On the meaning and applicability of 1 Timothy 2:12-14

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

1 Timothy 2:12-14 is probably the only passage in the Bible that I find severely challenging. That isn't because I dislike its contents or because it doesn't match with what I've been taught previously, but it's because I simply cannot figure out how to get it to fit with the rest of Scripture. It feels as if I had a car where all the pieces perfectly fit together, except for this one weird thing that just refuses to go in its spot no matter how I try to put it in. I don't know if there is any good way to get it to fit, so I decided to come here and see what others think of my attempts to get it to work.

Quoting from the NKJV (including verse 11 for good measure):

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

I think the intent of this verse is fairly clear and hard to get around without twisting the text. Women having authority over men is forbidden, as is women teaching men. Silence is encouraged in at least some contexts (which contexts isn't spelled out in full detail, but one assumes it would be in any context where authority or learning was part of the picture). Two justifications for these restrictions are given; the order of creation (man being made first and therefore being considered superior in at least these specific contexts), and the fact that the first woman was instrumental in the fall of man. It's also worth looking at the last verse of the chapter, "Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." The author encourages the women he's talking about, that despite their being considered inferior to men in some ways, they can still be saved (AFAICT this is talking about salvation in the typical Christian sense), provided they accept their role as mothers and exhibit four key virtues. I think this is the most straightforward reading of the passage, if I'm wrong on something here please let me know.

I do not see an easy way for this verse to apply only in the context of one church. The author of this passage renders that impossible when he uses the order of creation as his argument. It makes no sense to argue that specific women in a specific area of the world should refrain from doing something, because the first woman to exist did something wrong. The only way Eve is connected to the situation at all is because she is the mother of all humans, including the women being written to, so I think it's evident that the author meant this to apply universally. It's also hard to argue that this applies only in the context of church; if you read the preceding verses of 1 Timothy 2, Paul is talking clearly about what people (both men and women) are to do everywhere. "I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls of costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works." (1 Timothy 2:8-10) Should the men pray only in church? Should the women only avoid adorn themselves modestly and do good works in church? That doesn't fit well that I can tell. In context, the passage seems to apply universally to all women, in all contexts, throughout all time.

Given that the order of creation is used as justification, and given the fact that righteous women in the OT are used as examples for how women are to behave elsewhere in the NT (1 Peter 3:5-6, Hebrews 11:31), I think it's reasonable to expect that these righteous women will adhere to the restrictions laid out here. Given that Peter directly references Sarah as an example for how wives are supposed to behave in the home, it's probably most fitting to start there and see what we find.

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac." And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham's sight because of his son. But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice, for in Isaac your seed shall be called. Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed." So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. (Genesis 21:9-14, NKJV)

This passage is... a problem. Specifically:

It's very hard to portray this as Sarah asking nicely. "Cast out" and "shall not" are fairly strong words to use here; it does not look like Sarah was of the opinion that these measures were optional or that Abraham should decide on his own whether he wanted to do this or not.
It goes without saying that Sarah is not being a great example of silence here.
Abraham is not particularly thrilled with what Sarah has told him to do. If he is going to do it, he's going to do it against his will. This further strengthens the argument that Sarah is not asking, but is attempting to exercise authority.
God intervenes and tells Abraham to do whatever Sarah said to him. God does not tell Abraham that this is abnormal or an exception to how things should normally work (in contrast to what He says when talking to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:15), He just tells Abraham to listen. This both acknowledges that Sarah was telling him to do things, and appears to acknowledge that Sarah was within her right to do this.
Abraham unwillingly complies with Sarah's command in all respects. Isaac goes on to become the heir, Hagar and Ishmael are evicted.

This is the same Sarah who called Abraham "lord" as Peter mentioned (Genesis 18:12), so if she's an example of how women should behave, this poses a difficulty for 1 Timothy 2:12-14.

Given that Sarah was a fluke, let's look at another righteous woman in the Bible. This time we'll look at one the book of Hebrews mentions by name, Rahab.

And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, "Behold, men have come here tonight from the children of Israel to search out the country." So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, "Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country." Then the women took the two men and hid them. So she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them." (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.) Then the men pursued them by the road to the Jordan, to the fords. And as soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate.

Here also we do not have a particularly good example of silence. The "right" thing to Rahab to do in this situation is to, without arguing or complaining, bring the men to the messengers sent to her by the king. What she does instead is tell a fairly elaborate combination of lies to the messengers to not only get them to go away, but to intentionally send them on a wild goose chase in full defiance of what she has been commanded to do. In this instance, you can say "well, the man commanding her to do things was evil, she isn't obligated to listen to him", but that kind of makes the woman the judge of who is and isn't righteous enough to obey. This conflicts with the "Eve was tempted but Adam was not" argument made in 1 Timothy 2:14, since that argument undermines the reliability of women's discernment in moral matters, and yet this example sets a precedent for women to use their discernment in moral matters.

While we're on the topic of women's discernment, let's look at someone who isn't explicitly mentioned in the NT, since so far that strategy seems to be failing quite badly.

...all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. And he went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel of Beth Maachah and all the Berites. So they were gathered together and also went after Sheba. Then they came and besieged him in Abel of Beth Maachah; and they cast up a siege mound against the city, and it stood by the rampart. And all the people who were with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. Then a wise woman cried out from the city, "Hear, hear! Please say to Joab, 'Come nearby, that I may speak with you.'" When he had come near to her, the woman said, "Are you Joab?" He answered, "I am." Then she said to him, "Hear the words of your maidservant." And he answered, "I am listening." So she spoke, saying, "They used to talk in former times, saying, 'They shall surely seek guidance at Abel,; and so they would end disputes. I am among the peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why would you swallow up the inheritance of the Lord?" And Joab answered and said, "Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy! That is not so. But a man from the mountains of Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has rasied his hand against the king, against David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city." So the woman said to Joab, "Watch, his head will be thrown to you over the wall." Then the woman in her wisdom went to all the people. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. Then he blew a turmpet, and they withdrew from the city, every man to his tent. So Joab returned to the king at Jerusalem. (2 Samuel 20:13-22)

Finally, we have a good example of submission. It isn't silent, but silence wouldn't really work in this context, so that's understandable. Unfortunately, coupled with this, we have a good example of a woman exercising her authority over an entire city to literally chop a de-facto leader's head off and toss it to an enemy army. (Either that or else she convinced the people to do it of their own accord, which may be an issue for the "do not teach men" requirement.) The way this should have been done to comply well with 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is the woman should have suggested to a man she trusted to do the work, rather than doing it herself, but that's not what happens, and yet the text praises her for her actions and credits her with saving the city.

Then there's also the whole saga with Deborah and Barak. I won't quote the whole thing here since this is already getting long, but Deborah was a prophetess who was also the judge of Israel back before Israel had a kingdom (this is the same role Moses played in Exodus 18:26). I think it's obvious why this doesn't fit well with women being in silence and not having authority over men. See Judges 4 and 5 for the details. Chapter 4 also records the incident where Jael the wife of Haber not only disobeys Sisera (the male army general who resorted to her house after being thoroughly whooped by Barak a few moments before), but also kills him by putting a tent stake through his head with a hammer. Also not a good example of submission.

There are other women we could examine in the OT, but the situation isn't much better if we do. These examples are mostly either neutral in that they don't really show submission but don't show exercising of authority either (Rebekah, the woman who's son Elijah raised to life, the Shunnamite woman who's son Elisha raised to life), or they pose further complications (Huldah the prophetess, Jacob's wives, Nabal's wife Abigail). Ruth sorta does a decent job of exhibiting submission, she's about the only example I can think of off the top of my head.

