1 Timothy 2:15

[firehill]

You may be right and since I have almost no experience with discussion forums I will accept your words that this happens all the time. However it seems to me that there should be a gracious spirit whether we are dialoging in person or only through writing. One of the things that Jesus commanded us to do was to love each other. Non-believers should certainly see that love coming through us otherwise we look just like them.

On your lighter note, I am amazed that you are interested in someone about twenty years older which would make her 74 years old! Yes marriage is meant to be a beautiful covenantal relationship and when both partners respect each other and seek to serve each other for the best of the other partner, it marriage relationship properly reflects the church and her head. I have seen men exercise their "headship" in the role as ruler which is so prevalent today and I have seen the unhappiness that comes when a woman is treated like she is to remain in a childlike state having no authority to make any decision for herself. God never meant for a woman to lose her identify in a marriage. The two becoming one is a unity of equals with each one preferring the other. There is safety in a loving relationship and when men love their women this way, they will not give preference to their own desires nor will they treat their women as unpaid servants. Thankfully many complementarian marriages have a basic egalitarian relationship where both make the decisions together. More and more people are seeing this as the loving way to work out a one-flesh union.

The saddest thing that I find in the Christian community is an attitude that women have nothing spiritually to give to men. The men will agree that women can spiritually serve other women and children, but their view is the same as John MacArthur's when he said that the highest spiritual source of a woman will always be a man. This puts women in a lesser category even with other women and this type of preferential treatment is not Christ-like nor is it biblical. I think that it is right to challenge this view. I try really hard to challenge with love and with dignity and respect because this is the way that I like to be treated too.

Ah well, on your lighter note, I thought you were younger. Your video looks like a young fortyish.

"The saddest thing that I find in the Christian community is an attitude that women have nothing spiritually to give to men."

that was an asture observation. Yet, that was the very lesson that God taught Adam, that he needed the woman, which meant she had something to offer him besides her presence. After all, the animals gave him silent presence; silent in the sense of no equal discourse.

Hey thanks for thinking I am a young fortyish. I will take that as a compliment and remind my grandchildren when they observe all the white hairs! My oldest granddaughter says that my hair is "peachy-white". I guess you can't see that as well on the screen as she can a few inches from my face.

My passion is not only for the cults but to help Christian women who have been marginalized and have been silenced by men. God has given so many of them awesome gifts for the use of the entire body of Christ and these gifts are what we need in this very dangerous time. I have been blessed to have many men come alongside me after they see the gifts that God has given me. When they need someone in the spiritual battlefield, they call on me. In those times their prejudice just seems to disappear and for that I am most grateful.

Any woman who has been marginalised or silenced by a man has not known the true Gospel of Jesus, nor has the man who has inflicted the marginalisation and silencing.

Though I wouldn't equate those who've marginalized or silenced women (in any form except the reason of false teaching, being deceived, etc.) with those who have not known the true Gospel, I will ask though that since for almost 2000 years (technicaly since about 350-400ad?) it has been the visable insitutionalized church generaly speaking which has done this therefore would you say that most of the IC has not known the true gospel?

It is one thing for Paul to offer directions vis-a vis order in church...

Can you provide from the complete context of the passage how Paul is offering directions on church order, i.e., men should be the teachers and have authority while women should not? If that is your view of what Paul is saying or if that it what you've been taught then an exegesis would be in order. I cannot find a thing as to what you are talking about in the entire context.

I watched this morning in our church fellowship as three very competent women led the service, preached the sermon, conducted worship and lead in prayer. And I wondered what all those lazy men were doing (and there were plenty of them) leaning back in their seats!

Are you assuming to who the Spirit has distributed the gifts as in those men were given the gift of teaching and pastorship by the spirit?

It seemed to me that they had become over-reliant on capable women to do the job for them and were far too comfortable in taking a back-seat.

If the Holy Spirit hadn't called them to the position then why would they not rely on the women who have been called and gifted so?

Men, on the whole, are more likely to take a position from reason than from emotion - which suits me just fine.

Have any who hold to the view that women should not teach or have authority over men as of yet been able to reason out the passage under discussion from the context showing that it teaches the restricting of women from true teaching? Since they've not it shows me that their reason and judgement has been clouded which is not a position from reason at all.

[OopsMartin]

Men, on the whole, are more likely to take a position from reason than from emotion - which suits me just fine.

