I guess Deborah was living in sin. As was Pricilla, and several other women who were leading churches in the New Testament including one whose name was changed to a masculine name because they couldn’t believe Paul had endorsed a woman. No time to write more. I need to go teach my Bible class which includes men who would never have heard the gospel had I not been there to tell them.
Deborah was a judge during Israel's collapse cycle, not a priest or doctrinal teacher. Judges isn't a blueprint it's a tragedy log. "No king in Israel, everyone did what was right in their own eyes."
Priscilla taught Apollos privately. Paul permits that. What he forbids is the teaching office over men in assembly. You're collapsing categories he keeps distinct.
Junia was "known among the apostles" not confirmed as holding teaching office over a congregation. Even if apostle in the missionary sense, that's frontier work, not settled eldership.
"Men wouldn't have heard without me" is pragmatic veto of Scripture. Saul's sacrifice at Gilgal was pragmatically necessary too. God called it rebellion.
Paul knew women could teach effectively. He still wrote 1 Timothy 2:12 and grounded it in Genesis, not Ephesian culture.
Name one woman in the New Testament holding elder/overseer office in an established congregation. Not prophesying. Not evangelizing. Not private instruction. Elder office. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
Thanks for clarifying. I’m not an elder in an established church, simply unpacking Scripture in a group Bible study, so your prohibition doesn’t apply.
I was prompted to go back and read Donna Howell’s very wordy but scholarly book “The Handmaiden’s Conspiracy”
Interesting that Paul used a Greek word in 1 Tim that is used only once in Scripture and wasn’t translated as authority until the fourth century. Until then, in other literature, it referred to totalitarian control of a violent or sexual nature used for personal gain or to harm.
There seems to have been a woman in the congregation who was acting as a pagan Oracle and had one or more of the men in her power.
Paul say “I do not permit” essentially separating this particular passage from the universal “thus sayeth the Lord” of most of his writings, and switches to the singular, indicating that there might have been one particular woman that needed to be dealt with.
Once again, thanks for bringing this up and prompting me to review the validity of my own calling.
The way I read it in Judges is that Deborah acted in authority only after the established authority (the man) refused to fulfill his role as leader and cowardicely (?) begged her to do it. She humbly said, [ok, but I will get the glory, not you]. This also was not "in the assembly", but in a civil, governmental matter. I don't think I'm "explaining Paul away", but he did give that caveat: In the church (assembly).
Interesting how often those facts are glossed over. There is also no consideration for the culture that Paul was addressing in his letters. If I'm correct, Jesus came to redeem ALL from the Fall. That includes woman.
It all started with feminism and a women’s right to vote. Anti biblical modernism created by the antichrist movement sponsored by the beast system described in Revelation. Thx for sharing.
It did not. You are an ugly and short sighted man, foolishly expounding on your own fallen nature. As this teaching shows, this verse applies only to a woman teaching doctrine over a man. Feminism began from men's pride, arrogance and abuse of women, silencing them in all areas of life.
Laura, I was about to write a very similar view...you beat me to it ! my major point though was going to be that women would be very happy to have the male "take charge' so to speak if it were in a Godly way with humility, consideration, pro activeness and sensible judgement instead of too-often pasty, apathetic, ignorance of Scripture and complacency that so prevails in Christian men. (and I beg to differ about women not being permitted to women teaching doctrine....more than one example of one taking the lead here ).
There is another way to read this verse, almost unknown but grounded in a deep understanding of the entire letter, its detailed context, and remarks by Paul in his other related letters. I will not attempt to defend that reading, however. Eisegesis slips into many teachings.
True....only to attempt to keep them second class citizens in Christianity. Thankfully the early Christians and Paul and most importantly, Jesus Himself knew, and had no issue with encouraging them.
I have to say, this is a fairly well balanced view of things. Women have a place where they can teach and hold authority, but they should not be fully leading a church.
