the likes of Augustine and Jerome. Both essentially blamed women for the world's problems, literally. Jerome translated an early Bible, and Augustine's "authoritative teachings" were used to establish canon law in the Catholic church. Likewise, protestant reformers like Calvin and Luther were strongly influenced by Augustine's understanding of the Bible.

Also, to address another of your comments, I think you'll find that the church wasn't dependent solely upon prophetic "men" for guidance, since women also received and exercised the gift of prophesy: "The four daughters of Philip had the gift of prophecy" (Acts 21:9, NKJV). 1 Corinthians chapter 11 conerns itself with the customs of the churches, one of which has women prophesying in church.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Re. your reference to 1 Timothy 2:11-13. Just as it is important to understand the context of Paul's letter to the Corinthians (he was addressing disputes brought to his attention by people sent from Chloe, a woman in the church of Corinth), it is important to understand the Context of Paul's letter to Timothy.

I'd like to start by quoting from one theologian who completely ignored or was simply unaware of this context:

John Chrysostom 337-407 A.D. said, "Shall not women then be saved? Yes by means of children" http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/roles_kostenberger.pdf. He goes on to explain that women are saved when they have children that then live godly lives.

Chrysostom is referring to the following passage in 1 Timothy chapter 2:15:

"Nevertheless she will be saved in child-bearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control" (NKJV).

What's wrong with Chysostom's interpretation? Heh, what's not wrong with it. Women are apparently not saved by grace through faith. No, they must literally get married and have kids to experience salvation.

This happens to contradict the rest of the New Testament. At the same time, it indicates that Chrysostom really had no idea what Paul was talking about here.

No doubt he had no idea, so I don't know why you use such nonsense, I think we can make our point much better, and shorter if we let the Bible do most of the talking and not bring in outside man made doctrine into the picture, it is of no value and wastes space and time...

Paul was writing to Timothy, a young pastor in Ephesus, where much of the population worshiped at a famous shrine to Diana. What does that have to do with 1 Timothy 2:15? Well, Diana was the patron goddess of easy childbirths.

Diana was also worshiped via interaction with temple prostitutes. Former adherents of Diana were likely to show up at church meetings in their tradition attire, which was designed to seduce men. Why am I mentioning this? Look what else Paul has to say to Timothy in chapter 2: "in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation"(NKJV).

When readers understand the context of Paul's letter, the verses about child-bearing make sense: don't trust Diana to help you in childbirth, trust in Christ. The verses about modesty also make sense: former temple prostitutes are called upon to forsake the customary seductive attire.

Hmmm, My NKJV sure does not put it this way, I think we need to stick to the bible and you need to put the other books down, as you can prove nothing your saying with the bible, and the bible is all we need :

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This brings us to 1 Timothy 2:12: "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (NKJV). Well, just as Chrysostom (and Augustine, and Jerome) got the child-bearing verse wrong--largely because of their incredible prejudice against women--they also got this verse badly wrong.

BobE,
I don't know why you keep bringing up this "Chrysostom" and "Augustine" and "Jerome" and such, I never proclaimed them to be some authority, in fact they are down right heretic. again, we must speak where the bible speaks, and be silent where it is silent if we are to find the truth....

What's wrong with it? A serious problem recognized by historians in Paul's time was something called syncretism--the mixing of pre-existing religions with the gospel. Note how John attempts to address the blending of the gospel with gnosticism in his first epistle. Timothy would have had to contend with a different sort of syncretism, the blending of Diana worship with Christianity (Edwards, 2011). As I've already mentioned, Diana was worshiped through harlotry. She was also worshiped via sacrifice. In the Greek text, what Paul is not permitting is "authentein," a word used only once in the entirety of the Bible. In Augustine's time, and afterward, this verb has been translated "have authority." In Paul's time, however, the word simply did not have this meaning. In other Greek literature of Paul's day it consistently referred to something both sexual and murderous. Does this fit Diana worship? Perfectly.

In the historical context we know existed in Timothy's Ephesus there existed the problem of blending Christianity and Diana worship. This resulted in immodesty, trusting Diana for help in childbirth and doctrines that included pagan rituals of sex and sacrifice. All of these are addressed by Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 2. And, of course women mixing Diana worship and Christianity should not teach.

Without this context, commentators with strong prejudices against women, are likely to fall prey to something known as "confirmation bias." If we have a prejudiced belief about a people-group, our minds will focus selectively on evidence that seems to confirm our bias, even if we need to distort the evidence in the process. This is the very nature of prejudice, and it is clearly evident in the translation of passages like 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Corinthians 14.

