Women in Leadership, part 2: 1 Timothy 2 

Helping Preston out with some timestamps :-) 1:20 Introduction 6:25 Outline of questions that Preston is exploring with 1 Timothy 2 10:10 Context of 1 Tim 2: Wives & husbands at home, or women & men at church assembly? 15:15 What is significance of attire/behavior? Women's dress, jewelry. 36:19 What does "learning in quietness" mean? Who are wives/women to submit to? 38:33 Four questions about 1 Tim 2:12 39:12 What does "I am not permitting" mean? A temporary condition? 43:56 Meaning of authenteo? Authority? 1:10:20 What does it mean "to teach?" 1:21:00 What is the meaning of "neither/nor?" 1:31:30 Verse 13: Is Paul reasoning from creation? Adam came first. 1:35:20 Connection between verses 2:12 & 2:14? Deception of Eve. 1:41:30 Verse 15: Women "saved" through (the?) childbearing? 1:46:05 Tentative conclusion (very tentative) 1:55:00 Soft complementarianism: Not all women teaching restricted, just no women elders. 1:55:40 John Dickson's view of "teaching" 2:02:15 William Webb's trajectory argument

This was really helpful! There is so much contradictory research floating around on this passage, and in this message, the various viewpoints are given concisely and respectfully, while weighing them against scripture. Looking forward to more on this subject.

I appreciate the seriousness with which you have covered this topic. You have dug deep and that’s exactly what we all need. I also highly recommend listening to Pastor Mike Winger who has a very extensive study on this topic. (I think it is a 9 part series).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I’ve been prayerfully studying this subject as well (though not for a public writing project…I’ll look forward to reading yours!). It was really encouraging to hear the related questions that your study has raised for you in Part 1 because they are questions I’ve been led to ask as well. As for Part 2, I wonder if there’s any significance to Paul’s shift from the plural “men” and “women” in 1 Tim. 2:8-11 to the singular “woman” and “man” in verses 12-15a… It seems to me, if Paul wanted to universally ban “women” from teaching “men”, he might have stuck with the plural as opposed to switching to the singular. There doesn’t seem to be a good reason for making that transition. Aside from addressing a specific cultural issue with a woman, what are some other reasons Paul might have transitioned from plural to singular there? It’s one lingering question that I haven’t seen complementarians answer in my study thus far. I’m still reading both sides.

I don't know where he's going to land on this issue eventually, but I love the seriousness and humility Preston employs when digging into these topics. It's why I keep coming back to this channel. To me, it's strange that this is still such a hotly debated issue. A bad tree bears bad fruit. To me, the fruit of holding to a complementarian view of these passages of scripture and superimposing them on our culture has led to men often domineering with "authenteo" over women in the church, the household, and the culture. It makes Christianity look ridiculous. We don't argue like this over levitical laws like stoning adulteresses, or Sabbath adherence, or ensuring slaves remain subordinate to masters, or anything else that should clearly be viewed in their cultural context. If we are only looking at the letter of the law without also considering the spirit of the law, we are in dangerous ground.

Thank you!

Another question: is didasko to be understood alone (since it's the first word in the sentence) or does it take andros (man/husband) as its object. Most assume the latter, but a good case can be made for the former. If so, it may have some implications for application.

@1:04:00 about how complementarians don't see social hierarchy authoritarianism as a negative thing... of course not. That's how conservative leadership tends to operate. The traditional "right of kings" bestowed now upon conservative males due only to right of birth (what they're born with between their legs) yields an oppressive culture to not only women, but also to congregations under the conservative style of leadership in the church. I grew up under it in a very strict form, as a conservative Mennonite. I've been on quite a spiritual journey... and I've seen the same lords-over-God's-heritage manner of leadership in ALL types of conservative/complementarian churches.

Regarding -women being saved through child bearing if they continue.. I think this is physical child bearing but the point is not that they will live: the point is - if they continue in the faith they will be saved whether they love or die! So it does support that culturally their was a huge fear of death in childbirth and perhaps women were being lead into something ungodly to “save” themselves. Paul says- continue in the faith- that’s where your real salvation is. As you pass through childbearing you are secure (whether or not you live or die)

Interesting parallels in Hamlet’s speeches to and about his mother Gertrud. Perhaps Shakespeare was reading or at least knowledgeable about Seneca and his praise for his mother.

Mike Winger (who I know didn't impress Preston too much) also pointed out how disappointed he was with the lack of evidence/sources for some scholars claims. It'll be interesting to see where Preston is lead on this issue, as he has much more time and energy to fully throw himself into this topic than Mike. Looking forward to more instalments!