Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

But vs. 37 says that what he is writing "is the Lord's command":

34Women f should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.



I agree. Paul can't be saying women are to be quiet in regard to the very things he just said that are to be done in church, and which the rest of scripture affirms woman can do. That's why we have to know what it is exactly that women are to be silent in church about. And I think we know that by what Paul says in this passage about this very same issue of women being silent:

11A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; b she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. - Timothy 2:11-14

The thing women are to be silent about is not prophesying, singing, etc. It's being silent in the matter of teaching the word of God from an assumed position of authority. Between the two passages we can see exactly what the Lord's command in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38 is about concerning this matter of women being silent.

Women have simply not been ordained to teach the Word of God with authority. Does that mean women are stone cold stupid and you can't listen to anything they have to say? No, of course not. I've learned from many women over the years. But that happens in 'take it or leave it' kind of discussions that we Christians have.

Woman can share and we are free to receive it as truth or we can discard it as merely their opinion. What they can not do is impress it on the church in an authoritative teaching manner. The Lord's command is that they are to be silent in that regard. But then again, that's true for me, too. I don't have that calling either. I can only speak to the extent that women can speak. I can put things out there in informal discussion and you are free to take it or leave it. I personally have no more of an ordination to teach with authority than a woman has. It's not the end of the world, ladies.

The word translated "usurp authority" is authentein, which has no other use in Scripture and about 50 different meanings in classical Greek.

I think it unlikely that Paul had authority in mind; he would probably have used exousia if that were the case.

If Paul isn't actually stating that women can't have authority over men, then he also isn't saying that women can't speak from a position of authority.

Further, the word "usurp" involves taking a position without proper approval to do so. Well, that completely undermines most of the "women can't teach" argument, because almost nobody in the Church assumes a teaching position without having some kind of approval from a higher authority.

I honestly believe that "usurp authority" is a bad and biased translation, and that every argument based on that choice of words is flawed at best. So, that leaves us not knowing how women are to be silent.

With regard to Paul's words being "the Lord's command", they make perfect sense if he is contradicting a quotation.

Vine's explains what it means:

Authority:

from autos, "self," and a lost noun hentes, probably signifying working (Eng., "authentic"), "to execise authority on one's own account, to domineer over," is used in 1Ti 2:12, AV, "to usurp authority," RV, "to have dominion." In the earlier usage of the word it signified one who with his own hand killed either others or himself. Later it came to denote one who acts on his own "authority;" hence, "to exercise authority, dominion."
See DOMINION, Note.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G831&t=KJV

It certainly is in reference to some aspect of authority. Plugging in these possibilities from Vine's the word means women are not to 1) exercise authority over a man, 2) be domineering over a man, 3) usurp the authority of the man, 4) have dominion over the man, and 5) act in one's own authority over a man. Those are all in line with the classic interpretation of the passage--woman is not to have authority over man.


It's very obvious he did have 'authority' in mind. And he didn't use the simple word for authority because he's addressing the matter of taking authority. As we can see, there's a specific Greek word for that and Paul used it.


Vine's leaves little to no room for Paul to not be talking about the matter of woman having inappropriate authority over man.


That argument fails because Paul plainly says woman is not to take authority over man by reason of creation, not by reason of the absence of calling or ordination or the approval of others:

12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; b she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. - 1 Timothy 2:12-14

And, as we can also see, by reason of the woman being deceived in the garden, not man. So, we can see these reasons expel any suggestion that Paul's prohibition is based on the absence of calling or ordination or approval by a higher authority and not because a woman is a woman and a man is a man.


Even if the exact application is not known in regard to the word 'authority' used by Paul, it means not having authority over the man nonetheless. Vine's is very clear about this.


The simple fact that there is a consistent flow of thought in verses 26-40 shows us he is not quoting someone else's contradictory and incorrect opinion about woman in vs. 34 and 35. Besides, he can't be quoting someone else being wrong about women being quiet and in submission in the church in 1 Corinthians 14 and then he himself say woman are to be quiet and in submission in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. If the person he is supposedly quoting in 1 Corinthians 14 is wrong about woman being quiet and in submission then Paul himself is wrong about that too in 1 Timothy 2. So we know that's not what he's doing in 1 Corinthians 14.

I reject the "prior creation" reasoning. It has no inherent logic, and I think the cultural argument is far better.

The deception of Eve has no bearing whatsoever on any other woman.

Many men are deceived, and most are not qualified to teach

Your reasoning with regard to 1 Corinthians 14 is circular.

Vine's is not Scripture. As he overlooked dozens of other possible meanings

The deception of Eve has no bearing whatsoever on any other woman.

What is the cultural argument for 1 Timothy 2:11-14?

This is just one of those times when we have to go with what the Bible says even when it grates against our logical sensibilities. That argument may be able to be leveled against other passages of scripture but there's no compelling reason to reject this plainly stated part of scripture simply because it doesn't reason. It's not complex enough to warrant an investigation into it as being an unreasonable argument. It probably means women, by nature, because of how their brains are wired, are more apt to be deceived. That's all.

That's right.
That's why me and you can't be teachers with authority either. I said this.
That office is only given to men with that calling, and for the reasons the Bible says it is restricted to men only.

Paul can't be debunking someone else's quote in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that woman is to be quiet and submission, if he says the same thing himself in 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

I explained it in a previous post in this thread.

