In 1995, Tom Schreiner, H. S. Baldwin, and I edited the book Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (now out in a 2d edition [2005]). The focus of the book is a thorough exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says he does not permit women to teach or have authority over a man in the Church. Subsequent to the release of the book, when I participated in forums on the “women’s issue,” the question invariably came up what I thought 1 Timothy 2:15 meant. At that time, my honest answer was, “I don’t know,” because I hadn’t studied the passage in depth yet.
Since then, I have been able to look at 1 Timothy 2:15 from every conceivable angle. I have looked at the history of interpretation; the seven (!) major views on the phrase “saved by childbearing” in 1 Timothy 2:15; the meaning of the words “saved” (sozo) and “childbearing” in 1 Timothy 2:15; and so on. My conclusion: in 1 Timothy 2:15, Paul says that women will be spiritually preserved (from Satan) by adhering to their God-ordained role related to family and the home. This is contrasted with Eve, who transgressed those boundaries and fell into temptation (v. 14).
The way I construe the logic of 1 Timothy 2:12–15 is as follows. In verse 12, Paul sets boundaries for women in the church. In verses 13–14, Paul gives two reasons for this: (1) creation order: the man was created first, then the woman (v. 13); (2) the scenario at the Fall: rather than God-man-woman-Satan, a complete reversal had taken place: Satan-woman-man-God. In v. 15, Paul addresses the question, “How can women today avoid the mistake made by Eve?” The answer: by adhering to their God-given boundaries and tending to their God-given responsibilities.
Here are several contextual pieces of support for this interpretation:
- The implied reference to Satan as the agent of the woman’s deception in verse 14;
- The fact that what is implicit in verses 14–15 is made explicit in the later parallel passage in 1 Timothy 5:14–15: “So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan.”
- The reference to “childbearing” in 1 Timothy 2:15 is also further explicated in 1 Timothy 5:14–15, where it is expanded to “marry, bear children, manage their households.” Hence “childbearing” is not limited to the act of bearing or giving birth to a child but is part and parcel of a woman’s familial and domestic roles.
- The meaning of the word sozo, while typically in Paul (though not the Gospels) referring to spiritual salvation, sometimes in the Pastorals is spiritual preservation, that is, protection from the devil and his instruments, the false teachers, who disparage human sexuality, marriage, and childbearing (apart from 1 Timothy 2:15, see especially 4:1, 3, where reference is made as “teachings of demons” to those who “forbid marriage); for another importance instance where sozo means spiritual preservation rather than salvation, see 1 Timothy 4:16 where Timothy is hardly said to literally save his hearers; rather, he is urged to protect them and help preserve them from false teaching and the devil.
For a fuller treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 see the popular version “Saved through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan’s Deception,” CBMW News 2/4 (1997): 1–6; and the more academic version “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 7 (1997): 107–44. For an alternative interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 as suggesting eschatological salvation see Tom Schreiner’s chapter on the exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 in the second edition of Women in the Church (Baker, 2005).
Dear Andreas:
A student pointed me to your post on 1 Tim. 2.8-15, which seems to comport with what you have earlier said on this text. As you might imagine I have several problems with this interpretation. Let’s start with a general comment based on 1 Cor. 7. Paul quite specifically says there that to be married or to be single requires a ‘charisma’ if we are talking about Christians. The issue is not settled by gender or creation order, but rather by a matter of redemption, a matter of a ‘grace gift’. And Paul recognizes that some men and women do not have the ‘gift’ to be single, or to be married. 1 Cor. 7.25-35 makes this teaching rather clear.
In the case of the ‘virgin’ in that text, Paul advises that he would prefer both men and ‘virgins’ to remain as he is, which is unmarried, considering the panoply of responsibilities being married requires.
In light of this text, it makes no sense to me to argue as you do that women, by their gender have been predetermined to follow some sort of creation order mandate that requires that they be married to do such roles. Its the order of redemption that carries the most weight now, since the eschatological situation has changed due to the death and resurrection of Jesus. 1 Tim. 2.8-15 simply cannot be read as you read it unless Paul has become very inconsistent in his old age (and yes I think Paul is responsible for the Pastorals as well as 1 Corinthians).
