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

Windows95 said:

There's a double-misunderstanding here. The reason this is a problem case is not because Phebe was "appointed to rule and control men" (in all likelihood she wasn't, as you point out, deacons in general were not exactly rulers), but because it undoes an argument that says 1 Timothy 2:12-14 applies only in a church context. The argument is that, because the positions in 1 Timothy 3 are male-centric, Paul was primarily talking about church roles in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, not about life in general. But if you look at 1 Timothy 3, it's not male-centric, it carves out a role for women in the church, and we know that role (deacon/servant) was open to women because a woman served that role in the church in Cenchrea. We also know historically that the role of "deacon" had power associated with it, so it requires special pleading to say that women were still kept out of power by not being permitted to be bishops. This means the context for interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12-14 must be the verses preceding it. All of those verses have to do with life in general, so 1 Timothy 2:12-14 was meant to apply to life in general, forbidding women to have civil authority or authority within the family. That's where you run into contradictions, because righteous women in the OT had both civil authority and authority within the family.


The word "authenteo" is not "usurp". It means "one who acts on his own authority". The NKJV translates it "have authority over". The YLT translates it "to rule". (If it did say "usurp", the passage would be a lot less problematic, but unfortunately that is not the word used.)


All of this I agree with. This is what I believe scripture teaches, and it's why I have so much of a problem with 1 Timothy 2:12-14. The vast majority of the Bible agrees with all of this, and then this one passage completely flies in the face of it. Mutual submission to one another in love is what I believe we're called to do, but this passage doesn't seem to fit with mutual submission at all.

Click to expand...

How can you claim that 1 Tim. 2:12-14 is for "life in general"? Paul is writing to Timothy in the role of church leadership, and the description of how people ought to act is for Christians, not life in general. He is leading up to the qualifications of elders and deacons in ch. 3. Elders had authority over others as overseers, but deacons were servant leaders (which women are mentioned). So then, 1 Tim. 2:12-14 is talking about a limitation on the role of women in church relationships regarding spiritual authority and teaching of doctrine. Men and women have different roles, in which men (at the time) were considered better educated and more logical and reasonable in their actions. How do you know if Paul was not thinking of that woman, called Jezebel, who was leading people astray as in Rev. 2:20 or someone like her? Cultism is nothing new and was a problem in the 1st Century as it is today.

So that passage is speaking of roles in the church, which is the people who gather to worship Christ. Does not everyone who attend church meetings have a need to prepare themselves in their general life to properly present themselves to God and other Christians? If Paul talks about how people should conduct themselves in their general life, he is talking about Christians who regularly come together and participate in their church roles. Thus he says that women should not teach men. It begs the question, teach what? Have authority to do what? In ch. 3 it's clear - in roles of church leadership.

No doubt that Priscilla, and perhaps others in the early church, had some level of leadership, since she was the principle teacher in Acts 18:26 (as she was mentioned before her husband). Not that she held authority over her husband, but perhaps she had the gift of teaching and her husband didn't. Certainly this is speculation, but it could fit both in the NT narratives and 1 Tim. 2.

In any case, there are women who are trying to prove that women can be called to preach and to pastor. I mean ones who are not called, but they want to make themselves examples of women who are called, so they can get people to believe God calls women. Then they get into various emotional and social and ministerial trouble because they are not doing God's will.

There can be type-A women who claim their type-A stuff is boldness and fire in the Holy Spirit. But they do not have self control of the Holy Spirit, for how they relate and eat. But . . . likewise, there are men who do not have self control of the Holy Spirit; with their type-A personalities they could push their way through seminary and into the pulpit; but then they do not have self control for how they eat and for keeping out of yelling and arguing at home and in ministerial meetings.

If God is not with someone, the person can push to make things happen, oneself. And this is what a woman is not to do, plus likewise men are not to do this.

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

There can be uncalled ones who can complain that they are such victims of discrimination. However, if God has truly called a person, He makes the way; "and you will find rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29)

So . . . no matter how anyone spins words or correctly teaches a scripture, God guides us according to all that He means by His word . . . better than we can understand and try to dictate what He means. And so, whoever the women are who are submissive to God, they are doing well and not fighting and getting hurt and burning out. And the same goes for men.

