# Scope of 1 Tim. 2:12-14



## SRoper (Mar 19, 2008)

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

What is the scope of 1 Tim. 2:12-14 or what are the settings in which it applies? I once heard it suggested that it is talking about husbands and wives rather than men and women in general (and this was from a complimentarian). I thought it was a bit of a stretch at the time, but I'm finding it more compelling than the view that says it is talking about the gathered body of believers. Usually those who take this view limit it to the church. What is the reason for that? It seems strange that Paul would use the line of argument that he does if he meant to limit the scope to the ecclesiastical sphere. Why wouldn't "Adam was formed first, then Eve" apply to all of life--the workplace, government, etc.? Why should the scope be something other than married couples at one extreme or all spheres of life on the other?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 19, 2008)

I do not believe it is limited to the church... But in all situations and in all sphere's of authority...





SRoper said:


> "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
> 
> What is the scope of 1 Tim. 2:12-14 or what are the settings in which it applies? I once heard it suggested that it is talking about husbands and wives rather than men and women in general (and this was from a complimentarian). I thought it was a bit of a stretch at the time, but I'm finding it more compelling than the view that says it is talking about the gathered body of believers. Usually those who take this view limit it to the church. What is the reason for that? It seems strange that Paul would use the line of argument that he does if he meant to limit the scope to the ecclesiastical sphere. Why wouldn't "Adam was formed first, then Eve" apply to all of life--the workplace, government, etc.? Why should the scope be something other than married couples at one extreme or all spheres of life on the other?


----------



## Herald (Mar 19, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> I do not believe it is limited to the church... But in all situations and in all sphere's of authority...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



mmmm. So would you say a woman should not participate in place like the PB?


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2 (Mar 20, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> I do not believe it is limited to the church... But in all situations and in all sphere's of authority...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As do I. Ephesians 5:22-33 places the man as the authority in the home as well. We can see the mind set of God with regards to this issue in both sections of scripture.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 20, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> I do not believe it is limited to the church... But in all situations and in all sphere's of authority...


what about a family business that the husband and wife starts and they decide to hire someone who turns out to be a man? Shouldn't the woman rule over him? After all it is her business and her property.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 20, 2008)

How does that fit with Prov 31? How can a woman buy and sell land without being in authority over someone?


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 20, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe it is limited to the church... But in all situations and in all sphere's of authority...
> ...



I'm waiting anxiously for someone to answer your question


----------



## blhowes (Mar 20, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> I'm waiting anxiously for someone to answer your question


Shhh. Quiet!


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 20, 2008)

blhowes said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting anxiously for someone to answer your question
> ...


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 20, 2008)

blhowes said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting anxiously for someone to answer your question
> ...


 I eagerly await as well


----------



## blhowes (Mar 21, 2008)

I was reminded of this thread on the way to work this morning. Interesting experience.

I turned on the local Christian radio station and there was a woman talking. My first thought was to turn it off, which is usually what I'd do, but decided to listen for a few minutes. I thought it was probably a women's ministry of some kind. Turns out it wasn't a women's ministry, she was preaching. I ended up listening to the whole message, not out of curiosity or anything, but because it was an excellent message.

(Now, before you come down on me too hard, I turned the treble way down and the bass way up, so it sounded just like a man preaching).

She was talking about the OT sacrificial system and how those sacrifices that were offered year after year were done away and fulfilled by a better sacrifice, the sacrifice of Jesus, by whose sacrifice alone forgiveness comes. She spoke about the atonement, and how Jesus' sacrifice alone atones for our sins. She didn't say anything about asking Jesus into your heart, but spoke about repentance and putting your faith in Jesus' sacrifice. I was rejoicing as I listened. Had it been a man preaching, it was the kind of message (if you were a baptist) where you'd let a few Amens fly. (do Presbyterian's ever let Amens fly? - (jk))

I don't know if she was a pastor/preacher 'cause at the end they just referred to her by her first name, but she sure could preach well. The fact that she had excellent preaching skills doesn't change my belief that I don't think she should be a pastor or preach from a pulpit, but it just makes me wonder. 

No offence to women, but this is the first time I've heard a woman 'preach' and have anything worthwhile to say. She was different. If she were a he, it'd make sense for him to preach from a pulpit and feed his flock each Sunday. But he's not a he, he's a she, so...

At the end of the show, the announcer gave a brief summary about what she'd be preaching about this coming Monday, and said to be sure to tune in to hear her. My initial thought was, "Sure, I'd be interesting in hearing her talk about that on Monday". 

I don't know if I will, but, as I said at the beginning, interesting experience.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 21, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> > JBaldwin said:
> ...





I agree with the note about the woman in Proverbs 31 who runs a household. Abigail certainly didn't have a problem telling the men in Nabal's household what to do as she kept the household from being destroyed after the insult that Nabal paid to David.

