some verses from timothy

[geebob]

from 1 tim 2

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 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. 15But women[1] will be saved[2] through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

:hrm:

thoughts?

[Lily]

I had heard that in the times of Paul that women and men were seated on different sides of the church...and the wives would sometime ask their husbands a question from across the room...so that is why they had to be quiet. I do believe that woman should not have authority over men within the church or home.

[themuzicman]

I believe Paul is referring to the curse on the women, where her pain is increased in childbirth, but that also her offspring would crush the head of the serpent. Thus, mankind is saved because women continued to give birth.

Michael

[geebob]

"I had heard that in the times of Paul that women and men were seated on different sides of the church...and the wives would sometime ask their husbands a question from across the room...so that is why they had to be quiet."

I find that adequate for the insistence to keep quiet, and also for the prohibition of women in authority I think James Dunn gives a good explanation about churches meeting in homes where the man was the head of the household and shouldn't have his authority undermined... and this is more pronounced (and less viciously sexist) given that it was a shame honor society that was not as individualistic were the man represented the family. And thus we are free to look not just at what scripture says here but the trajectories given elsewhere. The word doesn't always clean house of culturally horrid aspects but prohibits some things while tolerating other things though subtley undermining and putting the people of God on a trajectory for progress. The prohibition of slavery and insistence in the church for monogomy are other such examples (though we should be wary of enforcing these in other cultures, particularly the last one where Christian enforcements of monogomy have led to the virtual widowing of some women which pushes them in the direction of prostitution to feed their families and should rather repeat the biblical model of setting them on a path and allowing these higher ideals to develope and take hold).





But that does not explain this.

14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.


I like this thought:
Thus, mankind is saved because women continued to give birth.

But the verse says women would be saved though child birth, not mankind in general.

But if there is a rational, reasonable and good explanation (because as it jumps off the page, it is none of those), perhaps it may be along those lines.

But as it stands, verses like this...well actually this one in particular challenge my confidence in innerrancy.

[lee_merrill]

Thus, mankind is saved because women continued to give birth.

But the verse says women would be saved though child birth, not mankind in general.Actually! It says "she" will be saved, as in "woman, singular." And then we have the plural "if they continue," thus "she will be saved, if they continue." Not easy to explain! So I don't know why this would cause very much difficulty in the area of inerrancy, I would find it more difficult, if it were clearer to us, it may have been a reference Paul's readers would understand, that we are puzzled about...

Blessings,
Lee

[geebob]

So I don't know why this would cause very much difficulty in the area of inerrancy,

because on the surface it says something absurd, that a woman's eternal value to God is wrapped up in her making babies. So what of the single woman?

And there is also the shifting blame of original sin to women for an outright mysogynistic view condemning authority of women. that the bible says so just isn't good enough to swallow some things. If the bible says something that is simply contrary to good reason (even reason that is biblically based!) then it says something we have little reason to hold, and even good reason not to hold.

we aren't blank slates for scripture. We have to integrate it with reason, experience, tradition, and a whole host of other areas of concern. I do treat it as an authority and perhaps the supreme authority, but it still has to be integrated with othe authorities that we cannot ignore simply for the fact that we are humans created in the image of God in a world which God soverignly guides.

it may have been a reference Paul's readers would understand, that we are puzzled about...

I would hope so. and if not, innerrancy has become less important to me, even to the notion of holding scripture our supreme authority ("objectively" available authority that is not counting the Holy spirit). But I still find this sort of error very troubling, especially considering how important male/female relationships are to even understanding the nature of God. The superficial understanding of this passage conflicts with all the elevation scripture gives to women elsewhere in scripture. It is definitely from what I have learned from scripture that makes this troubling.

[themuzicman]

An interesting item on the authority of women in the church related to this verse is the word auqenteiv. It's the only time that it's used in the NT, and there is a LOT of debate over its meaning.

One such translation includes violence, such that a woman may not teach a man and violently rule over him.

However, whatever the interpretation, we should be cautious in using this to be a strict complimentarian.



Another thing to remember is that this is speaking generally of women, and not necessarily of each individual woman. That's why it is in the singular, and, in fact, "she" is implied in the last verse.

I think, from the context, Paul is referring to the story of the fall in Genesis 3, and the salvation specifically to the curse/promise in Gen 3:15.

Michael

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

because on the surface it says something absurd, that a woman's eternal value to God is wrapped up in her making babies.But this leaves out "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." And not eternal value, but salvation is in view here, I would say. We are valuable! But I don't think Paul is making that point here.

I still find this sort of error very troubling, especially considering how important male/female relationships are to even understanding the nature of God. The superficial understanding of this passage conflicts with all the elevation scripture gives to women elsewhere in scripture. It is definitely from what I have learned from scripture that makes this troubling.Most certainly Paul isn't making some demeaning comment here, I agree with Michael, that the most likely interpretation here is "the childbearing" referring to the incarnation of Jesus, which all agree does not demean women, but rather lifts them up…

Luke 1:45-49 "Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me-- holy is his name."

Blessings,
Lee

[Jaltus]

An interesting item on the authority of women in the church related to this verse is the word auqenteiv. It's the only time that it's used in the NT, and there is a LOT of debate over its meaning.

One such translation includes violence, such that a woman may not teach a man and violently rule over him.

Actually, this has been proven false. It turns out it is the context which mentions violence, not the word itself. I have an article on this somewhere...

...but I cannot find it. It was in the Journal of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

[geebob]

muse,
I'm not sure that Jaltus's comment adversly effects your interpretation. so for now, it seems like a good observation, I don't know how far it goes to fix all the problems here though. but I'll think about it.

Another thing to remember is that this is speaking generally of women, and not necessarily of each individual woman. That's why it is in the singular, and, in fact, "she" is implied in the last verse.

I think, from the context, Paul is referring to the story of the fall in Genesis 3, and the salvation specifically to the curse/promise in Gen 3:15.

I don't see what difference this makes. I understand paul is making a general statement from genesis and that he is applying eve's mistake to all women. It seems that he is also applying adam's bad reasoning here. "the woman you gave me gave me the fruit... it's her fault" Adam wasn't decieved. it's the woman who became the sinner. But I thought sin entered through adam.

It isn't clear to me how this fixes the problem.


lee,
But this leaves out "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

I'm not leaving it out. I'm concerned about what's said before.

And not eternal value, but salvation is in view here, I would say. We are valuable! But I don't think Paul is making that point here.

I don't see that this distinction detracts from what I said. I wouldn't seperate salvation from our value. they aren't the same. they are related.

Most certainly Paul isn't making some demeaning comment here,

I hope not.

that the most likely interpretation here is "the childbearing" referring to the incarnation of Jesus, which all agree does not demean women, but rather lifts them up…

Jesus had already been born when this was written. this statement on women giving birth seems to be applied to the women paul hushes, and not marry. Paul is not telling marry to be quiet in church and not to hold authority over men.