This used to be a very common human "reasoning". Thankfully, we have since learned:

1. men do not have a corner or intellect or reason, we just tend to do it differently. Sometimes this is good and sometimes not.

2. women do not have a corner on emotion, they just tend to express it differently than men do. And since men tend toward violence with their emotions more often than women, it is a good thing that women express theirs differently.

3. since there is zero in Scripture on this subject we as Christians have absolutely no business stating such a theory as if it were fact.

[methinkshe]

Men, on the whole, are more likely to take a position from reason than from emotion - which suits me just fine.

This used to be a very common human "reasoning". Thankfully, we have since learned:

1. men do not have a corner or intellect or reason, we just tend to do it differently. Sometimes this is good and sometimes not.

2. women do not have a corner on emotion, they just tend to express it differently than men do. And since men tend toward violence with their emotions more often than women, it is a good thing that women express theirs differently.

3. since there is zero in Scripture on this subject we as Christians have absolutely no business stating such a theory as if it were fact.

Men, on the whole, are more likely to take a position from reason than from emotion - which suits me just fine. I offer this as a general observation and personal preference, not as a rule, because there are always the exceptions to the rule.

It is always helpful in any debate to quote the full context of any statement.

Ruth

[firehill]

I really don't understand how this argument has anything to do with the OP though?

Title: 1 Timothy 2:15

OP: Could someone shed some light on this verse?

Is Paul referring to the curse of childbirth, initiated by God in Genesis?

The OP questions the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15. If 1 Tim 2:15 is ripped out of it's context and not considered in light of it then there is no way to understand the OP which is the meaning of the verse. Therefore the context (which we've been discussing) that the verse is found in must be considered which has everything to do with the OP. Make sense?

In v.15. Paul was not refering to any curse put on the woman nor did he speak of such a thing anywhere in the passage and it's entire context just as neither does Genesis 3 say anything about a curse on the woman. That there was no curse put on the woman can be easily understood when taken to it's full conclusion, in light of the Christ not coming through a curse! That would be blasphemous. Only the ground and the serpent were cursed as Gen 3 says.

[OopsMartin]

Men, on the whole, are more likely to take a position from reason than from emotion - which suits me just fine.

This used to be a very common human "reasoning". Thankfully, we have since learned:

1. men do not have a corner or intellect or reason, we just tend to do it differently. Sometimes this is good and sometimes not.

2. women do not have a corner on emotion, they just tend to express it differently than men do. And since men tend toward violence with their emotions more often than women, it is a good thing that women express theirs differently.

3. since there is zero in Scripture on this subject we as Christians have absolutely no business stating such a theory as if it were fact.

Men, on the whole, are more likely to take a position from reason than from emotion - which suits me just fine. I offer this as a general observation and personal preference, not as a rule, because there are always the exceptions to the rule.

It is always helpful in any debate to quote the full context of any statement.

Ruth

My point is that there is no such rule. Humanity, made in the image of God, made as both male and female, together have the intellect to hold guardianship over the creatioon. And all humans have the ability to have emotion. Neither emotion nor intellect are divided in an imbalance between the genders. The expression of intellect is different among individuals and the expression of emotion is expressed differently in different cultures as well as between the genders but not radically different.

You are free to observe anything you want through any tint of glasses and you may express your own personal preferences, but you do not have the authority or power to impose a rule of expression on the human race. People need to be free to become who they were created by God to be, rather than be molded by preferential systems.

[Guest Biblicist]

I really don't understand how this argument has anything to do with the OP though?

Title: 1 Timothy 2:15

OP: Could someone shed some light on this verse?

Is Paul referring to the curse of childbirth, initiated by God in Genesis?

The OP questions the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15. If 1 Tim 2:15 is ripped out of it's context and not considered in light of it then there is no way to understand the OP which is the meaning of the verse. Therefore the context (which we've been discussing) that the verse is found in must be considered which has everything to do with the OP. Make sense?

In v.15. Paul was not refering to any curse put on the woman nor did he speak of such a thing anywhere in the passage and it's entire context just as neither does Genesis 3 say anything about a curse on the woman. That there was no curse put on the woman can be easily understood when taken to it's full conclusion, in light of the Christ not coming through a curse! That would be blasphemous. Only the ground and the serpent were cursed as Gen 3 says.

I completely agree that Bible Verses should never be taken out of the context of scripture. However, I am still not seeing the connection. How does a singluar woman false teacher connect with women, in general, being saved through childbirth. Something is being missed here.