There are these further problems with your interpretation of 1 Tim. 2.8-15: 1) why exactly do you ignore the fact that vs. 15 speaks of ‘the child bearing’ with the definite article? Do you really think that the definite article has no weight here? Paul is surely referring to one specific childbearing, not the act of childbearing in general, for which we would have expected a different grammatical construction. The church fathers often recognized an Eve — Mary contrast here, as I am sure you know. If this is right, then it is not a comment on women in general and their roles, it is telling us that just as the fall came through Eve, so redemption came through Mary. The curse was reversed through Mary. 3) Paul says nothing here about women being in submission to men. The submission referred to in vs. 11 is coupled with the learning in quietness that they must do. It has to do with submission to the teaching of authorized teachers, whoever they may be. BTW Genesis while speaking of an order to creation does not connect this with the submission of women to men; 4) obviously 1 Tim.2.12 is the big bone of contention— I would have thought that with the ‘not…. nor’ construction here and the fact that Paul is correcting problems caused by both men and women in 2.8-15 that these facts would have favored a negative reading of both infinitives here— referring to unauthorized teaching and the usurping of authority. ‘Authentein’ in a pejorative context like this where abuses are being dealt with can certainly refer to the heavy handed use or abuse of authority or power or privilege.
I recognize that other readings of this text are possible, but there is no knock down argument which rules out the possibilities I have outlined above and will present at length in my commentary on the Pastorals coming out this fall. In other words, you can’t rule out my interpretation and I cannot definitively rule out yours. This being the case, it would be better to recognize and accept this fact while we agree to disagree as brothers in Christ.
Blessings,
Ben Witherington
(1) Witherington says that according to 1 Cor 7, being single or married requires a charisma, rather than one’s marital state being decreed in creation order, so likewise the issue of women and men in church leadership is a matter of charisma rather than creation order. My response: 1 Cor 7 does not override Gen 1 and 2 where marriage is presented as the norm for humanity. It rather makes the point that singleness is a gift from God (similar to Jesus’ point in Matt. 19:12 in the context of his reaffirmation of Gen 1 and 2 in Matt. 19:4–6). So, creation order continues to be considered normative by both Jesus and Paul, and neither charisma nor redemption override it (see further below).
(2) Witherington says “the order of redemption” overrides creation order. My response: In Eph. 5:21–33 and Col. 3:18, Paul calls on Christian wives to submit to their husbands (in 1 Pet. 3:1–6, Peter does the same even with Christian wives of unbelieving husbands! Compare 1 Pet. 2:13, 18; 3:1); this makes clear that even subsequent to redemption in Christ, authority (the husband’s headship) and submission are still required of the redeemed. Redemption does not override creation, but rather redemption once again enables redeemed sinners to live out God’s original plan for men and women (note also that 1 Tim. 3:4–5 and 12 assume that men are heads of their households). In 1 Tim. 2:13, Paul seems to ground his injunction for women not to teach or have authority over men in creation order (“For Adam was formed first, then Eve”). This seems to suggest that Paul continued to affirm the validity of creation order for the church age subsequent to redemption in Christ.
(3) With regard to 1 Tim. 2:15, Witherington cites as support for his messianic reading of the passage the Greek definite article with the word “childbearing.” He says this means Paul spoke of “the” childbearing, that is, Mary’s act of giving birth to Jesus the Messiah. My response: It is true that this view was widely held in the patristic period and that it is held by some (such as George Knight) today, but in my study of the history of interpretation of the passage I found at least 7 different interpretations of this difficult verse. So, apparently it is not just me who is not convinced that the Greek article settles the issue in favor of a messianic reading. Why not? Because, first, the Greek article typically is used with abstract nouns (such as “childbearing”); the article does not necessarily designate the word “childbearing” in a technical sense, as Witherington suggests. Second, there is nothing in the context that suggests that Paul is here talking about Mary giving birth to the Messiah. More likely, I believe, Paul is affirming women’s God-honoring role as mothers and advocating a positive view of human sexuality and the family, over against those who challenged such a view and claimed true spirituality required a negative stance toward sexuality, marriage, and childbearing (see esp. 1 Tim. 4:1–3; see also the crucial parallel 1 Tim. 5:14–15). I have developed this further in my book God, Marriage & Family (Crossway, 2004).
