female preacher

[rjs330]

You said, "every Scripture"; are you now (correctly) saying that some were personal comments; addressed to certain people rather than all of us?

Im saying instructional material.to the church and commands to the church.

I do not refer to the little things like Paul taking a ship to Cyprus or telling someone to greet someone etc. Or a scripturw that says Jesus walked to one place or another. I hope that helps.

 

[RamiC]

Except that is not what Paul said.

No, it is who it was addressed to though, it is why he said it. There are links to the research and exegis in all my previous posts.

I have already pointed out multiple times that I am not arguing that anything has changed because of the century we are in.

 

[RamiC]

Im saying instructional material.to the church and commands to the church.

I do not refer to the little things like Paul taking a ship to Cyprus or telling someone to greet someone etc. Or a scripturw that says Jesus walked to one place or another. I hope that helps.

To further explain, my post #89, I was in attendance at this place like Corinth, "I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly" I changed to one like Thessalonica "because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.". These are both verses from the Bible, it is only by taking an interest in who those Epistles were addressed to that this can make any sense. Both also still apply in this century, I changed church because of them, in this century...not some other.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I'm curious, did God also get it wrong because there are serial killers?

No, of course not.

You know, I really expected a response to your own statement, here.

God gave Adam a command to not eat from the tree; Adam disobeyed. God did not create sin.

This is true, however ...

1 Timothy 2:8-14
King James Version

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.


Paul prefers the above. However, he's pretty adamant about the following:


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


Doesn't seem he is leaving room for a general interpretation about his feelings.

Going back to, God gave Adam a command to not eat from the tree; Adam disobeyed. God did not create sin ...

That too is irrelevant to the text in view:


13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


... the issue is deception. Not sin, nor the cause for sin (and for the record, I agree, God did not create sin; sin is the result of imperfect efforts in following God's direct revelation to imperfect creatures He did create).

People might even say that they're killing people because God told them to. But you won't find a born again Christian who loves God and is serving him, say that they feel called to be a serial killer.

Again, I wouldn't be too hasty: that a born again believer might lose his/her mind and kill numerous people, and think they're doing God's will is well within a reasonable scenario. Christians that (make it a practice to) sin can fall out of God's protective umbrella and be given over to destruction.

However, in view is the matter of female leadership and justification for nullifying what, for most, is a pretty clear teaching, both implicit, as well as explicit.

Still, it must be kept in mind, when engaging in discussions such as this one, that God has always judged based on the individuals response to his reveled will and, just as importantly, their understanding of that will. While I myself do not believe that women should stand in the place of authority in either the household or the church, I can certainly understand how some conclude they can. Just as I understand how people can believe in Soul Sleep and Annihilation. And loss of salvation. Or that the Baptism with the Holy ghost is a subsequent blessing for believers already baptized into Christ. I don't think this impacts their Eternal Redemption, but I do think it will impact their walk.

Trying to justify women holding positions of leadership because Deborah was a judge, Mary sat at Christ's feet, or that God couldn't foresee a more enlightened culture is, in my humble opinion, rationalization, not exegesis. It is true that the Christian relationship between men and women should never resemble that which we see in ancient cultures (in many areas), however, there is a reason why men have held the leadership role throughout Scripture. The fact that men fail to hold that role is a blemish on us, not women, but that is not justification for role reversal.

Let me ask, finally (maybe, I've already gone beyond what I told myself I would), if the following passage is instruction relevant to our culture:

Ephesians 5 (KJV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 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.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.


Shall we say, "The female Pastor can be in submission to her husband?" Sure, but we can equally conclude that If the headship of the household can be ignored, so too—can the headship of Christ. Shall the man take it upon himself, also, to stand in the place of authority that belongs to Christ? Or can we approve one exchanging of roles—but not the other? Seems to be out of character with regard to the consistency of the Word of God to me, but, that is just me.


Marriage is given as an illustration of the eternal union shared between Christ and believers:


Ephesians 5 (KJV)

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


But the roles will remain constant: Christ will always be the Head of the Body. And nowhere in Scripture do we see justification that the role of the husband be, here comes that terrible word again—usurped. Yes, there is an equality between men and women in Christ, just as there is an equality among races. But because I am in Christ doesn't make me Jewish (and for the record, I do not buy into a literal interpretation of Gentiles becomes "spiritual Jews," there is nothing physical about Eternal Redemption). The roles we are given at birth are, for better or worse (no pun intended), the roles we will maintain through the entirety of our lives.