From here on out I will only delete, will not even quote such nonsense, lets get back to the bible please, we are wasting valuable space here Please make points with the Bible, I think it is fine and necessary sometimes to know the culture of the time, but I prefer to stick to things like Josephus who was more or less a non biased historian... that's about as far as I go...

It is not just the translation of authentein, however, that leads me to question traditional, patriachral translations. It is the abundance of biblical evidence indicating that women could indeed teach and have authority over men. Junia, a woman, was an apostle. Phoebe, a woman, was a diakonos, which is commonly translated minister or deacon, and a prostatis, commonly translated leader or ruler. Priscilla taught a man the gospel more perfectly; she corrected him. Deborah, a woman, was a judge over Israel, and Ruth 1:1 indicates that judges were in fact rulers.

Your getting a little closer to the Bible here so I will address it somewhat...

In my previous post about "only men" were given the power of prophecy I stated in the part I labeled (2.) "Who he was addressing.", in 1 Cor. 14 Paul was in this meeting addressing those that (in this meeting) were given the power of prophecy and there wives, in this particular chapter these women he was telling to remain silent were the wives of the prophets, and the wives were not given the power so were to remain silent (they were practicing prophecy and he rebuked them for it) telling them to ask there husbands, in the same chapter he rebukes even the prophets for abusing there power speaking in tongues when there is nobody to interpret it, that it was not edifying :

(1Co 14:4 KJV) He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

(1Co 14:9 KJV) So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

and by the way, in no way does Romans 16:7 say she was an Apostle, she was well know by the Apostles, was his kinsman and was a Christian before Paul...

[/QUOTE]Did God allow women to be rulers? Yes (Deborah). Could they be leaders in the church? Yes (Phoebe and Junia). Could they teach men? (Yes, Priscilla). Is this consistent with an erroneous and prejudiced intrepretation of 1 Timothy, that shows no knowledge or interest in the historical context of the letter? No, it is not consistent. Are these examples of women leading and teaching consistent with an accurate interpretation of authentein, and an appreciation of Timothy's context? Thankfully, yes.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and No... Yes there were women that prophesied and did so pleasing to God (You may have even quoted this verse yourself, your post is so windy I cant remember) :

Acts 21:8-9 (KJV)
8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

But too, as I said in the previous post :
(1.) "The time period this was penned."... this was during the "Apostolic Age" while the bible was yet not finished. but remember just as I said 1 Cor. 14 cannot be used as a bases for the church today just like 1 Cor. 14 these two verses describe something that happened during the Apostolic age and does not happen and does not apply to women today.

We don't have Prophets today, we have a Bible...

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi rrowel, I'd like to respond to your comment here:

"Hmmm, My NKJV sure does not put it this way, I think we need to stick to the bible and you need to put the other books down, as you can prove nothing your saying with the bible, and the bible is all we need."

I would like to keep my response brief, as per your request, but it seems as though I need to condense nearly two thousand years of church history as it relates to the Bible translation you are reading. I'll be as brief as I can.

The reason I keep mentioning Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom etc., is because it is curtesy of their work in Bible translation and commentary that you have the mindset responsible for your New King James Version.

By the time the King James Version was translated, women had lost all ability to preach, teach and lead in the church. This became Canon Law in the church at around 1140 A.D.. Please feel free to research this (i.e. look up Gratian's Decretum). The Decretum was largely based on the writings of the church fathers (e.g. Augustine) and patriarchal Roman law. Prior to this, women could preach, teach and lead in the church, although Augustine, Jerome etc. began contesting this at around the 3rd Century.

Because Canon Law said women cannot be leaders, teachers or preachers, Bible translation and interpretation after 1140 was impacted significantly. (Failure to abide by Canon Law was punishable by death; typically offenders were burned at the stake for heresy). Here are just some of the errors that were a result.

In the KJV and NKJV, when the Greek word diakonos is translated in reference to a man, it is translated "deacon" or "minister" (Phil 1:1, 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 6:4, 2 Cor. 11:23, Eph. 3:7, Col. 1:23). Regarding women, the same word is translated "servant" or "succourer" (Romans 16:1).

In the KJV and NKJV when the Greek word prostatis is translated regarding men, it is translated "leader" or "ruler" (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17, 1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12). When it is translated regarding a woman, we again see the English word "servant" (Romans 16:2).

In the King James Bible Is. 3:12 says, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them."

