1 Timothy 2:11

wolfsbane

Gingganggooley wrote: »

It is ludicrous to suggest that all females are totally prohibited from teaching within the church. This passage does not go anywhere near making such a blanket taboo.

The verse in question refers to women. Who exactly are these women? They are a specific and confined coterie. These women were part of this particular church that was expressly under the charge of an individual whose name was Timothy. It is probable that Paul could have named them if he wanted to.

Should the entire church be deprived on account of a reprimand that was handed down to a local church in order to deal with the misbehaviour of, at most, a few?

We must also take into consideration the cultural setting in which these words were first written. Their societal conventions stand in stark contrast to our own, especially inter-sexual relations. The vast majority of women would have been married at a very early age and would not have been allowed to participate in many of the front line activities of society such as politics or business.

It is quite possible that all we have here is a married woman who is inappropiately usurping her husbands position in a publically humiliating fashion. She, or they, are being properly sanctioned here. However this is a far cry from saying that all women, at all times and in all ages can never utter an exhortation to edify the body of Christ.

Paul's appeal is to the creation order, not contempory society. His prohitition applies to all churches in all times. And it is in line with his teaching to other churches on the role of women:
1 Corinthians 14:34Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

That it wasn't written by Saul of Tarsus and nor indeed were any of the pastoral epistles. The Syrian/Antioch Chuch always said they were forgeries.

Really? As far as I can determine, such a position was held only by the Gnostic heretics of the early days, and revived by liberal heretics in modern days. The Church has always accepted them as genuine letters of Paul the apostle.

Perhaps you would provide some references?

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? As far as I can determine, such a position was held only by the Gnostic heretics of the early days, and revived by liberal heretics in modern days. The Church has always accepted them as genuine letters of Paul the apostle.

Perhaps you would provide some references?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html

1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 379-80):

. . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.

In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):

The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.

And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.


If you bear with me I'm trying to find where it was that I learned that the Antioch Church considered them apocrypha. I digest things and then forget where I found them

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html

1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 379-80):

. . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.

In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):

The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.

And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.


If you bear with me I'm trying to find where it was that I learned that the Antioch Church considered them apocrypha. I digest things and then forget where I found them

These arguments against Pauline authorship have been rebutted by conservative scholars, eg. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Tyndale Press, London 1970.

Good cases for and against exist, and are of interest to scholars; but the issue is settled for ordinary Christians by the total support for Pauline authorship which the Church has held from the beginning.

An example: Marcion was a heretic and blatantly rejected any book that did not support his theology. He would have had problems with Paul's treatment of the Law as 'good'.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

the issue is settled for ordinary Christians by the total support for Pauline authorship which the Church has held from the beginning.

An example: Marcion was a heretic and blatantly rejected any book that did not support his theology. He would have had problems with Paul's treatment of the Law as 'good'.

I have seen no evidence of the support of which you talk just assumptions. The first mention of 1 Tim is by Irenaeus in about 170AD AFAIK. Marcion heretic though he was, was the first to collate any kind of Gospel and he did include Pauline epistles. It's kind of hard to say really what the earliest Christians held to be true because there were so many different types and congregations of early Christians. The orthodoxy didn't really crystalise until Constantine got a hand to the helm and the NT wasn't collated until some good period after this. I do have it in my head for some reason that the Church at Antioch from fairly far back did not accept the pastoral epistles as genuine.

hivizman

Some other views on the authorship of I Timothy (and II Timothy and Titus - collectively the Pastoral Letters).

1. A Roman Catholic view is provided by Professor Raymond E Brown in An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday: 1997, p. 668 - original in italics):

About 80 to 90 percent of modern scholars would agree that the Pastorals were written after Paul's lifetime, and of those the majority would accept the period between 80 and 100 as the most plausible context for their composition.

2. In The Oxford Companion to the Bible (OUP, 1993, pp. 573-576), Robert J. Karris writes:

While the Pastoral Letters have a noticeable Pauline character, there are five major areas in which they differ from the indisputedly genuine Pauline letters: vocabulary, theological concepts, church order, reliance on traditions, and inconsistencies with Paul's career as set out in Acts and Romans. . . . While the Pastoral Letters were not written by Paul, there is no doubt of their Pauline character.

3. John Bowker, in The Complete Bible Handbook (Dorling Kindersley: 1998, p. 447):

There is a case for Paul writing II Timothy and for I Timothy being based on it. . . . The letters are not mentioned by Christian writers until the second half of the second century CE, supporting the view that they were written after Paul died.

