Give a Reason Why Paul Wrote 1 Tim. 2:8-15.

[Jacob59]

Verse 12 about women neither teaching Men, nor having Male authority. Women in vs. 9 being singled out as a group to have "shamefacedness." Vs. 10 commanding them to adorn with "good works" rather than showing the sin of shallow outward appearances. Why was this not said to the Men?

"Learn in silence with all subjugation," given as the literal Word of God in vs. 11. The Divine rationale in vss. 13-14, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The odd conclusion in vs. 15 about receiving Salvation "in childbearing," conditionally if "they continue in faith and charity and holiness, with sobriety." Sobriety can only mean no chatting and bouncing around. Paul repeats this in 2 Tim. 2:16, "Shun empty chatter." Peter commands the same in his First Epistle.

This is God's inspired Word to Believing women. Pointedly stated. No need for discussion. This is from the highly educated, redeemed, spiritually reborn, zealous Paul.

He relates "childbearing" to the issue of "shamefacedness" and "braided hair." What was his procedure of exegesis from other Scripture to link "shamefacedness, childbearing, and braided hair?"

 

[JonC]

Verse 14 speaks Adam and Eve in the garden. One interpretation is that Paul is using "through" here as he did in 1 Cor 3:15 in the context of the result of Eve's action.

In other words, a godly woman will be blessed, saved through the curse in Genesis (in regards to childbirth).

 

[atpollard]

Paul was pulling Timothy’s leg.
It was one of those “British humor” sort of things ... some people get it and some people don’t.

[just kidding]

 

[37818]

The odd conclusion in vs. 15 about receiving Salvation "in childbearing," conditionally if "they continue in faith and charity and holiness, with sobriety."

The she is singular meaning Eve and the childbearing is a fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 promise, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Meaning the Christ, Luke 2:11. 1 John 3:8, ". . . For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." And the "If" is better translated there as "if so be" referring to the childbearing being the birth of Christ, "they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." As a result.
This is how I understand verse 15.

 

[Jacob59]

Verse 14 speaks Adam and Eve in the garden. One interpretation is that Paul is using "through" here as he did in 1 Cor 3:15 in the context of the result of Eve's action.

In other words, a godly woman will be blessed, saved through the curse in Genesis (in regards to childbirth).

Thanks for the input.

However, placing two uncertainties next to each other elucidates neither. 1 Cor. 3:15 speaks of judgemental fire upon works. 1 Tim. 2 speaks of church women not overstepping their gender assigned boundaries.

"Childbearing" has nothing to do with personal grooming, adornment, sobriety, shamefacedness, good works, subjugation in silence, church authority, and learning. Paul makes no sense, and is rambling.

 

[Jacob59]

Verse 14 speaks Adam and Eve in the garden. One interpretation is that Paul is using "through" here as he did in 1 Cor 3:15 in the context of the result of Eve's action.

In other words, a godly woman will be blessed, saved through the curse in Genesis (in regards to childbirth).

Saved from what? "The Curse?"
A new Salvation without the Cross? Amazing.

Help my English comprehension.

 

[Alcott]

It's probably not good tactics to ask someone to "give a reason" for certain scriptural instructions. Giving such a reason is an indication that this is the scope in which the scripture is valid. Many people, and certainly the large majority of 'mainline' churches go by this. And the subject of women's "roles" in the church are definitely one of the most likely teachings for scripture to be, in their view, invalidated. Indeed, the subject of women generally is one in which time and culture are thought to negate many scriptures. For example, one which seems logical to consider is Paul's and Peter's instruction for wives to be subject to their husbands. Since there were no laws, and therefore no recourse, if a man were to beat his wife perpetually, then a wife doing as her husband wants could be the only protection against that, and not in all cases. but like in the persecution of Christians, we could still be beaten, imprisoned, or killed (and not by injection) for our faith, but don't make the problem worse by taking a stand against the authorities, motivated by greed or passion. But the fact that the 1st century Christians also lived in, and often came out of, temple priestesses and their prostitution certainly applies to their instruction to learn in modesty and seriousness and quietness.