I don't accept that. I'm not satisfied with simplistic, non-logical, authoritarian explanations of Scripture.

I don't agree with that conclusion.

IF. I don't believe he does.

I suspect you haven't read all my previous posts in this thread. The Greek word for "authority" (exousia) does not appear in 1 Timothy 2. The word translated "usurp authority" is authentein, which has no other use in Scripture and about 50 different meanings in classical Greek. I think it unlikely that Paul had authority in mind; he would probably have used exousia if that were the case. If Paul isn't actually stating that women can't have authority over men, then he also isn't saying that women can't speak from a position of authority.

Further, the word "usurp" involves taking a position without proper approval to do so. Well, that completely undermines most of the "women can't teach" argument, because almost nobody in the Church assumes a teaching position without having some kind of approval from a higher authority. If anyone (male or female) assumed the authority to teach, that person would be in the wrong. Any woman approved by a board or nominating committee would not be "usurping" anything!

I honestly believe that "usurp authority" is a bad and biased translation, and that every argument based on that choice of words is flawed at best. So, that leaves us not knowing how women are to be silent.

With regard to Paul's words being "the Lord's command", they make perfect sense if he is contradicting a quotation. If verses 34-35 are Paul's own words, then we are left with the uncertainty about women's silence, about the reference to the Law, and the apparent contradiction between that passage and chapter 11.

I would agree . The law of a virtuous women Genesis 3 is her husband will rule over .Not Lord it over . Rule like the two fold government of God. Loving authority giving a desire to willingly submit as the mutual work of two.

Link me to it.

There is no "law of a virtuous woman" in Genesis 3. It's a statement of consequence; something negative that God says is certain to happen. There is no loving authority and willing submission about it; rather God is stating that it's gonna get ugly.

Here it is:

In the case of 1 Timothy 2, Paul was writing to Timothy who was leading a church in Ephesus, the centre of worship of Diana/Artemis, and replete with paganism of several forms. There were gnostic cults with female priestess/teachers who taught wacky ideas about Adam, Eve, and creation and also offered their students "private lessons" (yes, that's a euphemism). In this cultural context, Paul's words make perfect sense: he would not allow a woman of this sort to teach, seduce, or exercise inappropriate influence over a man. Rather, let her learn the truth the same way the males do; in quietness and full submission, for the ideas she learned elsewhere, that Eve was created first and was not deceived, are wrong, "for Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived." In this light, the passage does not mean, "women are not permitted to teach men because of the creation order". With nothing but a change of contextual understanding, the meaning of the passage is very different.

What's going to get ugly ? The kind of government He established in Genesis. (Loving Authority + willing submission = perfect peace and not lording it over each others faith . It can work in perfect harmony. With a Virtuous Woman led by a Virtuous Man.

Just goes to show you people will reach for anything to make the Bible not really mean what it says.

No it does not sound like the government .What would that have to do with the law of rule two working as one.and not lording it over each other (God's government) What would it have to with thorns?

Snarky comments do not a rational argument make.

Do prayerful cults also accept the basic tenets of Christianity and accept Jesus as their Savior, and love Jesus?

Disagree. Women pastors are communicating with God, not Satan.

I'm not talking about the husband and wife relationship. There, I agree the Bible says the husband has authority over wife, and Christ has authority over the Church. However, all social relationships do not reflect the husband and wife relationship, or the relationship between Christ and Church. Christ is head of the Church, not the pastor or elder. The Church body is made up of brothers and sisters in Christ.

The act of circumcision marks the covenant with God and is a religious ceremony, probably equivalent to a baptism in the New Testament. It would make sense that men would perform this function. Do you think women would perform this religious ceremony in those days? God commanded Abraham to do this.

We know Priscilla is a teacher. The Elect Lady may have been a leader of a congregation. There are not many pastors/teaching elders listed in the Bible to begin with.

Back in the day, people winced at interracial marriages. Sometimes it is a sign of prejudice.

What is a good measure of success then? Baptism is symbol that people have accepted Christ. There are good and bad small churches and megachurches.

A lot of Bible scholars agree that it is significant that Priscilla is listed first, and that she had a dominant role in the teaching ministry.

A man having two wives is living in sin; the Bible makes it clear in the NT that we can only have one spouse. Having another wife probably counts as adultery. Therefore, this man would not be fit for a pastor.

Mark 10:8 "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh."

On the other hand, the woman without any vices who wants to be a pastor is not living in sin.

Are you saying Christians can't sin? Do you believe Christians don't commit adultery?

As Christ is the head of the Church, the man is the head of the woman. Whilst this is also true of husbands and wives, this scripture claims "the man is the head of the woman".

If women can perform baptisms today, why wouldn't it make sense for women to have circumcised in the past?

Priscilla taught with her husband, and presumably in her home, in submission to her husband (not usurping authority in the church).

Sometimes. But some don't even wince at sodomite relationships these days. Their consciences are seared as with a branding iron.

I don't really disagree, but do you see what you are doing? You are accepting what the bible teaches (from Genesis, but also mirrored in the New Testament) about God designing one woman for one man. But rejecting the very same passages where it claims that the woman is to be in submission. This is illogical.

I would argue it is just as much sin, or perhaps even moreso, from the same passages you use to argue one man with two (or more) wives is a sin. Note there is no commandment in the bible for men to only have one wife. There are commandments for women to be in submission in church, and not to usurp the role of elder or pastor.