Thank you for taking the time to write this in the style that you did it. Isn’t it time Christians are addressed as adults especially when it comes to the very clear issues? It is obvious for any thinking sensible adult that the issue and result of men and women being made so “equal” is what has led to so many serious problems. If we are to improve and I dream about fixing these serious problems then this, must be dealt with and I believe must be corrected. It is by restoring the way God designed things. The self deception that goes on in the minds and spaces of these feminists is sin. They need to repent if they want to find true favor with God and man. This is not meant to provoke anyone but to honor God the Creator and express in a meager way my appreciation for anyone who is willing to “speak” the truth on this specific issue and any issue related to it. Please, I plead with men, be men, and women let’s be the kind of women who please The Lord.
Authority is responsibility not domination. We will all be held responsible for how we steward the lives and resources given to us by the Lord. I’ve been joyfully married for almost 44 years, and I respect my husband more than anyone, but he is gentle, loving, and kind. This is the model of relationship Jesus shows. He was God, He took responsibility, he modeled sacrificial love in humility. When we walk as spirit filled disciples this conversation disappears. Carnal lust for power is the driver of these arguments.
Half your timeline is literally AI so why are you on Substack a platform powered by AI algorithms? You people are funny and clueless. At least be consistent and educate yourselves.
Thank you for calling that to my attention! It’s difficult to discern what is AI and what is not in these times. I appreciate you pointing that out because I’ve had a weird sense about wording and it wasn’t until I saw this comment thread that I started noticing more of the ai writing patterns. 💛
I understand people’s arguments for its usefulness! I used to use it myself until His spirit convicted me not to :) but that’s maybe not for you, have a blessed day 🙏
If the Scriptures don’t explicitly back it up, I won’t take it as theology. Paul’s letters were not Scripture. The Bereans did not accept Paul’s message without searching the Scriptures for confirmation, which Paul encouraged them to do and what we are to do as well.
So Paul, an apostle, is probably less knowledgeable than a Substack post that confirms your biases huh? Keep running from the truth to soothe your comfortable theology.
I’ve attempted to build up my personal theologies from the ground up and what I repost I have already come to the conclusion of from just reading the Bible and asking the Lord for answers, Substack is just where I find others who are likeminded, not necessarily where I get my information from. I try my best to filter everything through Him, the head and authority over my life :)
Thank you for calling me out for trusting Substack too much, my time is better spent in the Bible and in the Living Word 💛
Rocka, on this subject, I may surprise you by agreeing with your central boundary while disagreeing with your framing, your rhetoric, and some of your theological mechanics. The conclusion you defend, that the authoritative teaching and governing office in the church assembly belongs to men, is indeed part of faithful Christian teaching. But the way you prosecute the case risks turning order into ideology and hierarchy into a slogan rather than a sacrament-shaped reality.
There is a difference between defending a wall and swinging the bricks.
Faithful Christianity has never been embarrassed by the apostolic command that women are not to hold teaching authority over men in the liturgical assembly. It has never treated this as an unfortunate verse to be anesthetized with footnotes. The reservation of governing and doctrinal teaching authority to men is not a concession to patriarchy but an inheritance from apostolic practice grounded in creation, confirmed in continuous tradition, and embodied in two thousand years of worship. Not because women are less intelligent, less holy, or less capable — but because authority in the Church is not distributed by talent but by sign.
The ministerial office is not merely functional. It is symbolic, sacrificial, and nuptial. The shepherd stands sacramentally in relation to the Bride. That sign is not infinitely adjustable without theological cost.
But here is where your treatment grows too sharp-edged to be fully sound.
You present the verse as though it were dropped from heaven like a regulation placard, self-interpreting and self-enforcing. Faithful Christian teaching reads it instead within the whole organism of Scripture and the living tradition of the Church. Yes, the prohibition is real. Yes, it is binding. Yes, attempts to dissolve it into cultural vapor are exegetical evasions. But the Church has never taught that women are merely silent spectators in the life of faith, nor that their vocation is exhausted by restriction.
