> Why is the supporting argument in 1 Timothy a universal one about all women, then?

I don't know what you mean by this. We don't require all men to raise their hands in prayer (1 Tim. 2.8). We don't forbid women from braiding their hair or wearing jewelry (2.9), or from wearing expensive clothes. We don't forbid women from speaking (2.11). We don't forbid women from teaching or having authority over a man; missionary women do it all the time in their field of service. So what about this text IS a universal mandate? Just the one about women shutting up? That's not sound exegesis.

> And really, there’s no evidence that Paul isn’t addressing women in the churches in general in 1 Timothy 2, either.

Looking at 1 Tim. 2, we see that his first teaching (vv. 1-7) seems to be applicable to all believers throughout the empire, and extendable to all people. He's talking about all people (all humanity), and all those in authority (vv. 1, 2, 4, 5). In vv. 8-10 he seems to be talking about men and women everywhere, although Gordon Fee and Bruce Barron say, "Its force does not necessarily extend to every Christian congregation, or even beyond the city limits of Ephesus." Robertson, Humphreys, Lock, and Leaney see it as a general teaching. And yet we don't see a requirement of lifting our hands in prayer. We don't read this text as universally obligatory, any more than foot washing (Jn. 13) or a holy kiss (commanded 5 times). Instead we take it to mean the men should be active in public prayer.

But then Paul says, "...without anger or disputing," which sure sounds like a local issue. Where does THIS come from if it's universal principles about prayer everywhere?

By the time we get to 2.9, it's tough to tell if this is universal or local. It was the Ephesians and Corinthians (Romans and Greeks) who most struggled with these issues, not the Jewish congregations. Corinth and Ephesus had a reputation for moral looseness. Other congregations didn't. So, it's a general principle (dress modestly, not showing off your body, your wealth, or flaunting your social position), but it's a local admonition to back off on the jewelry and cover her body.

V. 10 is obviously a general teaching for all. Still, Paul is concerned with the fitness of things, and he was specifically addressing the situation at Ephesus.

V. 11 seems more aimed at the Ephesian situation. In 1 Tim. 1.3, the overriding problem is of false teachers. He is concerned for the witness of the church (1.11-15). He seems to be addressing women in the congregation who are not listening with submission to true apostolic teaching when they lack maturity, godliness, and spiritual discernment. These women are like Eve: they are too easily deceived. As I mentioned, in 1 Cor. 11.5, the women are allowed to speak, so that would also give a clue that Paul is speaking to a specific context.

In v. 12, he continues the thought. The present tense ("I do not permit") indicates that his prohibition is limited to the particular situation in Ephesus and was not meant to be a command for all or for all time. Since Priscilla was a teacher, and the daughters of Philip were prophetesses, in addition to 1 Cor. 11.5, we simply cannot responsibly interpret v. 12 as being a general teaching for all women in all places and all times.

> The plain interpretation — supported by pretty much all major academic commentators on 1 Timothy — is that Paul is addressing broader matters; and that’s why his scriptural example (Eve/Genesis) is broad, too.

His reference to Eve supports his point to the Ephesians. In Roman, his reference was to Adam (Rom. 5.12) being the one who led humanity into sin. His illustration is specific to Ephesus. Paul's use of Adam and Eve makes the point he is making about Ephesus.

He is obviously not saying that all men were formed first as Adam was formed first, nor that all women were deceived as Eve was deceived. Nothing in the text suggests that this is true or that that is Paul's point.

He is obviously not saying that when, by nature, are deceivable whereas men are not—that the nature of men is to be first and the nature of women is to be taken in. Nothing in the text suggests that this is true or that that is Paul's point.

Instead, Adam and Eve serve as illustrations for the Ephesian situation. This suits the passage well and accomplishes Paul's aims.

> There is no evidence for [the Gnostic explanation]

Proto-Gnosticism started in the 1st century or earlier. Some scholars have even theorized that Gnosticism has its roots in pre-Christian religions ([url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm[/url]), instead of coming after Christianity.

[quote]"Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times. Some religious historians believe that it had is source in the Jewish community of Alexandria and was later picked up by some Christian groups in Judea and the Galilee." [/quote](Birger Pearson, "Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity." Augsburg Fortress Publishers [1990]).

So I guess there is some evidence for this, contrary to your claim.