(4) Witherington maintains 1 Tim. 2:11 says nothing about women being in submission to men, just about submission to the teaching of authorized teachers (“whoever they may be,” male or female). My response: 1 Tim. 3:2 assumes that elders are men; the juxtaposition between teaching and having authority in 1 Tim. 2:12 makes clear that the two functions are related and that teaching is an authoritative role. Clearly 1 Tim. 2:12 talks about women not being permitted to teach or have authority over men, not the other way around.
(5) Witherington also argues that both teaching and having authority in 1 Tim. 2:12 are negative references to false teaching and abuse of authority only. My response: This is possible, but in my view highly unlikely. As I develop in my essay in Women in the Church, all references to teaching without further qualifier are positive; see esp. 1 Tim. 1:3 and 6:3 where a different word, heterodidaskalein, is used for false teaching. What Paul does not permit in 1 Tim. 2:12, then, is for women to teach or have authority over men, as they would if they were elders; but 1 Tim. 3:2 makes clear that these were to be men.
(6) In a side comment, Witherington says Genesis does not indicate the submission of women to men. My response: Apparently, Paul did read Genesis as indicating male headship in the church and in the home, because he makes reference to the order of creation (Adam first, then Eve) in both 1 Cor. 11:8 and 1 Tim. 2:13.
(7) Witherington concludes by saying that in the end we ought to agree to disagree cordially as brothers in Christ. My response: I agree! I don’t think Prof. Witherington and I have ever met in person (though I am looking forward to doing so at some point in the future). I certainly have a lot of respect for his prolific writing. I would say also that with our scholarly proposals, as with any other scientific hypotheses, their quality ought to be judged on the basis of how well they cohere with all of the available evidence—immediate and larger context, word meanings, syntax, theological themes, and so on. You be the judge which of our proposals in your view does a better job of accounting for all the evidence. I am certainly grateful for this healthy discussion of this difficult verse (1 Tim. 2:15). Finally, I, too, have a commentary on the Pastorals coming out shortly. It will be in Vol. 12 of the revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary and is scheduled for release in July.
Andreas J. Köstenberger
Well Andreas we do indeed disagree about most of these points, there are still some things that puzzle me about your view. ‘Teaching’ in this passage is certainly qualified by the context which involves a correct of mistakes or inappropriate behavior. If we read Genesis as the rabbis did, which is to say Gen. 1 then Gen. 2— Eve was not present when the instruction about not eating at the tree was given. As the rabbis say, she was deceived because she had not been properly instructed by Adam in the first place (see the reference to touching which does not come from God’s instructions). The analogy with the situation in Ephesus is telling. We are dealing with women who seek to teach and act before they have been properly instructed, and so like Eve are libel to be deceived. I still don’t see anywhere in Genesis that the creation order mandates female submission anymore than Ephes. 5.21 mandates unilateral female submission.
Blessings,
Ben W.
Ben,
Thank you for honoring me with this additional response. I notice that, no doubt because of lack of time, you do not comment on the vast majority of the points I made in my previous post. I would still be very interested in your views on these matters.
In the meantime, let me address what you do say in your latest response.
On a preliminary note, you state that there are things that puzzle you about “my view.” I’m sure you realize that this is not just “my view” but the view the church has historically held for two millennia and the view of many, many scholars and Bible-believing Christians today.
As I spent some time reflecting on our different exegetical outcomes, it occurred to me that in large part ours is a disagreement of hermeneutics. In order to illumine Paul’s statements in 1 Tim 2:12-15, you go to the rabbis and their interpretation of Gen 1–3. Eve’s problem was lack of proper instruction. Likewise, the women in Ephesus lacked proper instruction and needed to be taught before they could teach others. The problem with this use of background information, in my view, is that it is used to override the first part of Paul’s explicit rationale given in 1 Tim. 2:13: “Adam was created first, then Eve.” Proper hermeneutic, I believe, gives priority to the rationale explicitly stated in the text. And this rationale is bound up with the sequence in which the first man and the first woman were created, from which Paul deduced an order of primary responsibility in both the home and the church (see also 1 Cor. 11:8). Thus I find you view to be in actual conflict with what the text, and Paul, explicitly state.