4. Bishop Tom Wright, a fairly conservative but highly rigorous scholar, notes in his Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters (SPCK, 2003, p. x):

Many have wondered whether Paul himself could have written these letters, which are very different in some respects from the others. This book isn't the place to discuss such matters; what concerns us here is what the letters say and how they relate to us today.

I tend to come down on Tom Wright's side here - given that I Timothy is accepted as part of the canonical New Testament, academic debates about whether or not Paul, as opposed to a follower or disciple of Paul, was the actual author are only secondary to what the book says and how its message should be understood today. Wright translates I Timothy 2:11-12 as:

They [i.e. women] must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. I'm not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; rather, that they should be left undisturbed.

Wright interprets verse 11 as an instruction that women should be permitted to study and learn, rather than being kept in a position of subordination, ignorance and drudgery. He argues that verse 12 is a way of saying "I don't mean to imply that I'm now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women."

I think that Wright is embarrassed by the traditional interpretations of these verses, and his reinterpretation seems somewhat forced, but at least it's an attempt to reconcile the statements in I Timothy with those more clearly favourable to women in some of the undisputed Pauline epistles.

Fanny Cradock

Good post.

O'Coonassa

hivizman wrote: »

I tend to come down on Tom Wright's side here - given that I Timothy is accepted as part of the canonical New Testament, academic debates about whether or not Paul, as opposed to a follower or disciple of Paul, was the actual author are only secondary to what the book says

I disagree somewhat, if the epistles were offered under false pretence then it invalidates the authenticity of what they have to say. You may as well go and write your own epistle and claim it to be Pauls. Indeed, you seem to be saying that anybody at all could have written whatever they liked on whatever matter of theology and so long as it was included in the orthodox canon that's fine by you, it's the word of God. If I have you right this attitude seems a little odd to me on account of the very many admonitions that were given against Scribes.

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

An example: Marcion was a heretic and blatantly rejected any book that did not support his theology. He would have had problems with Paul's treatment of the Law as 'good'.

Marcion actually didn't blatantly reject any book that didn't support his theology, for example he used the Gospel of Luke and that provides a birth narrative for Jesus even though Marcion was a docetist and didn't believe Jesus was actually born. However he did not reject Luke, instead he ommitted the first two chapters as he believed these to be later additions to the Gospel and he was just returning Luke to its pristine original.

Similarly Marcion did not reject Pauline epistles in which Paul quoted the Old Testament as scripture or where he claimed the Law to be good, instead he just ommitted the offending passages to remove, what he claimed, was later forged additions to Paul's true message.

That Marcion did not include the pastoral epistles cannot be easily written off as just that they were contrary to his theology, this problem did not stop him with any of the other books of his canon.

The fact is that of the 13 letters supposedly written by Paul that made it into the NT there are three which stand out for numerous reasons as being very different from the other ten and it just so happens that it is these very three which did not make it into the very earliest Christian canon which was composed by a man whose very theology hinged on Paul and his writings.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I disagree somewhat, if the epistles were offered under false pretence then it invalidates the authenticity of what they have to say. You may as well go and write your own epistle and claim it to be Pauls. Indeed, you seem to be saying that anybody at all could have written whatever they liked on whatever matter of theology and so long as it was included in the orthodox canon that's fine by you, it's the word of God. If I have you right this attitude seems a little odd to me on account of the very many admonitions that were given against Scribes.

Yes, this is the only honest response if Paul is not the author. The letter is a lie and not Scripture. Those commentators who deny Paul's authorship but claim to be Christians show the nature of their faith.

wolfsbane

Charco wrote: »

Marcion actually didn't blatantly reject any book that didn't support his theology, for example he used the Gospel of Luke and that provides a birth narrative for Jesus even though Marcion was a docetist and didn't believe Jesus was actually born. However he did not reject Luke, instead he ommitted the first two chapters as he believed these to be later additions to the Gospel and he was just returning Luke to its pristine original.

Similarly Marcion did not reject Pauline epistles in which Paul quoted the Old Testament as scripture or where he claimed the Law to be good, instead he just ommitted the offending passages to remove, what he claimed, was later forged additions to Paul's true message.

That Marcion did not include the pastoral epistles cannot be easily written off as just that they were contrary to his theology, this problem did not stop him with any of the other books of his canon.