In the Greek Septuagint, the exact same verse says, "O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you"

In the KJV and NKJV Ephesians 5:22 is a separate sentence from 5:21, and contains a specific command that "wives submit" to their husbands. In the Greek text there are no verses; 5:21 and 5:22 are in fact one sentence, and the verb "submit" is only used once: "submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

All of these errors in translation accomplish one thing; they make women appear more fallen and less capable than men. We get the wrong impression that they make bad leaders, just because they are women, and that they cannot be ministers, leaders or deacons in the church. Some English translations also refer to the female apostle Junia as a man named Junias, thereby created the false impression that only men could be apostles. The result of all this error is that the traditions of men have replaced the word of God. Jesus confronts the religious leaders of his day for the same sin: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition" (Matt. 15:6 NIV).

So, if I was to take your advice, and stick only with the King James or New King James English translations, in all of these instances I would not in fact be reading "the Bible." I would be reading errors in translation made during the middle ages by men who studied Augustine and had a strong prejudice against women, in accordance with hundreds of years of Canon Law.

What I am reading are the Greek New Testament, church history, and current English translations. If I did not do this, I would not be aware of how much the sexism and ignorance of theologians of the 3rd century and middle ages had altered the Bible to support an unscriptural and derogatory view of women. Now that I am aware of this, I am deeply grieved; I expect God is also.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

So, if I was to take your advice, and stick only with the King James or New King James English translations, in all of these instances I would not in fact be reading "the Bible." I would be reading errors in translation made during the middle ages by men who studied Augustine and had a strong prejudice against women, in accordance with hundreds of years of Canon Law.

What I am reading are the Greek New Testament, church history, and current English translations. If I did not do this, I would not be aware of how much the sexism and ignorance of theologians of the 3rd century and middle ages had altered the Bible to support an unscriptural and derogatory view of women. Now that I am aware of this, I am deeply grieved; I expect God is also.

Now we are getting somewhere, but I have to apologize for slow responses as my work schedule is 4 days on, 4 days off, and the days I work I have very little time for anything, (one more day and I am off ) I will address this as soon as possible please be tolerant with me...

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Now we are getting somewhere, but I have to apologize for slow responses as my work schedule is 4 days on, 4 days off, and the days I work I have very little time for anything, (one more day and I am off ) I will address this as soon as possible please be tolerant with me...

Thanks rrowel, please don't feel rushed to reply. I hope work goes well for you. In view of your healthy respect for the Bible, I included a number of verses where you can find clear discrepancies between the Greek and the English of the KJV. Independent research, I think, will confirm these.

This is difficult to discuss because people, understandably, rely on their English translations to be accurate. If, however, sexism has crept into the translation process, it is truly the case that the traditions of men could supplant the word of God. This is very troubling to me, and reminiscent of what Jesus faced when he challenged the oral law of his day.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Thanks rrowel, please don't feel rushed to reply. I hope work goes well for you. In view of your healthy respect for the Bible, I included a number of verses where you can find clear discrepancies between the Greek and the English of the KJV. Independent research, I think, will confirm these.

This is difficult to discuss because people, understandably, rely on their English translations to be accurate. If, however, sexism has crept into the translation process, it is truly the case that the traditions of men could supplant the word of God. This is very troubling to me, and reminiscent of what Jesus faced when he challenged the oral law of his day.

We can get into this in detail, (it will take detail) and if it is the KJV you feel is an abomination, you should have a look at the NIV... I think I can prove the KJV though not perfect, is as close as we can get to the original Greek as we can get today (I am sure we will have most of our head banging on the translation of the Greek)...

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

We can get into this in detail, (it will take detail) and if it is the KJV you feel is an abomination, you should have a look at the NIV... I think I can prove the KJV though not perfect, is as close as we can get to the original Greek as we can get today (I am sure we will have most of our head banging on the translation of the Greek)...

I really don't think KJV is an abomination. I actually like it in many ways. I'm just aware that as a translation, it tends to have a gender bias against women. I understand where this comes from, and to be quite honest I don't think it's intentional. I think it is a reflection of the mindset of the translators, their culture and their education (largely steeped in the theological traditions of St. Augustine and other like-minded church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries, many of whom had a very low view of women).

So, I still read KJV, and my wife gave me a beautiful NKJV as a gift. I'm just aware of this bias when I read it.

Today's New International Version has made an effort at translating accurately, without the gender bias that is so conspicuous in the KJV. The TNIV catches many of the KJV's errors, though not all of them. As an English translation, I enjoy this one. I also have my handy Greek New Testament to check things any time I like .