Ignatius of Antioch (died in 117) writes against them as well as against Docetism (a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism). Paul addresses Gnostic teachings, as does Jude. Gnostic writings didn't proliferate until the 2nd century, but they were a movement long before that.

Paul's writing in 1 Timothy addresses common Gnostic themes, such as a feminist interpretation of Adam and Eve as precedent for one's own spiritual primacy and authority. Paul, instead, uses Genesis as an authoritative account. Gnostic groups also downplayed ethical requirements, and taught that salvation comes through knowledge, while the body is irrelevant. Paul addresses these themes as well (1 Tim. 2.10). The Gnostics taught that Eve was superior to Adam and even gave Adam his life; and when Adam was deceived, Eve enlightened him. Paul refutes this with Scripture. As far as v. 12 is concerned, to suppress the error about Eve being superior, and of women having primacy in the church, Paul tells these women to submit to the truth and to silence their false teachings.

> Third, we know that in 1 Corinthians 11.5 the women were allowed to speak, by the mandate of Paul, so we know this teaching in 1 Timothy is a local problem and a local mandate, not a universal one.

Why is the supporting argument in 1 Timothy a universal one about all women, then?

And really, there’s no evidence that Paul isn’t addressing women in the churches in general in 1 Timothy 2, either.

The plain interpretation — supported by pretty much all major academic commentators on 1 Timothy — is that Paul is addressing broader matters; and that’s why his scriptural example (Eve/Genesis) is broad, too.

> Some background would also help. The Ephesians (where Timothy was) were overrun by Gnostic-influenced women taking a particular twist on Genesis 2 to claim superiority, ignoring legitimate teaching and morality. He is addressing the women who refuse to be taught. The church was being overrun by false teachers, and the women were being drawn in and then rising up as the big cheeses with false teaching. It was affecting the church in the whole region, and Paul needed to put a stop to it.

I’m aware this is a popular apologetic explanation, but there’s actually no evidence at all for this. For one, Gnosticism probably only emerged in the second quarter of the second century — or maybe the late first quarter of it, at the earliest.

> The way I understand the scenario, it was customary everywhere for women to cover their heads in public, and that the only time they wouldn't was at home and at parties/other very informal times. But they were uncovering in church, which Paul saw as disrespectful and without reverence to being in the house of the Lord.

That's my understanding as well. Respectable Greek and Roman women wore concealing veils in public, signaling either that they were married or had been and were now widowed. The veil was a cultural symbol of maturity and morality. But the culture was in transition (as is ours). There were cultural forces that made the veil controversial.

The early Church welcomed unattached women, and even prostitutes, as long as she wasn't there on business, recruiting Johns. Paul blasts men for sleeping with prostitutes, but he doesn't blast the women. He knew many of them had no choice—many prostitutes were slaves. So how did such women fit into the Christian community? If they come bareheaded (unveiled), they ooze with immorality and degradation. But they were welcome in the Church, invited to a relationship with Jesus.

At Greek religious festivals, "women's police" would circulate, making sure women were dressed and veiled appropriately to their social status. In Rome, also, dress was regulated specifically and in detail. For example, any married woman found to have committed adultery would lose forever the right to wear a floor-length, heavily bordered *stola* and a veil. And any woman who had ever been a prostitute was, of course, not allowed to wear them, either.

Ironically enough (contrary to many detractors who read the text superficially), Paul's rule here aimed at an outrageous, counter-cultural equality. He is giving dignity to women that the culture never gave. All women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth, respectability, morality, or station. The veil gave all women dignity. This had never before happened in any Greek or Roman public gathering. It was Paul's ingenious combination of common sense and radical defiance in dealing with a very touchy issue. Paul was being protective and dignifying rather than misogynistic.

> Plus Corinth wasn't exactly a Christian-friendly place. I'm sure the Christians there had a lot of other more important arguments to be making than defending against complaints about how the women were acting. I see much of Paul's letter as a sort of "pick your battles" recommendation.

You're right that Corinth wasn't the paragon of purity. Noted for its wealth and commerce, it was also a hotbed of immorality and paganism. Greek writer Aristophanes coined the verb "to corinthianize" to describe someone who engaged in loose living, and in our culture we use "sodomize," taken from the city's name. The church in the city was a pitiful reflection of the culture (just as the American church is turning into). From Paul's books to the Corinthians we can see they were split by factions and wracked with immorality. They were spiritually weak and prone to compromise.