I guess if a widow hired a man to cut her lawn then she would have to submit to his authority as to how he performed the job. That would simply be another situation among ALL spheres of authority.

"Excuse me sir but I would like you to edge my property as well."
"Quiet woman!"


----------



## blhowes (Mar 21, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> "Excuse me sir but I would like you to edge my property as well."
> "Quiet woman!"


----------



## BJClark (Mar 21, 2008)

ALL spheres of life is wide...should a young man NOT submit to his mothers authority? Or the Authority of a teacher? Or college Professor on when assignments are due? (or should women not be teachers or professors at all?? if not, then MEN need to start filling those positions more).

What if the father has left the home or died, should a young man not be under his mothers authority? Or are we only speaking of adult men over a certain age who have left their parents home?

And I too am waiting for the answer to the question about women and the PB, I'll be more specific in this question..Should women NOT be allowed to be moderators on the PB as they would have some type of authority of the men who post here? But then I guess by their previous comments they have already answered the question..that it would apply here as well..


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 21, 2008)

*husband and wife, not women and men*



SRoper said:


> "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
> 
> What is the scope of 1 Tim. 2:12-14 or what are the settings in which it applies? I once heard it suggested that it is talking about husbands and wives rather than men and women in general (and this was from a complimentarian). I thought it was a bit of a stretch at the time, but I'm finding it more compelling than the view that says it is talking about the gathered body of believers. Usually those who take this view limit it to the church. What is the reason for that? It seems strange that Paul would use the line of argument that he does if he meant to limit the scope to the ecclesiastical sphere. Why wouldn't "Adam was formed first, then Eve" apply to all of life--the workplace, government, etc.? Why should the scope be something other than married couples at one extreme or all spheres of life on the other?



Is it possible that Paul is not addressing men and women generically but husband and wife specifically?? (do a quick read of the Greek text and see the shift in the language. Also, a comparison with the LXX of Genesis is helpful as well).

Peace

John


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 21, 2008)

I know what I think, but I'm keeping my mouth shut until someone says I can.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 21, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Is it possible that Paul is not addressing men and women generically but husband and wife specifically?? (do a quick read of the Greek text and see the shift in the language. Also, a comparison with the LXX of Genesis is helpful as well).



I specifically mentioned that view in my post. It seems to me that that's the only way to avoid the all spheres of life view, but I wanted to hear why people think it is talking about ecclesiatical authority and not say governing authority.


----------



## Ravens (Mar 21, 2008)

I think it is noteworthy that almost all of the sound practical arguments or objections to an "All Spheres" view of authority deal with the relationship to modern employers and modern employees. Let me preface my statements by saying that I am not well read in the egalitarian-complimentarian dispute, so take my post For what it's worth:

I have implicitly questioned the application of the "Master -> Slave" statements by Paul to the "Employer-Employee" situations of today. I would imagine that the comparison arose because expositors normally and rightfully mine the Scriptures for all they are worth and squeeze every drop of application from them. However, I think the Employer-Employee connection is more of an edifying sub-application than an actual example of a "Master-Slave" relationship; and I think that recognition is crucial. 

Once one grasps that, I think most of the emotional resistance towards All Spheres Authority and many of the strong practical arguments evaporate, because it takes Proverbs 31 economics and women hiring men for lawn care completely out of the equation. I don't know how one could call those "Master -> Slave" relationships. They are voluntary associations. If the purchaser decided not to buy land from the wife in Proverbs 31, he was under no legal obligation to do so. If the man decided not to cut the woman's lawn anymore, he has no legal or moral obligation to do so. 

Employees can leave the relationship legally, morally, socially, and contractually. Wives and children don't have that option.

So I would simply argue that the three spheres of authority or government are the State, the Church, and the Family. I wouldn't include capitalistic enterprises in the endeavor. 

As to the specific passage in 1 Timothy 2, I think it is noteworthy that in the beginning of the chapter Paul is giving directions for public gatherings of men, which I think we can safely assume to be gatherings of the Ecclesia. And directly following his statements about learning in silence, Paul goes into the necessary qualifications of elders and deacons. Furthermore, there is a parallel here, in my opinion, to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:



> Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.



Is this not a rather obvious parallel? In both chapters, in the context of what takes place in the public assemblies and various issues, Paul tells the women to keep silence. Were you to apply the 1 Tim. 2 passage to the husband-wife relationship, then you have the odd injunction of Paul, that the women are to learn in silence even in the home, whereas Paul tells them to ask their husbands at home, and be silent in the church.