 

[Jacob59]

It's probably not good tactics to ask someone to "give a reason" for certain scriptural instructions. Giving such a reason is an indication that this is the scope in which the scripture is valid. Many people, and certainly the large majority of 'mainline' churches go by this. And the subject of women's "roles" in the church are definitely one of the most likely teachings for scripture to be, in their view, invalidated. Indeed, the subject of women generally is one in which time and culture are thought to negate many scriptures. For example, one which seems logical to consider is Paul's and Peter's instruction for wives to be subject to their husbands. Since there were no laws, and therefore no recourse, if a man were to beat his wife perpetually, then a wife doing as her husband wants could be the only protection against that, and not in all cases. but like in the persecution of Christians, we could still be beaten, imprisoned, or killed (and not by injection) for our faith, but don't make the problem worse by taking a stand against the authorities, motivated by greed or passion. But the fact that the 1st century Christians also lived in, and often came out of, temple priestesses and their prostitution certainly applies to their instruction to learn in modesty and seriousness and quietness.

Probability of tactics, indications of scope, and mainlining [sic] churches are irrelevant to Scripture.

Better statements upon Scripture arise with being aprised "The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit." Heb. 4:12.

Chatting about and sharing perspectives, notions, fine little distinctions, consensus, running thoughts, etc. reveal human folly. I doubt you personally have been beaten or persecuted, or any of your peers killed. Why dabble in what "We" know of such?

No answer was given.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for the input.

However, placing two uncertainties next to each other elucidates neither. 1 Cor. 3:15 speaks of judgemental fire upon works. 1 Tim. 2 speaks of church women not overstepping their gender assigned boundaries.

"Childbearing" has nothing to do with personal grooming, adornment, sobriety, shamefacedness, good works, subjugation in silence, church authority, and learning. Paul makes no sense, and is rambling.

I think the issue is less personal grooming and more personal behavior (godliness). Childbearing is very relevant if we consider verse 14 to be related to verse 15, and both of these verses to be within the same context of verses 9 to 15 as a whole (and 1:18 to 2:15 as an overall context).

But I agree that if we just isolate these verses, pull them out one by one, then they don't make sense. Context is vital to interpretation.

A summery would be: Men, be godly, act not in anger and strife. Women, be godly. Be modest and behave appropriately. Remember what God said in Genesis. Your husband shall be your desire. And he shall rule over you. Submit to this authority, it is of God. And although He greatly increased your pain, He will deliver you through this curse.

 

[Jacob59]

I think the issue is less personal grooming and more personal behavior (godliness). Childbearing is very relevant if we consider verse 14 to be related to verse 15, and both of these verses to be within the same context of verses 9 to 15 as a whole (and 1:18 to 2:15 as an overall context).

But I agree that if we just isolate these verses, pull them out one by one, then they don't make sense. Context is vital to interpretation.

A summery would be: Men, be godly, act not in anger and strife. Women, be godly. Be modest and behave appropriately. Remember what God said in Genesis. Your husband shall be your desire. And he shall rule over you. Submit to this authority, it is of God. And although He greatly increased your pain, He will deliver you through this curse.

It is not possible to state how childbearing is very relevant to the rest of the passage. That is, outside of some far flung symbology which means nothing today.

This is just another example of overcooked soup. Try preaching this "saved by childbirth" ideology in a church today.

 

[JonC]

Saved from what? "The Curse?"
A new Salvation without the Cross? Amazing.

Help my English comprehension.

The passage references Genesis 3:16.

 

[JonC]

It is not possible to state how childbearing is very relevant to the rest of the passage. That is, outside of some far flung symbology which means nothing today.

This is just another example of overcooked soup. Try preaching this "childbirth" ideology in a church today.

Well, let's look at it.

Regarding the part you are having difficulty with, Paul is saying he does not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man. The reason is Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.


So how does childbearing come into the passage?

Paul is giving the reason that he does not allow a woman to have authority over men in the assembly.

The reason he gives is that:

1. Adam was created first.
2. Eve, not Adam, was deceived and transgressed.

Here is your reference: Genesis 3:16 He [God] said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children in anguish. Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.

After offering this reference as the reason Paul will not allow women to have authority over men in the assembly, Paul offers an encouragement - But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

Notice, a godly woman will not escape the consequences of the curse (related to women as a result of Eve's transgression). BUT she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

This would be a very relevant topic for a sermon today. There is a difference between a godly woman raising a family and an ungodly woman raising a family. Consider the implications to the husband (in the same chapter). Consider the implications on the children. A godly woman will be saved through childbirth.

Of course, this is not "saved" as in a woman will receive salvation by having children (that would be nonsense, I agree). But we shouldn't twist the passage to dispute it. That is why I offered the passage in 1 Corinthians (to point out that "saved through" is not speaking of salvation of one's soul by having children, but being saved through childbirth).

