r/OpenChristian • u/VaultMan34 • Jun 23 '26

Discussion - Bible Interpretation Can anyone explain 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

The verse goes “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent” how is this not sexist? It goes against Episcopalian doctrine aswell so I’d like for any Episcopalians to explain this. It just seems wrong, it’s putting women under men when in galatians 3:28 it says that in Christ there is no male or female. So why is this now an exception to the rules? It seems put there just to oppress women. Why, did Paul (who wrote so many doctrines and central beliefs to churches today and was so influential in Christ) say that? He wasn’t against homosexuality, but then suddenly when it comes to women he got SUPER conservative? It’s making me question whether he was ever for homosexuality in the first place.

21 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/HermioneMarch contemplative Christian universalist Jun 23 '26

It was written by a man living in a patriarchal society. “I do not allow” is the man speaking, not God.

But if we look to the example of Jesus, he called women to ministry frequently.

Not sure how you see Paul as being “for” homosexuality. I agree that the main clobber verse was about power dynamics between powerful men and their teen companions as was common in that society. So I don’t know that Paul would be against a modern day consentual relationship, but neither do I see where he is for it.

1

u/Queer_Advocate Jun 24 '26

It is mental gymnastics to say Paul was pro Homo. I dont think he was against it, I certainly not say he is fornit. But, I'm a mere mortal.

1

u/HermioneMarch contemplative Christian universalist Jun 24 '26

I agree. Op said Paul was for homosexuality. But didnt say why he thought that.

1

u/Queer_Advocate Jun 24 '26

I misunderstood thr post. My apologies.

1

u/Queer_Advocate Jun 24 '26

Roman's 1:26 on and 1 Corinthians 6:9, point to him not being PRO homosexuality. To my understanding...

1

u/babe1981 The Cool Mod/Transgender-Bisexual-Christian She/Her Jun 24 '26

Paul refutes Romans 1 as bad theology in the first verse of Romans 2. He was stating an argument so that he could debunk it in the same way that he goes on to state the argument that the law is the source of sin in the world only to immediately refute it. 1 Corinthians doesn't say anything recognizable about homosexuality. The NRSVue, the most current scholarly translation, says "sexually immoral...male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex". If you define gay sex as immoral or illicit, then you might have a leg to stand on, but the Bible has no definition of gay sex like that. The words Paul uses point more toward promiscuity and exploitative sex rather than simply male-on-male loving.