The New Testament world in which women are not ordained teachers of men is also the world in which women are martyrs, prophets’ daughters, patrons of churches, teachers of the young, formers of saints, and sometimes the moral spine of entire communities. The silence commanded is liturgical and juridical, not existential or intellectual. A mother teaching her son the faith has done more real theology than many public lecturers. The grandmother handing on doctrine has overruled empires without holding office. History is crowded with such victories.
You rightly reject the progressive maneuver that empties the verse by explanation. But you flirt with a different error — turning hierarchy into a battlefield diagram rather than a theology of fatherhood and service. In faithful Christianity, authority is never naked power. It is burden before it is privilege. The elder is judged more strictly, not celebrated more loudly. The teacher is warned before he is licensed. The shepherd bleeds first. When hierarchy is preached without sacrifice, it ceases to be Christian hierarchy and becomes merely ancient domination with Bible verses attached.
You also lean too heavily on Eve as theological prototype for female teaching danger. Faithful Christian teaching reads the Fall more carefully. Adam is not exonerated as passive victim of female initiative; he is condemned as failed head who did not guard, did not speak, did not obey. If one wishes to preach creation order, one must preach male responsibility with at least equal severity. Otherwise the doctrine becomes accusation rather than accountability.
On the question of women’s vocation, here we should speak plainly, since modern ears are trained to mishear plain things. The primary sphere of feminine authority in faithful Christian teaching is not the boardroom or the sanctuary platform but the household, the formation of children, the moral and spiritual architecture of family life, and — as Scripture explicitly commands — the instruction of younger women in virtue, fidelity, modesty, and devotion. This is not a demotion; it is civilizational strategy. Cultures are not ultimately shaped from pulpits but from cradles and kitchens and marriage beds kept holy. A society that sneers at that work will not long have pulpits left to argue about.
Modern feminism did not liberate women; it reassigned them — from mothers of generations to interchangeable units of production. It promised a crown and issued a timecard. On this point your instinct about inversion is closer to the mark than your historical conspiracies elsewhere.
Still, the correction must be completed: women are not merely restricted teachers; they are indispensable transmitters of the faith. The Church does not say, “Women must not teach men,” and then fall silent. It says, “Women must teach — and teach mightily — where Scripture assigns them authority: to children, to other women, within the moral and spiritual formation of the community.” Some of the most formidable defenders of faithful Christian teaching in history have been women who never occupied the formal teaching office over men and yet taught the Church by holiness, courage, and intellect recognized after the fact.
The narrow path you mention does indeed exist — but it is narrower and more luminous than your war-map version. One side falls into egalitarian erasure of order. The other falls into suspicion of women’s voice and presence altogether. Faithful Christianity walks between: clear boundary, full dignity, differentiated vocation, shared salvation.
The final test of this doctrine is not how forcefully it can be asserted, but how fruitfully it can be lived. Where men exercise teaching authority with humility and sacrifice, and women exercise formative authority with strength and fidelity, the result is not oppression but stability. Where either side abandons its charge, no volume of rhetoric will repair the damage.
Hierarchy, in the Christian sense, is not a ladder to climb but a cross to carry. When that is remembered, the verse stands not as a weapon — but as part of an order that keeps the household of God standing.
The word itself is not “have” but is similar to insurrection or taking dominion over. When men share authority or vote in a woman in any kind of ministry or like Deborah, take authority when the men fail to obey, this is not in disobedience to God's word. Men's inclinations of prophesy without love are no better than an abrasive gong.
Yo can try worming your feminist reading into the church all you want, but its quite obvious the cost is a community in service to the world and themselves rather than God. 1 Timothy is not complex in what it lays out for the expectations of leadership. Women are excluded for cause, and men or women that disregard that are not obeying the bible.
