1 Timothy 2:15

[inhistime]

But maybe you're right. If I'm allowed to make negative claims without supporting them, then how about this:

Nowhere does the bible teach egalitarianism.

I have searched the bible from cover to cover and found no such teaching. Prove me wrong! I think that since this claim has the greater balance of truth by default. You're in trouble.

1 Corinthians 7:4:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Equal authority is egalitarianism.

Now where does the bible say that the husband has unilateral authority over the wife?

[OopsMartin]

This is not so. No where in Scripture did God say to Eve, or even Adam you must not touch the fruit. It was Eve who said in Genisis 3:3, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT, lest ye die." This was the first lie spoken by human beings. God never ever commanded that the fruit could not be touched, or even looked at, only that it was not to be eaten.

You say nowhere in Scripture does God say to Eve, but you are quoting the Scripture where Eve says God said. And when she said that she had no reason to lie, plus she did not know what lying was. At that moment they both were far far more pure in heart and motive than any human has ever been since. It is illogical to say that she was lying.

[firehill]

This is not so. No where in Scripture did God say to Eve, or even Adam you must not touch the fruit. It was Eve who said in Genisis 3:3, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT, lest ye die." This was the first lie spoken by human beings. God never ever commanded that the fruit could not be touched, or even looked at, only that it was not to be eaten.

She defended what God said (unlike her husband who was with her) yet tradition (not the bible) teaches that she was a liar? The serpent was the liar not the woman who actualy defended God. Strange how though the serpent was the liar and not the defender, he attacks the woman, she defends God and yet tradition makes her out to be a liar.

The bible says one thing and then tradition another. Does it really make any sense?

[Guest]

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Luke 18:13

[Neopatriarch]

Neopatriarch said:

Now when you claim that Paul has stopped the teaching of one of the deceived teachers do you mean to say that there was a particular woman Paul was singling out for his proscription? The indefinite article seems to indicate that it could be any woman. Paul is stating a general principle and applying it to a specific situation.

It wouldn't make sense for this passage to be stopping all women from teaching as the context is clearly referencing deception.

It says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." Of course it's not proscribing women from teaching in general.

Everyone who is saved is saved through the Messiah. To claim that the 'deceived woman' is saved in the same way everyone else is saved makes a moot point.

What Paul is doing is comparing the deception of Eve to the deception of the deceived Ephesian woman and he is giving hope for her salvation just as God gave mercy to Eve.

Are you saying Eve was saved?

Comparison or not, on your understanding the verse says "Yet she will be saved through the Childbirth." So, either Paul is singling out the wife who is a false teacher for salvation through the Messiah or he is claiming that this wife will be saved the same way everyone else is saved and making a moot point.

Paul then goes on not just to say that there are some things that she must do to be saved.

She must do some things to be saved? Works salvation?

These things are things that Paul has already referenced in chapter one regarding his prohibiting the deceived teachers from teaching error. Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:5 said:

Now the goal of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,

The goal of the prohibition is to produce love out of a pure heart, to bring about a good conscience and to have sincere faith.

15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing

[Guest Biblicist]

From Bible.org A trusted website.

tn Or "But she will be preserved through childbearing," or "But she will be saved in spite of childbearing." This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, "1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance," TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73). (1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul's and Jesus' teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10). (2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high infant mortality rate). (3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth

[Guest Biblicist]

Wouldn't post the whole thing. . . ??

Grrrrr. . .

Well you can read it on the link above.

[OopsMartin]

From Bible.org A trusted website.

tn Or "But she will be preserved through childbearing," or "But she will be saved in spite of childbearing." This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, "1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance," TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73). (1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul's and Jesus' teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10). (2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high infant mortality rate). (3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth

[OopsMartin]

It wouldn't make sense for this passage to be stopping all women from teaching as the context is clearly referencing deception. We know that not all women are deceived and not all women are easily deceived. So what is Paul's normal practice when it comes to those who are deceived? Well, we know that Paul has no problem in identifying those who are deceivers as he identifies two of them in chapter one of 1 Timothy. Hymenaeus and Alexander are identified by Paul but they are not the deceived but actual deceivers. In 2 Timothy 2:17 Hymenaeus is mentioned as one who teaches that the resurrection had already happened. But Paul never identifies the deceived by name. If you will research Paul's writings about error, he never once records the names of the deceived. Paul's hope was that the deceived could be reached with the truth and it would not be a good thing for their names to be forever linked with their deception once they are saved. No Paul is kind and gentle to the deceived. "A woman" would have been one of the deceived and not a deceiver because Paul says that she must learn. The deceivers were not open to learning except by being handed over to Satan "to learn not to blaspheme".

Paul several times mentions "a man" in a generic way when it is evident that he is not talking about generic man. In 2 Cor. 12:2 Paul said

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows) was caught up to the third heaven.

Now every man was caught up into the third heaven and most commentators believe the "a man" was Paul himself. Paul also named "a man" as living with his father's wife. Not every man was living with his father's wife so the "a man" was most certainly an individual person.

Wonderful studious insight and research here. You have a gift and I am glad to be blessed by it.

[Neopatriarch]

An excellent treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 can be found at this link:

Saved through childbearing? by Andreas Kostenberger.

-Neopatriach