I don't think 1-timothy-2-12-14 are just specific to the Ephesian church. I recall Paul saying that these teachings are applicapable to all the churches and referring back to Genesis. But there are many other related verses.

I don't think it was about specific cultural beliefs that surrounded the church either. Gods word and Christs church should be consistent regardless of culture. In fact I think it was the reverse. That the specific cultural surroundings caused Paul to highlight a specific part of the same consistent teaching to the Ephesians.

As someone mentioned feminine gods and practices were more prominent in Ephesus. This seems to be something also mentioned in other parts of the bible. Mostof the pagan religions incorporated feminine gods and practices. The Hebrew God was different and very patriarchal.

I think this teaching only seems out of place because of a modern egalitarian lens that has been placed the teachings. I think if we look through the bible from Genesis and throughout. It is obvious that God used men and women differently. There is a significant hierarchial relationship happening with male and female and Christ and His church and in marriage.

As culture develops it brings its own overlay which can be different from other cultures or times in history. The most consistent position has been that there are differences in male and female naturally and in how God used men and women. Not because they are different in worth as we are all made in Gods image.

Windows95 said:

With all due respect, how closely did you read the original post? I'm not talking about either of those incidents. At all. I quoted the entire passage I'm referencing in the original post. I went into quite a bit of detail about what I thought it meant and why. I enjoy the discussion, but I would appreciate if you would take the time to read my post and responses with the same level of care I'm reading your responses with.


I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If you mean to say that Abraham complying with his wife's orders means he's really the one exercising authority, then the situation becomes even worse, since that would mean any time Sarah obeyed Abraham, she was really the one exercising authority. If you're talking about one of the other incidents, those are off-topic.


Paul does not say it was explicitly not written for the oxen's sake, you're adding to his words. The fact that the passage was written for man's sake does not mean it wasn't also given for the sake of the oxen. In any event, this is a weird tangent; whether God cares about oxen or not doesn't change that Genesis 1:26 says that mankind (man and woman alike) was created to have dominion "over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth", and that Genesis 2:15 says that Adam was placed in the garden "to dress it and to keep it". It is very hard to imagine God would give humanity in general two core purposes that He didn't care about.


* Who was created in the likeness of God? Both Adam and Eve. (Genesis 1:27)
* Who did God give His commandments to? Both Adam and Eve. (Genesis 1:29, Genesis 3:2-3)
* What was the garden for? It was created for God's pleasure. (Revelation 4:11)


No, no I legitimately do not know that. If I say "The primary purpose given to both men and women is to rule the earth and everything in it", and you reply "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?", I have no idea how to interpret the ending question as anything other than rhetorical, i.e. "God does not care for these things." The rest of your post looked like it changed topic away from the "ruling over the earth" subject.


I see now that I was mistaken in thinking that the rest of your post was disjointed from the "whales and maggots" comment. This is likely a result of how we interpret the early chapters of Genesis; you're interpreting it as primarily parabolic (I think?), whereas I treat it as a literal historical record of past events. When I read that God said "Rule over all of the animals I created", I interpret it as "God talked to the first two physical humans to ever exist on the newly created Earth, and told them to rule over the physical animals He had created in the recent past. This actually happened, just like any other event in history." Any symbolism, if it exists, is secondary to that.

So while yes, Eve and Adam and Cain and everyone else was and is supposed to "take every thought captive" (2 Corinthians 10:5-6), that is not at all what was being said when God told Adam and Eve to rule over His creation. When He said to rule over His creation, He meant it, literally, physically. Including the whales and maggots.

Click to expand...

“4 Must Women Keep Silence in the
Churches?

1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-36

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches:

for it not permitted unto them to speak; but they

are commanded to be under obedience, as also

saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask

their husbands at home: for it is a shame for

women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or

came into unto you only?

As I brought out previously, in the original Greek there is

only one word for man—none for husband; and only one Greek

word for woman—none for wife. You must determine from the

context whether it is talking about women in general, or

specifically about wives.