You also say you “still don’t see anywhere in Genesis that the creation order mandates female submission.” As I say in a forthcoming dictionary entry on the word “head” in Scripture, the Genesis creation narrative indicates God’s creation first of Adam, then of Eve from and for Adam as his ezer kenegdo (suitable helper, Gen. 2:18, 20). (1) Adam’s creation prior to the woman; (2) his naming of the animals prior to the creation of Eve; (3) his naming of Eve subsequent to God’s creation of her; (4) God’s holding Adam responsible for his and Eve’s sin even though Eve had sinned first; and (5) the woman’s designation as the man’s “suitable helper” all serve as indications of the man’s primary responsibility for humanity before God (his “headship”). And again, as I mentioned in my previous response, the apostle Paul clearly read Genesis as indicating male headship in the church and in the home (1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:8), and hermeneutically we are bound to the NT interpretation of OT texts where available rather than substituting our own independent reading.
I realize these comments are unlikely to change your mind, but perhaps they serve to further clarify the issue. Of course, I would welcome any additional response you might have.
Cordially,
Andreas Kostenberger
Dear Ben is a former student of mine (at GCTS in the mid-1970s); overall I agree with his spirit and larger concerns. But, on 1 Tim 2.15 I actually think Andreas is correct!! See my article in Women, Authority & the Bible (1986). Of course, I do not draw the same implications from this that Andreas does; I do not think 1 Tim 2.9-15 excludes women from teaching in the church (see my article). But, the debate is fascinating and fun.
Andreas,
Your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 has several problems. You say that Paul is stating that women will be spiritually preserved (from Satan) by adhering to their God-ordained role related to family and the home. Yet if God is giving a promise to women that if they stay within their role as mothers and homemakers, they won’t be spiritually deceived by Satan’s lies, then God has broken that promise as many Christian homemakers have been deceived and have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Bible doesn’t teach us that a role will keep us safe from deception but that sound doctrine will. Another problem is that by giving only women a promise that they will be kept safe from spiritual deception by keeping a role, this interpretation makes God out to be a respecter of persons as God has not given a similar promise to men to keep them safe from spiritual deception if they live out their particular role. Lastly this view implies that women who become Pastors or Bible teachers to men are not kept spiritually safe by God but are left completely exposed to Satan’s deception no matter how much they love God or how much they adhere to sound doctrine. Nowhere does God say that teaching the Bible to men makes a woman an easy prey for Satan. This is a unique interpretation not supported by other scripture. Another unique interpretation is put forth by John MacArthur as he interprets 1 Timothy 2:15 as the saving of women from a second class status by the privilege of bearing children. Cheryl
Interesting take. I’ve posted about this verse on my blog offering what seems to me to be a straightforward interpretation. Curiously enough, I’ve not yet encountered any one espousing the view I’ve offered (not an encouraging thought. Nonetheless, I’m interested to hear if you find it a viable option.
Oops! I left out a link to my post. Here it is: http://katadrew.com/2008/she-shall-be-saved-through-childbearing/.
There are many theological assumptions forced onto this text here that is evident right away for someone reading the Bible as literature.
The issue is woman teaching and having authority. But the kind of authority (authentein) is not the kind any person should have. It is ‘usurping.’ All through the Scripture, believers, including ‘authorities’ so-called in the church, are to submit to one another, defer to one another, consider others more important than themselves, washing one another’s feet, taking the position of a servant, etc. “Usurping” is always ungodly for both genders. I’d love to hear an argument where usurping is a positive thing to do.
Paul ties womanly teaching together with authentein. Women are not to do this combo. Why?
A straightforward reading says there are two conditions: 1) Adam was made first, 2) Eve was deceived.
The second condition cannot count against the woman in Ephesis, unless a case can be made that all women are deceived and therefore all women should not teach their deceptions. This assumption made by many does not work because Eph 5 and James 1 both say that men can be deceived (strongs 538) in the same way. If one could say that no male can be deceived the way Eve was deceived because of his nature, then a real case could be made. Otherwise, we should think something more is going on here in Paul’s letter.
The other case Paul makes is that Adam was created first, then Eve. Why do many automatically assume this means ‘authority’? No where in Eden does it say Adam was Eve’s authority (until after the Fall). He doesn’t even “name” her “Eve” until after the Fall. What is more, the animals came before Adam, but that doesn’t make them his authority. A straightforward reading says Paul is making a statement of order, not a statement of authority. (If we assume order always means ‘authority,’ we should check our assumptions.)