I believe (and I'm open to correction; as I said, this isn't a much-studied topic of mine) that in 1 Tim. 2, Paul seems to be making a specific ecclesiastic application based on a general axiom. I think he could have just as easily said, theologically and methodologically, "let the wife submit to the husband", "let the men be elders in the church", or "men should rule in civil society" because "Adam was formed first, and then Eve." Because that creational, obvious, basic fact is the foundation for authority in every other area of life. Of course, I might be wrong. But the context, before and after, does seem to be speaking about the church, and not specifically the family.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 21, 2008)

Wow, I sure let this one slip past me until now... I did not see this after my first post....

Should woman be part of the PB? Hmm, Interesting question... Personally, I do not see why not since it is a conversation or discussion...

My wife on the other hand had a completely different answer... After I joined the puritanboard and months went by, she was shocked to learn that woman were on here and debating.... To her that was radical and shocking....

I will just leave it at that for the moment.....


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 21, 2008)

I would agree with you on the paragraphs I pasted into the quote....





JDWiseman said:


> I think it is noteworthy that almost all of the sound practical arguments or objections to an "All Spheres" view of authority deal with the relationship to modern employers and modern employees. Let me preface my statements by saying that I am not well read in the egalitarian-complimentarian dispute, so take my post For what it's worth:
> 
> I have implicitly questioned the application of the "Master -> Slave" statements by Paul to the "Employer-Employee" situations of today. I would imagine that the comparison arose because expositors normally and rightfully mine the Scriptures for all they are worth and squeeze every drop of application from them. However, I think the Employer-Employee connection is more of an edifying sub-application than an actual example of a "Master-Slave" relationship; and I think that recognition is crucial.
> 
> ...


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> How does that fit with Prov 31? How can a woman buy and sell land without being in authority over someone?



Buying and selling do not necessitate ruling over someone else (male or female).

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 21, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> Wow, I sure let this one slip past me until now... I did not see this after my first post....
> 
> Should woman be part of the PB? Hmm, Interesting question... Personally, I do not see why not since it is a conversation or discussion...
> 
> ...



Good for her; she has some womanly sensibilities 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 21, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> I know what I think, but I'm keeping my mouth shut until someone says I can.



No one said you couldn't _think_...


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 21, 2008)

Coram Deo said:


> Wow, I sure let this one slip past me until now... I did not see this after my first post....
> 
> Should woman be part of the PB? Hmm, Interesting question... Personally, I do not see why not since it is a conversation or discussion...
> 
> ...


 
What about the other part of the question about women being moderators on the PB?


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 21, 2008)

> Good for her; she has some womanly sensibilities
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam


 
Does that imply women on the PB don't?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 21, 2008)




----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 21, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


>


 
 everytime i see the popcorn eating smiley i roll on the floor in hysterical laughter. (in my mind of course hehe)


----------



## Ravens (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm glad someone else does. It has the ability to instantly disarm me and make me laugh.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 21, 2008)

I was thinking about using this one....







Which I interpret to mean, "I'm not touching this subject with 10 foot pole."


----------



## Ravens (Mar 21, 2008)

That one doesn't have the absent-minded expression and _je ne sais quois_ of this little guy:


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm glad to hear that I am free to speak.


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 21, 2008)

Simply_Nikki said:


> > Good for her; she has some womanly sensibilities
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> ...



Notice the smile?


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 21, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> I'm glad to hear that I am free to speak.



HEY! Nobody said _that_.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 21, 2008)

blhowes said:


> I was reminded of this thread on the way to work this morning. Interesting experience.
> 
> I turned on the local Christian radio station and there was a woman talking. My first thought was to turn it off, which is usually what I'd do, but decided to listen for a few minutes. I thought it was probably a women's ministry of some kind. Turns out it wasn't a women's ministry, she was preaching. I ended up listening to the whole message, not out of curiosity or anything, but because it was an excellent message.
> 
> ...



Well, I've kept my mouth shut long enough! 

One of the things that has bothered me over the years is the idea (circulating in some reformed circles) that because women are not allowed to exercise teaching and leadership authority over men that God does not gift them to teach and preach. I think this is wrong. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in women pastors or elders, but I do believe some women are gifted to teach and preach and those gifts can be used in other capacities within the body of Christ. There seem to be some out there who would shut women up completely, because it's less messy. In other words,, if you just tell them to be quiet, you don't have to deal with their moodiness, come up with places for them to minister, and you don't have to deal with the fact that they are so different. 

I believe this why some gifted women (perhaps this woman) have tossed out obedience when it comes to exercising authority over men, because they've had enough of being told to be quiet. Again, this is not rebellion as much as it is frustration with where to exercise the gifts that God has given them. 

I remember my mother telling about the women preachers in her church who used to come and preach at the women's meetings. She said they were as gifted and as powerful as the men she heard from the pulpit. They would never have dreamed of stepping behind the pulpit to teach the men.


----------