In the TNIV, for example, words translated minister, deacon, leader or benefactor for men are also translated this way for women. It's simply more accurate, and does not suggest a gender-bias that would exclude women from these roles. I think in the middle ages, the Bible was altered to conform to church tradition. Frankly, I think church tradition should be altered to conform to the Bible.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

I really don't think KJV is an abomination. I actually like it in many ways. I'm just aware that as a translation, it tends to have a gender bias against women. I understand where this comes from, and to be quite honest I don't think it's intentional. I think it is a reflection of the mindset of the translators, their culture and their education (largely steeped in the theological traditions of St. Augustine and other like-minded church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries, many of whom had a very low view of women).

So, I still read KJV, and my wife gave me a beautiful NKJV as a gift. I'm just aware of this bias when I read it.

Today's New International Version has made an effort at translating accurately, without the gender bias that is so conspicuous in the KJV. The TNIV catches many of the KJV's errors, though not all of them. As an English translation, I enjoy this one. I also have my handy Greek New Testament to check things any time I like .

In the TNIV, for example, words translated minister, deacon, leader or benefactor for men are also translated this way for women. It's simply more accurate, and does not suggest a gender-bias that would exclude women from these roles. I think in the middle ages, the Bible was altered to conform to church tradition. Frankly, I think church tradition should be altered to conform to the Bible.

The majority of error in modern translations of the Bible stems not as much from the translation of Greek to English, but more so from of which Greek text was used to translate it from, most modern translations are conceived from the Westcott and Hort from the 19th century, which is a problem from the get go... the KJV having some Greek to English errors all be it remarkably very few, is translated from the published versions of the New Testament such as the work of Erasmus dating back as far as 1516, and that of Stephanus as far back as 1546 which more accurately adhere to the original manuscripts of the Apostolic age...

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

I also have my handy Greek New Testament to check things any time I like .

Just curious, what Greek New Testament are you using to "check things" any time you like

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Just curious, what Greek New Testament are you using to "check things" any time you like

Hi there rrowel. I'm using this text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

Here's a bit of commentary on it: "The Greek text as presented is what biblical scholars refer to as the "critical text". The critical text is an eclectic text compiled by a committee that examines a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the original. They use a number of factors to help determine probable readings, such as the date of the witness (earlier is usually better), the geographical distribution of a reading, and accidental or intentional corruptions. In the book, a large number of textual variants, or differences between manuscripts, are noted in the critical apparatus—the extensive footnotes that distinguish the Novum Testamentum Graece from other Greek New Testaments."

When I read this, and compare it to the English of the KJV, I see a systematic error in the translation of words applied to women. As I've highlighted, diakonos and prostatis are typically translated deacon, minister, leader, ruler when applied to men; they are translated servant or succourer when applied to women.

The effect of this systematic error is to portray men as functioning in teaching and leading roles. Women apparently do not function in these roles--but we get this impression only in the English translation.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi there rrowel. I'm using this text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

Here's a bit of commentary on it: "The Greek text as presented is what biblical scholars refer to as the "critical text". The critical text is an eclectic text compiled by a committee that examines a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the original. They use a number of factors to help determine probable readings, such as the date of the witness (earlier is usually better), the geographical distribution of a reading, and accidental or intentional corruptions. In the book, a large number of textual variants, or differences between manuscripts, are noted in the critical apparatus—the extensive footnotes that distinguish the Novum Testamentum Graece from other Greek New Testaments."

When I read this, and compare it to the English of the KJV, I see a systematic error in the translation of words applied to women. As I've highlighted, diakonos and prostatis are typically translated deacon, minister, leader, ruler when applied to men; they are translated servant or succourer when applied to women.

The effect of this systematic error is to portray men as functioning in teaching and leading roles. Women apparently do not function in these roles--but we get this impression only in the English translation.

I see, so we are down to the argument of the translation of ancient Greek, all the way back to the original scrolls, (words run together, no breathing marks or punctuation), well... neither one of us are scholarly enough for that which leads only to argument...

But I think if we analyze the work of either, no mater what text you chose to use, it cannot be contested that God mad man first, then the woman, and she was a "help meet" so we cannot agree on the Greek, lets start with the Hebrew.


Hebrew Word: ‏עֵזֶר‎
Transliteration: ʿēzer
Phonetic Pronunciation:ay'-zer
Root: from <H5826>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 1598a
Part of Speech: n m
Vine's Words: None



Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
help 19
help meet 2
[Total Count: 21]

from <H5826> (`azar); aid :- help.
James Strong, Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

If I "help" you; you are in control,
If I "aid" you; you are in control...