Things don't get any better when looking at NT passages. Take the first missionary to the Samaritans for instance:

...at this point His (Jesus') disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why are You talking with her?" The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, "Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?" Then they went out of the city and came to Him. (John 4:27-30)

Besides being a great example of evangelism, the Samaritan woman at the well also seems to be a good example of what not to do if you aren't supposed to teach men. She didn't teach them much, but she definitely led men to Christ, framing what she now firmly believed as a question to make it more easily accepted. This is a clever teaching technique, but as far as I can tell, it's still teaching. Priscilla (the wife of Aquila) also takes part in the forbidden practice by teaching Apollos (a man) the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:24-26), and we have the fact that the first people to announce that Jesus rose from the dead were all women. (Matthew 28:5-8) Worthy of note, Jesus reprimands His disciples for not believing the women, Cleopas, and his companion, in Mark 16:14. This is reminiscent of what God did when Abraham didn't want to listen to Sarah.

The only decent argument I've heard for 1 Timothy 2:12-14 only applying in the context of church is that 1 Timothy 3 seems to be male-centric in its instructions about who can be a bishop or a deacon, making it clear that these people are to be "the husband of one wife". This argument however ignores Romans 16:1, where Paul mentions "Phebe our sister, which is a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea". If one looks at 1 Timothy 3:11 a bit more closely, one will notice that the instructions supposedly given to deacon's wives may be referring to instructions specifically for female deacons, as the word "wives" is simply "women", and the word "their" in "their wives" is not present in the original text. Since we have a documented female deacon, I don't think this interpretation is a stretch, and it undoes the argument that women are left no room for having a position of authority in the church. It flips the argument on its head and says that there's a position of authority in the church just for women.

I'm not really sure what to do with this passage at this point. It doesn't work as a universal restriction, it doesn't work as a church restriction, and it doesn't even work as a family restriction. I don't know what other sane way to interpret it, and I feel like I'm bending the text out of shape if I try to make it anything other than a universal restriction. Anyone got other ideas, or is my logic flawed somewhere?

(Final note, I do intentionally draw a distinction between "the author of 1 Timothy 2:12-14" and Paul. This is because my current hypothesis is that this passage is a forgery added to the inspired scripture Paul wrote, but I also recognize that's a somewhat weak hypothesis given that textual criticism identifies the passage as authentic for the time being. If it is Paul who wrote this, I think there will be a good explanation for it.)

Maria Billingsley · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
1 Timothy 2:12-14 is probably the only passage in the Bible that I find severely challenging. That isn't because I dislike its contents or because it doesn't match with what I've been taught previously, but it's because I simply cannot figure out how to get it to fit with the rest of Scripture. It feels as if I had a car where all the pieces perfectly fit together, except for this one weird thing that just refuses to go in its spot no matter how I try to put it in. I don't know if there is any good way to get it to fit, so I decided to come here and see what others think of my attempts to get it to work.

Quoting from the NKJV (including verse 11 for good measure):

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

I think the intent of this verse is fairly clear and hard to get around without twisting the text. Women having authority over men is forbidden, as is women teaching men. Silence is encouraged in at least some contexts (which contexts isn't spelled out in full detail, but one assumes it would be in any context where authority or learning was part of the picture). Two justifications for these restrictions are given; the order of creation (man being made first and therefore being considered superior in at least these specific contexts), and the fact that the first woman was instrumental in the fall of man. It's also worth looking at the last verse of the chapter, "Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." The author encourages the women he's talking about, that despite their being considered inferior to men in some ways, they can still be saved (AFAICT this is talking about salvation in the typical Christian sense), provided they accept their role as mothers and exhibit four key virtues. I think this is the most straightforward reading of the passage, if I'm wrong on something here please let me know.

I do not see an easy way for this verse to apply only in the context of one church. The author of this passage renders that impossible when he uses the order of creation as his argument. It makes no sense to argue that specific women in a specific area of the world should refrain from doing something, because the first woman to exist did something wrong. The only way Eve is connected to the situation at all is because she is the mother of all humans, including the women being written to, so I think it's evident that the author meant this to apply universally. It's also hard to argue that this applies only in the context of church; if you read the preceding verses of 1 Timothy 2, Paul is talking clearly about what people (both men and women) are to do everywhere. "I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls of costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works." (1 Timothy 2:8-10) Should the men pray only in church? Should the women only avoid adorn themselves modestly and do good works in church? That doesn't fit well that I can tell. In context, the passage seems to apply universally to all women, in all contexts, throughout all time.

Given that the order of creation is used as justification, and given the fact that righteous women in the OT are used as examples for how women are to behave elsewhere in the NT (1 Peter 3:5-6, Hebrews 11:31), I think it's reasonable to expect that these righteous women will adhere to the restrictions laid out here. Given that Peter directly references Sarah as an example for how wives are supposed to behave in the home, it's probably most fitting to start there and see what we find.

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac." And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham's sight because of his son. But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice, for in Isaac your seed shall be called. Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed." So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. (Genesis 21:9-14, NKJV)

This passage is... a problem. Specifically:

It's very hard to portray this as Sarah asking nicely. "Cast out" and "shall not" are fairly strong words to use here; it does not look like Sarah was of the opinion that these measures were optional or that Abraham should decide on his own whether he wanted to do this or not.

It goes without saying that Sarah is not being a great example of silence here.

Abraham is not particularly thrilled with what Sarah has told him to do. If he is going to do it, he's going to do it against his will. This further strengthens the argument that Sarah is not asking, but is attempting to exercise authority.

God intervenes and tells Abraham to do whatever Sarah said to him. God does not tell Abraham that this is abnormal or an exception to how things should normally work (in contrast to what He says when talking to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:15), He just tells Abraham to listen. This both acknowledges that Sarah was telling him to do things, and appears to acknowledge that Sarah was within her right to do this.

Abraham unwillingly complies with Sarah's command in all respects. Isaac goes on to become the heir, Hagar and Ishmael are evicted.

This is the same Sarah who called Abraham "lord" as Peter mentioned (Genesis 18:12), so if she's an example of how women should behave, this poses a difficulty for 1 Timothy 2:12-14.

Given that Sarah was a fluke, let's look at another righteous woman in the Bible. This time we'll look at one the book of Hebrews mentions by name, Rahab.

And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, "Behold, men have come here tonight from the children of Israel to search out the country." So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, "Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country." Then the women took the two men and hid them. So she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them." (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.) Then the men pursued them by the road to the Jordan, to the fords. And as soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate.

Here also we do not have a particularly good example of silence. The "right" thing to Rahab to do in this situation is to, without arguing or complaining, bring the men to the messengers sent to her by the king. What she does instead is tell a fairly elaborate combination of lies to the messengers to not only get them to go away, but to intentionally send them on a wild goose chase in full defiance of what she has been commanded to do. In this instance, you can say "well, the man commanding her to do things was evil, she isn't obligated to listen to him", but that kind of makes the woman the judge of who is and isn't righteous enough to obey. This conflicts with the "Eve was tempted but Adam was not" argument made in 1 Timothy 2:14, since that argument undermines the reliability of women's discernment in moral matters, and yet this example sets a precedent for women to use their discernment in moral matters.

While we're on the topic of women's discernment, let's look at someone who isn't explicitly mentioned in the NT, since so far that strategy seems to be failing quite badly.

...all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. And he went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel of Beth Maachah and all the Berites. So they were gathered together and also went after Sheba. Then they came and besieged him in Abel of Beth Maachah; and they cast up a siege mound against the city, and it stood by the rampart. And all the people who were with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. Then a wise woman cried out from the city, "Hear, hear! Please say to Joab, 'Come nearby, that I may speak with you.'" When he had come near to her, the woman said, "Are you Joab?" He answered, "I am." Then she said to him, "Hear the words of your maidservant." And he answered, "I am listening." So she spoke, saying, "They used to talk in former times, saying, 'They shall surely seek guidance at Abel,; and so they would end disputes. I am among the peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why would you swallow up the inheritance of the Lord?" And Joab answered and said, "Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy! That is not so. But a man from the mountains of Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has rasied his hand against the king, against David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city." So the woman said to Joab, "Watch, his head will be thrown to you over the wall." Then the woman in her wisdom went to all the people. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. Then he blew a turmpet, and they withdrew from the city, every man to his tent. So Joab returned to the king at Jerusalem. (2 Samuel 20:13-22)

Finally, we have a good example of submission. It isn't silent, but silence wouldn't really work in this context, so that's understandable. Unfortunately, coupled with this, we have a good example of a woman exercising her authority over an entire city to literally chop a de-facto leader's head off and toss it to an enemy army. (Either that or else she convinced the people to do it of their own accord, which may be an issue for the "do not teach men" requirement.) The way this should have been done to comply well with 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is the woman should have suggested to a man she trusted to do the work, rather than doing it herself, but that's not what happens, and yet the text praises her for her actions and credits her with saving the city.