What I see in the text is that more is going on here, otherwise Paul simply doesn’t make sense to any reader, historical or modern (which is why so many theologians differ on this passage) A historical backdrop (which is often ignored by many theologians) is necessary.
What I can guess without doing any research is what women were teaching and usurping authority. These two issues were tied together (in other words, Paul is not saying women cannot teach per se… it’s only this usurping teaching he’s referring to). This needed to be stopped. Paul stops it by making a creation claim and a temptation claim. Then he throws in the childbearing statement. There is so much bending over backwards and stretching from some theologians to make the childbearing statement fit naturally into the context that it should draw suspicion from anyone doing an honest reading.
With further study we discover that Artemis was an integral part of pagan worship in that culture (some theologians hate bringing Artemis into this discussion, but I’ve yet to hear a good reason why not… recent scholarship in this area has been helpful). History has uncovered that her temple, one of the wonders of the ancient world was within walking distance of Paul’s readers. What is more Artemis taught women were spiritually superior to men (this is not controversial), that Artemis was born first (and her twin brother Apollo, second) and this justified women being usurping authorities, and Artemis was the patron saint of childbearing (also not controversial… she was born without causing her mother pain, a study of ancient Artemis and Artemis inscriptions will reveal this).
Suddenly, with that information, we can have a truly natural reading of 1 Tim 2 without stretching contexts and juggling word formations.
In other words, women are not to teach and usurp (because that’s what Artemis’ women do), rather they are to know that in history, Adam was created first (not Aretemis) and it was Eve (yes, the woman) who was spiritually deceived. Women are prone to these weaknesses as much as men are. And, to make sure we have coherence with the passage, we know that it is Jesus (not Artemis) who will preserve, care for, give hope to those in childbirth (because holding onto Artemis is superstitious).
There is no indication here that if a woman behaves in her ‘role’ then she will be delivered from Satan. That explanation on roles is so strange, I find it even difficult to consider. “Save” can often mean physical deliverance as well as spiritual as well as delivering from a bad reputation, etc.
Thus, Paul is writing a polemic against Artemis and how Aretmis worship needs to be rooted out of the Ephesian church (and this goes back to the fancy hair and jewelry earlier in the passage which was also part of Artemis worship.) What is more, many have followed after Artemis, the false god, and that is following after Satan (which explains the Satan passage the original poster mentioned above in 1 Tim 5).
This lends a truly straightforward reading of the text. This text used to really bother me because I thought theologians were being dishonest with their gymnaistics. But as a literary person interested in history with a background in theology and philosophy (I do think integration is a key to truth), I’ve since realized that unless someone can come up with a more natural reading of 1 Timothy 2, this interpretation I’ve come upon is most convincing (though it may require some theologians to update their theological biases).
What is more, Paul seems to be taking women off their pedestals and putting them on the floor with the men rather than putting men on the pedestals (again, a straightforward reading shows this). The Original poster seems to have a preset theological agenda and thus is looking to substantiate difficult verses for his view.
We can do better as we all learn with honesty together. Thanks for reading.
Andreas,
Wow… after reading all the comments, you definitely have done a great job of hitting some nerves. Although, I may not agree with every assertion that you made but I think you did a wonderful job of keeping a fair and balanced opinion and clearly stating that there are other opinions. I am a little more than just stumped by many of the comments elevating women as equal to men and attempting to squeeze a concentrate of theology from a drip of truth, while ignoring the whole. The Bible is littered with the same premise that you offered. Today’s society or culture definitely does not agree with it but we are not suppose to be establishing our relationship with God based on society or culture. Just as one illustration is, I Corinthians 11:3, 7-9, “3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” This is simply a CLIP of the many things that God speaks concerning the roles of men and women. Notice there is no reference to husbands or wives in the passage, simply men and women. This same message echoes throughout Scripture. Even at the end of the day, Christ, who IS our Head and ultimate example to follow, did not select a single woman as one of His 12 disciples. There is a consistency throughout Scripture along the same lines. This is whether I like it or not… it is the structure that God placed for us to follow; and, just like anything else, to follow His Word with complete surrender, placing our prejudice and desires aside, and taking up His cross.
