Mothers Saved in Childbearing? Part 2

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. ;)

Why wouldn’t it mean “certainly delivered from the sin of usurping authority over men” or perhaps “fully delivered” or “especially delivered” (i.e., other things deliver, too but this one stands out) ? The emphatic position is notoriously ambiguous.

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.

The Immediate Context

• 1 Timothy 2 contrasts men in their roles (albeit briefly, but with deep implications, with men [aner - used only of adult men] directed to pray everywhere, raising up holy hands without wrath and doubting) with women in their roles (dress, character, & conduct).
• It further defines a woman’s God-designed role with a woman’s God-assigned responsibility, regarding her disposition while learning, and prohibitions of teaching and of leading a man (again, aner). The context is clearly not addressing salvation from sin (conversion) but activity (character and conduct) based upon gender (not specific to married women or mothers).
• Still further, it uses for supporting evidence for the prohibitions God’s creation order (man first, then woman), and the woman’s choice based upon being deceived. Both relate to her position and purpose in God’s plan, not to her salvation from sin. Both evidence her failure in taking the lead (and Adam following her “because you hearkened to the voice of your wife”), and the resultant failure of Adam in following rather than leading.
  

The Book Context

As someone has already pointed out, the directions for women (widows) in 1 Tim 5 parallel this role-based idea. The widows being considered for support were required to do in essence what 1 Tim 2 prescribes (1 Tim 5:9-10). It is interesting that neither teaching nor leading are hinted at as requirements for worthy widows, but being a one-man woman and raising children are clearly delineated as such. Additionally, the younger widows are instructed to “marry, bear children, and manage the home,” not to teach or lead, start a ministry, etc. One could also refer to Titus 2 for a similar list of home-focused, gender-specific instructions.

The Bible Context

Paul’s “reasons” for his gender-based exhortations and instructions seem to be directly related to God’s creative purpose. Though it may rub people the wrong way today, God designed the genders each with complementary roles and purposes. Paul is not suggesting something new in 1 Timothy 2. He is simply applying what God designed in Genesis, and what is seen throughout Scripture.

Genesis 1, 2, & 3 clearly define God’s plan for gender. “Being fruitful and multiplying” has its implications, as does the man being created first, and commanded by God regarding the trees prior to the woman being created. Even in the confrontation after the fall, the woman feels the impact of sin in the realm of motherhood and her relationship to her husband. That is profound. Roles of both men and women did not change. They just become sin-influenced. Nothing changes that anywhere in Scripture. (cf Psalm 127, 128; Prov 31; Malachi 2; etc.) Even in the incarnation, womanhood is expressed in motherhood.

The context cannot support an eternal salvation view. The context, not a word, must determine the meaning. The Scripture, not our current culture or perceptions, must define our beliefs.

[Anne Sokol] 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.

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…)
  

Martha did a fine job, and I draw similar conclusions.

However,

I do find it contradictory that she teaches on a passage that follows the prohibition for women to teach. I know most would not even think of this, but it is nonetheless true. I do not question her skills or ability. It is teaching by any definition, and her explanation seems to elude her actions in the writing of the article.

I do not question Martha’s ability, skill, intellect, or motives. I do believe that the preceding verses (1 Tim 2:11-12) prohibit what she has done. There is no precedent in Scripture for a woman taking on such a teaching role. It goes back to God’s design for men and women, which is reinforced throughout Scripture. Paul’s reasoning points back to creation (1 Tim 2:13-14), not culture (his or ours). It points to gender, not location (such as a church building or college setting). Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Eve, being deceived, fell into transgression. Both are true in any setting, because they relate to God’s design (positively, then negatively when it was violated).

I will offer that God appointed men to lead and to teach throughout history (who says God does not have a sense of humor?). Our culture, even our church culture, has slowly ignored that (as have many now-liberal churches). Ephesians 4:11 indicates that those given by God as pastor-teachers are described by God as responsible to equip the saints. Most would limit such offices to men (based upon 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, as well as the gender of the apostles, etc.)