Verse 34, for instance, is not talking about all women. It

couldn't be, because the next verse says, "If they will learn

anything, let them ask their husbands... "

All women don't have husbands. Unmarried women are

certainly not included in this text. The Greek work gyne should

have been rendered here as wives. "Let your wives keep

silence... . " A. S. Worrell translates these verses, "Let your

wives keep silence in the assemblies, for it is not permitted unto

them to speak. But let them be in subjection as also saith the

law. And if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own

husbands at home. For it is a shame for a wife to speak in an

assembly."

The other famous text on this subject is much like our first

one.38 The Woman Question

1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all

subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp

authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman

being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-

bearing, if they continue in faith, and charity, and

holiness, with sobriety.

Remembering these things about our texts will help you

understand them: (1) Paul is not talking about all women, but

about wives. (2) He is talking about learning something and

asking questions (1 Corinthians 14:35, 1 Timothy 2:11).

Translate the Greek word gyne as wife, rather than woman,

and these texts will make sense to you. In Timothy, Paul refers

to Adam and Eve, a husband and a wife. He's dealing with a

husband-and-wife proposition.

You see, there is really no great danger of women in

general dictating to, domineering, or usurping authority over

men in general. But wives have been known to subject their

husbands to such indignity. And Paul is saying the wife is not to

dictate to her husband, or usurp authority over him.

The women in that day had little or no education. Paul

advised the wives if they would learn anything, to ask their

husbands at home—thus implying the men were better informed

than the women.

Alas, this is not always true now. Many women would die

in hopeless ignorance of the principles of our holy faith if they

depended on what crude, half-baked, pernicious, and fallacious

ideas their husbands could communicate to them.” The above is an excerpt from the book “The Woman Question” by Kenneth E. Hagin. It is one of the best and most thorough I have found on the topic. It can be found on line in totality. For anyone uncertain about this topic I highly recommend this book. https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/c21a6153/files/uploaded/The_Woman_Question.pdf

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):

Click to expand...

For one thing, it shouldn't be "for good measure" - context is very important.

In 1 Tim 2, Paul is talking about worship.
Verses 1-7 talk about prayer; interceding for all people, kings and those in authority. This, he says, is good and pleases God who wants all people to be saved.
Therefore - verse 8 - men should hold up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. Does Paul mean this literally; that men, alone, should pray and always raise their hands in prayer? If you're looking at the rest of Scripture, Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11 how a woman should pray - i.e. with her head covered. Mary and other women were praying with the disciples before Pentecost, Acts 1:14. In Acts 16, Paul went to Philippi, went to the place of prayer and found women there. Paul wasn't against women praying, so what did he mean in 1 Tim 2:8? Also, do any men literally raise their holy hands in prayer?

In 1 Tim 2:9-10, Paul writes about women dressing modestly - not wearing elaborate hairstyles, gold or pearls. Is this literal and does this apply to us today? I can understand Paul writing against wearing expensive clothing - Sunday best, "dressing up for God". Worship is about what's in the heart; Sunday worship should not be about showing off to others. Yes, women may feel they want to look their best for God, but he is not impressed by outward appearances, but what's in the heart.
And if we take these verses literally, that means that women shouldn't wear wedding rings in church. Yet weddings take place in church and involve the exchange of rings.

Verse 11 of this passage says that a woman should learn. That was important, because women were not allowed to learn in that culture. Even though Mary had sat at Jesus' feet, listening to and learning from him; generally, it wasn't allowed. Women should learn, says Paul, but in silence. Makes sense - you can't learn anything if you keep talking and interrupting.

Windows95 said:

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Click to expand...

Again, is this literal? And is it for us today or was Paul addressing a specific situation in a specific church?
If you believe it is literal:
i) Paul says "I do not permit ...." not "the Lord does not permit ....." Paul is not alive or here today.
ii) He uses the word woman - singular - not women - plural.
iii) What does it mean to "have (usurp) authority over someone? God gives authority, and calling. He gave it to Deborah, to OT prophetesses and to Mary Magdalene. Paul gave Phoebe the authority to take his letter to the church at Rome - knowing that she would have to read it to them and maybe answer questions. If God/a man gives authority to a woman, how can women be said to have taken it?
iv) Is Paul really saying that women cannot worship? Cannot read the Scriptures if men are present? Cannot testify to God's goodness? Where else does it say that in Scripture? When they had crossed the Red Sea, Miriam and the women sang and danced before the Lord and in front of men. Male priests chose to consult the prophetess Huldah to ask for a word from the Lord. In 1 Cor 14 Paul teaches about the use of tongues in worship; he does not say that women may not speak in tongues. Later he told a church that they should pray at all times. Did he exclude women from that?

