[[1 Tim-02]]

  • if women can’t teach in Church, women can’t teach anywhere (teachers, police, professors, etc.) - Charlie
    • is this a sound argument or logical fallacy?


  • vs 22: author was Tertius
  • vs 1-2 PHOEBE
    • deacon, benefactor, patron
    • Paul entrusts her to deliver (?) the letter
    • trustworthy

[[1 Cor-11]]:2-3

  • Head == Authority

  • Christ is the head of every person

  • If you cover your head you’d be acting like a woman. Gender roles

  • On covering head for mostly Roman women == I am sexually available

    • Like taking wedding ring off in public
  • Cannot be challenged

  • Celebrating gender distinction

  • Respect for cultural sexual or moral purity

  • Commitment to integrate men and women for God’s glory

[[1 Tim-02#v11]] - [[1 Tim-02#v15|15]]

  • One end: radical feminism

  • Other end: women are pregnant in the kitchen

  • Vs 12: affirming this would mean it extends outside church - lobbying against female ceos, politicians, lecturers, police officers etc.

    • Greek verb: “I do not permit” could translate to “I am not permitting (now)”, like progressive (present tense indicative)
    • Context of disruptive worship
    • Only instance of that Greek word “authority” which means asserting authority or dominating (I.e. acting on their own power to teach)
  • Women weren’t listed sometimes in long lists of proof of things happening because women of the day weren’t considered trustworthy

[[2022-08-08]] - More thoughts

I think the most compelling argument is that verses [[1 Tim-02#v13|13]] and [[1 Tim-02#v14|14]] provide reasons with a basis in the creation of man and woman.1 ![[1 Tim-02#v13]]![[1 Tim-02#v14]] HOWEVER, comma, there are a lot of arguments make about the specifications of the bounds of this teaching. I was going to say I am not entirely sure “teach” here refers to specifically spiritual teaching, but perusing the interlinear Bible it seems that this verb gets brought up in the context of spiritual teaching only.2

But also, I am still pretty convinced that this passage gets brought up in the context of addressing disruption by the women in the church proceedings of Ephesus, i.e. addressing a direct problem in this congregation (contradiction1). And so, if this is addressing this church directly, it makes sense for us to step out of the direct wording of this passage and see the message could have been, “oh, this church’s women were being Particularly disruptive, let’s try and address these issues.”

Especially since the verses above it discuss adorning oneself in expensive clothing. Actually, I think I disagree with the WEB translation of [[1 Tim-02#v9]], where it says “not just”, when I think it should be “just”. ESV for reference:

[!Bible] likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

1Timothy 2:9 - ESV

Anyway, is God forbidding all women from wearing gold and pearls to church? no. And there are moral (?) principles which guide that idea, not only those of [[Modesty]] and [[Self-control]] but, as outlined in the following verse,

![[1 Tim-02#v10]]

I am glad for our new pastor, but I am also conflicted. I am ready to [[Hold all things loosely|hold my opinions related to Christianity loosely]].


The women wearing gold and pearls was associated with the Pagan women cults (?) of the time.


[[1 Cor-11]] vs 10-13

[[Rev-02]] vs 18 onwards

  • Women can be PROPHETS

What about women on mission? Erin, Yasmin

Childbearing? [[1 Tim-02]]