Paul is speaking about men (plural) who would be deacons, so he speaks of _their wives_ -- each wife of each man in question. He didn't mean each one's wives, as he had already limited the office to those 'with one wife."
Regarding 'authority' -- it's right there in [1 Tim 2:12](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1ti/2/12/s_1121012): "I do not permit a woman to teach _or usurp authority_ over a man." And given the context immediately following, this is a _creational_ principle, not a _cultural_ one. The same creational principle appears in 1 Cor. 11.
No question that both Christ himself and Christianity elevated (thus restoring) the general status of women in society, especially in the context of that day.
Why would there be qualifications listed for the wives of deacons but not the wives of elders? It makes more sense to me that he was describing women than wives in that context.
I guess I’m being picky with the word authority being used. How does this apply in non-religious settings? Would you argue that women should not have authority over men in the workplace? There’s no “gotcha” coming, I’m just curious on how that application affects your world in other contexts.
There are qualifications for both right in the same letter. And he is speaking about _their_ wives--as in, the wife of each man under consideration for office.
That’s an interesting thought. I’m on the absolutely edge of my knowledge on the topic so I’m really out of rebuttal points.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