The reason the passage is difficult is not the passage itself, but the ideas that our culture would project onto the passage. If it were written today, in our culture, it could be taken to mean that women would be saved by having children (which, of course, is not what the passage says).

 

[37818]

if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

Ah, no. While the "if" refers to the childbearing being the Christ, Genesis 3:15. The "they" is plural, not to Eve. Back to verses 9-10, "women" plural. Again, how I understand the context. Otherwise it does not make good sense.

 

[JonC]

Ah, no. While the "if" refers to the childbearing being the Christ, Genesis 3:15. The "they" is plural, not to Eve. Back to verses 9-10, "women" plural. Again, how I understand the context. Otherwise it does not make good sense.

I agree the "they" is plural, but I am viewing Eve as pointing to all women (like Adam points to all men). I currently view the passage that this is a deliverance through the curse, and "saved" having a meaning akin to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians rather than spiritual salvation, but I can see your point as well.

 

[Yeshua1]

Verse 12 about women neither teaching Men, nor having Male authority. Women in vs. 9 being singled out as a group to have "shamefacedness." Vs. 10 commanding them to adorn with "good works" rather than showing the sin of shallow outward appearances. Why was this not said to the Men?

"Learn in silence with all subjugation," given as the literal Word of God in vs. 11. The Divine rationale in vss. 13-14, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The odd conclusion in vs. 15 about receiving Salvation "in childbearing," conditionally if "they continue in faith and charity and holiness, with sobriety." Sobriety can only mean no chatting and bouncing around. Paul repeats this in 2 Tim. 2:16, "Shun empty chatter." Peter commands the same in his First Epistle.

This is God's inspired Word to Believing women. Pointedly stated. No need for discussion. This is from the highly educated, redeemed, spiritually reborn, zealous Paul.

He relates "childbearing" to the issue of "shamefacedness" and "braided hair." What was his procedure of exegesis from other Scripture to link "shamefacedness, childbearing, and braided hair?"

The Holy Spirit inspired him to write as he did, despite you not liking it!

 

[Alcott]

Probability of tactics, indications of scope, .....

Why are you asking people to "give a reason?"

 

[Jacob59]

B

The passage references Genesis 3:16.

Yes, by Divine Mercy for Gentiles it requires nothing of a thrological education to see the reference to Gen. 3:16.

The issue remains to identify how this Genesis' "curse" of childbearing has relevance upon women learning in silence within a strict Patriarchal Church, and being "saved."

 

[Jacob59]

Well, let's look at it.

Regarding the part you are having difficulty with, Paul is saying he does not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man. The reason is Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.


So how does childbearing come into the passage?

Paul is giving the reason that he does not allow a woman to have authority over men in the assembly.

The reason he gives is that:

1. Adam was created first.
2. Eve, not Adam, was deceived and transgressed.

Here is your reference: Genesis 3:16 He [God] said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children in anguish. Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.

After offering this reference as the reason Paul will not allow women to have authority over men in the assembly, Paul offers an encouragement - But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

Notice, a godly woman will not escape the consequences of the curse (related to women as a result of Eve's transgression). BUT she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

This would be a very relevant topic for a sermon today. There is a difference between a godly woman raising a family and an ungodly woman raising a family. Consider the implications to the husband (in the same chapter). Consider the implications on the children. A godly woman will be saved through childbirth.

Of course, this is not "saved" as in a woman will receive salvation by having children (that would be nonsense, I agree). But we shouldn't twist the passage to dispute it. That is why I offered the passage in 1 Corinthians (to point out that "saved through" is not speaking of salvation of one's soul by having children, but being saved through childbirth).

The reason the passage is difficult is not the passage itself, but the ideas that our culture would project onto the passage. If it were written today, in our culture, it could be taken to mean that women would be saved by having children (which, of course, is not what the passage says).

Don't forget, now, this topic is here not because I have difficulty with it, nor do I not already see what you have graciously and expertly stated.

This topic is posted here to see if anyone can speak more than over cooked presumption upon it. Yes? No?

Remember, no current explanation of this teaching by Paul takes into account the godly Christian Women who have died in childbirth.

 

[Jacob59]

Why are you asking people to "give a reason?"

No reason has yet been given in any Christian references I have checked.

 

[Jacob59]

The Holy Spirit inspired him to write as he did, despite you not liking it!

Please, I enjoy and approve of Paul's wisdom writings. It allows me to identify and avoid error from human folly.

I do agree about the inspiration. That is why Paul as a recipient of the inspiration so easily mixed in his own ideas.

1 Cor. 7:12, "Speak I, not the Lord.