Why did God Himself, say women are to be subservient to men, not unequal, but obedient to men? Because women are primarily emotional. Men are primarily logical. Logic should lead emotion, just as Truth must lead Grace. After all, God the Father leads Jesus the Son. Jesus said He only did and said what His Father told Him. Truth leads Grace and logic leads emotion, otherwise everything falls apart, just as things fell apart when Satan attacked emotional Eve first.
Do you need Biblical proof that logic should lead emotion, that Truth must lead Grace? The two primary descriptions of who God is, are one that He is Truth and two that He is Love. All the other descriptions of God can fall under Truth and Love. Well, the one thing God CANNOT DO is tolerate evil. Tolerating evil is God’s kryptonite. Tolerating evil is not, who God is. In fact, God repeatedly says He has a Cup of Wrath that will eventually spill over and then He WILL destroy evil. Is THAT not what Hell will be, His Cup of Wrath overflowing? Hell happening, is Truth happening. Now God’s Love, is the fact that He holds that Cup as long as He does. He Loves us enough to be patient with us, and gives us a second chance. Love is emotion. God’s loving emotion of patience will only last so long. He has said so, hasn’t He?
Women being emotional is part of what makes us like our Creator, but letting our emotion dominate us, gets us into trouble. Our emotion dominating us, makes us ignore the Truth. Eve’s emotion, in the Garden of Eden, got us into the trouble we are in today. Emotion is necessary to be like God, but it MUST be subservient to Truth. Truth must lead Grace, Logic must lead Emotion, and Men MUST lead Women.
I guess Deborah was living in sin. As was Pricilla, and several other women who were leading churches in the New Testament including one whose name was changed to a masculine name because they couldn’t believe Paul had endorsed a woman. No time to write more. I need to go teach my Bible class which includes men who would never have heard the gospel had I not been there to tell them.
Deborah was a judge during Israel's collapse cycle, not a priest or doctrinal teacher. Judges isn't a blueprint it's a tragedy log. "No king in Israel, everyone did what was right in their own eyes."
Priscilla taught Apollos privately. Paul permits that. What he forbids is the teaching office over men in assembly. You're collapsing categories he keeps distinct.
Junia was "known among the apostles" not confirmed as holding teaching office over a congregation. Even if apostle in the missionary sense, that's frontier work, not settled eldership.
"Men wouldn't have heard without me" is pragmatic veto of Scripture. Saul's sacrifice at Gilgal was pragmatically necessary too. God called it rebellion.
Paul knew women could teach effectively. He still wrote 1 Timothy 2:12 and grounded it in Genesis, not Ephesian culture.
Name one woman in the New Testament holding elder/overseer office in an established congregation. Not prophesying. Not evangelizing. Not private instruction. Elder office. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
Thanks for clarifying. I’m not an elder in an established church, simply unpacking Scripture in a group Bible study, so your prohibition doesn’t apply.
I was prompted to go back and read Donna Howell’s very wordy but scholarly book “The Handmaiden’s Conspiracy”
Interesting that Paul used a Greek word in 1 Tim that is used only once in Scripture and wasn’t translated as authority until the fourth century. Until then, in other literature, it referred to totalitarian control of a violent or sexual nature used for personal gain or to harm.
There seems to have been a woman in the congregation who was acting as a pagan Oracle and had one or more of the men in her power.
Paul say “I do not permit” essentially separating this particular passage from the universal “thus sayeth the Lord” of most of his writings, and switches to the singular, indicating that there might have been one particular woman that needed to be dealt with.
Once again, thanks for bringing this up and prompting me to review the validity of my own calling.
The way I read it in Judges is that Deborah acted in authority only after the established authority (the man) refused to fulfill his role as leader and cowardicely (?) begged her to do it. She humbly said, [ok, but I will get the glory, not you]. This also was not "in the assembly", but in a civil, governmental matter. I don't think I'm "explaining Paul away", but he did give that caveat: In the church (assembly).
Interesting how often those facts are glossed over. There is also no consideration for the culture that Paul was addressing in his letters. If I'm correct, Jesus came to redeem ALL from the Fall. That includes woman.