My advice to anyone unsure about this matter is, don't take my word for it, and don't take the word of commentaries for it; get alone with God and get into the Scripture, and God will make things clear for us.


God bless.

 

[rjs330]

It's not a Scriptural instruction.
Paul was not writing to Christians in 2000 years time. He did not say, "this is a command and applied to everyone in every culture".

Yes he was. That is the ourpose of scripture.

But you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, recalling the people from whom you learned it; and recalling too how from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which can give you the wisdom that leads to deliverance through trusting in Yeshua the Messiah. All Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth, convicting of sin, correcting faults and training in right living; thus anyone who belongs to God may be fully equipped for every good work.
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Timothy 3:17 - Complete Jewish Bible

When Paul says to the Gallations
For, brothers, you were called to be free. Only do not let that freedom become an excuse for allowing your old nature to have its way. Instead, serve one another in love. For the whole of the Torah is summed up in this one sentence: “Love your neighbor as yourself”; but if you go on snapping at each other and tearing each other to pieces, watch out, or you will be destroyed by each other!

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 5:13, Galatians 5:14, Galatians 5:15 - Complete Jewish Bible

For, brothers, you were called to be free. Only do not let that freedom become an excuse for allowing your old nature to have its way. Instead, serve one another in love.

www.biblegateway.com

Is he ONLY talking to the Galations? Doea iy not apply to us today?

 

[rjs330]

To further explain, my post #89, I was in attendance at this place like Corinth, "I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly" I changed to one like Thessalonica "because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.". These are both verses from the Bible, it is only by taking an interest in who those Epistles were addressed to that this can make any sense. Both also still apply in this century, I changed church because of them, in this century...not some other.

Yes and rhats how what was written centuriea ago applies to rhe Church to day. The church were attending was in violation of instruction. Even though it wasn't actually Corinth. The scriptures written to Corinth have instructuon for us all.

Just like rhe scriptures to Timothy regarding the church also are for the Church, us all.

 

[Strong in Him]

First, let me say that regardless of who is right, or who is wrong in this discussion, we know that the convictions of a believer will stand as a measure of rule in our judgment. So, seeing you believe women should have the rule over men, and teach them, for you, your belief sets the standard.

Women "having the rule over men", no - unless they happen to be the queen of a country.
There are times when women are senior, to men - maybe as judges, consultants, headteachers etc. They will be in that higher position because they have greater qualifications and experience and/or have been appointed to that senior role by others. In terms of their role, they are the higher authority; the buck stops with them. In terms of being superior people and telling others what to do; no.
Same with all clergy. Like it or not, most churches have a hierarchy - a vicar is senior to, and has authority over, a curate, a Minister over a lay preacher, a Moderator over a Minister, a bishop over a rural dean and so on. That applies to men and women.

Do I believe God can call women to these positions? Yes.

First, I'd like to know your answer for how a woman can be the husband of one wife?

I think that @Paidiske, who knows Greek, has already explained this better than I could.
The meaning is "one woman man", which is an idiom for monogamy and faithfulness.

Also, I believe that women were not able to be leaders then. So there would have been little point in Paul saying "female leaders must be wives of only one husband" - that wasn't possible for women then.
Just as when Jesus was asked about divorce it was, "can a man divorce his wife?" Women had no rights so of course they couldn't divorce their husbands. There is no point in forbidding someone from doing something if it is, in fact, not possible for them to do it. It would be like telling me not to get drunk or giving me a lecture on sobriety - I don't drink and never have.

Next, regarding the above quote, I would point out that, while we see females in the role of Judge and Prophetess, what we do not find are female Priestesses. Why is that significant? Israel stands as an Old Testament picture of the Church.

Then the church should be governed only by Jews.
People who point out that Jesus chose only men to be his disciples, should realise that he only chose Jews.

And you may not realise but the term "Priestess" has pagan overtones.
In the Anglican church female clergy are priests. When a deacon becomes a curate, they are priested.