Then there's also the whole saga with Deborah and Barak. I won't quote the whole thing here since this is already getting long, but Deborah was a prophetess who was also the judge of Israel back before Israel had a kingdom (this is the same role Moses played in Exodus 18:26). I think it's obvious why this doesn't fit well with women being in silence and not having authority over men. See Judges 4 and 5 for the details. Chapter 4 also records the incident where Jael the wife of Haber not only disobeys Sisera (the male army general who resorted to her house after being thoroughly whooped by Barak a few moments before), but also kills him by putting a tent stake through his head with a hammer. Also not a good example of submission.

There are other women we could examine in the OT, but the situation isn't much better if we do. These examples are mostly either neutral in that they don't really show submission but don't show exercising of authority either (Rebekah, the woman who's son Elijah raised to life, the Shunnamite woman who's son Elisha raised to life), or they pose further complications (Huldah the prophetess, Jacob's wives, Nabal's wife Abigail). Ruth sorta does a decent job of exhibiting submission, she's about the only example I can think of off the top of my head.

Things don't get any better when looking at NT passages. Take the first missionary to the Samaritans for instance:

...at this point His (Jesus') disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why are You talking with her?" The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, "Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?" Then they went out of the city and came to Him. (John 4:27-30)

Besides being a great example of evangelism, the Samaritan woman at the well also seems to be a good example of what not to do if you aren't supposed to teach men. She didn't teach them much, but she definitely led men to Christ, framing what she now firmly believed as a question to make it more easily accepted. This is a clever teaching technique, but as far as I can tell, it's still teaching. Priscilla (the wife of Aquila) also takes part in the forbidden practice by teaching Apollos (a man) the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:24-26), and we have the fact that the first people to announce that Jesus rose from the dead were all women. (Matthew 28:5-8) Worthy of note, Jesus reprimands His disciples for not believing the women, Cleopas, and his companion, in Mark 16:14. This is reminiscent of what God did when Abraham didn't want to listen to Sarah.

The only decent argument I've heard for 1 Timothy 2:12-14 only applying in the context of church is that 1 Timothy 3 seems to be male-centric in its instructions about who can be a bishop or a deacon, making it clear that these people are to be "the husband of one wife". This argument however ignores Romans 16:1, where Paul mentions "Phebe our sister, which is a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea". If one looks at 1 Timothy 3:11 a bit more closely, one will notice that the instructions supposedly given to deacon's wives may be referring to instructions specifically for female deacons, as the word "wives" is simply "women", and the word "their" in "their wives" is not present in the original text. Since we have a documented female deacon, I don't think this interpretation is a stretch, and it undoes the argument that women are left no room for having a position of authority in the church. It flips the argument on its head and says that there's a position of authority in the church just for women.

I'm not really sure what to do with this passage at this point. It doesn't work as a universal restriction, it doesn't work as a church restriction, and it doesn't even work as a family restriction. I don't know what other sane way to interpret it, and I feel like I'm bending the text out of shape if I try to make it anything other than a universal restriction. Anyone got other ideas, or is my logic flawed somewhere?

(Final note, I do intentionally draw a distinction between "the author of 1 Timothy 2:12-14" and Paul. This is because my current hypothesis is that this passage is a forgery added to the inspired scripture Paul wrote, but I also recognize that's a somewhat weak hypothesis given that textual criticism identifies the passage as authentic for the time being. If it is Paul who wrote this, I think there will be a good explanation for it.)

When reading Paul's letters we really need to pay attention to who the letter was written to. Timothy was stationed in Ephesus to lead the church there while Paul traveled. Both 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy focus on his work in that city, addressing issues like false doctrine and leadership qualifications within the Ephesian community.
Early believers in Ephesus lived in a city dominated by the Artemis cult, where women held the highest religious authority. This cultural backdrop is essential for understanding the specific instructions Paul gave to Timothy. So there is no need to be confused. We just need to put ourselves in the position of both Paul and Timothy in order to understand why such a focus on female leadership was at the heart of their errors. We in fact still see it today in the Marian " Queen of Heaven" teachings. ( no disrespect to her or her followers).

Be blessed.

Studyman · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
1 Timothy 2:12-14 is probably the only passage in the Bible that I find severely challenging. That isn't because I dislike its contents or because it doesn't match with what I've been taught previously, but it's because I simply cannot figure out how to get it to fit with the rest of Scripture. It feels as if I had a car where all the pieces perfectly fit together, except for this one weird thing that just refuses to go in its spot no matter how I try to put it in. I don't know if there is any good way to get it to fit, so I decided to come here and see what others think of my attempts to get it to work.

Quoting from the NKJV (including verse 11 for good measure):

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Remember that Paul is promoting the Gospel of the Christ of the Bible. Are he believed all that was written in the Law and Prophets. And the we too can look and see what the purpose of God's creation of the woman was, if we want. "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Gen. 2: 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In the Gospel of the Christ "of the bible", "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.

This is a perfectly righteous and Holy hierarchy. The woman was made the weaker vessel, just as the body of Christ, (His Bride) is made weaker than the Christ. And yet the Glory of Christ, is His Woman, His Body.

But this truth is lost in the religious system of this world, as Paul teaches.

Rom. 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image "made like to corruptible man", and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (You have seen these images all over this world, Yes?)

24 Wherefore (Because of this) God also gave them up "to uncleanness" through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (Image of God) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women "did change the natural use" into that which is against nature:

This is the world and it's religious system that God placed us in. We are to "come out of her", to be separate. It is hard to understand looing through the prism of this world's religious system. But from the outside, for those who have offered themselves a living sacrifice to God, it is much easier to understand, as it is written.

Rom. 12: 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And "be not conformed" to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that "ye may prove" what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

tdidymas · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
1 Timothy 2:12-14 is probably the only passage in the Bible that I find severely challenging. That isn't because I dislike its contents or because it doesn't match with what I've been taught previously, but it's because I simply cannot figure out how to get it to fit with the rest of Scripture. It feels as if I had a car where all the pieces perfectly fit together, except for this one weird thing that just refuses to go in its spot no matter how I try to put it in. I don't know if there is any good way to get it to fit, so I decided to come here and see what others think of my attempts to get it to work.
...

I think the key to understanding this passage is the context of the teaching of doctrine based on OT scripture, which required revelatory interpretation. Most women back then were not educated and were not qualified to teach Christian doctrine. Nevertheless, there were women in the churches who had leadership roles, such as Priscilla, the daughters of Philip, and some others mentioned in the epistles and Acts.

But considering today's women, some of whom are well educated, mostly do not have a spotless reputation for teaching truth. Take for example Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Beth Moore, and other prominent women teachers and pastors. Could any man familiar with scripture and able to teach correct Bible doctrine sit under their authority? I just don't see it, based on my knowledge of what they teach compared to what the Bible actually teaches. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend anyone to sit under their teaching, especially men.

But it seems to me that women could have leadership roles over other women, to teach the Bible from a woman's point of view. It's just that anything wrong they teach should be corrected by a man who is a Bible teacher or pastor.

So this passage is in the context of Christian churches and groups. The context doesn't address unbelievers.

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

Maria Billingsley said:
When reading Paul's letters we really need to pay attention to who the letter was written to. Timothy was stationed in Ephesus to lead the church there while Paul traveled. Both 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy focus on his work in that city, addressing issues like false doctrine and leadership qualifications within the Ephesian community.
Early believers in Ephesus lived in a city dominated by the Artemis cult, where women held the highest religious authority. This cultural backdrop is essential for understanding the specific instructions Paul gave to Timothy. So there is no need to be confused. We just need to put ourselves in the position of both Paul and Timothy in order to understand why such a focus on female leadership was at the heart of their errors. We in fact still see it today in the Marian " Queen of Heaven" teachings. ( no disrespect to her or her followers).