It all started with feminism and a women’s right to vote. Anti biblical modernism created by the antichrist movement sponsored by the beast system described in Revelation. Thx for sharing.
It did not. You are an ugly and short sighted man, foolishly expounding on your own fallen nature. As this teaching shows, this verse applies only to a woman teaching doctrine over a man. Feminism began from men's pride, arrogance and abuse of women, silencing them in all areas of life.
Your emotional response shows you are a silly emotional feminist woman!
🤣
Thank you for proving my point here.
Laura, I was about to write a very similar view...you beat me to it ! my major point though was going to be that women would be very happy to have the male "take charge' so to speak if it were in a Godly way with humility, consideration, pro activeness and sensible judgement instead of too-often pasty, apathetic, ignorance of Scripture and complacency that so prevails in Christian men. (and I beg to differ about women not being permitted to women teaching doctrine....more than one example of one taking the lead here ).
There was a situation where a woman would pray or prophesy … you might expand by addressing head coverings and angels.
Well written and edifying. Bookmarked to share.
There is another way to read this verse, almost unknown but grounded in a deep understanding of the entire letter, its detailed context, and remarks by Paul in his other related letters. I will not attempt to defend that reading, however. Eisegesis slips into many teachings.
Thank you...'detailed' context' urgently needed but missing in action.
As are scriptures where women are not only teaching one and all but are very much approved of.
Not to mention Galatians and the assurance that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female....
Men do not know what to do about intelligent women …
True....only to attempt to keep them second class citizens in Christianity. Thankfully the early Christians and Paul and most importantly, Jesus Himself knew, and had no issue with encouraging them.
I have to say, this is a fairly well balanced view of things. Women have a place where they can teach and hold authority, but they should not be fully leading a church.
Thank you for taking the time to write this in the style that you did it. Isn’t it time Christians are addressed as adults especially when it comes to the very clear issues? It is obvious for any thinking sensible adult that the issue and result of men and women being made so “equal” is what has led to so many serious problems. If we are to improve and I dream about fixing these serious problems then this, must be dealt with and I believe must be corrected. It is by restoring the way God designed things. The self deception that goes on in the minds and spaces of these feminists is sin. They need to repent if they want to find true favor with God and man. This is not meant to provoke anyone but to honor God the Creator and express in a meager way my appreciation for anyone who is willing to “speak” the truth on this specific issue and any issue related to it. Please, I plead with men, be men, and women let’s be the kind of women who please The Lord.
Authority is responsibility not domination. We will all be held responsible for how we steward the lives and resources given to us by the Lord. I’ve been joyfully married for almost 44 years, and I respect my husband more than anyone, but he is gentle, loving, and kind. This is the model of relationship Jesus shows. He was God, He took responsibility, he modeled sacrificial love in humility. When we walk as spirit filled disciples this conversation disappears. Carnal lust for power is the driver of these arguments.
Amen to all of what you say here, Teresa.
Do run your ideas or drafts over AI?
The topic is good, but the AI-likeness is uninviting for reading.
AI or not, it doesn’t change the message.
That’s the weird sense I was getting!
if it’s gone through AI, I won’t trust it
Half your timeline is literally AI so why are you on Substack a platform powered by AI algorithms? You people are funny and clueless. At least be consistent and educate yourselves.
Thank you for calling that to my attention! It’s difficult to discern what is AI and what is not in these times. I appreciate you pointing that out because I’ve had a weird sense about wording and it wasn’t until I saw this comment thread that I started noticing more of the ai writing patterns. 💛
You’re treating the tool as the problem instead of evaluating the insights. AI isn’t a demon that framing itself is a psyop.
I understand people’s arguments for its usefulness! I used to use it myself until His spirit convicted me not to :) but that’s maybe not for you, have a blessed day 🙏
Can you refute the points of the essay?