Some would tie the prohibition “not to teach” with “men,” but there are no qualifications for women teachers. Even in Titus 2:3, the older women includes ALL older women, who are to teach all younger women. It is not an official position (class, etc.) but an assigned, ongoing responsibility. And the content is described in Titus 2:4-5, which would directly relate to womanhood (woman to woman).

Just thinking, and writing.

[Kevin Subra] I do find it contradictory that she teaches on a passage that follows the prohibition for women to teach. I know most would not even think of this, but it is nonetheless true.

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.

Even in Titus 2:3, the older women includes ALL older women, who are to teach all younger women. It is not an official position (class, etc.) but an assigned, ongoing responsibility. And the content is described in Titus 2:4-5, which would directly relate to womanhood (woman to woman).

I agree, but what venues for teaching are restricted? I think it is reasonable to assume that since the only clear restriction is in a church setting, other avenues are open, as Bro. Johnson said. Elsewise a woman dare not open her mouth lest she say something that a man within earshot doesn’t already know. So I am not sure exactly what you mean, Bro. Subra. Is it because the article was originally published in Faith Pulpit and then reprinted here where men and women read, learn, and discuss? Do you think women should not write books or blog or teach classes? If a woman is teaching a women’s Bible study, and a man enters the room, should she stop talking until he leaves?

These questions may sound ridiculous, but I’ve seen such ideas proposed, and I’ve always wondered how one would be able to apply the principle (of a woman never being in a situation where she ‘teaches’ a man) in reality. And please don’t mistake me for someone who believes women should be in teaching ‘positions’ where men are concerned- I’ve never been able to ‘give a testimony’ in a church service in good conscience, but in day to day life… it just gets really confusing to me how we are to be a teachers of women but without ever doing so where a man could see/hear/read what we’ve said.

Paul is not saying that all women must have children in order to be saved or to live a godly life. “He selects childbearing because it is the most notable example of the divinely intended difference in role between men and women, and most women throughout history have had children.”14 Although the term “childbearing” here refers strictly to bearing and nurturing children, we may apply it in its broad sense of nurturing children.

Christian married women who are not able to bear children may fulfill their motherhood role by adopting or by fostering children (cf. Eph. 1:5; Ps. 68:5). And all Christian women, married or unmarried, may nurture children spiritually as Paul did Timothy―Paul’s “true son in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2).

God’s Word differs greatly from our culture’s voices that belittle motherhood. God calls Christian mothers to rear godly children. First Timothy 2:15 should motivate all Christian women to bestow their God-given maternal instincts on needy children.

Some women say that they just don’t have a maternal instinct and that they aren’t ‘good with kids’. Would this be an example of someone without ‘natural affection’? Is it a ‘curse’ for a woman not to care for/about children … thinking Deut. 28:56-57 …

[Don Johnson] It seems the context of 1 Tim 2 is the public worship services of a local church.

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.

[Don Johnson] How far should we extend the application of this prohibition?

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.

[Don Johnson] 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.

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.

[Don Johnson] Is teaching by writing an article covered by the prohibition?

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

[Don Johnson] I would tend to doubt it. I think the teaching referred to is aural teaching in religion.

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.

[Don Johnson] So church services, college chapels and religion classes are under the prohibition, but other avenues are open.

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.

[Kevin Subra] Paul gives no such geographic or topical arguments or restrictions.

Context, I think, of 1 Timothy

1 Tim 3:15, “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Answers the question about 1 Tim 2:12

I think that you have great questions, Susan.

[Susan R]

I agree, but what venues for teaching are restricted? I think it is reasonable to assume that since the only clear restriction is in a church setting, other avenues are open, as Bro. Johnson said.

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.

[Susan R] Elsewise a woman dare not open her mouth lest she say something that a man within earshot doesn’t already know. So I am not sure exactly what you mean, Bro. Subra.

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.

[Susan R] Is it because the article was originally published in Faith Pulpit and then reprinted here where men and women read, learn, and discuss?

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).

