Oh??
Perhaps just SOME of his words...
Oh?? Perhaps just SOME of his words..
No, not any of hi words, for as with other writers, whether they knew they were writing was wholly inspired of God or not, the fact is that they were. Moreover, Paul concludes his teaching here by stating "I think also that I have the Spirit of God." (v. 40)
There are cases when what Scripture says is expressing the conclusions of the natural man, which context reveals, as in "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet," (Jn. 7:52) but the context of both 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:12 is that of apostolic instruction, meaning "I as an apostle given manifest authority, say this, not the Lord personally."
To take every apostolic teaching statement in Scripture that begins with "I say" or "I do" as being merely a personal and non-binding statement is a slippery slope indeed, which is what egalitarianism, for one, engages in.
The Lord Himself made distinction btwn what Moses said and what He personally was teaching, but which was not of lesser authority than what Moses write, and in His case it was actually superior, in the light of His warranted authority.
And while not being greater than his master, the apostle Paul had abundantly manifest authority, and provided supplementation and explanative expansion of what the OT and the Lord taught.
The epistles have many examples of teaching that begin with "I" that could be dismissed as personal opinion according to the hermeneutic employed in doing so to the aforementioned examples.
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Galatians 5:2)
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: (Romans 15:8)
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:50) And cessassionist could dismiss,
I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:5)
However, what Paul wrote to the Corinthians had no less authority than his other teaching, such as to the Thessalonians, and to which he admonishes,
"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thessalonians 3:14)
Likewise,
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. (1 Corinthians 4:19)
For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: (2 Corinthians 10:8)
That a woman is not to occupy the authoritative office of a teacher, esp, in the NT church in which doctrines were being revealed and articulated, or to assume authority over a man, is consistent with Moses, in which all the Levites were male, female leadership being an exception in a period of spiritual declension, and with the Lord, who only chose male apostles.
The desperate attempts of egalitarianism to circumvent this and such clear teaching as 1Cor. 11:3, and dismiss such as cultural, not creational distinctions, and to argue for female apostles, are similar to prohomsosexual polemics and are an argument against them rightly dividing the word of Truth. .
1 Corinthians 7:12 also is consistent with the broader exclusion of divorce, while the abandonment clause expands upon the fornication clause, and (esp. in that culture) provides for turning the hearts of the children to their fathers, rather than widows (in essence) and fatherless being afflicted.