No curse on the woman?

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

Um, yeah, that's a curse. But also a blessing. The curse is the pain when we are NOT chidbearing. I can take labor and delivery any day. It's the rest of the time, the pain for "no good reason" that is the curse for me! I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

One question, are you guys translating this passage from the Original Greek/Hebrew? OR are you using current English translations of God's word?

Xreference for 1 Timothy 2:15

Genesis 3:15 And I will put hostility between you and the woman

and between your offspring and her offspring;

her offspring will attack your head,

and you will attack her offspring's heel [First promise of the Saviour]

Isaiah 7:14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel. [Promise of the Saviour]

Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you vacillate,

you who were once like an unfaithful daughter?

For I, the Lord, promise to bring about something new on the earth,

something as unique as a woman protecting a man!" [interesting wording, again, promise of the Saviour]

Galatians 4:4 But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

[OopsMartin]

No curse on the woman?

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

Um, yeah, that's a curse. But also a blessing. The curse is the pain when we are NOT chidbearing. I can take labor and delivery any day. It's the rest of the time, the pain for "no good reason" that is the curse for me! I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

One question, are you guys translating this passage from the Original Greek/Hebrew? OR are you using current English translations of God's word?

While Gen. 3:16 is a difficult passage to interpret, what IS certain is that God is NOT cursing her OR the man. The judgment for them was determined prior. When they ate of the fruit in an act of disobedience, one by deception and one by rebellion, then the predetermined judgment of death came upon them both.

I have heard it suggested that the increase in child labor (same Hebrew word as in vs. 17 where the man will toil) is an increase in children that the woman would bear. That is an indirect blessing in that children are needed to help with the hardships of living in a cursed world. The husband ruling harshly over the woman is a warning of what to expect. Because sin has now been introduced into humans life, men would seek to rule over people instead of the rule of guardianship of the earth and creatures. This is a picture of the strong ruling over the weaker; a characteristic of sin.

[firehill]

No curse on the woman?

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

Um, yeah, that's a curse. But also a blessing. The curse is the pain when we are NOT chidbearing. I can take labor and delivery any day. It's the rest of the time, the pain for "no good reason" that is the curse for me! I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

God spoke directly to the serpent, the woman and the man. God said, 'cursed are you' to the serpent, in Gen 3:14. God also said, 'cursed is the ground' to the man, in Gen 3:17. Are you saying that GOD SAID, 'cursed are you' to the woman and the man like he did to the serpent while he was talking directly to them? The only words in the bible you could possibly be refering to are God's own having come directly out of his mouth.

If for you pain is a curse and occurs when you are not childbearing that belongs to you. You shouldn't think that you are cursed when God didn't say so.

I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

How can you begin to understand a curse in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman?

Show me where God said, because he is the ONLY one doing the talking directly to the serpent, the woman, and the man. The curse you think you are under isn't found in the text. What you need to do in order to support your unverified claim is provide evidence that God 'cursed' the woman and by that I mean, QUOTE HIM. DON'T ADD to his words but QUOTE HIM. Quote his words and his usage of the word 'curse' since he used the word twice in Gen 3. Show me where God said to the woman that she is cursed. Now you can say that the woman is cursed but you cannot say that God said.

[inhistime]

methinkshe said:

Any woman who has been marginalised or silenced by a man has not known the true Gospel of Jesus, nor has the man who has inflicted the marginalisation and silencing. It is one thing for Paul to offer directions vis-a vis order in church and another thing entirely for his directions re church to be interpreted as a carte blanche for men to lord it over women in absolutum. I do not believe that that was ever his intention. As a woman, I am neither silenced nor marginalised by men - however, I do prefer to allow men to take up teaching positions in church, not the least because men have a tendency to be lazy if given half an opportunity, and when women step into the gap they do so at the expense of a lot of male folded hands! I watched this morning in our church fellowship as three very competent women led the service, preached the sermon, conducted worship and lead in prayer. And I wondered what all those lazy men were doing (and there were plenty of them) leaning back in their seats! It seemed to me that they had become over-reliant on capable women to do the job for them and were far too comfortable in taking a back-seat. Also, and you probably will not agree with this, but it is my honestly held opinion, I never appreciate a woman's teaching as much as I do a man's - it always seems to be overlaid with emotionalism at best, and to be patronising at worst - better suited to Sunday school. Men, on the whole, are more likely to take a position from reason than from emotion - which suits me just fine. I offer this as a general observation and personal preference, not as a rule, because there are always the exceptions to the rule.