If the Scriptures don’t explicitly back it up, I won’t take it as theology. Paul’s letters were not Scripture. The Bereans did not accept Paul’s message without searching the Scriptures for confirmation, which Paul encouraged them to do and what we are to do as well.
So Paul, an apostle, is probably less knowledgeable than a Substack post that confirms your biases huh? Keep running from the truth to soothe your comfortable theology.
I’ve attempted to build up my personal theologies from the ground up and what I repost I have already come to the conclusion of from just reading the Bible and asking the Lord for answers, Substack is just where I find others who are likeminded, not necessarily where I get my information from. I try my best to filter everything through Him, the head and authority over my life :)
Thank you for calling me out for trusting Substack too much, my time is better spent in the Bible and in the Living Word 💛
Wow.
Rocka, on this subject, I may surprise you by agreeing with your central boundary while disagreeing with your framing, your rhetoric, and some of your theological mechanics. The conclusion you defend, that the authoritative teaching and governing office in the church assembly belongs to men, is indeed part of faithful Christian teaching. But the way you prosecute the case risks turning order into ideology and hierarchy into a slogan rather than a sacrament-shaped reality.
There is a difference between defending a wall and swinging the bricks.
Faithful Christianity has never been embarrassed by the apostolic command that women are not to hold teaching authority over men in the liturgical assembly. It has never treated this as an unfortunate verse to be anesthetized with footnotes. The reservation of governing and doctrinal teaching authority to men is not a concession to patriarchy but an inheritance from apostolic practice grounded in creation, confirmed in continuous tradition, and embodied in two thousand years of worship. Not because women are less intelligent, less holy, or less capable — but because authority in the Church is not distributed by talent but by sign.
The ministerial office is not merely functional. It is symbolic, sacrificial, and nuptial. The shepherd stands sacramentally in relation to the Bride. That sign is not infinitely adjustable without theological cost.
But here is where your treatment grows too sharp-edged to be fully sound.
You present the verse as though it were dropped from heaven like a regulation placard, self-interpreting and self-enforcing. Faithful Christian teaching reads it instead within the whole organism of Scripture and the living tradition of the Church. Yes, the prohibition is real. Yes, it is binding. Yes, attempts to dissolve it into cultural vapor are exegetical evasions. But the Church has never taught that women are merely silent spectators in the life of faith, nor that their vocation is exhausted by restriction.
The New Testament world in which women are not ordained teachers of men is also the world in which women are martyrs, prophets’ daughters, patrons of churches, teachers of the young, formers of saints, and sometimes the moral spine of entire communities. The silence commanded is liturgical and juridical, not existential or intellectual. A mother teaching her son the faith has done more real theology than many public lecturers. The grandmother handing on doctrine has overruled empires without holding office. History is crowded with such victories.
You rightly reject the progressive maneuver that empties the verse by explanation. But you flirt with a different error — turning hierarchy into a battlefield diagram rather than a theology of fatherhood and service. In faithful Christianity, authority is never naked power. It is burden before it is privilege. The elder is judged more strictly, not celebrated more loudly. The teacher is warned before he is licensed. The shepherd bleeds first. When hierarchy is preached without sacrifice, it ceases to be Christian hierarchy and becomes merely ancient domination with Bible verses attached.
You also lean too heavily on Eve as theological prototype for female teaching danger. Faithful Christian teaching reads the Fall more carefully. Adam is not exonerated as passive victim of female initiative; he is condemned as failed head who did not guard, did not speak, did not obey. If one wishes to preach creation order, one must preach male responsibility with at least equal severity. Otherwise the doctrine becomes accusation rather than accountability.
On the question of women’s vocation, here we should speak plainly, since modern ears are trained to mishear plain things. The primary sphere of feminine authority in faithful Christian teaching is not the boardroom or the sanctuary platform but the household, the formation of children, the moral and spiritual architecture of family life, and — as Scripture explicitly commands — the instruction of younger women in virtue, fidelity, modesty, and devotion. This is not a demotion; it is civilizational strategy. Cultures are not ultimately shaped from pulpits but from cradles and kitchens and marriage beds kept holy. A society that sneers at that work will not long have pulpits left to argue about.