Be blessed.

This is the usual argument I hear in favor of an egalitarian view (which is the view I hold, though not for this reason). If the passage simply commanded submission and silence and forbade authority and teaching without further elaboration, this argument would hold some water. But the author doesn't stop there, he justifies his statements with two facts that (AFAICT) cannot be applied in a narrow context. For instance if I said "don't drink water", one could reasonably conclude that the water in the area was simply bad and that I meant "don't drink this specific water." But if I say "don't drink water, water in general is evil and must always be avoided", it's hard to think that I mean "don't drink this specific water".

Beyond that though, even if this was meant to be narrowly applied, forbidding women from holding any form of authority or teaching position even within the church is strange given the context of the OT. Correcting a mistaken, harmful view is a good thing, overcorrecting is a bad thing. Quoting Deuteronomy 5:32, "Therefore you shall be careful to do as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left."

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

Studyman said:
Remember that Paul is promoting the Gospel of the Christ of the Bible. Are he believed all that was written in the Law and Prophets. And the we too can look and see what the purpose of God's creation of the woman was, if we want. "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

Gen. 2: 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In the Gospel of the Christ "of the bible", "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.

This is a perfectly righteous and Holy hierarchy. The woman was made the weaker vessel, just as the body of Christ, (His Bride) is made weaker than the Christ. And yet the Glory of Christ, is His Woman, His Body.

But this truth is lost in the religious system of this world, as Paul teaches.

Rom. 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image "made like to corruptible man", and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (You have seen these images all over this world, Yes?)

24 Wherefore (Because of this) God also gave them up "to uncleanness" through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (Image of God) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women "did change the natural use" into that which is against nature:

This is the world and it's religious system that God placed us in. We are to "come out of her", to be separate. It is hard to understand looing through the prism of this world's religious system. But from the outside, for those who have offered themselves a living sacrifice to God, it is much easier to understand, as it is written.

Rom. 12: 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And "be not conformed" to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that "ye may prove" what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I think using the "help meet" verse this way is a mistake. God mentions that Eve's role as a help sufficient for Adam was a role she was to play, but it doesn't seem to be the primary role if you back up to Genesis 1:

[Gen 1:26-27 NKJV] 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Right from the outset God wants to create more than one person, in His image, that's exactly what He does, and one of them is female. The primary purpose given to both men and women is to rule the earth and everything in it. There isn't any indication that one of the two is inferior or subservient to the other. In Genesis 2 we are told that Eve is a help sufficient for Adam, but in the context of Genesis 1 it's easy to flip that around and see that Adam is a help sufficient for Eve too. This view fits well with 1 Corinthians 7:4, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband [does]. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife [does]."

The passage that states that the head of woman is the man is actually beneficial for this view, because it says that the head of the woman is the man just like the head of Christ is God. We know God the Father and God the Son are equal persons of the Godhead along with the Holy Spirit. Considering one of them lesser than the other is (at least tantamount to) heresy (notwithstanding John 14:28, but I think this is generally understood as not meaning that the Father has more authority than the Son). If God is the head of Christ and yet they are exact equals, then the man is the head of the woman in the context of a family and they are exact equals. This is not a hierarchy of authority or importance.

I think it's also worth quoting Galatians 3:18 here, "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."

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

tdidymas said:
I think the key to understanding this passage is the context of the teaching of doctrine based on OT scripture, which required revelatory interpretation. Most women back then were not educated and were not qualified to teach Christian doctrine. Nevertheless, there were women in the churches who had leadership roles, such as Priscilla, the daughters of Philip, and some others mentioned in the epistles and Acts.

But considering today's women, some of whom are well educated, mostly do not have a spotless reputation for teaching truth. Take for example Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Beth Moore, and other prominent women teachers and pastors. Could any man familiar with scripture and able to teach correct Bible doctrine sit under their authority? I just don't see it, based on my knowledge of what they teach compared to what the Bible actually teaches. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend anyone to sit under their teaching, especially men.

But it seems to me that women could have leadership roles over other women, to teach the Bible from a woman's point of view. It's just that anything wrong they teach should be corrected by a man who is a Bible teacher or pastor.

So this passage is in the context of Christian churches and groups. The context doesn't address unbelievers.

Yes, revelatory interpretation is necessary, but like you point out, some women in the NT had that, and there are also prophetesses in the OT (I mentioned Deborah and Huldah as examples). Most women were not educated in Christian doctrine, sure, but most men weren't either, and a significant portion of the people who were educated were women, so many of them that Matthew 27:55 points them out explicitly as an entire sub-group of Jesus' disciples.

I've had a hard time finding anyone with a solid reputation for teaching truth, whether men or women. As Proverbs 20:6 says, "Most men will proclaim each his own goodness, But who can find a faithful man?" I've only found one church that seems to teach things accurately to the best of my awareness, and that one church (Times Square Church) also allows women to preach. Obviously that's not to say they're the only good church, and I haven't even seen enough of them to know if they are a good church in all respects, but they're the best I've found so far when looking for a preacher to listen to.

I hadn't really thought of whether this applied to unbelievers or not, but I am curious, why would it not apply to unbelievers, given the order-of-creation argument?

Studyman · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
I think using the "help meet" verse this way is a mistake. God mentions that Eve's role as a help sufficient for Adam was a role she was to play, but it doesn't seem to be the primary role if you back up to Genesis 1:

It doesn't seem to be the primary role to who? Certainly not Paul. Here is what God said: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Where does God give any other role to the woman. Was she not created from Adam, for Adam?

1 Cor. 11: 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman "of the man". 9 Neither was the man "created for the woman"; but the woman "for the man".

I have no doubt that this instruction might not be popular in this world's religious system, Nevertheless, the Scriptures say what they say. Consider that God's Instruction on what was food and what was not food was also not very popular in the religious system of the world God placed Eve in. Had she "yielded herself" to the purpose God gave her, instead of submitting herself to her own flesh, things would have been different. Isn't this the whole purpose of the Oracles of God in the first place?

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

Windows95 said:
[Gen 1:26-27 NKJV] 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Right from the outset God wants to create more than one person, in His image, that's exactly what He does, and one of them is female. The primary purpose given to both men and women is to rule the earth and everything in it.

Consider for a moment what the purpose would be for a man to have dominion over, or "Rule over" a whale? Or an earth worm, or a maggot? Does God really care for these things?

Was Adam and Eve's warfare not thoughts and imaginations of their own mind? Consider Paul's understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

2 cor. 10: 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds

5 Casting down imaginations, and "every high thing" that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought "to the obedience of Christ";

What did the serpent in the garden promote, but a thought, an imagination that exalted itself against "the knowledge of God".

If I am a member of the Church of God, the Body of Christ, His betrothed. Am I not the weaker vessel? Is the Christ, who is the Word of God that became a flesh and blood mortal man, not my Head? Is HE not greater than I, in the same way that Christ's Head, His God and Father was, according to this same Christ, " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.".

In the same way God created the man to be greater than the woman, the weaker vessel. Is Jesus not still One with His Father, who is greater then HE. In the same way the Faithful is One with their Head, the Christ Jesus, who is greater that they, in the same way the wife is One with the husband that is greater than she?

Windows95 said:
There isn't any indication that one of the two is inferior or subservient to the other.

This may be a popular sentiment promoted by this world's religious system, but the entire Bible, it seems, in my understanding, is founded on the voluntary humility of "Submitting to, Humbling ourselves to, Yielding ourselves to, and becoming subservient to the Powers God placed over us. Everyone is subservient to something, someone.

Paul even admonished us to this very fact.