What Paul was against (as is clear from all of 1 Cor 14) was disruption in worship. He didn't want their gatherings to be plagued by inappropriate use of tongues, prophecy, by false teachings, or by disruptive people (in this case, some women). In the chapter he tells everyone (1) speak one at a time, (2) let your message be clear, (3) let your message be godly and true, (4) and if you can't do that, shut up (vv. 28, 30, 34).

The way I understand the scenario, it was customary everywhere for women to cover their heads in public, and that the only time they wouldn't was at home and at parties/other very informal times. But they were uncovering in church, which Paul saw as disrespectful and without reverence to being in the house of the Lord.

Plus Corinth wasn't exactly a Christian-friendly place. I'm sure the Christians there had a lot of other more important arguments to be making than defending against complaints about how the women were acting. I see much of Paul's letter as a sort of "pick your battles" recommendation.

Just like anything else, a lot of passages are very clear and simple to understand:

* Seek God with all your heart
* Love God with everything you are and have
* Show love to all people
* Be forgiving
* Share what you have with the poor

There are other texts that obviously require more work and more understanding. I was reading a science text the other day. The parts about cosmology are easy to grasp ad fascinating. The parts of quantum mechanics are fun, but baffling and need explanation ([url]https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs[/url]). Fascinating stuff, but heady.

The Bible can be read in different ways. You can read it devotionally, which means casually, just to get out of it what is helpful for life. In that sense it can be easy to read, and even a child or an uneducated person can appreciate its teachings, love to read it, and benefit from it. But as soon as you start to try to dive in deeper, it calls for more study and research. It was written in a different language to a different culture operating in a different worldview, and it's 3300-2000 years old, depending on the section. As soon as one tries to understand it deeper, it takes more work. But (1) that's been true in all eras. Very early on there were specialists in the text; (2) it's true of all disciplines. You can learn science in grade school and love it. Learning it in college is a completely different effort, and going into it as a vocation goes VERY deep. But that doesn't mean a 5th grader can't read and love science.

As we dig into the Bible, it helps to talk to people who study it and know it. That's why there are scholars and pastors—specialists who have worked on it their whole lives. I have found that the more I dig into it—the deeper I go into the rabbit hole—the more I love and appreciate the text we have. It's an amazing book, and worthy of study.

Thank you. I don't know how to read the Bible if even the plainest-sounding of verses requires a mountain of context.

> Why would Paul write down a verse as if it were the words of God all because of some one-off event?

There are a lot of teachings in the Bible that are "one-off events."

[list][*] Jesus told the rich ruler, "Go and sell everything you have and give it to the poor." This was not a requirement for anyone else but this guy.
[*] Jesus told a man, "Let the dead bury the dead. I want you to follow me." This is not a teaching that Christians should eschew funerals or leave the deceased to rot.
[*] Paul gave the Corinthians "milk" (teaching for immature believers) (1 Cor. 3.2). That doesn't mean Paul gave that to everyone.
[*] The situation of 1 Corinthians 5 is specifically a situation of the Corinthian church. It has some general application, but I'll guarantee you it's not a situation in my church.
[*] The situation of 1 Corinthians 7 is specifically a situation of the Corinthian church. It's hard for us to even know the exact question to which Paul is responding (1 Cor. 7.1 is too general).
[*] The situation of 1 Corinthians 8 is specifically a situation of the Corinthian church. In specific it has nothing to do with us now, though there are a few principles in there that we can use (8.13).
[*] The situation of 1 Cor. 10.14-22 is specifically a situation of the Corinthian church. In specific it has nothing to do with us now, though there are a few principles in there that we can use (10.21).[/list]

And so it goes. Paul's not rationalizing anything. A lot of stuff in Corinthians is specifically addressing their particular issues that only pertain to us by a few foundational principles. In the 1 Corinthians 14 text at issue, the principle is not to be disruptive to worship. It's not misogynistic.

> 1 Tim 2

First of all, and mainly, the context is everything. You can't just jerk this verse out into the air with smug satisfaction.

Secondly, we know that the Bible allows women to have authority over men (like Deborah in Judges 4). The Bible offers an impressive array of examples of women exercising social or political authority without raising any questions to the propriety of it (Dan. 5.10-12; Neh. 2.6; the Queen of Sheba, Vashti, Candace, Athaliah, and Esther). So we know this teaching was a local thing, not a universal thing.

Third, we know that in 1 Corinthians 11.5 the women were allowed to speak, by the mandate of Paul, so we know this teaching in 1 Timothy is a local problem and a local mandate, not a universal one.

Some background would also help. The Ephesians (where Timothy was) were overrun by Gnostic-influenced women taking a particular twist on Genesis 2 to claim superiority, ignoring legitimate teaching and morality. He is addressing the women who refuse to be taught. The church was being overrun by false teachers, and the women were being drawn in and then rising up as the big cheeses with false teaching. It was affecting the church in the whole region, and Paul needed to put a stop to it.

Contextually, the reference is to public assemblies. He is concerned for proper teaching. These women need to listen when the truth is being taught and learn from it (v. 11).

The word in question ("to have authority over") is αὐθεντεῖν. This is the only time it appears in the Bible, and its occurrence in the ancient world is rare (only 7 times, I think). It seems to mostly carry the idea of tyrannical domineering.

And so, once again, the teaching is about disruption and false teaching, not misogynistic.

> 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."

Elsewhere Paul placed the blame of humanity's sinfulness on Adam (Rom. 5.12, 15), yet we don't accuse him of being androgynistic. Since the context is about deceit, Eve here becomes the focal point and the example du jour. Part of Paul's point is that Eve made her decision without consulting Adam (as far as we know, but it's Paul's point, in any case); in like manner, these women should work like a team, a family, and not in isolation. The women listened to false teachers and were deceived without checking the facts with others.

> It sounds like Paul is trying to rationalize the subjugation of women by pinning the downfall of humanity on them.

So this is just an out-there conclusion, not at all what the text is teaching. (1) He is not teaching the subjugation of women, but rather the suppression of false teaching; (2) he is not pinning the downfall of humanity on them (since he pinned it on Adam in Rom. 5.12), but using the situation of deceit to illustrate his point; (3) Paul isn't rationalizing anything. Paul mines Genesis for an illustration to address the situation in Ephesus. He accurately reflects the textual data that Adam was formed first and Eve was the target of the deception. No claims are made about how humanity was formed, about genetic relationships, or the mechanisms or timing of material origins. Like all of the previous New Testament passages, Adam and Eve are used as archetypes (not metaphors or allegories, mind you) to make a point about all of humanity, here to provide an illustration of how a deceived woman can lead others into error. That's what going on here.

Why would Paul write down a verse as if it were the words of God all because of some one-off event?

And then there's good ol' 1 Timothy 2: "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."

It sounds like Paul is trying to rationalize the subjugation of women by pinning the downfall of humanity on them.

This is very context specific, and not a general rule. In 1 Corinthians 11.3-16, women were allowed and expected to speak. In 1 Corinthians 14.1-25, women were allowed to speak. Priscilla, whom we know from the book of Acts was a teacher, a friend of Paul, who instructed Apollos.

The thought of 1 Cor. 14.34 ties back to v. 33, as one might expect. The problem was disruption, not women speaking in general.

Adam Hensley translates the flow of Paul's thought from vv. 29-35: [i]"Let two or three prophets speak general prophecy and let the others evaluate. And if it is revealed to another sitting down, let the first one stop speaking their prophecy. One at a time you are all able to prophesy, so that all may learn and be encouraged. Spirits of prophets also are subject/subject their prophetic speech to prophets, for God is/they are not “of contention” but “of peace,” as in all the churches of the saints. Let the women in the churches keep silence respecting public evaluation of other prophecies, for it is not permitted for them to evaluate the prophetic speech of others, but let them be subject/subject their prophetic speech to prophetic evaluation as the law says. If they wish to learn something, then at home—their own men/husbands—let them ask/interrogate. For it is a disgrace for a woman to evaluate other prophecy in church/public assembly."[/i]

Based on numerous texts, women were included among Paul's co-workers (Rom. 16.1-2, 3-4ff & Acts 18.18-28; 1 Cor. 3.5 & 2 Cor. 3.6; Phil. 4.2-3). They played a significant role in the ministry of the Pauline churches, including serving as members of the apostolic missions teams.

So the thought of 1 Cor. 14.34 is not a general, universal rule, but rather public evaluation of prophecy, which apparently was in this particular case causing some kind of ruckus. The same verb (about not speaking) was used for disorders caused by speakers in tongues (v. 28) and prophets (v. 30). For some reason some of these women were creating a disturbance in public worship, and Paul tells them to stand down.

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If 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." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

The only thing I take away from these verses is that they were written by a male. The insecurity is palpable.