How should 21st century Christians interpret and act upon the following words?
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I shall reply first. As I’m here.
There is plenty written by various authors that Paul was a woman hater, but at this time I remain inconvinced for 3 main reasons.
1) Paul in this letter was writing to a junior apostle in Timothy, he was also sickly I believe and in need of detailed advisement on all matters. Paul was in and out of prison like he was on a piece of elastic and the newly established gentile churches without the rigour of the Hebrew disciplines were generally disorderly going astray, sometimes quite badly. From a distance Paul was writing unequivocal instructions to being order to the church gatherings which had become a free for all. He often spoke of the spirit being subject to the man and not the other way around, and chastised the leaders for permitting gatherings to devolve into shouty greed-fests. Paul needed to define order and process vicariously through meek Timothy and I believe these harsh sounding instructions were for the men in that church to get control of the meetings. That it was “women” who were apparently misbehaving is, I believe, coincidental.
2) Women’s place in early centuries of the the church was much the same as women’s place in Middle Eastern society for millennia. Paul would have been leveraging societal norms to support his commands for the laity to behave. It is possible, even likely that in the newly formed churches there was a genuine spirit of equality and egalitarianism which was being abused by some.
3) there are several key female figures in the NT, at least two of which are refered to as prophetesses and teachers. If there was an overriding rule that women in all churches under all circumstances should not teach, then it was clearly disregarded.
@divegeester saidRegardless of the status of women in the past, and regardless of the psychology of men like Paul as they lived their lives in the 1st century, what should a Christian in the 21st century do or think as a result of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 ?
I shall reply first. As I’m here.
There is plenty written by various authors that Paul was a woman hater, but at this time I remain inconvinced for 3 main reasons.
1) Paul in this letter was writing to a junior apostle in Timothy, he was also sickly I believe and in need of detailed advisement on all matters. Paul was in and out of prison like he was on a piece of ...[text shortened]... hat women in all churches under all circumstances should not teach, then it was clearly disregarded.
@divegeester removed their quoted postAre there, in your view, any other 1st century attitudes and mentalities that should be similarly dismissed or ignored in terms of living a Christian life in this current century?
@fmf saidVery likely, but it’s getting late here so I might need some prompts if you have something in mind.
Are there, in your view, any other 1st century attitudes and mentalities that should be similarly dismissed or ignored in terms of living a Christian life in this current century?
@divegeester removed their quoted postPost script:
I acknowledge could be wrong about this and am happy to be educated if I am.
@divegeester saidLet's call a spade a spade, here.
Post script:
I acknowledge could be wrong about this and am happy to be educated if I am.
FMF seems a fan of Bart Ehrman, and he claims that the Pastorals (First and Second Timothy, and Titus) are "non-Pauline", so I expect that is where he's going with this.
@suzianne saidWell I’ll let you take that up with him, instead of me.
Let's call a spade a spade, here.
FMF seems a fan of Bart Ehrman, and he claims that the Pastorals (First and Second Timothy, and Titus) are "non-Pauline", so I expect that is where he's going with this.
@suzianne saidWhere/what do you think Ehrman was "going with" when he contended that Timothy is "non-Pauline"?
Let's call a spade a spade, here.
FMF seems a fan of Bart Ehrman, and he claims that the Pastorals (First and Second Timothy, and Titus) are "non-Pauline", so I expect that is where he's going with this.
@divegeester saidEhrman has a lively blog where he interacts with posters/readers. If Suzianne wants to 'call a spade a spade', she can take it up with him there if she wants.
Well I’ll let you take that up with him, instead of me.
My OP has got absolutely nothing to do with whether the quoted text was "Pauline" or " non-Pauline".
@divegeester saidI'm not planning to take this, or any other biblical question, up with him. Not worth my time.
Well I’ll let you take that up with him, instead of me.
@suzianne saidIf you think Bart Ehrman claims that "the Pastorals (First and Second Timothy, and Titus)" are "non-Pauline", take it up with Bart Ehrman. He can be reached, apparently.
I'm not planning to take this, or any other biblical question, up with him. Not worth my time.