Rom. 6: 16 Know ye not, that "to whom ye yield yourselves" servants (subservient) to obey, "his servants ye are" to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The deceiver was after the man, not the weaker woman. But he went after the weaker vessel first and she was deceived into "yielding herself" a servant to obey him, not God. And then she gave to her head the sinful work. And Adam, who was created to be the head of his wife, the weaker vessel, abandoned the purpose in which he was created in the first place.

This is what Paul taught Timothy;

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

Let the Bride of Christ, "Learn obedience" from their Head, in silence with all submission, just as the wife shall learn in silence, not teaching, but submitting to the teaching of her husband, just as the husband shall "learn obedience" from HIS Head, in silence and with all submission.

In closing, consider that the man Jesus was surrounded by the servants of the same serpent that was in the garden. And for over 20 years, it used the Jews, who God had betrothed unto Himself, to turn Christ away from God as Adam did. And for over 20 years Jesus resisted their wiles. It wasn't until after this man of great Faith, endured this great temptation, that God had HIM anointed, by a true Levite Priest, into the Priesthood of God, as it was prophesied. as it was written.

Matt. 3: 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

After over 20 years of submitting to His Head in silence and with all submission.

It was only after that, that in a last ditch effort, the serpent, the perfect deceiver came to tempt the Christ face to face.

This world's religious system, "who come in Christ's Name" is the same influence. And we can overcome by Faith, that is by believing what God says, over all other voices. And putting on the Armor Jesus wore to resist the wiles of the devil.

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

Studyman said:
Where does God give any other role to the woman. Was she not created from Adam, for Adam?

See Genesis 1:26-27 (which I quoted above). She was, along with Adam, created to rule over the earth. Her purpose as Adam's helper is exactly equivalent to Adam's purpose as her helper, as explained in 1 Corinthians 7:4. Yes, she was created from Adam, for Adam, and yet she was created as an equal.

Studyman said:
I have no doubt that this instruction might not be popular in this world's religious system,

This doesn't have anything to do with popularity, it has to do with getting the verses to fit together. If half the human species is being told to do two opposite things (be like Abraham's wife Sarah, but also don't exercise authority over a man), one or the other command is being misunderstood or is faulty.

Studyman said:
Consider for a moment what the purpose would be for a man to have dominion over, or "Rule over" a whale? Or an earth worm, or a maggot? Does God really care for these things?

Evidently He does, otherwise why would He waste the time saying that this was the purpose God created mankind for? His word does not return to Him void, but it accomplishes that which He pleases and prospers in the thing for which He sent it. (Paraphrase of Isaiah 55:11) A sparrow doesn't even fall to the ground without the Father noticing (Matthew 10:29), so why wouldn't He care? Proverbs 12:10 even tells us to care.

Studyman said:
Is HE not greater than I, in the same way that Christ's Head, His God and Father was, according to this same Christ, " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.".

He is certainly greater than all of us in every way, but one must be careful to clarify what "greater" means when interpreting "the Father is greater than I". It cannot mean greater in authority, because all power is given to Christ in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). It cannot mean greater in divinity or essence as that would fall into heresy. There is a hierarchy, but it is not one of authority or status. That same hierarchy exists between the man and woman in a marriage, again being not one of authority or status.

Studyman said:
This may be a popular sentiment promoted by this world's religious system, but the entire Bible, it seems, in my understanding, is founded on the voluntary humility of "Submitting to, Humbling ourselves to, Yielding ourselves to, and becoming subservient to the Powers God placed over us. Everyone is subservient to something, someone.

That is indeed true, but the two are not in disagreement. 1 Peter 5:5 tells us "Likewise, you younger, submit yourselves to the elder. Yes, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble." Any healthy relationship will involve both parties submitting to one another in love. That's how Abraham and Sarah lived.

I think it would be helpful to ignore "the world's religious system" and focus on the scriptures we're referencing. My argument relies solely on the text of scripture, and intentionally does not bring into the picture the world's idea of morality or human rights. I don't care what rights the world says people should have, I care about the things God says we should do.

Studyman said:
The deceiver was after the man, not the weaker woman.

This statement does not have scriptural support that I know of. We aren't told who the serpent was coming after, but scripture generally portrays satan as coming after both men and women alike, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

Maria Billingsley · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
This is the usual argument I hear in favor of an egalitarian view (which is the view I hold, though not for this reason). If the passage simply commanded submission and silence and forbade authority and teaching without further elaboration, this argument would hold some water. But the author doesn't stop there, he justifies his statements with two facts that (AFAICT) cannot be applied in a narrow context. For instance if I said "don't drink water", one could reasonably conclude that the water in the area was simply bad and that I meant "don't drink this specific water." But if I say "don't drink water, water in general is evil and must always be avoided", it's hard to think that I mean "don't drink this specific water".

Beyond that though, even if this was meant to be narrowly applied, forbidding women from holding any form of authority or teaching position even within the church is strange given the context of the OT. Correcting a mistaken, harmful view is a good thing, overcorrecting is a bad thing. Quoting Deuteronomy 5:32, "Therefore you shall be careful to do as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left."

Well sometimes we need to apply common sense to the situation. There are some people who take this literally and way too far and some parse out the true meaning of the message. Jesus Christ of Nazareth did not teach men to suppress women. Afterall, we should not teach suppression of women as this is what far right Islamic nations do. There are always extreams to watch out for even among our own .

FYI: Islamic Nations

Male guardianship systems
Mandatory face veiling
Forced wearing of all-black attire
Prohibitions on speaking or being heard in public
Total exclusion from education and schools
Bans on leaving the home without a male escort
Lack of voting or political decision-making power
Unequal inheritance and property rights
Devaluation of legal testimony compared to men
Restrictions on employment and professional careers
Practices of forced or child marriage
Unilateral divorce rights granted only to men

2PhiloVoid · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
1 Timothy 2:12-14 is probably the only passage in the Bible that I find severely challenging. That isn't because I dislike its contents or because it doesn't match with what I've been taught previously, but it's because I simply cannot figure out how to get it to fit with the rest of Scripture. It feels as if I had a car where all the pieces perfectly fit together, except for this one weird thing that just refuses to go in its spot no matter how I try to put it in. I don't know if there is any good way to get it to fit, so I decided to come here and see what others think of my attempts to get it to work.

Quoting from the NKJV (including verse 11 for good measure):

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

I think the intent of this verse is fairly clear and hard to get around without twisting the text. Women having authority over men is forbidden, as is women teaching men. Silence is encouraged in at least some contexts (which contexts isn't spelled out in full detail, but one assumes it would be in any context where authority or learning was part of the picture). Two justifications for these restrictions are given; the order of creation (man being made first and therefore being considered superior in at least these specific contexts), and the fact that the first woman was instrumental in the fall of man. It's also worth looking at the last verse of the chapter, "Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." The author encourages the women he's talking about, that despite their being considered inferior to men in some ways, they can still be saved (AFAICT this is talking about salvation in the typical Christian sense), provided they accept their role as mothers and exhibit four key virtues. I think this is the most straightforward reading of the passage, if I'm wrong on something here please let me know.

I do not see an easy way for this verse to apply only in the context of one church. The author of this passage renders that impossible when he uses the order of creation as his argument. It makes no sense to argue that specific women in a specific area of the world should refrain from doing something, because the first woman to exist did something wrong. The only way Eve is connected to the situation at all is because she is the mother of all humans, including the women being written to, so I think it's evident that the author meant this to apply universally. It's also hard to argue that this applies only in the context of church; if you read the preceding verses of 1 Timothy 2, Paul is talking clearly about what people (both men and women) are to do everywhere. "I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls of costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works." (1 Timothy 2:8-10) Should the men pray only in church? Should the women only avoid adorn themselves modestly and do good works in church? That doesn't fit well that I can tell. In context, the passage seems to apply universally to all women, in all contexts, throughout all time.

Given that the order of creation is used as justification, and given the fact that righteous women in the OT are used as examples for how women are to behave elsewhere in the NT (1 Peter 3:5-6, Hebrews 11:31), I think it's reasonable to expect that these righteous women will adhere to the restrictions laid out here. Given that Peter directly references Sarah as an example for how wives are supposed to behave in the home, it's probably most fitting to start there and see what we find.