From the beginning, creation, man was first, then the woman

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

I see, so we are down to the argument of the translation of ancient Greek, all the way back to the original scrolls, (words run together, no breathing marks or punctuation), well... neither one of us are scholarly enough for that which leads only to argument...

But I think if we analyze the work of either, no mater what text you chose to use, it cannot be contested that God mad man first, then the woman, and she was a "help meet" so we cannot agree on the Greek, lets start with the Hebrew.


Hebrew Word: ‏עֵזֶר‎
Transliteration: ʿēzer
Phonetic Pronunciation:ay'-zer
Root: from <H5826>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 1598a
Part of Speech: n m
Vine's Words: None



Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
help 19
help meet 2
[Total Count: 21]

from <H5826> (`azar); aid :- help.
James Strong, Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

If I "help" you; you are in control,
If I "aid" you; you are in control...

From the beginning, creation, man was first, then the woman

"Ezer is used only 21 times in the Old Testament. Twice it is used to refer to Eve, 3 times it is used to refer to nations that provided military assistance to Israel, and the other 16 times it is used in reference to God as a helper. All of these verses are talking about a vital, powerful and rescuing kind of help; yet when ezer is applied to the first woman, Eve, its meaning has been diminished to fit with traditional and cultural views of women’s roles.

In Exodus 18:4 it says that Moses named one of his sons Eliezer, which in Hebrew means: “God is my helper”. This verse goes on to explain why Moses named his son Eliezer: not because God had done Moses’ laundry (no disrespect intended), but because God had delivered Moses from Pharaoh’s sword." http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/a-suitable-helper/

By your reasoning, since God is our ezer (help) we are in control. Obviously this is false.

Once again, you are in fact highlighting the problem of cultural bias in Bible interpretation. When ezer is used of God, he is strong and powerful. When ezer is used of Eve, she is--wrongly--perceived as subordinate or inferior. As I've highlighted, this particular perception can be found in Augustine's theology and philosophy. This has indeed coloured how people read and understand the word "help" when it is applied to Eve.

I'd also like to respond to this comment from your last post:
"I see, so we are down to the argument of the translation of ancient Greek, all the way back to the original scrolls, (words run together, no breathing marks or punctuation), well... neither one of us are scholarly enough for that which leads only to argument..."

You may not know that I was a Bible College Professor and Department Head for 4 years, that I studied at 2 Universities, 3 Church Colleges, 1 Bible College and 1 Seminary prior to obtaining my various degrees in religion, social development, social work and counselling. My studies of New Testament Greek were the equivalent of those preparing for pastoral ministry. I say this simply to indicate that your assumption that neither of us is educated enough to discuss the Greek text is inaccurate.

Having said that though, none of this education would be necessary to see that when diakonos and prostatis are used of men, they are translated as deacon, minister or ruler. When they are used of women, they are translated as servant or succourer. This is a fairly obvious error suggesting gender-bias.

Again, the original languages of the Bible (diakonos, prostatis, ezer) in Greek and Hebrew in no way refer to women as inferior or subordinate to men. This subordination can only be found in erroneous translations of the Greek, and biased interpretations of the Hebrew (e.g. assuming that a woman as ezer means she is subordinate, although the same word is used of God when he clearly is not).

Also, Paul corrects the assumption that the creation order is indicative of rank in his first letter to Corinth: "For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God" (11:12 NIV).

The subordination of women is rightly described in Genesis as a curse resulting from sin--a curse that Christ died to redeem us from according to Paul's letter to the Galatians: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[a]) (Galatians 3:13). As a direct result of Jesus becoming a curse for us, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

Is it my job as a Christian man to enforce the curse of sin upon women? No, far from it. My job is to teach and model redemption. It grieves me to see the church being used as a vehicle to enforce the curse of sin that our Savior died to free us from. It grieves me that the worldview of patriarchal church fathers has apparently supplanted the message of the gospel. Btw, Augustine also wrote in support of slavery. Slaves, like women, he said, were born to serve free men, because the inferior require the leadership and wisdom of the superior. It is Augustine's extensive commentary on the book of Genesis that suggests the inferiority of women requires male control. We now read the Genesis account (e.g. ezer) through the lenses of his prejudice--the foundation of our institutional traditions.

Insisting that the Bible requires female subordination reminds me of the church's former insistance that the sun orbits around the earth. When Galileo contested this, they put him on trial for heresy. The church finally admitted its error in 1992 and offered an apology to Galileo. He died in 1642.

We can be very, very slow to recognize the errors in our religious traditions. We confuse our interpretations and assumptions (which become our "doctrines") with the word of God.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

"Ezer is used only 21 times in the Old Testament. Twice it is used to refer to Eve, 3 times it is used to refer to nations that provided military assistance to Israel, and the other 16 times it is used in reference to God as a helper. All of these verses are talking about a vital, powerful and rescuing kind of help; yet when ezer is applied to the first woman, Eve, its meaning has been diminished to fit with traditional and cultural views of women’s roles.

In Exodus 18:4 it says that Moses named one of his sons Eliezer, which in Hebrew means: “God is my helper”. This verse goes on to explain why Moses named his son Eliezer: not because God had done Moses’ laundry (no disrespect intended), but because God had delivered Moses from Pharaoh’s sword." http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/a-suitable-helper/

By your reasoning, since God is our ezer (help) we are in control. Obviously this is false.

Once again, you are in fact highlighting the problem of cultural bias in Bible interpretation. When ezer is used of God, he is strong and powerful. When ezer is used of Eve, she is--wrongly--perceived as subordinate or inferior. As I've highlighted, this particular perception can be found in Augustine's theology and philosophy. This has indeed coloured how people read and understand the word "help" when it is applied to Eve.

It does not matter where it is used, it means "helper" or taking the submissive position, saying "God is my helper" means" What I do I cannot do without his help"...

I'd also like to respond to this comment from your last post:
"I see, so we are down to the argument of the translation of ancient Greek, all the way back to the original scrolls, (words run together, no breathing marks or punctuation), well... neither one of us are scholarly enough for that which leads only to argument..."

You may not know that I was a Bible College Professor and Department Head for 4 years, that I studied at 2 Universities, 3 Church Colleges, 1 Bible College and 1 Seminary prior to obtaining my various degrees in religion, social development, social work and counselling. My studies of New Testament Greek were the equivalent of those preparing for pastoral ministry. I say this simply to indicate that your assumption that neither of us is educated enough to discuss the Greek text is inaccurate.

Romans 1:22 KJV
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Remember too, the Devil is a scholar, he quotes scripture, and told Eve what God meant... you may have an educational background, but in no means makes you an authority, you are no more inspired than anyone else on this forum, sometimes I believe there is only so much room in a mans brain and as education moves in, common sense moves out. we are further ahead to trust in guidance from the Holy Spirit!

James 1:5 KJV
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Having said that though, none of this education would be necessary to see that when diakonos and prostatis are used of men, they are translated as deacon, minister or ruler. When they are used of women, they are translated as servant or succourer. This is a fairly obvious error suggesting gender-bias.

Again, the original languages of the Bible (diakonos, prostatis, ezer) in Greek and Hebrew in no way refer to women as inferior or subordinate to men. This subordination can only be found in erroneous translations of the Greek, and biased interpretations of the Hebrew (e.g. assuming that a woman as ezer means she is subordinate, although the same word is used of God when he clearly is not).

Also, Paul corrects the assumption that the creation order is indicative of rank in his first letter to Corinth: "For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God" (11:12 NIV).

Here is the hierarchy of all:

1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

And again the hierarchy of the man and woman:

1 Corinthians 11:8 KJV
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9 KJV
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

But the Bible also teaches although the woman being dependent on the man, so is the man (equally) dependent on the women as without each other they cannot exist :

1 Corinthians 11:11 KJV
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

So even though the man came before the woman, the woman is equally important to the man as you stated, the woman was made "from" the man, but now the man is "born" of the woman so the two constitute one real self-propagating being.

1 Corinthians 11:12 KJV
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The Bible does not teach that a man is to be a dictator over the woman, he is to care and love her as Christ does the Church :

Ephesians 5:23 KJV
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

and the Bible does not say a woman today cannot teach, it does not even say a woman cannot teach another man, it only says if a more authoritative man is present, she is to submit to the man and let him teach :

1 Timothy 2:12 KJV
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

so since Preaching is in fact Teaching, if there is a man in the audience that is knowledgeable as she, then she cannot do either as she would be "usurping" authority over him.

And BTW: there is no proof she was a woman deacon, but in accordance to the context she was most probable a "deacons wife". else it would be contradictory of the qualifications given in the Bible and we know the Bible does not contradict its self:

1 Timothy 3:8-13 KJV
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

As Scholarly as you are, you probably already knew that!