I would also like to mention something else based on statements you have made in regards to whether, because Eve was created after Adam. women are inferior to men (the implication being, women are not, thus submission is a moot issue).

No, women are not inferior to men.
Eve was created to be Adam's helper - Adam was not complete without her - and both were created in God's image.
I might be wrong but I feel it is only in our culture that "helper" has come to imply inferiority, as in, "do you run the charity shop?" "No, I'm just a helper". In such a scenario the distinction is one of role - boss and worker, or boss and unpaid volunteer.
But the Holy Spirit is described as our helper.
Aaron and Miriam helped Moses. Moses was appointed and carried the can, but his siblings were no less important.

I believe we start to have problems when we think of people as being superior/inferior to other people. God created ALL in his image.
My (male) Minister said to us years ago; "I am not better than you, I just have more responsibility and, in church matters, authority."

In Christ—there is neither male nor female. The point being, this standing is in an entirely different culture and economy from that of your proof text.

I don't have a proof text - I say that we should look at the whole of Scripture and the role of women, or what God called women to do.

But let's work with what we have:

1 Timothy 2:11-14
King James Version

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.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Context is important.
First of all, in 1 Tim 2:8-9 Paul talks of all men everywhere and women. In verse 11 he then uses the singular - why? Why not say "I want" - or better still, God commands - "that women everywhere keep silent in church"?
But let's assume for a moment that Paul said womAn when he actually meant womEn.
"A woman should learn in silence".
Two things here; i) women should learn (they were not allowed to) and ii) they should learn in silence - well obviously; so should men. How can you hear what a teacher is saying if you are talking to others?
"But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over a man."
Again, two things. i) Paul is saying that HE does not allow, not that God doesn't (even though he allowed Priscilla to teach Apollos) and ii) the word "usurp" means to forcibly grab or snatch. I understand that the Greek word used here is used nowhere else in the NT. How is teaching, forcibly grabbing authority from men? And in the context of preachers, how has a female Minister/Pastor/preacher who has a male tutor, mentor, Minister or bishop - and is therefore under their authority - snatched authority from those who have chosen to appoint and train her?
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve".
This describes the relationship between husband and wife, and in the NIV there is a note after verse 11 which says "woman, or wife".
Adam and Eve were not minister and layperson, or bishop and minister - it's a completely different relationship.
And it's not clear what he means by that anyway; animals were formed before humans but humans still have authority over them.
"And Adam was not deceived"
No, he was just plain disobedient. If you are/Paul is implying that women can't be ordained, or preach, because Eve was disobedient; men shouldn't be ordained or be able to preach because Adam KNEW what God had forbidden, and did it anyway. Sin came into the world through Adam, not Eve.
"But the women being deceived was in transgression".
All the more reason to let women learn, verse 11, so that they will not be deceived. In Genesis 2, Adam was given a command from God before Eve was created. There is no record that God appeared to Eve and gave her the same command, so it was probably down to Adam to tell her. But when the serpent said to her "DID God say ....?" and she repeated the command, she got it wrong - see Gen 2:16-17, Gen 3:3.
This is speculation, but it suggests to me that when Adam passed this important message on, Eve wasn't listening, wasn't concentrating or was talking to herself or an animal. So it was easier for the serpent to plant doubt in her mind - she wasn't sure. Adam knew perfectly well what God had said - he'd heard him. So the serpent didn't approach Adam.

Therefore; let the women learn They should do so in silence, and submitting to the teacher, for Eve was deceived and sinned because she didn't know.

I notice you didn't attempt to explain verse 15, but that is part of this passage. What does it mean? It's clearly not literal; women are saved through Jesus, not giving birth.

Did God make a mistake here, as well?

No, IMO it's people who make the mistake when they teach that a) this is a command from God and b) that it is to be taken literally - thus forbidding women from speaking.

Genesis 3:16
King James Version

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

It's clearly talking about the relationship between husband and wife and has nothing to do with female Ministers.
I have never desired my Minister - and he has never ruled over me.

 

[Strong in Him]

Im saying instructional material.to the church and commands to the church.