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac." And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham's sight because of his son. But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice, for in Isaac your seed shall be called. Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed." So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. (Genesis 21:9-14, NKJV)

This passage is... a problem. Specifically:

It's very hard to portray this as Sarah asking nicely. "Cast out" and "shall not" are fairly strong words to use here; it does not look like Sarah was of the opinion that these measures were optional or that Abraham should decide on his own whether he wanted to do this or not.

It goes without saying that Sarah is not being a great example of silence here.

Abraham is not particularly thrilled with what Sarah has told him to do. If he is going to do it, he's going to do it against his will. This further strengthens the argument that Sarah is not asking, but is attempting to exercise authority.

God intervenes and tells Abraham to do whatever Sarah said to him. God does not tell Abraham that this is abnormal or an exception to how things should normally work (in contrast to what He says when talking to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:15), He just tells Abraham to listen. This both acknowledges that Sarah was telling him to do things, and appears to acknowledge that Sarah was within her right to do this.

Abraham unwillingly complies with Sarah's command in all respects. Isaac goes on to become the heir, Hagar and Ishmael are evicted.

This is the same Sarah who called Abraham "lord" as Peter mentioned (Genesis 18:12), so if she's an example of how women should behave, this poses a difficulty for 1 Timothy 2:12-14.

Given that Sarah was a fluke, let's look at another righteous woman in the Bible. This time we'll look at one the book of Hebrews mentions by name, Rahab.

And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, "Behold, men have come here tonight from the children of Israel to search out the country." So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, "Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country." Then the women took the two men and hid them. So she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them." (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.) Then the men pursued them by the road to the Jordan, to the fords. And as soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate.

Here also we do not have a particularly good example of silence. The "right" thing to Rahab to do in this situation is to, without arguing or complaining, bring the men to the messengers sent to her by the king. What she does instead is tell a fairly elaborate combination of lies to the messengers to not only get them to go away, but to intentionally send them on a wild goose chase in full defiance of what she has been commanded to do. In this instance, you can say "well, the man commanding her to do things was evil, she isn't obligated to listen to him", but that kind of makes the woman the judge of who is and isn't righteous enough to obey. This conflicts with the "Eve was tempted but Adam was not" argument made in 1 Timothy 2:14, since that argument undermines the reliability of women's discernment in moral matters, and yet this example sets a precedent for women to use their discernment in moral matters.

While we're on the topic of women's discernment, let's look at someone who isn't explicitly mentioned in the NT, since so far that strategy seems to be failing quite badly.

...all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. And he went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel of Beth Maachah and all the Berites. So they were gathered together and also went after Sheba. Then they came and besieged him in Abel of Beth Maachah; and they cast up a siege mound against the city, and it stood by the rampart. And all the people who were with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. Then a wise woman cried out from the city, "Hear, hear! Please say to Joab, 'Come nearby, that I may speak with you.'" When he had come near to her, the woman said, "Are you Joab?" He answered, "I am." Then she said to him, "Hear the words of your maidservant." And he answered, "I am listening." So she spoke, saying, "They used to talk in former times, saying, 'They shall surely seek guidance at Abel,; and so they would end disputes. I am among the peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why would you swallow up the inheritance of the Lord?" And Joab answered and said, "Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy! That is not so. But a man from the mountains of Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has rasied his hand against the king, against David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city." So the woman said to Joab, "Watch, his head will be thrown to you over the wall." Then the woman in her wisdom went to all the people. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. Then he blew a turmpet, and they withdrew from the city, every man to his tent. So Joab returned to the king at Jerusalem. (2 Samuel 20:13-22)

Finally, we have a good example of submission. It isn't silent, but silence wouldn't really work in this context, so that's understandable. Unfortunately, coupled with this, we have a good example of a woman exercising her authority over an entire city to literally chop a de-facto leader's head off and toss it to an enemy army. (Either that or else she convinced the people to do it of their own accord, which may be an issue for the "do not teach men" requirement.) The way this should have been done to comply well with 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is the woman should have suggested to a man she trusted to do the work, rather than doing it herself, but that's not what happens, and yet the text praises her for her actions and credits her with saving the city.

Then there's also the whole saga with Deborah and Barak. I won't quote the whole thing here since this is already getting long, but Deborah was a prophetess who was also the judge of Israel back before Israel had a kingdom (this is the same role Moses played in Exodus 18:26). I think it's obvious why this doesn't fit well with women being in silence and not having authority over men. See Judges 4 and 5 for the details. Chapter 4 also records the incident where Jael the wife of Haber not only disobeys Sisera (the male army general who resorted to her house after being thoroughly whooped by Barak a few moments before), but also kills him by putting a tent stake through his head with a hammer. Also not a good example of submission.

There are other women we could examine in the OT, but the situation isn't much better if we do. These examples are mostly either neutral in that they don't really show submission but don't show exercising of authority either (Rebekah, the woman who's son Elijah raised to life, the Shunnamite woman who's son Elisha raised to life), or they pose further complications (Huldah the prophetess, Jacob's wives, Nabal's wife Abigail). Ruth sorta does a decent job of exhibiting submission, she's about the only example I can think of off the top of my head.

Things don't get any better when looking at NT passages. Take the first missionary to the Samaritans for instance:

...at this point His (Jesus') disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why are You talking with her?" The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, "Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?" Then they went out of the city and came to Him. (John 4:27-30)

Besides being a great example of evangelism, the Samaritan woman at the well also seems to be a good example of what not to do if you aren't supposed to teach men. She didn't teach them much, but she definitely led men to Christ, framing what she now firmly believed as a question to make it more easily accepted. This is a clever teaching technique, but as far as I can tell, it's still teaching. Priscilla (the wife of Aquila) also takes part in the forbidden practice by teaching Apollos (a man) the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:24-26), and we have the fact that the first people to announce that Jesus rose from the dead were all women. (Matthew 28:5-8) Worthy of note, Jesus reprimands His disciples for not believing the women, Cleopas, and his companion, in Mark 16:14. This is reminiscent of what God did when Abraham didn't want to listen to Sarah.

The only decent argument I've heard for 1 Timothy 2:12-14 only applying in the context of church is that 1 Timothy 3 seems to be male-centric in its instructions about who can be a bishop or a deacon, making it clear that these people are to be "the husband of one wife". This argument however ignores Romans 16:1, where Paul mentions "Phebe our sister, which is a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea". If one looks at 1 Timothy 3:11 a bit more closely, one will notice that the instructions supposedly given to deacon's wives may be referring to instructions specifically for female deacons, as the word "wives" is simply "women", and the word "their" in "their wives" is not present in the original text. Since we have a documented female deacon, I don't think this interpretation is a stretch, and it undoes the argument that women are left no room for having a position of authority in the church. It flips the argument on its head and says that there's a position of authority in the church just for women.

I'm not really sure what to do with this passage at this point. It doesn't work as a universal restriction, it doesn't work as a church restriction, and it doesn't even work as a family restriction. I don't know what other sane way to interpret it, and I feel like I'm bending the text out of shape if I try to make it anything other than a universal restriction. Anyone got other ideas, or is my logic flawed somewhere?

(Final note, I do intentionally draw a distinction between "the author of 1 Timothy 2:12-14" and Paul. This is because my current hypothesis is that this passage is a forgery added to the inspired scripture Paul wrote, but I also recognize that's a somewhat weak hypothesis given that textual criticism identifies the passage as authentic for the time being. If it is Paul who wrote this, I think there will be a good explanation for it.)

Usually, when dealing with these sorts of passages, I first realize that they weren't written a spiritual vacuum, cut off from whatever, whenever and wherever they were thought out and composed.

The second thing to keep in mind is that if we're going to go in with Critical Study of the Pauline literature, then we should do it robustly and consistently.

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

Maria Billingsley said:
Well sometimes we need to apply common sense to the situation.