Windows95 said:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Click to expand...

Yes, and .....?
Animals were formed before people - does a dog have authority over a human?

Windows95 said:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Click to expand...

No, Adam wasn't deceived; true. He was deliberately disobedient and Paul says that it is through Adam that sin came into the world.
Adam knew perfectly well what God had commanded, yet he disobeyed anyway. Eve had not been created when God gave his command to Adam and there is no record of her being told, by God, that she shouldn't eat the fruit.
This suggests that she would only have known about it through Adam - it was up to him to tell her. Read Genesis 2:16-17 to find out what God commanded Adam. Then read Genesis 3:3 to find out what Eve told the serpent. She got it wrong.
Why? Who knows? Was she not paying attention when Adam told her? Was she not learning in silence but was maybe trying to tell him something, or talking to a rabbit or something? Yes, that's guesswork - but it could mean that. Maybe Paul was even saying that women should learn so that they cannot be deceived? Knowing the truth would certainly help prevent the spread of false doctrine.

Windows95 said:

I think the intent of this verse is fairly clear and hard to get around without twisting the text.

Click to expand...

Good - well I look forward to your answer then - and the answers to my questions.

To be continued (maybe.)

Paul refers back to Genesis in another verse. I think it may have something to do with the fall. All humans are equally to blame for the fall. Its in our nature. But I think on top of this there is something about creation and how the fall happened that is also reflected in our nature.

If we look at many other examples in the bible we see God uses men and women differently. It is pretty well acknowledged that men by nature are more stoic you could say. Normally the ones who discipline and lead when it comes to critical times in life. Such as in conflict which naturally decends into physical conflict.

I think this is the nature of man. Women have their own God given nature which men cannot fullfill. I don't want to get into politics and the egalitarian objections. I am not saying men are better or more worthy than women. We are made man and women in the image of God He made us. That also does not mean that women cannot be leaders and teach in many ways.

I just think that there is an aspect of how men and women are endowed with certain natural traits that mean they are also most suited for Gods purpose in certain situations.

I don't think Paul or the early church were thinking in egalitarian terms. In fact all through history it was assumed and accepted that men were in certain positions. Especially in leading nations. Because ultimately this is a spiritual battle and satan will use every trick in the book.

Ultimately at least in this world this will include physical force. Not in how some abuse power in this world to control others. But like Joahua and David's authority which was in God. God used the traits of men to put in place His plan for humankind. In this way, used by God men are called to standup and be couragous against evil. Which like Christ ultimately means a physical death and all that is entailed.

That does not mean women cannot be courageous. They are brave in many ways. Blandina was martyred in the arena in the 2nd century. Her faith in paising God while facing a horrible death amazed the tough Roman centurians who asked "who is this Christ that Christians believe".

But ultimately men by nature are made by God with certain traits that are most suited for certain situations. Just as women are.

(Continued.)

Windows95 said:

Women having authority over men is forbidden, as is women teaching men.

Click to expand...

No it isn't - and Priscilla taught Apollos.
Deborah was judge over all Israel and Huldah gave the priests who chose to consult her, a word from God

Windows95 said:

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).

Click to expand...

Is it?
Paul has already said that women should pray and prophesy. And if this is meant to be a command from God, why haven't the contexts been clearly spelt out rather than leaving people to make assumptions?

Windows95 said:

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),

Click to expand...

No - the assumption that Paul is saying that men are superior because they were created first is just that; an assumption.
Like I said, animals were created before humans - are you inferior to cows?

Windows95 said:

and the fact that the first woman was instrumental in the fall of man.

Click to expand...

That's not a reason either.
Paul said that sin came into the world through Adam, Romans 5:12-21. Adam, alone, heard God's command not to eat from the tree and deliberately disobeyed. If women are not to speak, preach or lead because of Eve, men should not be allowed to do so either because of Adam. Who wants a church minister who knows what God wants but goes and does the opposite?