Yes - but you said "every Scripture".
My question was to find out how far, and how literally, you apply Scripture.

 

[RamiC]

Yes and rhats how what was written centuriea ago applies to rhe Church to day. The church were attending was in violation of instruction. Even though it wasn't actually Corinth. The scriptures written to Corinth have instructuon for us all.

Just like rhe scriptures to Timothy regarding the church also are for the Church, us all.

Yes, I agree, as fitting the description of the women in Ephesus, women with those attributes, should not dominate in church. Yes. Even now.

 

[Rose_bud]

Do we really have another thread on this?

 

[Strong in Him]

You know, I really expected a response to your own statement, here.

You wanted me to reply to my own statement?
What did you want me to say?

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

I've gone through all this in a fairly long post; above.

Going back to, God gave Adam a command to not eat from the tree; Adam disobeyed. God did not create sin ...

That too is irrelevant to the text in view:


13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes, I said - above - that Eve was deceived. She hadn't heard God's command for herself and got it wrong when she told the serpent.

... the issue is deception. Not sin, nor the cause for sin

My comment about Adam sinning was in response to your post; did God get it wrong because there are serial killers?
There are serial killers because some are evil; there is evil in the world because there is sin; there is sin because Adam was told not to do something and he disobeyed.

You know, I really expected a response to your own statement, here.

You wanted me to reply to my own statement?
What did you want me to say?

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

I've gone through all this in a fairly long post; above.

Trying to justify women holding positions of leadership because Deborah was a judge, Mary sat at Christ's feet, or that God couldn't foresee a more enlightened culture is, in my humble opinion, rationalization, not exegesis.

I'm not trying to justify; I'm saying what happened.
All these threads/posts about not having female preachers make a point of saying a) that teaching is having authority over a man and b) that this is not God's will.
Yet he appointed Deborah. He appointed prophetesses - and the fact that male priests chose to consult Huldah rather than a male prophet, shows that they had no problem with it. Student Rabbis DID sit at the feet of their Rabbi-masters to learn; Mary sat at Jesus' feet, women were not allowed to learn and Jesus said she had chosen the best way.

I did not say that God could not forsee a more enlightened culture. God knows everything - and it is still a fact that 1 Tim 2 does not say "this is a command for all women, in every age and every culture."

I may answer the rest of your post later, depending, partly, on whether or not you really are going to "bow out".

 

[Paidiske]

Count how many times Paul says "he".

That's disingenuous for a Biblical scholar. You know full well - or you should - that masculine pronouns are absent from the Greek of that passage, and inserted into the English translation to make the grammar work.

Yes, the participles are in the masculine, but we also know that Greek is a language where the masculine is the default even where women may be included.

I think that @Paidiske, who knows Greek, has already explained this better than I could.

That was in another thread, here.

I do think your points about exactly what we think the role of those in ministry to be, is important. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about rule and authority and so on.

Do we really have another thread on this?

There are three certainties in life; death, taxes, and CF threads about women in ministry.

 

[rjs330]

To further explain, my post #89, I was in attendance at this place like Corinth, "I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly" I changed to one like Thessalonica "because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.". These are both verses from the Bible, it is only by taking an interest in who those Epistles were addressed to that this can make any sense. Both also still apply in this century, I changed church because of them, in this century...not some other.

Yes and rhats how what was written centuriea ago applies to rhe Church to day. The church were attending was in violation of instruction. Even though it wasn't actually Corinth. The scriptures written to Corinth have instructuon for us all.

Just like rhe scriptures to Timothy regarding the church also are for the Church.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes and rhats how what was written centuriea ago applies to rhe Church to day.

Not all churches will be worldly and will be living by the Spirit.
So that almost certainly won't apply to ALL.

Just like rhe scriptures to Timothy regarding the church also are for the Church.

They were not written to a church but an individual.
Paul's words were not for all his churches, because women were prophesying, serving as deacons and deaconesses and helping Paul in his work for the Gospel.

Things Paul does not say in his letters:
- that gifts of teaching and evangelism, both of which involved speaking, were only for men.
- that the gift of pastor, Ephesians 4:11, was only for men,
- that it was only men who should speak with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.
- that women could not prophesy - which involves speaking,
- that Priscilla sinned when she taught Apollos.