One other question for you, Inhistime: why was Jesus born as a man and not as a woman? I'd like to hear your understanding.

Ruth

Ruth,

Jesus was born as a man and not a woman because he was the second Adam and not the second Eve. The first Adam brought sin into the world and the last Adam paid for our sin. It all has to do with the kinsman redeemer. I wrote an article for my blog that has multiple drawings that I created to illustrate the reason why it was important that Jesus was a man and that Eve was created from the body of Adam. I would copy the article here but I can't seem to make the "insert image" option work. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/ad...-of-the-family/

As far as the suggestion that women should let men teach because otherwise men would be lazy and fold their hands and let the women do the work, I don't buy that. It seems to me that if the men take this view then the men are blaming the women for their inaction. It is like Adam blaming Eve for his eating the fruit. Secondly although it is good to encourage all to be mature and take responsibility to use their gifts, we may be penalizing women for being mature and using their gifts in the way that God has gifted them. Lastly, whether a woman takes responsibility for teaching or not often doesn't change whether men will be responsible or not. When I was a young mom I would take the time to have devotions with my children. Then I was told by the church that I should not take the lead since that would be usurping my husband's leadership role. If I stopped providing for my children's spiritual development then my husband would pick up and do the work, at least that was the premise. Well, guess what? I stopped the teaching and gave him the responsibility. He tried a few times and then let it drop. That went on for a few years. I felt guilty that the kids weren't getting spiritual guidance with their devotions. Then when I took the responsibility back again, I felt guilty once again because this was not supposed to be my responsibility. Yet in the end I came to understand that it is both parent's responsibility. The spiritual example through leadership is not on one person's head. I will answer to God for what I did or didn't do and my husband will have to do the same. The end result of me taking the responsibility for the spirituality in the home was a very good thing for the kids. The kids respect both of us, but they look to me for the answers to the hard questions and I am honored to help them in any way that I can. Now my husband and I share our spiritual journey and we are closer than ever. It has been a good thing for our family to follow Jesus' example instead of a man-made restriction.

[inhistime]

Biblicist said:

I completely agree that Bible Verses should never be taken out of the context of scripture. However, I am still not seeing the connection. How does a singluar woman false teacher connect with women, in general, being saved through childbirth. Something is being missed here.

Here is where you need to see the inspired words and the inspired grammar. The word "women" is not in verse 15. A singular woman false teacher "she" will be saved if "they"... "They" is plural but it is not plural feminine. If Paul had meant to say women he would have done so, but he didn't. "She" refers back to "a woman" from verse 12. "They" refers back to "a woman" AND "a man" from verse 12. The "they" is the particular husband and wife that Paul is dealing with. "She" has been teaching and influencing him in her error. Does that make more sense?

No curse on the woman?

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

Um, yeah, that's a curse. But also a blessing.

No it isn't a curse. A curse is an extremely bad thing and we cannot make the text say something that it doesn't. The Hebrew words in this passage mean that God will greatly increase her labor. The word for "labor" is the same word that Adam is told he will experience. It is hard work. Why will God greatly increase her work? Because she is going to have many more children than she was created to have. Because she is now subject to death, God said that he will increase her conception. The Hebrew word for "childbearing" means conception. Who knows how often she would have had conception before sin. Perhaps it was only every ten years or every twenty....or it's your guess. God greatly increased her conception so that the world would be populated before Adam and Eve died. This is not a curse, this is a necessity. However because God changed her conception, and because of her giving birth in her body that had started the process of dying, her child birth will now be painful. This is not a curse but a direct result of her changed body. If God wanted to say that it was a curse, he would have said it. We cannot put words into God's mouth.

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

One question, are you guys translating this passage from the Original Greek/Hebrew? OR are you using current English translations of God's word?

Have a close look at the verse you just quoted and see what you are missing. To Adam he (God) said, "Cursed is...." cursed is what? Cursed is Adam? No. Cursed is....the ground. Do you see the difference between cursing the ground and cursing Adam. God didn't say cursed is the ground because of Eve's sin. He said cursed is the ground because of Adam. When we add to God's inspired words we change the entire meaning. God did not curse Adam and he did not curse Eve.