The fact is that of the 13 letters supposedly written by Paul that made it into the NT there are three which stand out for numerous reasons as being very different from the other ten and it just so happens that it is these very three which did not make it into the very earliest Christian canon which was composed by a man whose very theology hinged on Paul and his writings.

Marcion's canon was not a Christian canon. Marcion was the enemy of early Christianity. OK, he could have deleted offending passages of the pastorals, or he could omit them entirely. What would best serve his purpose? I don't know - but the fact that he openly distorted the Christian writings should give us no reason to respect his judgment on anything. He was not in love with Paul and his writings - just with bits of Paul's writings he could twist to give his own heresy a respectable face.

The conservative scholars solidly defend the Pauline authorship of the pastorals, refuting the objections point by point. I expect liberals to be favourable to any interpretation that conflicts with authentic Christianity.

wolfsbane

hivizman said:

I think that Wright is embarrassed by the traditional interpretations of these verses, and his reinterpretation seems somewhat forced, but at least it's an attempt to reconcile the statements in I Timothy with those more clearly favourable to women in some of the undisputed Pauline epistles.

How's this from an undisputed Pauline epistle:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

The restrictions on women's roles in the church are based in their creation relationship to man. Submission is the key word, one that rules them out from spiritual leadership and teaching authority over men.

And it is not just Pauline. Peter says the same:
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

hivizman

wolfsbane wrote: »

The restrictions on women's roles in the church are based in their creation relationship to man. Submission is the key word, one that rules them out from spiritual leadership and teaching authority over men.

The "passages more clearly favourable to women" that Bishop Tom Wright mentions include Romans 16 (where Paul refers to several women as "deacons" or "apostles" - implying spiritual leadership and teaching authority), I Corinthians 11:5 (often quoted as an "anti-woman" verse because Paul calls for women who pray or prophesy to cover their heads, but the implication is there that women would indeed pray or prophesy in church, and hence would not be silent at all times), and Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".

On the other hand, he didn't refer to Colossians 3:18: "Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord."

wolfsbane

hivizman wrote: »

The "passages more clearly favourable to women" that Bishop Tom Wright mentions include Romans 16 (where Paul refers to several women as "deacons" or "apostles" - implying spiritual leadership and teaching authority), I Corinthians 11:5 (often quoted as an "anti-woman" verse because Paul calls for women who pray or prophesy to cover their heads, but the implication is there that women would indeed pray or prophesy in church, and hence would not be silent at all times), and Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".

On the other hand, he didn't refer to Colossians 3:18: "Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord."

Yes, if it meant apostle it would be spiritual leadership. But there is no indication it is. Female deacons is another matter - the deacon has no spiritual leadership role.

The head-covering passage says nothing about praying or prophesying in church, though it is possible. My assembly permits women to pray in the meeting. Other churches don't. But all agree that the silence imposed at least refers to teaching. Prophesying is not teaching, but the conveying of God's words directly.

Splendour

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, if it meant apostle it would be spiritual leadership. But there is no indication it is. Female deacons is another matter - the deacon has no spiritual leadership role.

The head-covering passage says nothing about praying or prophesying in church, though it is possible. My assembly permits women to pray in the meeting. Other churches don't. But all agree that the silence imposed at least refers to teaching. Prophesying is not teaching, but the conveying of God's words directly.

Hi wolfsbane,

can I ask if the women in your church cover their their heads whilst they are praying?

Gingganggooley

wolfsbane wrote: »

hivizman said:

How's this from an undisputed Pauline epistle:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

The restrictions on women's roles in the church are based in their creation relationship to man. Submission is the key word, one that rules them out from spiritual leadership and teaching authority over men.

And it is not just Pauline. Peter says the same:
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

The passages are addressed to wifes. They are to be submissive to their own husbands, not, other men. And, as the onus is on them to be submissive, it is not our responsibility to make them be so.

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

Hi wolfsbane,

can I ask if the women in your church cover their their heads whilst they are praying?

Yes.

wolfsbane

Gingganggooley wrote: »

The passages are addressed to wifes. They are to be submissive to their own husbands, not, other men. And, as the onus is on them to be submissive, it is not our responsibility to make them be so.

Women, including wives. Of course, wives are to be in submission to their own husbands - but the principle is extended that women are to behave in the church accordingly. So they are not permitted to lead/teach.

The commandment is given, and it is up to the church to see it is observed, not just left to one's discretion. Do we leave the commandment for sexual purity up to one's own discretion? Or against stealing?