 

[rjs330]

Well then, God's got it wrong because there ARE female bishops.

God is never wrong. WE are if we do things that contradicts the instruction of scripture.

And please don't automatically blame the women and write them off as disobedient. No one gets ordained, becomes a preacher or even a bishop on their own - many others are involved.

Thats why I also mentioned the churches that have women pastors.

I'm not saying that you have said all that.

Good because I didnt.

But what it amounts to is; this is our interpretation of a couple of verses. It is correct; neither we, nor God, have made a mistake, it's women who are at fault. This is what I have been hearing ever since I joined these forums. I am not ordained but I am a preacher.

Please look at the scritpure Paul writes. Tell.me how many times he writes the word "he" which is masculine and the word "she" which is feminine in that passage regarding pastors. Then tell me how it's a misinterpretation to say it's referring to men and not women.

God is always leading his people on; calling us to new things that weren't even thought of in Paul's time. Are these things wrong because he didn't announce them in advance, through the Apostles?

No they are not wrong. But in this case God gave us specific instructions. For example he told us to spread the gospel. He didn't say you had to ride a donkey or give us a litergy of exactly what we had to say etc. He said, spread the gospel giving us wide latitude on how we accomplish it. However there are very specific instructions as to what should happen in the Church in certain circumstances. There scripture says pastors are to.be men. There is nothing written says otherwise or gives latitude to this.

Nothing.
If people know how to differentiate between Gospel, doctrines of the faith and church practices, and learn to interpret Scripture correctly.

Its obvious from this conversation that you are doing what I mentioned earlier. Ignoring scripture because you don't agree with what it says. The passage in Timothy needs no "interpretation". It's as clear as it comes.

Only if you are of the view that we should accept all the Bible as written in English, or none of it.

Do you think that's my view?

Which is why anyone who says that they may have a call to something submits themselves, and that call, to the church - for discernment, prayer, testing and so on.

We both know good and well that churches to do not all follow scriptural teaching. So why are you so sure that they are correct? We have churches who ordain lesbian pastors. Are they correct as well?

Once again I refer you to scripture.

For the time is coming when people will not have patience for sound teaching, but will cater to their passions and gather around themselves teachers who say whatever their ears itch to hear.

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Timothy 4:3 - Complete Jewish Bible

For the time is coming when people will not have patience for sound teaching, but will cater to their passions and gather around themselves teachers who say whatever their ears itch to hear.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[rjs330]

That's disingenuous for a Biblical scholar. You know full well - or you should - that masculine pronouns are absent from the Greek of that passage, and inserted into the English translation to make the grammar work.

Yes of course. But I wasn't trying to build an in depth greek/English Bible lesson. I mean i could, but in this case the English is sufficient for the reasons you mentioned. I mean this passage has been translated for a very long time from the Greek as male. I certainly hope you are not trying to say that it should be written as female or even neutral.

 

[rjs330]

So that almost certainly won't apply to ALL.

Didn't say it will.

They were not written to a church but an individual.

Instructing him how the church should operate. Thus it applies to all. You are making the same argument over and over again and I've already rebuttal it. I pointed out other scriptures written to various places, and asked if they apply to us, and you never answered. Why not?

Heres one more.

Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice, of all deceit, hypocrisy and envy, and of all the ways there are of speaking against people;

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Peter 2:1 - Complete Jewish Bible

Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice, of all deceit, hypocrisy and envy, and of all the ways there are of speaking against people;

www.biblegateway.com

Doea this apply to us or only the places mentioned in the 1st verse of the book?

Paul's words were not for all his churches, because women were prophesying, serving as deacons and deaconesses and helping Paul in his work for the Gospel.

Sure they were. Thats another way we know that women deacons are okay. Like i said earlier.

that gifts of teaching and evangelism, both of which involved speaking, were only for men.
- that the gift of pastor, Ephesians 4:11, was only for men,

No he doesn't. But then he wasnt giving any instructions there. Just letting us know what gifts God has given his Church. The instruction for some come in Timothy.

that it was only men who should speak with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.