Windows95 said:

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,

Click to expand...

That's just it - in 1 Tim 2:11 he is talking about A woman; singular.
Women are not saved by childbirth but by Jesus.

Windows95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

That contradicts what Jesus said. HE is the only Way to the Father. HE gives eternal life and gave his life as a ransom for many.
Being saved is nothing to do with having children, marital status or anything else for that matter. Salvation is only through Jesus.

Windows95 said:

I do not see an easy way for this verse to apply only in the context of one church.

Click to expand...

Well it clearly doesn't apply to all his churches.
Paul had female co-workers (Romans 16) and a female deacon, (Romans 16:1.)
Lydia was possibly the first convert and founder member of the church at Philippi, and there were deaconesses at that church.
The council of Jerusalem did not meet to discuss the "problem" of women - Acts 15.
Paul does not mention this matter in his letters to the churches in Rome,Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Ephesus or Thessalonica.

Windows95 said:

The author of this passage renders that impossible when he uses the order of creation as his argument.

Click to expand...

He doesn't.
If he were using the order of creation as an argument, he would have said something like, "God created women second and told us it was to show that women were never to be leaders."
But God himself appointed Deborah to be judge over all Israel. Did he forget what he had "clearly said"?

Windows95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that at all.
If it did, you would have to say that Eve had children, so therefore all women have to have children too.

Windows95 said:

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)

Click to expand...

Ah - so you don't believe those verses to be literal then?
He does not say that men and women should lift up holy hands in prayer, but only men.
He does not say that men can't wear expensive clothes and gold but should practice humility and good deeds, but only women.

Windows95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Like I said, you don't believe those verses to be literal, then?
And are you saying that it's sinful for women to wear gold in church (no more wedding rings), to have braided hair, to wear pearls and so on?

Windows95 said:

given the fact that righteous women in the OT are used as examples for how women are to behave elsewhere in the NT

Click to expand...

You mean like prophesying, praying, leading worship or being appointed as leader of God's people?

Windows95 said:

This passage is... a problem.

Click to expand...

It's a problem for anyone who teaches that wives should always submit to, obey and never question their husbands, certainly.

Windows95 said:

Given that Sarah was a fluke,

Click to expand...

Fluke?
You mean you've never read the passage where God was going to kill Moses for not being circumcised and it was his wife who saved his life, Exodus 4:25?
Or that Deborah, the judge, was the wife of Lappidoth, Judges 4:4?
Or that Isaiah's wife was a prophetess, Isaiah 8:3?
Or that the prophet Huldah was the wife of Shallum, 2 Kings 22:14?
Or that when Ruth lay down under Boaz's cloak she was saying "please protect and care for me" - i.e. proposing marriage?
And who knows what would have happened to Pontius Pilate if he'd listened to his wife?

Windows95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, God chose, called and used women in the OT.

Windows95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's only "unfortunate" if you are trying to show that women cannot lead and/or that God never used women.

Windows95 said:

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.)

Click to expand...

Better than what?
Are you arguing that women are inferior and cannot lead because of Eve, but see examples in Scripture where women did just that, and are trying to reconcile the two teachings?

Windows95 said:

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".

Click to expand...

The interesting thing about that passage is that if Paul is giving qualifications for the role of deacon/overseer, why is he so hung up on marital status? Why doesn't he mention prayer, faith, correct doctrine, a love for others and, most importantly, a calling from God?

It's unlikely he would have said that women must be the wife of one husband, in any case. Women could not have more than one husband and - given that they weren't allowed to learn - would not have been expected to be deacons either.
It's like when Jesus said, "if a man divorces his wife ....". Does that mean that Jesus allowed women o divorce their husbands? No. That wasn't possible in that culture so he didn't need to forbid it.

Windows95 said:

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,

Click to expand...

That's probably the problem though - it's 4 verses which have been, and are, taken out of context.

God in the OT and Jesus in the NT did not have a problem with women speaking for them.

In regards to marriage this is what the bible says
Matthew 19: 1-9

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Becoming one flesh should not be taken lightly I think. This shows the significance of marriage and procreation. Its Gods creation and order. Its devine that two humans can become one flesh. Especially in an age where individual identity and rights rule above all else.