Andreas,
One more quick comment. One thing that I continue to find fascinating yet saddening at the same time is the fact that, if you look at everything God said to Adam and Eve after their fall, the serpent/Satan is still using the same line… “Did God REALLY say… ‘Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’?” Very interesting how we continue to fall for the same line all these years later. The thing is… it works for him as even apparent by the comments to your article. Thank you.
I am not a scholar or theologian as will be obvious but this verse and the convoluted debates is one reason I fear reading the Letters – I love the OT, Gospels etc but so often start reading the Letters with a sense of exhilaration and worship and too often end up frustrated and sometimes condemned – I probably deserve a ‘slap’ from the Father for my impudence
but Jesus is still Lord however there must be more important things we (including myself) could be spending our energies.
By the way much respect to the learned folks but I found the Artemis link very helpful I must say.
God bless all
Andy
I’ll be very frank and short as well. These things are easily misinterpreted and also very fragile.
It was by a particular revelation which Paul recieved that allowed him to come to the conclusion the church is the body of Christ in 1Cor12.27. It was also by revelation that Paul came to the conclusion of ‘The first Adam and the last Adam’ Rom5.14-15.
Paul symbolicaly equates Adam to Christ when he referrs to Adam as ‘The figure of one to come’ Rom5.14.
So when I brought the two together I came to the conclusion that just as Adam had a body (Eve), so does Christ have a body (the Church). Believe it or not, but when Paul speaks about the woman (in singular form) or women (in plural form) he is referring to Eve known today as the Church which has nothing to do with gender.
The reason Paul does not want the woman to have authority over a man (those that are mature in the faith Heb5.14) is because that the woman came after the man 1Tim2.13 and therefore is unexperience and not mature enough, and so she is more likely to be decieved. In fact, the woman (the church), till this day still eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which is the Law of Moses today, by following this law or any other law one aquires the knowledge of evil, because the law causes one to know only sin which is evil. This is why the woman is not to teach.
Furthermore when we see 1Tim2.9 and compare it to Rev17.4 we see some similarity. Becuase the still eats of the knowledge of evil we see a clear manifestation of what the woman becomes in Rev17.4, but that is a subject for another day. The embroidery that the woman wears symbolizes how deep she is in fleshly things or the knowledge of sin.
I hope you find this to be the truth as I did. It may seem crazy, trust me I know, but it is the truth.
I think that you are all forgetting that the answer lies later on in 1 Timothy.
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan.
(1 Timothy 5:9-15 ESV)
Here we see that Paul is saying that, when women are idle, and not occupied in the work of bearing children and managing their own households, they leave themselves open to be tempted by, and deceived by Satan. Paul admonishes the women in the church to stay busy, serving the saints, showing hospitality, caring for the afflicted, and being rich in good works. This is the biblical role of women.
Christian Cerna. I hear you point, but that does not really answer the question as to why ‘the woman’ should not have authority of a man, and various other statements connected to that one.
This is why I view what Paul say’s as symbolical, spiritual, to be precise. When Paul, in 1 Tim 2.11, speaks about ‘The woman’ (singular, not plural) he is only doing so parabolically. He also emphesizes this in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 14 vs 34.
Thank you Andreas. Your view seems to me to fit the internal evidence best. Those who read these contending posts will have to make up their minds not just based on the sheer power of intellect but by the gracious help of God’s Spirit who is after all the one who leads believers into all truth.It is a painful truth that all of these views cannot be correct and each will have to be fully persuaded in his/her own mind and maintain respect.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to write. Up until I read this post and the comments I just figured that I Tim 2:15 was one of the passages to which Peter was referring when he wrote “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,”. I now see that there are ways to make it make sense. I’m actually very thankful that Jesus made the stuff written about him hard to understand. Think of all the history and culture and language we learn trying to understand it and then think of all the spiritual exercise we get trying to not do what Jesus forbids in Matt 5:22. What an abundant life we have in Christ.
I have learned the wisdom of 2 Tim 3:16 after many years and lots of gray hair. Why do we work so hard to make things what they aren’t? Women aren’t to teach men. We tend to get ourselves in trouble when idle (that is true of male or female but women more so). We were created as man’s helpmeet, not teacher and yet not doormat! It is what it is. Women are more easily deceived! Why can’t people read the words and accept them as they are written?