Agreed, but that still is difficult. To go back to the water analogy, if someone says "don't drink water, water in general is evil and must always be avoided," we can apply common sense to that and say "OK, if I just stop drinking water, I'm going to die in a few days. That can't be what I'm supposed to do, so therefore I will continue drinking water because it's essential for survival." That's very good logic and I would argue it's the right thing to do, but it directly contradicts the person saying "don't drink water." In a real-life situation, you would conclude that the person telling you to not drink water was simply severely misinformed or perhaps sick.

That's what I currently do with this passage; I think whoever wrote it had an agenda and was not particularly familiar with Scripture. Paul did not have an agenda and was intimately familiar with Scripture, so that's why I think the passage may be unauthentic. I don't like disagreeing with textual criticism though...

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
Usually, when dealing with these sorts of passages, I first realize that they weren't written a spiritual vacuum, cut off from whatever, whenever and wherever they were thought out and composed.

True, that's good to keep in mind while reading Scripture in general.

2PhiloVoid said:
The second thing to keep in mind is that if we're going to go in with Critical Study of the Pauline literature, then we should do it robustly and consistently.

I'm not sure what "critical study" means in this context. Historically, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul was an inspired apostle and his writings are Scripture. (Peter comes out and says as much, in 2 Peter 3:15-16.) I haven't found any other passage in Paul's letters that is this hard to work with, the others are sometimes confusing like Peter says, but ultimately they fit.

2PhiloVoid · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
True, that's good to keep in mind while reading Scripture in general.

I'm not sure what "critical study" means in this context. Historically, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul was an inspired apostle and his writings are Scripture. (Peter comes out and says as much, in 2 Peter 3:15-16.) I haven't found any other passage in Paul's letters that is this hard to work with, the others are sometimes confusing like Peter says, but ultimately they fit.

It's not that hard to work with if you open yourself up to more expansive, socio-historical critical studies of Paul's letters. There's more to tackle than simply 'textual criticism,' although that's not a bad place to start.

Y'know, there's plenty of extra info out there from scholars on this issue if you're willing to look for it.

Studyman · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
That is indeed true, but the two are not in disagreement. 1 Peter 5:5 tells us "Likewise, you younger, submit yourselves to the elder. Yes, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble." Any healthy relationship will involve both parties submitting to one another in love. That's how Abraham and Sarah lived.

Sarah was not in submission to her husband? Did she not promote that Sarah was Abraham's Sister, as Abraham commanded her?

Windows95 said:
I think it would be helpful to ignore "the world's religious system" and focus on the scriptures we're referencing.

That would be pretty foolish in my understanding, since the Law and Prophets, Jesus, and His Apostles warned over and over and over about false teachers of this world. The "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, but HE doesn't know them. When asked about the end times, He could have warned about anything. Atheists, Islam, Satanists, pagans, but HE didn't. He warned of ONE specific Evil.

Matt. 24: 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Considering these warnings "Is focusing" on the Scriptures being referenced, as to what God's message to mankind is. It seem foolish to say and believe that were have not been influenced by the "many" different religious sects and businesses, "who come in Christ's Name" that make up this world's religious system. How can we know God's Truth, if we ignore His Warnings about the "course of this World" that Paul and Jesus said not to be "Conformed to"?

Windows95 said:
My argument relies solely on the text of scripture, and intentionally does not bring into the picture the world's idea of morality or human rights. I don't care what rights the world says people should have, I care about the things God says we should do.

And God says the Woman was created "From man", for the man, to be a help meet. And the serpent didn't go after Adam, but after Eve. This is undeniable Biblical truth. And the Inspired Word of God teaches that the woman is the weaker vessel. And that the man is the head of the woman. Again, undeniable Biblical Truth.

And the Spirit of Christ in Paul teaches, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression".

Just as the Body of Christ is to learn in silence with all submission to her Head, the Lord's Christ. No one is going to make us believe these things, it requires a voluntary humility.

I asked you, what did the serpent promote? If not a thought or imagination that was against the knowledge of God, followed by Paul's teaching? But you didn't answer.

Evidently He does, otherwise why would He waste the time saying that this was the purpose God created mankind for? His word does not return to Him void, but it accomplishes that which He pleases and prospers in the thing for which He sent it. (Paraphrase of Isaiah 55:11) A sparrow doesn't even fall to the ground without the Father noticing (Matthew 10:29), so why wouldn't He care? Proverbs 12:10 even tells us to care.

I'm really surprised at this statement.

Paul teaches;

1 Cor. 10: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. "Doth God take care for oxen"?

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

I know the Scriptures are Spiritual, and that God speaks in Parables. So I asked you "what purpose is there for a man to rule over sea lice, or whales, or maggots? Wasn't the serpent, "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made". And what did this "beast" promote to Eve? Was it not a thought that was against the knowledge of God. Isn't Paul one of Christ's Chosen Teachers?
In Matt. 10:29, what does the same Christ say about the sparrow if a man continues to seek His Truth? "31 Fear ye not therefore, "ye are of more value" than many sparrows.

Proverbs 12: 10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

So then what is the point of this verse in this discussion? That Eve was being Righteous because the serpent was "her beast", that she regarded?

It seems I have misunderstood your intentions. My Bad.

Windows95 said:
This statement does not have scriptural support that I know of. We aren't told who the serpent was coming after, but scripture generally portrays satan as coming after both men and women alike, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

We only know who the Scriptures tell us it went after. Adam and Eve were both in the garden, but the serpent went after Eve, not Adam. Paul makes a point to mention this. It seemed relevant to me. It isn't to you.

Perhaps it's time for me to move on.

Thank you.

Maria Billingsley · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
Agreed, but that still is difficult. To go back to the water analogy, if someone says "don't drink water, water in general is evil and must always be avoided," we can apply common sense to that and say "OK, if I just stop drinking water, I'm going to die in a few days. That can't be what I'm supposed to do, so therefore I will continue drinking water because it's essential for survival." That's very good logic and I would argue it's the right thing to do, but it directly contradicts the person saying "don't drink water." In a real-life situation, you would conclude that the person telling you to not drink water was simply severely misinformed or perhaps sick.

That's what I currently do with this passage; I think whoever wrote it had an agenda and was not particularly familiar with Scripture. Paul did not have an agenda and was intimately familiar with Scripture, so that's why I think the passage may be unauthentic. I don't like disagreeing with textual criticism though...

I'm not sure what your situation is but, it sounds like you are struggling with this for a specific reason. Maybe you are experiencing pressure within your congregation.
Thanks for sharing!

Windows95 · May 9, 2026

Studyman said:
Sarah was not in submission to her husband? Did she not promote that Sarah was Abraham's Sister, as Abraham commanded her?

That is not what I said. I said that both Abraham and Sarah submitted to each other in love mutually. Yes, Sarah submitted to Abraham when saying that she was his sister, and Abraham submitted to Sarah when casting out Hagar and Ishmael.

Studyman said:
That would be pretty foolish in my understanding, since the Law and Prophets, Jesus, and His Apostles warned over and over and over about false teachers of this world.

I didn't mean to ignore it in general, but to look at the topic itself. You rightly criticize the wrong ways of the world, but I'm not looking at the ways of the world here. I'm looking at the Bible, in its context, and isolated from our modern ideas of human rights and whatnot. To put it another way, I could easily say that what you're arguing is inspired by the world's religious system, but that wouldn't be productive because it's an unfalsifiable claim. I'm trying to engage with your arguments using scripture as the ultimate judge of what is and isn't good.

Studyman said:
I'm really surprised at this statement.

Paul teaches;

1 Cor. 10: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. "Doth God take care for oxen"?

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

I think this is one of those passages that, as Peter said, is "hard to be understood". God clearly does take care for oxen, as evidenced by Jesus' statement about the sparrows, the obvious meaning of the OT law being referenced, and the fact that the OT encourages us to care for the animals that are under our care. At the same time, the passage also has a deeper spiritual meaning that Paul uncovers here. I think the "Does God care for oxen, or does He say this only for our sakes?" is an intentional false dichotomy to make us think about the passage deeper. Paul then gives an answer that works equally both literally and spiritually, indicating that both are true.