No he doesn't, because it's for everyone to do. But if you note he does specifically address men and women later when addressing husbands and wives. Would you say those passages do NOT apply to the reat of the Church and ONLY to Ephesus? So men do not have to love their wives?

that women could not prophesy - which involves speaking,

Does Paul instruct that?

that Priscilla sinned when she taught Apollos.

Priscilla was with her husband Aquilla and was not acting as pastor of the Church. You are really reaching here to justify your rejection of scritpural instruction.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes of course. But I wasn't trying to build an in depth greek/English Bible lesson. I mean i could, but in this case the English is sufficient for the reasons you mentioned.

Not if your argument is that Paul used the word "he" to indicate that overseers must be men. Because he didn't use the word "he" at all in this passage. To tell people to count how many times he used a word he didn't use, is to misrepresent the text.

I certainly hope you are not trying to say that it should be written as female or even neutral.

I see that in many other places in Scripture, ei tis ("if anyone") is taken to be gender inclusive. Masculine participles are taken to be gender inclusive. I do not see this passage as focussing on gender at all, but on character; and I do not draw from it the conclusion that this passage bars women from episcopal ministry (however understood in different traditions).

 

[rjs330]

To tell people to count how many times he used a word he didn't use, is to misrepresent the text.

No it's not. Unless you are trying to say it's a false translation. Is the usage of the word he a proper translation for the reasons you mentioned earlier or isn't it?

see that in many other places in Scripture, ei tis ("if anyone") is taken to be gender inclusive.

Yes it can be. But when translating scripture you do not take a single word and remove it from context. Because context can drive the translation. In case Tis or anyone is further defined by the word husband or andra. The overseer is to be a husband of one wife. It is not a wife of one husband or even one wife of a husband.

The remainder of the passage also uses masculine forms to further the thought that it is a reference to men. It also makes.perfect sense when you broaden the scope to.other passages as well.

I honeatly don't expect you to.say I'm correct becauae you are a female pastor.

I actually commend your desire to serve. And I certainly do not believe that you do not do good work.

Its just that the church you belong to. Isnt following apostolic instruction.

So, due to your personal stake in the matter, there isn't any real reason to discuss this any further. I certainly do not wish to cause insult which is difficult when discussing something so personal. And I'm no Apostle so I can't refer to my authority.

 

[Der Alte]

... Paul prefers the above. However, he's pretty adamant about the following:

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

Doesn't seem he is leaving room for a general interpretation about his feelings.
...

I don't think this verse is saying what a lot of folks think it is. N.B who the authority is that is establishing this "rule." Paul does not say "God does not suffer [allow/permit] a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man." He said, "I [Paul] suffer not a woman to teach." As written, this vs. does NOT prevent a woman from being given a position of authority in the church.
The word translated "usurp" αὐθεντέω according to the BDAG, Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, one of if not the most highly acclaimed Greek lexicons available.

αὐθεντέω (s. αὐθέντης; Philod., Rhet. II p. 133, 14 Sudh.; Jo. Lydus, Mag. 3, 42; Moeris p. 54; cp. Phryn. 120 Lob.; Hesychius; Thom. Mag. p. 18, 8; schol. in Aeschyl., Eum. 42; BGU 1208, 38 [27 b.c.]; s. Lampe s.v.) to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to w. gen. of pers. (Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 10 Boll-B.; Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/1 p. 177, 7; B-D-F §177) ἀνδρός, w. διδάσκειν, 1 Ti 2:12 (practically = ‘tell a man what to do’ [Jerusalem Bible]; Mich. Glykas [XII a.d.] 270, 10 αἱ γυναῖκες αὐθεντοῦσι τ. ἀνδρῶν. According to Diod S 1, 27, 2 there was a well-documented law in Egypt: κυριεύειν τὴν γυναῖκα τἀνδρός, cp. Soph., OC 337–41; GKnight III, NTS 30, ’84, 143–57; LWilshire, ibid. 34, ’88, 120–34).—DELG s.v. αὐθέντης. M-M.​

​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 150.​

ETA: I belong to a large southern denomination which a few years ago when the senior pastor of a large midtown church retired the church voted a female associate pastor of the church to be senior pastor. The Denominational HQ threatened to kick the church out of the denomination if they did not reverse that action.