Modern feminism did not liberate women; it reassigned them — from mothers of generations to interchangeable units of production. It promised a crown and issued a timecard. On this point your instinct about inversion is closer to the mark than your historical conspiracies elsewhere.
Still, the correction must be completed: women are not merely restricted teachers; they are indispensable transmitters of the faith. The Church does not say, “Women must not teach men,” and then fall silent. It says, “Women must teach — and teach mightily — where Scripture assigns them authority: to children, to other women, within the moral and spiritual formation of the community.” Some of the most formidable defenders of faithful Christian teaching in history have been women who never occupied the formal teaching office over men and yet taught the Church by holiness, courage, and intellect recognized after the fact.
The narrow path you mention does indeed exist — but it is narrower and more luminous than your war-map version. One side falls into egalitarian erasure of order. The other falls into suspicion of women’s voice and presence altogether. Faithful Christianity walks between: clear boundary, full dignity, differentiated vocation, shared salvation.
The final test of this doctrine is not how forcefully it can be asserted, but how fruitfully it can be lived. Where men exercise teaching authority with humility and sacrifice, and women exercise formative authority with strength and fidelity, the result is not oppression but stability. Where either side abandons its charge, no volume of rhetoric will repair the damage.
Hierarchy, in the Christian sense, is not a ladder to climb but a cross to carry. When that is remembered, the verse stands not as a weapon — but as part of an order that keeps the household of God standing.
This passage also doesn't address testimonies, preaching, eldership, music, writing worship music, counseling...??
My most immediate question is regarding the transitional stages of children into adults.
Don't let them teach or have authority either. I thought that one was self evident.
The word itself is not “have” but is similar to insurrection or taking dominion over. When men share authority or vote in a woman in any kind of ministry or like Deborah, take authority when the men fail to obey, this is not in disobedience to God's word. Men's inclinations of prophesy without love are no better than an abrasive gong.
Yo can try worming your feminist reading into the church all you want, but its quite obvious the cost is a community in service to the world and themselves rather than God. 1 Timothy is not complex in what it lays out for the expectations of leadership. Women are excluded for cause, and men or women that disregard that are not obeying the bible.
Why did God Himself, say women are to be subservient to men, not unequal, but obedient to men? Because women are primarily emotional. Men are primarily logical. Logic should lead emotion, just as Truth must lead Grace. After all, God the Father leads Jesus the Son. Jesus said He only did and said what His Father told Him. Truth leads Grace and logic leads emotion, otherwise everything falls apart, just as things fell apart when Satan attacked emotional Eve first.
Do you need Biblical proof that logic should lead emotion, that Truth must lead Grace? The two primary descriptions of who God is, are one that He is Truth and two that He is Love. All the other descriptions of God can fall under Truth and Love. Well, the one thing God CANNOT DO is tolerate evil. Tolerating evil is God’s kryptonite. Tolerating evil is not, who God is. In fact, God repeatedly says He has a Cup of Wrath that will eventually spill over and then He WILL destroy evil. Is THAT not what Hell will be, His Cup of Wrath overflowing? Hell happening, is Truth happening. Now God’s Love, is the fact that He holds that Cup as long as He does. He Loves us enough to be patient with us, and gives us a second chance. Love is emotion. God’s loving emotion of patience will only last so long. He has said so, hasn’t He?
Women being emotional is part of what makes us like our Creator, but letting our emotion dominate us, gets us into trouble. Our emotion dominating us, makes us ignore the Truth. Eve’s emotion, in the Garden of Eden, got us into the trouble we are in today. Emotion is necessary to be like God, but it MUST be subservient to Truth. Truth must lead Grace, Logic must lead Emotion, and Men MUST lead Women.
Promethean Action
https://rumble.com/c/PrometheanAction?e9s=src_v1_cbl