[Susan R] Do you think women should not write books or blog or teach classes?

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)

[Susan R] If a woman is teaching a women’s Bible study, and a man enters the room, should she stop talking until he leaves?

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-…
  

[Susan R] These questions may sound ridiculous, but I’ve seen such ideas proposed, and I’ve always wondered how one would be able to apply the principle (of a woman never being in a situation where she ‘teaches’ a man) in reality. And please don’t mistake me for someone who believes women should be in teaching ‘positions’ where men are concerned- I’ve never been able to ‘give a testimony’ in a church service in good conscience, but in day to day life… it just gets really confusing to me how we are to be a teachers of women but without ever doing so where a man could see/hear/read what we’ve said.

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.

[Susan R] Some women say that they just don’t have a maternal instinct and that they aren’t ‘good with kids’. Would this be an example of someone without ‘natural affection’? Is it a ‘curse’ for a woman not to care for/about children … thinking Deut. 28:56-57 …

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

[Jim Peet]

[Kevin Subra] Paul gives no such geographic or topical arguments or restrictions.

Context, I think, of 1 Timothy

1 Tim 3:15, “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Answers the question about 1 Tim 2:12

Jim, are you implying the the “household of God” is a building? The household of God is a family, not a place. It is how you live in the family of God. Literally, “in order that you might know how in the household [family] of God to be behaving, which is assembly of living God.” THE assembly and an assembly are two distinct things. Though no article is present, Paul seems to be speaking of THE church (as no local church is by itself the pillar and ground of the truth) and our conduct in “it” as the living, breathing family of God, not just when the local body assembles, as I would understand it. It is not religion restricted to a building, a time, or place, is it?

Paul gives no qualification in 1 Tim 2:12, such as “unless,” or “only in this circumstance,” etc. It would be interesting to see how you would understand the instruction of women’s modest apparel in light of your view. Is propriety and moderation restricted to assembly times? (1Tim 2:9)

I would still direct you to Paul’s point of reference - God’s creative order, and the consequences of violating that order in Eden. Both are trans-cultural and true for all time. Adam was created first, not in a church setting. Paul applies it to the church setting, as he does Eve’s failure in deception.

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.)

[Kevin Subra] Teaching is an intentional position with the purpose of instructing others, isn’t it?

I don’t think so, not by default. I am taught by testimony, example, and sometimes just casual conversation. The Holy Spirit often uses what a person says in passing to spark something in my own mind and heart- so there is the position of ‘teacher’ and then there is the kind of teaching that takes place in a more organic manner.

I also don’t see how the lack of a mandate becomes a prohibition, or we must needs dispense with Sunday School, youth groups, church buildings, and modern comforts and technology. I mean, when’s the last time someone in the congregation fell out of a window because the preacher went on all night?

Older women are commanded to teach young women certain things- we agree on that, and I agree with you more than I disagree- but I’ve seen no Biblical restrictions on this being accomplished in a group setting ‘on purpose’. However, I do believe that there is a lack of mentoring in favor of study groups and fellowships, which IMO accounts for the shallow nature of our relationships and the lack of daily admonishing and encouraging that probably should be taking place. And if an older woman is teaching a younger woman Biblical principles of marriage, child rearing, and overall good character, how does she do so without teaching what Scripture has to say about those things, and how do you separate those things from their foundation in solid theology?

But to come back to the appropriate focus of women on family and nurturing- even if they aren’t married or have children themselves. I know a young woman who is a missionary to Chile, and will be teaching ESL in the public schools, as well as classes on purity and modesty with the Bible as a textbook. She’s living out Scriptural singlehood by focusing on serving God without distraction, but her role is still a nurturing one, and she will be working under the leadership of a pastor and a local missionary family. There’s nothing in Scripture that contradicts what she’s doing and how she’s doing it. We do have examples of women ministering in a variety of ways, but the problem is that we have few specifics from which to create a list of dogmatic do’s and don’t’s. (Mary and Martha, Dorcas, Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia…)

[Aaron Blumer] 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.