Why would God put Adam and Eve in the garden "to dress and keep it" (Genesis 2:15) if He didn't care for the garden?

Studyman said:
So then what is the point of this verse in this discussion? That Eve was being Righteous because the serpent was "her beast", that she regarded?

No. You asked me what Eve's primary purpose was if it wasn't to be a helper to Adam. My answer was that she was given the same purpose Adam was, to rule over the earth. You replied with the question about whales and maggots, which seemed to imply that the job of ruling over the earth was insignificant, something God didn't care about. I then argued that it was something God cared about very much, to the point where it was a critical reason we were created in the first place. That doesn't at all justify Eve obeying the serpent, that's an unrelated aspect of the passage.

Studyman said:
We only know who the Scriptures tell us it went after. Adam and Eve were both in the garden, but the serpent went after Eve, not Adam. Paul makes a point to mention this. It seemed relevant to me. It isn't to you.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Earlier you argued that the deceiver was (primarily, I think?) after the man, not the weaker woman. I don't see how the fact that the serpent attempted to deceive Eve proves this.

Studyman said:
Perhaps it's time for me to move on.

Thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to talk about it with me

Studyman · May 9, 2026

Windows95 said:
That is not what I said. I said that both Abraham and Sarah submitted to each other in love mutually. Yes, Sarah submitted to Abraham when saying that she was his sister, and Abraham submitted to Sarah when casting out Hagar and Ishmael.

I can see your point, but Sarah asked Abram, and Abram consented to go into Hagar. It was Abram's decision, not Sarah's, according to Scripture. And Sarah went to Abram when Hagar despised Sarah,, and it was Abrams decision for her to do unto Hagar as she pleased, not Sarah's. Look for yourself and see if this is true or not.

Windows95 said:
I didn't mean to ignore it in general, but to look at the topic itself. You rightly criticize the wrong ways of the world, but I'm not looking at the ways of the world here. I'm looking at the Bible, in its context, and isolated from our modern ideas of human rights and whatnot. To put it another way, I could easily say that what you're arguing is inspired by the world's religious system, but that wouldn't be productive because it's an unfalsifiable claim. I'm trying to engage with your arguments using scripture as the ultimate judge of what is and isn't good.

And yet you didn't acknowledge who made the decisions for Sarah concerning Hagar. Why would this be? I have done the same thing and have come to understand it is because I am reading into scriptures, a bias that was lodged in my heart that was the result of the traditions and philosophies of the world that God placed me in. I didn't know they were there, until I went to the Light. Please don't be offended, if you would think about it objectively, you will see it is the same for you. To understand this, is the first step in Seeking God's Truth "that our deeds (Thoughts, traditions, philosophies) may be made manifest, that they are "wrought in God." (Not from this world's religious system we have been surrounded by since our youth.)

Windows95 said:
I think this is one of those passages that, as Peter said, is "hard to be understood". God clearly does take care for oxen, as evidenced by Jesus' statement about the sparrows, the obvious meaning of the OT law being referenced, and the fact that the OT encourages us to care for the animals that are under our care. At the same time, the passage also has a deeper spiritual meaning that Paul uncovers here. I think the "Does God care for oxen, or does He say this only for our sakes?" is an intentional false dichotomy to make us think about the passage deeper. Paul then gives an answer that works equally both literally and spiritually, indicating that both are true.

But God didn't have the Scriptures written for oxen my friend, or for the sparrows. He had them written for our sakes, not the Oxen's sake. For our admonition, not the Oxen's Admonition.

This is either true or not true. And Paul explains the purpose of the Law of God he is addressing. " For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

This is the purpose of this Law of God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Oxen. It never did, it was always, as all Laws of God are, "Written for men Sakes no doubt".

Windows95 said:
Why would God put Adam and Eve in the garden "to dress and keep it" (Genesis 2:15) if He didn't care for the garden?

Again, who was created in the likeness of God? Who did God give His Commandment to. What was the Garden for? The Garden, or for Adam and Eve?

I know where this is going, and need to move on. But I only hope you might consider some of these things, in the privacy of your home, when there is no one but God reading your thoughts.

Windows95 said:
No. You asked me what Eve's primary purpose was if it wasn't to be a helper to Adam. My answer was that she was given the same purpose Adam was, to rule over the earth. You replied with the question about whales and maggots, which seemed to imply that the job of ruling over the earth was insignificant, something God didn't care about.

You know this is not an honest representation of my post. Pride is a powerful force, the fleshes urge to defend and justify itself, is legendary. I posted Paul's Words about the battle we, and Adam and Eve were in. But this is a public forum, and it is important to some, to save face. I asked what was the purpose of ruling over Whales or maggots. Understanding that the beasts of the earth were symbolic of the Serpent, " which was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made". I asked, "what did this beast of the field promote to Eve" but an imagination "that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God". And isn't that what she was to Rule over? And how many thoughts (Beasts of the earth) are there in one day, that exalted itself against the Knowledge of God?

And who was all this written for? Whales and maggots? Come on W95, I know you understand the point being made here.

Windows95 said:
I then argued that it was something God cared about very much, to the point where it was a critical reason we were created in the first place. That doesn't at all justify Eve obeying the serpent, that's an unrelated aspect of the passage.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Earlier you argued that the deceiver was (primarily, I think?) after the man, not the weaker woman. I don't see how the fact that the serpent attempted to deceive Eve proves this.

Thank you for taking the time to talk about it with me

Sure.

timf · May 10, 2026

If there is that in the constitution of women that makes them suitable helpers, it may also make them more vulnerable to deception.

com7fy8 · May 11, 2026

Windows95 said:
This argument however ignores Romans 16:1, where Paul mentions "Phebe our sister, which is a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea".

Your selected translation says she is a "deacon". Other translations say "servant" or "minister" . . . or "deacon" or "deaconess". And the Greek word, 1249 in Strong's Concordance Greek dictionary, can mean servant or deacon or minister. And Jesus uses the same word, meaning "servant" > see Matthew 23:11.

And deacons were servants.

So, what is meant by Phoebe being a "deacon" could have different meanings. And so, we do not need to include her in your list of problem cases. Nowhere does Paul say she is appointed to rule and control men. But if you assume, without any scripture to support this, then yes you can have a problem. But the contradiction can be between your own conclusions . . . and not contradiction in what God's word means.

Now . . . what if God's word means a wife must not "usurp" authority over her husband? There is a difference between usurping authority, versus having rightful authority. And we do have an example of how the wife has Biblical authority in relating with her husband >

"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Corinthians 7:4)

My opinion is that if she has authority over her man's body, this includes having some kind of authority over him . . . by having authority over his body. But this is not usurping, because God's word approves this. And this is God's word, with God's love meaning > this does not mean that the man and wife are welcome to just use the other in any way either or both of them please. But one uses one's authority to love the other . . . in God's love, so what one does is good for both.

The husband also can be usurping authority . . . abusing his authority. Men, also, then, must not usurp authority by abusing their power.

The husband, then, is to be a good example for his wife, of how to use authority the right way . . . as an example to her. Leaders are told how to relate with God's people >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

They are examples of how to lead, included > they are examples for wives, of how to be submissive to God. They take the lead, then, in how ladies need to be submissive, then: wives are not really being told to do what their men don't need to do; but the man is to be her example of submissiveness. Because all are to be submissive to God. And in submission to God, He is guiding us at each moment, how to relate with one another, including if and when and how each of us needs to be submissive to another. And God's word says >

"submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord." (Ephesians 5:21)

So, with God we can have simultaneous submission of one to the other . . . how God has us doing this. For example, the man can be having authority over his wife's body, right while she has authority over his body . . . both doing as God leads. And while you are loving each other, you can enjoy how each of you is doing the other good.

Therefore, as we discover how to submit to God during our personal and intimate family relating . . . He will have us discovering how He means for us to do His word about men and their ladies relating with each other.

On the meaning and applicability of 1 Timothy 2:12-14

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!

Active Member

Active Member

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads