Mothers Saved in Childbearing? Part 2

This was a great summary of views and demonstrates the difficulty of interpreting this passge. I would highly recommend an article by Andeas Kostenberger. Here are some excerpts:

https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-2-No-4/Saved-Through-Childbearing

"Numerous references in 1 and 2 Timothy speak of a person's need to guard what has been entrusted to him or similar expressions (see e.g. 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:12, 14; 4:7, 15, 18). Conversely, Paul warns against following the example of those who "strayed" or "turned aside" from the right way (see e.g. 1 Tim. 1:6, 19-20; 2:14; 3:6, 7; 4:1; 5:12, 13, 15, 21; 6:9-10, 21). This list impressively demonstrates that underlying Paul's writing to Timothy was a strong concern that believers under Timothy's care be kept safe from the errors of false teaching (including life-style implications) and the false teachers themselves, who ultimately were instruments of Satan. Paul conceived of the pastoral task therefore as a struggle for the protection of believers from Satan and for God. If this be so, and 'women shall be kept safe by childbearing' is the likely rendering of 1 Timothy 2:15, what are women to be kept safe from? On the basis of what has been said thus far, and without much further demonstration, it can be argued that what women are to be kept safe from is being deceived, ultimately by Satan himself."

"We've come a long way in our efforts to understand the true message of 1 Timothy 2:15 for women in Paul's and our day. What we have argued is that Paul here expresses concern that women be kept safe from being deceived by Satan, and that he therefore encourages women to embrace and pursue their God-ordained calling centering around the family and the home. Our concern today should be, like Paul's, that women discern and adhere to their God-given calling in life."

i should wait until i have something more profound to say, but that moment may never come.

i don't like the #2 dismissal, it seems strange. i think there were quite a few things going on specific culturally in the epistles (and other books) that we don't know about very clearly.

i shy from her conclusion b/c I guess i don't want to find my "salvation" from a particular sin based on an activity or value system, if you can get what I mean though i might not be saying it right.

i have to value taking care of kids as my escape from female chauvinism in the church?

If, for some reason, as a christian woman, my life never intersects with children, I am more likely to be dominant over men in the church?

I think really, Christ is sufficient for my escape from this sin.

would we then argue that Christ or God Himself gives us children as His means of escape for us?

i dont' know. that seems kind of weird.

Christ's sufficiency for us to escape from sins often takes the form of obedience to Him. For example, the way we escape from sins like malice, anger, bitterness (among the "put offs" of Eph. and Colossians) is to forgive, bless those who curse us, etc. (these are also among the "put ons"). So this is really not a novel idea. Men also have commands to obey in order to escape certain sins, such as the one to love our wives so that we avoid being embittered against them (or harsh to them if you take it that way Col. 3.19).

It doesn't say "husbands shall be saved through loving their wives," but the point would essentially be the same--expressed differently.

Hey beloved -

I am blessed with a glorious wife who has given birth to 4 wonderful children, standing alongside me and raising them in the fear of the Lord. But 1 Timothy 2:15 is not about women raising godly children!

"Childbearing" is a noun, not a verb in the verse. It refers to the event of childbirth, not the action of child raising.

As wonderful as motherhood is, and as much as we are all blessed when mother's love Christ and raise their families to love Christ, that simply can't be what Paul is referring to in this passage.

This passage is a good example of application driving interpretation. In reality, no one is hurt by interpreting it as raising children.

But what we miss when we do that is handling the text as it stands written, and letting it speak in its own words.

Hi Aaron,

Synecdoche is indeed being used, but as in all synecdoches, the part that represents the whole has to be inferred by the verb. For example, in the phrase "their feet run to evil" (Pro. 1:16), the feet express the whole - the whole body running to evil. It is the whole body that does evil, not just the feet. As you can see, the synecdoche here is impossible to infer except by the verb, "runs."

So too in 1 Timothy 2:15 we infer the synecdoche from the verb. In this case, the verb is quite strong: "saved:" "The woman is saved through the childbearing." The childbearing is a part of what expresses the whole.

At this point we are given two choices. Either "the childbearing" represents the whole of a woman's faithful life of child raising, or "the childbearing" is the event of Mary giving birth to Jesus and represents the whole of His sinless life and death on behalf of sinful women.

If the first, then the verb "saved" must mean "preserved." If the second, then the verb means "saved." Preserved is the lesser used and weaker of the two uses. "Saved" is the much more widely used and stronger of the two uses. Simply based on the verb alone we ought to try to see how its primary sense fits.

If you look at 1 Timothy 2:15 in the original, you'll notice that this secondary sense doesn't fit with Paul placement of "sozein" in v. 15 - it is the very first word of v. 15 and quite emphatic. Paul wanted it to be read emphatically as "saved." This becomes clearer when contextual factors are taken into account. 1 Timothy 2:14 closes off, "the woman was deceived and became a "transgressor" (ESV). Paul is not discussing how a woman reverses the Fall (as the other view requires), but how a woman is saved from transgression.

Here then is a second grammatical reason for why the interpretation that "a woman is preserved from transgression by raising children in the faith" is incorrect. The verb saved emphatically means "saved." The first reason is what I mentioned above: the childbearing is a noun, not a verb.

When we mistakenly, I believe, interpret 1 Timothy 2:15 as teaching that a woman is saved by raising children, we then must immediately jump in with all sorts of qualifying statements about what that doesn't mean. That in itself is telling. We must say, "oh, but this doesn't apply to a woman who is infertile." And, "oh, if you came to faith late in life, after child bearing years, it doesn't apply to you." And, "oh, salvation here doesn't mean salvation, but perseverance." And what shall we say to the truly saved woman who professes to love Christ, but was a single mother, and perhaps did a poor job of raising her children in the faith? Perhaps she was a new Christian when her children were young teenagers, and they now fully follow the world in their adulthood. Is the Christian mother lost? "Oh no," we say. So you see, we can't really let this verse stand on its own when we interpret it as teaching "preserved by child raising." We have to rescue it with qualifying statements.

The simpler explanation by far is that Paul is referring to a childbirth, or as he writes, "the childbirth," i.e., the miraculous and singular birth of Jesus Christ through which women are saved. This interpretation has no fight with its grammar. It regards the noun as a noun, and "sozein" as an emphatic verb meaning salvation in keeping with the context. It recognizes the definite article before the noun "childbearing" for what it is: a definite article.

The preposition in the original is "through,"not "in." A woman (1 Timothy 2:15) is not saved in the the birth of Christ, but through the birth of Christ, pointing to His vicarious life and death on her behalf.

Interpreted this way, the verse is evangelistic and points a woman away from herself and over to Christ. It teaches a woman who loves Christ that just as her salvation was due to Christ's life and death, so also the woman's continuance "in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (1 Timothy 2:15) will come from Him as well. Every saved woman is responsible to persevere in her faith, but even her perseverance will indeed come from Christ, even as their initial salvation did.

Synecdoche isn't really that complicated. Often a noun is used in reference to a larger noun of which it is a part. There is no verb dependency, though I'd agree there is context dependency. For example, people say "I'm going to church." The meaning of "church" there is more than either the building or the people but in usage represents all the activities and people as well as the place. The "going" isn't part of the synecdoche.
In the case of this passage, what allows "childbearing" to stand in for something bigger is that "save" may also be interpreted in a variety of ways. So "save" only constrains "childbearing" if you constrain "save" first.

Rob, about the childless, I think it is not the problem it may seem to be. Paul does't say "every woman who ever lives is saved through childbearing," so I think the view the article presents holds up. In this case, we're making that assumption that Paul allows for some unstated exceptions. We have a very similar problem with Peter's "weaker vessel" reference (I'm thinking it's 1 Peter 3:7-8 or so). No matter what sort of weakness we take that to be referring to, not all women are "weaker" than all men. He is expressing a general principle that fits most cases.

Big word, simple concept,

But allow me to show you that the verb is critical to the synecdoche's meaning, in both your example, and 1 Timothy 2:15.

Aaron, if I tiger-maul your synecdoche example from "I'm going to church," to "I'm church," the synecdoche is in shreds. Your synecdoche requires the verb to be intelligible, even to a tiger. To further express your synecdoche's dependence on the verb, let's change the verb in your example from going to building: I'm building a church." The synecdoche you proposed is gone, for now the noun church can only mean a physical building, and not refer to the larger whole, such as the people, or the various church activities, including it's languid pot luck suppers with Aunt Emma's sour pickles. Your synedoche is gone because its meaning depended on the verb.

Now, bringing it back to 1 Timothy 2:15, the verb save is very emphatic in the Greek. When a Greek author makes a verb emphatic, he intensifies its meaning. In 1 Timothy 2:15, the idea then is "she shall really be saved." We get it: she will be fully and totally saved from deception and transgression (1 Timothy 2:14). Praise God.

But 1 Timothy 2:15 doesn't make any sense when the intensified verb save is translated preserved; It offends even the most stodgy of church pot lucks. After all, what does "she shall really be preserved" mean? Pickled?

C'mon. Not even Aunt Emma enjoys that.

Since we're this far down the road anyway.....

Let's tease it out. What would an emphatic sense of "delivered from the sin of usurping authority over men" mean? I'm asking you to acknowledge the emphatic placement of "sozein" in 1 Timothy 2:15, and then apply it to your translation.

macarthur & minnick have differing interps from each other &this article. if i were teaching this at this pt‚i would focus on the qualities mentioned at the end of this verse‚ pointing to Christ.

Anne, just some questions to stimulate, hoping to avoid "the sigh" ;>D,

• Is what we like, want, consider weird, think, or make us comfortable the measure of theology?
• Is it impossible to determine the meaning and application of Scripture because of unknown culture? (If not, what is the point of Scripture then?)
• How do we determine what is of the culture of that day, and what is applicable today? (interesting that Paul referred to creation, not culture, when making his point)
• How does one determine if he/she is the one affected by his/her culture, which affects his/her view of Scripture?
• Does an exception ("not intersecting children") destroy the entire design? (and how would anyone not intersect children?)
• Are there other meanings of the word "saved"? (Hint: yes, and incidentally, "escape" is not one of them...)

It seems the context of 1 Tim 2 is the public worship services of a local church. How far should we extend the application of this prohibition? We tend not to allow a woman to teach in a Christian college chapel, for example, but we do allow them to teach non-religion courses in the classroom. Is teaching by writing an article covered by the prohibition? I would tend to doubt it. I think the teaching referred to is aural teaching in religion. So church services, college chapels and religion classes are under the prohibition, but other avenues are open.

Don, what you say is the normal response, and I'm not sure if my understanding today even qualifies as a minority, so I know that the monkey is on my back.

Paul gives no such geographic or topical arguments or restrictions. The Garden of Eden was not a church (either building or assembly). Paul's foundation for his instruction is rooted in God's assignment for gender. Does a man cease to be a man, or a woman cease to be a woman, when in a different location or discussing a different topic? On the contrary, the arguments that Paul uses are trans-cultural and have no expressed or implied limits. He in no way brings up or argues "in the church" in any way. He certainly could have qualified what he said. He did not.

As I would understand this passage, and Paul's comments, we are not extending anything. We are simply acknowledging what God's design is from the very beginning. Paul does not express new truth. He simply applies God's purposeful pattern (and it's Edenic violation) to the Ephesus setting. The prohibition is a result of God's design from creation onward. It is not a church issue. He is simply applying God's great and good gender design to the church in this instance.

We tend to do many things, I agree. What is Biblical? What is the pattern? Whom did God choose to lead nations, prophesy, counsel, and serve as the foundation of the church? Male leadership is pervasive in Scripture, and the few exceptions are notable because of their rarity (and it could be argued that they did not presume upon the leaders of the day).

On what premise do we "tend" these things? What is our foundation, if not the Biblical pattern and proclamation? (I believe both are valid.) In reality, the monkey is probably on the back of those that are expanding the gender-blending movement to prove their diffusion of God-given roles in all of society, the church, government, and the home. We are experiencing this in a steady way in conservative circles, and I believe that this article is just another evidence of our ongoing departure.

On a side note, I have pondered the non-biblical (extra-biblical?) organizations such as colleges. If they are truly given their right to exist by being extensions of the local church in some way (I do not find this to be Biblically sustainable), then why would they not be governed under the "rules" of the NT for the church? Paul doesn't add, "unless they are teaching non-religion courses in the classroom." That wholly ignores his creation-based, gender-specific arguments to which he refers.

Does Paul give any qualification? Is it teaching? Is it religious teaching? Were Paul's epistles teaching? Each seems clearly easy to answer.

You are adding two arbitrary stipulations that do not exist anywhere in the text, from what I can see, Don. (1) Teaching must be audible, which would eliminate anything visual, even for the deaf; and (2) teaching must be religious, which is not found either in the text or in Paul's substantiating references to the creation account. I see no textual support for either.

I won't repeat my arguments, but I've addressed these. Incidentally, the article referenced in this post was first published in the Faith Pulpit, which is a religious seminary publication that is mostly read by [male] pastors, I presume, and now it is posted on a website mostly frequented by pastors and male leaders. It is a religious article in a context of instruction to the church at large (or at least FBBC&TS constituency at large). It hardly seems like reading it out loud or presenting in a classroom changes the nature of its content.

One suggestion for further aggravation - It is my observation as I have pondered the non-church church-related organizations that one of the key benefits to their existence is that they can bypass various limitations placed upon the church. This would include leadership structure and selection, gender roles, limited responsibility vs. ongoing shepherding, charging tuition vs. freewill giving, democratic form of government vs. hierarchical episcopal leadership (usually with the oversight of a presbytery of some type), narrow classroom instruction vs. life and experience instruction, etc. If such an article could not be presented from a pulpit in a church, why would it be OK to present it in the Faith Pulpit publication that would somehow describe itself as an extension of the church with content that was specifically given to Timothy for instruction to the church?

Thank you for the interaction, Don.

I think that you have great questions, Susan.

I covered this in my interaction with Don. There really is no "clear restriction" in the text. It is a general restriction based upon creation, not culture, location, content, or venue.

Teaching is an intentional position with the purpose of instructing others, isn't it? The prohibition is not fear-producing, but order-producing and God honoring. I'm not sure someone could violate this accidentally.

I believe there are several issues here:

• The content is confused by the messenger. The truths of the Word are intended to be taught to the church by men selected by God (Eph 4:11-2; 1 Tim 3:1-7)
• The content is confused by the context. Paul had just instructed Timonthy not to teach. This paper is clearly teaching.
• The content is confused by the recipient. Paul wrote to Timothy to teach these things to the church. He did not instruct Timothy to pass them on to the women to do so. (Incidentally, I had a seminary class on the Pastoral Epistles at FBBC&TS. We had no women visitors to help us wade through the mire of this passage.)
• The content is confused by the institution that published the paper. They are a conservative Christian college/seminary that believes in men pastoring. Yet they have a woman present a paper on Timothy. They would not allow her to teach the class, I presume (hopefully correctly).

Books: Not if they are attempting to explain Scripture, which I believe is the role of pastor-teachers. If they relate to the realm of women (1 Tim 5:11-12; 1 Tim 5:14; Titus 2:3-5), I believe it would be in line with Scripture.
Blog: For what reason? For what audience? At what cost or distraction from what God assigned? (1 Tim 5:11-12; 1 Tim 5:14; Titus 2:3-5)
Teach Classes: Yes and No (see below)

That is where this issue rises or falls. Where in the Bible does it give an example, instruction, or mandate to have women's Bible studies? If the pastor-teachers are given to equip the church (Eph 4:11-16), is that inadequate? Did God, in leaving out instructions for women's Bible studies, forget a needed area? I do not think so. The Bible simply does not hint at women's Bible studies.

Here are some summary statements (far from a thorough explanation, but hopefully these will be helpful):

(1) The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus gave some apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teaches to equip the saints for ministry and bring them all to maturity [Eph 4:11-16]. These are men (this idea is not argued in our circles). This indicates that these leaders can equip and fully bring all believers -- men, women, and children -- to maturity (without the mention of women's Bible studies).

(2) The one place that speaks of older women teaching younger women [Titus 2:3-5] is used often to support women's Bible studies. However, I would point out a few key observations:

-- ABOUT WHO TEACHES: The passage seems to indicate that not just some, but all older women are to be teaching the younger women. "The older women are to be teaching the younger women..." This indicates that the teaching involved is not formal (i.e. classroom setting type of teaching) nor limited to just a few older women. It would seem to indicate that the teaching is ongoing, as any older woman has an opportunity to influence a younger woman. It is interesting that there are no qualifications listed for "women's Bible study leaders," which futher indicates that it is not Bible studies done by SOME older women, but daily teaching expected from ALL older women.

-- ABOUT WHAT IS TAUGHT: The passage indicates (and limits) what the older women teach to the list given: "that they admonish the young women:
(a) to love their husbands,
(b) to love their children,
(c) to be discreet,
(d) chaste,
(e) homemakers,
(f) good,
(g) obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed."

If women's Bible studies *could* be validated to be held in some type of formal setting, they would be limited to these topics. All the topics are directly related to women and their roles - things that every older woman would be versed in and experienced in. Studies of books of the Bible or other Biblical teachings would not be allowed if this passage was truly believed and practiced. Based upon what I said in my first observation, these topics seem best taught as older women interact with younger women on a day-to-day basis (as well as mothers and grandmothers teaching their daughters and granddaughters these things).

(3) Nowhere in Biblical history do you have God using women to teach women. Men are assigned that role, from the garden of Eden onward. Husbands are commanded to purify their own wives by "the washing of water by the word," [Eph 5:26] not other women.

(4) Women are given the privilege of serving as God assigns, not as they choose (same with men). Nowhere are women suggested as leading Bible studies. Instead, as in 1 Tim 5, women are commended for:

[being] the wife of one man,
[being] well reported for good works, [described as]
if she has brought up children, (motherhood)
if she has lodged strangers, (hospitality)
if she has washed the saints' feet, (serving)
if she has relieved the afflicted, (caring for the sick)
if she has diligently followed every good work.

This would be a similar list as found in Proverbs 31 (which doesn't mention any teaching either). Younger widows are told, not to hold Bible studies, but to marry, bear children, and manage the home. [1 Tim 5:14]

(5) James 3:1 gives the command that not many of us are to become teachers. There is no "grab a book and start a Bibe study" idea in Scripture (which is actually, if you think about it, a book study).

(6) In 1 Tim 2, it might be seen that women are even commanded not to be teaching (as well as not having authority over men). I would understand this to be, at the very least, what women leading Bible studies are doing.

I have preached a study on this, if you are interested in hearing a more full version:

• Here is the audio: http://www.northridgebaptist.com/Teaching/Topical/WhoTeaches/090726_Who%...
• Here are the notes: http://www.northridgebaptist.com/Teaching/Topical/WhoTeaches/090726%20-%...

I understand the confusion. I believe that the confusion comes because people reject what is clearly stated in Scripture. That sounds audacious, but the Bible isn't that confusing in these areas. It is confusing when people blame 1 Tim 2, for example, on the culture of the day, when Paul does not even mention the culture. He points to creation. It is ultimately a rejection of God's plan and purpose initially revealed and patterned in Genesis 1-3.

Instinct? Sin nature? Selfish self? Some men do not like/want to lead. Some men are not good husbands (and don't want to be).

FYI - My wonderful wife teaches Sunday school (lessons that I prepare for the entire Sunday school). She has taught a Titus 2 class, with my assistance in the study area. She is one of the best teachers I know.

Excellent questions, Susan. I hope that I have at least offered food for thought. Just don't read it out loud while your husband is around (just kidding) ;>D

Kevin, you're overlooking the setting. Timothy was serving in an actual local church and Paul was writing to him telling him how to handle things there. Though the household of God there is the people, not a building, you can see the people and they are "the church" when they are gathered as the church. So Paul makes an argument from creation but applies it to church life. This is really the only interpretation I've ever seen that is able to account for the occasional prophetess, judge or other female leader in the OT. (i.e., the restrictions are not intended to apply to women abosolutely outside the church setting).
But your view does resonate with me. I think as a society we'd be better off recognizing that the women who are suitable for the kinds of leadership roles traditionally assigned to men are quite exceptional (for that matter, men who are suitable are pretty few and far between as well, but still slightly less so.)

I understand what you are saying, Aaron. However, I do not believe that the arguments from creation can be pigeon-holed to a church setting in any way. That is the setting, but the text or Paul's support does not restrict this in such a way. I very much understand the setting of 1 Timothy. Paul's arguments are not derived from that setting. Instead, they are applied to that setting. The creation principles are from outside the setting. The order of creation (male then female) where Adam was first formed, then Eve, is not limited by time, place, culture, or institution. It stands true in any setting, because it is not dependent upon any setting, and therefore does not change. It is a past tense principle that is unalterable. No amount of argument can be leveled to this Genesis support can change it, because it is a principle based upon creation order, not events contemporary with the writing, or current events. The same comments can be made of Paul's second reference.

I reiterate that Paul is applying Genesis, not creating a new restriction, in 1 Timothy. He references God's creative plan and resultant order. This order, even in the instances of "the occasional prophetess, judge or other female leader" (though I do not think that the latter term truly exists in the OT apart from foreign leaders such as the Queen of Sheba or those that wrongfully grabbed power, such as Athaliah [2 Kings 11:1]).

To say that "the restrictions are not intended to apply to women absolutely outside the church setting" is upside down for the very reason that the restrictions are not based in the setting of the church but in creation order and gender design. It is substantiated throughout Scripture in God's patterns and practices, from Genesis to Psalms to Proverbs to 1 Timothy and Titus.

Suitability to leadership is somewhat not an issue. Adam, as a man, was appointed leader in Genesis 2, and held accountable as the man in Genesis 3. I think you are confusing roles with positions. I believe men are designed and appointed to lead, though some are called to lead in greater capacities. What "leadership" roles would you consider suitable for women, based upon Scripture?

Thanks for your interaction.

True, but places like SI often give me questions to ask myself that I didn't even know needed asking. Thanks for taking the time to address my posts.

Just from a logical standpoint, I'm not sure it works to say that a writer who is making a church-order point uses non-church-order evidence and therefore makes a non-church-order point, even though that was not his aim.

On the other hand, because he is inspired, what Paul says about creation and fall there is itself authoritative. He is either affirming or revealing a principle. But what exactly is the principle? He does not spell it out in the form of a broader point. He does not say:
"Man was made first, woman was deceived, therefore, in all things leadership should be male."
There is no "therefore" at all except the therefore that church should be ordered with male leadership.

An analogy might help. Suppose I tell my kids, "Matches start fires, therefore I don't want you using them in the house." Are they on solid ground to reason "Matches start fires so we should not use them anywhere"?
Need a better analogy, but it'll have to do for the moment.

My point is that we do not know that the creation order and the role of deception in the Fall has anything to do with the authority of women at all except that Paul has used these to regulate church life. So on what basis can we say that his observation is intended to regulate life elsewhere?

I've been thinking and studying quite a bit about Biblical patterns interpreted as commands, and what I keep hitting up against is that there are patterns that are clearly designed and approved of by God (such as marriage between a man and a woman), and then there are patterns whose origins and parameters are ambiguous, and there is little in the way of evidence to show whether or not God 'ordained' the pattern, so to speak... ie women working outside the home, home education/public schooling, choosing spouses for one's child, casting lots, etc... I mean, I've known men who took a vow and didn't shave or cut their hair for a certain number of days or didn't allow their daughters to have any input into choosing a mate because of OT patterns. I think patterns are there for our learning, and we may make inferences about what God seems to prefer or bless, but I'm often perplexed about how we decide that this pattern should be followed while another pattern is ignored or designated as not applicable.

An example that just jumped into my pointy little head- I remember a couple of messages I've heard on Exodus 18, where Moses' father-in-law offers a sacrifice and then gives Moses advice about delegating some of the judging/teaching tasks to others. One preacher's premise was that Moses didn't pray and ask God about what he should do, and that he shouldn't have allowed Jethro to make a sacrifice or followed his advice, while another preacher (different time and place) pointed out how we should listen to the wise counsel of others, know when we are taking on too much and delegate. So who's right? Or should we be drawing such conclusions or making application from this passage at all?

Anyway, I agree that the proper roles of women are way out of whack (excuse the really technical jargon there) in society and the church, and that we should endeavor to figure out where the boundaries are and be content to stay within them. The older I get the more I understand why I am placed in a home as a wife and mother, given the vocation of loving my husband and children and ministering to others when I have the opportunity.

When you offer this viewpoint, then on what basis do you select patterns? Why marriage, and not the entire marriage context in Genesis? I do not think you can have a 1-man, 1-woman marriage based on Genesis and then discard the leadership of the man, the role of the woman as helper (she didn't get her own garden), the emphasis (and commands) regarding bearing children (and the implications for a woman's motherly life-focus), etc. How do you choose which piece of the overall pattern to jettison, and which piece to keep?

I have suggested that this is not just a pattern in Genesis, but it is a pattern seen throughout the entire Bible, even up and through 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter. There is no deviation of this overall pattern by Jesus, the Apostles, or the church of the Epistles. On what basis do we stray from the pattern? Is the Bible as vague or ambiguous as you imply?

I would also differentiate something clearly stated by God (more than once) in addition to the patterns established by God in creation from a practice of people in Scripture without either. For example, you mentioned women working outside the home. The creation pattern finds the woman helping the man as her purpose, not in her own garden or pursuing her own dream. In the fall, she is weighted (cursed?) in the arenas of her relationship with her husband and her bearing of children (not the sweat of the brow, etc.). That is profound in and of itself. You can also tie this in with the commands "be fruitful and multiply," which, from my experience, results in a full-time focus all on its own (in accompaniment with helping one's husband). You continue with women doing just that, from Eve onward.

You find the Psalm 127 and 128 women ("happy is the man that has his quiver full of them" requires a wife who is focused on her children!), and the Proverbs 31 woman who is home-centered (with endeavors that allow her to minister to the poor, and create items in the home that she takes to the vendors). The very Son of God is brought into humanity by this means, and Mary and Joseph were the traditional family (think of the speaking circuit she could have had! ;>D). 1 Tim 2:15 (the cause of our interaction) does not deviate from this pattern. 1 Tim 5:9-10 reiterates what a godly woman looks like (no working outside the home mentioned - amazing - ministering to the afflicted, etc. is mentioned though - we don't have people beating down the church doors to do that which is explicitly mentioned). The younger widows are instructed to marry, bear children and manage the home. Titus is told to have the older women teach the younger women to be "homemakers" (and the word means that). What is ambiguous about that?

Truth can be known, or what is the point of the Bible (or most of it)? It may not address the color of my socks, but it does address "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3-4). I don't think many things are as vague or ambiguous as we might want. We have clouded what was clear to those in the past. I believe we have done so because we do not read or study our Bible (as in, read it through repeatedly, and study the Word, not just read the latest fad-driven books), and we create a God (and a plan of God) in our own image. I will not land where the legalists land, and say (for example) that if you wear slacks as a woman (Bauder referred to it in his article today) you are sinning. I will say that the Bible does go out of its way to instruct and direct women (as women) how to dress (in principle, not in style) as godly women. The conservative church casts such clear teaching completely off, not because it is not addressed, but because someone, somewhere excused it completely as cultural. Who has really studied the Bible on such things to the point of drawing Biblical conclusions before landing on the "too ambiguous to do anything with" side of the fence. Most cannot say that they have.

I believe that this is a good example of an event (not really a pattern) in Moses' life. He ran away for 40 years too. (I would land on the side that it was a good idea, wherever it came from - the latter preacher). Either way, though, it is not a pattern given directly by God in creation, and not directly commanded or instructed clearly in multiple places in the NT.

May your tribe GREATLY increase (and may you encourage others to do the same)!

No. Paul does not explain how 'd' follows from 'b' I have to think that the relationship was obvious to the original audience. But, alas, not obvious to us. Given that we do not know what the relationship is, we can't really say that it supports any conclusions other than the ones Paul drew.

Susan, about Jethro... it's a good example of at least one principle for handling narrative. The view that says Moses didn't seek the Lord and should not have listened to Jethro has some problems in relation to text. The text does not say Moses didn't seek the Lord. (We know from other passages that Moses was in the Tent of Meeting with God on a daily basis during that time, so it's also unlikely). Secondly, the text does say that Jethro's advice worked. There is nothing critical of the idea in the text. (And other passages also indicate there were already "elders" among the people before that time. Jethro was just telling Moses he should make use of them in a more organized way.)

As for women in leadership with God's approval (outside the church setting), it's true that "prophet" was not always a position of leadership, but usually. If we reason that because of Balaam's donkey anyone can be a prophet, we might also reason that anyone can be a pastor-teacher along similar lines. The donkey case doesn't prove much because barring a miracle, donkeys are not usually capable of speaking at all. Of course, Deborah comes to mind. I'm familiar with the view that asserts that the judges were not leaders (an agenda driven interpretation if there ever was one), but it's not persuasive, IMO. Deborah was the 'go-to gal' to decide disputes and led the nation in battle, just like the other judges. The one difference is that she had Barak cowering next her some of the time.

Then you have Huldah who clearly occupied the same sort of role male prophets did in advising kings (Josiah... 2 Kings 22:14-16)

(Susan, FWIW, I don't think a pastor's wife is an "office" in the NT sense and so she is a member of the church like everyone else. But getting congregations to think that way is quite a challenge.)

I think it is undeniably obvious, when taken in context with the entirety of Scripture, and Paul's absence of an explanation. It is consistent throughout Scripture. Paul does not have to explain, because it is a principle from the beginning of time. I read through the Bible as a routine (every 1 to 2 years) and I do not find this extraordinary or odd. It is in accordance with Scripture, and to me it makes perfect sense why Paul needs no explanation, or additional qualifiers.

My only point is that being a mouthpiece for God is just that. It isn't leadership per se. Pastoring is not prophesying, it is leading. I do not see any evidence of women leading in the church whatsoever. I do see clear prohibitions against it. Everything else seems to me to be an argument of the exceptional, at best. An OT exception (even two of them in 4000 years) would not be sufficient justification to open the gates to what the Bible seems to clearly command against, with creation-based reasons.

I'm not sure if this has any bearing, but what Huldah "prophesied" did not come true. Josiah did not die in peace - he was killed in battle. If indeed Huldah was a true mouthpiece of God, her existence (as Deborah's) only stands out in all of the history of the OT because of the exception. That does not smack of the normalized nature of the modern church roles of women, does it?

Thanks again for interacting, Aaron.

Clarification- I'm not saying the church was segregated by default- I agree that 'congregations' in both old and new were generally not segregated at all, (which is a pattern that is completely ignored) but that when groups of people are divided in the Bible (which, again, isn't very often), it is by gender, not by age or marital status. IOW, there is no pattern on which to base the singles class, the young married class, the college and career class, Sunday Schools and youth groups, the senior citizen class.... and yet when we separate for classes etc... this is the pattern we follow... so whose pattern is it? Ergo, if we are going to say that Biblical patterns set the standard of faith and practice, and that when the Bible gives us no examples of one thing but some examples of another, then we are constrained to follow that pattern, even if it is a lack of pattern.

That sentence was really fun to write.

True- some congregations have strange expectations of the pastor's wife, while at other times the congregation would actually prefer the pastor's wife simply be the wife of the pastor, instead of the church's Cruise Director and Assistant Pastorette of Women's Ministries. I've also seen a pastor's wife that was completely disengaged from the church. There is every dynamic imaginable out there, and it seems to me that the clear Scriptural criteria for the pastor and his family is too often treated like inconsequential twaddle.

Back to the topic of patterns- I'm not opposed to applying Biblical patterns at all- when my dh and I have a question about what is acceptable behavior or activity, we look first to any examples or principles that could be applied to answer that question. It's why we homeschool our kids instead of sending them to public or Christian school. But what I can't do in good conscience is declare our interpretation of those principles as a mandate for everyone. What we usually say when asked is that in our opinion, the Scriptures suggest such-n-such. In spite of what I believe, I have no desire to attend the First Home Education Family Integrated Baptist Church. It crosses a line into the sanctity of the family. Which is another bunny trail, as if there aren't enough of them in this thread.

So if a woman writes a book or teaches a class- whether it's about cooking or marriage, I can't say that I believe it's a violation of some clear cut principle, but rather, since there are no examples or directives that define the parameters of such, a woman should be extremely careful when she engages in these kinds of activities, and that she does so under the direction/supervision of her husband and/or pastor. IMO, the 'best case scenario' is that of a personal mentoring relationship between mature, experienced, and Godly women, and younger women who need teaching or reinforcement (because the first thing that comes to mind quite frankly is "Where was that girl's mama, and why doesn't the child know how to fry an egg for cryin' out loud?"). But do to the fact that there are SO many girls out there with parents who checked out about 5 minutes after she was born, there is a HUGE gap that needs to be filled. Ditto with young men who are fatherless, whether because of the physical or mental/emotional and spiritual absence of the father.

I'm probably part way between your view and Kevin's. Over the last 5 years, I was forced by circumstances beyond my control to put a great deal of thought into the whole matter of roles. And I came to the conclusion that the differences between genders are more profound that I thought before, that they are by design and correspond to roles and that the results of role confusion are far more damaging than I thought.
Having said that, I believe that very little in Scripture is prescriptive on that point. So my view of the teaching restriction is the narrow restriction, not Kevin's broad one. But my view of what roles the gender is best suited for generally is such that wisdom seldom recommends women for the traditionally male roles. But this is a wisdom argument. Some would call it a pragmatic argument (the two are often not so so easy to tell apart).
But teaching is not one of those tasks that I believe corresponds strongly to role or gender. The authoritative "official" teaching of the church is closely tied to role because of the authority part of it. But I know at least as many women who are able teachers asI do men who are able teachers. Depending on the kind of teaching, I would say that in some forms of teaching, the best teachers are women by a large margin (when it comes to teaching children, for example, highly skilled female teachers outnumber male ones about six to one--in my experience. I suspect that objective measurements would put the number even higher).

I'm rambling, but my point is that I'm more particular about roles on the basis of nature and prudence than on the basis of biblical prescription, but teaching is not a role that men are especially superior at by nature.

I understand that patterns themselves are not imperative in nature. I only suggest that the arguments I have offered regarding women are supported by a lack of any pattern, in addition to creation and instruction that is explicitly described or declared.

As far as the many ways we do things know, I believe we have probably done more harm than good by artificially dividing the local church, and divesting parents of their responsibility. We have, in my opinion, also devalued Scripture by ignoring James 3:1, having too many teachers, many of whom really do not know what they are teaching (content, not intent - much like what was going on in Ephesus - 1 Tim 1:5-7), and many of whom do not understand just how much effort and time it takes to get it right (2 Tim 2 :15; 1 Tim 5:17-18).

There are parameters that define teachers - they all happen to apply to men . Personal mentoring is exacting what I believe Titus 2:3-5 is indicating. It is woman to woman, not woman to class. It is also defined in content.

Ministry to the fatherless seems to demand ... men?

There are hints otherwise, as in when exceptional women hold positions of leadership over men in non-church settings. But let's suppose for a moment that those hints do not exist. We do not arrive at restrictions by reasoning that "the Bible does not say this is allowed." That would eliminate a great many things including my sitting here typing at a keyboard, but even if we say Scripture can prohibit by silence when broad categories are involved, this leads to all kinds of problems. I've never met anyone who consistently used the Bible that way. It's usually an argument appealed to quite selectively.

As for the rest, I'm not saying that ability is the issue where Scripture has prescribed. Rather, my thinking is that where Scripture does not prohibit, there is wisdom in observing what's best for the genders role-wise (what they are designed by God to do) based on the kinds of skills and interests most of them have possessed over the millennia of recorded history.
I believe this is somewhat changeable. For example, I have recently come to the conclusion that God intended (based in part on the passage in question and the reference to deception in the Garden), for men to be the clear thinkers. I suspect that at some point in history, the design behind that intention was more evident because more men than women actually were clear thinkers. I'm not sure that's the case anymore! (I know many women who are clearer thinkers than many men I know).
But I do believe it should be. But that being a reality requires that men embrace the responsibility and cultivate those skills. They have long preferred beer and football instead.

Anyway, to me there are two distinct questions: a) what does Scripture prescribe? and b) what seems wise (in general) because designed roles seem to be evident? The former is a matter of obedience. The latter is a matter of judgment/discernment and allows for exceptional people. So in my paradigm you can simultaneously believe that women ought not to be heads of state as a general rule (a designed unsuitableness for the role is generally evident), but still hold that Margaret Thatcher was a superb Prime Minister (FWIW, I remain unconvinced that Sara Palin as Chief Exec. is a good idea... though she would be a better idea than many male alternatives).

A critic could say my view is just too convenient, but I'd rather say that it best explains all of the facts and is internally consistent.

So it is wrong for me to take creation pattern and revelation as it describes men and women in creation, but you would deviate from the Biblical pattern because of obscure or rare hints? I'm not following your argument. Also, I have not argued from a "the Bible does not say this is allowed" posture by itself. I have referred to the standing creation pattern, revealed commands and principles, and overall Bible pattern. That would not in any way be like sitting at a computer -- not a similar comparison at all. (Though communication in writing is certainly illustrated sufficiently ) It seems to me that you are arguing against one evidence, while ignoring the rest.

Further, I would ask, what such hints exist in the NT? in the church? I'd be curious as to what sways your thinking in this area.

I just see no evidence of blending or changing roles as you indicate, either implied or stated. From Genesis to Revelation I do not see a departure of God's design and role-based assignments.

How does Scripture prohibit? Paul uses the creation order and subsequent historical failure of Eve to substantiate the prohibition under discussion. He referred to no command. He did exactly what you are saying should not be done. His reasons are the underlying argument - he does not present new information from the culture or circumstance. He cites nothing beyond this, and builds the prohibition solely on these two reasons.

I understand your reasoning, but it still does not hold up to Scripture. If such things change based upon the character of men and women, then same sex marriage and divorce are equally up for grabs. Nowhere in Scripture do you have the leeway to make things somewhat changeable when Scripture does not do so, in my perspective. That is extremely dangerous ground, and leaves the Word at a worthless level, since it no longer is taken at face value. Men's responsibilities and roles do not lessen because of their lack of desire to perform them.

I would have to come back and ask again, what does it take for Scripture to prescribe something? If it takes a command, then marriage is undefinable (and I believe this approach to Scripture is a huge reason why we have the same-sex marriage controversy today), as such a command doesn't exist. Jesus referred to the pattern in Genesis when He discussed such. Marriage is based upon the pattern in the garden. If it takes a command, then why do most somehow disregard the first several commands in Genesis 1:28 as something not for them? or 1 Tim 5:14? If it takes the practice of the majority of people through Biblical history, it still would be the way to live.

I don't think you can have your b) until you adequately define your a). Even then, you would need to somehow determine the criteria required to determine what seems to be wise (is that just subjective?). That sounds too much like Judges 21:25.

With all due respect (and I do respect you, Aaron), I think your paradigm is undefinable, because it has no definitions or parameters. I can agree that Margaret Thatcher was a superb Prime Minister, but that still just not justify her holding that office. Her ability does not qualify her for the role that I believe was intended for a man, anymore than a woman with pastoral skills and abilities should pastor a congregation. It is gender-assigned first, then ability-evaluated, or directly appointed by God as Saul or David were. (And I will not be voting for Mrs. Palin, again, FWIW.)

From my perspective, it is a most inconvenient view, as it ultimately results in no clear view at all. I guess I'm not your critic after all. (Glad that's settled, anyway.) It also suggests, not internal consistency, but a super-Biblical variability that allows for no consistency, if I understand you correctly.

Sigh, all right. . . . Personally, these discussions frustrate me too.

OK, I will be specific. Read Eldridges Captivating. It is the best explanation and treatment of created woman that I have read to-date. This is not a recommendation of their other books. And I can’t put in quotes here b/c I don’t have the book with me.

Could it also be said that these instructions were given to His disciples, so it applies to Christ’s disciples, of which all Christians are.
I don’t mind putting this instruction in the frame of the church, but putting it in the even tighter frame of apostles and then through that of church leadership, you are taking several logical steps that might not have been intended. . . . Is what I’m saying.
Prov 31:1, Song of Songs, Ex 15:20-26, Acts 18:26, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Judges 4-5, Deut 21:18-19, Prov 1:8, 6:20-24, Jer 13:18.

I gave quite a differing list here, and you’re only responding to a few of them.

I don’t think anything of the sort is being done in this discussion. Women are wives and mothers. Men are husbands and fathers. It’s wonderful! I think we are discussing something different.

First, clarify, that i don’t think a woman should be a pastor-teacher, so yes, I would see that as an aberration of Scripture. I would also see women teaching a mixed group face-to-face in a “formal” church setting as strange.
So I’m not sure what we’re talking about . . . .
There are occasions of women in leadership. You look at Scripture and see them as aberrations of God’s design, or simply say they weren’t somehow in leadership. Miriam?

Deborah? . . . God can raise from the dead. He could’ve raised up a man at that time very easily.
So, I’m not saying that women should exercise spiritual authority over a man in the church today. However, I don’t draw lines of teaching, for example, as tight as you do. I don’t see that God does in the Bible what you are doing/saying.
And this is the heart of our issue. You look at these verses in tim and titus and draw tight lines around them. Tight lines that you defend with your interp of certain words like “teach” and what is formal or not. Lines that others, not just me, do not see drawn there. Like this:

Here’s another example:

This is an example of what I am saying. We agree that Paul prohibits women from teaching/having authority over men in the church.

You go further saying that paul is saying that women are not even to teach women formally, not to teach them doctrine. I’m saying i don’t see it there. . . . So I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion with you.

Referring generally to a book is not being specific, is it? I gave a link to one of my studies (a two page summary, with an accompanying audio that gives a fuller view of my leanings). This platform would not really make sense if we bantered back and forth generally referring to books that we consider "the best explanation and treatment" without specifically addressing the exact issues we are discussing. Wouldn't it make sense to clearly present our arguments?

Have you read the entire thread? Have you reviewed my links (either or both)? If not, discussion is not really possible.

Anne, I apply it to the entire church, but in a broader way than "everyone is equal and everyone does the same thing unless explicitly stated otherwise." Men and women are all involved in the great commission, but in different ways. The men (the apostles were all men, as are all pastors) have leading roles (Eph 4:11-12, etc.) whereas women (and even most men) have supportive roles. This is evidenced in Christ's ministry, and in Paul's as well. It is what is there, and to argue for a broader view, in my opinion, requires more than "we see no command not to." That ignores the obvious, in my understanding.

I've addressed all of them either in this thread generally (such as prophetesses as Miriam, who sang, but has no evidence of leading or teaching - just getting leprosy for attempting to usurp Moses' role in both) or specifically. What is missing?

I believe that your comments lend to this. It is fighting to establish a norm that is not found in Scripture. If only women were wives and mothers (and helpers) as a primary focus, and men were fathers and husbands (and leaders).

Where do you find the "mixed-group" prohibition? Where do you find women in the NT church (in Scripture) teaching or leading in some formal way, even in a non-mixed group?

You do precisely what you are saying that I am doing. This passage has Miriam claiming leadership - read the rest of the passage. There is no indication that God led through Miriam. She sang a song Anne. Is that leadership? (That will change the music ministry of your church...) You are reading into Miriam's role. I am only observing it. There is no indication, beyond her singing, even of any other prophesying. Please don't build your view of the church on her implied or assumed functions. They are not there.

Deborah "judged" the people, seemingly helping them relationally, solving problems between them. God did raise a man, Barak, who did answer the call reluctantly. Deborah did not lead the army - Barak did (as God's revelation required). She received direct revelation from God (one instance that we know of in Scripture), which would put that instance as something different than what we have in the church, unless you believe we are still getting direct revelation from God. Will you base the function of the NT church on her 10 verses in Judges?

I understand what you are saying. I just say that you allow yourself much more latitude that what is seen in Scripture. You offer two aberrations that received direct revelation from God in the OT as your support. I'm saying that the Scriptures do not justify these as normal, nor do the evidences and arguments of Paul somehow collapse under them.

And I would say just the opposite. You are taking on more than what the Scriptures in Titus teach or allow, and what the limitations for men to pastor/shepherd clearly indicate, and where no evidence in the NT church exists. Mine are not tight lines - I only read what is there. You take liberties where there are none Scripturally to be had.

[Arguing about "others" seeing what you see is not an argument. Evidences are arguments. The silent "they...," even if a majority, is not a Biblical argument (or Jesus was wrong most of the time, since most disagreed with everything He said).]

Here’s another example:

Again, I offer observations, not extrapolations. To get where you are, you must extrapolate, as the Scriptures do not identify such. I also was summarizing previous comments, because I had more fully covered them before.

We apparently do not agree. Paul does not say "in the church." He says that he does not permit a woman to be teaching or having authority over a man. Period. He gives his evidence from creation order (which is in no way specific to the church) and creation deception (which is in no way limited to the church). If he gave a prohibition with the qualification which you state (or any qualification that would limit it to time, culture, circumstance, etc.) we would have nothing to discuss. He does not. Paul does not argue from an avenue that could be limited to the church. He could have easily. He applies creation - he does not create truth here. Also, the surrounding context (even of 1 Tim 2:15) would argue that Paul is not arguing within the church (if Martha's conclusions in her article are close to being accurate). Otherwise, motherhood (and modesty and godly conduct prescribed for women earlier in the passage) would be limited to the church as well (we cannot pick and choose).

I appreciate what specifics you do bring up. I would encourage you to read the entire thread though. Thanks.